AWB and the election

[Harry Tuttle]

IMHO, Nothing will happen until 2005

if Bush is re-elected,
the Republocrats will kill any AWB as an "in yer face" to the Demicans

If Kerry is elected,
the reverse might occur,
but the majority in the house and senate will need to slip as well

Both parties will be too occupied this fall to accomplish much of anything new.
(unless we have Columbine 2.0)

Since the ban ends September 14th, 2004,
it would appear there is a window of opportunity to aquire full cap mags, folding stocks and threaded flashhiders...

Attaching the above to a post 1994 manufactured AR15 will be legal, but it creates an added complexity to any feature and date based definition of an AW.

Expect in a new AWB, the feature list to be replaced with specific model list like California's and the strawman SB288 in Maryland right now.

One can take heart from the testimony given by the antis in Annapolis last week.
They really did not have factual data, and we know the VPC was feeding them.
The statistics they did try to spin were meaningless, once the truth about the "statistically insignificant" 6.7 decrease in AW use in crime was revealed.

 

[Michigander]

• The House has a Republican majority.
• The Senate has a Republican majority.
• The President is a Republican.
• We are wringing our hands at the very real possibility that the AWB will be re-newed.
• Some people, advocates of the 2nd Amendment no less, actually continue to support the Republican Party.

Something is deffinitely wrong with this picture!

 

[fix]

Michigander,

The problem with the gun issue is the fact that it is an issue at all. It should not be. There lies the crux of the problem. You will never see gun owners unite because there are so many other issues that really should be issues. Five minutes in L&P should convince you that it just isn't going to happen. You and I (and 20 million others for that matter) may agree on gun issues, but what about the rest of the issues?

 

[Michigander]

fix,

...but what about the rest of the issues?

The same should be done concerning the 2nd Amendment "issue(s)" as with any and all issues:

1) Square them all with the intent of the Constitution of the United States of America.

2) Where #1 does not apply, square them with the Constitution of the particular State concerned.

 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

The problem is that we don't have any other choices. Bush will sign a new AWB if he gets one. Kerry will certainly sign one, and then immediately push for newer and more stringent gun bans. None of the thrid party candidates stand a chance of winning, so a vote for any of them is wasted.

I think we've already lost. There's no way for us to gain anything profitable, as far as gun rights are concerned, by selecting the next president.

Thus, I feel that it is prudent to minimize our losses to the best of our ability. We may have nothing to gain in the arena of gun rights, but there is more to freedom than just the right to keep and bear arms. Other equally important issues include the right to keep the product of our labors, to live in privacy from the government, to educate our children without government indoctrination, and generally to go about our lives without intrusion. Gun rights are an important aspect of liberty, but they aren't the only important aspect.

By that reasoning, I conclude that Bush is certainly the better choice (Patriot Act notwithstanding). Bush is far more inline with the overall concept of freedom than is Kerry.

That said, I still don't think I could bring myself to vote for George if he signs a new AWB.

 

[Ninj500]

Here are my thoughts. You can find the original at CNSnews.com under commentary and then archive.


The Middle Road to Disaster
By Gerard Valentino
CNSNews.com Commentary
February 12, 2004

Beware Republicans; we are going down the same path that caused the disaster that is today's Democratic Party.

Second Amendment rights, low taxes and fiscal responsibility spawned the Republican revolution in the 1990s. Fed up with the growing nanny state and infringements on the right to bear arms, voters threw out the Democrats in an unprecedented 1994 congressional midterm sweep.

Ten years later the Republican Party abandoned its base, moved decidedly toward the middle of the road and the revolution has faded into oblivion. An old clich\'e9 says those that who forget history are doomed to repeat it - if they care about staying in power leaders of the Republican Party better get out the history book soon.

President Bush already alienated the conservative wing of the party by creating the Department of Homeland Security, a large, expensive and unwieldy government bureaucracy. He furthered angered the conservative faithful with the fiscal disaster that is the new prescription drug plan. Less than six months after its creation Bush already increased the expected budget from $400 million to $512 million. The cost will certainly go up further from there.

With the federal assault weapon ban set to sunset in the latter part of 2004, Bush and the Republican Party have a huge test in front of them. Do they keep their promise and allow the ban to expire or extend it in an attempt to win votes from the middle of the road?

President Clinton failed a similar test when he supported the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). Many believe it was his endorsement of NAFTA, combined with the Democrats continued push for stricter gun control that led to the huge Republican victory in the 1994 midterm elections.

Clinton's attempt to bow to the center and right of the Democratic Party angered traditional Democrats who stayed home during the 1994 midterm election. Republicans, galvanized by their anger over the assault weapons ban, voted in force and a revolution was created.

Now the tables have turned. Still in a state of disarray, Democrats are doing their best to gather forces in a bid to take back the White House. Meanwhile, Republicans, led by Bush, are a party slowing losing focus, determined to be all things to all people, without a vision or ideological integrity.

Bush's NAFTA is the assault weapons ban. But instead of putting a midterm election in jeopardy, his chances of keeping the White House are at risk.

Only strong support for letting the ban sunset will appease conservatives and Second Amendment supporters. Anything else will look like third attempt to buy votes from the middle and left at the expense of traditional Republican faithful.

Bush might be able to alienate the middle road conservative but the far-right ideologues will not stand idle a third time. Again, we have recent history to use as a reference; many on the far left defected from Al Gore's campaign by casting their vote for Ralph Nader in the 2000 presidential election in response to the Democratic Party's shift away from a traditional liberal agenda.

Had they stayed in the Democrat camp we never would have been subjected to the term "pregnant chad" or the seemingly never-ending recounts. Political experts believe the country is still evenly split over the same issues that caused the painfully close election results in 2000 - and most polls back up their theory.

If he wants to avoid a one-term presidency like his father, George W. Bush needs to learn the lesson painfully demonstrated by the Clinton-led Democratic Party and do everything possible to keep his base strongly behind his campaign.

Otherwise, Bush's decision to extend the assault weapons ban may go down in history with his father's no new taxes pledge as a fundamental political blunder that led to the undoing of a presidency.

(Gerard Valentino is a pro-concealed carry activist in Ohio, former military intelligence analyst and staff officer.)