AWB II - Will Bush Veto IT?

[Werewolf]

If AWB II actually passes - and I fear that it may very well do so; will President Bush sign it or veto it? A veto would kill it because there is little chance of an override but Bush did say he'd sign an AWB if it reached his desk.

Is there anything we can do to assure that he does veto it?

 

[Prince Yamato]

Oh for the love of crap... Bush only said he'd sign the original AWB because he knew it would never reach his desk. He won't sign the new one, he'll just flubber his way out of it and anger Democrats by not signing it.

 

[bogie]

Right... All the "Bush is the Enemy" crap basically just came from the democratic underground folks, in an attempt to get us split politically. It's a hot topic, and as such isn't likely to be messed with during the rest of his term.

What _is_ likely is that the Democrats will try to run something after they have control of the Presidency. So, hey... I guess it's time to trot out that third party vote, so that Hillary or Obama gets to serve four to eight in Washington...

Gun people are politically lame.

 

[rbernie]

The question is probably better stated as, "Do you think that the Republican Party will ask Bush to veto AWBII or not?".

Depending on which way they perceive the political wind to be blowing will dicatate the party's response. I would suspect that Bush (as a lame duck) is probably going to have to cowtow to The Party on this one....

 

[Wes Janson]

I'm continually reminded in many situations by remarks made in General Bradley's autobiography, on the Korean War. The key mistake made, he said, was that military planners focused not on China's capabilities, but on it's supposed intentions and views. It strikes me as prudent to judge threats based on capability rather than intent, because a person, organization, or government's intent can change overnight, but their capabilities to carry out that intent generally take more time to increase or decrease.

In this vein, it would seem somewhat unimportant to guess on Bush's likely decision, because he is only one person, and none of us here have intimate knowledge of his personal beliefs or values. The only important thing is that he has the capability to sign the bill into law should it reach his desk. Thus, I consider it wise to assume the worst, that he'll sign it if given the chance. It's easier to calculate the probability of what a hundred, or several hundred people will do, than just one man.

So as far as I'm concerned, I have absolutely zero trust in Bush regardless of previous actions or statements. If it reaches his desk, then in my opinion we've effectively lost the 2nd Amendment, semantics be damned.

 

[cheygriz]

To start with, it won't pass.

 

[Jim Watson]

The only bill that I can find G.W.B to have vetoed was one that would have allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. EVERY other bill that has made it to him, he has signed.

 

[MechAg94]

I am not sure Bush really feels strongly about gun rights like he does about other issues. I am confident he would stick to his principles under pressure, I am just not sure gun rights is one of those principles.

I think part of the equation might be how strongly the Democrats want it. He might sign it if the Dems give him something else in return. Hard to say for sure. The Dems might not want to touch it right now until after 2008.

 

[sm]

Is there anything we can do to assure that he does veto it?

Yep.

Applies to any Gun Control Legislation, no matter what level, from City, County, State to Federal Level.

BE Involved with Preserving Freedom.
Recently Real Time Internet has shown how effective a communication tool it is.
Just one tool many of us have been using , in addition to other means to voice and participate in Freedom.

Even on more localized levels, other areas of the country that are going through legislative concerns - assist them in their efforts.
In like kind - they will be there to assist you when the time comes.

Us vs Them on gun boards ?
Freedom vs Tyranny is THE one to concern oneself with in my opinion.

 

[jamz]

I've come to never, ever expect good news out of a politician, so needless to say I am positive he would sign it.

sm is correct though in that we have a LOT more power now than we did in 1994. Communication and the written word are very powerful tools.

 

[Thain]

Bush has used his veto only once, and is unlikly to do so between now and the end of his term. He is not a freind to personal freedom: free speech, reasonable search, relgious freedom, right to assemble, right to vote... I highly doubt he'd take a stand agianst the "Safety Feature Ban."

Sadly, even as a card carrying Libertarian, I think I'llbe pushing hard for a Democratic canidate... the general population will not vote for a Republican. Any Republican. Due to the serious flak that Dubya has railroaded this once great nation into.

Iraq. Debt. Iran. Debt. North Korea. Debt. No Child Left Behind. Debt. Oil Reserves. Debt. ANWAR. Debt. Katrina. Debt. Gitmo. Debt. Canceling Firefly....

Okay, maybe not that last one...

We're going to get a Democrat in `08, might as well work hard in the primary stage to make certain its a halfway decent one. IE, not Obama or Hillary.

 

[Chindo18Z]

I believe that he will not for the following reasons:

1. His original promise to "sign" was a straw man. He managed to straddle the fence in a brilliant political manuver covering both sides of the debate. He knew there was zero chance that a Republican Congress would allow such a bill to hit his desk (and the Republican leadership understood that point well). Simultaneously, he appeased (or at least shut the yaps) of the Bradyites by seeming to agree with their point of view. All this in the context of an election year promise.

2. President Bush is NOT running for re-election and has nothing further to fear with regards to keeping an old campaign "promise".

3. Neither Party has a viable enough voter margin to even consider touching the third rail of gun-control in the face of the 2008 election. Especially the Republicans. As noted by rbernie, the GOP would demand that he veto such a bill.

 

[Zen21Tao]

Just as others have said. Bush's statement that he would sign to re-autherize the first AWB was a political maneuver to get votes becasue he knew it would never make it to his desk. That AWB expired. He never promised that he would sign into law a NEW AWB. Therefore, I think (and really hope) that he would veto any new attempt at a ban.

 

[PennsyPlinker]

It's easier to calculate the probability of what a hundred, or several hundred people will do, than just one man.

Sounds like something Hari Seldon would say!

Personally I think he would sign it because it will make the Democrats like him more.

[heavy sarcasm] Right. [/heavy sarcasm]

 

[shield20]

I voted yes...


Gun Control
While Bush supports some restrictions, in general he supports the basic right to gun ownership. Below are his stance on a few specific gun control issues.

Who is George W. Bush?

10: G.W. Bush on Crime, gun control
created for Election 2000

"I’m in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them like felons & juveniles. I’m for enforcing the laws on the books.... We need to send a signal to people, don’t be illegally selling guns and don’t be illegally using guns. The best accountability for somebody who breaks the law with a gun is called jail, certain jail."

George W. Bush, Des Moines IA GOP Debate, Decemember 13, 1999
Guns for hunting and personal protection: YES
Raise legal age for gun ownership to 21: YES
Mandatory child-safety locks on guns: NO
Right to carry concealed weapon: YES
Ban certain types of ammunition: YES
Sue gun manufacturers for gun violence: NO
Ban on assault weapons: YES
Background checks (for purchasing firearms): YES
Waiting periods (as in the Brady Act): NO

BUSH: I did think we ought to extend the assault weapons ban and was told the bill was never going to move.
2004 Debate

Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ Apr 2, 2000
Supports the current ban on automatic weapons

May 17, 2000 | On May 3, Texas Gov. George W. Bush alleged that Vice President Al Gore was once a member of the National Rifle Association. The Gore camp said it could find no evidence that Bush's claim was true, and NRA spokesman Bill Powers said that he, too, could find no record of Gore's membership in the organization's microfiche, but the next day Bush repeated the charge..
Repeating an accusation he has made before, Bush said: ”I’ve never been a member of the NRA. Gore has been, if I’m not mistaken.“

Where They Agree: Regarding guns,
Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore would, if elected president:
Support the current ban on assault weapons.
Ban imports of high-capacity ammunition clips.
Source: Associated Press in Los Angeles Times Apr 21, 2000



08/30/99
Bush also backed proposals in Congress to outlaw certain large ammunition clips and repeated his support for background checks on firearms sales at gun shows. He said previously he would have voted for legislation defeated by the House that would have required a 24-hour background check on weapons sales at gun shows.

 

[ReadyontheRight]

"Do you think that the Republican Party will ask Bush to veto AWBII or not?".

I suggest you join the Republican Party and help get it back on track.

 

[bogie]

Sigh...

I do not think that it will happen during the remains of his presidency, and the Republican party knows that they would basically lose 3,000,000+ votes if it is signed... Ain't gonna happen.

Now, since the "vote for anyone but an evil republican" bit is back in full force, just a week post-Zumbo, which Democrat who has a chance of winning is less likely than the republican candidate of signing such legislation.

Okay. I'm waiting...

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

The states that will most likely decide the Presdiency in 2008 are Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and Pennslyvania. To the extent Republicans think a ban will help them in those states without costing them in other states, they would probably support it.

However, I don't think the Republicans believe that and I think even the Democrats are starting to doubt their past wisdom on that. I guess 2007 will tell us whether the Dems have reconsidered that notion or not. Whatever the case, no progun legislation is getting through before 2008.

 

[SIOP]

"It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society."


George W. Bush, Houston Chronicle, August 12, 1999

 

[zinj]

I think that Bush would sign a new AWB if it meant he could get more support in the war, i.e. "We'll give you x amount more time/money for Iraq if you sign this bill for us."

Bush knows that he is going to be remembered by the Iraq war, and he is going to try to do everything possible to turn the situation around.

 

[SaMx]

To start with, it won't pass.

you need to add an option for "it won't pass, and he won't get the chance to sign it."

 

[telomerase]

The only bill that I can find G.W.B to have vetoed was one that would have allowed federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. EVERY other bill that has made it to him, he has signed.

Yes, that's right. Bush has never vetoed any bill that infringed our rights.

Why do you Bush supporters think he will start now? At this point, that's going beyond wishfull thinking into (voice of Smithers) cartoonish super-wishfull thinking

 

[pacodelahoya]

Sound like a catch 22 to me. He said he would but politicians are not always truthful. If he doesn't, then that would be an outright lie. Only the 8 ball knows for sure.

 

[SIOP]

I think that Bush would sign a new AWB if it meant he could get more support in the war, i.e. "We'll give you x amount more time/money for Iraq if you sign this bill for us."

Wow, excellent point. I'm surprised that never crossed my mind. Probably didn't because I figure Bush won't need any encouragement to sign away more of our rights. But that might also be an excellent bargaining tool to use against the threat of a Republican filibuster.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Bush said he would renew the original AWB. This is in no way similar to the original AWB and is much, much worse. Those differences alone give him plenty of room to walk away from his comments.