Gonzales supports the AWB

Status
Not open for further replies.
Yeah, and what's he care about that endorsement? What can the NRA do to him? He got the stupid endorsement despite the fact that he was publicly in favor of renewing the AWB; The NRA doesn't have a leg to stand on when it comes to complaining if he pursues it now. He'll just be doing what he promised when they endorsed him.

You remember his dad? HE got elected with NRA support, too, and then screwed us over big time. Sure, he went down to defeat in the next election... It's quite possible that the only thing Bush learned from that was, "Wait until the second term to screw over your base."

The only thing we've got going for us is that he has to work with Congress, and THEY have to worry about the next election.
 
What a surprise! Bush is not a proactive gun president and is an elitist mild anti. The DOJ documents will mean nothing as far as Bush doing anything for the RKBA in a significant fashion.

Let's all remember, he won because Kerry was a loser. It wasn't his great job performance. Now he is having a grand party when guys are dying. Not my cup of tea.

The ruling elites of the left and right do not trust the common person with firearms. Each wants to rule but with a different set of priorities. They want no power to reside in the every day person.
 
Big difference between sayin' and doin.
Click to expand...

It walks like a duck
It talks like a duck
It looks like a duck

At the first mention of this guy's name, the people on talk radio started saying the man is a gun grabber.

Now, it is confirmed.
 
I think what many of you forget is that should the AWB be put to a popular vote, we pro 2A types would lose by a huge landslide. Just look at all the polls that has been done on it. A national leader could easily claim that the majority would be on his/her side to sign an AWB into law. The political reality here is that in a climate of close elections, no President is going to do anything, without a clear reason, that would honk any number of voters. Both parties now know that a vote for gun control is a guaranteed loss of a certain number of us but won't necessarily gain them any favors from those that do support the bans. In this environment, politicians will try to play to both sides by "saying" they support a ban that, in reality, won't make it out of congress.

I'm not taking up for this guy but I think he was just trying to keep the Democrats from making an issue on this one.
 
Well, I agree that, were it put to a popular vote, it would probably pass, though I'm not sure of the "massive margin"; Gun related ballot propositions have a way of confounding polsters' expectations. The reason we tend to win isn't that we're the majority, but rather that we're the majority of people who care enough about this issue to base their votes on it. And when people START to care, they tend to learn something about the subject, and end up on our side.

But the fact is, that that very wide but shallow support for gun control is in large measure due to our allies in Washington not being willing to publicly say anything bad about gun control. Your average sheeple adopts the position they think is popular, and when do they ever hear anyone in a position of authority knock gun control? Never. Plenty of politicians are willing to praise it, though. So it must be a good thing, right?

So Bush is hurting us by this, even if it's just some stupid PR game. Which I don't believe it is. In every case where I've seen it proven that Bush was lying about his real position, he's proven to be more of a left-winger than he was admitting. And I think that's probably the case here, too.
 
Somebody expecting a political attorney to have principles? This attorney wants confirmed. He has no principles other than the prize of the AG job. I still think he should join Klerik. I know finding qualified attorneys will be a tuff prospect but we do have so many of them.
 
Now I do not think Gonzolas is as pro-2nd as Ashcroft. And I don't trust him but I trust very few. And I believe Ashcroft was asked at his confirmation hearing by Kennedy or Schumer(Can't remember) the same question and he said he supported the AWB also. Do I believe Ashcroft personally supported it. No absolutely not.
 
Gonzales may have to maintain some level of Bush administration political-correctness in order to get confirmed. Condelezza Rice had to go through some tough questions and from what I have read, she is pro-gun. But the Secy of State is not in quite the same position as the Attorney General.

If some sort of AWB legislation is passed and even signed by the President, the AG has to support it and take any legal action in its defense at the Federal level.

In any event, the AWB died because there were not enough votes to extend that law nor were there enough votes to pass legislation that Feintwit indtrouduced in the Senate after she tried an and run around the rules. Even the House didn't want any part of a new AWB bill.

My take is that if you read what Bush said about "if he gets a bill, he will sign it, that doesn't necessarily mean that he will actively push Congress to pass a bill so he can sign it. For now, there are probably too many things on Bush's agenda to worry about a new AWB bill passing and being signed into law.

That does not mean that there won't be any bills introuduced (You can bet that Feintwit and her ilk are drawing up a number of variants of an AWB) but chances may be slim for passage early on in this session. Iraq, the economy, terrorism and other issues will take up the majority of time.

What really bothers me is the possibility of having some sort of AWB being tacked on as a rider to some other real important piece of legislation. This type of crap is what needs to be stopped. Politicans will trade their votes for anything that helps their cause or pet project. They buy each others votes just to further their polical cause and don't really give a damn about what it does to the citizenry.
 
I am utterly disgusted. The Republicans are snorting cocaine if they think that coming out in favor of the AWB wins them any net votes. First, mouthing the words won't be believed by anyone. Just the act of stabbing a loyal constituency in the back would give any thinking person a good reason to say "I don't want any part of these people." Second, even if the words are to be believed, those who oppose the Republicans because of the gun issue probably have at least a dozen other issues that make them vote Democrat anyway. Thus, the number of votes that can reasonably be expected to be won by BS statements like this is negligible. On the flip side, many gun owners have already jumped ship on the Republicans because of this issue (just read this thread and others like it to see this in action), and a renewal at a time when the Party controls the Executive and Legislative branches would drive away at least hundreds of thousands of others. I simply cannot understand why the Republicans think that this is a winning policy position. Heck, gun control isn't even on the radar screen for 95% of the population - why don't they spend their political capital on terrorism, immigration, foreign policy, taxes or tort reform, where the payoffs are potentially far greater?

Here is the text of a letter that I sent to the national and Texas parties:

I am a lifelong Republican, and I am writing to tell you how disgusted I am with some of the testimony of Alberto Gonzales. He indicated that he is in favor of the renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban that thankfully expired in September of 2004. I am adamently opposed to this and any other law or bill that would infringe upon the right of every American to keep and bear arms.

The Republican Party needs to understand that gun owners are a rock-solid base of support. Those who are in favor of gun control will NEVER vote Republican - because even if the Republican Party establishes itself as the party of gun control (hardly likely), those people dislike Republican positions on so many other issues that the effort is utterly futile. However, it is worse than that - because such efforts are viewed as a betrayal of a series of promises and a betrayal of long-standing principles by those of us opposed to gun control. I cannot tell you how many people I have come across over the years who have stated that they will never vote Republican again, specifically because of this issue - but the number is in the dozens (and I am only one person). These people either don't vote or vote Libertarian or some other 3rd party with no chance of winning - but those are votes that SHOULD be Republican.

Understand this: betraying a core constituency (any one, not just those who are pro-gun) in an attempt to "expand the tent" doesn't win new voters (or if it does, so few as to not be nearly worth the effort), while upsetting those in the core constituency. They DO have somewhere else to go on Election Day - shopping, hunting, work or their living room couch. Be smart, and let President Bush and the other party leaders know that failing to stick by a core constituency only makes them more like John Kerry - i.e. their words and promises become harder to believe. This can only be counterproductive.

It was bad enough that the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban passed with only meek opposition by a few Republicans. Now that the Presidency and the entire Congress is Republican-controlled, if ANY portion of the Assault Weapons Ban is re-enacted I WILL NEVER VOTE REPUBLICAN AGAIN.
Click to expand...
 
CaesarI

Politically savvy action: say you support the ban, but in private channels, make sure it dies. Politically ballsy action: promise you'll sign the ban *if* it hits your desk, and make darn sure it never does.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is ballsy. But just because something is ballsy doesn't mean it'll work. The antis will never vote for the Republicans anyway - if it isn't guns, those wackjobs will do it on the environment, Iraq, defense/foreign policy, Social Security, abortion, you name it. OTOH, many otherwise reliably Republican voters will get torqued off enough by the ever-growing list of statements like this to just say "Aw, eff it, I'm staying home because none of those guys is for me anyway."

Gun control means little or nothing to at least 95% of the voters. But among those 5%, the most dedicated are on our side because we actually have something to lose - our material possessions and our liberties. Ticking off lots of those voters isn't very savvy - unless they all know about it and can keep a secret, which is as likely as ham sandwich being kosher.
 
Some fine print that is overlooked here

I read through this complete thread and tend to agree with Caesar1's Machiavellian interpretation of what is going on here. Bush and Gonzalez are politicians, and they are playing a little game here - saying one thing and doing another.

But there is an important point that nobody has mentioned. When Bush declared that he would sign an AWB extension, there was a footnote. The footnote was that he would sign exactly the same law, with no changes. The Democrats would never agree to this, as they know the original AWB was poorly written with respect to the definition of "assault weapons", and the gun makers deftly changed their product lines to step around the definitions.

Some guns were banned by name - so new guns of different name were introduced. Some guns were banned by certain cosmetic features like grenade launchers and bayonet lugs. So these were removed and the basic gun was still marketed. The banning proved to be ineffectual because it was full of loopholes. The Democrats know this, and would want to re-write the law to close the loopholes. But Bush has said all along that he would only sign exactly the same law - no changes. So we have an impasse, and nothing will happen.

It is all posturing and symbolism, with no substance. Gonzalez is just hewing to the party line to avoid drawing flak. He wants to get confirmed, not become a lightning rod.
 
No political candidate or political appointee is going to perfectly match my views.

Actually, since my views on issues sometimes change as I learn more about those issues, I can be said to not even perfectly match my own views.

We're always going to have to pick among the choices we have.

Some people like to push the Libertarian Party.

Well, their Presidential candidate decided to get involved in the Ohio recount, and allowed the liberals to waste Millions of our tax dollars on a worthless recount that was obviously not going to change anything or show significant problems.

He's never going to get my vote, and I'm going to be very careful about voting for a LP party candidate because their vetting process obviously isn't working that great.

You can name other parties and their candidates, but I almost always find that I have a strong disagreement with them on some issues.

I voted for Bush. I voted for him because I felt he's trying to do a good job, and that he honestly seems to have the Country's best interests in mind.

He's not as pro-gun as I like. He has done a considerable number of small things to protect our 2nd Ammendment rights while he's been in office. His support of the absolutely useless and misleading AWB is the thing that I dislike most about him on the issue of guns.

He doesn't appear to support it strongly, but he should be opposing it strongly. He should be opposing it not just by not acting on it, but by speaking out about the flaws in the legislation and how it will do nothing to make us safer, instead it just makes us less free.

Gonzales is far from my ideal candidate for AG. Personally I think I like Ascroft better. I'm not cheering about his nomination, but I'm not worried that the days of Reno's level of incompetence and abuse are back.

If a third party candidate were in office I'd honestly be worried that they were appointing someone with good ideals, but without the proper skills to handle the job. That's one of my main concern about 3rd party candidates as well.
 
Well, *I've* read Machiavelli before, though not recently, and I don't recall anything that would suggest he'd approve of a Prince promising to attack his most loyal allies, in order to suck up to his most bitter enemies.

At least not within the hearing of said allies.
 
"<i>Personally I think I like Ascroft better.</i>"

And THAT is why Ashcroft got to stick around until <i>after</i> the election. Ashcroft was the AG Bush picked to please his base, Gonzales the AG he picked to please himself.
 
I hate to say I told you so!!

I harped on this all during the election.
I said that the Shrub really is anti gun!!
Now that the election is over, and he does not have to court your vote, the truth has come out!!

Bon apatite'!!!!

"The president has made it clear that he stands ready to sign a reauthorization of the federal assault weapons ban if it is sent to him by Congress. I, of course, support the president on this issue."
Click to expand...


So does his new stooge!!! :cuss:
 
Politically savvy action: say you support the ban, but in private channels, make sure it dies. Politically ballsy action: promise you'll sign the ban *if* it hits your desk, and make darn sure it never does.
Click to expand...
Two points: First, that is precisely the same political calculus that bit him right square in the ***. Its called Campaign Finance Control.

Second, can someone tell me what the H**l is wrong with exhibiting leadership? What is wrong with stating what you believe and then fight for it?
 
Maybe we need to start work right now towards getting a candidate in 2008 who will represent us in the manner we'd like.

1) Identify potential rkba champions;
2) Determine the most qualified and willing to run for President from that group;
3) Brainstorm some ideas about how to get that candidate nominated; for instance, getting involved locally with the party that is going to support that candidate;
4) Settle on a course of action to achieve nomination;
5) Get as many folks on board as we can;
6) Get started as soon as possible;
7) Keep a discussion going on progress and what we can do to improve the process.

Let's not wait for the primaries and then choose from the candidates the parties propose. Let's make our own push to get good candidates.

These are just starter ideas; I'm sure there are members here who are much more politically astute who can improve on this.
 
On one hand I'm thinking maybe Gonzalez doesn't want to get filibustered. But on the other hand, if they let Ashcroft through, what does Gonzalez have to worry about? So why is he saying he supports the AWB? Hmmmmmmmmmm
 
Creeps like Gonzales make me glad I voted Libertarian this past November.
Click to expand...
And your Libertarian vote made a huge impact and statement. Just look what it did. It taught the Republicans not to take us for granted and to make sure to appoint pro-second amendment candidates.

This whole third party/hate Bush attitude is sorry. Either you wanted John Kerry to be President or you didn't. It is that simple. Your third party vote is a selfish act so you can claim innocence in this whole mess. Give me a break.

The AWB is dead. Be thankful and if you want something to really worry about, move to the PRK. Otherwise be greatful for the rights you can still practice and quit crying wolf.
 
You Bushies are in denial!!!

It's been common knowlege that the Shrub was anti gun ever since he ordered his stooge, Scott McClellan, to announce his support for the AWB!!

G'ahead, flame me.
I remember saying something about a Rose Garden cermony to sign the AWB reauthorization, with the Shrub flanked by Shumer, Brady, Kennedy, Boxer, Spector, Lugar, et.al.!!!

Well, Bush the Younger is just itch'in to do it!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
AG nominee supports assault weapons ban
Replies
10
Views
582
Ironbarr
I
O
  • Locked
Gonzales supports renewal/new AWB
Replies
7
Views
592
Nalapombu
N
R
  • Locked
Gonzales again emerges as Supreme Court contender
Replies
8
Views
485
AirForceShooter
AirForceShooter
R
  • Locked
Gonzales Lays Out Broad Priorities
Replies
9
Views
564
Standing Wolf
S
R
  • Locked
Gonzales allies trumpet conservative views
Replies
7
Views
415
Waitone
W
Back
Top