Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

GWB's Second Amendment Record

Discussion in 'Legal' started by Bartholomew Roberts, Jun 7, 2004.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    We all know what Kerry's record has been - 100% ratings from VPC and the Brady Bunch, 100% from radical anti-hunting groups that oppose all forms of hunting, voting to ban .30-30 ammo, etc.

    It seems a lot of us have forgotten exactly what this administration has done (both pro and con) on the issue - so I thought I would post this as a reminder. The pro, neutral and con headings reflect my own personal opinions. Feel free to mentally rearrange them to reflect your own views on the Second Amendment.

    PRO:

    1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US

    2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

    3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

    4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

    5. Bush supports and will sign lawsuit preemption bill

    6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks

    7. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed

    8. Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

    9. Gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.

    NEUTRAL:

    1. Claims to be against original bill arming air line pilots but signs bill authorizing it.

    2. Partially repeals Clinton ban on import of some semi-auto firearm parts instituted in Summer of 2000 to allow import of parts for repair purposes. Doesn't repeal any Executive Orders relating to guns instituted by previous Presidents.

    CON:

    1. Continues his support (stated in 2000) of the notoriously useless semi-auto ban.

    2. Signed the bill banning non-existent plastic guns into law.
     
  2. wingedmonkey

    wingedmonkey Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
  3. boofus

    boofus Guest

    Not to mention he signed into law the Texas CHL and he has at least 1 pistol (Saddam's) in the oval office. Plus Tricky Dick Cheney has a large gun collection including MGs. I don't think he will be pushing to ban individual ownership of NFA items any time soon, unlike kerry who is likely to try to ban anything having to do with guns.

    My litmus test comes Sept 13. Congress probably has enough socialist scum and backstabbing RINOs to pass feinswine's new ban. It'll be up to the president whether to sign it or veto. If W lets the ban disappear he'll get my vote. Otherwise it's voting Libertarian or voting from the rooftops. :scrutiny:
     
  4. GEM

    GEM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,419
    Location:
    TX
    By no means has he been proactive on the RKBA's key points or bills introduced to signficantly enhance it.

    The crunch will come at AWB time. If it is renewed with his signature, then he has signficantly hurt the RKBA and the piddlely crap quoted is irrelevant.
     
  5. SodiumBenzoate

    SodiumBenzoate Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2004
    Messages:
    697
    Location:
    Bucks Co., PA
    I sincerely believe the only chance GWB has for re-election lies with the NRA.
     
  6. ssr

    ssr Member

    Joined:
    May 25, 2004
    Messages:
    287
    I don't know if he will win or lose come election time, but I will say that I believe if the AWBan is renewed, he will lose.
     
  7. rick_reno

    rick_reno member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    3,027
    GWB's 2nd Amendment Record

    I don't the AWB signed/unsigned and expired will make any difference in the election this year. It gets lots of coverage here, but you folks need to get away from your keyboards and out into the real world every now and then. At the local (N. Idaho) shooting range where I volunteer as a range master, I'll bring the AWB up with shooters and overwhelmingly either get the blank stare (they haven't heard about it) or they don't care. I get at least 5 to 1 in the "don't care, doesn't bother me" camp.

    It's important to remember when looking at GWB and the 2nd Amendment that he's had a "Republican" Congress for at least two years. The acomplishments noted are like spitting in the ocean - they don't mean anything. Spend some time and ponder what you would have liked them to acomplish - and work backwards from that.
     
  8. cheygriz

    cheygriz Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2002
    Messages:
    2,245
    Location:
    High up in the Rockies
    Either President Bush or Senator Kerry will be president next year. There are no other choices.

    The record is clear. Bush is lukewarm on RKBA. Kerry is FANATICALLY anti-gun.

    Is there a choice for gun owners? I'll take lukewarm Pro over fanatically anti any day!
     
  9. flatrock

    flatrock Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    612
    That's what a lot of people said 10 years ago. The original law caused the Democrats to lose control of the House for the first time in 60 years.

    There are a considerable number of people for whom second ammendmet rights are a major determining factor in deciding who to vote for.

    This election looks like it will be a close one, which scares the crap out of me, because Kerry is about as bad a choice as the Dems could give us.

    I'm betting that the White House is working pretty hard behind the scenes to make sure the AWB reauthorization never reaches Bush's desk.
     
  10. Desertdog

    Desertdog Member

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    1,980
    Location:
    Ridgecrest Ca
    Why doesn't this stop the PRK, and other states, from mandating the registration of all firearms??:barf:
     
  11. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    To all those who noted Republican control of Congress and asked why more hasn't been accomplished, I would point out that "control" is at best a relative term.

    For two years, Bush lost control after Jim Jeffords switched and removed what narrow lead Republicans had in the Senate. The Republicans gained control back by winning 51 seats. That is "control" of the Senate in the same sense that driving with your hand on the gas pedal and your feet on the steering wheel is "control" of a car.

    In the House, Publicola has already noted that the GOA D and F rated members of the House (the vast majority of whom are Democrats) number only 10 less than the remaining GOA A,B and C rated candidates. Once again, not a lot of opportunity to advance pro-gun legislation.

    To me this is like giving the knight a nerf sword and then complaining that he hasn't yet slain the dragon. It is also why we really need to consolidate control in the House and push for pro-gun Senators in the Senate. We have a good chance to change both those numbers around this election - four anti-gun Senators are retiring and several others are in close races.

    If the semi-auto ban sunsets, this President will have done more for gun owners than any President in the last 50 years has.

    It only prohibits the Federal government from those activities. The states can still do whatever they like, especially since the Second hasn't been incorporated under the 14th yet.
     
  12. txgho1911

    txgho1911 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2004
    Messages:
    973
    Location:
    Indiana;
    Hidden Agenda?

    Who's to say GWB wins this election and turns around to launch some public history lessons. Pushes congress to repeal the bad and lame gun laws passed last century. States restrictions on RKBA are preempted.
    He will have to nominate 2-3x the fed and supreme court judges from the high rate of heart attacks and strokes. 3 or 4 govenors and 3 mayors resign (Daley, Bloomberg).
    Slim chance of something like this. To many federal workers would be out of a job. Same story for TSA. Wheres the extension for this dept and arming pilots.
    I wouldn't mind seeing a candidate who would want full restoration.
    Anyone come to mind? Maybe for 2008.

    Spelling count?
     
  13. boofus

    boofus Guest

    Ron Paul or Aaron Russo in 2008! :D
     
  14. Michigander

    Michigander Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,301
    Location:
    Michigan
    GWB is certainly the lesser of the two evils.

    Too bad I don't want evil at all.
     
  15. fix

    fix Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,592
    Location:
    Wonderful Northeast Georgia
    Michigander,

    Want in one hand and :cuss: in the other. Let us know what happens.
     
  16. BTR

    BTR Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    730
    He declared he didn't want any antigun riders to the lawsuit bill. That is something important.
     
  17. Third_Rail

    Third_Rail Member

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2004
    Messages:
    4,981
    Good to see a thread like this!

    I know who my vote is going to... like it'll matter, being in MA and all. I'm suuure Bush has even a chance of winning this state. :rolleyes:
     
  18. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    You forgot to mention his support for the AWB has been verbal alone.

    I've yet to see him standing with Schumer and holding up a Tec-9 or AB-10.
     
  19. Michigander

    Michigander Member

    Joined:
    Feb 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,301
    Location:
    Michigan
    So I'm going to end up with evil either way. Hmm.

    Then voting for Badnarik is not wasted after all.
     
  20. LAR-15

    LAR-15 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 1, 2004
    Messages:
    3,385
    Vote your principles.

    THAT vote is NEVER wasted!
     
  21. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    I would prefer this discussion remain about GWB's Second Amendment policies. There is already a thread discussing John Kerry's.

    I would appreciate it if we could keep this thread on-topic. There are no shortage of threads where you can discuss Libertarian/Republican issues. The main purpose behind this thread is to educate voters on what GWB has and hasn't done.
     
  22. Thumper

    Thumper Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    2,904
    Location:
    Rosenberg, Texas
    At the time that memo was released (after cloture), the "antigun riders" in question were the AWB and closure of the imaginary gunshow loophole.

    That was pretty strong, IMHO.
     
  23. Publicola

    Publicola Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2003
    Messages:
    226
    Location:
    Colorado
    BR,

    #1 - I'll grant you that one.

    #2 - Ashcroft didn't give the victory most think. He didn't say that the 2nd amendment was an individual Right, he said the second amendment was an individual right subject to government restrictions.

    He merely changed the direction of the attack, not the attack itself.

    #3 I'll grant that one

    #4 I'll grant that one as well.

    #5 I'll grant that.

    #6 I'll grant that

    #7 I'll grant that

    #8 I'll grant that

    #9 He said he did not want any bills attached that would prevent the lawsuit preemption bill from passing. Please remember we're talking about the Senate which is noriously anti-gun. he did not say he didn't want the AWB attached - he said he didn't want anything attached that would prevent passing the parent bill. See the difference?

    There was a clear majority in favor of adding on the AWB renewal, so its addition would not have stopped the bill it was attached to if it was going to be passed in the first place. We didn't have the votes to keep the AWB from passing. That means if the Senate chose it could have passed the entire package whether we objected or not.

    So it was a clever statement by Bush but not one that makes the point most assume it makes. He wanted the bill passed. He did not say only that bill. He did not say specifically to not add the AWB renewal to it. He merely said don't add anything that would kill it.

    Nuetral

    #1 I'll grant that

    #2 I'll grant that

    Con
    #1 I'll grant that

    #2 I'll grant that

    Now here's the catch - by saying "I'll grant that" I merely mean that those were his actions. He did sign certain bills into law, & his subordinates did do things that seem pro-gun.

    But the thing about Bush is he'd sign an unlimited third party extended warranty if it hit his desk. He's signed laws that he said he believed ot be unconstitutional (McCain-Feingold) so his signing a bill really doesn't show a solid demonstration of his support or disdain for bill.
    That'd mean #5, #7, & #8 of the "Pro" column, #1 of the "Neutral" column & #2 of the "Con" column are inconclusive where they refer to his signing a bill into law.

    Bush is the boss & whatever his subordinates do does reflect on him. With that being said...

    #1 (from the "Pro" column) was done by the State Dept. (If I recall) & was a good thing (though it could've been a little better) & Bush should get credit for that if we use a system where the actions of his subordinates (both good & bad) reflect his views. Ditto for #3 & #4 of the "Pro" column.

    However if we use that system then Bush has (& should) take the blame for the burdensome & deliberetaly obstructionist system the TSA set up to arm pilots.

    Because of his opposition to the armed pilots bill & because of the TSA's rather slimey methods of preventing armed pilots from happening I'd have to move #1 of the "Neutral " column into the "Con" column.

    So what we end up having is something like this:

    Pro
    #1 Acceptable although could have been done a little better.
    #2 Unacceptable - see above - Moved to "con"
    #3 Acceptable if you can accept a registration/licensing system to begin with
    #4 Acceptable if you can accept a registration/licensing system to begin with
    #5 Partially acceptable as his support means something while his promise to sign is redundant considering his record.
    #6 Acceptable although his motivations are unclear - it could have been he just thought the program was a waste of funds. But there's nothing principly wrong with a voluntary program to buy firearms from a firearms Rights persepctive. There's a lot principly wrong with it if you object to the government using stole..er, taxed funds for any kind of social program.
    #7 Inconclusive - his signing a bill is presumed.
    #8 Inconclusive - see #8
    #9 Unacceptable - see above - Moved to "Con"

    Neutral
    #1 moved to "Con" column
    #2 Acceptable if you can live with only a aprtial repeal of gun control through executive orders.

    Con
    #1 Acceptable
    #2 Inconclusive
    #3 (moved #2 from "Pro" column) see above
    #4 (moved #9 from "Pro" column) see above
    #5 (moved #1 from "Neutral" column) Partial acceptable, Partially Inconclusive. His signing a bill doesn't reflect his positions on that bill His public statements however do matter & he was against the arming of pilots.

    or more streamlined...
    Pro we have #1, #3, #4, #5, & #6.
    Neutral we have #2
    Con we have#1, plus my lists #3, #4 & #5.

    That'd put it at 5 Pro, 1 Neutral & 4 Con with my revision of your list.

    Keep in mind that's just using the info you provided & allowing for him taking full credit for the actions of his subordinates as well as not bringing up the actions he (& to be fair every president since FDR) should have taken. & I also take into consideration that you aren't a rabid absolutist like I am.

    Bet you never thouht a simple column based argument about a presidents pro's & con's would get this complex, did ya?

    Bush, from everything I've seen him do & say, is a bit too authoritarian for my tastes. This spills over into his view on firearms as a "firearms are an individual's thing as long as they follow the law" attitude. Since I feel that every single friggin federal gun control law & most state gun control laws are unconstitutional & violative of an individual's Right, I'm sure Bush & I would clash severely if we were ever put in the same room for a discussion.

    Bush's actions & views (from my perspective) seem much akin to WildistillthinkthrowingsentencesbetweenmyfirstandlastnameisacutethingAlaska's views. So imagine WildpeoplewithonenamearejustjealousofmyabilitytoslipinmessagesinmysignatureAlaska & me debating but with a few secret service agents in his corner. That'd be how well Bush & I got along if he tried to justify what I see as his anti-gun actions.

    Oh, before I let it slip - Bush's support of Texas CCW permits doesn't gain him any points with me. I know the different arguments for CCW permits, but the bottom line is they're permits whereas carrying a weapon concealed or otherwise should be treated as a Right, not a privilege.

    & for the inevitable counter-argument that the perfect is the enemy of the good, don't you think it's a little bit misguided to oppose perfection? Perfect is not the enemy of the good: perfect is the enemy of the inadequate. By calling the inadequate good you're degrading the standards whether you realize it or not & giving aid & comfort to those whose motto is "Good enough or guv'mint work".

    Anyway, your views may be different, but that's how I'd rearrange the columns BR posted. But for a rating of any sort I'd have to give Bsh the same one I'd give every president since FDR on the firearms issue: inadequate.
     
  24. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Joined:
    Dec 26, 2002
    Messages:
    14,613
    Location:
    Texas
    Like I said, different people will see them in a different fashion... as for the Second Amendment being an individual right with reasonable restrictions, you can look at that as either an attack (He said "restriction") or an opportunity (He said "reasonable").

    From my perspective, the fact that the Second Amendment is subject to restriction merely means that it is like every other amendment in the Bill of Rights (i.e. the First Amendment does not guarantee you the right to distribute child pornography).

    As for perfect being the enemy of the good, I think you miss the point of that saying entirely. It is always noble to strive for perfection. Where it stops being noble is when you refuse any advancement at all because it is only good and not perfect.
     
  25. wingedmonkey

    wingedmonkey Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2004
    Messages:
    67
    Location:
    Richmond, VA
    But it would have stopped passage because the House would not have gone along with it.

    Sportsmen for Bush

    Sportsmen for Kerry?
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page