I see several anti-Bush ppl here..

[Lone_Gunman]

Bush signed the Campaign Finance Reform law because he thought the Supreme Court would overturn it. He played political "Chicken" with the First Amendment, and lost.

Bush says he will sign the AWB renewal because he doesn't think Congress will send a bill to him. Again he plays chicken with our rights, this time the Second Amendment.

One question for Bush supporters to ponder is this: If Bush thought the Campaign Finance Reform Bill was unconstitutional (he is on record saying he thought it was), then how can he sign it into law, while still claiming to have an oath to preserve the Constitution???

 

[jfh]

not necessarily a defense of Bush

but I think it can be argued that the place to play out the constitutionality of a bill is in the judicial branch--.e.g., sign it into law and let the appeals begin.

A real problem for us gunnies really rests in the kind of analytical models we've learned as a product of American thought (Western Civ, etc., etc.) Most of us do not have a model that integrates relativism and absolutism, except in the political arena.

For example, I do not believe the 2ndA is relative--i.e., I believe that the historical record shows that it is 1) an individual right, and 2) that it is a priori as written into the BOR.

However, I do believe that Governments have a right to regulate--e.g., the 'weapons of war' scenario. The integration of the two is left to politics. But, I readily admit that the regulation right puts me into the quandry of the slippery slope problems. However, since the purpose of regulation ought to be generally to preserve minority rights (and not necessarily expand them) of the populace, then the GC efforts should be pulled back to about pre 1935, and the AWB is unconstitutional based on the a priori argument.

So, back to the topic at hand: While GWB doesn't operate the way my argument above would indicate he should, it is clear the Democrats are far worse, as a national party, for expansion of governmental control, and will remain that way far into the future. Their strategy of gathering up various invented minority groups and catering to them makes them highly dependent on their icons.

Given the GC icons they have (SCUBA Ted, the Travelling Cripple Show, etc.), they are lost to change for at least another twenty years, or until the Gen X/Y people become more politically dominant. The presence of the Baby Boomer's generation (of whom I am almost a part--just a year too old, as it were) as the dominant age group (the leadership) means that it rests in a 60s political action model, and that is one not very amenable to change.

And what is Dean if not an A-type boomer with political leadership abilities?

 

[longeyes]

"One question for Bush supporters to ponder is this: If Bush thought the Campaign
Finance Reform Bill was unconstitutional (he is on record saying he thought it
was), then how can he sign it into law, while still claiming to have an oath to
preserve the Constitution???"

The answer to this question is simple: Bush is not a President in the ordinary sense to which we have become accustomed; he is really a national corporate CEO who rarely consults his "mission statement" because, in his heart, he believes it's more PR than bottom-line reality. This is the new wave of Presidenting, my fellow American shoppers.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

Appologies to whoever I'm paraphrasing here:

Are gun owners not also Americans? If our economy is destroyed by chronic deficit spending, do we not want for food and shelter as much as others? If our children are sent off to fight unnecessary wars do they not bleed red? If our civil liberties are taken away by government intrusions into our private lives do we not suffer as much? Do we breathe a different air if industry is allowed to pollute at will? Have we less need for clean water than other Americans?

I won't be voting for Bush in any circumstance. What I will do is still undecided.

 

[Tamara]

jfh,

but I think it can be argued that the place to play out the constitutionality of a bill is in the judicial branch--.e.g., sign it into law and let the appeals begin.

Gosh, why does the President have that spiffy "veto" thing, then? I seem to recall that Reagan used it a lot. Not as much as Coolidge, but more than most of the spineless windsocks that have occupied the office since then...

 

[willp58]

TAM WROTE:
<<<Willp38,
To answer your original post, single issue voting is NOT a good thing. It's very narrow-minded and overly-simplistic. Don't you care about the economy, the war, the terrorism, the budget, and other issues? There *are* other issues, you know.>>>>

I certainly DO care about other issues, however realistically, the economy was going downhill BEFORE Bush took office..The economy is cyclic..This is a fact and I really believe that no matter who is in office - it will remain cyclic.

I would really love to know what the outcome of 9/11 would have been if someone other that Bush was in the White House...
Would he have "turned the other cheek"?? Would he have gone after them like Bush did?? I think we underestimated the Iraqis. Now we are in over our heads and it's going to take some fancy footwork to get us out of there and still save face.
The burning question is: Would Gore (or whoever) have handled it any better????

The budget is of course tied into the war. Until this damn thing is over, we are going to spend bigtime.

I notice one poster here thinks it is no big deal that Texas got a CCW..Well how about if they go back to NO CARRY??? Would that be better??
Yes they have to endure some background checks --but at least they CAN get one.

My original question still stands:
Who of the candidates that actually stand a chance of winning is a better gun President than Bush???
These would include Dean, Kerry and Clark... Again, REALISTICALLY it will be one of these men...

 

[longeyes]

"Who of the candidates that actually stand a chance of winning is a better gun
President than Bush???"

Our gun rights do not depend on which President we elect. And certainly not on one who doesn't appear to care that much about the Constitution.

 

[Balog]

Voting is not like gambling on hockey. The object is not to figure out who the winner will be and bet on them. If I have to choose between supporting Stalin to depose Hitler, or fighting both; I would choose the latter.


How can you possibly support a President who violates his oath of office by passing a law he admits is unConstitutional?

 

[Tamara]

willp58,

Who of the candidates that actually stand a chance of winning is a better gun President than Bush???
These would include Dean, Kerry and Clark... Again, REALISTICALLY it will be one of these men...

Which ice cream flavor would you prefer: possum kidney or roadkill chunk? No fair casting a vote for chocolate fudge, you have to pick between the two I specified...

 

[willp58]

Tamara wrote:

<<<<Which ice cream flavor would you prefer: possum kidney or roadkill chunk? No fair casting a vote for chocolate fudge, you have to pick between the two I specified...>>>>


Ok I'll vote for chocolate fudge *IF I HAVE A CHANCE OF GETTING IT...

If it's not even on the menu AT ALL....Then why would I ax for it????

The waitress would roll her eyes and gesture at the door.

 

[Tamara]

Since there're no tolerable flavors on the menu...

Y'know, then I'm just not going to order any damn ice cream. They're just going to force-feed me whichever one they want, and I want to make sure they know that it was against my wishes.

 

[jfh]

tamara

re GWB's non-veto record:

The implicit argument I was making here is the 'tools' metaphor we all use regarding firearms.

IOW, a politician (in a certain office at a certain point in time, etc.) has a number of tools at his disposal. Insofar as bill passage is concerned, GWB can do at three things--he can approve/sign the bill into law; he can disapprove/veto the bill, and he can sit on it and let it become law without his signature.

Using a tool a certain way may or may not have a strategic function--here, a decision to let the courts rule on the constitutionality of the law could be deliberate decision.

Personally, I don't particularly care for this strategic approach, but I can see it...and, as your post seems to imply, that action does not reinforce our perception of his action being doctrinaire or correct for his seeming ideological stance.

It is clear to me that GWB is no more 'conservative' with regards to firearms regulation, and that in the standard nomenclature, he is at best moderate. However, contrast that with the Democratic National Party platform / statements on gun control, and the slavish adherence to it by all democratic candidates: GWB's ties to 'conservatism' and his pro-gun voter base, and it is clear that he is a far better choice than ANY Democrat.

 

[Art Eatman]

Since short-term memory seems to be a national problem, let me remind the impaired that there was a poll taken after the Olympic Park bombing in Atlanta. Over half the respondents said they'd not object to some reductions in freedoms in order to have more security.

Fast forward to 9/11, a far more severe event than that in Olympic Park.

The Patriot Act was passed by one of the highest margins in Congressional history. It was a truly bi-partisan effort, for good or ill insofar as potential for abuse of civil liberties. We've commented at length about ensuing laws and regulations--and, they too have been bi-partisan.

Now, Bush made a pro-AWB comment that was practically a throwaway line; I'd suspect merely to defuse the gun-grabbers and their sycophants in the media. I've heard no comments about any administration pressure on the House to renew the ban.

To suggest voting for a Democrat for President, and thus a probable return to the anti-gun activism of the recent two administrations under Clinton, strikes me as cutting off one's nose to spite one's face.

Art

 

[longeyes]

Gun policies are pulled in the wake of other social and political policies. From my perspective Bush's policies will lead inevitably to a crackdown on gun rights. Perhaps his desire to disarm us is less than the Democrat alternatives but that doesn't make him any less dangerous to our civil liberties, and the fact that he is a Republican, with Republican support in Congress, gives him power that a more restrained Executive would not have. Globalization and open borders conduce not to "free markets" but to swelling populations and an overburdening of social services and the usual pressures for "equity," with the predictable impact on the taxpayer. We are going the way, slowly but surely, of Brazil, and I think most of us here are aware what President Lula recently enacted, in the interest of reducing "disequity."

 

[jfh]

AMEN, ART, AMEN

Your succinct summary of some of the factors at work here is really, really good.

I cruise this forum and the general discussion one three or four times a day--since I've joined, I've been really curious to understand all the elements that make up this gunny community. Overall, THR is the best gun forum I've seen.

There certainly does seem to be three contingentcies--one, a large one, is the Libertarian / ideologically-driven group. They've provided for me a good insight into some of that particular political stance. The second is simply the gunny enthusiast group, of no particular bent. The third, of course, seems to me to be the 'liberal' group--gunnies who are / have been historically driven by Democratic Party values.

Those liberals are the ones I worry about, as much as I share some of those values. They seem to forget that the Democrat Party fundamentally changed in the last twenty-five years--i.e., after the sixtie's 'Activist' model blended with the party's need to invent more minority groups to expand their voter base led to the federal Democrat's vote-buying with new entitlements. Then throw in sick Willy's victimology promotion--and look what you have.

I submit that ANY one here--i.e., a gunny--seriously considering a Democrat vote this fall is probably driven more by emotion--by their 'hatred' of Bush--than by any rational view of their 'preferred' probable candidate and his political position on firearms.

 

[longeyes]

"I submit that ANY one here--i.e., a gunny--seriously considering a Democrat vote this fall is probably driven more by emotion--by their 'hatred' of Bush--than by any rational view of their 'preferred' probable candidate and his political position on firearms."

I am not planning to vote for any Democrat presidential candidate but to equate vote for Bush with a vote for "reason" strikes me as an intellectual leap not quite up to Bob Beamon's. Perhaps we are all just venting our frustrations out loud as we are compelled to recognize that Bush's agenda is comprised of one tablespoon of "compassion" sprinkled over a large stew of expediency.

 

[jfh]

I don't think that a vote for Bush is necessarily a vote for reason--quite frankly, I distrust him. I see a vote for him as merely a pragmatic one.

The point that I'm trying to make is, that to the extent one is a (nominal) single-issue / pro-gun voter, then to consider voting Democratic in the following election is simply not rational, and that there are probably other non-rational explanations for considering such a vote.

For my rationalizations for a bush vote--they really are based on incrementalism: We got into this mess one step at a time (although arguably the 'little steps' Foley made to get the AWB vote passed have been penalized), and we'll get out of it one step at a time. If the electorate will seriously consider more conservative presidencies (at least on firearms), then we'll gain some more. So, with the general public liberal/political division being nominally equal, I consider a non-Bush vote for someone more pro-gun as simply taking votes away from a probable winner and making the liklihood of an anti-gun Democrat just that much more likely.

And, I consider myself to largely be a single-issue vote--i.e., pro/anti gun--and will therefore vote for Bush given his record to date.

 

[Joe Demko]

Pragmatism is one word for it. I don't care to be pragmatic any more. I'm concerned with keeping my self-respect. Doing the wrong thing for pragmatic reasons is still doing the wrong thing.

 

[Malone LaVeigh]

I submit that ANY one here--i.e., a gunny--seriously considering a Democrat vote this fall is probably driven more by emotion--by their 'hatred' of Bush--than by any rational view of their 'preferred' probable candidate and his political position on firearms.

There you go with the single issue again. I happen to agree with the 'Rats on more issues than the Repugs. I'm in the majority on that, BTW. That doesn't mean I'm going to vote for them, but I'm damn sure not going to vote Repug.

 

[nemesis]

Who, pray tell would make a better president *FOR GUN OWNERS* than Bush??

It's going to be tough to choose between George W. Bush and Vicente Fox. Both of them represent the best interests of Mexico.

 

[Tamara]

jfh,

It is clear to me that GWB is no more 'conservative' with regards to firearms regulation, and that in the standard nomenclature, he is at best moderate. However, contrast that with the Democratic National Party platform / statements on gun control, and the slavish adherence to it by all democratic candidates: GWB's ties to 'conservatism' and his pro-gun voter base, and it is clear that he is a far better choice than ANY Democrat.

So, you prefer possum kidney to roadkill chunk? Waitress! Can we get a possum kidney sundae over here!

Me, I'm not going to order any ice cream. If they want to set a bowl down in front of me, I'll do my best to ignore it. If they want me to eat it, they'd better get the restraints and the tube handy...

 

[fallingblock]

But Malone......

"I happen to agree with the 'Rats on more issues than the Repugs. I'm in the majority on that, BTW....."
************************************************************

It's the opposite for me (don't agree with much of what the "Rats say, and even less of what they do! ).

And a 'majority' empowered Hitler, among other examples of the folly of pure democracy.


Art:

You said it far better than I could!

Why anyone interested in the survival of the Second Amendment would vote for ANY democ-rat candidate given the democ-rat party's well-demonstrated antipathy to firearms freedom is a mystery.

 

[jfh]

Tamara....

If I'm following your analogy correctly, then it must be pointed out that you've already been eating that roadkill chuck ice cream sundae....

and I think the trick to getting that junk off the menu requires NOT voting for Democrats on a Federal Level.

 

[JitsuGuy]

It doesn't matter who's in office. The same thing would be happening... Our Presidents anymore are just puppets to corporations and the globalists at the top of the food chain... The Rockefellers and Rothchilds come to mind.

J

 

[carpettbaggerr]

Let's remember, Bush Sr. was turned out of office, largely because he went back on his "No New Taxes" pledge. We got Bill Clinton. We got the AWB in 1994 passed by the smallest of margins. We got the Brady Act. Lucky for us, the Republicans included the 10 year sunset provision in the AWB, so we'll be rid of it this fall. Vote out Bush this time, and who knows what we'll get. A permanent ban on "Assault Weapons" ?

Perhaps Hillary Clinton will force some Wheelgun Confiscation Crunch on you, Tamara. Or some Sniper Rifle Suprise. Do you think she'll care she's force feeding you? Wouldn't you rather have a different flavor? And a better waitress? Art's right, if you cut off your nose, you'll really regret it later.


Especially when you sneeze.