More evidence that W is not our friend.

[Monte Harrison]

This is an article I stumbled onto while looking for gun clipart:

Texas Nurses Association "Gun Safe" campaign unites community with common goal
http://www.nursingworld.org/tan/98novdec/spotligh.htm

This paragraph caught my attention:

The Texas Nurses Foundation (TNF) provided more than $75,000 in seed money to the coalition, which launched the Gun Safe campaign on May 16, 1996, a date designated by Governor Bush as "Gun Safe Day." TNF also assumed responsibility for coordinating the campaign, developing materials and training volunteers and continues to provide staffing and the bulk of the program's funding.

Getting clintongore out of the White House was reason enough to have voted for W in 2000. I seriously doubt I'll be voting for him in '04.

 

[Felonious Monk]

Yeah, I agree.
Al Sharpton would be a MUCH better president.

 

[zahc]

Can't you abstain or something? I'm not of voting age but it was my understanding that one could vote basically "none of the above". But still have his voice be heard.

 

[Joe Demko]

GWB's slogan for the upcoming campaign should be:
"W. 'Cause he sucks less."

 

[Zander]

Hmmm...May 16, 1996...was that before or after he signed Texas' new CCW law into existence?

What a stretch...

 

[benewton]

If you want some type of freedom, you can vote Libertarian. There are, of course, a number of third parties that you could also go for, but, for my money, I wish the Libertarians to win.

However, what you'll end up with, should you go that way, is either a Republican or a Democrat.

In the latter case, the situation will go down the tubes rapidly, since the Democrats prefer a strong central government with no personal control over your own life. You would, of course, be responsible for any "illegal" activity you might indulge in. They will, however, tax everything, including air, thus limiting your possible choices.

In the former case, the situation will go down the tubes more slowly, since the Republicans prefer a strong central government with no personal control over your own life. You would, of course, be responsible for any "illegal" activity you might indulge in. They will, however, criminalize everything, including breathing, thus limiting your possible choices.

Isn't democracy great???

 

[Chris Rhines]

No, democracy ain't great.

I was not planning on voting in the next election. Honestly, I'd get more utility out of spending the day at the local pub drinking myself into a stupor than I would wasting my time at the polling place.

But.

If Bush II puts his stamp on an AWB reauthorization, I plan on voting against him, for whomever is most likely to unseat him. Ditto my Senators and Reps, should they vote for such a bill.

Scorched earth, baby!

- Chris

 

[Justin]

I'm with Chris on this one.
The Republicans control congress.
There's a Republican in the White House.

In order to make the AW ban go away, all they have to do is sit idly by and let it expire.

Instead, we have a president who openly admits that he will renew the ban if given a chance, and a number of congressmembers who are working to see that it does get re-authorized.

Hate to say it, but the Republicans can't leave well enough alone. They don't even have to do anything!
They could win this issue through sheer apathy, and yet they pick at it like a scab.

was not planning on voting in the next election. Honestly, I'd get more utility out of spending the day at the local pub drinking myself into a stupor than I would wasting my time at the polling place.

I can't remember if it's a state or Federal law, but bars have to be closed on election day.

 

[David Roberson]

There's no federal requirement for bars to be closed on election day or any other day. Here in NC, they're open.

benewton has the right idea. Vote for every Libertarian you can. No, in the short term they aren't going to win many elections, but the stronger showing they make, the more that Socialist Party A and Socialist Party B will try to co-opt some of their positions.

 

[Blackcloud6]

And what is wrong with promoting gun saftey and the proper storage of firearms? I hope we all support the safe use and storage of firearms. The Highroad, right?

 

[Master Blaster]

I plan on voting against him, for whomever is most likely to unseat him. Ditto my Senators and Reps, should they vote for such a bill.

So Chris does that mean you would vote for Hillary Clinton if she was most likely to unseat Bush? Or some other totally anti-gun Democrat that runs?

Personally I'm hoping that our senators or congressmen will keep this bill off the presidents desk, thus giving him plausible deniability and allowing him to defeat the next Democrat in 04.

Bush should be working behind the scenes to make sure that it does not reach his desk. The I will sign it is to keep some of the middle of the road liberals voting for him so he can win the election in 04.

Or if the bill is more onerous than the last he may then veto it anyway but without alienating too many middle of the roaders and losing to an anti freedom Democrat.

My goal is to keep as many gun rights as I can, not to screw myself.

Have you contacted your congresscritters via phone and letter to let them know how you feel?

I have SEVERAL times now.

I urge all out there to do the same.

 

[GregoryTech]

Safety

And what is wrong with promoting gun saftey and the proper storage of firearms? I hope we all support the safe use and storage of firearms. The Highroad, right?

Nothing, in theory. Except you can't legislate responsibility. All you end up doing is making lawful activity illegal.

Safe storage laws threaten your ability to keep a loaded gun by your bedside, even if you have no children. Safe storage laws remove parental descretion in evaluating their own situation and give that ower to the sate.

Yes, we're all for safety and responsibility of firearms. Good ideas do not always make for good law.

 

[Jim March]

Zahc: yes, there is. Look for the guy with the label "Libertarian" .

 

[Smoke]

hmmm....

I won't vote for anyone just to oust GWBII.
I more than likely won't vote for a Democrat.
I doubt I'll vote Libertarian, wasting a vote to keep out a Democrat.

Democracy is good. Not perfect. GWBII is more Pro Gun than any Democrat. I have faith he'll not pass any more gun control legislation and don't feel it is a threat if he renews current legislation. Rome didn't fall in a day. So he renews the AWB....it is at the extreme of gun laws and garners the most publicity. Throw them this one and maybe they'll be appeased. We can readdress it during a better climate.

 

[kidao35]

Throw them this one and maybe they'll be appeased. We can readdress it during a better climate.

Letsee:

1) Democrats admit they lost the House and Senate in '94 because of the original AW Ban.

2) In 2000, Gore loses a number of key states due to "gun control", even his home state.

3) In the wake of 9/11, citizens become aware of the fact that they must take personal responsibility for the safety of themselves and loved ones. Many individuals rush to buy firearms, even soccer mommies.

3) In 2002, Dems lose again, in both House and Senate. Key issue: gun control.

The climate isn't going to get better than this, folks.

BTW, we've been appeasing the gun control groups for 35 years. We're in a cage with a lion, using the sword in our hands to hack off our own limbs to feed the lion, hoping to finally satiate him.

Its time to kill the lion.

 

[Preacherman]

Guys, I think you've been misreading the article referenced in Monte's post. To quote some excerpts:

TNA members realized that they would need broad-based support to make a dent in the problem and decided to form a coalition that would represent both gun owners and non-gun owners.

Those early struggles to define a purpose paid off with a message that is easily articulated. The Gun Safe campaign emphasizes simple rules. There should be no unlocked guns. Adults should lock up guns in a gun safe, fire safe or lockbox. The locks should be key or combination and only adults should have access to the keys. Unstored guns should have a properly fitting trigger lock.

"PTA members, police officers and volunteers of all kinds have presented the program at health fairs, camps, PTA and other community meetings, places of worship and professional conferences, but school nurses have been particularly integral to the program," says program coordinator Debbie German. "We sent a kit to every school nurse and present annually at their conferences." ... TNA's work with the Rockport Police Department is a good example of the coalition's success in working with non-traditional organizations. Officer Mark Gilliam of the department's Community Policing Unit uses the materials when he speaks to community groups and calls the program "a real blessing."

Personally, I find nothing objectionable about such a program. They're not trying to ban guns, or discourage ownership of guns: merely trying to make sure that those who own them act responsibly. If GWB endorses such a program, good for him!

 

[Augustwest]

We can readdress it during a better climate.

The climate seldom gets better, and often gets worse.

 

[Ian]

GWBII is more Pro Gun than any Democrat.

So? That's like saying that lung cancer is less lethal than ebola, because it kills you more slowly. But they both kill you.

I probably won't vote next year either, but my Congress-critters don't know that and you can bet I'm telling them how I feel about the AW ban.

So he renews the AWB....it is at the extreme of gun laws and garners the most publicity.

The same was true of short shotguns when the NFA was passed. No appeasement. Not when my rights are being auctioned off.

 

[Chris Rhines]

So Chris does that mean you would vote for Hillary Clinton if she was most likely to unseat Bush? Or some other totally anti-gun Democrat that runs?

Exactly right. My goal would be to unseat Bush my any means necessary.

Bush should be working behind the scenes to make sure that it does not reach his desk.

He should be, but he isn't. You're still operating under the incorrect assumption that Bush II is pro-gun. He isn't.

My goal is to keep as many gun rights as I can, not to screw myself.

At least with Hillary, we gun owners get screwed in the front. With Bush, we get it from behind. Not much of a pick.

Have you contacted your congresscritters via phone and letter to let them know how you feel?

Yes, for all the good it has done me (none.) Do you really think that your erstwhile representives care what you think? They know what's best for the proles, and your (or my) feelings don't matter worth a pitcher of warm spit to them.

- Chris

 

[Bainx]

I worked hard to get Bush in office.

To those of you in above postings who say "giving a little never hurt anything" type B.S. I pose to you....you boil a frog by gradually turning up the heat. That is what GW is doing to us I feel. Pander to the liberals, get yourself re-elected. Self first. Country second.
Whatever happened to taking a stand on something?
As I said in another thread, if the NRA does not jump up and down about this and point the condemming finger at our President, I will ditch them in a heartbeat.

I'm getting tired of sending money to an organization that is reactive rather than proactive. How many existing gun laws has the NRA fought to get off the books? Answer: none.

 

[FNHP35]

While I understand your point Chris, I don't think you're using good logic. Yes, Bush isn't as good as we had hoped, but he is better than Hillary. The "getting screwed" analogy isn't a fair analogy at all. This is more of a situation where someone is attacking us, Bush would be a person standing on the side lines, but Hillary would be one wanting to join in the fight to kill you. I would rather have him on the sidelines than have someone attacking me.

Plus, Bush did sign into law the CCW for TX. He has other agendas, other issues to take care of which may or may not politically allow him to tackle this one. Would I prefer he would, yes. Have I written my congressman, yes. Will I write Bush, yes, will I write my Senators, yes. Will my letter do anything... not alone, but if enough people write, then it will. Politicians are people very in tune with.... not the polls of the majority of the people, but polls of voters. They know that it's not the majority of the poeple that vote them in, but the majority of the voters that do. People that take the time to write letters, are often the ones that take the time to vote. Anyway, that's my $.02 on the issue. I've been wanting that ban dropped ever since it came about, and for me, that's been just a tad under half of my life. I want this thing dead. But, in the next election, I'll vote for Bush, (unless a more conservative candidate with a chance of beating the leading liberal is a viable option).

 

[Feanaro]

I'd like to quote the comedian Lewis Black. "Democrats suck, Republicans blow".

 

[Chris Rhines]

The "getting screwed" analogy isn't a fair analogy at all. This is more of a situation where someone is attacking us, Bush would be a person standing on the side lines, but Hillary would be one wanting to join in the fight to kill you.

Supporting and signing into law anti-gun legislation is "standing on the sidelines?" No. Al Gore pulls the same stunt, no one here would think twice about voting against him.

He has other agendas, other issues to take care of which may or may not politically allow him to tackle this one.

Well, let's see, that buys him exactly squat. I care nothing for 'other issues' or the 'political situation.' If Bush II supports and signs anti-gun legislation, he is anti-gun.

But, in the next election, I'll vote for Bush,...

Expediency. Morality. You make the call.

- Chris

 

[Zander]

I suppose that my inclination to think long-term precludes my ability to recognize what short-term gain we would realize by expressing the intention to vote [if you vote at all] for one of the most venal, corrupt and sociopathic members of Congress to occupy the chief executive's position.

Just so we all understand your mindset, tell us what you envision a Hillary Clinton-controlled regime would entail and how that would help us regain/retain our inalienable Rights. Do you foresee an inevitable armed revolution? Will a reversion to "leadership" by thinly-disguised Marxists suddenly awaken our fellow citizens that the country is in real danger from within? Is the undiluted hate for the current political status and its attendant faults reason enough to make things infinitely worse in a much shorter period of time?

I'm asking you, anarchists et al., to think long-term and tell us what your game-plan is for securing and re-securing our Rights; for us, our children and our grandchildren. And please refer to established history when you tell us why you think we should proceed with giving our mortal enemies, foreign and domestic, the reins.

My inquiries are genuine. Please, don't assume they are condescending or dismissive...I'm just confused as to where your strategy will lead us.

Keenly awaiting your replies...

 

[oldfart]

Ok Zander, you want stuff based on history? It's all around you, all the time. It's so prevalent I won't even give dates or names, there's too many of them. Let me just make a couple of statements that anyone who has ever cracked a history book will recognize as truth.

First: All governments and all civilizations fall. They always have, they always will and ours will too.

Second: When enough people get tired of getting screwed over by an uncaring government-- usually by excessive taxation but other problems can cause it too-- then those people will rise up and throw the bums out. We Americans did it once for far less reason than we have now and the French followed our lead a few years later.

These two instances are relatively fresh in our historical memories but the same things have been happening all over the world since time immemorial. I believe it was the Phillistines who enslaved the Hebrews and forbade them any blacksmiths lest they make swords or spears. The Jews had to have their tools sharpened by Phillistine blacksmiths. Yet when the Jews finally decided they'd had enough, they ran the Phillistines out. Variations of the story are told in Chinese history, in Mayan and Incan history and in Polynesian history.

It will happen again right here in the good ol' U, S of A too. I don't know when, though I suspect it will be after I have gone. My children and grandchildren will probably have to go through it. I hope I've_prepared them well enough.

Prior to the 2000 elections, when these boards were rife with do or die statements regarding Bush vs. Gore, I predicted that GW would lead us down the same garden path that Gore would. Gore would have made the trip a lot quicker but no less certain. Hillary (if elected) will make Gore look like a Libertarian. But maybe that's what this nation needs as a wake-up call. Maybe the Sheeple need to have the bread taken out of the 'bread and circuses' life they now get to lead.

One thing more. Our revolution was against a king several thousand miles away. Ocean travel made it difficult for that king to react in a timely manner to an armed citizenry. Our next revolution won't have that problem. The objects of the citizens' hatred will be right among them, like during the French revolution. I would imagine the next revolution conducted in America will make the French version look like a tea-party. We are already seeing a polarization of the population into two distinct groups, the very poor and the very rich. The so-called middle-class is rapidly shrinking and being sucked into the other two camps. When the very poor finally realize they have nothing to lose but a few years of misery the very rich will be in serious trouble.

George Bush has an opportunity to change the course of the future, but he'll have to become a better student of history to do so. Like all_powerful people, he has the idea that he is above all that. He will turn his back on those who elected him and, with his new Patriot Act and the upcoming Patriot Act II, will declare any who oppose him 'terrorists' and crush them like ants. Alexander did it, Caesar did it, Hitler did it, Mao did it, Castro did it... It's a function of power.