President Bush may still betray us on the AWB...

Status
Not open for further replies.
One of Wisconsin's senators, Russ Feingold (yes, that Feingold) has said that he would vote against extending the ban.

Curious position, since he's voted in the past for every gun control bill proposed, including the 1994 ban.

Why the change of heart? He's up for re-election in a very pro-gun state, and facing some good challengers.

Bush and Kerry have both devoted a ton of time to areas in Wisconsin that Bush narrowly lost in 2000: Green Bay; and the areas along the Mississippi being most prominent. Those areas are heavy NRA.

It "wouldn't be prudent," as Bush 41 used to say, to let the bill get to GW's desk. Even the ultra-liberal Feingold sees the downside of voting to renew.
 
President Bush may still betray us on the AWB...

I'm sure he will, but not until after the election...
 
El Rojo, My 0.02. Some type of major gun control laws will happen early in the second term (if there is one) because the leadership of the Repubs is as anti-armed peasant as the Dems in their little heart of hearts. They need our votes so they play games with us to make us think they actually support the Constitution(been watchin' the vanishing Bill of Rights lately?).

The Repubs as a party have been moving left every election I can remember except for maybe Regan's first. The education bill with Teddy and the Medicare expansion are two big examples of Republican sponsored socialism from Bush's first term. The second term will be worse.

If the new laws happen early in the next session the political fallout will be minimal with at most some lost seats in the house, and those in conservative districts that the leaders of the Repubs don't like anyway. Look at the fights within the party at this convention over emphasis of traditional values. The leadership of the Repubs want to remake the party into a "lite" version of the Dems to take over as much of the moderate middle as possible. To do this they will willingly sacrifice the NRA block, which will make them look more "reasonable" to the moderates. (The historically ignorant and not very bright moderates)
 
Badnarik telling us he wouldn't sign an AWB renewal is like me promising my wife I won't have sex with Jennifer Aniston ... sure I'm telling the truth, but it doesn't matter since I'll never actually have the opportunity
Click to expand...

It does matter. It's called "principle".
 
As far as Principle... HA. :banghead:

Pres. Bush has PROMISED us he would take care of us in Court appointments of judges. :scrutiny:

What he has DONE is that he has let the Dems have whomever socialist activists they want easily and has not stood and fought FOR one Constitutional judge that I know of. :fire:

Thus, he casts our national future before the swine of our ONE national party masquerading as two... in our current united Bolshevik system.
:fire: :cuss: :banghead:

And, I voted for him in hopes of his promises... :banghead:
 
The second term is when we really see a President's true colors. I'd say the wise man gets all he can immediately after (if) the ban sunsets and prays for a grandfather clause - just to be on the safe side.
 
If Bush signed an AWB I would vote for a third party candidate. It should be political suicide no matter which party. If it becomes clear they will be overwhelmingly rejected, maybe even the Democrats will quit grabbin what aint theirs!
 
I tend to believe a Kerry loss is a learning process for both the Dems and Repubs. He's as leftist as they come. The Dems knew this going in and gambled this is what the American people want. If he is rejected then by extension his party leadership's policy is rejected. This will, hopefully, weaken both the extreme left's hold on the Dem Party(nevermind Hillary's asperations) and, again hopefully, will send notice the Repubs that their leftward drift is not winning them any converts.

Yeah, that's a lot of "hope" but the alternative, a Kerry victory, can be perceived only one way: An affirmation of extreme left policies which is guaranteed to keep the Dems heading for Socialist waters and the Repubs hot on their tails.
 
So in order to win over those moderates, why wouldn't they pass a ban now? I mean if those votes are so important, why not do it now? 2nd, if you are proposing that the electorate's memory is short, this would apply to the left, the right, and the middle. So it doesn't make any sense that the Republicans would sacrifice some support at the next Congressional elections to supposedly win the middle when the middle is going to forget about 2005 by 2008 anyway. Again, there is no real basis to this theory other than pesimism and speculation.
 
Bush would lose the election if he backed a renewal. That move wouldn't really win him new votes, but it would cost him a hugely significant number of votes he has as of now.
 
Here is what we all need to do. Send the following quotation in a letter, or on a postcard, to the Senators and Representatives listed in the story. Copy it verbatim with no changes or embellishment. Then sign your name or Mr. and Mrs. -- which they see as two lost votes -- and mail it to them. It is best if you copy it by hand LEGIBLY and send it to them as they then know it was not just mass copied from a script.

Even if they are not your Sen. or Rep. send them a note anyway.

"The last Congress also passed the Brady Bill and, in the crime bill, the ban on 19 assault weapons. I don't think it's a secret to anybody in this room that several members of the last Congress who voted for that aren't here tonight because they voted for it."
-- William Jefferson Clinton, State of the Union 1995

The Senators and Representatives listed are:

Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.)

Rep. Doug Bereuter (Neb.) MY STATE!

Rep. Tom Davis (Va.)

Rep. Michael Ferguson (N.J.)

Rep. Nancy Johnson (Conn.)

Rep. Peter King (N.Y.)

Rep. Mark S. Kirk (Ill.)

Rep. Jack Quinn (N.Y.)

Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.)

Rep. Christopher Shays (Conn.)

Sen. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.)

Sen. Susan Collins (Maine)

Sen. Mike DeWine (Ohio)

Sen. Peter Fitzgerald (Ill.)

Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.)

Sen. Richard Lugar (Ind.)

Sen. Gordon Smith (Ore.)

Sen. Olympia Snowe (Maine)

Sen. George Voinovich (Ohio)

Sen. John Warner (Va.)
 
Ya lost me Rojo. It's late and I don't feel exactly well right now so in the daylight it may seem obvious, but for now I'll respond as I am reading your intent...

The Dems have staked out territory in the hard left. They believe this is what it takes to win elections. They've gradually moved this way over the decades and the Repubs, having watched this win many elections at all levels have followed slowly. Bush himself is a function of this, being a Moderate for all practical purposes. If Kerry loses then the territory staked by the Dems in Kerry's nomination obviously becomes...questionable. Of less value. They then, hopefully, see that they should have been appealing more to their moderate and conservative bases. Lestens the strength of the far left that directs the party now. THAT, hopefully, sends a message to the Repubs that continuing to drift left is NOT an automatic recipe for success.

I wasn't talking about who the Repubs are attempting to appeal to in any way. Only in what regard a Dem error, if Kerry loses, will affect their future politics. A victory by the most leftist senator in the nation would seem to make it fairly obvious that's the direction for everyone to head. His loss lessens the value of that segment of the voting block. It makes the middle ground appear safer and appealing to the conservative base less intimidating. Again, hopefully.
 
No politician is a friend of guns. It is contrary to their nature.



Bush, unfortunately - is the best thing we have. You can cry all you want about Bush, but if 500 votes went the other way in 2000 here in the Sunshine State, you can bet anything the AWB would be renewed already by President Gore.



Publicly attacking the ban is political suicide unless you are a House Rep Republican in a pro-gun congressional district with a safe seat. Especially with a highly anti-gun media that would instantly pounce on ANY pro-assult weapon comment you make and crucify you as a supporter of "domestic terrorism"


Read between the lines. Bush has helped us a lot. He has killed the ban by ignoring it entirely - he just can't go and say it. With all the media talk and pressure from anti-gun senators, the most they could get from Bush was his press secretary telling them his 2000 election stance/promise.


Bush has not campaigned and lobbied anyone for a new ban. That is a sign that he is against it and wants it dead. If Gore was in, he would be stump speechin' for a month to get this ban going.



Sometimes I wonder if you guys can even see a good thing if it slaps you in the face!



Now, a Bush with no fear of an election - with a Democratically controlled House and Senate is DANGEROUS. Pressure could mount, and he might cave. If they can get a vote to the floor and pass it, he would be stuck and forced to. Hell, he might trade the ban for Judicial appointments.....



As an aside --- why do you think so many Senators are anti-gun? They have to appeal to an entire state, that usually includes inner city minorites and urban and suburban liberals, as well as a mass of brainwashed moderates who buy into the anti-gun bias. Senators are much like the president, it is almost impossible for them to take on a very radical stance one way or the other without taking heat. Only a few senators with safe seats in radical states can get away with this (Schumer, Feinstein, Kennedy)....on the other hand, a safe seat like Idaho can allow a Senator the opportunity to voice pro-gun stances without fear of punishment at the polls.........
 
Publicly attacking the ban is political suicide unless you are a House Rep Republican in a pro-gun congressional district with a safe seat.
Click to expand...

Evidence? I can, off hand, think of plenty of members of Congress who lost their seats by voting FOR the ban, but against?

The nature of the problem, as I see it, is similar to a number of issues: You can't just say you're against gun control, and leave it at that. Because, yes, you will be attacked, and if you're not defending, you'll go down.

But the position CAN be defended, if you're willing to do the work. Because it's correct, and can be explained to people so that they'll understand.

The problem is, defending it is WORK. And most politicians don't want to do the work. So they take the lazy way out, and stick to issues where the public really doesn't have to be persuaded.
 
Let me clarify.


It is political suicide to publicly battle assualt weapon gun control prior to an election.



It is just too easy for the anti's and opportunistic Democrats and leftists to put out an ad or soundbyte of an incubant preaching for "WMD's on AMericas streets"....



Even getting on the record with a vote is not a big deal, it is all but forgotten.



Even Democrats feared the AWB like the plague this year. It is only the super-safe socialists like Feinswine and Schumer who are vocal. the others actually want to try and win their seat again.



As for pro gun incumbants...their stance holds well with gun owners obviously. Voting wouldn't hurt them if it was a pro-gun vote. THe only thing that can hurt them is a nasty ad by opponents right before an election that sways the moderates who are largely ignorant of gun politics and tend to have a negative bias.
 
This is the only issue that would make me change my vote from W to 3rd party.
This and his stance on the illegal immigration issue are the two issues I think he will have to face his strong supporters on.
 
Apache, are you honestly trying to use "Conspiracy Planet" as a legitimate source to bolster your argument? :scrutiny:



Something we all need to accept is that we're never going to have a staunch pro-gun president who will go on the offensive and fight this fight the way we do ... at least not until the media is no longer controlled by Democrats, "progressives" and other leftists.
 
The AWB will sunset. Even those pushing for the renewal know this. They're just trying to stir up as much trouble for Bush as they can.

After the election is over, there's reason to be concerned, and we need to keep the pressure on our representatives to make sure no gun control legislation gets to his desk.

Bush isn't anti-gun, but he's for what he considers to be reasonable restrictions on gun ownership. His definition of reasonable restrictions differs from mine considerably, so I don't want to see any gun control laws getting through congress.
 
Bush will sign anything that reaches his desk. He has no mandate and no backbone. He has no political capital he can use to veto laws without getting hurt in the polls. If he refuses to sign an AWB after he promised to sign it during his campaign, that will hurt his credibility. Plenty of Republicans who couldn't care less about the RKBA don't like liars. Not signing the AWB will hurt him in the polls.

Very few Republicans care enough about the RKBA to change their vote. Who would they vote for? They already recognize that they're voting for the lesser of two evils. They're not going to vote for Kerry, and most of them wrongly think that voting for a third party is useless.
 
Whatever you do, vote for Anyone But Bush. That'll ensure us that we'll get at least four years of John Kerry, some truly gnarsty supreme court appointees, etc.
Click to expand...

Can we stop with the Supreme Court arguments already? He'll be spineless here as he is with everything else and appoint to curry favor with "centrists" or the left, most likely. Just look

Because he said, knowing that it has all the likelihood of happening as of Hitler having to take ice skating lessons, said he'd sign something IF IT MADE IT TO HIS DESK. Sounds good to the folks who vote according to "safety" and sound bites.
Click to expand...

This AWB? Dead as a doornail. AWB 2 after re-election? That's another matter entirely.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

R
  • Locked
Bush keeps low profile on gun ban
Replies
4
Views
581
SodaPop
S
G
  • Locked
Gun bills may trigger split
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Michigander
M
J
  • Locked
Hastert, DeLay Disagree on Assault Weapons Vote
Replies
24
Views
803
geekWithA.45
G
H
  • Locked
LA Times: Gun Groups May Not Be Bush Campaign Weapon
Replies
23
Views
977
hillbilly
H
C
  • Locked
GOP Will Let Assault Weapon Ban Expire...(multiple threads)
2 3
Replies
54
Views
1K
LawDog
L
Back
Top