Remember all those people who said Bush didn't really support the AWB?

Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Lone_Gunman

Member
Joined
Dec 24, 2002
Messages
8,054
Location
United Socialist States of Obama
When the Republicans were trying to get us to all vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004, they all said Bush didnt really support the AWB, he just was saying he did, so that moderates and soccer-mom types would vote for him. They said he was just a good politician, and this was just a tactic to get elected. They said this was a stance he was forced to take publicly, but he didnt really mean it.

Now some of these same people are very, very scared that the Democrats have taken over the House, and will shortly propose a new AWB. The frothing at the mouth about a soon-to-be passed AWB has already begun. But I am confused why these people are nervous. If they know Bush is really against the AWB, then he will just veto it, right?

So, my question to those people is, were you being dishonest back then, or are you being dishonest now?
 
Very clever. I give you points for that. But come on, people can change their minds without being dishonest. Hypocritical maybe, but not necessarily dishonest.

I maintain that Bush doesn't support the AWB, and never really has. I think he doesn't consider it very important one way or the other.

He said he would sign it if a Republican congress sent it to him. I expect he'll be inclined to veto it if a Democratic congress sends it to him. This is just politics and has nothing to do with his personal opinions.

I am a little concerned that he may make a deal to sign it in exchange for something he does consider important though.
 
Nobody said he wouldn't sign it, they said that he didn't want to sign it, and would try to prevent it from coming to his desk. No one ever accused the president of being a strong principled conservative. He would rather avoid fights.
You got what you wanted out of the election. I hope and pray that it works like you hoped, but I'm not holding my breath.
 
So, my question to those people is, were you being dishonest back then, or are you being dishonest now?
Click to expand...
He would have signed it back then, the backroom talk was "make sure that damn thing doesn't make it to my desk" but he would have signed it.

He'll sign a mild new AWB because the Dems will hang some carrot out giving him something he wants.

He'll veto a new AWB thats too tough (for example no grandfathering or one thats more restrictive than the '94 ban).



I will be the first to predict widespread violence if any new AWB passes.
 
Nobody said he wouldn't sign it, they said that he didn't want to sign it
Click to expand...

No, thats not right. Lets try not to revise history here. Many many people said emphatically he would NOT sign it, that he was just playing politics. If you don't believe me, search a little and I bet you can find threads here with those comments.
 
Many many people said emphatically he would NOT sign it,
Click to expand...
No, most of us in this forum said he didn't want to sign it but we needed to lean on our congresscritters and senatemonsters to make damn sure it didn't pass because he WOULD sign it.

There were some who speculated that he'd veto it at the 11th hour and those people were generally laughed at.
 
Now some of these same people are very, very scared that the Democrats have taken over the House, and will shortly propose a new AWB. The frothing at the mouth about a soon-to-be passed AWB has already begun. But I am confused why these people are nervous. If they know Bush is really against the AWB, then he will just veto it, right?
Click to expand...

I'm not at all worried about Bush. I'm worried that an unpopular Republican sits in the Oval Office right now. In two years, the Dems are pretty much going to have a shoe-in for the Presidency, and most likely they will run from the far left- and have a president who will rubberstamp every form of gun control that comes across his desk.

Do you think that Democrats learned their lesson from 2004 that guns are an issue that will burn them? If you belive that, then you are giving them a lot more credit that they deserve. I have a feeling that now they will be out for blood of the serfs that removed them from power a dozen years ago.
 
Lone Gunman said:
No, thats not right. Lets try not to revise history here.
Click to expand...

THR has a search function and a healthy archive. Why don't you provide some evidence of what you are talking about?

I would agree with Zundfolge that the primary point made at the time was that Bush said he would sign a renewal knowing full well a renewal would never make it to his desk - which is pretty much what happened.

I'll also point out that when the Dems offered him the chance to have both a plain AWB renewal and the lawsuit protection act in 2004, he sent a letter asking for just the lawsuit protection act. So I think it is clear, he does not want to sign an AWB.

As far as will he sign an AWB, well he is already on record as saying he would and he hasn't vetoed a single piece of legislation in six years. What do you think the prospects are?
 
Lone Gunman, I retract the "nobody said", since you are probably right in that a few people may have said that. But, if a few did, it was a very few.
 
I am a little concerned that he may make a deal to sign it in exchange for something he does consider important though.
Click to expand...

Yeah, something REALLY important, like a bill that allows silent prayer in schools on alternate Tuesday mornings before class, or maybe a Ten Commandments sculpture in the US Virgin Islands with Federal tax dollars.

One thing we can do here: make sure the Republicans understand that they can't win with only the religion vote.

And Lone Gunman, were you advocating voting for Al Gore or John Kerry instead at the time?

When someone's between a rock and a hard place, and makes the best choice he can, ridiculing him for his choice later is unsporting, at best.

Time will tell whether your advocating "voting the bums out" this time around will make things better or worse. I wouldn't get too cocky.
 
I think anything can happen at this point. You see, of the Democrats that have done alot of the winning, many have said they are pro-gun. Granted, we don't really know what that means. But although I was one of many who thought the Republicans needed to be taught a lesson, when I looked at the stage at the Democratic lovefest, and saw Ratface Schumer, Feinstein, Pelosi, and all the others, it made me wonder if we aren't looking at the beginning of the end for easy ability to own guns.

While the Democrats should know by now, that people were alot more mad at the Republicans for corruption, spending, immorality in their personal lives, and border security issues while we fight a meaningless war in Iraq, they will probably only get the last point. They will not interpret correctly what their win really means.

They won't understand that we don't want higher (or for that matter lower) taxes, but more efficient use of the taxes. They also won't understand that they won because Republicans got mad. They will pursue a liberal agenda. And if there is a "tragic example of gun violence" they will attack us.

The question is do the junior House members vote with the NRA Democrats and the Repblicans, or do they vote the way their leadership wants?

Things are interesting. By the way, violence will only ensue in the event that the Democrats enpower the BATFE, FBI, and Homeland Security to begin rounding up folks who openly disobey the gun laws.

If the Democrats allow a grandfathering, and shops don't sell, but the ATF stays away, the issue will either fade into the mist, or like last time, there will be a sea change like before, and the Republicans will throw the law out. If however the Dems get bold, it will touch off alot of nastiness.

The thing I'm looking at is the fact that Schumer, Feinstein, etc. don't live in Georgia, or Kentucky or Montana, or Alaska. And ultimately hate, and have nothing but disrespect for the people of the "flyover" states. They don't understand how dangerous attacking Americans could be. If they attack Americans in the name of protecting Americans, I fear that Zundfolge will be all to correct.
 
If it gives him the funding to continue his nation-building program in Iraq and his push for the North American Free Trade Zone, Bush will sign away every one of the Bill of Rights.... :banghead:

The GOP has two years to get back to its conservative base, or the party will shrivel up and die just shortly before the rest of this nation... :(
 
The GOP has two years to get back to its conservative base, or the party will shrivel up and die just shortly before the rest of this nation...
Click to expand...

The GOP deserves everything it gets in the next 2yrs. Way to go blowing your wad, and "political capital" (now thats forever a dead phrase) all on Iraq. With no REAL conservative domestic agandas to to keep voters happy and shield them from the mess in Iraq, the GOP looked empty, pointless, and one-dimensional (ie only Iraq)

The conservative base is too small. The GOP is now just a domestic moderate party with neocons running around.

Anybody who thinks this election was a slam against conservatives....is smoking pot. Conservatives existed back in the 1990's.....when Bush took office they have never been found since....
 
Seriously, some of you guys are wound a little too tight. You need to relax. The Democrats haven't even taken over yet. Just relax and pay attention to what is going on. There is way too much time left to be making these doom and gloom predictions. Take a day off and go shooting. Whatever you do, quit crying the sky is falling on the Internet.
 
Bush is going to have to throw us under the bus in order to serve bigger constituencies. The luxury he had with the initial AWB ban is gone. Now he has to give something to get something.

And that means that when the bill comes Bush will have to claculate what he would gain from vetoing AWB II vs. getting something else. Feeling comfy yet?
 
We can worry all we want about IF he is going to sign an AWB that *MIGHT* come up, but I betcha if either Al Gore or John Kerry would have been president, we would have seen an AWB a LOT sooner then the one that *MIGHT* be coming. And I betcha it would have been a LOT worse then the one that *MIGHT* be coming. So, how about instead of criticizing what we have, and what *MIGHT* happen, we look at the important part and think "Hey, it definitely could have been worse."
 
"When someone's between a rock and a hard place, and makes the best choice he can, ridiculing him for his choice later is unsporting, at best."

I wasn't surprised by the ridicule. Were you?

John
 
AWB

It's not the thought of a new "Assault Weapons" ban that concerns me so much as what will be determined to fit into that category. A 6-shot revolver, maybe? Any autopistol with a capacity of greater than 6 or 7 rounds? Any long gun with a rifled bore and a capacity of greater than 3 rounds? Shotgun?

Once they have a clear path to ban and criminalize a propagandized group of firearms based on an imaginary level of danger, practically any firearm can be added to the list at whim. Last time, it was 10 rounds. Anybody takin' bets that, to our enemies, 10 rounds is far more than we "need" unless we have permission from the state and, of course...a license?
 
What's the big deal? We were repeatedly told that the Democrats remembered 1994, and that they were staying away from gun control It wasn't an issue, so this shouldn't be an issue?

That is, of course, unless the people who said gun control was off the table were being dishonest (to use the terminology of the original post).
 
"The question is do the junior House members vote with the NRA Democrats and the Repblicans, or do they vote the way their leadership wants?"

They will vote exactly the way their overseer, Nancy Pelosi orders them to vote. She has already doled out millions of $$$ to help the "moderate" Democrats to be elected. She'll make very, very sure they understand just how the real-politik stick floats in D.C. If they do not kiss her rear end whenever she bends over and points in a rearward direction, they will have ZERO power as congresscritters, and they will receive ZERO $$$$ from her when they come up for reelection in two years.

Same with Harry Reid as head Senate dude.

It has been the many, many years goal of the Marxist Socialist inspired Democrats to eventually ban firearms ownership from the worker peasants. Many of the RINO Republicans agree completley. "The unwashed worker peasants should NEVER be allowed to challenge their betters, should they?"

As for Bush the Younger, he has no more regard for the Second Amendment than did his dear daddy, Bush the Elder. He'll sign any anti-Second Amendment bill the Democrats send him.

Then, when Hillary Clinton is elected President and Her Royal Majesty and takes office in Jan., 2009, she will appoint ALL federal judges who are Anti-guns owned by the worker peasants, and that will include several retiring, extremely liberal U.S. Supreme Court Justices.

FWIW.

L.W.
 
What's the big deal? We were repeatedly told that the Democrats remembered 1994, and that they were staying away from gun control It wasn't an issue, so this shouldn't be an issue?

That is, of course, unless the people who said gun control was off the table were being dishonest (to use the terminology of the original post).
Click to expand...

Zzzz-zzz-zz-z-i-ii-iii-iiii-nnnn-nnn-nn-n-g-gg-ggg-gggg !!!!!!

Excellent retort !

That put a smile on my face the rest of the afternoon.
 
When the Republicans were trying to get us to all vote for Bush in 2000 and 2004, they all said Bush didnt really support the AWB, he just was saying he did, so that moderates and soccer-mom types would vote for him.
Click to expand...

And your point is...what?

John Kerry or Al Gore would have been better?

We were SO convincing that we kept Harry Browne (0.36% vote) and Michael Badnarik (O.34% vote) out of office?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

A
  • Locked
AWB: no difference between Bush and Kerry?
2
Replies
27
Views
1K
Moparmike
M
G
  • Locked
The AWB and the legacy of GWB
Replies
8
Views
682
hoji
H
G
  • Locked
What about the Dean supporters and RKBA?
Replies
3
Views
327
7.62FullMetalJacket
7
C
  • Locked
Alert-AWB info from MMM website
Replies
3
Views
499
Little Loudmouth
L
B
  • Locked
MMM Strategy for AWB Renewal
Replies
21
Views
1K
Justin
Justin
Back
Top