The AWB and the legacy of GWB

[GEM]

This is a bit of a rant from past arguments.

I've always said that GWB's statement that he would sign the AWB renewal if it got to his desk, reiterated by Gonzales, was disasterous. Apologists for him said it was brillant strategy. I viewed it as venial pandering to soccer moms for his own self-interest. If one doesn't support a basic human right for self-interest, you stink. However, those who mindlessly supported the leader as they liked the rest of his social agenda, sucked it up. Remember GWB having a hysterical fit and trip to sign the Terry Schiavo legislation. Ever see him get so riled for the RKBA? Ha!

In any case, IMHO - GWB set the tone for the current major GOP candidates. It is now mantra of them to be for gun rights (hunting, O/U shotguns) but for the AWB. It is part and parcel of the official GOP presidential playbook.

They have bought into the Zumbo line big time. That's because the leadership really doesn't care - they really are in favor of the state having a monoply of power. They are statists with a concern for state power to enhance the position of their perceived social class. Thus, the true reason for the 2nd is not their concern.

They have found that they can rile up the social conservative base with rantings about gay marriage, flag burning, abortion and the like. The social conservative sheeple fall in line with that message.

Bush could have set the tone by strongly coming out for the major premises of the 2nd - protection against tyranny and protection of self - but he never did. He could have set that tone by making it a mantra of the GOP to oppose any AWB renewal or modification as it was against a basic human right. But he never did - he went along with it (a brillant political strategy of the hypocrite or a word that rhymes with Zumbo).

Now the major candidates of the GOP can happily follow the Bush line - O/U for you but AK go away.

They keep the soccer moms, the Zumbo-ites and minimize the harm from the Dems branding them as gun nuts. Sure, pretty boys like Mitt will pontificate about the sanctity of human life and marriage so that the social conservatives will be happy, hunting and sport. RKBA folks will have to vote for the GOP as it is better than none or Hillary/Obama or vote for a third party in protest.

So thanks, GWB for your brillant political strategy. You had a chance to make a strong statement but as most things you touched, you failed us.

Rant over.

 

[antsi]

I don't think GWB is the villian of the AWB story. He's certainly not the hero, but if anything he is more of a lame-o bystander to the evil than an active perpetrator.

The real problem we are having with the AWB is that it was a stroke of pure propaganda genius. Most people have no idea what an "assault weapon" is or what exactly is being "banned," but nonetheless, they support it.

Even though the thing sunsetted, the Bradyites scored a major coup by getting the idea of "assault weapons" burned into the national consciousness. Most of the gun owners I run in to don't know what the law actually did, and many think the law is still in effect. You still see people at gun shows charging premium prices for "pre ban" merchandise that can be bought brand new post sunset for less. I was with a group of hunters lamenting the Hmoung guy's murder rampage in WI, and they all wanted to blame it on the fact that his rifle was an SKS "assault rifle." "Those things are illegal: how did he get one in the first place? What was he doing hunting with a machine gun?"

The situation we face is that the majority of the population, including a majority of gun owners, has no idea what "assault weapon" means, but nevertheless supports a ban on them.

In this climate, no presidential candidate with any shot at winning is to take a stand totally repudiating a AWB renewal.

Long term, the only way out of this hole is to educate and change public opinion.

As long as a majority of the population favors this law, there will be a danger of it getting passed. Relying on some kind of Don Quixote "principles over electoral success" candidate to veto a popularly supported law is a losing strategy. By definition, any candidate who values principles over electoral success is going to be defeated by some other guy who puts electoral success first.

Bottom line: your pie-in-the-sky idealist is not going to get elected, so we can't rely on his veto power to protect us from a new AWB.

George Bush did not create these political realities. He merely reflects them. Focusing on Bush as your locus of evil on this issue is misguided and counterproductive.

The real locus of evil here is twofold:
1) malignant evil: the Bradyites for concoting such a brilliant anti-gun propaganda ploy
2) ignorant evil: all the people, especially gun owners, who support it because they don't know what it's about

 

[GEM]

Focusing on Bush - my purpose was to let off steam and also use his behavior as an object lesson about the risks of folks like him. I won't repeat my arguments but the acceptance and excuses for his weakness and waffling led to the current situation with GOP candidates.

If we don't learn from history, we repeat it. That was my point and purpose.

I don't think I'm a pie in the sky idealist. I think the general public can be swayed by logical and coherent arguments. I have yet Bush make one.

 

[redneckrepairs]

Thats brilliant , not only is it W's fault if the libs pass awb legeslation , but the quality of republican canadates is too . Why didint i think of blameing him for all the wrongs in my life before this .

 

[antsi]

------quote-------
I think the general public can be swayed by logical and coherent arguments. I have yet Bush make one.
------------------

I do think the public can be swayed. Logic and coherence may play some role; appeals to emotion and values will also play a role. Like I said, I think this is our only real long-term hope.

I do not expect Bush or any other politican to go out working to change public opinion in our favor.

Politicians assess public opinion, and then try to come up with a strategy to satisfy it. They don't create public opinion, they exploit it.

If 90% of the public started worshipping bananas, then we would get an invocation of the Great Banana Diety before every session of Congress and the President would sign off every speech by saing, "May you all be blessed with Bananas."

If we can change public opinion to our side, polticians and parties will gladly step up and support whatver people are clamoring for.They will not do the actual work of changing public opinion for us, though: it's not in their job description.

Re; repeating history:
If we could get another eight years of government paying superficial lip service to the antis, while doing absolutely nothing to actually pass any anti gun legislation, I think we would be in a lot better shape than we're going to be in. If I had a chance to repeat the last eight years from a gun legislation standpoint, I'd do it. Just wait: 8 years of Hilary or Obama, with Feinstein, Schumer, and Kennedy setting the Congressional agenda, and you might be wishing for 8 more years of Bush-like gun law bystanderism.

 

[DirtyBrad]

I think the general public can be swayed by logical and coherent arguments.

Did someone say pie in the sky idealist? This is the same general public that voted for Bush a second time, is fine banning assault weapons without even a vague ability to define them, and who, every single day, simply cannot pull all the way into the left turn lane on my way home.

I thank God every day that I don't want children. I can't imagine what the world is going to be like for them.

 

[antsi]

Dirty Brad,

Re-read carefully.

I never said that public opinion can be swayed by logical and coherent arguments.

I said that logic and coherence "may play some role." Similarly, the phases of the moon and the alignment of the planets "may play some role."

I certainly agree that cleverly packaging your message, appealing to emotion, and appealing to tradition/values are more likely to influence public opinion than logic alone, and my previous statements are consistent with that.

 

[Robert Hairless]

GEM, I wish life were so simple. It would be nice if George W. Bush could be responsible for any part of the so-called "assault weapons" ban or for politicians' attitudes towards it and gun control in general.

But Bush didn't invent the ban and Bush didn't urge its extension. Bush did say that he would sign an extension if the Congress voted for one. It's tempting to blame Bush for not standing forthright and delivering a lovely oration on the Second Amendment as we understand it. It's also tempting to blame Bush for standing forthrightly and delivering one speech after another explaining that if we don't fight terrorism in Afghanistan and Iraq we will fight it here. We, being absolutely irrational human beings, driven by emotion disguised as logic, do both. So Bush is criticized for not making one stand and criticized for making another. It's a version of "Damned if you do, damned if you don't."

I don't feel comfortable defending George W. Bush about anything at all because I really don't like him. I do respect him for standing upon his principles. I can't fault him for not standing upon mine. If you rethink your criticism of him perhaps you'll see that it's what you are doing: criticizing him for not standing up for your beliefs. I don't blame him for saying, in effect, "I will not impose my own view of this matter on the Congress or the people of the United States." Fair enough.

The blame for the so-called "assault weapons ban" and for all other gun control measures falls squarely on the American people and--most especially--on gun owners. We are our own worst enemy. We alienate voters, politicians, and legislators and we're darned proud of it too. After all, we declare, the Second Amendment protects us even when we behave outrageously or threateningly or stupidly. We refuse to acknowledge the fears and feelings of other people, and we try to ride roughshod over them. When politicians work in our behalf we insult those "congresscritters" and demand "all or nothing," and demand that they ignore their other constituents. And when they won't or can't give each and every one of us all of what we want, we "send them a message" and vote for candidates who can't win or do anything for us.

And we threaten everyone we can. Many gun owners even threaten armed rebellion against the government and threaten to murder law enforcement officers who try to take their guns. They do it implicitly ("Molon Labe" anyone?) or explicitly ("Blue helmets make good targets!") and they wonder why lots of people want them disarmed. Why, after all, would anyone object to a lunatic threatening to shoot people who hold different views?

It's not the fault of George W. Bush that gun owners don't know how to behave in public or towards other people. Advise prudence and wisdom and the response is "You're pandering to Nancy Pelosi!" or "I don't have to be nice: I have the Second Amendment."

We deserve full credit for the consequences of our behavior. We got us the so-called "assault weapons" ban in 1994 and, thanks to our unflagging efforts to piss off everyone who might do us any good at all and every voter we can alienate, we will get us increasingly harsh gun control laws until there are no legal firearms owned by individuals in this country.

It's impossible for legislators and politicians to please the gun owners of America, and it's hard for anyone to be civil to them.

We--the gun owners of America--are remarkably effective, much more so than we realize. But not with the results we say we want. George W. Bush did not do anything bad to us. We did it and we continue to do it, and we need to get the credit we deserve.

Now, everybody, flame away and beat me up and pound on me until I appreciate how wrong I am. In other words, behave like gun owners on their best behavior.

 

[hoji]

Thats brilliant , not only is it W's fault if the libs pass awb legeslation , but the quality of republican canadates is too . Why didint i think of blameing him for all the wrongs in my life before this .

1: That's
2:legislation
3:didn't
4:I
5: blaming


Spell check anyone?