UPSET GUN OWNERS SET TO DUMP BUSH

Worldnetdaily ^ | April 17, 2003 | By Jon Dougherty

[Uncle Bill]

This tells you why this article is BS:

passed during the Clinton administration
38 posted on 04/17/2003 2:12 AM PDT by The Wizard

---

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban
"On September 13th 1994, HR4296, the so-called Assault Weapon's Ban, was signed into law. ...'the federal assault weapons ban, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994.' [1] It is also known as " The 1994 Public Safety and recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" (though it has little or nothing to do with protecting any firearms use) or simply as "The Crime Bill". [2]
[1] "The Assault Weapons Ban," Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence, Aug. 2002
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunlaws/awb.asp

[2] 2 Adams, Les The Second Amendment Primer, Birmingham: Palladium Press, 1996: 142

[Dane]

Ok Bill who is your ideal candidate. Come on be honest. After you name him/her, then we can debate the real world political machinations of his/her chances.

Oh that's right you were asked that question on another thread and you refused to answer it. Looks like you would rather wallow in incessant malcontentism.

[Caipirabob]

This is NOT GOOD. It may sound like a petty issue to some folks but many people hold this as almost a sacred right. For a Republic President to engage in support of any issue which would infringe upon the RTBA is potentially disasterous. And yes, it doesn't matter a bit in 18 months what he did with this war, all he needs to do is ask his father.

[Uncle Bill]

"I George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States. And will to the best of my abilities, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

[The Coopster]

This is like the 15th thread on this same subject in the last two days. Keyword searches are our friends.....

[Dane]

This is NOT GOOD. It may sound like a petty issue to some folks but many people hold this as almost a sacred right. For a Republic President to engage in support of any issue which would infringe upon the RTBA is potentially disasterous. And yes, it doesn't matter a bit in 18 months what he did with this war, all he needs to do is ask his father

Yep it is not good that those who vote on pure emotion, do not learn from history, the eight years of Clinton.

[Uncle Bill]

"all he needs to do is ask his father"

Not only that, His approval rating is about 20 points below where his father was after the war. I think W. is about 71%. Poppa about 91%. Something like that.

[Dane]

This is like the 15th thread on this same subject in the last two days. Keyword searches are our friends....

Oh come on Coopster, there is an incessant malcontnet rant to be had, also Uncle Bill get's to show off all his pretty html.

[paulklenk]

Maybe Bush is just doing what he thinks is right, and he disagrees with you.

[Caipirabob]

The real issue that comes into play is the borderline voters. Some Dems and Moderates are gun owners, too. Many of them have swayed conservative since 2000, but this might be enough of an issue for them to not vote for Bush. Remember, even Al Gore conceeded that the NRA and Guns owners played a major role in his defeat, overcoming all of the voter fraud the Dems had worked so carefully to orchestrate.

I am fearful simply because rats are rats and they'll do it again.

As a resident of Palm Beach County, I look back on how narrow a margin it was that defeated all of the rat voter fraud to get GW into the White House. It's not large enough to play around with high profile issues, and this is definately a high profile issue for many undecided voters. These are the people who really don't care about anything other than one or two issues. We'd like to think that 9/11 and the Iraq War would make a difference, but then again, similar things didn't help Gw's father.

This ain't good.

[Dane]

Not only that, His approval rating is about 20 points below where his father was after the war. I think W. is about 71%. Poppa about 91%. Something like that.

Actually to put everything in perspective, before Gulf War I, less than 50% wanted to liberate Kuwait. Before the Iraq incursion, W's rating held steady at 60%. Also Bush 41 didn't have to deal with the massive leftist push against the war as W. did.

All in all, W. has done well, but that doesn't matter to you. You never consider the history and machinations of the situations. You have an incessant rant to go on to help Hillary and the dems.

[The Coopster]

Not only that, he posted an identical thread with a different title, not 30 minutes later (it's over to the right.)

Look, Uncle Bill, I feel your pain. But did you ever stop to think that maybe the media is trying to divide and conquer again? Hint: they do it all the time, and every time a single-issue voter gets fired up and shouts "traitorous Bush!", they win.

[tm22721]

If you don't vote for Bush, you are in effect voting for the Democratic candidate.

Do these people want to be held responsible for voting a Clinton back into oriffice ?

BUMP

[Dane]

As a resident of Palm Beach County, I look back on how narrow a margin it was that defeated all of the rat voter fraud to get GW into the White House. It's not large enough to play around with high profile issues, and this is definately a high profile issue for many undecided voters. These are the people who really don't care about anything other than one or two issues. We'd like to think that 9/11 and the Iraq War would make a difference, but then again, similar things didn't help Gw's father.

Actually Gore should have won by a landslide. It should have never been that close for Gore.

Alos this is a high profile issue for a one issue crowd. Bush's position with the aw ban has been known since 2000 campaign, this is no surprise. But what the hey if you and others want to toss out the lessons of history(the Clinton years), then so be it.

Also people are freaking out about something that hasn't happened yet. It is my contention that this will never pass the house, with many rural demo's breaking away from Pelosi.

Republicans in the House can say they are not lock step with Bush and Bush can say he is not lock step with a one issue interest group. A win-win situation for both parties.

[dinodino]

I take offense to your "one or two issues" comment. The reason gun activists often rank 2A as top priority is that it is the foundation, the teeth if you will, of the Constitution. Without the Second Amendment, the People can't enforce any of the rest of it. The whole thing hinges on the Second Amendment.

We're not talking about something petty (but galling, admittedly) like Social Security--we're talking about freedom.

[The Coopster]

It's ok to make it a top priority. But it is foolish to say things like "I don't care whether a Dem wins, at least I know where they stand." (Actual quote from one of the dozen or so threads over the last few days on this same topic).

As backhoe said earlier - It's more productive to get on the phone/fax/email/whatever and let those in power know how you feel about it than it is to sit around here and make black helicopter statements. No matter what the job, it's better to keep the experienced guy in place, provided he can do the job.

[lavaroise]

Yep, that's the bottom line. With Bush we have the hope of him repenting for his mistakes and changing things for the better, with others, the mistakes are not mistakes. It still puts us in a strange position as to how to convey to Bush that this is a mistake, yet allow him to keep in power nontheless. One thing possible is vote into congress right wingers that have not his support but our support, while keeping him in power. I think this should be the strategy instead of the shrieks that play in liberal's hands. After all this whole issue was brought up by the Washington Post in the first place... now why would that be..

People should focus on procedure over results.

[Dane]

As backhoe said earlier - It's more productive to get on the phone/fax/email/whatever and let those in power know how you feel about it than it is to sit around here and make black helicopter statements. No matter what the job, it's better to keep the experienced guy in place, provided he can do the job

Also the 2nd amendment is a very local issue. A person's stance on firearms can determine local congressional races. That is why it is my contnention that this will never make it in the house.

Bush has a position that cannot be attacked from the dems and the leftist press, while the issue is fought out in the forum where it matters most, local congressional races.

A similar situation happened in 99 after Columbine, when the Senate passed a Schumer/Feinstein guncontrol bill and it died in the House with the help of 45 rural democrats.

[RandallFlagg]

Here's what President Bush should do:
First, eliminate all firearms restrictions and re-instate the second amendment. Second, Issue the word nationwide that a felon is a felon and as such, felons aren't allowed certain rights to begin with -such as the right to keep and bear arms. Third, call for the national promotion for firearms safety courses in all schools. Perhaps even shooting clubs for afterschool.

If this gets done (don't worry, I'm not holding my breath) his vote situation will be:
Voters that agree with his policies will be encouraged to re-elect him in '04. Pro-gun voters who were nervous about his stance on firearms will give him their votes. And, voters who are anti-gun -and are usually anti-Bush- won't change their minds one bit.

So, Bush gains millions in votes,
and loses none.

[dinodino]

I agree with your comment regarding sending your comments. To that end, I've just renewed my NRA membership, and the gentleman on the phone told me that there was going to be an NRA grassroots campaign on this ban later this year.