The Assault Weapons Ban May Be Bush's Undoing

TooGood Reports ^ | 13 November 2003 | Lee R Shelton IV

[lodwick]

Blam!

[Stop Legal Plunder]

You just gotta love these single-issue voters, eh?

Surely a conservative has to have some principles he won't compromise on? At least one? right?

[RedBloodedAmerican]

yes

[Shooter 2.5]

Yeah, that.

The next question which I don't need an answer to is, if so many people won's support Bush because he said something before the election, why should anyone believe they voted for him in the first place?

On of the tactics we should use is telling everyone we won't vote for him if he signs the Bill. If he still signs it, I'm not going to do anything that allows the dems back into office. A vote for a dem is to reaffirm their comittment to gun control.

I believe during the 2000 elections, if Bush would have said he was totally against sunsetting the law, he may not have been elected.

Our work now is to make sure it doesn't reach his desk.

[NittanyLion]

Great. A candidate could be pro-PLO, love Saddam, want welfare for all minorities, want psychotic, child-molesting convicted felons to be able to point a bazooka at their house, but if he is pro gun, GREAT!

Wrong analogy. I have little doubt that a candidate who favored all those things, and was Republican, would have your complete support. There is one group on this thread that evaluates principles, and there is your group that evaluates only party.

[Dan from Michigan]

Considering my state swings and races statewide come within 5500 votes at times, my vote and those I can influence surely is needed. As well as the rest of the gunowners in my state.

[NittanyLion]

Bush is as conservative a president as has ever been elected and it was by the slenderest of hairs.

Your claim is that Bush is as conservative a president as has ever been elected in US history?

[NittanyLion]

Surely a conservative has to have some principles he won't compromise on?

I suspect the person you're asking believes the only necessary principle is allegiance to party.

[Teacher317]

Aren't you the poster child for Teacher competency testing?

Aced the math SAT, 1480 SAT overall, top 25% on LSAT, and Indiana required testing for the license... but interesting that you go for the personal attack. It says much about the validity of your position.

Without political office and the leverage and empowerment it provides, all your vaunted principles are just farts in the wind.

Like the political leverage and empowerment the Founders had with the King? Yes, their principles, espousing a devotion to basic God-given human rights, were mere farts in the wind as well, weren't they? Boy, political parties are SO important to achieveing those ends, aren't they? Yep, there's some good historical analysis! /s>

[MindBender26]

Actualy, no.

I don't advocate party. I do realize however that a bunch of one-issue spoiled children think they and their issue is so important, in fact the only important issue in Amercia, that they are willing to help elect a liberal if they don't get their way on one small segment of their overall issue.

Then they could lose all gun rights.... and cry that it was Republican's fault!

[MindBender26]

Encourage, of course, I heartly agree.

Stay home on election day? I'm not so narrow that I think my issue is the only one that matters, so it's ok to elect a Dem if I don't get my way.

PS: Suggest earlier posting on "Dean Reality" Dean is simply stalking hore for Hillary.

[Badray]

"The next question which I don't need an answer to is, if so many people won's support Bush because he said something before the election, why should anyone believe they voted for him in the first place?"

You can sit and whistle that tune in the dark all you want, but you and "W" will do it at his peril. Gun rights and gun owners made the difference in that election and any honest observer will admit it. I was happy to help your beloved NRA at two rallies in Pittsburgh.

Now if we can only get the NRA to honestly rate the congress critters, people might actually be able to vote for true pro gun candidates.

[Badray]

Are you related to Neville Chamberlin?

Is there anything that you stand for?

Is there anything that you won't compromise?

We survived clinton. We can survive any of these democrat dwarves.

What we can't survive is our 'friends' stabbing us in the back and we shouldn't tolerate any anti gun or anti freedom vote. We should rain holy hell down on them anytime that they step in that direction and fire them when the don't learn their lesson. That's the only way to stay free. They are concerned only about their jobs and that's why they pander WITH YOUR MONEY. They all need to be reminded that we the people are still in charge (even though we haven't acted that way).

[Paul C. Jesup]

We survived clinton. We can survive any of these democrat dwarves.

This country didn't survive the Clintons. The Clintons are like a lethal poison, it is just taking longer than we thought for this country to feel the full effects and damage from their poison, but this country is dying.

[SauronOfMordor]

Cannons were not made by the local blacksmith. What an absurd statement. Cannons were made by foundaries for governmental entities including militias. They were very costly and poorly made ones blew and killed their crews more than the enemy.

For large artillery pieces, that may be true. However, it is documented that private individuals had and used smaller cannons. For example:

The American Kennel Club recognized the Chesapeake Bay retriever as an individual retriever breed in 1878. But its history is older and deeply enmeshed with that of the Bay region during the 19th century. James Michener's Chesapeake describes a period when there were so many migratory birds surrounding the Bay that they were often shot using small cannon mounted on boats; literally scores would fall from the sky at a time. Hunters required dogs that would first retrieve the wounded and then return to for the dead. The Chesapeake Bay retriever unerringly recalled where each bird fell and usually retrieved them all efficiently.

[Consort]

Nothing in that post makes any sense and attacking me won't get you anywhere. If we have serious problems that need to be addressed, you haven't showed me anything that indicates that you know how to solve them. You're just ranting but rapidly approaching whining.

[Badray]

"This country didn't survive the Clintons. The Clintons are like a lethal poison, it is just taking longer than we thought for this country to feel the full effects and damage from their poison, but this country is dying."

We didn't survive? Are we still not here? This should be in breaking news.

Yes, we took some nasty hits. Yes, it was damaging. Yes, it was embarassing. But we are still here.

However, if we keep drifting to the left, we won't be for long. And if we accept from a Republican Congress and a Republican President that which we would get from a Democrat controlled Congress and White House, where else will the dems go, but further to the left? And if we reward a Republican president with reelection after he signs a ban on guns, why would we expect the GOP to ever care about our issue again or take us seriously?

[Badray]

Try buying a clue and hiring a tutor to help with your reading and comprehension.

[Paul C. Jesup]

Some types of poisons take time to kill someone, it's effects can last a long time as it slowly strips the life away from it's victim, sometime it can take years but it does eventually kill the victim.

The Clintons are like those types of poisons.

[Badray]

Indeed, they are poison. But as the saying goes, What doesn't kill us, makes us stronger.

We are not dead and where there is life there is hope, but not if we continue to surrender our rights so willingly and that is precisely what we will be doing if GWB signs the AWB and we reelect him.