The Assault Weapons Ban May Be Bush's Undoing

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

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since "conservative" is relative to the time one lives in, Yes Bush is as conservative as any president we have ever elected. Reagan certainly compromised as much as he and as governor was no more conservative than Bush.

There are some which were as conservative: Taft, Grant, Cleveland, McKinley, Washington, etc. but none more.

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote: I have supported NO gun control laws EVER. Why don't you go back through all the posts I have made here over the years and show me ONE where I support gun-grabbing or gun control laws.

Here you are, on this very thread boldly supporting the gun grabbing AW law:

True conservatives understand there is no chance of electing a more conservative president than Bush and they understand that the AW ban is essentially irrelevent to anything.
Our nation and its liberties existed for almost 150 yrs before "Assault" weapons were even invented. Such things were never even imagined by our founders.
I am an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man doing his best to preserve our nation in its deadly fight against an enemy as evil as it has ever faced. Those who turn away from him are neither conservatives nor patriots rather they are such as one would not want as an ally because they will cut and run at the least excuse. You are either with the President or doing the work of the RATmedia. The choice is yours.
93 posted on 11/13/2003 2:24 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit

Proof positive, from your own lying lips.
Case closed.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I was speaking of the era of the Founders before there was significant casting technology available within this nation.
The era you reference had advanced, high-quality founderies available in the North and you are not referring to military pieces either.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The NRA was formed so that the Army had more well trained marksmen; its founders had noted the poor quality of US Army recruits during the Civil War. Prior to that the members of militias retained their proficiency with rifles through hunting primarily.

None of that is relevent to anything under discussion at any rate.

[justshutupandtakeit]

He would be dead before getting within blunderbuss range.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Gee, I am sooo upset. Arguing with Fools can make one arrogant even if not already such.

[justshutupandtakeit]

False, my entire argument has been about the idiocy of turning on Bush SHOULD he sign AW ban extension. THAT is ALL I have been attempting to say. But the reading-impaired can't be expected to actually understand the words before their faces since their ideological blinders get in the way.

You even post my words then ignore what they say. What an moron. Can't you do better than THAT?

I am ready for your apology for lying about what I have said.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Using invalid analogies can make any argument seem reasonable. Yours is totally invalid.

[Lazamataz]

Here you are, on this very thread boldly supporting the gun grabbing AW law:

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between. justshutupandtakeit is not supporting the AW ban; he is minimizing it's relevance. You're wrong, tpaine, and you are extending what his statements are to encompass a viewpoint that he probably does not hold.

Of course, j.s.u.a.t.i. and I disgree on the point of the relevance of the AW ban, quite strongly. I vehemently appose the continuation of the AW ban, and the significance of it is marginal at the moment -- because it deals mostly in cosmetics (except the 10-rd mag cap) -- but, if reapproved, expect all sorts of new restrictions that are NOT cosmetic.

[Lazamataz]

I am an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man doing his best to preserve our nation in its deadly fight against an enemy as evil as it has ever faced. Those who turn away from him are neither conservatives nor patriots rather they are such as one would not want as an ally because they will cut and run at the least excuse.

Some people are single-issue voters. Their opinion is no less valid, no less patriotic, no less stalwart and solid as yours, who has a blended opinion based on many issues. They are solid allies when considering that position, and you make a mistake to denigreate them.

I personally am a two-issue voter: Jobs and guns. GW Bush is getting much closer to earning my vote, but if he actively pushes for an AW ban, he may lose it. I don't suspect he will be pushing for it too hard.

You are either with the President or doing the work of the RATmedia. The choice is yours.

I have never taken to this sort of absolutist 'ultimatum'-like statement. One can be with the President in some areas and not others. One can also be ambivilent about a given facet of his performance. On the whole, one must decide the issues that concern them and make a decision to support, oppose, or become apathetic towards a President, based on the internal weight you place on those issues.

[Lazamataz]

Using invalid analogies can make any argument seem reasonable. Yours is totally invalid.

Perhaps, but I have yet to be convinced of that. If we define the cliff as cutoff-point at which further gun-control measures are applied, and that the free-fall is increasingly prohibitive gun laws, and the splat at the end as a total ban on handguns, rifles or shotguns, I think the analogy holds up well. Democrats and Republicans both seem to be edging towards greater acceptance of gun controls, where Democrats are in a hurry and Republicans are a little more circumspect.

[Lazamataz]

denigreate

denigrate

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote:

I have supported NO gun control laws EVER. Why don't you go back through all the posts I have made here over the years and show me ONE where I support gun-grabbing or gun control laws.

---

You are "--- an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man ---"

Thus, you support a man who says he will sign a bill prohibiting such weapons. -- You support signing the bill..

Parse it as you like, but you are supporting gun prohibition.

[tpaine]

The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between. justshutupandtakeit is not supporting the AW ban;

He is supporting the man that is supporting the ban. That's the truth.

he is minimizing it's relevance. You're wrong, tpaine, and you are extending what his statements are to encompass a viewpoint that he probably does not hold.

Probably? He freely admits that he doesn't care if assault weapons are prohibited.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Shaaaaaaaaaadup.......

[xsrdx]

I vehemently appose the continuation of the AW ban, and the significance of it is marginal at the moment -- because it deals mostly in cosmetics

The AW ban is a stupid, misguided piece of legislation.

Those that claim it has no impact are generally folks that have little interest in that type of firearm - somewhat akin to the "Saturday Night Special" discussion - it doesn't affect MY gun, so what do I care?

Clearly, it's a problem on principle - slippery slope, camels nose, whatever - but ultimately, it's another class of firearm rendered "outlaw" based on emotional rhetoric.

Practically, though, it has other less obvious, but significant impacts - the 10rd mag limit is the most insidious.

Glock built the G17 to work with a two column, tapered magazine. In order to a. comply with the law and b. prevent simple alteration, Glock had to develop a less than ideal solution for their "civilian" market - the result is that for full size Glocks, 10rd magazines DO NOT function as well as the standard magazine.

Perhaps most insidious, very few people really know the law. Thus, the ban has the effect of creating criminals out of people doing their level best to be law abiding, simply by combining a pistol grip with a collapsible stock.

Finally, and dramatically, most manufacturers of first class gear are forced to build second rate junk in order to comply with the law.

Cosmetic, perhaps, but if given the choice, who with any sense would choose the HK SL8 over a semiauto G36.

Police departments virtually NEVER pick the post ban configuration for rifles, even when they choose semiautos, because post ban is SUBSTANDARD.

Combine that with the fact that "assault weapons" don't get used in crimes - and you have a poster child for horrendously bad gun legislation.

[Lazamataz]

You are "--- an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man ---"

Thus, you support a man who says he will sign a bill prohibiting such weapons. -- You support signing the bill..

You are committing a retroductive fallacy of soundness (somewhat taking the form of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy). To wit:

1. Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
2. George W. Bush supports the AW ban.
3. Therefore, Jsuati supports the AW ban.

Allow me to demonstrate by example where this fails:

1. Roosters crow in the morning.
2. In the morning the sun comes up.
3. Therefore, roosters make the sun come up.

[Lazamataz]

He freely admits that he doesn't care if assault weapons are prohibited.

There is a difference between not caring about a topic and supporting a given position.

I don't care much one way or another about abortion, but if someone tells me I am a pro-choicer because of that, I will most certainly object.

[justshutupandtakeit]

What lame brain could believe that if you support a candidate that means you support ALL that he does?

That is a really stupid way to think. There has never been ONE candidate whose positions I were ALL of my liking. Has there been for you?

Still can't come up with anything to support the LIE that I support gun control laws? Can you?