Or wicked cool LE/Military ONLY version, prohibited by the AW ban even in semiauto:
This is what your gun shop is missing, thanks the AW ban.
Posted on 11/13/2003 12:45:22 PM PST by 45Auto
George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisers have decided that their best strategy for the 2004 campaign is to focus on the "doctrine of preemption." The obvious goal is to portray the president as a hero in the war on terror, conveying the notion that he is the one who is able to keep America safe. Unfortunately for Bush, his position on the assault weapons ban may cause his reelection plans to unravel.
Many conservatives currently feel comfortable backing Bush for a second term. For one thing, he cut taxes, and the economy is on the rebound. He has shown courage by taking on global terrorism. He appointed as Attorney General a man who believes that the Second Amendment supports an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Bush is every conservative's dream, right? Think again.
During his 2000 campaign, candidate Bush voiced his support of the assault weapons ban that was passed during the Clinton administration. The federal law is scheduled to expire on Sept. 13, 2004, and Bush, speaking as president, has already stated that he supports its reauthorization.
Some have tried to excuse the president's position by arguing that he is merely telling people what they want to hear, stating publicly that the ban is a good thing while remaining confident that renewal of the ban will never even make it through the House of Representatives. That may offer some comfort to disgruntled conservatives, but it is important to remember that 38 Republicans voted for the ban in 1994 and 42 voted against its repeal in 1996. That doesn't bode well for freedom-loving Americans.
Don't be surprised in the coming months to see the Bush administration pushing for a renewal of the assault weapons ban by promoting it as an effective tool in our fight against terrorism. After all, such a ban would make it easier for law enforcement officers to break up terrorist organizations here in the United States. In 1993, for example, a raid on a Muslim commune in central Colorado turned up bombs, automatic weapons, ammunition and plans for terrorist attacks.
On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft, testifying before Congress, revealed an al-Qaida training manual that had been discovered in Afghanistan. The manual, he claimed, told terrorists "how to use America's freedom as a weapon against us." The fear was that terrorists in the U.S. would exploit loopholes in our gun laws in an effort to arm themselves – and with radical groups like Muslims of America already purchasing guns, we can't be too careful.
Like most federal laws, the assault weapons ban was originally passed with the assumption that Americans are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety. This, of course, has been historically a safe assumption on the part of our elected officials in Washington. But Bush's position on the assault weapons ban may very well come back to haunt him when he seeks to reconnect with his conservative base in 2004.
The hypocrisy of the president has already been revealed. He spoke out in favor of the government's prerogative to trample on the Second Amendment – under the guise of "reasonable" gun legislation – at the same time he was sending troops armed with fully automatic weapons to Iraq. This may seem like a stupid question, but if soldiers are allowed to carry assault weapons in order to provide for the common defense, why can't that same right be extended to civilians who want nothing more than to defend their homes and families?
John Ashcroft once said during his confirmation hearing, "I don't believe the Second Amendment to be one that forbids any regulation of guns." Far be it from me to contradict the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the country, but the Constitution forbids exactly that. The federal government is barred from passing any law that may infringe upon the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Period. It can't be explained in simpler terms than that.
President Bush would be wise to reconsider his position on the assault weapons ban. If he isn't careful, he and other members of his administration may end up alienating the few true conservatives left in the Republican Party – and that would be a mistake this close to election time.
That said, I am a vehement opponent of the AW ban.
Now it is my turn to defend tpaine. A lie is generally willful. I believe that tpaine merely made a logical error, without being willful. I think your calling him a liar in this context is out-of-line.
Mistaken, yes. Liar, no.
So, defending my rights now makes me part of the 'lunatic fringe'? You are the lunatic, if that is what you believe.
"...which storms off in a high dudgeon to sulk and whine..."
Who is sulking or whining except you? We are stating fact and you can't handle it.
"Bush will gain 10 true patriots."
1] Define "true patriot"
2] Where will they come from?
3] Stop bloviating and prove it, if you can.
Or wicked cool LE/Military ONLY version, prohibited by the AW ban even in semiauto:
This is what your gun shop is missing, thanks the AW ban.
Hey professor, it wasn't met as a comment.
Justshuuuuuuudup.....
Of course, you are correct
Thank you, sir. I endeavor to be impartial and logical in my analysis and discussions.
but don't expect this to sink into the rock heads here
Do we really need to go straight to the personal jab? I think you'd do a lot better in getting your idea across if you used less highly-charged descriptions of people. And why describe people at all? Why not deconstruct their argument?
Obviously, I too am guilty of the Ad Hominem, but I try to avoid it whenever possible. I'd rather lay an argument to waste than call someone a choice, if witty, name.
who are so anxious to support conservatives worst nightmare.
I'm too lazy to look it up, and I need to get back to work, but now you are committing a logical fallacy by stating that a withdrawal of support from Bush is an 'anxiousness to support' his opponent.
See my #486. You may have considered your Bushie an exception, but the future does NOT look bright - cosmetic compromise can definitely affect function and utility.
You're preaching to the choir
Amen.
I'm not sure who you are describing here. I refer you back to my logical explanations. However, pointing out that your logic seems to be in error about a given poster's position(s), in no way relates to my support or opposition to a gun regulation, that is for sure.
Others of us have principles. - So it goes.
Yes. All of us have positions and principles related to them. I don't fault jsuati for not caring too much about gun control. Just because it is my pet issue, it need not be everyone elses. I would expect the same consideration from someone who held a strong abortion position, not to call me unprincipled simply because I do not care much one way or the other on this particular issue.
We should find someone who supports the right to bear arms and support him in a presidential campaign so we won't have to chose between either poison of gun control.
Ronald Reagan.
Single issue voters are of little value in political planning and I see no reason to coddle them.
There is a reason you are not a campaign manager or national coordinator for the Republican Party. :o)
Democrats and Republicans both build winning coalitions of single-issue voters.
Good point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.