The Assault Weapons Ban May Be Bush's Undoing

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

[Badray]

Your short answer was good.

Your long answer was even better.

Well said.

[tpaine]

Laz, in your efforts to appear clever, you only demonstrate your own ignorance:

I replied to Jsuati:
Thus, you support a man who says he will sign a bill prohibiting such weapons. -- You support [the] signing [of] the bill. ..

You are committing a retroductive fallacy of soundness (somewhat taking the form of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy).
To wit:
Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
George W. Bush supports the AW ban.
Therefore, Jsuati supports [the man in signing] the AW ban

Case closed. Both you & Jsuati have some serious problems with elementary logic & reasoning.

[Abundy]

Your first statement was absolute: "Cannons were not owned by individuals during the Revolution..."

Now you say:"It is still true that individuals rarely, if ever, owned cannons for use on land..."

Which is it, cannons were not owned by private individuals or they were?

They are arms - arms are weapons. Period.

Further, private individuals owned warships - which are "arms."

And before you attempt another obfuscational tangent, the whole point of this disagreement is that you were asserting [falsely] that private individuals did not own cannons as some sort of suport for the proposition that cannons are not "arms." Now you have asserted that they did own cannons, which calls into question your assertion that cannons are somehow not "arms." The whole disagreement barely touches on the premise of this thread. However it does serve to illustrate your lack of understanding of people who actually do understand the constitution. If the elected officials share your arrogant view of us than we are in for a bumpy ride.

[Badray]

"This is in contrast to the hysterical pseudo-patriots hyperventilating over the latest act they don't like."

Is there a line in the sand for you? Or will you just rationalize away every intrusion into liberty?

[Abundy]

The energy should be to thwart the initiative in Congress, before it lands on the President's desk.

Absolutely.

Also, there is nothing wrong with communicating very clearly to both Congress and the White House that an extension of this bill will cause many conservative gun owners to sit out or vote third party.

If the bill somehow gets to Bush's desk after such a campaign it would mostlikely be the result of a very, very close vote.

That would give Bush cover for a veto with the explanation being along the lines of "such a hotly contested law with dubious actual relationship to reducing crime should not be renewed by such a slim margin, if this law is truly the will of the American people they will contact enough legislators that Congress is able to override my veto..."

Or some other such drivel - but you get the idea. It's all about political cover. Pro AWB voters aren't going to vote for him anyway.

Therefore he just needs to be able to explain to the 70% or so of Americans who don't have a dog in the hunt and don't understand the issues. IF he gets out there and explains that the ban has no effect on crime then Americans won't have a problem with the veto.

This doesn't mean I'm voting for him if he does sign it - I'm getting to the point where I want the next revolution to occur - you know, the one that the Socialists are pushing for. Might as well get it over with while I can still take part in it.

JMO.

[Badray]

"Throwing Bush overboard for an action he has signalled he WILL take is silly."

So if Bush (or any politician) tells you that he is going to screw you that we should vote for him because he was honest enough to tell us that we're going to get screwed? Are you insane?

[tpaine]

Well said Al..
Naturally, your politically rational points will be totally ignored by FR's knee jerk Rinos.

[Lazamataz]

Laz, in your efforts to appear clever, you only demonstrate your own ignorance

It appears as though you are projecting. Your ignorance in the field of logic is being quite clearly shown.

1. Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
2. George W. Bush supports the AW ban.
3. Therefore, Jsuati supports [the man in signing] the AW ban Case closed.

So, according to you:

1. Roosters crow in the morning.
2. In the morning, the sun comes up.
3. Therefore, roosters cause [in the morning] the sun to come up.

Hey, listen. I'm not above letting a person be ignorant and uneducated. My role is not to be a teacher. I'll get out of your way whilst you remain ignorant and become smug about it.

[Lazamataz]

Why screw around with these threats, just announce he doesn't have your vote?

Well, because that is not necessarily true.

See, Bush also can PUSH for the AW ban. That would definitely lose my vote. If he just lets it die but mouths the politically correct party line, he keeps my vote.

[Lazamataz]

BTW: So ... what is the plausible alternative? Democrats? Third Party? Sitting out the elections? The first isn't likely, the second option needs a severe jumpstart with the election in less than twelve months, and the third option warrants no respect or admiration.

I disagree. If a person takes the time to go into a booth, and selects NO presidential contender, they are making a clear statement: "I will not vote for either form of tyranny."

Now, tyranny certainly still would come -- but at least they have thrown the finger at it.

[ArneFufkin]

So if Bush (or any politician) tells you that he is going to screw you that we should vote for him because he was honest enough to tell us that we're going to get screwed? Are you insane?

Try reading my following sentence. Don't feign support for him in the first place.

You shouldn't vote for George W. Bush. You should vote for ... ah ... um .... well ... somebody else. Or nobody at all.

But, you'll either be self-destructive or irrelevant. But, it is fun drawing principled lines in sand.

[ArneFufkin]

No fair, Laz, you already catapaulted W into deep space over the CFR outrage. ;^)

[Travis McGee]

People died from many causes in the 18th century that are routinely cured today. You never address my point, which is that today's "militia weapons" are not more dangerous than the "militia weapons" of 1780, because modern medicine has more than kept up with the wounds produced. Weapons were dangerous in 1780, just as they are today. A lunatic could take a blunderbuss loaded with 100 rusty nails to wipe out a picnic in 1780, just as a lunatic could do so today with an AK-47. Blunderbusses were not outlawed in 1780, and there is no difference when it comes to outlawing semi-auto rifles today. Both could cause heavy casualties in the hands of a killer.

[AlexW]

"he'll lose my vote"

Don't you just hate these single issue voters?

They are always cutting their own throats.

[Badray]

"No, defending your rights has nothing to do with it. Throwing all your rights in the toilet in a hissy fit over the constraint in one makes one part of the lunatic fringe."

Your solution is to surrender them one at a time. No thanks.

"You haven't stated ONE fact to refute anything I have said. In fact, this whole thread is based on the supposition that Bush will do something when IT WON'T EVEN COME TO A VOTE IN THE HOUSE. Hysteria for nothing."

That is your take that it won't come to a vote. Can you or any one else guarantee that? No. There is nothing wrong with warning Bush of the outcome of his signature is. I'm sorry that you can't handle it.

"True patriots are those citizens who understand that the nation is under attack by its deadly enemies, the Islamic terrorists, and who rally around the President as he tries to handle this deadly threat. Such people understand that NO president will do EVERYTHING like they want and they understand that the alternatives to Bush would be disastrous."

True patriots realize that the government doesn't disarm it's citizens when it is under attack by outsiders and terrorists who walked across our open borders. Aside from that, that most a terrorist can do is kill me. A far worse fate is to surrender my rights to my own government. I WILL NOT live as a slave. Bush has done some good things and some pretty stupid and offensive things. I've not threatened to withhold my support on any of those issues for the very reason that you state. No one will please me all of the time. This is my line in the sand.

"Just as those who voted for Perot rather than Bush I paved the way for the destruction of American National security and allowed our enemies to buy our most up to date technologies from the Abomination and his eight yrs of treason."

And we survived those years and enough people realized how bad 4 years of algore would have been. But that doesn't mean that we should put up with a pubbie stabbing us in the back on guns. Bush is getting plenty of advance warning. For once, he should strap his domestic balls on and actually veto something that he disagrees with or believes to be unconstitutional. That he promises to sign tells me a lot about him and it ain't good.

"9/11 was one of the rewards the nation reaped from their shortsightedness and political immaturity. The price for such behavior now will be much higher. Those Americans who, after 9/11, recognized Bush is a true leader concerned about our nation were not all Bush supporters in 2000. But now they are."

Maybe for a time, but not all of them remain. You keep calling Bush a 'true leader'. His political skills are showing him to be more like Bill Clinton than George Washington -- he'll do whatever it takes to get him reelected. That makes him a true politician, not a true leader.

[Lazamataz]

No fair, Laz, you already catapaulted W into deep space over the CFR outrage. ;^)

I opened the pod bay doors, Hal. :o)

[tpaine]

Laz, in your efforts to appear clever, you only demonstrate your own ignorance.

Jsuati supports George W. Bush.

George W. Bush supports the AW ban.

Therefore, Jsuati supports [the man in signing] the AW ban.

Case closed.

---

So, according to you:

Roosters crow in the morning.
In the morning, the sun comes up.
Therefore, roosters cause [in the morning] the sun to come up.
-laz-

---

According to me? - Not at all.

You're claiming your silly rooster bit has some analogy to Jsuati supporting Bush in signing the AW ban.

It appears as though you are projecting. Your ignorance in the field of logic is being quite clearly shown.

[Badray]

" Try reading my following sentence. Don't feign support for him in the first place."

Here is the remainder of your other post.

"Don't board his ship in the first place. But, don't delude yourselves that you will have any positive influence attaining other Conserviative priorities that only George W. Bush and a GOP majority Congress can codify into law."

I did delude myself into thinking that he, along with a GOP majority Congress would enact conservative priorities in 2000. After supporting Keyes throught the primary election, I reluctantly supported Bush, campaigned for him, and voted for him because I was able to delude myself.

After spending our tax money like a drunken democrat, failing to veto ANYTHING, and signing into law some of the most egregious and unconstitutional, and freedom destroying laws, I am no longer under any illusions of him being conservative. I am loyal to this country and to principle, but not to any politician and not to GWB. He, like any other pol, must earn each and every one of my votes. If he fails to see the result of his promise to sign, then he deserves to lose his job. If he doesn't care to see the potential of his promise to sign, he doesn't deserve to be reelected. If the results are ugly, it will be his responsibility, not mine. He has the power to do something about it.

" You should vote for ... ah ... um .... well ... somebody else. Or nobody at all."

That remains to be seen. I will not do anything to help him until I see what he will do. Then I will decide who will get my vote.

[Lazamataz]

You're claiming your silly rooster bit has some analogy to Jsuati supporting Bush in signing the AW ban.

It is an analogous example of the form of argument you are falliciously advancing.

Go take a college course in Logic, perhaps you will not appear to be so ignorant, and you certainly won't be quite as smug about it. :o)

I will leave it to lurkers and fellow freepers to make up their own mind on who has a logic minor and who has not had even a passing aquaintance with a logic book. :o)

[Badray]

"Don't you just hate these single issue voters?"

Is there nothing important enough to you that will cause you to withhold your vote? What is your process for deciding who gets your vote? I'd love to see how you arrive at your decisions.