The Assault Weapons Ban May Be Bush's Undoing

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

[Lazamataz]

I know you are purposely getting it wrong in order to provoke angry responses from me -- hate is your favorite snack ;^) -- but I'm having some fun with the logic here.

I think it would be interesting to hone the premises to demonstrate your sillyness even more glaringly:

1. Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
2. George W. Bush does not like Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas.
3. Therefore, Jsuati does not like Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas.

Of course, it does not follow that Jsuati even KNOWS Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas -- but hey, don't let me stop you from proclaiming otherwise! You're on a illogic roll, and it's kinda endearing to watch. :o)

Note that all I have done is removed the term AWB and substituted an arbitrary person's name, thusly keeping as close to the form of your retroductive fallacy of soundness.

[ArrogantBustard]

Some people seem to be very unclear on the concept.

The Republicans control the House. The Republicans control the Senate. If an Ugly Gun ban bill makes any progress at all in a totally Republican controlled Congress, we will know for sure that the Republican Party no longer (if it ever really did) really supports RKBA.

If the Republican Party wants gun owners to vote for President Bush in 2004, it will make certain that no gun control bill (particularly an UG ban renewal) ever lands on his desk for him to sign. Althoubh the onus is really on the Congressional leadership to make sure this is and remains a non-issue, the buck stops in the Oval Office.

If the Republican Party is the Party of Gun control, voting for its candidates is not "self constructive", nor does it constitute "relevance".

[Abundy]

I think it would be interesting to hone the premises to demonstrate your sillyness even more glaringly:

Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
George W. Bush does not like Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas.
Therefore, Jsuati does not like Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas.

Of course, it does not follow that Jsuati even KNOWS Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas -- but hey, don't let me stop you from proclaiming otherwise! You're on a illogic roll, and it's kinda endearing to watch. :o)

Note that all I have done is removed the term AWB and substituted an arbitrary person's name, thusly keeping as close to the form of your retroductive fallacy of soundness.

Laz, the problem with your "logic" is that while Jsuati might not know who this person is, the AWB and Bush's position on it are very public knowledge, therefore the illustration above is not relevant to your disagreement with tpaine unless Jsuati states that he/she is not familiar with the AWB and Bush's support of that bill.

[Badray]

I'm thrilled that you and so many others here understand this so clearly, but it is tempered by my disappointment with those who don't see this at all. What is so hard about this?

[ArneFufkin]

If you are severely disappointed in Bush's overall performance, then it is your principled obligation to not support his candidacy going forward. You should, however, work for a third party alternative that better represents your interests. Sitting out is not a Freeper-like M.O.

My comments are directed at those who have chosen THIS SPECIFIC policy action to wholly determine whether they will support President Bush's re-election next November. To stake it all on THIS issue, as a statement making reprimand to the GOP, is terribly counter-productive in my estimation.

You asked someone else, where is the line? It's not being crossed yet, in my personal perception. That's all we have, our individual viewpoints of current threat. I would support a total lifting of the AWB, I will inform my Congressmen, the national GOP fundraising orgs, and anyone else that I don't want that legislation successfully passed in the House and Senate. But, if a reauthorization IS passed, I'm not going to throw the country back into the hands of Hillary/Dean/Leahy to punish the GOP for their impertinence.

I own several firearms, and most every individual in my social group does as well. Mainly shotguns and hunting rifles, but about half own a handgun as well. The line will be crossed when the "authorities" try to designate our Wingmasters or 1100s or Glock .45s as assault weapons subject to banning. That's not in the works, IMO, in fact in Minnesota we just became a "shall issue" CCW state. Only because we put enough Republicans in the Legislature and Governor Mansion to get that right made into law.

That's positive progress, and it was only possible because we had real life officeholders working for our benefit.

Things are better now than they were in 1999. They'll be better still in 2005 if we can get enough Republicans, and their overwhelmingly conservative ideologies, into political office.

I'm not going to draw the label of "gun grabber" because I hold that pragmatic political position, so be it. Regards.

[xsrdx]

So if the Congress passes an extension of the Ugly Gun ban, and the President signs it into law, I will know that they have deliberately, willfully, and with malice aforethought, stabbed me in the back. Any attempt by the Republican Party apologists to minimize or explain away such betrayal will, along with their previous two decades of excuses, be revealed as of no more value than the gibbering of baboons.

So that's why it's a make or break issue for me. I don't vote to reelect traitors and back-stabbers.

Excellent summation.

[ArneFufkin]

Last sentence:

"I'm not" should be "If I'm"

[NittanyLion]

Since "conservative" is relative to the time one lives in, Yes Bush is as conservative as any president we have ever elected.

Then you'd be better served to state that Bush is as conservative a president as we've had in the late 20th century...you can't really claim he's as conservative as anyone, then say you utilize a sliding scale for making the comparison.

[ArrogantBustard]

Part of the reason I see this business so clearly is that I've been dealing with it for so long. I used up a great deal of toner opposing the '94 ban, and other outrages. This next ten months is crunch time ... If the Republicans are worth a bucket of warm spit, any UG ban renewal bill the 'Rats regurgitate will be strangled is some obscure subcommittee, somewhere.

[Lazamataz]

Laz, the problem with your "logic" is that while Jsuati might not know who this person is

Nossir, that was not the thrust of my argument. That was an incidental comment. Consider my argument without that incidental thought and my logic should be clear.

The thrust of my argument was that Jsuati would need, by necessity of tpaines conclusion, to NOT LIKE Phil Snead because G.W. Bush does not. This conclusion cannot follow, because it is fallicious.

[Lazamataz]

And, for the sake of my argument, let us assume they both know Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas. Therefore no lack-of-familiarity can come into play.

[MileHi]

Hey, amigo, how the hell are you? Still fighting for truth, justice and the American way I trust! That part of the world can use all the help it can get, Especially since my daughter and her family are next door in VA while her husband learns to fix blackhawks.

Take care and "endeaver to persevere" as Chief Dan George has said.

FReegards

[Badray]

" My comments are directed at those who have chosen THIS SPECIFIC policy action to wholly determine whether they will support President Bush's re-election next November."

I am one of those. I have held my nose on many other issues. I have written to complain and I've withheld financial support for the National GOP committees, but this is my core issue. This is my line in the sand.

"It's not being crossed yet, in my personal perception....I own several firearms, and most every individual in my social group does as well. Mainly shotguns and hunting rifles, but about half own a handgun as well. The line will be crossed when the "authorities" try to designate our Wingmasters or 1100s or Glock .45s as assault weapons subject to banning. That's not in the works, IMO, in fact in Minnesota we just became a "shall issue" CCW state. Only because we put enough Republicans in the Legislature and Governor Mansion to get that right made into law."

So, since your ox isn't being gored, you don't care yet? Maybe when they get to your 'line', it will be too late to get anyone to care. I care if Saturday night specials are targeted. I care when black powder rifles and 50 cals are targeted even though I own none of these weapons. I object on principle.

I don't see spending being cut. I don't see departments being eliminated. I don't see a lot of the things that we dreamed of when we finally had a GOP majority. I don't hold out much faith any more. They don't even pretend any longer that these are the goals of the GOP.

I've looked at CCW progress as a good thing too. Then I wonder if this isn't just defacto registration. I don't trust government. Never did. Never will.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am not convinced any of those I named are more conservative than Bush but hold out the possibility that they are equally so. But I do recognize that the times partially determine the accuracy of the terms we use.

If you want to make a case that someone was more conservative I would happily consider it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I haven't advocated surrendering anything merely not cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I would be willing to wager that no vote will take place in the House or if it does it will be defeated. Bush will not be detered from doing what he promised by the blustering of tiny minorities which never supported him in the first place.

Terrorists have NOT "walked" across our borders they all arrived quite legally. Nor are the American people "being disarmed" by Bush. He is one of the few courageous enough to stand up and say such laws are wrong and ineffectual in achieving their ostensible purpose.

Your concern about tyranny is appropriate but any attack on Bush will only hasten such a thing not diminish its chances.
The alternatives will only hasten the slavery you fear. Yet, that is what you THREATEN Bush with? It is assinine.

After 8 yrs. of selling defense technology to the Chinese, giving the N.Koreans nuclear technology and oil, allowing OBL to establish the means to kill thousands of Americans IN THIS COUNTRY, Gore was only defeated by the grace of God and Free Republic. Had Gore won you could forget it, it would have meant this country was finished. Now we have been given another chance and the ideologues are threatening to turn it over to our enemies once again?

Bush is no Clinton and the inability to understand this is indicative of the shortsightedness and blindness of your position. Just why in hell does the RATmedia hate him with such a passion if he is merely another Clinton? This makes NO sense whatsoever.

He owes NOTHING to the extreme far right. It never supported him preferring instead to chase will-o-the-wisps like Keyes. These are the people threatening most loudly and Bush will rightly pay them no mind. Not that he pays anyone or any group deferential attention. Unlike Clinton he does what he believes to be correct no matter how popular or unpopular. THAT is a leader.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I don't like the AW ban (or Phil Snead for that matter) but I will vote for Bush whether or not he signs such a bill if it is voted out of Congress.

[justshutupandtakeit]

One line would be selling nuclear and missile technology to potential enemy nations. Another would be taking campaign contributions from the intelligence or military of potential enemy nations. Another would be pushing a gun control law which totally disarmed the American people.

Just look at the Clinton administration that clearly shows lots of lines.

You are under the impression that I vote Republican NO MATTER WHAT. That is NOT the case. I am supporting a particular person here NOT a party.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No that is a false description of my belief. The constitutionally described militia is NOT the National Guard, it is the militia. There is no other militia. A militia was organized and disciplined. It was not self proclaimed outside of government but formed by states or localities and officered by STATE appointed officers. It is both formal (officered appointed, trained under Congressional provisions) and informal (every able bodied man was subject to be called into militia duty.)

That is the only militia there was and only that was referenced within the Constitution. Armed bands without discipline and officers may have been many things but they were not militia.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Prior to the French Revolution most "fighting" between armies was just manuevering until someone decided they should surrender. There was little actual bloodshed.

Weapons today are far more destruction unless you believe in devolution. There were very few hits for every round fired today and far fewer for those of two hundred years ago. They were inaccurate above about 20 ft. AW are NOT the equivalent of junk filled blunderbusses in destructive power even considering the highly exaggerated hypothesis you postulate.

Your example is ludicrous as well as false. Even such an attack would not hit many people. I would happily take you on in such a fight. Your body would be lifeless on the ground even before your junk could sail over my head.

Not only that but I have never urged banning AW or blunderbusses or complained that picnics were threatened by them. All I ever said was that the Founders never were confronted with "Assault" weapons.

[Lazamataz]

Your example is ludicrous as well as false. Even such an attack would not hit many people. I would happily take you on in such a fight. Your body would be lifeless on the ground even before your junk could sail over my head.

That's not a very smart thing to say to a Navy Seal. This man would make sausage-links out of you armed only with a head of broccoli. You could have any number of firearms you wished, I'd still put my money on Trav.