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.
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".
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.