NRA Launches Anti-AWB Website

NRA Institute for Legislative Action ^ | 1/23/04 | NRA-ILA

[xsrdx]

Newly elected President Bill Clinton wasted little time in seizing upon “assault weapons” as a political issue. Along with “midnight basketball” and the never-to-be-fulfilled promise of 100,000 new police officers, it quickly became part of an effort to transform concern for public safety into a political issue.

Clinton had barely finished moving into the White House when he proclaimed we “can’t be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles.” Then, stringing together several whoppers in a single sentence, he announced, “I don’t believe that everybody in America needs to be able to buy a semi-automatic or fully-automatic weapon, built only for the purpose of killing people, in order to protect the right of Americans to hunt and practice marksmanship and to be secure.”

[kcar]

If the Republicans won't support our basic rights when they are the clear majority party, then their rhetoric is just empty talk. The argument that a vote for anyone but the Republicans is a tacit vote for the Democrats is bogus. Bush has been tacking so much to the center that he is forgetting his base. Beyond a certain point I don't care if he wins or not. In fact, it would be justice to see a party that forgets its base to get such a wakeup call. Not saying I'm there yet, but the AWB is a trigger point for me.

[aomagrat]

The anti's need another massacre someplace to make it happen. Wonder who they'll get to carry out the plan?

It happens every time a gun issue comes up for a vote in congress. And the perps usually kill themselves afterwards. Coincidence?

[Sender]

I haven't quite been able to convince myself that the antis would actually create a massacre for their own purposes, even though I have read several excellent books around that theme. If something conveniently bad does happen around the time of the AWB vote, I may have to reconsider.

[Shooter 2.5]

We don't have a clear majority yet. We have the dems voting to disarm the American People and we have a few, and I repeat, a very few Republicans who are anti-gun. Check the CCW debates if you don't believe me. That means we don't have a clear majority of Pro-gun legislators.

Bush said it before the election when there was a point when if he didn't, he might not have been elected. The Republicans are doing what they can to sunset it. Just like they're trying to do with the CCW laws.

The people who say they won't vote for Bush if he signs the bill probably never voted for him in the first place. They couldn't have been that active for their Second Amendment Rights or they would have known what he said and when he said it.

If anyone wants to threaten the Republicans now while the AWB is being discussed, be my guest. Let's hold their feet to the fire but if Bush is forced to sign it because the gun owners were too lazy to send a postcard, we still have to vote for him. He's still the lesser of two evils.

[kcar]

All in favor of holding Republicans feet to the fire, and voting their way if it sunsets. Barring that I don't know if I'll fall for that lessor of two evils argument again. Yes I did vote for Bush, and the Republican Senate majority, and actively support 2A defense.

My social contract with the state was based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Will peaceably work, pay taxes, and vote, and long as those are secured. But if we can't change the direction where we are marching, only slow its pace, by voting Republican, then speed it up instead so we deal the trainwreck it in our generation rather than pass it along to our children.

Prescriptions for the old, capitulation to a RINO's election reform, steel tariffs, WH support for RINOs in Senate and Governor races, immigration amnesty, and failure to break filibusters to simply vote for judicial candidates. And now such defeatism over the sunsetting of the AWB. Wininng is starting to feel exactly like losing.

[ExSoldier]

"It happens every time a gun issue comes up for a vote in congress. And the perps usually kill themselves afterwards. Coincidence?"

Or they get killed in a hail of police gunfire without talking. I dunno. Ask Travis McGee. Better yet read his book, Enemies Foreign and Domestic.

What say you Travis, think we could be verging on an EFAD scenario?

[alaskanfan]

Wininng is starting to feel exactly like losing.

As much as I like Bush, I'm sick to death with the lack of spine that the Republicans have shown on some matters and the total capitulation to the left that they have shown on others.

[Squantos]

Agree......In this day and age just when ya think you've seen it all...........then "it" happens.

EFAD or not.....Stay Safe !

[Shooter 2.5]

We have a slim majority in Congress and it's somewhat tied in the Senate. I don't want to go back to the clinton years when we had a new anti-Rights Bill every month. We can get a better count in November if we work at it. At least we have a president who said no more gun control. We won't have that next time around. We'll either hand an anti-gun mandate to a dem or we'll have a Second Amendment defender after Bush's term ends. Our choice.

[kcar]

Look at how much the Rats can do even with their minority status. Having a majority doesn't seem to matter if it's not used, or if that majority is continuously qualified by RINOs. Looking for Republicans to remember their base and to use their power effectiely. They got my vote if they do. Their choice.

[Shooter 2.5]

If you have a 51 Republican and 49 dem vote it's possible to have a couple of Republican defectors from the Notheast. I'm not going to punish the entire Republican Party because the gun owners in the Northeast keep voting for RINO's. Look at the CCW map and tell me the Republicans aren't doing a good job without a clear majority.

[kcar]

No that CCW map surely is an impressive thing. Progress seems excruciatingly slow living from day to day, but that year-to-year recap is heartening. Still, a 10-year renewal occurring during a Republican dominated adminsitration and congress. If not now, then when?. If votes don't stretch that far, filibuster it. We need some red meat from time to time.

[Travis McGee]

It would not surprise me. Not that I'm saying that a pair of evil JBTs would arrange something like the stadium massacre in EFAD. It's just that when the gears of history move, a certain amount of synchronicity seems to creep in. And simply by the law of averages and human behavior, sooner or later a nutburger is going to climb up over a penned in crowd with a semi-auto rifle and let loose.

[backhoe]

Some extra info from the High Road:

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39429&highlight=float
The Essential "End the AW Ban" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=34437&highlight=float
AWBanSunset.com August Letter Drive

[wardaddy]

What about Congress resuming funding of the ATF to process prior felon redress before they cut it off in 92. (whoops felons don't vote usually so what's in it for pragmatism)

I know where everybody but the NRA is on this.

It is funny isn't it, that the media describes the NRA as extremists.

I give to all of em.

It's only a miracle we have survived all the anti-gun crap since the 68 act without having Federal registration although we do in essence now have a Federal database courtesy of the Brady Bill (yes I know it was not intended that way but even Ashcroft ordering local Barneys to purge is fruitless).

Bunch of crap, I hate this bastards.

[DMZFrank]

The gun grabbers love to babble endlessly as to how the founders could never envision "deadly assault weapons". I beg to differ. We had just defeated the best army on earth. Many of the colonial militia were equipped with rifled muskets, which were used to such telling effect at the Battle of Saratoga, and were technologically superior to the typical British infantryman's Brown Bess musket. The founders had no problem with the "militia" (the one mentioned in the 2nd amendment) having arms superior to many of the regular troops of the day.

The problem with the gun debate today is that many of us, even gun ownership proponents, are allowing the debate to be seperated from the constitutional reasons for gun ownership. To paraphrase the Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939, it allows for persons to be equipped with individual weapons suitable for contemporary militia purposes, which today should mean selective fire assault rifles (Homeland defense Rifles) and handguns. Even the precious right of self defense with a gun is a corollary benefit that flows from the constitutional purpose of the second amendment.

If the gun grabbers can imply that modern military pattern weapons are not appropriate for the "militia" that is enumerated in the second Amendment, than they have effectively negated it.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

Great site

Bump for 2nd

[zeugma]

The anti's need another massacre someplace to make it happen. Wonder who they'll get to carry out the plan?

Have you noticed that there have been none of these incidents since BC left office and gun control is off the table. I'll put money on the strong liklihood of a recurrance, just as it gets close to expiring. You can call me a tin-foiler if you want, but I believe there are such things as 'mancurian candidates'.

[Ancesthntr]

Still, a 10-year renewal occurring during a Republican dominated adminsitration and congress.

If there is a renewal, it won't be for "only" 10 years - it will be permanent. It will probably also name many more rifles that are banned, and give broad authority to the BATFE head to name new rifles to be banned at any time, without the need for a new law to be passed. IOW, say goodbye to your ability to go out and purchase a semi-auto.

[Joe Brower]