Posted on 02/15/2004 10:45:42 AM PST by mosel-saar-ruwer
Okay - the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban is set to sunset in September of 2004, two months before the general election:
http://www.awbansunset.com/future.htmlI can see many, many scenarios, but all of them get back to Soccer Moms -vs- NASCAR Dads. Here are two of them:
1) There is another big terrorist attack, the Soccer Moms get scared, and come home to the Republicans. Voter sentiment favors the Second Amendment, self-defense, and self-preservation. Bush supports sunsetting, Kerry supports extension, big win for Bush.I don't think the Assault Weapons Ban will be the pivotal issue - that will almost certainly be the economy and the outsourcing of white collar jobs to Bangalore. But in a number of swing states [Florida, Wisconsin, Oregon], where a few thousand votes determine the Electoral College prize, I think the Assault Weapons Ban may determine which group of voters [Soccer Moms - Kerry, NASCAR Dads - Bush] is energized, and which is demoralized.2) No further terrorist attacks. Further drip, drip, drip of causualties in Iraq and Afghanistan. Voters become complacent about security issues. Possible Columbine-esque school shooting further energizes the anti-defense, anti-security, anti-gun lobby. Teresa Heinz adopts the Assault Weapons Ban as her signature issue; Soccer Moms flock to her. Dubyah and Laura get nervous, betray the NASCAR Dads, and sign on for an Assault Weapons Ban extension. NASCAR Dads are demoralized, stay home. Soccer Moms elect John Kerry.
Your thoughts???
Something like this always happens before a gun bill vote. Coincidence?
That simple.
That's my gut feeling, as well.
But never underestimate the proclivity for a Bush to cut and run when the going gets tough. I can see a scenario where, as above, Teresa Heinz adopts the AWB as her signature issue, Laura Bush gets jealous, and together with Karl Rove she convinces Dubyah that he has to sign on for some sort of extension.
Are the Soccer Moms and the NASCAR Dads married to each other? If so, they cancel each other out, leaving the deciding votes to Beretta Boys, Mossberg Men, and Glock Girls.
You know, it's ironic - a gun [or a rifle] is little more than a metal pipe with some machining. Not structurally any different than what a plumber carries with him in the back of his van.
The really dangerous stuff is the ammunition - the liberals have seen to it that you can't purchase a harmless metal pipe without an all-orifices full body search, and yet the really dangerous stuff - the ammunition for the harmless metal pipe - can be purchased over the internet by anyone with a credit card.
Idiots.
All kidding (am I?) aside. This is going to be a very weighty factor in my decision come November. President Bush still has my vote even after Medicare, Immigration, McCain-Feingold, 500 Billion deficit etc. I'm finding it insreasingly hard to be adding the support of my voice or treasury however. And if Mr. Bush caves to Schumer and the rest of the gungrabber crowd I will gurantee my vote will go elsewhere also.
RNC flamers save it, cause I can and do think for myself.
That way the Left gets a high profile story about "one of our own" aiding the enemy, but they also have a cut-and-dried link to gunowners.
Nah, it's too far-fetched. They could never find a story like that.
True. But banning the metal pipe called "a gun" yet allowing the free sale of ammunition is akin to banning the wooden pipe called "a bong" yet allowing the free sale of tobacco, marijuana, hash-hish, and opium.
The metal pipe is just that - a pipe. In and of itself it doesn't pose a threat to anybody. I suppose you could use it to conk someone over the head, but a baseball bat would be at least as good for that purpose.
Hey - let's ban baseball bats!
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.