Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban

Washington Post ^ | April 12, 2003 | Unknown

[Diddle E. Squat]

Yeah, I'll step up, in a way. I don't agree with this decision, IF it is ACTUALLY the administration's position. However, IF true it is not the worst thing to happen. Anyone who pulls their vote and let the far more anti-gun Democrats have a better chance of winning is a short-sighted moron.

Its like always yelling that you are going to commit suicide if you don't get your way on each single issue.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Every time we have a thread like this (2nd Amend., illegal aliens, abortion, etc), the liberals win."

Every time a RINO rips another piece out of the Constitution, the liberals win. (Correction. Bush isn't a RINO, he's a true Republican, since such Republicans have been shredding the Constitution for Decades.)

Signed CFR (Shred 1st amd.)
Will sign AWB extension (Shred 2nd amd.)
Signed Partiot Act (Shred 4th amd.)
...

[eskimo]

First of all, the "assault weapons ban" doesn't actually DO anything.

It DOES incorrectly label some semi-automatic weapons that are not "selective fire" as "assault weapons" base on their appearance. If a precedent is set for banning weapons by appearance, how long before every weapon appears that it must be banned in the minds of political tyrants?

[spodefly]

If the Republicans in the House and Senate do their job, the bill should never reach Bush's desk. If it does reach his desk, then there is enough blame to go around.

[Mr. Mojo]

Golly, folks. A bunch of you are being ridiculous. The assault weapon ban defined assault weapons as "guns having one or more of the following characteristics:" which, if I remember correctly, were bayonet, flash suppressor, etc. etc. Extending this bill does NOTHING.

Golly, Timmy. (And gee-whiz and golly jeepers to boot!). For being an NRA member, you sure know surprisingly nothing about the so-called Assault Weapons' Ban. Time for you to go to school

[lainie]

Bush and Blair said Tuesday after their summit that the United Nations should play a ``vital role'' in rebuilding Iraq, but made clear that did not mean it should be in control.

``A vital role for the U.N. means food, that means medicine, that means aid, that means a place where people can give their contributions, that means suggesting people for an interim Iraqi governing body,'' Bush told reporters at the end of that summit.

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/special_packages/iraq/5618577.htm

[Diddle E. Squat]

My post #221 was incomplete. I should add that it does however make perfect sense to express outrage by means other than withholding one's vote. For example, sending the RNC a photo of a check made out to them torn in two next to a check for the same amount made out to the NRA, and a note explaining how your donation intended for the RNC will now be going to the NRA.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

US oil interests have a virtual monopoly on Iraqi oil and some justification may even come from the argument this is how to repay the US for liberating you and giving you freedom. How much more obscene can profits be than "monopoly." In case you don't understand, that means "all of the profits" 100%.

Don't get me wrong, most of the profits from sales of Iraqi oil will go to Iraq itself. To take more than half would cause international concern. But we will take 10 or 15% of total sales, not shared with Russia or France. In fact, it is something of a win-win relationship; Iraqi capitalists will get oil profit they would not otherwise receive under Saddam, the nation profits from the taxes paid into the government coffers from those receipts, and US oil interests get a big share of the pie (previously unavailable) while the US gets the chance for a reliable supply of cheaper oil. I nver said these were bad things.

All I said is you are naive to believe that Bush boldly oppose the United Nations on some altruistic crusade to free the Iraqis and fight terrorism. This is about money, pure and simple. All wars are. Follow the money.

PS -- if you demand any examples that all wars are economic, forget getting a reply from me. IMHO this is proven fact. ALL WARS ARE ECONOMIC. The Revolutionary war. The US Civil War. All wars. Even WWII. Hitler got into power and got free reign from his Germany because they had been economically devestated.)

[chnsmok]

I just do not see what difference it makes if a Republican or a Democrat signs the legislation. It is still signed.

Yours truly,
short-sighted moron

[lainie]

He knows. And he knows we know.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"The assault weapon ban defined assault weapons as "guns having one or more of the following characteristics:" which, if I remember correctly, were bayonet, flash suppressor, etc. etc. Extending this bill does NOTHING."

Aside from your errors and ignorance of the law, ask yourself why essentially every military (and many SWAT) rifle has the very features you are delighted to let be banned.

[Squantos]

I'll write to President Bush, send some dollars to GOA and TSRA to keep up the good fight for our rights. I don't think GW will keep this law on the books. It's all cosmetics.......nothing has changed since the law took effect as Hi-capacity magazines are still available as are the expensive Pre-ban's that have a flash supressor vs a muzzle brake..........Oh yeah that's a real issue. Crime victims now can see the turd that shot em in the dark. Makes me sleep better.

Honestly GW's gotta be smarter than the clintonistas that imposed this BS on Americans. As stated above the cheapest Hi-Cap mag's are the AK series that these gundecking shitbirds were after in the first place.

Bottom line IMHO......Drop this cosmetic BS feel good law that only "cost's" law abidding American firearms owners. And remember that criminal elements don't give a rats ass what the law says ..... nor do they vote IMO !

Stay Safe ....just my rant on the matter !!

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

You speak truth. Bush has us by the balls. He can play this bluff game, appealing to the soccer moms while hoping the bill sunsets in the Senate, because he knows damn well conservatives and gun enthusiast must vote for him because his opponent will be much worse. He can say just about anything he wants to try to get votes from liberals.

What bothers me however is that his cowtowing won't appeal to liberals. They simply are NOT going to vote for him. They will vote for Hillary or whoever the democrat shills on CNN and in the NY Times tell them to vote for.

So here is Bush, publically supporting an unconstitutional law that alienates a nice little chunk of his base -- he seriously risks them staying home and not turning out in the next election because they are still pouting and angry -- and for what? For no gain! THAT makes me mad.

And if he knows it is for no gain, it makes me even madder because it means he really truly supports unconstitutional laws such as this artificial, stupid, meaningless soccer-mom oriented law. It is not even disputed anymore that the guns they refer to as "assault weapons" are used in less than 1% of all crime and probably far less than 1% of all shootings. And the VAST MAJORITY of the use of these types of guns is legal use by law enforcement officers who use these as replacements for shotguns by and large.

In either case, Bush has lost more of my respect even though I am forced to vote for him and he knows it.

[lainie]

precisely.

And the only reason we're even talking about this is because Bush said he supports its renewal. AND some people here don't seem to understand that the thing will sunset unless it's renewed. It's not new legislation.

AND our fellow freepers are blaming some of us for Bush having painted himself into this corner (while shouting that we should all stand on the same side for unity's sake).

[lainie]

I was going to say. Of course none of us are going to intentionally sabotage obviously-correct positions on other matters.

But when it comes to this crap, I am seriously ticked off.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

Man that is an AWESOME idea. I think I will take the amount of my next gun purchase and do just that, an original torn check to GW Bush's re-election campaign with a photocopy of my check to the GOA.

Nice thinking!

[Timesink]

How many people in this thread even voted for Bush the first time? And of those that did, how many only voted for him because they were still living in eight years of RAT Hell? How soon they forget.

[Mr. Mojo]

AND some people here don't seem to understand that the thing will sunset unless it's renewed. It's not new legislation.

I guess they didn't read the first paragraph of the (Wash Post) article posted: "The President supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

Let's just hope the renewal never reaches Bush's desk. ...but we'll have to work hard toward that end.

[Kevin Curry]

What bothers me however is that his cowtowing

It that similar to heiferhauling?

Sorry. Couldn't resist.

[lainie]

Issue: Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994

Senate Vote Date: August 25, 1994

YEAs ---61

Akaka (D-HI)
Baucus (D-MT)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boren (D-OK)
Boxer (D-CA)
Bradley (D-NJ)
Breaux (D-LA)
Bryan (D-NV)
Bumpers (D-AR)
Byrd (D-WV)
Campbell (D-CO)
Chafee (R-RI)
Cohen (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Danforth (R-MO)
Daschle (D-SD)
DeConcini (D-AZ)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Exon (D-NE)

Feinstein (D-CA)
Ford (D-KY)
Glenn (D-OH)
Graham (D-FL)
Harkin (D-IA)
Heflin (D-AL)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (R-VT)
Johnston (D-LA)
Kassebaum (R-KS)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerrey (D-NE)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Mathews (D-TN)
Metzenbaum (D-OH)

Mikulski (D-MD)
Mitchell (D-ME)
Moseley-Braun (D-IL)
Moynihan (D-NY)
Murray (D-WA)
Nunn (D-GA)
Pell (D-RI)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reid (D-NV)
Riegle (D-MI)
Robb (D-VA)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Roth (R-DE)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Sasser (D-TN)
Simon (D-IL)
Specter (R-PA)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wofford (D-PA)

I think what the president is saying is, in effect, "I believe the Senators (listed above) were right. Americans cannot be trusted with battle rifles with magazines holding 'too many' rounds, or which have evil features such as bayonet lugs or flash suppressors. Even as our country is engaged in a war against a nebulous, despicible, nearly unidentifiable enemy known as international terrorism, which could strike anyone, anywhere, at any time, I believe the American People should be denied the most basic of defensive arms, the rifle. Senators Feinstein, Lautenberg, Kennedy, and Daschle had a vision in 1994 for the safety of the American people and continuing the ban of these evil, ugly guns is necessary to further that vision. I stand united with the liberal democrats. BAN THESE GUNS!"

Yeah, nothin' to be upset about. Shouldn't be on my 'radar screen,' anyway.