As I Predicted, George W. Bush Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban

Toogood Reports ^ | April 15, 2003 | By Chuck Baldwin

[Kenno]

I would be tempted to vote against him, but I suspect my knee-jerk reflex would take over at the last minute. Nevertheless, the moderate Democrats who voted for Bush in droves in 2000, because Gore was anti-gun, would vote Democrat once again. So, ultimately, my vote wouldn't matter. Get on Bush's ass now, before it's too late.

[dcwusmc]

You know that quote has been all over the media since it was reported in the Post. I also notice that NO ONE from the White House has yet called the Post irresponsible for printing a lie about it... Hmmmmm...

And as to a better plan, I wish I had one all thought out and ready to post. All I know for sure is NO ONE will change a behavior without motivation. Not you, not me, not Dubya. And the ONLY WAY we have to motivate him is to assure him he'll be a one-termer, just like daddy, if he doesn't change up on violating the Second Amendment ... again. And he needs to keep in mind it was GUN-OWNERS who gave him the job over AGore... and Gun Owners who very much helped remove daddy when Daddy shafted us.


And if ONE presidential election cycle is all we have between us and tyranny, then it's already too late.

[Jim Robinson]

Ah, hell. Out of curiosity, I checked your IP address. You've been banned from FR at least three times that I can see. Wavyhill, Kenno, and Motie. You are nothing but a troll and probably a Democrat shill trying to sow seeds of discontent and to cheer on the Bush bashing. I hate wasting my time on trolls.

Buh bye.

[Captiva]

Interesting, since thousands of gun laws have been incrementally enacted for the past 30 years or so, during both Republican and Democratic administrations.

And zero Libertarians have been elected. Right as they are.

[tpaine]

To: tpaine
Yes, that's fine. The Republican Liberty Caucus promotes electing Republicans and defeating Democrats. I'm in complete agreement.
1,187 posted on 04/17/2003 4:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson


Yes, as you've said, you're in complete agreement with electing Republicans and defeating Democrats.

But are you in basic agreement with the positions of the Republican Liberty Caucus?

[Jim Robinson]

Give me a break.

[Jim Robinson]

Call the White House. Send letters. Call your Reps. Send letters. Visit with them every chance you get. Remind them. Tell them. Wave the Bill of Rights in their face. Make demands. Hold their feet to the fire. But whatever you do, do not allow the Democrats to regain control of the White House or the Congress or the Senate. We worked too hard to get them and we are not going to let them slip out of our hands that easily. Now is the time to strengthen our gains not to surrender to the enemy. And if you don't believe the Democrats are the domestic enemy of the Constitution you are in self-denial mode.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..someday, the Republican Party will be big enough to no longer need one-issue unreliable voters...

Hang on a minute.

The President sent Scott McLennan out to test the waters, and see how signing the extension would be received. The outrage should be as loud as possible, now; thereby, avoiding an even nastier scenario at poll time, with gunowners staying home and the NRA keeping their wallet zipped.

But I don't think the extension's chiselled in stone, especially if the gun lobby registers as strong a protest as possible, as soon as possible. Thinking back to when GWB was a candidate, there was a spree shooting in a Texas church. All the lib media put the blowtorch to his belly in expectation that, under pressure of the campaign, he'd do a 180, and call for some kind of cosmetic restriction on gun ownership. But he stood firm. So he's certainly not a lost cause, or bears some hidden antigun agenda. He's been tested, and he passed. As a few cooler heads have said here, it's too early to rip into each other over this. Everyone should redirect the effort of a post or flame on this topic into a letter to their congressman. The AWB extension can still be averted but the lobbying has to start now.

[Jim Robinson]

Of course.

[tpaine]

Thank you.

[Eaker]

Give me a break.

It was a valid question as people think differently and people have different threshholds. If you don't want to answer fine, but don't make me look like a bad guy for asking a honest question.

[Jim Robinson]

Like I said, give me a break.

[Eaker]

Okay.

[sinkspur]

Tom DeLay is never going to pass an AWB in the House, so you can forget about it ever reaching Bush's desk.

See what's being done here? Good cop/ bad cop.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Hell No, and I'll tell all of my friends to abandon him, too! 79.3%

Just under 6,000 votes so far......

[Teacher317]

See what's being done here? Good cop/ bad cop.

Even if that IS the case (and it is doubtful, since he made this promise 3 yeasr ago), and even if it DOES work (it didn't in the case of CFR, and all the same arguments and rebuttals were made then on FR), it STILL has some negative consequences. 5, 10, 20 years from now, when President Bayh (or whoever... I don't want to invoke that OTHER name) gets an even worse bill, and we jump up and down about it, he can cite the Great George W. Bush, the hero of Conservatives from the beginning of the new Century, and show his undying support for similar bills. That shuts the mouths of just enough of the GOP to get another huge and horrible step down the slippery slope completed.

Unintended consequences... ignore them at your own peril. That''s why honesty and Constitutionalism are the better road to take. be above the petty political gamesmanship (which is what I thought GWB was doing spectacularly well for the past 2 years).

[Captiva]

I think there are a lot more issues that have more of a priority than this one. If this is the more important issue to any of the people on this thread, then I question their priorities.

Well then with all due respect I question your critical thinking skills. Without this issue as a priority, the issues that you consider important would be moot.

[Jim Robinson]

Yes, I support the Second Amendment. And I make no bones about its purpose or to whom it applies. It was not put in place so Bill and Hillary Clinton could go duck hunting with a shotgun or so Barbara Steisand could carry a derringer in her purse to stave off overzealous fans. It's there because the founders wanted to ensure that we the people (ie, individuals) should remain armed to defend ourselves from a government gone bad. As far as I'm concerned, we should be allowed to park fully operational Sherman tanks in our garages and commute via fighter planes (if we wish). Now, personal nukes capable of taking out large cities.... hmmmm.... I don't know if I want to trust some of the crazier antiwar libs with those.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..see what's being done here? Good cop/ bad cop....

Yep. You're observant, as usual. But as a pro gun lobbyist myself I understand exactly where these posters are coming from. When you've been shafted by pols, and been lied to by pols, and had your vote and your donation used by pols with no payback countless times, your nerve ends are jangling. You don't want to hear, 'trust me.'

By the way bud, a bit of Downunder gun news, John Tingle from the Shooter's Party was confirmed yesterday as a member of the Upper House here in New South Wales. That's the equivalent of your Senate, or England's House of Lords. To the best of my knowledge, the only candidate anywhere in the world, elected on a pure pro-gun ticket. Regards, B