Actually, it worked out better than the alternative. The result was the Republican revolution in 1994. A very large number of anti-gun members of Congress were eliminated in that battle. If we had voted for Bush again, the result would have been both a compromising, anti-gun president and a radical anti-gun Congress.
According to your own prideful ravings it is you and others like you who are responsible for the 8 years we *all* suffered under Bill Clinton.
No, Bush-Sr is responsible for the first 4 years because he betrayed the gun vote with his import ban, and Dole was responsible for the second 4 years because he betrayed the gun vote on the Brady bill. Voters have no obligation to vote for someone who has betrayed them. If anything, it is the mainstream republicans who caused the last 4 years, because you were warned that Dole wouldn't be electable because of that issue before the primaries. That you refused to listen to reason and nominate a candidate who could perform his Constitutional duty, and instead nominated someone unqualified who would violate the oath of office demonstrates why the 1996 election was lost. The Republican party was more interested to see that Dole "got his turn" than they were interested in principle. Such policies might work for the Democrats, but there are too many voters in the Republican big tent that vote on principle.
It isn't hard to get their vote; all you have to do is just not betray them. Don't ban guns and you get the pro-2A vote. Don't fund abortions and you get the pro-life vote. Don't confiscate people's property and you get the tax activists vote. It isn't hard to win as a Republican; all you have to do is follow the Constitution and don't kill babies. Why do you (or better yet, the candidates) think that is too much to ask?
Do you think President Bush will not listen to reason?
So far, he doesn't seem to be doing so; otherwise he wouldn't have brought the subject up in the first place. The law is going to sunset by itself; all he has to do keep the pro-gun vote is nothing. Yet even that much seems too much to ask.
Is it easier for you to post a lengthy rant on Free Republic than to write a reasonable letter to the President, and urge others of like mind to do the same?
Some of the party faithful read here. There are many here that are under the illusion that Bush will get the pro-gun votes no matter what he does. Their logic seems to be "Hey; what are they going to do, vote Democrat?". The truth is that Bush is going to lose these votes if he follows the course he appears to be currently advocating. Not only is it important for him to know that, it is important for the Republican party to know that. Even if you don't care at all about Constitutional rights, you need to understand that this issue could cost him the election. Thus, even those that don't care about gun rights should still strongly oppose this legislation, assuming they want Bush to be re-elected. The purpose of the "ranting" is to make sure that Republicans know the issue affects them, even if they don't care about the Constitution. If they can't be pro-gun for principled reasons, they should at least be so for pragmatic ones.
Would it take any more energy or time to rouse your friends to write than what it takes to enrage them to retaliate? Why not use your powers of persuasion now, before any damage is done?
Which is exactly what I'm trying to do. But the people that need to be made to understand is not just the President, but those activists in the Republican party, including our membership here. If they can't support the Constitution because it is the right thing to do, they should support it because the alternative is quite possibly another 4 years under a Democrat when they lose the gun rights votes.
The President may not respond to you personally, but don't think for a minute that he's not paying attention, 'cause he is.
W already knows my views. Don't misunderstand; just because I'm not a Bush-bot doesn't mean I'm a Bush-basher. I have already voted for him three times(twice in Texas, once on the promise to sign CCL legislation vetoed by Richards, and once in reward for that vote). I would like to vote for him again; but I simply can't do that if he violates his oath of office to defend the Constitution.
Or worse, if the Democrats finally wise up, and run a candidate with a solid gun rights background and the right promises. The question then would be whether or not he'd be believed.
But Clinton knew the beating he took during his last congressional race came from the gun lobby/gun culture, and Al Gore found out the same. If it dawns on them before it does for the Republicans, Bush could be in real serious trouble. Think the 2000 election, with 5 million fewer votes for Bush...and 10 million more for a Democratic dark horse with a hatful of what disillusioned voters want to hear. Hillary could never pull it off, but she's not the most likely Democratic candidate.
-archy-/-
Nice post (#169). Given the way that the Gulf War (GW?) has exposed the Left as dictator appeasing surrender monkeys has me thinking that Dubya should not concern himself at all with the Lost Left but rather, take the reins (constitutional) and pull what is the best of America out of hibernation, (see New Deal freezer) thaw Miss Liberty out and put her on display once again.
Opportunity dosen't knock often and it would be a shame if it were ignored this time, given the make up of Congress and such.