If Bush supports bad unConstitutional Clinton law, how is he any different, as far as gun owners are concerned ?
I can tell a man's politics by the caliber of his weapon.(and vice-versa)
I smell a 22 and maybe some shotguns.
Obviously, you are less vigilant when a moderate republican is in office.
not responsible enough to vote ? I am a land owner, pay taxes and I am registered to vote. Are you suggesting that I can only responsibly vote for tyranny or tyranny light ?
Gun owners who only own and shoot muzzleloaders wouldn't be affected by a ban on whatever guns you have had for those 15 years. Do you think it would be legitimate for them to advocate a ban on whatever guns you own? Are you so selfish and self-centered that you're willing to enslave your fellow man just because the law doesn't affect you? If so, you sound like the kind of person who would have been more than happy to rat out your neighbors for being Jewish in Nazi germany. Surely you can't really think like that, can you?
This law is unconstitutional. Even if you don't own a single firearm at all that is sufficient reason to oppose its renewal with every grain of political will you can muster.
If this issue causes you to vote against Bush, I have to wonder if you are responsible enough to either own firearms or vote.
If you advocate voting for someone who is clearly in violation of the oath of the presidency just because he happens to be your party's candidate, I DON'T "have to wonder if you are responsible enough" to vote; because you clearly aren't. When the President violates his oath of office and directly betrays the Constitution, that is a far worse crime than any other he might commit. It shows that he is unqualified for the position. Or have you lived under Clinton for so long that you really don't think words, including the words in the Constitution and the words in the oath of office, mean anything anymore?
And even though a lot of people are more principled than you on these kinds of issues, it should be important to you "pragmatic" types as well. The reason is that, regardless of the claims of you and people like you, it DOES matter to a lot of voters. The hard-core gun rights voters are simply not going to vote for an anti-gun candidate. That means that if Bush votes for renewal of this so-called law, he WILL lose those votes, and very likely lose the election, just as his father did in 1992 for the import ban and Dole did in 1996 for his support of the Brady bill. Even if you don't give a damn about the Constitution, a pragmatic republican would try his best to keep Bush from making this mistake just so he won't lose the election. It isn't as if the anti-gun position will get Bush any votes; because the anti-gunners are going to vote for the Democratic candidate no matter what. Allowing Bush to hold this position only loses him votes, and quite likely the election.
Who sez members of Congress won't tack on amendments that WILL change your life as a gunowner?