Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Southack
I suspect that he didn't quite get the correct nuance uttered (but hey, don't let my reservation stop the great "Sky is Falling" party by our resident Chicken Littles).

Where were all you guys during the campaign, and how many times does this have to be posted before you get it? During the presidential primary campaign, Bush answered a reporter's question about the AW ban, AND HE SAID HE SUPPORTED IT AND WOULD SIGN A BILL TO RENEW IT IF HE WAS ELECTED. On a later occasion when the subject was raised again, he added that when the law came up for renewal he would also ask for an additional clause prohibiting importation of pre-ban hi-capcity magazines which had been grandfathered in by the original AW law. Those are facts, and no "nuances" added by a spokesman can change them one way or the other.

Some of us, probably a lot of us, either heard or read Bush's statement back then. I still remember it very well because I was stunned to read it. I knew this over 2-1/2 years ago, how could it be that so many FR political junkies missed it? And why is it that some people here keep questioning this well known FACT on every thread regarding the matter? Wishfull thinking can't change what he said in at least two separate instances.

I voted for Bush and will probably do so again in '04. I like Bush and I NOT have conspired to concoct some dark, evil scheme to decieve 2nd amendment supporter's into not voting for him in '04. But I know that unfortunately he did say exactly the same thing concerning the ban that this spokesman is now saying. I am also scared stiff that this issue could very possibly cost him a 2nd term and give us another disasterous Democratic administration to suffer through. The way to keep that from happening is not to deny what he said, it's to let both the White house and all your representation in congress and the Senate know that you strenuously oppose what he intends to do.

96 posted on 04/15/2003 6:07:26 AM PDT by epow
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: epow
The way to keep that from happening is not to deny what he said, it's to let both the White house and all your representation in congress and the Senate know that you strenuously oppose what he intends to do.
Oh please...the DC crew do what they want to do and I get "form letters".
Thank you for your concern. I too share your concerns yada, yada, yada...
They may pay attention, but in the end I doubt that it makes that much difference. I've gotten, if it's possible, even more cynical over the last few years. I've no time or disposition for any of 'em.

And in the end it always seems that the piece of crap bill gets passed (if I'm usually "agin it") and the good bill gets shot down (if I'm usually "fer it")!
They don't "represent" me or my views, but I still have to live with what they pass.

102 posted on 04/15/2003 6:52:38 AM PDT by philman_36
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

To: epow
"AND HE SAID HE SUPPORTED IT AND WOULD SIGN A BILL TO RENEW IT IF HE WAS ELECTED. On a later occasion when the subject was raised again, he added that when the law came up for renewal he would also ask for an additional clause prohibiting importation of pre-ban hi-capcity magazines which had been grandfathered in by the original AW law. Those are facts, and no "nuances" added by a spokesman can change them one way or the other.
"

Yup. This is nothing new. RKBA folks need to realize that the Republican Party is no more committed to their point of view than the Democrats. Like the Libertarians, RKBA fanatics are a tiny minority of voters. Whether that's good or bad is irrelevant. It's just the fact.
143 posted on 04/15/2003 10:24:17 AM PDT by MineralMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 96 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson