How Assault Weapons Import Ban Cost Bush 41 Re-Election

"Unintended Consequences" ^ | 1996 | John Ross

[Atlas Sneezed]

"We should all stand and be counted....counted for EVERY firearm, book, or ammo purchase that we make. Let THEM get nervous!"

I disagree. They already know about evey round, every firearm due to the excise tax paid by manufacturers. The fact that much of that stuff is going into UNKNOWN hands should make them even more nervous, and less tempted to try to track it down after a ban.

[jammer]

Ross Perot was a nutbag. But Bush didn't lose because of him. His entire political base was created due to the Bush handling of the White House. Bush lost because of Bush.

[jammer]

You can't use 1996 as an example of anything. Clinton had routed Newt and we Republicans responded with Bob Dole. BOB DOLE for heaven's sake. No wonder people stayed home. Never in our history have two parties each deserved to lose more.

[Tailback]

I hope you are right about your take of this Nick. Time and time again Dubya has outwitted the Dems and I hope that this is another of those times. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, but if he does sign it, I vote Libertarian.

[jammer]

Why is it MY duty to persuade a damned politician--any damned politician--to adhere to an oath he/she took to defend the Constitution?

[Nick Danger]

That link distinctly stated that they're going after more legislation and shows that even when what is wanted is gotten it will never be enough. You do a great disservice to others reading this particular thread with that shortsighted view.

I'm not doing a disservice to anybody. You talk as though Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein run the U.S. Government. They've written a letter, so the Republic is in peril. Oh, cool yer jets.

The "larger game" I'm referring to is twofold: getting George Bush re-elected in 2004, and pushing as hard as possible to achieve a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

I would agree with you if you told me that supporting gun control is a hell of a way for Bush to seek re-election. But I'm not convinced that that's what he's doing.

You'll recall that Bush once said that he didn't need authorization from Congress to go to war in Iraq. That set off a big round of huffing and puffing from Congressional Democrats, who walked right into the trap. They insisted, no they demanded, that Bush seek such authorization. What happened? They got creamed on the vote, and they got pushed right onto a wedge issue that has split the Democratic Party — and is still causing divisiveness today. In the process, the whole Party got tagged with labels like "not serious," "unpatriotic," "inept," and "McGovern again." In addition, numerous Democrats have been successfully portrayed as trying to have it both ways — they voted for the authorization, and then made peacenik noises. None of that helps them. It has turned Kerry into a joke.

Gun control is a similar wedge issue for Democrats. The whine-and-brie set on the Upper West Side loves it, and so do the activist types who dominate the Democratic primaries. But woe betide the Democrat who votes for it almost anywhere else. This is why we get the Chuck and Diane show, and why nobody else seems that interested — not even Hillary, whose ambitions include someday carrying a state besides New York and California.

A reasonable question is, "Who is this Scott McClellan guy who announced Bush's support for the ban renewal, and was he involved in the machinations that set the Democrats up on the Iraq Resolution issue?"

Here are two quotes from an AP story on August 28, 2002:

• The White House announced this week that if it decides to invade Iraq, it's not legally bound to seek Congress' authorization. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said the president hasn't ruled out seeking their approval.
• Speaking in Crawford, Texas, where President Bush is vacationing, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said hearings would be "part of a healthy discussion about how we move forward on Iraq."

Maybe the game here is to involve the Democrats in a "healthy discussion" about gun control.

[Jesse]

Thanks for the links...makes it easy to send messages to not only your representative but the House Policy Committee, Speaker of the House, etc. I urge everyone who thinks the ban should sunset to write.

[jammer]

Bye. We don't need you.

Then what the hell are you arguing about? Methinks that you're whistling in the dark.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I talk about it because I don't want them to take decent people with them by taking away any implication that their ideas are worthy, of merit, or will accomplish anything.

[Mr. Mojo]

"Bush banned semiauto imports by executive order in '89. Got his 'Drug Czar' buddy to say it was a wonderful idea.

Has a 'Drug Czar' ever been on the right side of any issue?

[Nick Danger]

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, but if he does sign it, I vote Libertarian.

And a lot of others will just stay home. If that actually passes, and he does sign it, it's "read my lips" all over again. It's the knife in the gut of his own base.

But that is so obvious that I can't believe that's the plan. Nothing in the political history of the Bush Administration points to them being that dumb. On the other hand, they have demonstrated a remarkable ability to "juke" the Democrats right out of their shorts, by feinting left and then running right.

[Mr. Mojo]

"In a few weeks, they're [GHWB's administration] going to find out that taking us [2nd Amendment defenders] for granted was the biggest mistake they ever made in their lives."

I highly doubt that X41 realized his mistake, even after his loss to Klintoon. And it appears his son didn't learn the lesson either.

[backhoe]

Thanks for the links...

You bet!

[jammer]

... I don't want them to take decent people with them...

Hmmm. So I can infer from your statement that they are indecent people? If so, I guess the line between Democrats and Republicans really IS blurring--what a tactic!

[bybybill]

Where did you read about the "press release"? How come the NRA isn`t talking about it?

[BradyLS]

Nobody is going to take your guns or mine as long as we use them in a reasonable, responsible way.</>

Right. When the definition of "reasonable and responsible" is "duly registered with the state and 'conveniently' stored in a NG armory," where will YOUR arms be?

[BradyLS]

What is this "group" going to do in 04? Vote for Gore? Hillary? Kerry?

The national election is when you vote for your Party. The Party candidate is the cypher. But you ALWAYS have the PRIMARY to vote for favorite candidate.

[HamiltonJay]

Well we're just going to have to disagree with the cause/effect of the ban.

In terms of Bush losing because of any stand on it, it just isn't going to happen. While the NRA may be the biggest lobby group, its membership is still only 1% of the population. The idea, that you will take Bush out in the primaries over any sort of stand on the assault weapons ban is IMHO delusional.

Right now, the administration is not fighting for or against the ban, and that is the smart political move. I suppose we will find out through the primaries if its going to be a groundswell of pro gunners who are going to punish Bush... but reality its not going ot happen. Here in PA the same nonsense was being spewed over Rendell (who is an ardent gun controller and always has been) The gun lobby here kept saying, oh wait, those rural voters are going to tip it to Fisher etc etc etc, just wait until the middle of the state comes in... etc etc etc... and it didn't happen.

AWB is a non starter politically, the damage any canidate would take for trying to topple it at this time would far outway any inroads he would make, particularly with a part of the electorate that has already learned its lesson about being a 1 issue electorate in 92 and 96.