How Assault Weapons Import Ban Cost Bush 41 Re-Election

"Unintended Consequences" ^ | 1996 | John Ross

[wku man]

A sampling of your inane comments lately:

"The only message Bush has gotten from many alleged conservatives was "screw you."

Yep, you're right. I wrote the words "screw you" right next to his name on my absentee ballot, right after I colored in his box. I voted for him to say "screw you". Real bright, guy.

"1. This isn't Bush, it's a spokesman (spokesperson, person of spoke) who can be disowned in a heartbeat."

Well, it's been a week and a half, and no disavowal. If he spoke without Bush's permission, he'd be looking for a job right now.

"Translation: he ain't going to cut his throat to appease people too damn lazy to help themselves BEFORE it gets to his desk, as they're likely to be too lazy to actually vote in November, anyway."

No one writes more letters, makes more calls, or sends more e-mails to their Congresscritters than the RKBA community. Any gun owner would know this, so what does that say about you, hmmmm? I bet you've never fired a gun, and just wish they'd go away, huh?

"Congress is in a far better position to take heat from the DNC, because that heat would be spread out across many members of Congress instead of being focused on one and ONLY one person."

And our Pubbie Congresscritters have so much backbone, don't they, Chuckles? I mean, that's why Klinton was removed from office in 1999, and our nuke weapons secrets weren't sold to China, and the "Patriot" Act failed to pass, and CFR was struck down, and we're enjoying the economic prosperity that Bush's meaningful, immediate tax cuts gave us, and our borders have been effectively closed by military patrols, and all the H-1B and L-1 visa hlders have been sent packing back to India and Pakistan, and...oh crap. I forgot, our spineless Congresscritters let all that stuff go on. Do you think they'll have the guts, two months before an election and in the face of the merciless media full-court press, to stand up, do the right thing, and allow the AWB to sunset? Man, if we were at the poker table, I'd take that bet in a heartbeat...after raising you big time!

"If you really think that the cause is now doomed, then you deserve to lose."

Okay, I'll say this really slowly, since you've evidently not understood what we "gun nuts" have been saying all along. Ahem...WE...LOSE...NO...MATTER...WHO...WINS...BECAUSE...BOTH
...PARTIES...ARE...TAKING...AWAY...OUR...SECOND...
AMENDMENT...RIGHTS...AND...ADVANCING...A...COMMIELIB...AGENDA. There...do you now understand that we conservatives are in a lose-lose position?

"Many of these people claim to have supported Bush in 2000. I find their claims suspect at best."

And the Great Pooh-Bear, the all knowing, all seeing, swami of the smarmy has spoken! He sees that the RKBA community actually didn't vote for Bush in 2000! He sees that it was, in fact, the union coal miners in West Virginia, and the retired "give me more" old folks in Florida, and the welfare suckoffs in Tennessee, who actually won the election for Bush! Sheesh...

"Rolling back socialism involves a concept that is apparently rather alien to a lot of conservatives. It's called "work."

As I've established many, many times already, rolling back Socialism apparently involves not voting for the Pubbies or the Rats. Maybe you're new to "working" to roll back Socialism in the GOP, but a heckuva lot of us have been doing it for 15 years or longer now, and we've gotten to the point that we're not going to write one more letter, make one more long-distance phone call, or even send one more e-mail. After years of banging our heads against the wall, trying to get the Pubbies to listen to our concerns about not only the RKBA, but a multitude of other issues, many of us are tired of the constant headaches. If it takes getting their butts un-elected to get a message through to the RINOs in DC (and Kalifornia), maybe that'll help. Until then, you need us, we don't need you.

Speaking of work, I have an appointment to go out on, so I'll give you a few hours to figure out how to respond rationally and logically, and leave the vulgar insults out. Good luck, Pooh-bear!

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Poohbah]

No one writes more letters, makes more calls, or sends more e-mails to their Congresscritters than the RKBA community. Any gun owner would know this, so what does that say about you, hmmmm? I bet you've never fired a gun, and just wish they'd go away, huh?

Wrong on all counts.

As for the RKBA community allegedly being the most communicative...please quit reading the NRA's self-congratulatory propaganda. The RKBA community goes through ups and downs in their activism, alternating full-bore campaigns with navel-gazing. And most of it is in connection with the NRA's own efforts; anyone who thinks the NRA is not sufficiently pure enough for them to get involved is likely to not be involved with any effort at all.

[dinodino]

The NRA doesn't speak for all gun owners--there are other groups as well, although NRA is by far the largest. However, NRA and GOA reps have recently mentioned interest in this ban, so it's on the agenda for grassroots campaigns by both orgs.

[Mini-14]

President Bush opposed the right of pilots to be armed with firearms to defend their aircraft from hijackers.

[Poohbah]

The NRA doesn't speak for all gun owners--there are other groups as well, although NRA is by far the largest.

They're also the most organized, and most effective.

But their constituency is also prone to bouts of purist navel-gazing instead of effective action.

Witness the reaction you sometimes see to Project Exile.

However, NRA and GOA reps have recently mentioned interest in this ban, so it's on the agenda for grassroots campaigns by both orgs.

OK, with that in mind...if the NRA is "vey series" about this, and can keep the troops in the fight--not a sure-fire bet with some of the perfectionists out there--look for the following to happen:

1. Democrats, emboldened by Bush's comments, make a full-court press.

2. Renewal either dies in committee or gets poison-pill amendments that gut it. Some inchoate anger on anti-gunners' side of the aisle, but without a single evildoer to focus on, it dies before 11/04.

3. NRA gets out vote in November 2004. Democrats clobbered six ways to Sunday.

But if the RKBA single-issue voters insist on making Bush take all of the heat on himself with a veto, they lose no matter what. The "inchoate anger" now has a single person to focus on. That means that the issue gains traction. In salvaging his base vote, Bush is forced to write off the moderate middle that equates "assault weapon ban" with "outlawing machine-guns." If he wants the "radical middle," he loses a large chunk of his base.

Either (a) kill it in Congress, or (b) get out there NOW and ensure that plenty of moderate voters understand what the" assault weapons ban" is and is not actually about, and what it means for them.

[wku man]

"I asked you to cite your source that supports your claim that God is against the AWB."

Please tell me you're not really that hopeless. I never said God was against the AWB. I said He's given us the right to defend ourselves, and the Founding Fathers, realizing that we need modern weapons of the day (that means Brown Bess muskets back then, M-16s or other military rifles today) in order to defend ourselves from those tyrants who would try to take our freedom. Read this over several times before you send your next post.

"You then did a wonderful impression of Bill Clinton by referring me first to the Constitution (which you later acknowledged was not a religious document) and then to the Declaration of Independence, which states that the Creator gives us rights."

Do they still teach reading in Maryland? I said 1)God gives us the right to defend ourselves, and 2) the Constitution guarantees that right. It is in the Declaration that it's acknowledged that our rights come from God, and that to protect those rights, which come from God, governments (our Constitution) are instituted among men. That means the right to protect ourselves and our freedom comes from God, and the Constitution backs up that God-given right.

Seriously, Trace, you need to have some basic knowledge of our government, it's founding documents, and the ability to reason and use logic in order to successfully participate in discussions here at FReep. This may not be the pace for you. I feel bad now, like I just kicked a puppy.

"Of course, the point you miss is that the Declaration of Independence does not mention gun rights. Therefore you have failed to connect the dots between "God" and RKBA."

First of all, it's not "God", it's just simply God. Do you have the right to decide where you live? Do you have the right to date whomever you choose? Do you have the right to work whatever job you decide to? Do you have the right to watch TV at night? Do you have the right to go with the Cabernet instead of the Schirazz? Yes, you do. Are these rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independance? Yes, they are, under the "right to pursue happiness". Did God grant you the right to the pursuit of happiness? Yes, He did. Was the Constitution written to protect those rights given to you by God? Yes, it was.

The right to defend oneself comes under the "light to life" clause. In order to guarantee our right to life was not infrigned by a tyrant who would take away our lives, our liberty and not let us pursue happiness, the Second Amendment was included as the last line of defense against such infringements. Therefore, the Founding Fathers institutionalized the right to defend ourselves, as granted by God, in the Second Amendment. Betcha never thought about it that way, huh? Seriously, I can't make it any more elementary than that...it's been a long time since I tried to write on a third grade level.

"You can make another attempt if you dare."

Are you a masochist, or just a glutton for punishment? Don't get combative now.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[wku man]

"Wrong on all counts."

Oh yeah? Prove it.

"As for the RKBA community allegedly being the most communicative...please quit reading the NRA's self-congratulatory propaganda. The RKBA community goes through ups and downs in their activism, alternating full-bore campaigns with navel-gazing. And most of it is in connection with the NRA's own efforts; anyone who thinks the NRA is not sufficiently pure enough for them to get involved is likely to not be involved with any effort at all."

Okay, Pooh-Bear. You're unwilling to listen to reason, since you obviously have some inate ability to see, hear, smell, feel, taste, and know everything. I'm not changing your mind, and you're not doing anything but make me shake my head and wonder what the hell's in the water out in Kalifornia. Maybe something that gives you ESP, eh? I don't think there's anything left to say to one another, so see ya in the funny papers.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Poohbah]

Oh yeah? Prove it.

I have nothing to prove before man or God, sonny boy.

[Trace21230]

"I said He's given us the right to defend ourselves"

Yes, you did say this, and I'm still waiting for the proof which you have failed to provide. You're heavy on personal attacks, low on substance.

If you want to see what a good response to my question looks like, please see hobbes' intelligent, reasoned response to my queries on this thread.

"Do they still teach reading in Maryland? I said 1)God gives us the right to defend ourselves."

Again, I'm waiting for your evidence that God gives us the right to own assault weapons. Put up or shut up. An argument is out there, but you are either incapable or unwilling to persuasively articulate it.

"Are these rights spelled out in the Declaration of Independance? Yes, they are, under the "right to pursue happiness". Did God grant you the right to the pursuit of happiness? Yes, He did. Was the Constitution written to protect those rights given to you by God? Yes, it was."

This is priceless. Since you have failed to make a persuasive argument for your claim that assault weapons are somehow a "God-given" right under the Declaration of Independence (you changed your initial tune which chirped regarding the Constitution), you now wildly proclaim the old bumper sticker slogan "Happiness is a warm gun."

If you think self-defense falls under the penumbra of "pursuit of happiness," then there is a seat on the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals waiting for you.

Just to memorialize your classless tactics in posting on what I regard to be the best bulletin board on the internet, here is a sampling of your petty ad hominem attacks on me today:

"Please tell me you're not really that hopeless."
"Do they still teach reading in Maryland?"
". . . you need to have some basic knowledge of our government, it's founding documents. . . "

P.S. please learn the distinction between "its" and "it's", apparently these horrible Maryland schools are better than the undoubtedly stellar institution you attended, as your grammar skills aptly demonstrate

"...it's been a long time since I tried to write on a third grade level."

And it's been even longer since you wrote WELL on a third grade level.

It's not my style to resort to bellittling tactics on a public board, but in this instance you have proven you richly deserve it. God did say "an eye for an eye" back at you pal.

Trace

[Trace21230]

You've presented a compelling case in this post. I found the following portion problematic, however:

"4.Any weapon is permissible for use in self-defense. This case law does not say the owner is guilty if he uses a sword, but not guilty if he uses a club. The issue is not one of weapons, but the right of self-defense. God's law does not make an arbitrary distinction between acceptable and unacceptable weapons for self-defense. And there are no biblical laws restricting the access of citizens to weapons necessary for self-defense. To limit a citizen's access to lethal weapons (e.g., guns) is to limit his ability for self-defense. Gun control is self-defense control. Who would want to control and limit the individual's ability to defend himself except thugs and tyrants? "

If *any* weapon is permissible for self-defense, are you suggesting that the general citizenry is permitted to own rocket launchers, grenades, nuclear warheads, etc.

Although your scheme is superficially appealing, it has no appreciation for reality. There are weapons that no individual has a right to own. Period. Under your rationale, the universe of weapons is fair game when it comes to private property. I do not accept that. Anyone who supported the "presumptive war" against Iraq should not accept that, either.

There is certainly a line to be drawn between those weapons that should be permitted and those that shouldn't. The argument lies over where to draw the line.

Incidentally, I am no gun-grabber. I grew up in the northwoods where almost everyone had at least one gun. So no, the gun isn't the problem. But the wingnuts begin to lose me when they start claiming a "right" and a "need" to own a tool that is designed expressly to kill large numbers of people during a war.

That having been said, I recognize that to some extent, the AWB is form over substance; i.e., many of the weapons are not really "assault weapons". So, I would probably be satisfied if the law were looked at again.

The main argument I have with the far right on this issue is the notion that we are entitled to have whatever armament we want. To me, that is asking for trouble. Who needs an Uzi for self-defense? It's ridiculous.

Trace

[hobbes1]

Well, actually the argument correctly centers around what an Infantryman might be expected to carry, and yes that would imply RPGs, Laaws etc. However, go abck to the Constitution, if you will and tell me what 'Congress Shall have the Power to.....grant letters of marque and reprisal' implies...

The Second amendment exists to protect Citizens from a Government gone bad. So yes, an Uzi fits that bill. The Right to protect the people against the government is an extension of the Natural right of Self Defense...

The Nuclear Weapon argument is childish and should be avoided. As it tends to discredit the person advancing it.

[Trace21230]

"The Nuclear Weapon argument is childish and should be avoided. As it tends to discredit the person advancing it."

Perhaps it is childish, but you yourself said "any weapon" should be available to the citizenry.

But in the spirit of comity, let's forget about nukes. What about a shoulder-launched surface-to-air missile launcher? Should ordinary citizens have the right to possess those?

What about a tank?

It seems to me that both of these items fall within the category of "any weapon," don't they?

If you are right about the 2nd amendment being to protect the people from the government, why shouldn't we have the right to own everything the government does?

Trace

[dinodino]

Why wasn't Lamech punished?

[Eaker]

Bump for later.

[Trace21230]

How do you know he wasn't?

[Poohbah]

The Nuclear Weapon argument is childish and should be avoided.

There are folks right here on Free Republic who think that you have a Constitutional right to own and carry nuclear weapons.

The line is drawn somewhere; the question is, "exactly where?"

[dinodino]

Why do you think he was?

[votelife]

I agree with what someone else just said. They way to get the "single issue voters to quite" is to support their issue or at least acknowledge that their votes/money/campaign support are needed. If Congress stops the AW ban, than Bush comes out MUCH better. If he vetoes it, or signs it, he might take a hit. So for the freepers who don't want Bush to take a hit, email your congressman and senator and Bush and tell them to support the 2nd. The 2nd amendment is only 2nd to the 1st in the bill of rights. It's pretty important.

[dinodino]

I see no problem with private ownership of warships, attack aircraft, and the like. Quite a number of early Americans citizens owned warships, and the government used to issue letters of marque and reprisal.

[carenot]

It might also be putting us on notice that if we can't keep Congress in line he won't take the heat for it in the middle of the campaign which sounds more like a Rove thing than a Bush thing.

Bush won't take the heat for a decision?
Then why is he President?