Bush in Tight Spot With N.R.A. Over Gun Legislation

The New York Times ^ | 05/08/03 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

[PhilDragoo]

Using phone, fax and email; eschewing snail mail post-9/11.

[Joe Brower]

Phone is good. Fax is good. Email goes right into the bit bucket, unfortunately, despite how our "leaders" claim to be so "technology oriented". The more they get hammered on every available channel, though, is a good thing!

[Mulder]

All of Bush's anti-gun credentials were right there on his campaign website.

Yes, they were. But those who pointed it out were told to "vote for the lesser of two evils", or "don't worry, it will never get to his desk.... just vote for him and he'll take a strong pro-gun stance if elected".

So it's no surprise to most of us.

What is surprising is the number of so-called "conservatives" who either support the ban or defend Bush's support of it.

[Kevin Curry]

To recommend that we silently acquiesce to any perception that the Republicans would join the Democrats in eroding our liberties, and that our votes may be taken for granted an any case, is a grand invitation to treachery and tyranny. Shun it.

Great, puffy, swelling words; little content.

[Sabertooth]

Great, puffy, swelling words; little content.

True, you could have trimmed your reply down to a concise "nuh-uh."
Still, I think your self-referential post was a nice touch.

Really, what else can you do when you find yourself on the wrong side of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry? Just pretend it never happened, and most folks will probably forget all about it.

[Kevin Curry]

Look, this thread is stuffed to the bursting point with whiny malcontents who apparently believe the better part of good government is b*itching by keyboard. They hate Bush and shake their feeble little fists at him for saying he will sign the AWB if it reaches his desk, but they offer no alternative but to stay home and pout on election day, apparently believing this will teach Bush a lesson. "We'll show him!" they say. "We'll submit to be ruled by Hillary Clinton instead. That'll make Bush feel bad, yessir."

I just want to hear a practical, workable plan--something a tad bit smarter than biting one's lower lip and pouting in the corner on election day. What's the problem? Lack of intelligence? No imagination?

I don't want to hear great swooning and swooping bloviations. If I wanted to hear that, I would entice OWK from his cave. I want to hear a specific, workable, achieveable plan. Is that asking too much?

[Sabertooth]

Look, this thread is stuffed to the bursting point with whiny malcontents who apparently believe the better part of good government is b*itching by keyboard.

How does bitching back at them prove anything?

Keep Jefferson in mind when you call people whiny malcontents, and remember that the British called TJ a "traitor."

The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
Thomas Jefferson ~ "Tree of Liberty" letter

What Jefferson is saying here is that even insurrection based on a misinformed perception that the government is encroaching on our liberties is a lesser evil than silently abiding by it.

It's part of the political process to bitch, moan, and hyperventilate. Conflict and the unruly opinions of the masses are inevitable and essential to liberty. The Founders understood and embraced this. The government they designed depends upon it. Why is this so difficult for so many Freepers to apprehend?

If a politician knows that he can have your vote no matter what, then he knows that he can take you and your vote for granted. He can do whatever the wind and his wet finger tell him, because your vote is already in the bag.

In every election, on whom do the politicians devote the bulk of their energies?

They focus primarly on the undecided and swing voters. The votes that matter most are the ones on which they can't rely with certainty.

If you want to get the attention of a candidate for whom you've voted before, tell him why he's in danger of losing your vote.

[Abundy]

So you want a strategy Kev?

How's this...everyone "whining" on this thread will tell 5 friends why they should call and fax their representative and the president to vote against/veto Feinswein's bill. Each of those 5 friends will tell five more and so on. Each caller/faxer will make it clear that, while the caller/faxer supported this representative/the president in the last election, a vote on the representative's/president's part for the bill will earn their political opponent a vote from the caller in the next election.

This type of lobbying campaign by single-issue voters worked in the Bush-Gore election and the interim elections during Bush and Clinton. Look what happened in WV and Tenn due to Gore being perceived as more anti-gun than Bush. Each of those representatives that are R's will be communicating the sheer volume of calls to the WH. You will see a shift in the WH public position and you will see a shift in the R's public position.

D's, wary of the 2000 and 2002 election results due to single-issue voters will also be communicating the volume of calls to the D leadership - who won't give a damn. But you can bet that D's who are up for re-election in 2004 will not vote for the ban.

And lo and behold, single-issue voters, with the help of lobbying groups, will cause Feinswein's bill to die a derserving death before Bush gets a chance to sign it...thus the single-issue voters will save Bush from himself...

How's that for a plan? Or would you rather see the bill get signed so you can continue to bitch about us single-issue voters?

And don't for one minute think that I'll vote for Bush again if he signs this bill. I've never voted D in a presidential election before, but you can bet you ass I will in '04 if Bush allows Brady to continue. Especially if there is a R majority in Congress.

[ZULU]

"I'm sure Rove has stated basically, "You won the war in Iraq, you fight for lower taxes (not very successfully), and you wear a cowboy hat. The right wing will be pissed at you, but they'll still vote for you anyway. Where else are they gonna go?"

And, unfortunately, Rove's right. Where else are we gonna go?"

Where all Constitutionally concerned Republicans should go is to their Republican legislators and strongly urge them that a vote for this bill's extension equals the loss of a vote for re-election. They should do likewise with Mr. Bush.

Bush has done a great job with the war on terror and in Iraq, but, like his father, he caved into the Dems on McCain-Feingold and it looks like he may cave in on Schumer-Feinstein.

If he does, the ONLY way to make ANY impression on these dunces is NOT to pull the election lever for George Bush in 2004. Even a rat can learn from experience, and if Bush is going to follow the Metternickian advice of overrated Carl Rove on this one - just like he is following Rove's direction on illegal aliens and border security, and castigating and ostracizing Senator Tancredo of Colorado - there must be a price to pay. And that price HAS to be a painful one - defeat in 2004. It may hurt to have another Dem in the White House, but that's the only language apparently some people understand. One of the resaons Bush picked up so many conservative states in 2000 was over Gore's position and Clinton's position on the Second Amendment. Its time George Bush learned that lesson. His caving in on this issue, like on McCain-Feingold, is one which will loose him more votes than he will ever gain. The rabid anti-gunners are almost to a one devoted Democrats, who will not vote Republican regardless. We MUST show the Repoublican RINOs like ROVE the cost of treachery.

[Fearless Flyers]

I talk to my neighbors and people where ever I go. I feel them out and get their views. I especially ask if they vote or are registered.

If I believe they are interested and worthy of informing I offer them a copy of the Constitution and share my views with them.

It may not be a greatly effective but it does help inform my voting district. If you break the country down district by district people would be amazed how few qualified voters actually understand and practice their Constitution. In most areas outside of large cities it doesn't take that many to tip the scales one way or another.

I never indorse anything but the Constitution and if people ask me, I tell them, I'd just as soon slit a Republican’s throat as a Democrat's if they don't understand and defend the Constitution. You'd be surprised to know this is the majority opinion in the United States.

I believe if enough people tried this tactic together we could make the Democrats obsolete within the next two election cycles and introduce a new Conservative Political Party, delegating the Republicans from their centrist position to the Liberal or Progressive Party and the Dems to forever be known as the American Socialist Party.

I also believe that we will never see a better opportunity to achieve this goal, than we do at this moment in our Nation's history. This isn't a popular idea in the sheeple's Republican Party, but if they think about it, they'd understand the Republicans would be forced to caucus with another conservative or loose the majority.

My small neighborhood grocer from India has copies of the Constitution in pocket form available free to his customers as long as I can keep them in stock.

[Fraulein]

The NRA has already had to fight in court against the Campaign Finance legislation that was signed by Bush.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Posted by Roscoe to OrthodoxPresbyterian On News/Activism 05/08/2003 9:31 AM PDT #363 of 391 1. Here we have "Dane", toking up the Hookah-Pipe as visions of White Rabbits and Pink Elephants float past his eyes, exclaiming: "Grooooovy, Man".... 2. That's a rather strange definition of "hatred". I call it instead, the Law of Neighborly Love. ~~ Rank hypocrisy in religious guise is more like it.

"Hypocrisy"?? However do you mean? Personally, I have no moral objection whatsoever to Christians (myself included) casting our sarcastic aspersions upon the "joys" of Drug Use. Far from being "hypocritical", it certainly seems to me a rather more Christian policy than, say, shooting them in the gut.

But while we're on the subject of "Rank hypocrisy", why don't you protest a bit more loudly how terribly "un-neighborly" you find it that a Christian should cast sarcastic aspersions upon Drug Use... no indeed, you think that a bit of Sarcasm is far too harsh a weapon -- you'd much rather just smash down the door and blast away with guns blazing. A much more "Christian" example, indeed.

Yes, I'm sure you're oh-so-offended at a bit of Sarcasm being applied to Drug Users. Rank hypocrisy, thy name is Roscoe.

Eee-gads. You've been reduced to clutching at straws... attempting to shame me for my Sarcastic treatment of Drug Use (perish the thought!!), while you remain passionately in favor of the Anti-Christian Policy of killing thy neighbor.

Tsk, tsk... It simply won't do. News Flash -- There's a reason you always lose these little exchanges of ours, Roscoe. You're arguing from a FUNDAMENTALLY IMMORAL position. A fundamentally un-Jesus-like position.

As long as you argue from a FUNDAMENTALLY IMMORAL position, you're doomed to fail.

As a Calvinist, I might just say... it's predestined.

best, op

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

BTW, discussions of Jesus Christ have limited applicability to an issue that falls squarely in Caesar's realm. To invoke Jesus Christ in such an irrelevant fashion is to invoke him vainly. That, my OrthoPresbo keyboard rebel, is a violation of a commandment.

Pray tell, rabbi -- precisely what sphere of Caesar's Authority do you suppose is exempt from the Lordship of Jesus Christ, ethically speaking?

Do enlighten me, Kevin. Thrill me with your acumen.

best, op

[Roscoe]

"Hypocrisy"??

Yes.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Glavin schmelgen, the sarcasm meter is off the charts!

I have been accused, on rare and disparate occasions, of possessing something called a "sense of humor".

Whatever it is, it sounds entirely out-of-character for a dour Calvinist such as myself, and I shan't do it again.

;-)

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

"Hypocrisy"?? Yes. 394 posted on 05/13/2003 12:16 AM PDT by Roscoe

Define and Explain, oh great Rabban.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Cat got your tongue? Here's a definition of hypocrisy for you, Roscoe...

• Invade your Neighbor's Property.
• Shove a hand-gun in his face.
• Threaten to blow his brains out... unless, of course, he indulgences in Gambling, Intoxicants, or other such Private Vices of which you personally approve.
• Now here's the kicker -- pretend that your actions are remotely... Christian.
  In any possible sense of the word.

[Roscoe]

pretend that your actions are remotely... Christian.

Irony.

[patriciaruth]

If the AWB is signed into law, I'm going fishing on election day.

Not hunting?

Hey, I just dropped by to say thank you for recommending Baxter's Manifold: Time

I've been wallowing happily in science fiction this week, and that book was chock full of science, imaginative and real. Like many sci-fi writers he isn't good at creating characters, although I enjoyed Sheena a lot.

I'll be cracking Manifold: Space as soon as I get some chores done. Thanks again.

[patriciaruth]

What Jim left out of his road map was slowly gaining more voice in the media and in education. You can't build supermajorities if the media and the schools are free to brainwash the electorate, or if noncitizens are allowed to vote, or if voter fraud is tolerated....etc.