[Southack]

"Bush agreeing to a ban on semiauto weapons that Clinton/Gore started is very hostile towards the second amendment and towards conservatism."

No, what is hostile to Conservativism are the Leftists who log on as disruptors by pretending to be more Conservative than Reagan, as well as by the far-right radicals who hate 99% of America.

Bush keeps his word. He said that he'd support all existing gun laws when he campaigned for office in 2000. Had he been any more to the Right, he would not have won the election (the 577 vote margin in Florida was simply too close). America would NOT have elected anyone more Conservative than Bush in 2000, and THAT would have been hostile to Conservatism.

Not that a so-called "Republican Strategist" would understand that fact, however...

[Republican_Strategist]

Disruptors are people I have had to deal with, but this is about you trying to make outlandish insinuations. Your whole diatribe about far-right radicals is no different than Chuck Schumer railing against judicial nominations. Anything even remotely right of your leftist attitudes - is radical.

Bush keeping his word to uphold Clinton's ban along with other unconstitutional bars on our second amendment rights is enough to vote for someone else.

I love how you excuse it. It is about winning elections rather than standing up for what is right. Bush wasn’t a conservative. He is being hostile towards conservatism with these gun bans enacted by Clinton, government takeover of industries, these massive farm subsidies & collectivism, and so on.

I tolerated it. I compromised my values, but I have repented. No more. I want moral clarity and I stand on principle. Unwavering.

When I was really dedicated to being republican_strategist - I remember people questioning Bush’s conservative credentials and I remember having the attitudes expressed by a lot of people on here. I understand.