President Bush and the GOP Poised to Sell-out Gun Owners

Armed Females of America ^ | 19 May 2003 | Nicki Fellenzer

[sandydipper]

I don't know if I can believe Bush has said he'd sign. The man clearly lead me to believe he was a 2nd Amendment supporter.

I'll vote my discontent.

[sandydipper]

I don't know if I can believe Bush has said he'd sign. The man clearly lead me to believe he was a 2nd Amendment supporter.

I'll vote my discontent.

[meenie]

How about substituting discontent and outraged for malcontent and hysterical? Then you would come close to the difference between the RINO's and "conservatives" that actually believe there is a Second Amendment.

[coloradan]

I don't support the AW, handgun, .50 cal sniper rifle, pump action gun, scoped rifle, revolver .22 long rifle cal. firearm ban, I don't care.

Obviously some disagree with me, I'll put you on their side.

Thanks.

What about those "Tommy guns", shouldn't you be fighting for that too?

I oppose that law as well, but at this time the priority is wiping the AWB off the books. It took them nearly 100 years to get as far as they have gotten, it might take nearly 100 years to recover the lost freedoms. Allowing the AWB to remain does not help any cause for freedom.

[Mister Baredog]

He took the same stance with campaign finance, and let the courts kill most of it as unconstitutional, rather than take the political hit. I think he believes this type of thing shouldn't reach his desk.

I agree with you overall but remember there is one part of the campaign finance law that made signing it worthwhile, the "hard money" limit was raised. Great for the GOP. To me the whole thing was a show by the DEMS, they just got caught up in their own BS, not unusual, they don't really like it either.

[Centurion2000]

If this bill passes and the President signs it I'll not be voting Republican in 2004. It's that simple.

[Centurion2000]

The AWB is a meaningless "bone" for the gun control nuts, let it be. Has anyone found it so bad.

Actually yes it is that bad. One, it's a restraint on my God given freedom that I hate. Two, it effectively doubled the price for a decent assault rifle.

[Zack Nguyen]

I'd be shocked if this bill ever reached Bush's desk. Tom DeLay said it won't, and he typically knows what he's talking about.

It is a cynical game Bush is playing here, and I confess that I don't like it. He is taking the politically smart position, betting that the mushy middle will applaud him and gun owners won't leave him. Meanwhile he knows the bill will never reach him, and Congress can take whatever blame there is on it. Oh well. That is politics.

[votelife]

I think on the right we need pragmatists and idealists. Without the hard core idealists, the right would become Democrat light. Without the pragmatists, the idealists would lose elections and not get ANY of their legislation passed. So much of FR is spent basically arguing btw these two factions. I hope that the idealists work hard to pressure their elected officials and Bush to do what they want.

[Mister Baredog]

It took them nearly 100 years to get as far as they have gotten, it might take nearly 100 years to recover the lost freedoms.

Big Brother is always with us. It's the nature of lawmakers to make laws, after a couple of hundred years we should have a BIG FLUSH and start over. To me LAWYERS are as dangerous to freedom as these terrorists.

[newgeezer]

If this bill passes and the President signs it I'll not be voting Republican in 2004. It's that simple.

I'm sure he's well aware of that.

[Mister Baredog]

idealists would lose elections and not get ANY of their legislation passed

for example: the Green Party(Go Ralph!)

[berserker]

If this bill passes and the President signs it I'll not be voting Republican in 2004. It's that simple.

Rove is betting that you will. If GW does sign this, its because the political calculation is that it will help get moderate votes, and 2nd Amendment single-issue people will still have to vote for him anyway because the alternative would not be attractive.

[newgeezer]

What's sad is the fact that we're now playing politics with the Constitution. That's a statement on the country as a whole.

Amen. So, what's it going to take to make things better? After two or three generations of playing politics with the Constitution, what if the President came out tomorrow and said he's a born-again Constitutional Fundamentalist ... The Constitution Says What It Means And Means What It Says ... The Era Of Big Government Is Really, Truly Over ... All unconstitutional government agencies, handouts and programs will be eliminated before the '04 election ... He'd lose. America wouldn't stand for it. The government teat is feeding too many suckling pigs. Young and old, rich and poor, black and white, urban and rural, ... its benevolence knows no boundaries.

Oh, no doubt about it, I'd vote for him 10 times if I could. Walter Williams would vote for him. Maybe you and a million or two others would vote for him. But, we'd end up with President Hillary or Gephardt or Kerry or worse. All because of ignorance, complacence, laziness, and whatever else happens when a prosperous nation allows itself to get fat, dumb and blissful.

If this bill does end up on his desk -- and I really don't think it will -- he'll have to decide whether to (1) make you and me and most of our Second Amendment fundamentalist brethren happy AND hand an issue to his polished opponents so they can incite the dim-witted mushy middle with charges of putting guns on the streets and sentencing thousands of children to death, or (2) "hand a bone" to the gun grabbers while maintaining the status quo AND alienate a number of us Second Amendment fundamentalists such that we'll stay home or vote third party. (He knows we won't vote Democrap.)

I'd love for this bill to die. It's hard to stomach the fact that it's even remotely constitutionally viable. But, if it makes it all the way to the President's desk and he vetoes it, how much chance is there that it would be the defining issue that leads to Democrap control of Congress and the White House? In that case, they'll pass something much worse, stack the SCOTUS for the next generation, and.... Ugh. Don't go there.

[RJayneJ]

...the "hard money" limit was raised.

Here is where we part company, because I consider donations as free speech and the government should not limit my free speech. CFR is incumbent protection and eventually they will get what they are really after and that is taxpayer financed races. It appears to me that we have a representative republic for a reason. I have interpreted that to mean that if I can't go to Washington D.C. myself, I need someone there that reflects my views.

When I select that person I have an obligation to reach in my pocket and support that person. And that is what I do and that is what I expect others to do in the form of PACs. PACs debating PACs is what the race consists of.and the candidate that gets the most support wins! Fancy that. The government (which is us) has no business telling anyone who they can support and how much they can donate. I prefer full disclosure and no spending limits to my free speech. If I have it all wrong, I'm sure I will hear about it. But that is the way I see it.

[Eaker]

Why don't you two actually READ what is in the existing ban and then read what is being thrown into the new ban.

If you don't see a problem then you are not supporters of the Bill of Rights.

[FreedomCalls]

90% of the American people believe that the "Assault Weapons Ban" bans fully automatic weapons and leaves all semi-automatics untouched.

[coloradan]

Big Brother is always with us. It's the nature of lawmakers to make laws, after a couple of hundred years we should have a BIG FLUSH and start over. To me LAWYERS are as dangerous to freedom as these terrorists.

I could be misreading you but it sounds like you're rooting for a revolution, the "big flush." I would frankly rather let the AWB sunset and go for other freedoms a chip at a time than have a revolution. But your position on the AWB is that it is "phony" and not worth worrying about, even though you oppose it. Seems contradictory or even self-defeating to me.

[Centurion2000]

Rove is betting that you will. If GW does sign this, its because the political calculation is that it will help get moderate votes, and 2nd Amendment single-issue people will still have to vote for him anyway because the alternative would not be attractive.

Rove is making a critical error that will cost Bush an election. No gun owner is going to countenance being betrayed by the Bush family twice.