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

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

[dead]

The baby killing vote is a lock for the Dems.

Even gun-toting, tax-hating pro-choice voters will not stray from the baby-killing reservation.

That's why Clinton could bomb countries, support the death penalty and welfare reform and dabble in his hobby of abusing and raping women.

His sole political third rail was abortion. He never gave a single inch in favor of the victims. And the feminists and the race pimps and the alleged pacifists would vote for him twenty more times, as long as they're allowed to dismember babies in the womb.

[MJY1288]

We know this, but he will cut and paste things form the NYT's next. It appears the "Gifted One" can't see the forest for the trees

[Kevin Curry]

What are you going to do?

Support and defend the Constitution, from all enemies foreign and domestic.

How? By spewing words and throwing a tantrum? What are you going to do?

[Joe Hadenuf]

Hopefully, that shut him up.

[dogbyte12]

Your a lair. The gift must not be questioned. He talks to Ann Coulter through a psychic.

[FairOpinion]

"What does this have to do with the AWB ban?"

---

It shows that Bush does support the right to keep and bear arms for individuals. The Bush Administration REVERSED the long standing interpretation of the 2nd Amendment of previous Administrations. The point is that Bush IS a friend of NRA and gun owners.

I think with his current position, he is sending a signal that people and the NRA should focus on Congress, where the bill will be voted on, instead of counting on Bush to veto it, which would be political suicide for him. Can you imagine the attack ads about how Bush is killing children, and thwarts the will of the people, by vetoing this legislation?! What good would it do, if Bush vetoes it, then loses the election and Kerry or Hillary reinstates it?

I think he is right and instead of blaming Bush, people should work on Congress and make sure they won't pass it. Here is something for the Republicans to filibuster, if need be.

[MJY1288]

There is always the "Mouse" :-)

[tpaine]

Ashcroft took his oath to defend the constitution. -- Not gungrabbing 'laws'.

[Long Cut]

If I may make a few observations on this fractious, emotional issue?

I do NOT believe that the President actually WANTS to sign an extension of this onerous legislation. That is what (I believe) is his core belief.

However, his political calculation is that to come out and oppose it would cost him valuable middle-class Sukker Mommie votes, votes that he and his (highly-paid, highly trained and experienced) political advisors have advised him he needs.

Thus, it is my conclusion that he has decided to let Congressman DeLay and his men kill it in the House, by simply letting it "die on the vine". He then needs not sign it and take any heat. In other words, for a change, Republicans in Congress give HIM cover.

At this point, someone on the thread is thinking (or screaming at his monitor), "That's what we thought about CFR, Cut, you Navy puke! Whaddup wid DAT?"

The answer, my FRiends, is as simple as it is brutal. CFR, in fact, WAS AS DEAD AS DINOSAUR DROPPINGS! It only recieved new life after a single, extreme event, namely ENRON's collapse and the subsequent revelations rescusitated it. Such events as that are completely unpredictable, but they DO have the impact on the public to drive politicians to do things they had not intended.

The same COULD happen to the AW ban, if some mutant shoots up a school or church a few weeks prior to the law's scheduled expiration. Such an extreme, bloody, and spectacular event would not only assure passage of the extension, but would also see it toughened, in ways Schumer and DiFly can only dream of.

So, what's the bottom line? Simply that we have to tread VERY lightly here...AND, we ALL need to stick together!

The namecalling and deadcatting which occurs on these threads helps no one but the Dims, and serves to assure our weakness. I ask those of you who, like myself, wish this ban to sunset, to be patient and let the game be played out. Those of you, also like me, who defend the President against all comers ALSO need to be patient...our FRiends have legitemite fears, and need to be comforted and strengthened, not abused.

You see, should the "doomsday scenario" of extreme events occur as I have stated above, we will ALL need to voice LOUD, CONTINUOUS, and UNIFIED support for a sunset. Let those in the White house know that we ALL wish it to go away, and if it does, then the President can count on ALL of us. Threats of voting for Dims, or mad talk of "making wills and peace" will most certainly NOT help our cause, much as they may FEEEEL good to say.

Let us observe, and react, with cold, ruthless logic; and do it as one, rather than let emotional heat shatter us, the better for defeat.

Just my two bits. FWIW.

[Dan from Michigan]

why in hell did they vote for him in the first place?

Because the other guy was worse, and who led the way? GUNOWNERS. We got the votes to win Missouri, Tennessee, West VA, New Hampshire, Arizona, Nevada, Arkansas, Florida, Ohio, and made it close in Iowa, Wisconsin, Michigan, Minnesota, and Penn(and maybe Oregon, although that's more regional on guns).

Now gun owners aren't the only ones to win it for Bush, but he would not be there if it wasn't for gunowners, and the LEAST he can do is not sign whatever piece of crap comes out there.

And yes, I did vote for Bush.

[MJY1288]

Oh I forgot, Ms. Cleo has found a new customer I guess

[Fred Mertz]

Ashcroft took his oath to defend the constitution.

J. Edgar Ashcroft? You must have him confused with someone who cares about individual liberties.

[RKV]

I don't see it as political suicide at all. Its time to stand up and be counted. As noted above, plenty of gun owners voted for Gore, we need to work to take them away from the RATs not try and convince the tofu eating Birkinstock crowd who will NEVER vote REP.

[Cacique]

Bump

[Dan from Michigan]

Maybe if Bush I didn't break his promise and also enact his own gun grab, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Klintler.

[Mulder]

How? By spewing words and throwing a tantrum? What are you going to do?

That's four times you've asked that question.

Why do you care?

You should be more concerned with what your gov't is planning to do.

[dogbyte12]

Well ya see Fred... Ashcroft is in NY right now meeting with Kofi Annan, to discuss the best real estate to use to introduce the UN re-education camps.

They are flying out tomorrow in a black helicopter along with the original one worlder Bush the elder to start a camp in upper state NY.

All christian gun owners will be rounded up and placed there while Mike Farrell re-educates them about the truth.

Didn't you get the memo?

[Dane]

Maybe if Bush I didn't break his promise and also enact his own gun grab, we wouldn't have had 8 years of Klintler.

Who would you'd rather have as President between 92-96, Bush 41 or the tag team duo called the Clintons?

[Sabertooth]

He's running for re-election. Would you rather have John F Kerry or John Edwards signing every piece of anti-gun legislation that crosses his desk??

Here's a better question: would you?

President Bush 41 was looking at coasting to re-election when he signed the big tax increase. Shrewd political calculation, that.

It isn't always a good political idea to pretend to seem like the Democrats, even if the RNC whiz kids think it is.

Gun control cut against the Democrats in 2000, and Bush is more popular now than three years ago. There is no reason to believe that shafting the GOP's 2nd Amendment constituency would result in a net electoral gain for President Bush.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Nice to see the konservatives so concerned about the constitution and our second amendment.