The Assault Weapons Ban May Be Bush's Undoing

TooGood Reports ^ | 13 November 2003 | Lee R Shelton IV

[tx4guns]

Bush did the thing that was not so popular in the media and went back to war with Iraq. He said that it needed doing, and he wasn't going to wait when he knew it was the right thing to do. I think he'll take the same approach on the AWB if it reaches his desk. Veto it and let the lawmakers override it in a super-majority. A 51/49% split on a law that important and opposed by your political allies, it would be political suicide for him to sign it. Let congress take the blame if it passes. He's not getting votes from many supporters of that bill anyway, so he shouldn't care what they think. Just my 2 cents.

[556x45]

LOL! Let me guess...when they tell you youre huntin' arms are illegal youll turn them in and feel like youve done your patriotic duty.

[Joe Hadenuf]

You are either with the President or doing the work of the RATmedia. The choice is yours.

As the President stands gawking at millions of illegal aliens pouring into our country, creating massive, nationwide lawlessness, while this open border lunacy has lit the fuse to this national security time bomb......

As some of you just appear to "shut up and take it".

Eventually you wont have any freedoms or even a sovereign country left to worry about.

[Ichneumon]

I need to know why the assault weapons ban should be repealed. Is it a "slippery slope" argument?

Because it's a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment.

Question (directed especially at any politician who would consider voting to extend the ban): Why did it take a constitutional amendment to empower the federal government to ban alcohol during Prohibition, but not to ban certain semi-automatic firearms?

Note that both bans were supported on the same grounds (public safety, not everyone can use booze/guns safely, etc.)

Never before has the federal government banned the simple private ownership of any item which they are not explicitly granted power to control by the Constitution. Machineguns? Nope, they were careful to simply apply onerous tax fees and regulations on them. Drugs? Nope, most possession laws are *state* laws, the feds only get involved in *trafficking*, which is interstate or foreign commerce of narcotics. And so on.

[spunkets]

" the AW ban is essentially irrelevent to anything. Our nation and its liberties existed for almost 150 yrs before "Assault" weapons were even invented. Such things were never even imagined by our founders.

You are just simply wrong. Not only are you cluless about our founders use of assault weapons. They intended future citizens to have the same access to the best tools the same way that they did. Perhaps you are forgetful, or just selectively so, the founders owned their own cannons. What do you think Ben Franlin's job was during the war?

"I am an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man doing his best to preserve our nation in its deadly fight against an enemy as evil as it has ever faced."

Such weapons? They are needed to oppose tyrants and traitors.

"cut and run at the least excuse."

We'll see what goes down when the hand's played.

[Blue Scourge]

Helluva predicament...not really sure where I stand on this...I oppose the AWB, but I know that if I abstain from voting than it might not just be AW that are banned...something to ponder and pray about.

[Consort]

...because if we don't, then the Democrats will get into power and take away our firearms?

Yes, and after the firearms, they'll repeal the tax cuts, raise taxes, undo the partial birth abortion ban, raise taxes, defund the military again, raise taxes, undermine home schooling and vouchers, raise taxes, appoint socialist judges and justices, raise taxes, give licenses and voting rights to illegals, raise taxes, fund NPR, attack religion, raise taxes, create new government agencies instead of consolidating them, raise taxes,......but they love you.

[Stew Padasso]

Can't fault you for being optimistic (see post 90): http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1021132/posts?page=90#90

[Ronaldus Magnus]

Ahnold holds the uber left wing view of Americans owning firearms..(no one but the elite should privately own weapons) All conservatives knew this about Arnnie in advance and still voted for him...

The important lesson from that election was that even with a wildly popular Republican in what was thought to be a close election, 13% of Californians voted for a true conservative candidate. This is almost as great a margin as Ronald Reagan won in 1984. Furthermore, a high level of dissatisfaction among the base opens up the possibility of an effective third party candidate who can triangulate the president and take even more votes (think Perot).

It is in the interest of all Republicans and conservatives to make sure that the Republican party doesn't loose its base. We must remember that unlike liberal voters, many conservative voters put principles and issues over party affiliation and political expediency. They simply won't vote for a public official who undermines their ideals, and beating them up about it won't will only alienate them further. Whether the Republican candidate has a better fiscal policy or whether he may or may not appoint better judges doesn't matter if they are no better on these critical issues. Nor will the idea that Republican Party just needs to compromise its principles to win now and will become more conservative later. The base is composed of voters, and like any other political demographic they can't be neglected or forfeited and expected to turn out to vote and volunteer.

The more the president moves to the center to capture undecided and swing voters, the more he will loose from his base. We all should contact the president (and other Republican candidates) to make sure that this doesn't happen.

[spunkets]

Franklin...

[jmc813]

placeholder bump

[justshutupandtakeit]

All the terrorists we have been attacked by have arrived nice and legally.

Dirt poor Mexicans sneaking in are a different issue. Americans don't care about this enough to vote in people to do anything about it.

Crimes committed by a small percentage of them must be dealt with but trying to tie them to terrorism is a fraud and doesn't work on those capable of putting two thoughts together and drawing a conclusion. Nice try though.

[GSWarrior]

Thanks. You've given me ammunition to use in discussions with my lefty friends.

[Geritol]

Is it better to cut off my nose to spite my face, or vote for someone who will "only" take 1/8" off of it every 6 months or year or week? The "democrats", if left in or returned to power, would eventually outlaw not only the implements for but also the very right to self defense by any means just like it is in London and other enlightened centers of culture now. The question is whether the republicans are different in direction or just in speed.

At the moment, in terms of the old frog in the boiling pot metaphor, it looks like we have a choice of the pot's temp being increast 3 degrees a year or 5 degrees. The ultimate destination is identical, only the timing is different.

Bush has been head and shoulders above the shennanigans of Clinton and others we could name, but on many issues being merely head and shoulders higher than -him- still leaves one deeply buried in the muck and mire. Bush has done very well on some issues but on others he is still only better by comparison.

If the direction can not be changed, if the actual substance of regulations and weight of control can not be reversed, I refuse to be co-opted into deciding how hard to push the accelerator. There are several issues that are showstoppers for me. I refuse to choose the caliber of the bullet used in my execution. I will always vote for my freedom.

Warning: sick but disgustingly accurate analogy to follow:

This can be compared to a family caught in the bondage of incest. The helpless little child is forced to choose the form of her torment each night, not ever given the choice of freedom. The mental and even spiritual damage done to the child by the actual physical activities is often less than the destruction from activily participating in it by choosing the form of the torture.

Bush is not the abuser in the above word picture. He is just one of the least painful of the mostly terrible choices given us by the party politics that choose the presidential candidates for us. I would prefer Bush to many republicans and to any democrat that comes to mind. Of course. Now that we let "our" party get the patriot acts through because they were our guys so we could trust them with the power, we do not dare let the other guys in power because we have a fair idea what they will do with it. We would hand them the instruement of our destruction. Any law must not be judged by how it will be used by our friends, but by how it could be abused by our enemies.

However, unless you can convince me that Bush will actually increase freedom and not just slow the multiplication of regulations and compounding of governmental burdens, Unless you can show that Bush will be in favor of even less abortion and not stop with the PBA ban that may not even get enforced, unless you can show that knife, gun and other restrictions to self defense and community protection will actually decrease under his leadership, unless you can show that he is going in the opposite direction, not just letting off the gas toward socialism and decay and bloated government, I can not vote for him. Not this time.

[Stew Padasso]

"Dirt poor Mexicans sneaking in are a different issue. Americans don't care about this enough to vote in people to do anything about it."

Wonder if there is any polling data to suggest otherwise?

[Dan from Michigan]

True conservatives understand there is no chance of electing a more conservative president than Bush

BS. I work in the field and know how things work. We can elect someone much more conservative if he sells the package correctly. Bush is PERCEIVED as much more conservative than he really is.

they understand that the AW ban is essentially irrelevent to anything.

Tell it to the dems that got fired in 94.

preserve our nation in its deadly fight against an enemy as evil as it has ever faced.

The greatest evil our nation has faced isn't in a foreign land. Saddam and Bin Laden are evil, but not as evil as tyrants here at home. I'm not calling Bush a tyrant. I don't think he's a bad guy personally, just someone that gets bad advice at times. But tyrants here like a Janet Reno type are the biggest evil. George Soros is the biggest evil.

would not want as an ally because they will cut and run at the least excuse.

That's BS. I don't cut and run. Rather I call out those that do. If he signs the RAT's AW ban, than I will not vote for him for backing RAT policies.

[glock rocks]

Let's work together so it doesn't reach his desk.

That is what is to be done now. What remains to be done
will have to wait until the congressional bm takes place... then we'll reanalyze (as it were).

I'm not a republican, though I voted for Bush and his dad. I'll decide when it's time.

Don't give him anything to sign. Maybe some of the republican senators need to hear
more of this from us, well prior to the 04 election. Most of the posts on this thread
are either "it ain't gonna pass" or "I won't vote for W if he signs it. Non sequitur.

It's time to press congress now. It may become time to press W later.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Oh, Lord spare me now Assault weapons are cannons? How much more ridiculous are you going to get? The right to bear arms is just that. Arms are not ARTILLARY now are they. And you call ME clueless?

Ben Franklin was in France to obtain financial aid and a military alliance with the French.

Cannons were not owned by individuals during the Revolution what concoction of crap did you get that gem from?

[NRA2BFree]

Why do you plan on handing over your weapons if they are able to enforce such measures?

LOL! Sure I do...barrel first.

[Geritol]

You support the president in the term he was voted into. That does not mean that you have to vote for or campaign for the incumbant. If that was the true measure of patriotism, elections would be superfluous. Or at least every second one. I support Bush in the good things he is doing. I do not support any man's actions that hurt this country or my family. I applaud Bush's good accomplishments, but I reserve the right to campaign and vote for anyone who would fight to do even better.