LOL, now I leap to the other side of the argument... the comeback:
"Renewing an already existing gun ban won't kill us, since the previous 10 years didn't."
But you say, "Ah! This WILL cost lives in the future, just look at every other gun-banning example".
And their retort to our sunset-the-ban-or-let-GWB-lose stand, of course, is "Ah! But that WILL cost lives in the future, just look at every other nation that drove Left over time."
What a great Hobson's Choice we have. Pick your poison, folks! It's one heck of an indicator of how successful the Left has been for decades, and what an uphill battle we face.
That comback may indeed be accurate, but what it comes down to is principle. If we say it's okay for Bush to renew or extend the ban, then how to we criticize other 'reasonable' (gagging as I type that word) restrictions?
If the GOP does what clinton does in this regard, how does that make them any better or any different than the clinton crowd?
The decision to do this is not easy and the results may be distasteful, but that doesn't mean that we should shrink from principle or from our responsibilities to our posterity.
These freedoms were paid for in blood. I can't sign them away as easy as some would.
BTW, these comments are NOT directed at you personally. I know that you understand the stakes involved here and that you do not take them lightly either.
We should find someone who supports the right to bear arms and support him in a presidential campaign so we won't have to chose between either poison of gun control.