Because the strategy of the liberals has been a death by a thousand cuts. Putting another liberal in charge of appointing judges and the heads of executive agencies will give them more razors and more time to keep cutting.
That doesn't mean salt in the wounds right now doesn't hurt, but in my opinion it sure beats a thousand more cuts.
The gun banners have been succesful because they have been patient, jumping at each opportunity either big or small. The longer we remain fixated on big, one shot snake oil cures instead of a progressive reclamation of our God given rights the longer it will take us to get them back.
I don't disagree with you in principle - RKBA means what it plainly reads in the 2nd amendment. THe problem is the reality within which we must work.
For example, Bush signs AWB. Enough "gun rights" folks are pissed they write in the dali lama. Dean is elected. He places liberals in the courts and RKBA build precidents as a "collective right. You and I (and many others) know it is wrong, but it becomes entrenched and much harder to dig out.
Flip side, Bush veto's AWB, enough one issue wonders on the other side get a lib elected. AWB's gone right? No, it's a law that that can be passed again by congress.
The AWB is a symptom of the disease. It's not fun, it's not right, it is unconstitutional. But if you fix the symptom, AWB in this case, the disease is still there, lurking in the courts that believe they can usurp the plain wording of the 2nd amendment (and others).
Without attacking the disease, every time you fix one symptom another will crop up. We can't get too fixated on the symptoms when curing the disease has to be our end goal.
It will be even tougher if the President signs a bill banning those same firearms, don't you think? Practically, no, one can be completely dealt with independent of the other. Different symptoms, same disease.
And how will this situation be improved if Mr. Bush signs, as he has promised to do, a reimplementation of the 'assault weapons' ban? Hmm? Are you expecting him to sign the bill, and then instruct ATF not to enforce it? Or will he use 'pixy dust' to make everything better?
Reagan didn't abolish the EPA, or their rules, but he did defind enforcement activities. Now, I personally disagree with this approach because it leaves the people out there hanging and vulnerable, but it is just meant as an extreme example.
Frankly, I might be willing to suffer another Clinton for 2 years, if it would produce another honest-to-God "Revolution of '94." Personally, I will not promote an anti-constitutionalist Republican in lieu of a real republican...
That's two terms - 8 years. What did the Revolution of '94 get us concerning RKBA? Notice AWB is up for renewal, and the "revolution" of 94 had it fully within their powers the entire time to pass legislation to get rid of it - but didn't.
If you want to bet the farm on a long shot that is your choice, I'm just dissapointed that it could effect my rights in the long term.
If W and the next guy or gal do a good job of governing, the liberal extremists who currently still have major toeholds within the bureaucracy will decrease significantly. What you will see is healthier modus operandi.
It doesn't matter if the cuts are administered by a Republican liberal or a D@mocrat liberal: the results will be precisely the same.
;>
The gun banners have been succesful because they have been patient, jumping at each opportunity either big or small. The longer we remain fixated on big, one shot snake oil cures instead of a progressive reclamation of our God given rights the longer it will take us to get them back.
Actually, the longer republicans vote for RINOs, "the longer it will take us to get them back."
I don't disagree with you in principle - RKBA means what it plainly reads in the 2nd amendment. THe problem is the reality within which we must work.
"Reality?" I deal in facts: in 1994, 1 out of every 5 voters was a gun owner voting Republican. If the frigging Republican Party refuses to recognize that almost 20% of the actual get-out-of-the-house-and-drive-to-the-polling-place-to-wait-in-line vote are gun owners, then the Party truly is the 'Stupid Party.'
For example, Bush signs AWB. Enough "gun rights" folks are pissed they write in the dali lama. Dean is elected. He places liberals in the courts and RKBA build precidents as a "collective right.
Review the current membership of the high court, and tell us how many of the 'justices' were appointed by Republican presidents...
Flip side, Bush veto's AWB, enough one issue wonders on the other side get a lib elected. AWB's gone right? No, it's a law that that can be passed again by congress.
Again, I deal in facts. Are you honestly suggesting that vetoing the AWB would "get a lib elected?" Upon what basis do you jump to that ridiculous conclusion? Even many D@mocrats are jumping off the 'gun control' band wagon. Why? Because it is a losing issue.
That's two terms - 8 years.
Another assumption on your part. Care to tell us how many D@mocrats since FDR have been reelected to the presidency?
What did the Revolution of '94 get us concerning RKBA? Notice AWB is up for renewal, and the "revolution" of 94 had it fully within their powers the entire time to pass legislation to get rid of it - but didn't.
Are you suggesting that a Republican President signing, rather than vetoing, an AWB extension is some how more desireable than a Republican Congress unable to override a D@mocrat veto on an AWB repeal? Feel free to explain your point in detail.
If you want to bet the farm on a long shot that is your choice, I'm just dissapointed that it could effect my rights in the long term.
And if you want to live in a fantasy land, where a Republican signing gun control legislation is somehow better than a D@mocrat signing IDENTICAL gun control legislation, then "that is your choice, I'm just dissapointed that it could effect my rights in the long term."
;>)