Replies

I disagree with you.

He's been good on guns. In my life, this is the first administration which has taken a stance that the 2nd amendment means what it says- individuals have a right to keep and bear arms.

He's been outstanding when it comes to the judiciary. He's been outstanding when it comes to pro-life issues.

He's been outstanding at telling the UN to pound sand. Repeatedly.

He's been outstanding at balancing the challenges of rising to the terror threat without stomping on essential liberties-- despite the caterwauling of the LewCrew.

He's driven the biggest threat to conservative values, the modern Democrat party, so batty that they may completely implode, which will open the floodgates for restoring the judiciary to its proper role (a task that must be done for any other conservative goals to be reached- right now, any progress we make anywhere can be overturned by a robe somewhere).

Three totalitarian regimes, removed (Afghanistan, Iraq, Liberia).

The spending is out of hand, and his amnesty proposal sucked. But overall, he's not just been a good President, but a very good one.

We need to pressure him on his flaws though. They are correctable.

I think that's very rational. I am much in favor of his immigration proposal (which is not "amnesty" but simply going back to the old bracero system that worked well until Cesar Chavez destroyed it), but the spending is definitely getting too far up there. However, I read just yesterday that he wants to impose some kind of limit on this, too, so I think that will get under control.

One of the things that I think is behind the spending is that, after 9/11, our economy had the potential to tank. But Bush gave a message of confidence, and I think most people followed. Throwing Government money (MY money - I just wrote my tax check!!!!) around is perhaps not effective as an overall development plan, but I do think that it had some short-term positive psychological and possible real effect in certain quarters. But I think it has served its purpose, and now it's time to rein it in, which I think will happen in Bush's second term. It ain't NEVER gonna to happen under any Dem, however.

I would like to reply to this to everyone in here AND PLEASE DO NOT FLAME ME for my views on this.

Some in here have probably never fired an assault weapon in their lives and are clueless as to what it does to a body.
I am a former Marine of 5 years and have thousands of hours spent behind all types of assault weapons. I know and have seen what it can do to "targets and bodies."

With this said I have NO PROBLEM at all with people owning them if it is for practice, souveniers, collectables or other. Some use the argument that they require it to protect their families. This is hogwash, any pistol is just as effective.

I am mixed on this issue as a whole. Having the experience with assault weapons I can not see any need as to a civilian owning one. On the flip side these are rights afforded by the constitution. Then again when the founders wrote the law weapons were not firing 1000 RPM unless you owned a galing gun, and I do not bleieve there were any other than the military who owned one personally. Interesting discussion this will be.