Posted on 04/12/2003 7:50:38 AM PDT by Mini-14
The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.
Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority of the NRA. Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonpost.com ...
As for eggs-in-one-basket and nose-despite-face arguments, I ceratinly agree with the main point, that virtually any R is better than any D... but... I also can't stand idly by while an R continues to do things that I disagree with. It's like criticizing the AZ FReepers for trying to get McCain removed from office for his Left-worshipping tactics. I have to use my voice, my vote, to show EVERY elected official, even my favorites, that I won't support him if he strays too far off the path.
Again, in foreign relations, he has been masterful, and the right man at the right moment. At home, I have precious little to be pleased with to counter the displeasure of the Patriot Act, the budget, the increases in social programs (especially the 24 year old Dept of Educ that I was hoping Reagan would shut down), the appeasement of illegals, CFR, and now this. (Add in the ongoing failure to beat the filibustering Senate, to open ANWR during a "war-for-oil" to shut the Lefties up, or to seal the borders... and the "he's only been in office for a little while" excuse doesn't apply anymore when his term is half-way up!)
I want to repeat my earlier line... why can't W promote Freedom for Americans as firmly as he has for Iraqis?
I am left to hope and pray that we find a good challenger for the primaries (a snowball's chance in Hell's hot-tub), or else I just have to refuse to pull a level for the most important office of all.
I am a single-issue voter and RKBA is my bellweather. Bush is only fortunate that he will be running against someone guaranteed to be for gun-control. That will allow me to hold my nose and vote for him again. But I don't love the man and he certainly hasn't represented me. In moments, he has been great. But there seems a small difference between him and your average liberal Democrat.
My Nation is doomed.
The fact that he promises to is enough for me. We apparently have a domestic rubber-stamp who won't stand up to anything that comes from Congress.
Early in the campaign, Bush was doing those appearances where a handful of people would be permitted "60-second interviews" with the candidate - basically you got one question, so choose a good one. An acquaintance of mine had the opportunity to ask a question, so he asked about the Assault Weapons Ban renewal.
Bush responded that he knew it would cost him many votes if he signed it, especially so close to the 2004 elections. He also said that there should be no reason for that legislation to ever reach his desk. He then stressed how important it was for the voters to strengthen the Republican Congress.
All of the above was reported online, over at the subguns.com message boards (the interviewer was a frequent poster there). Now, as I said, that was early in the campaign. Later, Bush did make other comments that were supportive of the ban (or opposed to its repeal, not quite the same thing as letting it die as written). So, we are left to wonder how much of what the man says is urged by his advisors or intended for the ears of squishy moderates and soccer moms.
He knows the risks. For now, we should be focused on Congress, because despite the fact that the voters gave Bush a Republican majority in both houses, they may well try to deal with this very soon rather than leave it to sunset just weeks before the election.
I wonder if any future candidate for president will ever use a constitutional test on a challenger's positions (whatever they might be) or fear the 'fallout' might be too great to even consider lobbing such a weapon. Modern politics have become an exercise where none are willing to 'take-the-gloves-off'.
Who just destroyed the UN. Go figure.
It could very well be true. Bushes have a bad habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Remember, "read my lips, no new taxes." Ross Perot captured 20% of the popular vote resulting in eight years of Clinton tax increases. The Democraps will make a deal for support of some Bush agenda, and he could take the bait just like his daddy did.
THIS he CAN do alone, and he is promising not to... THAT's a major problem. If he won't help us by honoring his Oath of Office, why should I help him (yet again) by lobbying my friends and neighbors, convincing fence-sitters to switch or at least not vote for the Dem, going to rallies and convincing friends who are uncomfortable to go anyway, and then pulling that level... when after doing so, I have to explain to those same friends why he isn't doing what we hoped he would. It make me look like a fool, and further reinforces the apathy of the 50% who don't typically vote.
Which judges of the 'right kind' has G.W. gotten appointed to which courts?
(not arguing, just that 'right kind' is somewhat ambigous and needs some definition by example to be meaningful)
My response is that we've done our part and got him the the majorities he said he needed. Now, if those twerps all try to leave it to someone else to stop this bill, and it gets to GWB who likewise promised to leave it to someone else (just like he did for Congress & SCOTUS for CFR), we're going to get stung on an important issue despite the fact that we did EVERYTHING the GOP asked of us!!!
(Getting back to that "nose-despite-face" argument that others assert, it is interesting that few notice that GWB and the GOP, by passing this bill, will be doing the exact same thing to us!)
If I understand you correctly, that assertion is readily refuted by the NRA's yearly member survey, which very high percentages of NRA members respond to.
Those results consistently indicate well over 90% opposition to ANY semiauto (aka assault weapons) ban. Usually around 95% if I recall.
I don't know what NRA members you could be talking to if you say the sentiments are otherwise. Do you live in Kalifornia?
I disagree. He is known for not playing political games. Stalling for political reasons is not in his playbook (to his credit). He'll keep his word (as is his habit, and to avoid the "apple doesn't fall far from the tree" headlines) and sign it once it hits his desk.
However, even if we are successful at lobbying Congress and preventing this, I will not forgive this reasserted promise. He'll have to do some rather impressive domestic work to overcome this black mark in my book. (at least 4 of the following: ANWR, filibuster beaten, secured borders, budget below $1.8T, killing race-based laws, Dept of Educ eliminated, and/or PBA)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.