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 ...
WHAT! You dang well know that this bill shot the prices through the roof for firearms. It also set the stage for lawsuits and other legislation.
A better analogy is this. You own a business, and you have an employee who's bright and capable, but has a lot of trouble with insubordination and making life hard for his co-workers. Eventually you know you'll have to let him go, or at least make it clear that you will let him go if he doesn't shape up - even though you know it will be painful, and will probably wind up with someone less capable. But it has to be done, because otherwise you know he'll just get worse and worse...
As a free citizen, I'm not forced to vote for him... and I'll be making sure to exercise that right in 2004, unless there's a massive turn-around in his domestic performance.
Sorry that you don't like my analogy, but, it seems you and your one issue crowd will reject the superior loaf of bread in the marketplace, to give the moldy rancid loaf(democratic) a chance in the marketplace, reading through the responses on this thread, IMO.
=^)
Besides he owes me almost three cases of beer an needs to earn his keep.
The people here can say "I'm not voting for him every again.".. that's your right... but your right will elect a democrat who's all about taking away your right to own a gun and all sorts of other negatives that come with the liberal left.
Sometimes I think that you die hard anti-Bush people are monarchists looking for a country.
I guess the rugged individualist person of expressing as oneself as I is totally foreign concept to you.
That's the fun part.
In any case, quick English lesson: "we" = "I" + "others". It was used appropriately in the sentence you were having so much trouble with.
I agree, your use of the "royal" we in your response #306 is appropriate for someone who thinks they are "superior" to all of us peons.
Send your resume to Nancy Pelosi, IMO, she will like your attitude.
CAMPAIGN FINANCE REFORM
This law has been referred to a lot on this thread, as an example of how the President should NOT have acted. So let's examine it. Does anyone besides me recall that CFR was deader than dinosaur crap until it was ressurrected by events (think ENRON and other scandals)? This is an IDEAL example of how random events can affect legislation. Add to the scandals the fact that the President and his party were in an all-out battle to retake the Senate and hold the House at the time. I make NO value judgements here, mind you, but only observe. Draw your own conclusions.
DEJA VU ALL OVER AGAIN
2004, Hmmmm. A presidential election. A weak economy. A Republican named "Bush" coming off a successful war with a high approval rating. An onerous "gun-control" controversy in the making...why do I get the feeling that I've been here before? And didn't the PREVIOUS President Bush's "gun control" controversy grow out of a single event, i.e. a massacre by a goblin using an "evil" rifle? Just musing...
CRYSTAL BALL TIME
2004. The economy is still weak, but the President's polling numbers are still above 50%, only barely. an upstart, young, and slick-talking Democrat is his opponent, and is rising in the polls. The President would like to be re-elected by a comfortable majority to set aside forever the "illegitemite, selected-by-SCOTUS" horse that the Left has been beating for four years, as well as have enough "coattails" to preserve and increase his legislative majority, putting a few Senate and House Leftists like Schumer and Daschle out of work as a bonus.
The AW law is due to sunset, and most pols, knowlegable of previous elections' turning on the issue of "gun control", are happy to let it do so, quietly. Only a few true ignorables, like Schumer, Fienstein, and Kennedy are making any noise at all about it, and to little avail. The President himself is saying nothing, letting the law take its course. Everyone's happy, life is good.
And, on a sunny Summer day, in a small town somewhere, a very sick individual with a heart full of hate is cocking one of several semi-auto weapons in his possession, whilst staring intently at a school, or a church, or possibly a mall...
A SINGLE EVENT is a-borning.
The President, and his advisors, cannot have failed to foresee this scenario. It must therefore be affecting their overall planning.
I DO notice that most of the statements that Mr. Fleischer has made are VERY "qualified": "Banning sales of assault weapons to juveniles"; "Banning the importation of hi-capacity magazines"...food for thought.
Bottom line for me, I'll give the President the benefit of the doubt on this one. He's not dissapointed me severely yet, and the prospect of having ANOTHER traitorous Democrat as a CinC makes me retch.
Barring unseen events, the AW ban will sunset. Those events could be a bitch, though, and we must understand that they can place ANY politician in a bad position. Once again, it will be the actions of an individual or individuals that is our undoing. However, as others have noted, we simply MUST let all our reps know how we feel, and ENSURE that this law dies its misbegotten death at THEIR hands, and that they must NOT place the President in that predicament again! They must learn to do THEIR jobs preserving the Constitution as well, IMHO.
Just my two bits, for what it's worth.
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.