Gap widening between Bush and conservatives

Townhall.com ^ | January 23, 2004 | Jonah Goldberg

[prairiebreeze]

LOL!

[kildak]

Your argument is petty and semantic. Bush's official mouthpiece stated the President Bush supported the AWB and would reauthorize if it came across his desk.

I didn't realize that Ari was in charge of establishing national policy during his tenure.

[My2Cents]

JFK was the last truly anti-communist Democrat. Where do you think all of the Reagan Democrats came from? They had all voted for JFK twenty years earlier. I hope you're not implying that the Democrats of today are anywhere near where JFK was 44 years ago.

[Common Tator]

There are an awful lot of fruitcakes around here, by your measure

There sure are.. Using the number of posts on FR as a guide in 2000 one could infer that Buchanan and the Libertarians would get 10 million votes... at least. But they barely got 1 million combined votes on election day.

Don't fall into the sucker game of judging what will happen at the polls by what the greatest number of posters say here on FR.

FR is home to lots of Fringers..

To paraphrase an old Texas statement

They are all Keyboard ... no Votes.

[nopardons]

And in spades! LOL

[PhiKapMom]

First of all you have taken what I said out of context and put your own spin on it. But the following statement of yours is ludicrous:

Above and beyond that, I need to PROVE I'm not a criminal despite our "innocent until proven guilty" legal system.

So you think that checks to see if a criminal is purchasing guns is wrong? Give this person a break! What about the criminal who hits the streets after having committed armed robbery -- guess according to you he should be allowed to go out the prison gate and go buy another gun. What world are you living in?

The need to renew the ban is clear. There is no need for military style, semiautomatic weapons that are designed to kill as many people as possible, as quickly as possible. Equally clear is the need to strengthen the ban. Almost immediately after the law's passage in 1994, the gun industry began evading it, manufacturing "sporterized" weapons just as deadly as their banned counterparts: UZIs, MAC-10s, AK-47s, AR-15s, and others. The Bushmaster assault rifle used in the Washington, DC-area sniper shootings is just one example of a "sporterized", post-ban assault rifle used to kill and maim.

A new analysis of FBI data has found that from 1998 through 2001, one in five law enforcement officers slain in the line of duty was killed with an assault weapon. At the same time, terrorist training manuals found in Afghanistan and available on web sites around the world urge terrorists to come to the United States, obtain assault weapons, and then learn how to use them against us.

Found the above on a website -- if true about the number of Law Enforcement slain with assault weapons, then I have even a bigger trouble with the gun industry and gun lobby. As a matter of fact, after your attack on me and your saying that criminal background checks at least for you should not be conducted, I am now on the side of the folks who only believe that rifles, shotguns, and handguns should be in the hands of citizens. Your defense of no criminal background checks sent a shiver up my spine as I have a close relative in law enforcement.

[prairiebreeze]

Is he a closet liberal? A DNC mole?

Sorry, I almost missed your post. Yes, that's what I was wondering. The comment about being more intellectual....was suspicious to me.

Prairie

[PhiKapMom]

Looks like President Reagan and Bush 41 didn't think much of assault weapons being sold in this country either!

Q: What are the provisions of the ban?

A: On September 13, 1994, domestic gun manufacturers were required to stop production of semi-automatic assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds except for military or police use. Imports of assault weapons not already banned by administrative action under Presidents Reagan and George H.W. Bush were also halted. Assault weapons and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds produced prior to September 13, 1994, were "grandfathered" in under the law and can still be possessed and sold.

The bill bans, by name, the manufacture of 19 different weapons:

Norinco, Mitchell, and Poly Technologies Avtomat Kalashnikovs (all models);
Action Arms Israeli Military Industries UZI and Galil;
Beretta Ar70 (SC-70);
Colt AR-15;
Fabrique National FN/FAL, FN/LAR, and FNC;
SWD M-10; M-11; M-11/9, and M-12;
Steyr AUG;
INTRATEC TEC-9, TEC-DC9, AND TEC-22;
revolving cylinder shotguns such as (or similar to) the Street Sweeper and Striker 12.
The bill also bans "copies" or "duplicates" of any of those weapons. The failure to include a ban of these "copies" or "duplicates" would have opened the door for widespread evasion of the ban. Even so, some unscrupulous gun manufacturers have tried to evade the law by making minor changes to their assault weapons in order to skirt the restrictions.

The 1994 law also prohibits manufacturers from producing firearms with more than one of the following assault weapon features:

Rifles

Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Bayonet mount
Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor
Grenade launcher
Pistols

Magazine outside grip
Threaded muzzle
Barrel shroud
Unloaded weight of 50 ounces or more
Semi-automatic version of a fully automatic weapon
Shotguns

Folding/telescoping stock
Protruding pistol grip
Detachable magazine capacity
Fixed magazine capacity greater than 5 rounds

---

Q: Does the law ban all semi-automatic guns? Does it affect hunting rifles and shotguns?

A: No. The definition of an assault weapon is tightly drawn. Only semi-automatic guns with multiple assault weapon features are banned (see below). Traditional guns designed for use in hunting and recreational activities are not affected. To alleviate concerns that hunting weapons somehow might be affected, the law provides specific protection to 670 types of hunting rifles and shotguns that are presently being manufactured. The list is not exhaustive and a gun does not have to be on the list to be protected. Again, the only weapons that are prohibited are those with multiple assault weapon features.

[My2Cents]

What I'm concluding is that all of the Bush-bashing from the "true conservatives" is essentially a front in the war for the soul of conservativism, in which the paleos- are trying to run the neo-conservatives (whose emergence on the scene resulted in the election of Ronald Reagan) out of the conservatism. The fact is, some people have a narrow definition of "conservatism" (their own), and anyone who strays from that narrow definition, really isn't a conservative. They, and their leader, most likely Pat Buchanan, want to take conservativism back to the "glory days" of where it was in the 1940s, when it couldn't get a dogcatcher elected in central Kansas. They claim Reagan is their hero, but it is Reagan who pulled together all of the people with various interests whom the "true believers" now want to drive out of the movement.

These "conservatives" are a pretty exclusive bunch, and a pretty exclusionary bunch as well. Their view of the world is fairly narrow; they are essentially pessimistic about everything; they are strident in their attitudes and obnoxious in their behavior. But, I guess, they think the glory days of conservatism were when conservatism was narrow, exclusive, strident and obnoxious.

I think what really bothers them is that George W. Bush operates, pretty much all of the time, from a set of values which are decent and honorable, and not from a rigid "conservative" ideology. What I'd like to know is when did honor and decency stop being conservative values?

[My2Cents]

Don't you find it odd, and more than a bit frustrating, that this article of Jonah Goldberg's was posted with the sincere desire that people have an honest, non-abrasive discussion of his points, but that it's been taken over by the assault-weapons advocates? I'm beginning to wonder if "conservatism" has any relevance to anything important anymore.

[MissAmericanPie]

He said he and Ashcroft would strenuously enforce the laws on the books regarding gun control. This was one of the laws on the books at the time he took office.

[Joe Hadenuf]

There are an awful lot of fruitcakes around here, by your measure.

And this is what it's boiling down to. If you don't agree with one of the two beltway parties, your a fruitcake.

Tell you the truth, this makes a damn good case for a third party. One that will put our people, and our country first, all the time, *everytime*.

[onyx]

"Conservative" as it's painted here on FR has such an ugly face, would yall mind calling me a RINO from now on?

[prairiebreeze]

What I'd like to know is when did honor and decency stop being conservative values?

When owning an assault weapon is more important than the issue of gun ownership I'd guess, from the looks of this thread. And then trying to say background checks shouldn't happen for gun owners. Lots of honor and decency that (sarc)....not to mention a criminals dream.

Prairie

[Orangedog]

Your statement deserves to be expunged. Ass.

Whatever.

[Orangedog]

Turn it into hamburger?

That's the job of whoever processes it after it's been shot.

[KEVLAR]

Assault weapon advocates?
As has been pointed out repeatedly, the term "assault weapon" can be expanded at any time to include just about any semi automatic weapon.
It has also been mentioned that the second amendment to the constitution has NO RELATION to any sporting purposes.
Some, including myself take offense when someone continues to blabber on about 'assault weapons' and the 'need' for a particular weapon when it is commonly known that these weapons are not used in a majority of crimes and even if they were they should be constitutionally protected. It does not help when the individual in question ignores most of the posts asking for clarification of what was posted.

[Common Tator]

JFK was the last truly anti-communist Democrat.

REALLY?

Look at the record. The Soviets put up the Berlin wall under JFK. What did JFK do about it.... NOTHING!!!! JFK did nothing to prevent the advancement of the power of the Soviet Union. JFK folded our hand at every confrontation.

No nation in Western Europe would let us put Nukes on their soil. They were afraid of the Soviets. It will only make us a target, they said. And our missiles could not reach Russia from US soil. Ike got Turkey to let us put our nuclear missiles and the troops to control them on their soil. From Turkey we could blow every Soviet citizen to kingdom come. The Soviets had no bases from which they could not hit us. We were, under Ike, in the drivers seat.

The Russians tested JFK's testicles with the Berlin wall. Khrushchev wanted to go straight to Cuba. But other Soviet leaders demanded he test JFK with the Berlin wall first. When JFK only talked about the Berlin wall, and did nothing, it convinced the Soviets that JFK would back down and remove our missiles from Turkey. With the success of the Berlin wall under the Soviet belt, the Soviets started putting their missiles into Cuba! They were convinced that JFK would surrender our surperior position if they let him save face.

The Soviets made no attempt to hide that they were putting missiles in Cuba. Look at the pictures. ... They wanted us to find them.

What did JFK do to get rid of the Missiles in Cuba? Exactly what the Russians demanded. JFK took our missiles out of Turkey... that's what. That was exactly what the Russians wanted. The Russians did not want Castro to have his hands on their NUKES. They wanted OUR Nukes out of Turkey. That is what they got in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

The difference between JFK and McGovern is McGovern was honest about surrendering to the Soviets. JFK surrendered as long as the Sovites let him claim it to be a victory.

JFK took the whip hand Ike left him and let Nikita Khrushchev beat the crap out of the USA.

Some people like to forget that John, Robert and Teddy Kennedy are blood brothers that share their Daddies views on both woman and politics.

The last real anti-communist Democrat was LBJ. VietNam was his attempt to make the Russians fear us... It did not work. He was just trying to send the Soviets a message. It was a failure. Nixon tried to take us to a military superiority with technology that could destroy them. JFK wanted a public relations victory by going to the moon. Nixon did two things. He built us a missile system that could destroy all of the soviet union, and he created a split between the Soviet Union and China. Those were good moves indeed.

Reagan saw a way to victory that escaped every Democrat plus Ike and Nixon as well. He got the Russians into a war using dollars and rubbles and the Soviets lost. Reagan knew that the weak point in a Socialist system is their economy not their missiles and guns. He used our great advantage to beat them. It was a technique that escaped of the brilliant men in all the great think tanks.

It was Harry Truman who decided that containment was the only game in town. We played containment or 'Can't we just all get along.' until Reagan came to office. It was he who went for the win with the best weapon we had... dollars against rubbles ... and the dollars won.

History clearly shows thjat JFK played poker with Khrushchev, Khrushchev won every hand.

[My2Cents]

You're right. I withdraw my observation about JFK.

[F16Fighter]

"The right wing fruitcakes like to think they are important... but they are not....The are never a factor. They don't elect anyone ..They don't defeat anyone. They are not a factor. That is why Karl Rove does not give a hoot what they do. They are not important. "

Care to elaborate and define exactly who you believe those "right wing fruitcakes" who "are not a factor" are?