Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush gun control plan is threat to homeland security
Libertarian Party Press Releases ^ | 4.23.03

Posted on 05/03/2003 1:10:54 PM PDT by Enemy Of The State

Bush gun control plan is threat to homeland security

WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's support for renewing a Clinton administration ban on so-called assault rifles sends the wrong message to terrorists and other criminals, Libertarians say.

"Politicians who want to disarm vulnerable Americans at a time like this are a threat to homeland security," said Geoffrey Neale, Libertarian Party chairman. "The government simply can't protect everyone, all the time, but at least it can allow Americans to protect themselves."

The 1994 assault weapons law, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and then-Rep. Charles Schumer, D-NY, banned the manufacture and importation of certain types of semi-automatic rifles and prohibited magazines of more than 10 rounds. Bush administration spokesman Scott McClellan set off a public furor recently when he said the president "supports reauthorization of the current law," which is set to expire in September 2004 because of a 10-year sunset provision.

But banning guns sends terrorists and other criminals the message that Americans are even more vulnerable than before, Libertarians point out.

"Fortunately, terrorists carrying semi-automatic rifles haven't yet stormed a shopping mall, an office park or a busy urban area, but they could," Neale said. "If that happens, shouldn't their victims be able to shoot back with the same weapons the terrorists are using?

"Of course, an assault weapon may never be used to thwart a terrorist assault. But if overturning this gun ban saves just one life, it will have been worthwhile."

The main justification for the gun ban -- that assault weapons are a favorite choice for criminals -- doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny, Neale pointed out.

"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, assault weapons are used in less than 1 percent of violent crimes, and the FBI admits that far more people are killed every year by knives and blunt objects than by any kind of rifle, including an 'assault rifle,' " he said. "So banning assault weapons to protect public safety makes as much sense as banning knives and baseball bats."

The threat posed by assault weapons is so exaggerated that Joseph Constance, a deputy police chief in Trenton, NJ, once told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "My officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."

The bigger threat is that Bush will follow through on his promise to sign the renewed assault weapons ban, Neale said.

"When it comes to supporting crime-victim disarmament laws, Bush is a recidivist," he said. "Just eight months after terrorists commandeered four airlines on September 11, Bush opposed a House bill that would have allowed armed pilots in the cockpit. Fortunately, the president reversed himself in response to public pressure -- and the legislation was approved."

Now Bush seems to be repeating his mistake -- and that's bad news for homeland security, Libertarians say.

"Let's urge Bush to flip-flop in the direction of freedom again and let this gun ban quietly expire," he said. "It's time to stop the government's assault on public safety."

 


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Extended News; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections; US: District of Columbia; War on Terror
KEYWORDS: bang; libertarian; libertarians
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-110 next last

1 posted on 05/03/2003 1:10:54 PM PDT by Enemy Of The State
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
As an interesting contrast, Saddam Hussein was arming his citizens there at the end...
2 posted on 05/03/2003 1:14:12 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch; IronJack; Bikers4Bush; backhoe; Slyfox; Free the USA; American Soldier; ...
Ping!
3 posted on 05/03/2003 1:15:54 PM PDT by Enemy Of The State (Gun Control = Tyranny)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
So far we have a statement from the White House that GWB supports extending the Assault Weapons Ban unless and until his political operatives start really lobbying for this the bill will die in comittee and never make it to the floor. This gives Bush the best of both worlds the Rats vcannot use it as a campaign issue for the Succer moms and the AWB expires on Sept. 14, 2004.
4 posted on 05/03/2003 1:16:33 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
I have to agree with the Libertarians on this one. Whatever can Bush be thinking? It's common knowledge that Bush could never have been elected without the Pro2A voters in this country.
5 posted on 05/03/2003 1:18:19 PM PDT by basil
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
Way to take a stand, George. Are all Texans that wishy-washy?
6 posted on 05/03/2003 1:19:10 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State; MileHi; M Kehoe; Travis McGee; Dukie; SuperLuminal
"Fortunately, terrorists carrying semi-automatic rifles haven't yet stormed a shopping mall, an office park or a busy urban area, but they could," Neale said. "If that happens, shouldn't their victims be able to shoot back with the same weapons the terrorists are using?

I write of just this sort of event in Volume II of my Dragon's Fury Book Series

Below is a link to the excerpt I have up on my site regarding that event in the novel.

TERROR AT FOOTHILL MALL

7 posted on 05/03/2003 1:21:02 PM PDT by Jeff Head
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bang_list; *libertarians
http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list
8 posted on 05/03/2003 1:33:53 PM PDT by Libertarianize the GOP (Ideas have consequences)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
We also have been arming Iraqi citizens to protect their businesses and homes from looters and rapists..
We were issuing full auto-AKs with NO BACKGROUND checks... No Waiting Periods...
And many muslims men are guilty of domestic abuse charges for disciplining their women...
meanwhile back in the land of the free and home of the brave............
9 posted on 05/03/2003 1:34:33 PM PDT by joesnuffy (Moderate Islam Is For Dilettantes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: joesnuffy
Yeah...Saddam, who was hated by his people arms them...President Bush, loved by his, welshes on the 2nd Amendment...what am I missing?
10 posted on 05/03/2003 1:37:01 PM PDT by Cacophonous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
This is not only wrong and unconstitutional, it is an almost unbelievably bad political move.

Bush will get very nearly zero votes from gun control proponents but he will lose a lot from freedom loving voters. I would never vote for any of the current democrats but I also will not vote for Bush if he pushes this.

11 posted on 05/03/2003 1:38:53 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
The Bushbots will be out in full force on this thread to make any and all excuses for why we should still support this enemy to the 2nd Ammendment. ("Hey - we're at waaahhrrr! We should make some sacrfices"...etc..etc...) Save it for your country club meetings, RINOs.

If Bush renews the ban, he's a one-termer. Mark my words.

12 posted on 05/03/2003 1:39:11 PM PDT by Possenti
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: harpseal
So far we have a statement from the White House that GWB supports extending the Assault Weapons Ban unless and until his political operatives start really lobbying for this the bill will die in comittee and never make it to the floor. This gives Bush the best of both worlds the Rats vcannot use it as a campaign issue for the Succer moms and the AWB expires on Sept. 14, 2004.

You broke the code. This thing has zero chance of getting out of the House. None, nada, zip. Knowing that, Bush can play the Dems like a fiddle.

"Bush gun control plan" indeed. Don't these people understand that when you hold both houses of Congress plus the White House, you can choose where to kill it, and let the other guys play politics with it to bat the other party around? C'mon, let's enjoy our time in the Sun. We don't need to run like scared chickens all the time.


13 posted on 05/03/2003 1:46:25 PM PDT by Nick Danger (The liberals are slaughtering themselves at the gates of the newsroom)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Possenti
"If Bush renews the ban, he's a one-termer"

If Bush renews this ban he will certainly lose my support.
14 posted on 05/03/2003 1:46:42 PM PDT by Enemy Of The State (Gun Control is the first step to a tyrannical government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Possenti; Cacophonous
Unless you two were out to lunch that day, during the campaign, Bush said he supported the ban.

He also said we didn't need any more gun control.

The NRA stated the fight against the Assault Weapons law started during the November 2002 elections. We did make some headway in electing A rated candidates.

Let's get to work by calling our Representatives and Senators so this never reaches his desk because we can't allow another dem back into the White House.
15 posted on 05/03/2003 1:47:03 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Do you FReepers find it interesting that in all the hype and hysteria about "Homeland Security," no government organization has suggested that owning and carrying a personal weapon might, just might, be a good idea?

I am reminded every time 9-11 comes up in print or in conversation that for the want of four handguns and nineteen bullets, 3,000 people died.

And, I am determined not to be disarmed, particularly when "my" government is urging me to be "prepared!"

Since I cannot "prepare" myself when I fly, I no longer fly.

My fervant wish is that the Attorney General would expand his statement re: private ownership of guns to declare that all gun control laws are unconstitutional, and that any American who chooses to exercise his/her Second Amendment Rights will not be arrested for "preparing" to defend his/her life and liberty should it become necessary.

Vermont is the only state in the Union that understands and respects the Second Amendment, and their law should be the law of the land. Its almost enough to make me want to move there!
16 posted on 05/03/2003 1:57:55 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Taxman
I think once we get all the states with a CCW law and the streets remain bloodfree, we can start working on loosening up the requirments. Hopefully, all the states may get their laws in onother couple of years unless we have to have a couple of bad examples like California, Illinois and Massachusetts.

We've come a long way since the Morton Grove, Illinois type gun bans that were threatening all over the country.
17 posted on 05/03/2003 2:07:48 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
And let's all remember to take our assault rifles, fully loaded, every time we go to the mall, the movies, a restaurant, or any public place that might be shot up by terrorists. Do they come with some kind of shoulder strap so I can easily carry mine and still carry my big packages from Sears and the Footlocker? I don't have mine yet, but I'm saving up for one. We won't have any trouble, once this ban thing is lifted, carrying them around to defend ourselves, will we?

Oh, and church. We definitely ought not to leave them home when we go to church! Think how many could be killed if the terrorists stormed a church!
18 posted on 05/03/2003 2:09:57 PM PDT by Knither
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Knither
You are about as dumb as a post.

There are quite a few places where it is and has been legal for a long time to take your gun to church, the mall, etc. I don't recall there ever being trouble because of it.

Fact is tho that according to the only people who have ever really studied it scientifically, there are more than two million crimes prevented in the US annually by citizens with guns. The overwhelming majority of which are not fired.

19 posted on 05/03/2003 2:15:59 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
As an interesting contrast, Saddam Hussein was arming his citizens there at the end...

You can't arm apathetic people at the last minute and expect them to defend your country against A10s, Apaches, and SAWs teams. It takes weeks of committed training and practice to become proficient with military grade rifles for a populace to be ready for anything like that. This is just one argument for us to strengthen our vigilance by eliminating bans like this (and the BMG50 proposals) so people can keep their skills sharp. It's also a strong suggestion that we should be thinking about citizen home defense tactics as well as simple target practice.

The McCain-Bayh Citizen Soldier initiative seems to have fizzled out, unfortunately. But it seemed like a step in the right direction: we need a formal way to organize in defense of our communities.

A call to service in a time of war

Short-term enlistment would entice even well-educated and well-off Americans to bear arms.

by Marc Magee and Steven J. Nider

"The United States does not consider it a sacrifice to do all one can, to give one's best to our nation, when the nation is fighting for its existence and its future life. It is not a sacrifice for any man, old or young, to be in the Army or the Navy of the United States. Rather it is a privilege."
Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dec. 9, 1941

"I'm asked all the time, what can I do to help? People say, 'Well, gosh, I want to be a part of the war against terror.' And my answer is, love somebody. Be a good mother or dad."
George W. Bush,
Jan. 30, 2002

With America embroiled in a global war on terrorism, with the increasing likelihood of a conflict with Iraq, and with tensions rising on the Korean peninsula, public attention has turned to a crucial question: Who is doing the fighting and dying for all of us? President Bush has been silent on this question, choosing instead to make a call to part-time volunteerism the service component of his war mobilization. New Democrats, by contrast, have been working since 9/11 to reconnect national service and national defense.

On Dec. 2, 2002, this hard work paid off when the military pillar of the Bayh-McCain "National Call to Service" bill—a new short-term "citizen-soldier" enlistment program—was signed into law as part of the fiscal 2003 defense authorization. This initiative represents the most important change in military recruitment policy since the draft was ended. It enables volunteers to sign up for 18 months of service on active duty—the average enlistment now is four years—followed by service in the Reserves and then either a period of availability in the Individual Ready Reserves or civilian service in AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps. By shortening the length of enlistment and basing recruitment on a call to service rather than the current focus on cash incentives, this citizen-soldier plan offers the nation's most fortunate sons and daughters a voluntary equivalent of the old draft—a way to contribute to America's defense without choosing a military career.

The military's current recruitment strategy—one based on economic incentives and career-track enlistments—does not entice many well-off or well-educated citizens. For example, the percentage of Americans in uniform with college experience is only 28 percent, versus 56 percent of the civilian population. The disconnect between American elites and the military is even greater. The percentage of congressional members with military service has declined from 75 percent in 1971 to less than 34 percent today. In addition, despite the large-scale military mobilization since Sept. 11, 2001, only a few members of Congress have a son or daughter in the armed forces, and only one of those is in the enlisted ranks.

The new short-term enlistment option offers a way to reverse this growing civilian-military divide. Research by Northwestern University professor Charles Moskos, the country's pre-eminent military sociologist, demonstrates that use of the new short-term enlistment track could help share the burden of military service more equitably by removing one of the most important barriers to military service for college graduates: the long-term enlistments, which graduates perceive as obstacles to their larger career goals. In addition, the enlistment of these citizen soldiers could help ease the growing strains on our military created by the long-duration campaigns of the war on terror by bringing more full-time soldiers into a force overly reliant on reserve personnel. Finally, even with the largest increase in defense spending since the Reagan administration, having the resources necessary to win the war on terror will require that we make every effort to get the most out of each dollar. By meeting our recruiting needs through a call to service instead of larger cash incentives, the enlistment of citizen soldiers will make certain that we have the resources needed to carry on this fight as long as necessary.

While the passage of the military pillar of the Bayh-McCain national service bill is a significant step forward, much more needs to be done this year to assure that we meet the challenges ahead. We propose three benchmarks for success in 2003. First, the new citizen-soldier program should be brought up to scale by assuring that important occupations with short training programs, such as military police, psychological operations, and military intelligence, are included in the initial implementation plan and by setting a target of recruiting 25,000 citizen soldiers in the program's first year. Second, the military pillar of service should be connected to an expansion of civilian service opportunities by increasing the size of the AmeriCorps program by 25,000 members in 2003 and dedicating one-half of the increase to homeland security projects. Third, the nation's leaders should go beyond the president's call for part-time volunteerism to make a clear call for full-time national service, including service as citizen soldiers. Only then will we begin to meet the challenges to our collective security—just as President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for in 1941—with the privilege of service to the nation shared equally by all its citizens.

Marc Magee is the director of the Center for Civic Enterprise at the Progressive Policy Institute. Steven J. Nider is director of foreign and security studies at PPI.

 


20 posted on 05/03/2003 2:16:09 PM PDT by risk ( If ye love wealth better than liberty...go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Knither
What you're experiencing is called "projection".

I suggest you get to an anger management session immediately before you use your car to mow down groups of school children.
21 posted on 05/03/2003 2:21:48 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
True enough. Good progress is being made. But what really bothers me is that our own government has worked diligently through the years to restrict the FReedom and Liberty bequeathed to all Americans by our Founders.

Gordon Liddy got it right with "When I was a boy, this was a FRee Country."

I am 62 years old, and in my lifetime, the LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist Bastards have heaped insult upon FRightening insult on the ability of a FRee people to go about their peacable business or enjoy their leisure time pleasures without the heavy hand of government slapping them around for this or that violation of some goofy law or another.

The loss of our Second Amendment right is only one manifestation of that phenomenon.

It took 50 odd years to get to where we are, and I am not confident that Real Conservatives can get to or stay at the levers of power in the 50 state capitals or Washington DC long enough to reverse the trend.

The most important question we should be asking is, "What sort of future are we preparing for our children and grandchildren?" in respect of FReedom and Liberty.
22 posted on 05/03/2003 2:21:55 PM PDT by Taxman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: yarddog
Newbie troll since April 12.

If he didn't have to pay all those taxes the dems want all the time, I'm sure he wouldn't have gone off the deep end.
23 posted on 05/03/2003 2:24:12 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Still, you have to be impressed by the number of people who never voted for Dubya, who are willing to come out publicly and state that they will never vote for him again.
24 posted on 05/03/2003 2:24:36 PM PDT by Dog Gone
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Taxman
Thank God for the internet. Before that, we only had liberal newspapers, TV and public school.

And things do change when the employee looks at all those taxes they have to pay. The only problem was the amount of people on the dole started to exceed the taxpayers. I think even that's changing with Workfare.
25 posted on 05/03/2003 2:30:13 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Taxman
The loss of our Second Amendment right is only one manifestation of that phenomenon.

I must be missing something.

I live in Texas, and I've bought six guns in three years. Any gun I wanted to buy, I bought and, because I have a CCW, I took the gun home with me right away.

For all the frenetics here, Tom DeLay and John Dingell will never allow a AWB to get out of the House.

26 posted on 05/03/2003 2:32:14 PM PDT by sinkspur
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Dog Gone
Same with the NRA haters. Someone will say they will quit at the exact time they admit they have no idea what they do.
27 posted on 05/03/2003 2:33:21 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
What bothers me about these trolls is they have no idea how commonly guns were carried openly 40 years ago.

When I was in high school I recall a guy having to see the principal about having a gun in his pickup rack. The principal was not worried about him having a gun on school property, he was worried about it being stolen. My Father used to carry a .22 rifle to school and store it in the teachers closet then hunt on his way home.

Heck I was watching "Leave it to Beaver" the other day on tv and the teacher was having the students bring mementos of WWII or other wars in to class. One kid brought a musket and another a bayonet.BTW a few years ago some gunman shot up a Southern Baptist church in Dallas killing over a dozen. It received little attention because the victims were conservative. If one of the church goers had been armed he might well have saved many lives. Yes the idea of someone having a gun in church is really crazy. I remember Skeeter Skelton mentioning the Methodist Minister keeping a loaded .45 on the pulpit.

28 posted on 05/03/2003 2:35:24 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
Well I have tried several times to buy guns in the last few years and been prevented from doing so.

The first time was a Marlin lever action which I saw in a shop in Alabama. I was nearly 70 miles from home and when there was a delay, I just let it go because I didn't want to drive back to get it.

I have a spotless record. Have never been charged with any crime much less been convicted yet I get a delay nearly everytime I try to buy a gun. If I am away from home I no longer even try, so yes the damned law has caused a hell of a lot of inconvenience to me.

29 posted on 05/03/2003 2:40:13 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Knither
I woulnd't particularly want to carry my AR around unless there was the possibility of a local raghead uprising. But I sure as hell would carry around my 1911 .45 auto IF I could get a carry permit in the Nazi state of California.
30 posted on 05/03/2003 2:43:56 PM PDT by 45Auto (Big holes are (almost) always better.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: yarddog
Buying guns over the counter.
Machine guns through the mail.
No one even suggesting how high your grass can be.
Taking your kids out of school because of a family crisis.
Getting on a plane with a gun and holster.
No I.D's to travel.
Paying cash for everything with not so much as a funny look.
No Social Security numbers.


No...., forget it. I'm preaching to the choir and Buffy The VS is on.

Catch you later, patriot.
31 posted on 05/03/2003 2:44:20 PM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
Bush's gun control plan: make his statement now to ensure the thing gets killed in Congress rather than by his veto pen.
32 posted on 05/03/2003 2:52:46 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sinkspur
I must be missing something.

You don't live in California. I realize you're making the point that Texans have defended their rights and they enjoy the freedoms they've secured. But it's not so good in many other areas of the USA.

When they came for the trade unionists and socialists, I said nothing because I was not a trade unionist. When they came for the homosexuals and the gypsies, I said nothing because I was neither. When they came for the Jews, I said nothing because I was not a Jew. When they came for the Catholics, I said nothing because I was not a Catholic. And when they came for me, there was nobody to say anything for me. --Rev. Martin Niemoller
While you may not agree with each group of people pastor Niemoller felt guilty for not defending, that is exactly the point: you certainly wouldn't have agreed with the German solution to the "problems" they posed to German society. The same goes for weapons laws in this country.

Restrictive firearms laws aren't a problem in Texas? You're OK. California is a long way away. You're not a 50BMG shooter? No problem, nothing to worry about today. You're not an assault-weapon enthusiast? No problem, you've got your handgun. The problem is that each new generation of laws becomes more and more restrictive. Even those who live in Texas should be concerned with what is happening in blue states!

We stood by while laws were passed that slowly eroded our freedoms. The .50BMG ban proposal is in Congress again. All of this adds up to serious reduction in 2nd. amendment freedoms nationally, and especially in high-density population areas of the West (left) coast and the Northeast.

I think the NRA's "America's First Freedom" campaign is right on the mark. It's taken me a while to come to this conclusion, but 2nd amendment rights secure the 1st and all others.

33 posted on 05/03/2003 3:01:14 PM PDT by risk (All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Enemy Of The State
A lot of us here love Bush for his handling of foreign policy since 9/11. But we love him because he is doing what we would expect a president to do under the circumstances, and he has handled it well.

But if he betrays the 2nd ammendment, these same people will not sit quiet. This is a lesson for any politician. Stick up for us, and we will go to the mat for you. We will stick by you when things get tough, and even stick when we're not sure where you're going.

But betray our core beliefs, and the 2nd Ammendment is core, and you will have a rebellion on your hands. Some folks will still stick, seeing you as a lesser of evils, but enough will stay home or bolt to third parties to hand it to the Dems. Bush has done well so far, building a coalition by standing firm for principle. Even his enemies are forced to respect that. Coalitions built by abandoning principles never work, no one respects them, and none of their members respect themselves.

If this is Rove's idea, it will guarantee a one-term presidency.
34 posted on 05/03/2003 3:11:02 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Cacophonous
Way to take a stand, George. Are all Texans that wishy-washy?

One definition of politics is the art of the possible. Do you want a public stand or do you want the Assault Weapons Ban to just go away. I want the latter and I see this strategy as letting it go away and stay away.

35 posted on 05/03/2003 3:15:21 PM PDT by harpseal (Stay well - Stay safe - Stay armed - Yorktown)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: marron
If this is Rove's idea, it will guarantee a one-term presidency.

Do you agree or disagree with the following two statements:

I think Bush is taking a gamble with his statement, but since he's a Texas poker player I suspect he thinks he can outplay the Democrats. Best case is that the Democrats try to add some more garbage to the AWB renewal legislation, thus both giving the Republicans a very good basis for killing it and giving voters a good basis for ousting them [the Democrats].
36 posted on 05/03/2003 3:20:09 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: risk
Restrictive firearms laws aren't a problem in Texas? You're OK. California is a long way away.

California a few years ago passed the point of no return, I think. Many companies and productive citizens have left or are leaving the state, forcing higher taxes on (and encouraging the exodus of) those that remain. I see no way to stop the slide of people demanding more and more goodies from a smaller and smaller pie.

I'd say it's far more important to "reinforce" the states near California against liberalism than it is to try to rescue the lost cause.

37 posted on 05/03/2003 3:24:12 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: supercat; harpseal
By saying he will sign the AWB if it reaches his desk, Bush reduces significantly the likelihood that it will actually do so.

I believe you guys are probably right. This is essentially the same tack he took with McCain-Feingold. Opposing McCain and the Democrats was politically difficult, so he simply announced that if it reached his desk he would sign it. This put the onus on the Repubs in congress. They weren't willing to take the heat, of course, so they passed it, Bush signed it. It turns out to be worse for the Dems than for the Repubs, and the Dems are already violating it, and as of a day or two ago, the Supremes are going to throw it out.

It may be that he is counting on it dying in committee, thus eliminating it as an issue, or he will sign it again eliminating it as an issue, and expect that the Supremes will throw it out.

With a razor thin majority in congress, this may be the best we can do. But Bush's die-hards would forgive him for signing McCain-Feingold, knowing it was a manuever. They may not forgive him signing a weapons ban, and bolt. You and I might stick with him, but enough will bolt to hand the election to the Dems. It is a risky gambit. It must die in committee or get ready for a Liebermann presidency.

I like Liebermann. Think he would make a great ex-senator. Don't want to think about a Liebermann Administration.

38 posted on 05/03/2003 3:32:53 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: supercat
California a few years ago passed the point of no return, I think.

As a patriotic citizen living and working in California, I feel I can't take this tact. You may be 99% correct, but I have to hold on to that glimmer of hope that things will improve if we show our concerns and explain ourselves.

I send E-mail to the governor and my congressmen (mostly ladies actually) and I try to make my voice heard. I love this state and I'm not going to give up on it until such time as I must leave for other reasons. And as long as I vote, I feel I have the right to argue and complain as much as I see fit.

39 posted on 05/03/2003 3:34:44 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: basil
Glad you said that BUT he said the same thing before, during and after the election.He would be one hell of a hipicrit for saying anything different now. By the way this headline sucks. Bush is not disarming anyone. They are already disarmned because of the law being in effect. This is nothing more than a lib party campaign contribution scheme aimed at republicans..
40 posted on 05/03/2003 3:34:45 PM PDT by cksharks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: yarddog
Thank you for the stupid comment on my intelligence. If you can't obey the rule for posting that says "no personal attacks" how are we going to trust you with a deadly weapon? Hotheads, including people who debate by insulting people they don't agree with, ought not to be carrying guns. If these things are so valuable and will save all our lives, why weren't the assault rifle 2nd amendment patriots out there when DC was being shot up by snipers a few months ago? Why aren't thousands of crimes averted every day by the millions of gunowners in this country? Because they can't really protect anyone; they mainly like to stroke the big long hard barrels and fantasize about how they'll save the world. And every so often one of their kids gets hold of one and shoots themselves or another kid. Oh, I'm sure this is what the authors of the second amendment had in mind.

And you mean to tell me you could walk into your local mall with an assault rifle and not get stopped? If you walked into a mall with an assault rifle, even with the intention of protecting yourself and everyone else, I think most people would grab their children and run. I sure would. Bring it to church and lots of cell phones would be calling 911, you can bet on it. I'm sure you think they're all dumb as posts, too.
41 posted on 05/03/2003 3:35:35 PM PDT by Knither
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Possenti
I have heard that one termer s--t for every decision he has made since taking office.The man still has a 70% approval rating. Does not compute,does not compute!!
42 posted on 05/03/2003 3:39:05 PM PDT by cksharks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Wow! So many brainy people on here! You got a graduate degree in psychology or what? If you do, then you know that you don't "shoot from the hip" in making psychological diagnoses. There's no way you could possibly know whether I'm projecting or not without some extensive interaction with me. Otherwise, you're probably just projecting yourself. Because I'm an unknown to you, a Rorschach card for your own feelings. You have no idea what my mental life is like -- no idea whether I'm male or female, old, young, or in between, what my educational background is, what my opinions are on other subjects, etc. I'm your Rorschach card. Project some more.
43 posted on 05/03/2003 3:41:25 PM PDT by Knither
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Knither
Because [guns] can't really protect anyone...

If every assertion you make were true, the second amendment would still stand. Instead of berating us for our support of this country's laws, why don't you try to change them instead?

44 posted on 05/03/2003 3:41:53 PM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: marron
They may not forgive him signing a weapons ban, and bolt.

If there is any additional garbage added to the AWB and it somehow makes it to Bush's desk, he'll be able to sign it without breaking any promises whatsoever. It might not be a bad idea to convince someone like McCain to add something extra in there for that very reason [plus it would aid in the 'unelect John McCain' efforts].

If the thing does get out of Congress, things will be difficult, but that would be so whether or not Bush signs it, since whatever Republicans went along with it would have drawn bullseyes on their backs come election time.

45 posted on 05/03/2003 3:43:51 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: risk
As a patriotic citizen living and working in California, I feel I can't take this tact. You may be 99% correct, but I have to hold on to that glimmer of hope that things will improve if we show our concerns and explain ourselves.

California has put out the welcome mat for illegal immigrants. I very much doubt you'll ever have the demographics needed to compete with that.

Perhaps you should figure out how to convince California to secede from the U.S. Unlike the 1860's war, I think much of the U.S. would be glad to see California become its own country.

46 posted on 05/03/2003 3:46:00 PM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Jeff Head
I write of just this sort of event in Volume II of my Dragon's Fury Book Series.

Indeed you do, and anybody who hasn't read it yet needs to do so. My copy of Volume III just got here :)

47 posted on 05/03/2003 3:49:31 PM PDT by Jefferson Adams
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: 45Auto
That makes sense to me. And I think it makes sense to a lot of people. From people I've talked to, it isn't all that hard here in IL to get a carry permit. But who on earth needs an assault weapon unless they're trained and under the command of someone with experience and accountability? I'm glad the sharpshooters have them, but I have a cousin who's married to a guy who believes in multiple conspiracies and I'm glad he doesn't have an assault rifle. He just gets his .22 out and pets it a lot, and even that's a little scary when he talks about the people he's going to shoot.
48 posted on 05/03/2003 3:50:37 PM PDT by Knither
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Knither
Actually the "stupid" remark was uncalled for. I do think your post is stupid but I have known fairly intelligent people who made stupid remarks.

I think I will just let your latest post sit there for everyone to see. It really doesn't need anyone to point out the obvious nonsense.

At least you didn't try the old "I am a gun supporter" lead off, which most trolls use before you went off on your tirade against gun owners.

49 posted on 05/03/2003 3:52:35 PM PDT by yarddog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Knither
I just looked in the dictionary to see if there was a picture of you next to the word...moron. However, I guess my dictionary is out of date.
50 posted on 05/03/2003 3:53:28 PM PDT by Enemy Of The State (Gun Control is the first step to a tyrannical government)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-110 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson