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

Skip to comments.

Bush in Tight Spot With N.R.A. Over Gun Legislation
The New York Times ^ | 05/08/03 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

Posted on 05/07/2003 7:41:18 PM PDT by Pokey78

WASHINGTON, May 7 — President Bush and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant pieces of gun-control legislation in the last decade, a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.

At issue is a measure to be introduced by Senate Democrats on Thursday to continue the ban. Groundbreaking 1994 legislation outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to fight it. Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes.

Despite those concerns, the White House says Mr. Bush supports the extension of the current law — a position that has put him in opposition to the N.R.A. and left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.

"This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover G. Norquist, a leading conservative and an N.R.A. board member who opposes the weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet."

Advocates on both sides of the issue say the White House appears to have made a bold political calculation: that the risk of alienating a core constituency is outweighed by appearing independent of the gun lobby, sticking to a campaign promise and supporting a measure that has broad popular appeal. The president has claimed the middle road — supporting an extension of the current ban but not endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw many "copycat" assault weapons. That position has forced Democrats in the Senate to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban.

Mr. Bush's position "cuts against the N.R.A.'s position," said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "and it will put the president — for one of the first times since he signed the campaign finance reform bill — at odds with his own political base."

"He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be fatal," Mr. Franc added, but the issue could hurt Mr. Bush in Middle America, considered critical to his re-election chances in 2004.

The assault-weapons issue puts the president in a precarious political spot. When Mr. Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, a top N.R.A. official boasted that the group's relationship with Mr. Bush was so "unbelievably friendly" that the N.R.A. could practically claim a seat at the White House. The N.R.A. has been a major donor to Mr. Bush, and the gun lobby and the Bush administration have been in lock step on most major gun issues, including the current push to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft has been a particularly close ally of the gun lobby, pushing an expanded view of gun rights under the Second Amendment and initiating law enforcement changes sought by the N.R.A.

But White House officials said the assault-weapons ban was one case in which the president and the N.R.A. did not see eye to eye.

"There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans." Mr. McClellan added that the ban was put in place as a way of deterring crime and that Mr. Bush "felt it was reasonable."

The White House position has heartened gun-control advocates. Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports an extension of the weapons ban, said, "I think Bush realizes that, number one, this is the right thing to do, number two, he promised to do this in the 2000 campaign, and number three, he knows that it's good politics and this is an extremely popular measure."

The N.R.A. has maintained a polite civility toward the White House over the issue, even though it insists the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment that deprives hunters and sportsmen of many high-powered rifles.

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that while the defeat of the assault-weapons ban would be one of the N.R.A's top priorities, the group's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it so that it never reaches Mr. Bush's desk. "Do we agree with the administration's position on this? No, we don't, but the real fight is going to be not at that level, but in Congress," he said.

A bill will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, that would extend the ban for 10 years in much the same form it exists today. House Democrats expect to introduce a toughened version of the bill next week. That version, rejected by Senate Democrats as too politically risky, would significantly expand the class of banned weapons.

Mr. Schumer said he believed Mr. Bush's support could be critical in what he predicted would be a hard-fought campaign to renew the assault-weapons measure, which bans 19 types of firearms and others that meet certain criteria.

"We hope the president will not just say he supports the ban but will work to get it passed," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. "This will be a good measure of the compassion in his compassionate conservatism."

Senate Democrats ultimately decided that a stronger version of the ban would not pass muster with the White House and thus stood little chance of gaining passage, officials said. As a result, the Senate proposal will not specifically ban the Bushmaster rifle type that was used in last year's Washington-area sniper attacks. The House version would, because it includes a broader definition of an assault rifle, officials said.

"I would like to strengthen the bill" beyond what will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday, Senator Feinstein said today. "But I don't want to lose the bill, and important to that is the president's support."

Mr. Schumer said that even with the White House's public support, "I am worried that the anti-gun-control forces in the administration will conspire to kill this measure in the dead of night without a vote."

He noted that Mr. Ashcroft gave a noncommittal response two months ago when he was asked before the Senate several times whether he would support the reauthorization of the assault-weapons ban.

Mr. Ashcroft noted that Justice Department studies had found that the ban's impact on gun violence was "uncertain," and he said more study was needed.

The question of the gun ban's impact over the last nine years will be a crucial point of debate on the legislation.

A report due to be released in the next few days by the Violence Policy Center — a liberal Washington group that supports an expansion of the ban — examined the killings of 211 law enforcement officers from 1998 to 2001 and found that one in five were done with assault weapons, often copycat models that did not fall under the 1994 ban.

"Unfortunately, the firearms industry has been very successful at evading the ban," Kristen Rand, the group's legislative director, said. "Assault weapons remain a huge public safety problem."

Gun-rights groups insist that the assault-weapons ban has had little or no impact in fighting crime, and they maintain that their opponents are wrong to depict high-powered rifles as the weapon of choice for gangs and rampage killers.

"None of these weapons are used for crimes, and the Democrats know that," Mr. Norquist said.

For many gun owners, the issue is visceral, and Mr. Bush's stance has made the debate even more emotional.

"There are a lot of gun owners who worked hard to put President Bush in office, and there are a lot of gun owners who feel betrayed by him," said Angel Shamaya, an Arizona gun owner who runs a Web site called "keepandbeararms.com."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Front Page News; Government; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2ndamendment; arms; automaticweapons; awban; ban; bang; banglist; constitution; disarm; disarmament; firearms; gunban; guncontrol; gunregistration; guns; nra; rkba; secondamendment; semiautomatic; weapons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401 next last

1 posted on 05/07/2003 7:41:18 PM PDT by Pokey78
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
The NRA is about to find out what it feels like to be at the receiving end of Compassionate Conservatism. Get out the vaseline.
2 posted on 05/07/2003 7:44:47 PM PDT by Texas Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Better show their colors now - to me, this is the MOST IMPORTANT judge of character in a president. The 2nd amendment is absolutely the one that has no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts' about it - this is critical. The nation is watching. Of course, what is always left out, is the absolute, undeniable right, when these gun 'proposals' come up, is that those who propose them 100% understand why the Constitution guarantees the 2nd - to protect ourselves against a tyrannical government.
3 posted on 05/07/2003 7:46:42 PM PDT by ysoitanly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Why does Bush support this ban?

Does he not believe in individual Rights?

Or is he making a decision based solely on 'political' calculations, without regard to the Constitution?

4 posted on 05/07/2003 7:48:38 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Screw Bush if this is the case. Screw those who think it's about keeping THEIR power, or posturing just so only so they can temporarily check the REAL enemy here (wink-wink), when it's really only about OUR freedoms, which is not on the table to be negotiated or compromised. Screw em all, all the Republicans who have talked the talk, but woobly walked.

Abstain in 04 if Bush is a whore.
5 posted on 05/07/2003 7:50:02 PM PDT by kcar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Being on the right side of the gun issue is what got Bush elected Gov. of Texas.

I'd hate for him to get weak on it now.

6 posted on 05/07/2003 7:50:49 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Campaign Finance Reform, anyone?
7 posted on 05/07/2003 7:51:26 PM PDT by newgeezer (...until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
I think the analyst hit it on the head: Bush has sufficient political capital that he can expend some of it cozening up to the gun grabbers. Plays well with that "kinder, gentler" crowd.

It also shows that Bush is a "conservative" of dubious credentials. Anyone expecting a conservative messiah from this administration faces a long walk down Disappointment Road.

8 posted on 05/07/2003 7:51:32 PM PDT by IronJack
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
"There are a lot of gun owners who worked hard to put President Bush in office, and there are a lot of gun owners who feel betrayed by him," said Angel Shamaya, an Arizona gun owner who runs a Web site called "keepandbeararms.com."

Way to go Angel. Keepandbeararms.com is a great site. I recommend it to everyone. We must keep their feet to the fire on this one. If we can stop the renewal of the Ugly Weapon Ban, we will have, for the first time in 70 years, have rolled back some of the unconstitutional infringments that have been enacted over that period. The anti-freedom people will be livid. They have always felt that they woud win with incrementalism, if only they never, ever, ever allow a move toward greater freedom. We have made progress in the States, but this would be a great first at the Federal level, and would indicate a turning of the tide, in my opinion.

We have several things in our favor:

The War on Terror

The Constitution

The Facts

Election coming soon

Republican House

Republican Senate

And, Most Importantly,

An increasingly free New Media to compete with the OldDominantLiberalMedia

You can count President Bush as an advantage if you like, because I don't believe the administration will actively push for the bill, and will actually push to have it killed in the Congress so he does not have to deal with it.

9 posted on 05/07/2003 7:54:11 PM PDT by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78

Bush in Tight Spot With N.R.A. Over Gun Legislation

We at The New York Times Overcome with Glee
10 posted on 05/07/2003 7:55:04 PM PDT by newgeezer (...until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
From reading the above posts it sounds like the liberal NY Times has done the job it set out to do. Divide and Conquer.
11 posted on 05/07/2003 7:55:24 PM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Or is he making a decision based solely on 'political' calculations, without regard to the Constitution?

Yes he is. This support springs not from some core belief, but from the fact that Bush and his advisors think that fighting this law will cost him votes from the brain-dead middle.

I'm sure Rove has stated basically, "You won the war in Iraq, you fight for lower taxes (not very successfully), and you wear a cowboy hat. The right wing will be pissed at you, but they'll still vote for you anyway. Where else are they gonna go?"

And, unfortunately, Rove's right. Where else are we gonna go?

12 posted on 05/07/2003 7:57:04 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
Well, that is what I expect from the NYT. What should we expect from President Bush on this issue?
13 posted on 05/07/2003 7:58:29 PM PDT by Texas Eagle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: dead
And, unfortunately, Rove's right. Where else are we gonna go?

Look at 1992 or 1996 for the answer to that.

Some will vote for a third party for President, or not vote for that office.

Others will stay home.

A few will vote for the RAT candidate, figuring they'd rather have a real democrat than a pretend one.

14 posted on 05/07/2003 8:00:17 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
So you've knowingly judged the other posters, now why don't you try being brave and stating your view?

Is Bush doing this out of some core belief? Or is he doing it out of cold political calculation?

15 posted on 05/07/2003 8:00:52 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Bush is supporting the ban because it will never reach his desk. That said, it's damned stupid of him to run away from a good issue like this one.
16 posted on 05/07/2003 8:01:34 PM PDT by The Old Hoosier (Right makes might.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It will take a Congressional act to keep the ban alive and it will never happen. This ban will sunset and President Bush is just playing politics. This is a touchy third rail issue that could be used against him with the soccer mom's. I'm sure Karl Rove is telling him to hint that he might sign it if it reaches his desk and make no effort to support it.

I will bet that it will never reach his desk. If it does... He better veto it or lose a large block of support

17 posted on 05/07/2003 8:02:08 PM PDT by MJY1288 (Freedom is Ringing)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
From reading the above posts it sounds like the liberal NY Times has done the job it set out to do. Divide and Conquer

The NY Times isn't the problem here. They have never been less relevant in American politics than they are today. They will continue to lose relevancy with each passing day.

This is because of talk radio, cable TV, and the internet. More and more Americans are getting their news from 'alternative sources'.

18 posted on 05/07/2003 8:02:09 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Bush has sufficient political capital that he can expend some of it cozening up to the gun grabbers. Plays well with that "kinder, gentler" crowd.

That political capital can vanish real quick. Just ask his dad. I personally don't think this renewal will ever see the top of Bush's desk. But if it does, and he signs it, I predict he'll lose in '04.

19 posted on 05/07/2003 8:02:18 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
To hell with the White House and Senate! We can stop this SOB in the House. Work your Rep's now!
20 posted on 05/07/2003 8:02:38 PM PDT by Brian S
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
What did you expect? He's running for re-election. Would you rather have John F Kerry or John Edwards signing every piece of anti-gun legislation that crosses his desk?? Try dealing with reality instead of impossible absoloutes. And yes, I'm a Life Member NRA.
21 posted on 05/07/2003 8:02:59 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
Haven't read the NYT recently. But unity means nothing if the leader of our cause doesn't see our freedoms as his cause. Bush and the Republican dominance of our congress ends when it becomes smugness and arrogance. Doan care much about your united front - unless it impacts my future of freedom, or that of my kids. Like the Dixie sluts, Bush can choose to support whatever he likes - then we get to.
22 posted on 05/07/2003 8:03:06 PM PDT by kcar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
You're right. But Bush and Rove have calculated that those on the right wing who don't vote for him will be more than made up for by those mushy moderates who will jump aboard.

It's a political calculation, and that's what Rove is really good at.

It's pretty gutless for Bush, but there's an election to win, I guess.

23 posted on 05/07/2003 8:03:23 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: dead
I'm sure Rove has stated basically, "You won the war in Iraq, you fight for lower taxes (not very successfully), and you wear a cowboy hat. The right wing will be pissed at you, but they'll still vote for you anyway. Where else are they gonna go?"

Some will vote for a 3rd Party loser, but many will just chose not to vote - for President, at least - at all.

24 posted on 05/07/2003 8:04:59 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Texas Eagle
Well, that is what I expect from the NYT. What should we expect from President Bush on this issue?

Whew it is amazing how you all can get worked up by a NYT article. I admittedly skimmed over the article but it only mentions the Senate. I guess to the NYT the House doesn't exist. This is where this issue will be decided since 2nd amendment issues are a big factor in local congressional elections and the aw ban barely passed the house in 94 when the demo's had control, but you all go ahead with your rants over a NYT article.

25 posted on 05/07/2003 8:05:11 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: IronJack
Brother, as a Texan (not by birth, by choice, dammit!) and an ex army puke, and an owner of an Evil Black Rifle... I'm willing to give him a pass. He is not implementing any new legislation, he is maintaining the status quo.

I don't agree with the ban, but we're holding our own, and gaining ground. CCW laws are sweeping the nation, frivolous lawsuits are being prohibited...slowly slowly catchee monkee.

Let's get another four years, a few more congressional seats, a bunch more judges...and then lower the boom.

26 posted on 05/07/2003 8:05:37 PM PDT by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo; dead
I see Mulder already answered you (in post #14).
27 posted on 05/07/2003 8:06:12 PM PDT by Mr. Mojo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
Bush is supporting the ban because it will never reach his desk.

If the AWB ban isn't renewed, Bush will get blamed anyway. So why doesn't he simply oppose it and state his reasons for doing so? It's an incredibly stupid law and he could articulate it as such in about 30 seconds.

That said, it's damned stupid of him to run away from a good issue like this one.

I don't know of ANYONE who will vote for Bush based on his support of this. I know lots of folks who will vote against him based on this issue.

Also, if the big issue in 2004 is 'guns', the conservative candidates will win big time. Hell, even the demoncrats are starting to realize this. Lieberman made a statement during the last "debate" (for lack of a more accurate term) that was very pro-gun Rights, demoncratic governors have run on pro-gun platforms, and traditionally demoncratic states have enacted CCW laws.

The gun issue is a winning one for conservatives.

28 posted on 05/07/2003 8:07:19 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: dead
I have not heard a word on what Bush himself has said. All I have heard is from the likes of the NY Times. I'am willing to wait and see what happens and how this plays out. Maybe he will only renew it for one year just to get past the 2004 elections and then dump it???? Sometimes GW plays these things close to the vest in order to sucker the liberals. Parley
29 posted on 05/07/2003 8:07:27 PM PDT by Parley Baer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d
I got your status quo (Slave # 055-4879-97315-00) right here.
30 posted on 05/07/2003 8:08:23 PM PDT by kcar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: The Old Hoosier
I am SICK of Bush counting on 'something', be it the courts or legislative bodies, to 'overturn' his lack of spine on certain issues. Before I put on the flame suit, think of CFR and now this. Ok, bomb me with 'strategery' and how it (so far) has come out all right, but do you think this can go on forever before Dems and RINOs jump on? And, as I add extra asbestos to prepare, it looks like he temporarily 'skated' from addressing - read: giving Mexico totally unfettered access to the U.S. and the amnesty for illegals, purely by chance, because Mexico pi$$ed us off with their Iraq war stance. Ducking.......
31 posted on 05/07/2003 8:08:39 PM PDT by ysoitanly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that while the defeat of the assault-weapons ban would be one of the N.R.A's top priorities, the group's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it so that it never reaches Mr. Bush's desk.

I suspect this is Bush's strategy. He expects that it will never make it out of the House (although the Senate will probably pass it). It can't become an issue in the 2004 campaign -- he didn't oppose it, but he wouldn't have to sign it into law, either.

If the bill does come to him for his signature, Bush should remember gun owners' part in the defeat of his father, and his own victory in Texas two years later. If he has forgotten, he deserves to lose in 2004.

32 posted on 05/07/2003 8:09:31 PM PDT by justlurking
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ozzymandus
I expect him to be able to read the Constitution. He failed the CFR test and he failed the Homeland Security test, and if he fails the Bill of Rights test we might as well start the civil war now. The 2nd Amendment isn't optional. Any law that imbalances the power of the people in favor of the power of the government with regard to the possession and carrying of arms is too many. We have been patient for too long as our fundamental rights have been erroded. This is the last straw.
33 posted on 05/07/2003 8:09:40 PM PDT by RKV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
He is making a political calculation. The catch is that people who favor gun control aren't going to vote for him whatever happens. So he is alienating his core and getting nothing in return.

He may be calculating that conservative voters have no place else to go, and he is right that they obviously aren't going to vote Dem. Most conservatives will vote for him despite reservations as the lesser of evils. But others will simply stay home, or vote for one of the "third" parties as a protest vote. If you remember how close the election was last time, you realize that it wouldn't take too many protest votes to cost him a second term.

He is gambling, and this is a gamble that could cost him the election and cost us 4 years of Lieberman.
34 posted on 05/07/2003 8:10:04 PM PDT by marron
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
I have not heard a word on what Bush himself has said. All I have heard is from the likes of the NY Times.

When Bush's spokesman speaks for him and states that he will support this law, do you think that maybe the NY Times is pulling his strings? I don't.

And you never answered my question - do you think Bush's stated (through a spokesman) support for this law springs from some core belief that the law is just, or is his support based solely on political calculations?

35 posted on 05/07/2003 8:11:39 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: what's up
Would someone please explain to me how he is weak on gun issues when "HE SAID BEEFORE HE WAS ELECTED THAT HE SUPPORTED THIS ISSUE. I would say he is a hipcritical SOB if he said he did not support it now. He said the same thing about caimpaign finance. He said if they send it to me I will sign it.They did he did.
36 posted on 05/07/2003 8:11:41 PM PDT by cksharks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: RKV
Put your name on the ballot and I'll vote for you.
37 posted on 05/07/2003 8:12:22 PM PDT by kcar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Mojo
If the gun ban extension does reach the President's desk and he signs it He has lost my vote.
Of course he didn't get it in the last election either.
I live in a conservative state (GA) so the race would have to be close for my vote to make a difference in a Presidential race.
The political demographics of the mid-west make this move risky no matter which position he takes.I wish President Bush would oppose it on constitutional grounds.
38 posted on 05/07/2003 8:13:06 PM PDT by rastus macgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: MJY1288
Bush is just playing politics. This is a touchy third rail issue that could be used against him with the soccer mom's. I will bet that it will never reach his desk. If it does... He better veto it or lose a large block of support

Yikes! I must have fallen into my "way-back" machine and landed in an old thread about campaign finance reform legislation!

39 posted on 05/07/2003 8:14:16 PM PDT by dead
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: cksharks
The support should be even less than lukewarm.
40 posted on 05/07/2003 8:14:35 PM PDT by rastus macgill
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: cksharks
I would say he is a hipcritical SOB if he said he did not support it now.

Nobody is saying he is a "h[y]pocrtical SOB".

The question at hand is does he support the Bill of Rights?

41 posted on 05/07/2003 8:14:38 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: dead
He said he will sign it during the election of 2000.
42 posted on 05/07/2003 8:15:44 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (the gift is to see the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: marktwain
If we can stop the renewal of the Ugly Weapon Ban, we will have, for the first time in 70 years, have rolled back some of the unconstitutional infringments that have been enacted over that period.

And if we lose the presidency, and the Rats get in charge, we'll see unconstitutional infringments rammed up our fundament. This is not the guy who renounced his NRA membership. We are more than holding our own- let's get another four years...and judgeships, and a strong majority in both houses...and then let's put the boot in where it will really hurt- elimination of the full auto tax, national CCW, etc..

I think we can and will win the next round- but let's make that win an "In your face" smackdown that give us the freedom to (through friendly supreme court rulings) not merely fight a delaying action, but cut off the head, burn the body, and feed the remnants to scrofulous pariah dogs.

43 posted on 05/07/2003 8:16:59 PM PDT by fourdeuce82d
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: dead
I must have fallen into my "way-back" machine and landed in an old thread about campaign finance reform legislation!

The ironic thing about CFR is now that the USSC has overturned much of it, the RAT candidate will be able to criticize Bush for signing such a flawed bill into law.

Their arguement will be that Bush wasn't serious about CFR since he failed to veto a blatantaly flawed bill. The RAT will say he should have vetoed it and forced Congress to pass a better bill-- one that would stand up in court.

44 posted on 05/07/2003 8:17:50 PM PDT by Mulder (Fight the future)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Parley Baer
From reading the above posts it sounds like the liberal NY Times has done the job it set out to do. Divide and Conquer.

Meaning that it is the NY Times that will support and then sign an extention of the ban?

45 posted on 05/07/2003 8:18:34 PM PDT by templar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d
If the RATs pass any more unconstitutional infringements were exactly in the same position as we were on April 19th 1775.
46 posted on 05/07/2003 8:20:58 PM PDT by RKV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: cksharks
George W. Bush
Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban


http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/893281/posts?page=
47 posted on 05/07/2003 8:21:51 PM PDT by TLBSHOW (the gift is to see the truth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Pokey78
It is ALL a moot issue. Tom Delay will NEVER let this out of the House. The Senate and the President can't do it alone. The law sunsets. Without a new law passed by both houses, the whole thing goes away.

Bush is a weasel on this issue. He knows he will never have to sign it, so it will be a dead issue by election, but he can seem independent of the gun lobby for the RINO's.
48 posted on 05/07/2003 8:21:57 PM PDT by WilliamWallace1999
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Their arguement will be that Bush wasn't serious about CFR since he failed to veto a blatantaly flawed bill. The RAT will say he should have vetoed it and forced Congress to pass a better bill-- one that would stand up in court

I'm sorry, but I picture you typing with your eyes rolling wildly. That has to one of the most ludicrous notions that I ever read on FR.

That's a new one, the demos will blame Bush for not vetoing a piece of legislation they fully supported.

49 posted on 05/07/2003 8:22:14 PM PDT by Dane
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: fourdeuce82d
I want it all. All of my freedoms - all of my income. I doan wanna hear the Republicans spout this Rats are worse BS. Makes you sound like Good Cop, but the Bad one is right here behind the curtain, pacing and clinching his fists. I want Jefferson and the Bill of Rights.
50 posted on 05/07/2003 8:22:24 PM PDT by kcar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 401 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