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

Skip to comments.

Will House take up renewal of gun ban?
World Net Daily ^ | May 19, 2003 | Jon Dougherty

Posted on 05/19/2003 7:12:28 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5

The second-highest ranking Republican in the House believes renewal of a decade-old ban on so-called "assault weapons" is in doubt, primarily because he doesn't think the votes are there to extend it.

(Excerpt) Read more at worldnetdaily.com ...


TOPICS: Activism/Chapters; Announcements; Constitution/Conservatism; Government
KEYWORDS: assault; ban; bang; banglist; excerpt; weapons
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 next last
There is a comment half way down the article where someone from the dem party is trying to distance themselves from the Assault Weapons ban by implicating some of the Republicans.
1 posted on 05/19/2003 7:12:28 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
bump
2 posted on 05/19/2003 7:13:27 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
I doubt it.
3 posted on 05/19/2003 7:14:05 AM PDT by Paleo Conservative
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: AAABEST; wku man; SLB; Travis McGee; Squantos; harpseal; Shooter 2.5; The Old Hoosier; xrp; ...
I am compiling a list of FreeRepublic folks who are interested in RKBA topics. If you want off my ping-list, just let me know.

Conversely, FReepmail me if you want to be added.

And my apologies for any redundant pings.


4 posted on 05/19/2003 7:15:27 AM PDT by Joe Brower (http://www.joebrower.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
"Some Democrats not only want to renew the ban, they want to expand it to include other look-alike weapons. But Roy said a new ban wouldn't be dependent on Democrats, many of whom, he explained, opposed the 1994 ban anyway.

No, I take that back. It's Stuart Roy who said it's not dependent of the dems to push the bill.

5 posted on 05/19/2003 7:20:56 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
The Dems of course will say that unless GWB is on TV actively begging and pleading for a new assault weapon law from now until next year, that puts all the blame on him when the law sunsets. Of course the Constitution and the will of an angry American populace has nothing to do with it, it's all GWB's fault. Just like the economy and terrorism.
6 posted on 05/19/2003 7:42:01 AM PDT by Sender
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Paleo Conservative
You're right. See my correction on #5.
7 posted on 05/19/2003 7:42:29 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Where are the Republicans on this. The house leadership doesn't want to bring it up so it expires but W the leader of the Party says he will sign it???? What part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand!

Ravenstar
8 posted on 05/19/2003 7:59:23 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
What part of "shall not be infringed" does he (George W.) not understand!

He understands just fine. This is a politically strategic decision to sweep the moderate liberals into his camp without alienating the pro-gun folks (like me.) I think most gun people understand exactly what he's doing and it's ok. Of course, then there's the hard-core no compromise crowd he'll just have to ignore. Reality time, gang.

9 posted on 05/19/2003 8:12:28 AM PDT by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: toddst
He has alienated me. You stand for the Constitution or you don't. Did you ever think that if he signed it he would be violating his oath of office. I know, I know Clintoon already did but we missed removing him because Spent Lott wouldn't do his duty, instead he played politics.

Ravenstar
10 posted on 05/19/2003 8:19:59 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
NPR has a story today that a majority of women Representatives voted for the AW ban:
http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfId=1268211
11 posted on 05/19/2003 8:50:15 AM PDT by drZ
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: toddst
Yes, he's certainly pro-gun. The way he's armed airline pilots has been very impressive. Just the other day I read that 44 were authorized to carry firearms in their cockpits. If even Barbara Boxer gets it, what excuse dose Bush have for not getting it? The answer, at least to me, is pretty clear - he'll support the 2nd Amendment as long as it works politically - he's strictly a fair weather friend of gun rights. None of his political capital is ever going to be spent on behalf of the 2nd Amendment.
12 posted on 05/19/2003 8:57:08 AM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: drZ
They also have obviously failed to read the Constitution or they just don't care and their oath of office means nothing.

Ravenstar
13 posted on 05/19/2003 8:58:18 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: toddst
He understands just fine. This is a politically strategic decision to sweep the moderate liberals into his camp without alienating the pro-gun folks (like me.)

Sure he understands. He understands the establishment political monopoly will offer you no better choice to protect your interests.

I think most gun people understand exactly what he's doing and it's ok. Of course, then there's the hard-core no compromise crowd he'll just have to ignore.

I have heard there are those who think it is "OK" for their political idols to compromise the 'unalienable rights' of others, I, personally, do not know any though.

Reality time, gang.

It certainly is.

14 posted on 05/19/2003 9:02:20 AM PDT by eskimo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
Boy have you got it! All exmilitary pilots should have been armed September 12, 2001, this is war after all! Then there should have been a program that would have armed the rest within 2 months. It is creeping up on two years and only 44 pilots armed, but he did create the biggest Gestapo in American History with the Patriot Act. The TSA is your new Gestapo. If you don't believe it just look at the fact that they cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for any violation of your Constitutional Rights!

Ravenstar
15 posted on 05/19/2003 9:03:08 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
"What part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand!" Please don't forget the qualifier - A well regulated militia being required.
Either way - there should be a vote (roll call ) so that the voters know where their rep stands on the issue. These wimps need to get some backbone.

16 posted on 05/19/2003 9:03:38 AM PDT by familyofman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
Keep sending in those letters and emails.
Washington, DC. Office
Office of Dennis Hastert
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2976
Fax: (202) 225-0697


Batavia, IL Office
Office of Dennis Hastert
27 N. River Street
Batavia, IL 60510
Phone: (630) 406-1114
Fax: (630) 406-1808


Dixon, IL Office
Office of Dennis Hastert
119 W. First St.
Dixon, IL 61021
Phone: (815) 288-0680
Fax: (815) 288-0743

We have a lot of work to do and it's possible we don't have a lot of time to do it in. The libs have already started their PR war and we can't sit still.

Make sure this thing dies from lack of attention before it gets to Congress.

And don't do a thing that will put the libs back into power.
17 posted on 05/19/2003 9:04:22 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: eskimo; caltrop
You should both go and completely read the article there at WND. You might want to follow the America First Link and do some reading.

Ravenstar
18 posted on 05/19/2003 9:05:44 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: familyofman
"A well regulated milia being required" means that we the people must be familiar with the use and accurate operation of all forms of weapons available. No one in the Federal Government was to infringe on the arming of the citizenry aka the militia.

Ravenstar
19 posted on 05/19/2003 9:13:26 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
oops should be "militia". Pardon my typo please.

Ravenstar
20 posted on 05/19/2003 9:15:07 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
bump. clearly W is trying to get votes from banners and supporters. If this bill ever reached Bush's desk he'd get hammered either way.
21 posted on 05/19/2003 9:24:14 AM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: votelife
He's stuck with a promise he made during the campaign. He said he would sign it IF it reaches his desk. He also said we didn't need anymore gun control.

So that means if we can stop this thing before it reaches his desk, we won't have any more gun control and he'll probably sign the Gun Manufacturer's Protection Bill.

This fight really started back during the last election. It was the single most reason the NRA fought so hard to get A rated candidates in.
22 posted on 05/19/2003 9:31:41 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: caltrop
Yes, he's certainly pro-gun. The way he's armed airline pilots has been very impressive.

I believe the President was opposed to the arming of airline pilots, at least initially.

23 posted on 05/19/2003 9:33:34 AM PDT by RogueIsland
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar
"No one in the Federal Government was to infringe on the arming of the citizenry aka the militia."
I still think it is disengenuous to not quote the entire 2nd Ammendment when referring to it. It is my understanding that the militias were under the control of the Govenors of their respective states.
Whatever, there should be a roll call vote on this issue. I want to know where my rep stands - I know what he says when it's election time - I want to see his vote.

24 posted on 05/19/2003 9:33:59 AM PDT by familyofman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
i agree with you. I hope enough of the pro 2nd people stay with Bush and understand what is going on.
25 posted on 05/19/2003 9:35:43 AM PDT by votelife (FREE MIGUEL ESTRADA!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: toddst
"Of course, then there's the hard-core no compromise crowd he'll just have to ignore. Reality time, gang."

Well, the thing sunsets in Septmeber, 2004, two months before the general election. We'll all know just where he stands on this issue in September, 2004, if he finds the thing on his desk.
26 posted on 05/19/2003 9:47:00 AM PDT by ought-six
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: RogueIsland
The White House was against arming the pilots because the airlines were against it.

I didn't like that decision but I also wouldn't want to own a company and have the government tell me what to do. After the lawsuit protections were put into place, arming the pilots was started.
27 posted on 05/19/2003 9:51:23 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5; Joe Brower
Is he only bound by his word to pass EXACTLY only an extensino of the current AWB?

If a version is passed with more restrictions, such as a total ban on hicap mags etc, do you think he will use that as a reason to not sign it?

28 posted on 05/19/2003 9:57:50 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: familyofman
You know where the well-regulated comes from?

It's no longer taught in school, but in the revolution, out of three ranks, most often only the first row had a gun. the second and third had a few shot and some powder. If the first rank fell, the second and then third would pick up the gun and use it. If the first rank had a small caliber squirrel rifle and the second rank had shot for a musket, it was useless. Therefore, the founders wanted everyone armed as much alike as possible and as well supplied as possible, preferable with the latest military model.

Not at all like today's government, who has become precisely what the founders were afraid of and put the second amendmnet in place for.
29 posted on 05/19/2003 10:01:00 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: the gillman@blacklagoon.com
There was the organized militia, under control of the state, and the unorganized militia, the whole of the people, designed to check the power of the state.
30 posted on 05/19/2003 10:02:58 AM PDT by the gillman@blacklagoon.com
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: familyofman
"The moon being made of green cheese, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

The subordinate clause in no way restricts or affects the meaning of primary clause.

Put it another way:

"An eduacated electorate being necessary for the advancement of a civil society, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed."

This cannot be twisted to mean that books may only be kept at institutions of education, picked by educators, or anything else politicians might want it to say. It means THE PEOPLE can keep and read any damn book they want.

Same with the 2nd amd.

31 posted on 05/19/2003 10:03:24 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: familyofman
But the militia could drill on its own if it chose though the Governor had primary Control and the President could request their help. See Post 29 above also.

Ravenstar
32 posted on 05/19/2003 10:07:40 AM PDT by Ravenstar (Reinstitute the Constitution as the Ultimate Law of the Land)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee; Shooter 2.5
"If a version is passed with more restrictions, such as a total ban on hicap mags etc, do you think he will use that as a reason to not sign it?"

Good question. I hope to keep the pressure up in the House and Senate so that we never find out. I wish I could say that I trust GW to do the right thing in this regard, but I can't. Fact if the matter is, I don't trust anyone in politics -- it's just too dirty a business. Us citizens have to bust our bananas to get the best of the lot elected, and then stand on their shoulders to ensure that they behave themselves. Nothing new.

GW should be smart enough to know that no matter what he does that may have some placating effect on the left, it's a false hope. They will hate him no matter what he does, so he's much better off making sure that he continues to please his base. As we well remember, the 11/2000 elections were a very, very close thing.


33 posted on 05/19/2003 10:08:48 AM PDT by Joe Brower (http://www.joebrower.com/)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: ought-six
The really hard core gun rights people knew then and know now exactly what he said back then.

We couldn't let gore in office and Bush is definitly a step up from what we could have had.

34 posted on 05/19/2003 10:13:14 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
That would be the perfect reason to not sign the Bill. He said he would sign IT if it reached his desk and when he said no more gun control, there's his "out".
35 posted on 05/19/2003 10:16:03 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Joe Brower
Good point about politics. We gun rights guys tend to see the AWB in isolation, but to the White House it is just one more chunk of meat in the salami machine.

Depending on other pending laws at the time, passing even AWB+ might be seen as a neccesary "sacrifice" to balance political effects.

36 posted on 05/19/2003 10:20:21 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
I hope so, but I fear the effects of the political salami machine.
37 posted on 05/19/2003 10:21:09 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Good analogy.
38 posted on 05/19/2003 10:48:18 AM PDT by Blue Collar Christian (If he's a cowboy, then I like cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Blue Collar Christian
I can't claim credit for it, and I probably mangled the best wording, but it is a good instructive analogy.
39 posted on 05/19/2003 11:21:14 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
Please do not post excerpts. We need the full material in our archives. Your excerpting actually reduces the research value of FR because your original link to WND will eventually change. Then all we have is a thread of comments and a few meaningless paragraphs. Embedding the text in our thread will make a permanent record. In many instances, after a few years, FR may be the only readily available free source of such information.

And your posting of the article blocks someone else from posting the article in full.



ON CAPITOL HILL
Will House take up renewal
of gun ban?

GOP's Hastert 'not ready' to support, oppose 'assault weapons' bill

Posted: May 19, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Jon Dougherty
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The second-highest ranking Republican in the House believes renewal of a decade-old ban on so-called "assault weapons" is in doubt, primarily because he doesn't think the votes are there to extend it.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay of Texas, who doesn't support a reauthorization of the 1994 weapons ban and voted in 1995 to repeal it, has been one of the law's staunchest critics, saying it has done little to reduce crime and has instead robbed law-abiding Americans of their right to keep and bear arms.

"It is very simple. The votes to expand it aren't in the House," DeLay said during his weekly briefing Tuesday, in response to a question about the ban's renewal.

DeLay said, however, he hadn't discussed the issue with President Bush. And, as WorldNetDaily previously reported, Bush has come out in favor of renewing the ban, to the chagrin of some gun-rights groups and supporters.

Also ambiguous regarding the fate of the ban is House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois, who dodged questions from reporters Thursday about the ban's renewal.

"I had a discussion with Mr. DeLay [about] what he actually said to the press. I think he was trying to put his old whip's hat on and trying to figure out whether there are the votes or not," Hastert said when asked if he agreed with DeLay that a new bill reauthorizing the ban should not even go to the House floor.

"The bill has not been discussed by the leadership yet, and I have not had a discussion with the president yet. I am not ready to make that decision," he said.

The weapons law, which was part of a larger anti-crime bill passed early in the first Clinton administration, bans the importation or manufacture of more than a dozen military look-alike weapons, and limits ammunition magazines to 10 rounds.

Critics of the law but supporters of the ban say weapons manufacturers, by slightly altering some cosmetic features, have largely skirted the law and are continuing to produce and sell military-style copycat weapons. They also say such weapons are a danger to society and to police, and have no purpose other than to kill large numbers of people.

But supporters of allowing the ban to sunset in September 2004 say other than the appearance of such weapons, they are no different than scores of other semi-automatic rifles that were not affected by the original ban, in terms of functionality. Also, sunset supporters say the type of guns banned by the law are rarely used in crime.

Stuart Roy, a spokesman for DeLay, said two "schools of thought" were emerging within the GOP leadership regarding the ban. Opponents of reauthorizing it are divided in that some want to bring a bill to the floor so it can be defeated, while others say since there aren't enough votes to pass reauthorization legislation there is no point to even introducing one.

Roy also said his boss isn't personally interested in renewing the ban.

"The majority leader is not supportive of gun bans," Roy said. "He feels it's been very ineffective and he's skeptical of it."

Sens. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., and Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have introduced legislation in the Senate to renew the ban. But for the House to take it up, Hastert would have to schedule it for debate.

Some Democrats not only want to renew the ban, they want to expand it to include other look-alike weapons. But Roy said a new ban wouldn't be dependent on Democrats, many of whom, he explained, opposed the 1994 ban anyway.

"The speaker is the highest-ranking Republican in the House," Roy said, "and he will have final say as to whether it gets scheduled or not."

Hastert remained non-committal regarding whether or not he would support a renewal of the ban.

"I need to have some discussions with the president and leadership before I make that decision," he said Thursday. "I am reserving my personal opinion."

Meanwhile, The America First Party officially joined a coalition of groups seeking to kill reauthorization of the weapons ban, an effort being promoted by gun-rights website KeepAndBearArms.com.

The "Coalition to End the Federal 'Assault Weapons' Ban" was formed shortly after Bush said he'd back an extension of the current law.

"We are proud to be the only political party so recognized and wish to thank the KABA for allowing us to participate in its strong stand in favor of the Bill of Rights," said party Chairman Dan Charles. "Allowing the ban on certain types of firearms to expire serves part of our larger goal of restoring the Second Amendment rights of all our citizens. …"

"A firearm, be it single shot or semi-automatic, is protected equally by the Constitution. A free people do not need permission to own guns," added Frank Hackl, Wisconsin America First Party chairman.


40 posted on 05/19/2003 6:10:01 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: George W. Bush
I thought there is a rule against posting full articles that are copyrighted. The last thread I was on was only an excerpt so I'm not sure what the rules are.

The assault weapons bill has been discussed so many times that I'm not sure who would be interested in archiving all of these.
41 posted on 05/20/2003 7:40:28 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5 (Don't punch holes in the lifeboat)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: familyofman
"What part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand!" Please don't forget the qualifier - A well regulated militia being required.

It's not a qaulifier, it's a reason, an explanation of why the "right of the people" is not to be infringed. In no way does it limit the right. In the minds of those who authored and ratified the second amendment, the militia and the people were the same thing anyway, just wearing a different "hat" if you will.

Besides it's not "required" it's "necessary". Necessary for/to what? "to the security of a *free* state."

42 posted on 05/20/2003 10:50:12 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
Depending on other pending laws at the time, passing even AWB+ might be seen as a neccesary "sacrifice" to balance political effects.

That's exactly what is likley to happen. How likely I don't really know, but such things have happened before.

Such political "horse trading" is one reason why the protections of the Bill of Rights, including the second amendment, where insisted upon by many state Consitutional ratification conventions. Most didn't hold out for a BoR, but did insist that one be passed and approved the Constitution on the promise that one would be passed. And it was. The only part of what would become the second amendment that was controversial was a provision that would have protected people who were religious pacifists from being compeled to bear arms. The provision was dropped in Congress.

43 posted on 05/20/2003 11:00:34 AM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: El Gato
bttt
44 posted on 05/20/2003 11:04:45 AM PDT by Travis McGee (----- www.EnemiesForeignAndDomestic.com -----)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Shooter 2.5
I thought there is a rule against posting full articles that are copyrighted. The last thread I was on was only an excerpt so I'm not sure what the rules are.

Unless they've changed the rules again recently, only Washington Post and L.A. Times have to be excerpted. If you look at the Posting page, it'll always tell you which ones must be excerpted. It used to be that all were allowed. Then the court cases and nothing from those two sources was allowed. Then more court events and (because it didn't seem we could make it worse), it was open season on them again. Then the final, most recent case when we went back to excerpting the Two Evil Ones.

Most posters generally honor the request of Jewish World Review to only post excerpts. I guess it's become traditional but has never been a forum rule as far as I know. It's a special case as they have a lot of conservative columnists that aren't widely syndicated and they need the ad revenue our clicks bring them. These would be columnists like Cal Thomas and Mona Charen, to name only two.

There's been a flurry recently of excerpt posting which is why I messaged you about it. Perhaps my words sounded a bit stern. Please keep posting threads with the full articles. Any article from WND has always been fair game. They're well aware that we're supporters of them and have never complained to FR.
45 posted on 05/20/2003 12:05:09 PM PDT by George W. Bush
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: Ravenstar; caltrop; eskimo; toddst; Joe Brower; Travis McGee
Those of you opposed to what Bush said should think about this a little more deeply than just the surface layer.

Before going further, I'd like to point out that I'm a RKBA absolutist - I believe that you, I and every other non-mentally-defective, non-drug addicted person over the age of 16 has the right to own ANYTHING that they want. Yeah, that includes convicted felons - if they are harmless enough to be released into society after paying their debts, they get all rights restored; if not, let 'em rot in jail. My RKBA covers not just "ugly" semi-autos (not my term - beauty is in the eye of the beholder), but full-auto submachineguns and machineguns, grenades, RPGs, 20mm cannon, etc. I recoil at the thought and the reality that I have had rights denied to me that my grandfathers took for granted (though, regrettably, never exercised), and that my children are likely to have less ability to exercise their rights than I have had.

That being said (and meant)...we live in a political society. In order to get something passed, or defeated, you must first be elected. As President, you not only have to be elected, but to have sufficient support in Congress for your goals in order to accomplish them. Sometimes, especially when dealing with a very uneducated populace (civics-wise), you can't make principled stands in public. Personally, I'd love to see Bush get on TV and say that a renewal of the AWB will only pass over his dead body - but get real, it ain't gonna happen. However, the bill is likely to die anyway. What do you care about more, form or substance? Because if Bush makes some extreme statements, the press will go bananas and the soccer moms will all have bad hair days, resulting in lots of RINOs deserting Bush. Bush would likely lose in '04, and even if he survived, his party would get creamed.

But watch the strategery going on here: Instead of pounding his chest for naught (or worse), Bush has his assistants make him sound like he'll sign a bill - disarming (some) Demo criticism of him. He puts the burden on the Congressional Republicans, knowing that the bill will never get to his desk-even most Dems don't want to vote on this, esp. the ones from the South and West (big cities and Kali excepted). More brilliant, his apparent waffling emboldens stupid Dems like Feinswine and McCarthy, putting in front of the public once again the spector of total gun control/confiscation under Democrapic leadership. End result: no AWB renewal, Bush covers his political rear end and that of his party, and the Dems are made to look like that extremists that they are.

Anyway, that's my theory. Do I agree with the apparent strategy, or like having my most basic right used as a plaything by politicians interested in nothing but power? Hell, no! Do I think less of Bush as a result - yes, some. But remember, it is the results that count. Either the ban sunsets or not (and, if not, something worse and permanent is likely to be on the books). If it does, we win, and have rolled back a federal gun control law for the first time in history. We can then go on the offensive, since the tide will have turned - Dems will be running from the gun issue like rats from a sinking ship (pun intended). Rather than bashing Bush (and I'm no "Bushbot"), work as a concerned citizen ought to - write letters (real ones, not email that gets trashed), call and/or meet with your reps to get this atrocity off the books. Name calling, finger pointing, etc. does nothing constructive toward our goal of getting rid of the AWB and then moving on to other unconstitutional legislation.

I agree wholeheartedly with Joe Brower's earlier comment:

Fact if the matter is, I don't trust anyone in politics -- it's just too dirty a business. Us citizens have to bust our bananas to get the best of the lot elected, and then stand on their shoulders to ensure that they behave themselves. Nothing new.

GW should be smart enough to know that no matter what he does that may have some placating effect on the left, it's a false hope. They will hate him no matter what he does, so he's much better off making sure that he continues to please his base. As we well remember, the 11/2000 elections were a very, very close thing.

46 posted on 05/20/2003 2:42:51 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
Correction: "...and the Dems are made to look like that extremists that they are." should be "and the Dems are made to look like the extremists that they are."
47 posted on 05/20/2003 2:47:12 PM PDT by Ancesthntr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
I appreciate all you're saying but the 1994 and 2000 elections were universally acknowledged to be solid victories for the 2nd Amendment. The tide's already turned. I've been around politics a long time and I understand it's a dirty business full of bottom feeders. Even so, I expect them to be intelligent bottom feeders and on that score Bush disappoints. He should, for example, have armed all the commercial pilots by executive order. Instead he stuck by John McGaw, his father's old buddy until even Barbara Boxer figured out pilots needed to be armed. There are plenty of other things he could do to support the 2nd Amendment by executive order or presidential directive which he could either justify by the terrorist threat or which wouldn't attract attention and need to be justified at all.

Bush would still be in Texas if it hadn't been for 2nd Amendment supporters. He and Rove shouldn't need to be constantly reminded of the fact.

48 posted on 05/20/2003 3:08:30 PM PDT by caltrop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: Ancesthntr
...we live in a political society. In order to get something passed, or defeated, you must first be elected. As President, you not only have to be elected, but to have sufficient support in Congress for your goals in order to accomplish them.

10-4 on your points! Excellent comments. Political reality IS the factor some gun folks are overlooking. We want George W. re-elected plus this absurd law to sunset. Being a purist won't get the job done.

49 posted on 05/20/2003 3:38:01 PM PDT by toddst
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: familyofman
It is my understanding that the militias were under the control of the Govenors of their respective states.

Yes they were, although details differed from state to state. However, their guns were not under the governor's control. Or not necessarily. They could be and were sometimes issued guns owned by the state or by the local government, but just as often they owned the guns themselves, and like modern day Israelies and Swiss, took the arms home with them when not on militia duty.

50 posted on 05/20/2003 6:25:07 PM PDT by El Gato
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-70 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