Skip to comments.Will House take up renewal of gun ban?
Posted on 05/19/2003 7:12:28 AM PDT by Shooter 2.5
click here to read article
You said: "No they won't by your own admission to me in post 59 you will continue to vote your fears instead of your convictions."
Take a look at the end of my post #57 - in this case, I will NOT be voting Republican if the AWB is renewed in any form for any time. Letting a pol know that he/she will lose your vote is a good way to get their attention, and if enough people do it, pols change their votes - look at all of the Southern Dems that won't touch gun control now. When I responded to you, I did so in general philosophical terms. Please look at my last post to you again, and tell me if I'm really wrong - and by that I mean, when has a strategy like yours EVER gotten a true pro-gun candidate elected? Here's the most important part of what I wrote:
If you mean third party folk, I think that you are wrong. My credo is to vote as you want to in the primaries, and to vote for the lesser of two evils in the general. Enough hammering in the primaries and the lukewarm RKBA folk in the Republican Party will either lose or get religion. Same for rural Dems. Voting third party in the general election does as much good as pi$$ing into the wind.
Get it? Once the primaries are over, the die is cast for one or the other party, period (a couple of insignificant races here and there excepted). Ross Perot, with literally billions of dollars at his disposal and an angry electorate, got only a few percent of the nationwide vote (and NO, I'm not holding him up as a pro-gunner - he's the opposite - but as the only 3rd party candidate in recent times to have had even a slight chance to do anything). He won not a single state, and didn't get any more than 20% in any state. He did, however, get Bill Clinton elected by siphoning off Bush I votes. Bush I was no pro-gunner, but I doubt that the AWB would be law now if he had been elected - Clinton had to push, HARD, to win by only 2 votes in the House.
Again, my belief is that you do what you can within a major party in the primaries and at the grass roots. Over time you, and people of like mind on ANY particular issue (guns, abortion, etc.) WILL have an effect. But voting 3rd party in November does NOTHING. You might as well stay home. I used to believe as you do, but I figured out that it never helps. In fact, I'm one of the idiots who helped get Clinton elected (it didn't actually matter in my state, but I am speaking of the attitude).
There's a time to fight like Hell - when you have some chance of success. Charging a machine gun nest is a recipe for getting killed - ask the French of WW1. When you can't possibly get exactly what you want, you stick your finger in the dike and try to slow down the oncoming tide, knowing that someday in the not-too-distant future you will have a shot at getting exactly what you want, or at least closer to it. We get that chance every 2 years, and in between we have to try to hold back the tide. In an ideal world, at least one of the major parties would actually stand for something - but, in case you hadn't noticed, we don't live in that world.
Imagaine if you, and other really hardcore people who vote like you, actually got involved with one particular party (or one candidate of either party - some actually stand up to their own party on occasion) - we, all gun owners, would have that much greater influence, and might actually get stuff done. There are about 80 million gun owners. Half probably don't vote, and most of those don't vote their guns (just think about the jerks with the over-unders who don't care if you or I lose our "evil" semi-autos). I will repeat: the number of people who cast votes solely on the basis of the gun issue is 5% at maximum. If they all vote in concert for a candidate that has a chance to win, they'll get something done - otherwise they won't. Splitting that 5%, staying home, voting for 3rd party candidates in the general election - all of these diminish or eliminate the voice of the entire 5%, and thereby damage the cause of gun rights. Your present voting methods may give you great personal satisfaction, but they don't do anything but help to elect the more evil party, the one that explicitly wants to ban guns. Again, you might as well not vote.
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?
I've been pondering that question, too. Given Bush's track record, I think he'll sign an expanded ban that hammers high-capacity magazine imports. I don't think he'll sign a broad expansion such as that proposed by Feinstein and McCarthy. Just a hunch, mind you.
Also, did you see the wording that DeLay used? Looky here:
"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.
In this newer statement by DeLay, he appears to have taken a half-step back, leaving room for a compromise.
We need to stress in our letters and phone calls that any compromise which leaves only the existing ban in place (as opposed to further expansion) is NOT acceptable.
There is, however, one point that I must respond to in your last post: I will NOT be handing over weapons to anyone. FYI, I am Jewish and lost lots of relatives in the Shoah ("Holocaust" is an improper term that dishonors the victims, but that is a very long story that I won't inflict on you). I am very well aware of what happens to disarmed Jews, and the example of Israel shows what happens when Jews have arms (they survive). I would strongly recommend against anyone, wearing whatever uniform, coming to take my weapons.
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.