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.
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.
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.
This is not strictly true, although it would be the first time a federal gun control law was completely done away with. The 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, rolled back some of the worst provisions of the '68 Gun Control Act, plus many of the BATF "regulations" that flowed from the GCA and other federal gun control laws, along with negating many court rulings and even affected enforcement of some state laws. From "THE FIREARMS OWNERS' PROTECTION ACT: A HISTORICAL AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE" by David T. Hardy:
FOPA effectively overrules six decisions of the United States Supreme Court, [8] (p.586)moots what would have become a seventh,[9] and negates perhaps one-third of the total caselaw construing the Gun Control (p.587)Act of 1968.[10] FOPA's impact, however, is not limited to the Gun Control Act, nor even to federal statutes. By expressly exempting interstate transportation of firearms from the reach of many state firearm laws,[11] it affects state proceedings as well. A detailed comprehension of FOPA is thus essential to an understanding of both federal and state firearm laws.(p.588)
See the link for the footnotes, which are longer than the passage itself. :)
I think the key to our, meaning the people on these threads, disagreements are about whether we consider this a winning strategy, for sunset of the AWB or the for the relection of the President, or both. I consider it an ill advised strategy on both counts. It alienates much of the Presidents base, while also giving political "cover" to that subset of Republicans who are anti arms rights.
In any event I expect that renewal will not be enacted, if it's enacted at all, as a stand alone measure, but rather attached to some Senate originated "must pass" bill. The Senate is much less pro-RKBA than the House, which is why I think it will be a Senate bill. The original AWB was passed as part of a hugh omibus "crime" bill, the "Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994". Of course the AWB had nothing to do with "crime", other than creating a whole bunch of new ones.
If political reality dictates leaders must compromise our unalienable rights, then politics has to change for our unalienable rights can not.
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).
Why the hell would anyone trust a leader who's obvious strategy is to compromise our unalienable rights for political profit as long as he is able to blame it on someone else?