Posted on 01/25/2004 10:50:49 AM PST by xsrdx
Newly elected President Bill Clinton wasted little time in seizing upon assault weapons as a political issue. Along with midnight basketball and the never-to-be-fulfilled promise of 100,000 new police officers, it quickly became part of an effort to transform concern for public safety into a political issue.
Clinton had barely finished moving into the White House when he proclaimed we cant be so fixated on our desire to preserve the rights of ordinary Americans to legitimately own handguns and rifles. Then, stringing together several whoppers in a single sentence, he announced, I dont believe that everybody in America needs to be able to buy a semi-automatic or fully-automatic weapon, built only for the purpose of killing people, in order to protect the right of Americans to hunt and practice marksmanship and to be secure.
(Excerpt) Read more at clintongunban.com ...
I voted for GWB, knowing full well what he said - that he was "in favor of the current law" or words to that effect. I took it to mean that he was in favor of ALL of the then-current law, including the part about it expiring on 9/13/04. Certain noises from his administration have convinced me that if a renewal of the AWB shows up on GWB's desk, he'll sign it. So let ME make myself very clear:
If I wake up on 9/14/2004 and I am not able to purchase everything gun-related that I could buy prior to 9/13/1994 without worrying about some member of the BATFE arresting me or worse, then I will NOT be voting for President Bush less than 2 months later, as I did in November 2000. PERIOD!!!!
Is there any hope for a filibuster that doesn't allow this to get to him?
But I also believe strongly that we need to enforce laws on the books, that the best way to make sure that we keep our society safe and secure is to hold people accountable for -- for breaking the law. If we catch somebody illegally selling a gun, there needs to be a consequence. If we keep -- somebody, you know, illegally using a gun, there needs to be a consequence, enforcement of the law. And the federal government can help.
There's a great program called Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia, where they focused federal taxpayers money and federal prosecutors and went after people who were illegally using guns. To me that's how you make society the safest it can be, and so, yes, sometimes I agree with some of these groups in Washington and sometimes I don't. I'm a pretty independent thinker. But one thing I'm for is a safe society, and I'm for enforcing laws on the books, and that's what's going to happen should I earn your confidence.
Waffle, waffle. Trigger locks? Raising the age to own guns? Don't you already have to be 18 to legally own a gun? 21 for handguns and "assault weapons? WTF??? Add in the statements made on the Presidents behalf by Scott and Ari, yas... Bush would most certainly resign the AWB in any ofrm that makes it to his desk.
I only hope that Tom DeLay has the guts to keep this thing bottled up in committee forever - if not, the RINOs will cave and this thing WILL be on Bush's desk...and the man has NEVER yet vetoed a bill.
Does the political luck of being in office during wartime exempt a person from the usual scrutiny that voters give him or her? I think not.
On the flip side, the only other realistic choice besides Bush will probably be Kerry or Edwards, and neither of them (nor the other assorted fruits and nuts running for the Democrapic nomination) gives me any confidence at all regarding the conduct of the WOT. "Quandary" is the right word. I certainly won't vote AGAINST Bush, but I am strongly inclined not to vote FOR him if the AWB is renewed.
He can, because...Who else are you going to vote for?
That's what I don't understand, either - especially when gunowners put him over the top in Arkansas, TN and WV, the loss of any of which would have us discussing the reelection chances of President Al Gore.
The only thing that I can think of is that Bush and/or his political advisors don't think that it would hurt him as much as it would help him. I think that this is utterly false (not to mention a stab in the back, but that's a different matter). The gun vote can be broken down into 5 groups: 1) Those that care passionately about gun rights and who will vote single issue on it; 2) those who favor gun rights, but who have many issues that they consider more important; 3) those who couldn't care less; 4) those against gun rights, but who have many issues that they consider more important; and 5) those that are passionately anti-gun and who will vote single issue on it. The only 2 groups that matter are #1 and #5 - the others will vote whichever way they vote no matter what Bush does on guns. The only question is: which of #1 and #5 are larger? I'd suggest that #1 is, by a large margin. Further, who are the people in #5 going to vote for ANYWAY - Bush, who's nominally pro-gun or a Dem who's got a lifelong record of being anti-gun? Thus, the issue is a total loser for Bush if he signs any AWB renewal.
Uh, let's see, uh (scratches head, clears throat)...NO ONE!
Well, except for that little DC sniper thing.
"I don't care who does the electing, as long as I do the nominating." - "Boss" Tweed.
That's rather obvious - and I'm glad that the NRA tried to do something about it in 2002. If they hadn't, I might not have continued to be a member. I just hope that the NRA is dead serious about this issue, and is not willing to compromise it away in return for S. 659. I recall reading that it is, and that no such compromise will be accepted - I hope that this is true. If so, and if we win on both issues (which we should), then the NRA deserves major kudos.
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.