Gee Dubya and the "Assault Rifle" ban

Ezeckial

New member
CNN reports that GW Bush said (in an interview) that he would reauthorize the insane assault rifle ban. That's a damn shame...
Boy, and I was going to vote for him...

I suggest we pro Second Amendment folks inform Mr. Bush that we expect him to abide by the Constitution...

Reckon the Libertarians are looking better...

[This message has been edited by Ezeckial (edited May 25, 2000).]
 
Hmmm. One of our intrepid TFLers had an opportunity to ask him the same question in person and got a completely different answer.

Search the archives, its probably there.

"Politicians. There ain't a nickel's worth of difference between any of 'em." -- George Wallace.
 
He said he would reauthorize the ban on "certain weapons" included in the 1994 ban. GW is very pro gun fellas, we have to understand that the press will crucify him if he speaks his true thoughts on guns. He is just playing politics, not abandoning us.
 
Sure - don't get me wrong, if he's the choice between handing in all my guns in 10 years vs. 5, that still buys us time.

You should still vote for Bush. At least gun owners have a prayer of him listening - and even if he is the type who would sign the A/W ban, he won't go on TV blood-dancing (a-la clinton) after a massacre to push congress to hand it to him. Let's elect him to keep quiet, and a congress who won't ever hand him an A/W ban.


Battler.

[This message has been edited by Battler (edited May 26, 2000).]
 
It would be bad for Bush2 to lose this one I think. Al Gore, hand in hand with the Socialists, would probably be able to erase the Second Amendment in one term.
However, in the long term veiw, we have to help the Libertarian party grow.
I strongly recomend getting involved in your local Libertarian Party activities.
Imagine how the power balance would be upset if we could get a few Libertarians in the House. Then that would be a good base to get some in the Senate.
Make no mistake. The Republicans are not going to save us from Socialism. They are part of the system and support it.
 
The battle over renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban will be fought in Congress not the current presidential campaign.

We will seat two more congresses before it comes up for debate. Gore will most certainly use the bully pulpit of the White house to scream for it's extension and more.

One thing on our side is that we've got 4 years to do something about congress and educate the public. A lot can happen both domestially and internationally that may put the gun issue on the back burner. Think about it for a minute, the gun issue was on the back burner, even after Columbine until the current president started on it in an attempt to create his legacy (after all, gun control is the only thing his administration can really lay claim to after 8 years).

I think Bush is like all other politicians in that he'll say what he feels he needs to say. He seems to be working hard to keep the current campaign focused on Social Security Reform and other issues. This is probably why he's not being forthright on the gun issue. To state so publically now would let the Gore people change the focus back to guns. An issue they think they hold the upper hand on.

In the meantime, we've got 4 years to work on putting in a congress that believes in the constitution. Four years to change public opinion and four years to get some positive court decisions.

Jeff
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Battler:
Sure - don't get me wrong, if he's the choice between handing in all my guns in 10 years vs. 5, that still buys us time.


[This message has been edited by Battler (edited May 26, 2000).]
[/quote]


Are you serious? You would willingly hand over all your guns to a facist tyrrant?
 
I'm from Australia originally - figure I have a "knack" for it.

Don't think obeying the coming bans is out of the ordinary. . . . how many unregistered fullautos do you own?

I rest my case.

I'm in the NRA and GOA; I believe in fighting and preventing these laws from coming about.


Battler.
 
Bush is infinitely better than Gore.
Even if the ban was renewed, one still could get the current set of very functional semi-autos. Gore would take them away NOW.

Of course, removing the ban would be good but it is a bad tactic to say this for the electorate now. The GOP probably wouldn 't back him.Remember the Senate vs. the House last time.

It would be best to have solid GOP in both houses and Pres. When it came up, then is the time to argue for its repeal.

Same with the damn mag limit.

It might gall you but have the hissy fit
and be real. Don't vote for some looney that
ends up giving us Gore.
 
Let's just hope W is lying on this one. Consider: coming out against the ban would be political suicide. Can't overturn the ban if he's not there.
 
ctdonath wrote:

"Let's just hope W is lying on this one. Consider: coming out against the ban would be political suicide. Can't overturn the ban if he's not there."

Is it really? Or is it only something to keep the left wing press off his back? Given the increase in NRA and GAO memberships, I have to wonder. Maybe the trap shooters and duck hunters are waking up and starting to see that they are not immune. Each side likes to claim that they have the "silent majority" on their side. But the country is far more conservative than liberal. Slick Willie and his cronies only got elected by a fraction last time around, and the actual turn out was terrible. So, get your apothetic friends and family out to the voting booth this go around.

Rant mode engaged:

As a country, we are standing on the abess. We see two paths in front of us. One is the path that leads to the following of the Constitutional Democracy that has made our country the greatest in the world. The second is the continuing slide towards a form of National Socialism. The political enemies of America could not bring us down through warefare so they will rot us from within. Sound revolutionary tactics. It just takes longer.

We must stop this slide towards a national solocialist state at the polls. Or we will be doing it in the streets as guerrillas later. And I am not kidding or being dramatic. I see all the political, sociological and economic mixes that would have led an weaker, less affulent country into anarchy.

Rant mode disengaged.



------------------
Joe Portale
Tucson, Arizona Territory

True Gun Control: Weaver or Isosceles.
 
You guys need to think postive. Even if GW wins it buys time. We had more guncontrol in his dad's term than we had forced on us in the 30 years prior to it. GW will be no different. Al Gore would be worse.
You guys seem to feel we will lose our guns no matter what. Hey there is 80 million of us that they know about if just 10% of us say NO WAY, and are prepared to back the defense of our rights with force, you know like those radicals the founding fathers, we will win. Some of us will die, more of them will die, but we will win. The time we gain must be used to aquire more ammo, weapons, storable food, medical supplies, and to organize a needed underground. This in no way should be taken as an urging to commit crimes , but is a theoritical discussion of what actions a populace should take against a government that was preparing to disarm it, by force if needed eventually. And we all know our government is just here to help us right? Think about it.


My choice would be an Alan Keyes/Pat B. ticket but the establishment media will never deal in a just way with either so we are stuck with the mainstream bad or worse choice.

[This message has been edited by WGB38 (edited May 28, 2000).]
 
"Coming out against the ban would be political suicide." Really? A scant 6 years after that ban cost the Democrats control of Congress, public opinion has shifted so far that coming out against it would be political suicide? I don't think so.

And who's asking him to "come out against the ban"? It's going to sunset; All we need ask him to do is refrain from re-imposing it! If he can't do that, if he can't bring himself not to re-enact an attack on our liberties his own party opposed almost unanimously a bare six years ago, then make no mistake, he's not a fair weather friend, he's an ENEMY.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Best thing would be a congress that just let the whole thing sunset and die. Then the president wouldn't be in a position to have to decide on signing anything.
 
Herodotus: You think the re-authorization of the "assault weapons" bill is going to be brought up as a separate bill, debated, and then subjected to an open up/down vote? You really think they're THAT honest? HA!

They're going to do it exactly the same way they did the Lautenberg and Kohl amendments; They'll wait until Congress is waiting to ajourn, and some omnibus bill finishing up appropriations is the only thing keeping them in Washington. Then, with the agreement of the "leadership", an amendment making the ban permanent, and maybe even extending it, will be inserted into the bill in conference committee, with everyone present sworn to secrecy. Then the whole of Congress will pass the bill, most of them having no idea that amendment is in there, because they won't have been given copies of the bill to read before the vote. If there are any rumors about what's in there, the leaders will lie to their own caucuses, denying it. And they'll do all this not because they think the ban is a great idea, though some of them probably do. They'll do it because our rights are less important to them than a couple of days vacation, and they don't think we'll hold them accountable.

And when will they do it? After the election, certainly, because the last thing they'll want to do is enrage us right before we go to vote. Probably during the lame duck session; When the congressional leadership sets out to do something which will make people mad, they always do it right AFTER an election, to give voters the maximum time posible to cool down before they vote again.

How can we stop this? In the long run, we need to elect new leadership to Congress, who think our rights are worth defending. In the short run, we need to keep an eagle eye on every piece of legislation coming down the pike, AND we need to make the Republicans understand that we will accept no excuses on this one; Let that ban be re-enacted, and we will DESTROY them, if it's the last thing we do.

In other words, we're not going to stop it. At least not through the NRA; LaPierre and his hand-puppet Heston aren't going to go balistic over making this ban permanent, and everyone who would go balistic over it has just been purged from the board of directors, which is now just a rubber stamp.

Myself, I'm mailing off a letter to my misrepresentatives, informing them that if this goes down, they won't get my vote if the anti-christ runs against them, no excuses accepted. I don't even care if they honestly didn't know the amendment was in the bill, because they tolerate a system under which this sort of nonsense is possible!

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Bush has done nothing here in Texas that would lead me to believe that he is anti-gun. As we have seen with uncle Billy, saying and doing are two different things. He said he would reauthorize certain weapons. I read that as not all that are presently banned. That is a step in the right direction. Incrementalism works in both directions. We won't get it back in one move, nor would I suggest that we want to, as it probably inflame the anti's into martyrdom. By putting the facts out there about the use of assault weapons with relation to crime, this tide can be turned. These weapons were banned as a result of one or two isolated instantances and the fact that they were showing up on the streets of the big cities and outgunning the cops. Don't expect the worm to turn overnight.
 
The interview in which W said that re-authorizing the AW ban would be suicide was done by a pal of Melinda (aka Bubbles) and was posted to the www.glocktalk.com site.

Someone can search the archives and post it here if necessary.

Rick
 
Back
Top