"NO NEW TAXES" - Part Two

A

abruzzi

New member
Why are Dubya's promises not to interfere with second amendment rights any more reliable than the last great expedient pledge from the Bush family.

We've got a mildly comic/potentially tragic picture on this board of Al Gore staring down the barrel of an M-16. To date, this is still closer to an M-16, in Viet Nam or anywhere else, than Dubya ever got. Has anyone ever seen Dubya with a gun? Does anybody know that he owns one?

Why shouldn't Dubya's support of gun rights be equated with his father's pandering 12 years ago not to raise taxes, i.e., simply the most expedient position for a wannabe-president-politician.

And expedience is what governs politicians. That for instance explains why oh-so-compassionate Dubya staged his "diversity" convention with all races, sexes and other variables this summer, but his father voted against the Civil Rights Act when he was up for election in 1964. Expedience.

Expedience is no guarantee of constitutional rights.
 
Think "Supreme Court nominees".

Would you rather have them selected by a pseudo-conservative, or by a fascist who believes that the Constitution is a "living document" (i.e. subject to the whims of politicians)?

Which will it be?

I don't give a DAMN about Bush per se. It's the "collateral damage" dude....
 
I have seen post like this on some other gun
boards and I am curious if it is made by a
actual gun owner, for me I do not understand
anyone owning a gun or concerned about freedom voting for Gore,As is we have an
erosion of basic rights and as the population
increases it does and will get worse, we can
only slow it never stop it.With a conservative adm. and supreme court we again
can perhaps slow the pace to socialism.
Vote Bush;
 
bullet44:

I have to agree with you.

Voting Bush !
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by bullet44:
I have seen post like this on some other gun
boards and I am curious if it is made by a
actual gun owner, for me I do not understand
anyone owning a gun or concerned about freedom voting for Gore,As is we have an
erosion of basic rights and as the population
increases it does and will get worse, we can
only slow it never stop it.With a conservative adm. and supreme court we again
can perhaps slow the pace to socialism.
Vote Bush; [/quote]
 
So why is it that skepticism about Dubya translates immediately to a question of someone's credentials. I am perfectly prepared to acknowledge that Dubya's promises, and even his record to date, are better on gun rights than Gore's. And Supreme Court nominees are a valid consideration.

But attacking someone else's integrity is no way to shore up Dubya. Especially when the person you attack owns two Kimbers, one Series 70 Colt, two HiPowers, a Sako 270, an Eddystone 30.06, an Uzi, two over/unders, a Benelli and more (several of which have been purchased from members on this board).

Answer the question if you've got an answer. It's simple. Does Dubya own a gun??? And more generally, why are his promises any better than the last great Bush whopper that the American people swallowed hook line and sinker?

Paranoia is no substitute for facts.
 
Abruzzi, I'll answer both for you. First, Dubya. Why do we believe him? We're not sure we do. But as you yourself pointed out, he has delivered before, so the real question is, if the man has a record of winning by opposing gun control, and he gets into office by promising to oppose gun control, will he have any reason to change his mind?

As for the suspicions about you, sorry. You're a new face around here and often new faces turn out to be trolls here only to drop a seed of discontent and disappear. If you had suggested a real alternative to Bush you'd have been taken much more seriously. We have MANY members who don't believe Bush and don't want any TFLer to vote for him--but very few if any of them seriously suggest that Al Gore has a better view on gun control than George Bush, no matter how many times he pointed a rifle at his head in Vietnam. It's not the fact that you don't trust Dubya; it's the fact that you seem to want us to cast our lots with (shudder) AL GORE!
 
abruzzi,

It did sound like you were 'hinting' at Gore.

As for your Kimber - how do you like it compared to your Hi-Powers?
 
Ok, fair question, here's an answer of sorts:

Bush the elder was a liberal, "Rockefeller" Republican, with a record as such, and the promises he had made, (And subsequently broke!) represented a departure from his record. The only reason they were given any credibility at all is that he'd just spent 8 years as the VP in a conservative administration, and claimed to have learned better.

Bush the younger has a record as a moderately conservative governor, and his promises are in keeping with his record, or maybe a little left of it. I'd say his biggest problem is remembering that the President isn't governor of a really large state, that the functions of the two levels of government are actually different.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Don Gwinn:
Abruzzi, I'll answer both for you. First, Dubya. Why do we believe him? We're not sure we do. But as you yourself pointed out, he has delivered before, so the real question is, if the man has a record of winning by opposing gun control, and he gets into office by promising to oppose gun control, will he have any reason to change his mind?

As for the suspicions about you, sorry. You're a new face around here and often new faces turn out to be trolls here only to drop a seed of discontent and disappear. If you had suggested a real alternative to Bush you'd have been taken much more seriously. We have MANY members who don't believe Bush and don't want any TFLer to vote for him--but very few if any of them seriously suggest that Al Gore has a better view on gun control than George Bush, no matter how many times he pointed a rifle at his head in Vietnam. It's not the fact that you don't trust Dubya; it's the fact that you seem to want us to cast our lots with (shudder) AL GORE![/quote]

You *still* didn't answer his question :). Does he own a gun or not?
 
Bush is not his father. Not by a long shot. He is closer in ideology to Reagan than his father ever was.

Reinstating CCW in Texas was a gutsy move, and not one made to gain national popularity in this day & age. Compare that to Gore, who as a lowly congressman was rated A by the NRA, and did a 180 when he hit the national stage in 1988.

In Debate II Gore promised to not touch "hunters, sportsmen, homeoewners" (what about renters? HUD housing?).

In Debate III (a week later) Gore promised to not touch "hunters, sportsmen, rifle owners".

Now, if that is not a rapid slide down a slippery slope, I don't know what is. Where would the limit of his promised protections degrade to if we had a few more debates (bolt-action rifles, shotguns, single-shots, black powder, muskets, BB guns, slingshots...?)
 
Well, look in the current issue of Outdoor Life. Nice shot of Bush with an over/under.

I assume that all Republicans in Texas own a gun. :-)

Peace...
Keith
 
Kam,

I live in Texas and Bush does a lot of hunting. I'm sure that he doesn't borrow firearms just to hunt with. :) I'm sure that when George Bush went through basic that that he handled an M-16, or whatever rifles they were using at the time. Bush also was a fighter jock, that is a heck of a lot better than pounding the ground and a typewriter like Gore did.


Joe
------------------

NRA Joe's Second Amendment Discussion Forum

http://Second.Amendment.Homepage.com


[This message has been edited by nralife (edited October 19, 2000).]
 
abruzzi wrote:

"And expedience is what governs politicians. That for instance explains why oh-so-compassionate Dubya staged
his "diversity" convention with all races, sexes and other variables this summer, but his father voted against the
Civil Rights Act when he was up for election in 1964. Expedience."

Excellent point. Except that it was Gore's father who was up for reelection to the Senate from Tennessee and who voted against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. In fact Gore Sr. was a good old boy racist his entire life.

[This message has been edited by rgkeller (edited October 19, 2000).]

[This message has been edited by rgkeller (edited October 19, 2000).]
 
Abruzzi,

Look for the other post here in General

That Gore in Vietnam picture is a blatent fake.

------------------
The Alcove

I twist the facts until they tell the truth. -Some intellectual sadist

The Bill of Rights is a document of brilliance, a document of wisdom, and it is the ultimate law, spoken or not, for the very concept of a society that holds liberty above the desire for ever greater power. -Me

Compromising the right position only makes you more wrong.
 
First, the important stuff. Kimber v. Hi Power. What can you say except their both fantastic examples of great gun design. My Kimbers -- the Ultra Carry and Stainless Gold Match -- are apparently early enuf in production to have avoided any of the much commented about quality controls. Their both flawless. Even the 3" barrel Ultra Carry is extraordinarily accurate.

Ditto generally the Hi Powers. One is a NIB standard (purchased from a TFLer). It needs a trigger job to lighten it up, but it points as naturally as anything can (with the exception of a 1916 Artillery Luger I didn't mention -- now THAT is a perfect hand gun!) The other is a John Inglis capitan for which I have found an original wood stock (and which unfortunately is in mint condition so I'm afraid to use the thing too much on fear of dinging it).

Back to politics, yes, if gun rights are the touch stone, and the only touchstone, Gore [THIS WAS A TYPO, SUPPOSED TO BE BUSH, SEE CORRECTION IN POST BELOW] is AT LEAST ACCORDING TO HIS WORD the man for RKBA. Gore's views are known.

My general reservation on Dubya is that his life has been a cake walk so far. None of the testing under fire endured by McCain. Not even the compulsive (and excessive)wonky homework of Gore. He is literally strolling into the Presidency without breaking a sweat.

I make no apologies for Gore or his father. And I don't think Dubya has to answer for his father's actions in 1964 or 1982.

I don't think we know anything about how this guy will react in office to the pressures of the job. Or what principles he will in fact apply.

I consider his commitment to gun rights a part of the baggage he picked up casually on the way to Texas politics, and nothing more.

Somebody must know the answer to a pretty simple question. Does the guy own a gun?



[This message has been edited by abruzzi (edited October 19, 2000).]
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by abruzzi:
Back to politics, yes, if gun rights are the touch stone, and the only touchstone, Gore is AT LEAST ACCORDING TO HIS WORD the man for RKBA. Gore's views are known.
[/quote]

According to his word? Which word of Gore's should we heed? The "human life begins at conception" Gore? The "increase taxes on gasoline to fund alternative energy" Gore?

Gore's word and what it means shifts with the political winds. What he says today doesn't mean a damn thing five minutes from now. He even managed to flip-flop over using the Strategic Oil Reserve in just a few months.

To suggest however that Gore's present words indicate he is a man supporting the RKBA is pretty far out there to me. Let's forget all of Gore's "codewords" about which classes of firearms he would deem worthy of Consitutional protection - let's just accept your argument that Al Gore is INDEED "the man for RKBA" and just wants to reduce abuse of firearms.

What happens when he passes all of his plans for guns and somebody gets into office who finds it politically expedient to scapegoat gunowners? We will go the way of Australia, England etc. and Gore will have happily laid the groundwork - well-meaning or not.

Bush has backed up his words on RKBA with action and the actions have been consistent with the words. Even if I wasn't appalled at the general idea of the nanny-state as espoused by Gore, I could hardly consider him a better alternative to RKBA than Bush.

I would be interested in hearing you rationalization that Gore is "the man for RKBA".
 
Bart,

<<I would be interested in hearing you rationalization that Gore is "the man for RKBA".>>

I would like to hear that babble as well. Sorry, but Gore, as reported in the NYTimes, is running STRONGLY silent on gun control because of MI, PA, et al His silence is not pro-RKBA, it is political survival. He will try to register and license ALL gun owners should he get in.

Gore is ACTIVELY anti-gun. Period.

madison
 
abruzzi wrote:

"I make no apologies for Gore or his father. And I don't think Dubya has to answer for his father's actions in 1964
or 1982."

Then why did you bring it up. You may not like Dubya. You may not like his father, the ex-president. You should know, however, that George Herbert Walker Bush held no federal office in 1964 and therefore could not vote against the Civil Rights Act of 1964 . He was elected to the House of Representatives in 1966 and served two terms. His service as Vice President and these two terms comprised his entire record as an elected federal official.

Gabeesh?
 
the reference to Gore as the man for RKBA was a typo -- obviously. I meant to type Bush was the obvious man for RKBA, and in the immediately following phrase contrast that with Gore -- whose CONTRARY views are known. Sorry if the typo caused some to flip.

Why bring up his old man? We wouldn't have heard of him if his name weren't Bush. I don't think he has to answer for his father's mistakes, but the pedigree is relevant to the extent that neither one of them ever had to make it on their own. And neither did.

We're simply being asked to buy into the same brand name that didn't honor its warranty the last time.
 
Remember a big difference.

Both Gore and Bush would sign a new and nastier assault weapons ban, that would EXCEED the current one (including current import restrictions and probably adding in guns under a certain size).

However.

Only one would by any stretch of the imagination appoint judges who may (may) strike it down.

Also, one of the above would be calling Congress a bunch of baby-killers urging them to send him a bill - the other would crawl under a rock and would reluctantly sign it; but not go on TV and call on people to march on Washington for gun bans.

In short - Bush may help (if nothing more than delay) weaken or slow gun bans and may install good judges.


Battler.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top