Republicans Head to Convention Divided on Gun Ban

rick_reno

Moderator
I'm sure they'll take care of us right after the election. After all, the Republicans are the party that supports the Bill of Rights...

http://www.cnsnews.com//ViewSpecialReports.asp?Page=\SpecialReports\archive\200408\SPE20040819b.html


Republicans Head to Convention Divided on Gun Ban
By Robert B. Bluey
CNSNews.com Staff Writer
August 19, 2004

(CNSNews.com) - If there's one issue on which Republicans usually agree, it's their strong defense of the Second Amendment. But less than two weeks before the GOP convention, moderates and conservatives find themselves at odds over the soon-to-expire semi-automatic gun ban.

In a clash with pro-gun Republicans, President Bush has publicly supported the ban on so-called "assault weapons" dating back to his 2000 presidential campaign. Although he hasn't actively pushed for an extension of the 1994 law, his spokesmen consistently reaffirm his support for it.

The law would sunset Sept. 13 without action from Congress. Republican leaders in the House of Representatives have refused to bring up the matter for debate, and with only four working days left before it expires, even the law's supporters acknowledge it is doomed.

At the same time, however, a band of moderate Republicans have stood in stark opposition to their more conservative colleagues in House leadership posts. They believe enough Republicans would join with Democrats to send a bill to the president's desk.

The Republican-controlled Senate has already voted 52-47 to extend the ban, thanks in part to 10 Republicans who broke ranks. Because the March 2 vote came in the form of an amendment to another bill, the legislation was later voted down in an effort to defeat the measure.

Differences of opinion among Republicans existed in 1994 at the time Congress approved the ban. As a result of that vote, former President Bill Clinton estimated it cost 20 Democrats their jobs, giving Republicans control of Congress.

Political observers disagree whether the stakes are as high today, but both gun-control advocates and Second Amendment supporters suggested Bush ought to tread carefully.

"President Bush has made some key mistakes, such as saying he would sign an extension of the gun ban," said Erich Pratt, spokesman for Gun Owners of America, which has voiced some of the most stringent criticism of Bush as a result of his support for the ban.

By essentially staking out the same stance as his Democrat challenger, Sen. John Kerry, Bush has hurt his reputation with gun owners, Pratt said.

"The president has almost shot himself in the foot in that he has taken away one of the huge magnets that pulled Democratic voters over to his side of the fence," Pratt told CNSNews.com.

Gun-control groups like Americans for Gun Safety have made much of Bush's support for extending the ban. One of its advisers, Matt Bennett, said there's little difference between Bush and Kerry as a result.

"On the major issues of the day, Kerry and Bush are virtually identical in at least what they say about the gun issue," Bennett told CNSNews.com. "Bush has said he supports extending the assault weapons ban, he said he supports closing the gun-show loophole, he said he supports cracking down on gun crime. These are the things Kerry talks about when it comes to guns."

That's what Pratt said worries him, especially if voters buy into that argument. It's not as much of a concern for the National Rifle Association, which downplayed the gun ban's impact on the presidential race.

"We actually don't think it will play a big role in the election because we're cautiously optimistic that it will sunset on Sept. 13," said Kelly Hobbs, the NRA's spokeswoman.

But those on the other side of the gun debate see things differently. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a leading advocate of renewing the ban, has predicted a backlash against Bush should he not actively campaign for an extension before Sept. 13.

"If it is allowed to expire, it will be President Bush's fault, and we'll let people know that," said Chad Ramsey, a regional director for the Brady Campaign. "He is responsible. It will have expired on his watch. If that's the case, there will be a backlash. People will be angry he let this happen, and people will probably show up at the voting booth with that in mind."

Republicans, meanwhile, aren't saying much. CNSNews.com was unable to reach any of the House moderates who have signed onto legislation to extend the ban. The most outspoken advocate, Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del.), recently held a press conference with Jim and Sarah Brady.

Other House Republican who have bucked their party to support the ban include Reps. Doug Bereuter (Neb.), Tom Davis (Va.), Michael Ferguson (N.J.), Nancy Johnson (Conn.), Peter King (N.Y.), Mark S. Kirk (Ill.), Jack Quinn (N.Y.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) and Christopher Shays (Conn.).

The more conservative House leaders, Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) and Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas), have expressed little desire to bring up the matter for a vote.

In the Senate, the Republican defectors include Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), Susan Collins (Maine), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Peter Fitzgerald (Ill.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), George Voinovich (Ohio) and John Warner (Va.).

"It is a divisive issue within the Republican Party ... between the moderates and conservatives," said Rob Recklaus, spokesman for Rep. Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.), who has championed the issue. "It has to do a lot with the NRA leadership, which has the ear of the conservative wing of the Republican Party."

On the issue of the gun ban, however, Bush has strayed from his traditional conservative base. In Pratt's view, it would be best if the president kept his stance under wraps.

"I do think Bush is on one side of it and House leaders are on the other, but that being said, I don't really think it's an issue," Pratt said. "I don't think the president has a desire to push it. I don't think this is an important enough issue for the president. What he has said can only hurt him, but certainly, it won't hurt him as bad if he started actively pushing it."
 
Other House Republican who have bucked their party to support the ban include Reps. Doug Bereuter (Neb.), Tom Davis (Va.), Michael Ferguson (N.J.), Nancy Johnson (Conn.), Peter King (N.Y.), Mark S. Kirk (Ill.), Jack Quinn (N.Y.), Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (Fla.) and Christopher Shays (Conn.).

....

In the Senate, the Republican defectors include Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R.I.), Susan Collins (Maine), Mike DeWine (Ohio), Peter Fitzgerald (Ill.), Judd Gregg (N.H.), Richard Lugar (Ind.), Gordon Smith (Ore.), Olympia Snowe (Maine), George Voinovich (Ohio) and John Warner (Va.).

Well, at least now we now who the scoundrels are that need to be voted OUT, particularly the house members from Nebraska and the good Senator from Indiana - no need to put up with those enemies of freedom in relatively free states.
 
[teeth gnashing]How will we Republicans ever span such a gaping divide? Oh! Woe is us![/teeth gnashing]

Liberal idiot reporters and editors get more loopy every day. I fully expect some of the ones on television to break into tears at some point. Now that their monopoly on information dissemination is over, the pressure has become too much. They are losing their minds. :p
 
Last edited:
Right on point but there are less obvious divisions!

The media loves to create disunity even where little or none exists on the issue they've chosen to hammer. Except for that odious Rep. Castle of Delaware (I hear him quoted a whole heck of a lot) few of these Republicans seem to regard the AW Ban as an important issue.
Actually, if the media wants to stir something up they ought to dig at the sharp divisions between the Party base and the President on the the whole Mexican Border/Illegal Immigrant Amnesty issue. When even a moderate Conservative...errr Independent like Bill O'Reilly finds the President's handling of the illegal immigrant issue atrocious then somethings wrong.
Sure, you seldom hear about that one on the news but it is certainly going to depress turnout among Conservative voters. I think that the President's failure to make much movement on ending abortion (or even to make a token gesture and show up to the annual Pro-Life Rally in Washington ieven once in all his four years) is also going to depress turnout. His ill considered position on embryonic stem cell research didn't endear him to his religious base and given Ron Reagan's Democratic Convention Demeagougery it hasn't one him a single moderate vote.
Campaign finance reform ticked off a lot of big money contributers and given Bush's sense of propriety only the Democrats have had permission to exploit the 527 Non-Profit loophole. Only Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and one other group have weighed in from that angle and they have done it only by being publically disavowed by the President.
This gives the image of a President who wants us all to win the election for him with one arm tied behind our backs and who at the same time doesn't think he needs our help. Well, I have news for him: Sir, you're behind in the polls and in vital swing states. You are not winning and you need to quit acting like you can coast to reelection. Start fighting and stop badmouthing your friends because the media and the Democrats will accuse you of coordination whatever you do.
By the way, to get back to guns, the NRA gives us a diplomatic line but they're pretty ticked at the President too. Even though Bush is way behind they're waiting until very late to fully mobilize to reelect him let alone publically endorse him. You see they're publically waiting until after Sept 13th when the AW Ban expires. Privately they're furious about campaign finance reform. Why else would they delay starting their full blown campaigning until after the law they hate so much muzzles them.
To those naysayers, I ask you to compare the near apocalyptic rhetoric of the 2000 Annual Meetings to that of 2004. The sense of urgency just isn't the same. Kerry's phoney hunter whitewash sticks so well, in part because even hard core gun owners aren't sure he's their friend.
There are real divisions in the Republican Party and even bigger ones between the President and his conservative base. Despite the obvious and imminent danger John Kerry represents conservatives just aren't mobilizing as they did in 2000. As for libertarians, forget it. Most of them I've talked to are voting 3rd party.
If you don't believe me, visit the Forums at AWBanSunset.com. That's not my only source of info but its a bellweather of you're likely hard-core gun-owning voters.
You'd better believe there's hidden divisions in the Republican Party but the media has (once again) missed the real story. All, I can say is that Mr. Bush had been change tack and he'd better give one hell of a speech at that convention.
 
You nailed it, Raccon.

They're trying to create a story.

You won't hear one prime-time word about the 1994 Crime Bill at the Convention.

If it were up to me, there would be some words on that subject, like telling the world how stupid the ban was in the first place.

But that would take courage....

Rick
 
Not only are the reporters trying to create an interesting story out of a topic for which here isn't much story, but they are doing so in a very {intentionally?} naive manner. Just because a person is a Republican does not mean s/he is pro-gun and anti AWB. The gun issue is just one of many topics important to voters, Republican or otherwise. And, as with some of the sentiments mentioned in forums like TFL where folks show strong single issue pro gun voting predjudice, many other Republicans are single issue voters as well, but on topics other than guns. Some will be right to lifers. Some will be voting based on financial issues. Some will vote on particular issues surrounding military actions taken during Bush's reign. Technically, Republicans are divided on any issue where there is not a unanimous consensus.
 
I have to snicker every time somebody uses GW's name and conservative in the same sentence. George W. Bush is no conservative-he might appear that way in comparison with people like Kerry/Kennedy and others, but he is NOT a conservative.
 
How many more of these stories do we need to read before people realize that Republicans are not gun friendly? The Republicans are getting further and further out of the mainstream.

How people can stomach some of their stances and even vehemently defend them as "the lesser of two evils" anymore is beyond comprehension. Just like the communists infiltrated the Democrat party back in the 1960's the neo-cons have infiltrated the Republican party of the 2000's.

rant mode off.
 
I'll defend the Republican Pary and I'll fight to take it back...

The plain fact is that the Republican Party was not always as conservative as it is today or was, for that matter, a decade ago. It took the efforts of hard core conservatives to make it so and it cost the Party an election in the process. One of the reasons that Goldwater lost was because the moderate/liberal Nelson Rockefeller types took their marbles and went home when they lost control of the party to the conservatives. But ultimately these equivocators weren't needed.
So, okay, the Neo-Cons have a lot of influence. I believe that is because a lot of conservatives have taken the "conservative" nature of the party for granted. The solution to this is to get reengaged at the grassroots, state and federal level. And not just during election time either but when the apparatchniks of the party are being selected.
Those of us who think that bolting the Republican Party will solve anything are wrong. We need to increase the number of hard-core conservatives and gun owners who are involved in the party structure and the like. If we leave the Republican Party it will just swing farther to the left and there will be nowhere for anyone to go since the Democrat Party isn't exactly ripe for a takeover.
The fact is that a new major political party can form only and I mean only when there is a single burning issue that neither of the two entrenched parties is able or willing to address. Well, I know a lot of us here are pro-gun and are pro-lifers but as it stands the first issue has too few supporters and our blind acceptance of hegemonic courts has placed the abortion beyond the reach of the political process for decades to come. That will only be truer if John Kerry is elected. The last third party to form in this country and have any real success was the Republican Party because of the issue of slavery. Find me an issue that will attract as many single-issue voters as slavery did and we'll talk about a third party.
In short, the Republican Party is not yet lost and still represents a much better alternative on the gun issue, if nothing else, then the Democrats do. Every gun owner here should work to take back the Party from those who are trying to pull it to the left. If we could manage it in the 1960's then there's no reason we can't do it from our even stronger starting position today.
 
Excellent thread!

In his heart Bush believes he won the last election because he looked moderate "enough" to enough moderate voters (actually moderate and left of moderate) to close the electoral college switch. And, since he is a moderate, no biggy from his POV.

We will get to see in November if his middle-of-the-road stance(s) have cost him enough of the core conservative votes (like mine) to cost him the election (like Bush the 1st).

I think the divisions in the Republican Party (and they sure do exist) are not the ones the press is drawing attention to...or Bush the 2nd understands.

I hope true conservatives can regain control of the Republican Party but my vote goes to the Constitution Party this time and will until that happy event happens.

S-
 
Selfdfenz, I admire your political fortitude, but do you really think this is the election to be throwing away your vote on a third party? Let's face it, a vote for the Constitution Party in November might as well be a vote for the Nazi Party for all the good it's going to do. If you want to make a point, then stay home on Election Day. Or better yet, swallow your pride and vote Republican and then make it an issue in four years.

Now is not the time to be playing games....
 
"Now is not the time to be playing games...."

It's not a game. My vote is based on my moral and logical underpinnings plain and simple. I like to think of it as my way of sending a message to the C. Roves of the World. BTW I'm in TX, which will go Bush all the way, so a contray "statement vote" puts W at no hazard for TX electoral votes. No?

Now admittedly, my vote and the other 10 people that vote CP may not send much of message..... but we have precious few alternates to send a wake up call to what I see as the now NeoCon, let's-run-this-thing-like-a-business dominated Republican Party.

Staying home is to admit I have given up on the process, and by association, possibly the USA....which surely is not the case.

I just cannot bring myself to vote for a man that wants to gate 8-14 million illegals into the USA without a thought to what many like myself think. I don't hold hard feelings against people that vote for W. I simply cannot, for the too many examples where he has disappointed me.
(no flame intended, no way, no how)
S-
 
I think he's talking about the Bush Administration plan to reward invaders to our country by inventing and applying a phony baloney "Guest Worker" status. When one considers that 9/11 occurred - at least in part - because of our "come on in no matter how much harm you mean to do us" policies.

Unfortunately, as bad as President Bush is on this issue and others, Comrade sKerry will be ten thousand fold worse.

And like it or not, shy of one of the above mentioned getting killed, or dying of natural causes, one or the other of them is going to be our next President.

Counting on others to make the guy you grudgingly need to have as the next President isn't something I'm willing to play around with.
 
I have a question: If voting for the principles you truly believe in is "making a point/statement", what do you call your vote when you compromise your basic beliefs?
 
Can't remember what the rag was I was browsing recently but it was predicting the future of American politics was the Schwarzenegger "centrist" model.

I think they are right.
 
fyrestarter

Fred nailed it.

It's the Bush plan to legitimize all the Mexican illegals now in the US (and all that can get here between the time they announce how the plan will work and the 1st closing date for application.)

I don't see how anyone can support that. I live in TX so please don't start putting spin on the + side of any part of illegal immigration.

If Bush walked on water in every other aspect of his presidency this policy alone would be enough to write him off.

S-
 
I have a question: If voting for the principles you truly believe in is "making a point/statement", what do you call your vote when you compromise your basic beliefs?
I call it understanding political reality. The founders of this nation crafted a political system that demands compromise from everyone in order for anything to be accomplished. Some find this idea abhorrent. Some headstrong people, myself included, balk at the notion, but in their genius, the founders of our nation saw that in order to avoid tyranny one must "trade off" pure principle. It's a hard thing to accept, but they were searching for ideal self-determination, and that cannot ever be attained in a society of more than one individual in the absence of dictatorship.

Or as Denis Leary puts it: "Life's tough... get a helmet!"
 
Back
Top