Why Bush makes some grabber noises

J

Jim March

New member
Time for the bitter truth.

If any Presidential candidate made any one of the following statements, he would halt all chances at a win:

1) "I support private ownership of machine guns."

2) "I support unregulated private weapons transfers."

3) "I believe that convicted felons who have served their time and probation should be allowed to re-arm."

4) "I support private ownership of large-capacity rifle and handgun magazines."

Why is that? What's gone wrong?

We've lost the "public opinion war" in these areas. (And yes, I know #3 is controversial even among us - don't worry about it, because any ONE of these would screw a candidate, it doesn't take all of 'em combined.)

Wanna know whose fault it is that we've lost these "skirmishes" in the public opinion wars?

Look in a mirror. That goes for everyone reading this, AND MYSELF, and Wayne LaPierre, and Larry Pratt, ALL of us. We have all personally failed to convince our fellow voters on the basic rightness of the most "hardcore" issues. We've veered away from support of, say, full autos in conversations with grabbers, and in doing so we've made it impossible for our political allies to help us in the public debate without being creamed.

Now granted, Harry Browne is willing to make at least some of these statements and God bless him for it - but he won't get elected this year. Bush will, with a bit of luck.

But to blame Bush for making modest grabber noises on his website or in speeches about not liking "assault weapons" and "unregulated gun show sales" isn't just stupid - it's blaming him for OUR failings, which I consider downright evil.

Now in my opinion, the key to a turnaround is CCW. Not Vermont-style, shall-issue. The reason being, we have NOT lost the public debate there, thanks in no small part to Lott, Mustard, Kleck, Cramer, Kopel and a bunch of others that use the statistics generated by the unpleasant CCW bureaucracy.

These are the facts that the GOA and the rest of the "no compromise" faction in the RKBA movement have missed. In a Democracy, the great unwashed masses decide what is politically feasible because they're in control. Mostly, that's a good thing, except when 51% get propagandized into stupidity - then we're screwed!

So what do we do?

Well, I think we need to "hold the line" of public opinion at the CCW mark, not giving an inch. We need to support the politicians that support us and the FACT is, that includes Bush. He was a leader in CCW reform in Texas during his campaign for Governor and while in office. He signed a law killing off local gov't lawsuits by municipalities. Legal gun carry with no "Wild West"-type problems mixes defensive handguns right in with the society, and proves the lies of the REAL grabbers for all to see. That's the "stronghold" from which we can make a full comeback.

It's not "compromise" for a General to view a battlefield as it *really* exists versus some fantasy version. In the last days of WW2, Hitler sat in his bunker giving orders to imaginary units that had been wiped out days or weeks ago, trying for a rally. That's insane.

CitizensOfAmerica's ad campaign is a good start. So are the NRA infomercials I've seen on TV here in California and playing elsewhere too. But we have to do more, individually and personally, with each of our fellow citizens. Hell, maybe we oughta be knocking door-to-door, so long as we don't get mistaken for Jehovah's Witnesses :).

But in any case, slamming our allies for being honest enough to recognize unpleasant realities is downright pathetic.

Jim March
Equal Rights for CCW Home Page http://www.ninehundred.com/~equalccw
 
Let me put it this way; If any candidate made those statements, AND DIDN'T BOTHER TO JUSTIFY THEM EXTENSIVELY, they'd be toast. But they are all perfectly defensible, if a politican is willing to actually get off his dead rear end and defend them.

This idea a lot of Republicans have, that if a position isn't already popular, you don't dare promote it, is stupid. The Democrats know better than that, which is why they eventually win on just about everything: People's minds CAN be changed, if you try hard enough and long enough. Especially if the guys on the other side don't bother opposing you!

Public opinion has moved against us because the Democrats have expended literally billions of dollars worth of PR in moving public opinion. (They can afford to do this because most of their PR effort consists of "in kind" contributions from their ideological allies in the media.) Public opinion was deliberately changed, and it can be deliberately changed back. Our biggest problem in this is simply that the Republicans will give us no help at all in this task, because they can not defend views they don't actually share.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jim March:
But to blame Bush for making modest grabber noises on his website or in speeches about not liking "assault weapons" and "unregulated gun show sales" isn't just stupid - it's blaming him for OUR failings, which I consider downright evil.[/quote]

Damn, Jim -- Bush's anti-gun comments are a result of OUR failings? You don't think Bush is solely responsible for his words and actions? That's classic Democrat victimology.

Your point that we could all do more to preserve RKBA is of course a good and accurate one. But here's a novel idea: maybe Bush is actually honest, and his anti-gun comments (mild only in comparion to The Evil Al Gore's; as I've written before, the gun comments on the Bush web site would have made anyone here on TFL vomit if they'd read them in 1992) are an accurate representation of what he thinks.

I realize the suggestion that Bush might be honst is probably hard to swallow, but is it really that hard to believe that RKBA is just a peripheral issue for Bush and he simply doesn't understand the Second Amendment very well? Or that he just doesn't care about it much?
 
Jim,

While I agree that Gore will probably be worse than Bush, don't bet on it being that much different.

Let's say that Bush wins. Then the real work begins. I don't know that much about Bush's judicial appointments in Texas, but they are being vetted by some now and the initial reports aren't sounding good.

So if Bush, wins, (good luck in California, Bush will win my state, VA) we're going to need to get organized swiftly and really go ape if he submits a SC justice who doesn't follow the constitution. Remember how his father Soutered us. Us gun people can't let that happen again!
 
The biggest difference between Gore or Bush being elected is that electing Gore will signify that the ninny element in our society is on top. Gore will have won because of a sophomoric phony French kiss that he probably had to learn how to do from the woman he's hired to teach him how to be an alpha man (Naomi something?). Pretty pathetic, eh? If Bush wins, the signal (to Bush, as well the rest of us) will be that the ninnies can't quite pull the numbers together yet. They'll be working on it, tho, and we damned well had better be working against them. The best way to do that, in my opinion, is to become actively involved in local politics. That's where national policy has its roots.

------------------
Idiot, n. A member of a large and powerful tribe whose influence in human affairs has always been dominant and controlling. -- Ambrose Bierce
 
Bush can SAY he supports all this cra*.

But look at how it gets started?

Look at how much Klint goes on TV and blames calls NRA members babykillers and yells at legislators to pass gun control.

Yeah, Bush would probably sign more gun control if it landed on his desk. But he probably won't beg for it to arrive.


Battler.
 
Bush will only use the "public opinion ammo" we give him.

That's because in this election, the difference between Gore and Bush is so startlingly clear, Bush has made a tactical decision not to campaign too heavily on RKBA so as not to lose too much of the percentage of "sheeple vote" he'll need to win.

That's not because he's screwing us. We want him to win...anyone paying attention knows he's the horse to bet on if you care about RKBA. He knows it, we know it (most of us, anyhow) and to dwell on it strongly in speeches can only weaken his standing, not improve it.

I want him to win, therefore I'm perfectly happy with him being mostly quiet on RKBA.

Jim
 
Jim March: "... Bush has made a tactical decision not to campaign too heavily on RKBA so as not to lose too much of the percentage of "sheeple vote" he'll need to win."

Ironic when you consider that Al Gore has made a tactical decision not to campaign too heavily on attacking the RKBA, (Said he'd make it the center of his campaign, but what has he said about it lately?) so as to avoid getting hammered when millions of gun owners show up at the polls thirsty for his political blood. It's really kind of funny in a way; It's the Democrats who haven't forgotten what happened in '94, not the Republicans, who are convinced despite all the exit polling from previous elections that it will kill them to openly defend the Second amendment. Wishful thinking, perhaps?


------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
"If you slap a Lion, he will bite you! If you caress a Lion he may not". George and Al know this tenant and will move to the center of an Issue to avoid being mauled by the "Cat". Browne also understands this thought process, but understands he can't win. This allows him the luxury of not having to pacify anyone. It's easy to sound like a crackpot when you speak honestly to the People!

------------------
Donnez-moi la liberté, ou donnez-moi la mort!
 
If even a fraction of our ranks took the time to fight for RKBA, Bush or whoever else was running for office wouldn't have to smokescreen the issue. The gun owners who don't care have allowed the gun debate to be transformed from one of crime control to one of the "problem" of guns themselves. This would not have been possible even 12 years ago. The anti's have defined the terminology and the media has given them the soapbox. All because some 75 or so million gun owners care about some giveaway program more than their rights. NRA membership has reached an all-time high of over 4 million. Whoo-hoo! That means that about 1.5 million gun owners out of 80 million got the message.

Let's face it. There's committed people like those on TFL, and then there's the rest of the gun owners. The only way they can be reached is with a smack of a buttstock to the head.

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
Jim March and Monkey, you guys have hit the X-ring.

GWB would most certainlly lose BIG if he actively campaigned for RKBA. That's right, he would lose big. The reason being that there are more active ANTI's and sheeple than there are active gun owners. It's that simple.

When it comes to the RKBA issue, GW must campaign towards the middle.

For now, all I can do is trust that GW had done an excellent job for RKBA in Texas.

CMOS

------------------
NRA? Good. Now join the GOA!

The NRA is our shield, the GOA will be our sword.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top