No doubt the DNC will add all the news articles that have the phrase "Bush" and "SwiftVets" on the same page as 'proof' too.

Who gives a shit anyway.  moveon.org has been doing the DNC dirty work far longer, but nobody throws a tantrum over that

Quoted: No doubt the DNC will add all the news articles that have the phrase "Bush" and "SwiftVets" on the same page as 'proof' too. Who gives a shit anyway.  moveon.org has been doing the DNC dirty work far longer, but nobody throws a tantrum over that

And there you have the TRUTH. The simple fact is, they are now victims to the same attacks their side have been carrying out for months. And they can't take it. This is a perfect example of why those can't stand the heat should not fire up the oven.

Quoted: Quoted: No doubt the DNC will add all the news articles that have the phrase "Bush" and "SwiftVets" on the same page as 'proof' too. Who gives a shit anyway.  moveon.org has been doing the DNC dirty work far longer, but nobody throws a tantrum over that And there you have the TRUTH. The simple fact is, they are now victims to the same attacks their side have been carrying out for months. And they can't take it. This is a perfect example of why those can't stand the heat should not fire up the oven.

RNC opens assault on anti-Bush groups

Complaint filed with FEC alleges collusion with Kerry campaign

Thursday, May 6, 2004 Posted: 2:17 PM EDT (1817 GMT)

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The Republican National Committee launched a wide-ranging legal assault Wednesday on more than two dozen political groups working to defeat President Bush.

The committee says the groups are part of an "unprecedented criminal enterprise" to circumvent federal campaign laws and pour illegal soft money contributions into the 2004 race.

In a complaint filed with the Federal Election Commission, the RNC also charged that the groups are illegally coordinating their advertising attacking Bush with the campaign of presumptive Democratic nominee Sen. John Kerry.

The Kerry campaign is named as a respondent in the complaint, along with the anti-Bush groups, their leaders and some of their large donors, including billionaire financier George Soros and Hollywood producer Steven Bing.

The groups in question, including MoveOn.org, The Media Fund, America Coming Together and America Votes, are known as 527 groups after a provision in the tax code.

"These 527 groups, in conjunction with their representatives and their leadership, are conspiring together to violate the law, and conspiring together to raise this illegal soft money, and conspiring with a message and a coordination effort," said Jill Holtzman-Vogel, the RNC's chief counsel.

"I think there's no question that there is a larger coordination and a larger conspiracy here on both counts."

In a statement, the Kerry campaign said it has nothing to do with the ads or the groups that are running them.

In a tactical twist, the RNC asked the FEC to quickly consider its complaint then dismiss it -- so the committee can move the dispute into federal court.

The reason? The FEC's process for handling such complaints makes it unlikely it would be resolved before the November election. In federal court, the RNC could ask a judge to stop the activities of the 527s immediately.

Marc Racicot, chairman of the Bush-Cheney campaign and former chairman of the RNC, conceded the request was unprecedented, but he said it was warranted under the circumstances.

"We are confident that they will consider this unique request we made and put an end to this abuse of the law and put an end to this violation of the law," he said.

The RNC complaint says that the 527 groups are violating the 2002 campaign finance reform act by paying for anti-Bush ads and other political activities with unlimited contributions raised from wealthy donors, unions and liberal interest groups -- so-called soft money that political parties can no longer raise.

The complaint called the effort an "illegal Democratic soft-money slush fund scheme."

The RNC also charged that some of the 28 groups involved in the effort have not registered as federal political committees, which is required for groups that seek to influence the outcome of a federal election.

Such committees can accept only hard money contributions, which are limited and regulated.

Wednesday's complaint was the latest round in months of partisan sparring over whether 527 groups working to defeat Bush can use soft money.

Leaders of the groups involved have repeatedly insisted they are well within the law, accusing the GOP and the Bush campaign of trying to stifle dissent.

Republicans, who hold a substantial advantage over Democrats in their ability to raise hard money, complain that the groups are using soft money to close the gap and help Kerry compete against Bush's larger war chest.

Leaders of the effort openly admit that is their intent -- but they insist it is perfectly legal.

The 2002 campaign finance reform law, more commonly known as the McCain-Feingold act, sought to limit the impact in political campaigns of soft money, which both parties were pouring into largely negative ad campaigns. Kerry supported the measure.

In February, the FEC issued a ruling saying a communication that "promotes, supports, attacks or opposes" a federal candidate falls under the hard money rules.

The RNC charges that decision clearly puts the activities of the 527 groups against Bush out of bounds; the groups disagree, saying what they're doing is consistent with the FEC's ruling.

The RNC also says the 527 groups, which are supposed to be independent, are coordinating their efforts with the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party, which is not allowed.

The basis of that charge in the complaint is the fact that some of the leaders of the anti-Bush effort have ties to the Kerry campaign and the Democratic Party.

They include Kerry's former campaign manager, Jim Jordan; Harold Ickes, a member of the Democratic National Committee's executive committee; and New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson, who will chair this summer's Democratic National Convention at which Kerry will be nominated.

The Kerry campaign earlier said that it no longer has any involvement with Jordan, who was ousted in November when the senator shook up his campaign staff.

The RNC also included in its complaint an analysis of ad spending in early March, when the Bush campaign began advertising in 80 markets.

Kerry responded with ads in 39 markets, and MoveOn and the Media Fund joined Kerry in advertising in 38 of the same markets.

But of the 41 markets in which Bush was advertising and Kerry wasn't, MoveOn and the Media Fund put up ads in only 15, according to the RNC.

"Wherever one went, the others were sure to go in an effort to use soft dollars to counter a hard dollar Bush-Cheney '04 buy," the complaint says.

kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general?

Quoted: And now a response from the Kerry campaing: Waaaaah!  Waaaaah! Waaaah!  It's not fair!  Only Unka Georgie Soros and me can play this game!  Waaaah!  Waaaah! I tink I poo-pooed my diaper! Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

LOL.

Why hasn't Kerry denounced Michael Moore and his distortions? Boy, the libs shriek like little girls when the playing field is leveled.

Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general?

Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different?

But to partially address your specific question, I do not support Kerry any more nor any less than I support Bush. I find it interesting that many people here describe themselves as rational, non-emotional individuals that adhere to logic and fact, but descend to emotional outbursts and name-calling as soon as someone steps on their "feelings" by issuing opposing points of view.

I have provided opposing views to information that I see posted here in order to illicit debate and to clarify positions - at least that has been my attempt. I have posted opposing data to certain Bush-bashing libertarians who have made spurious, unsubstantiated, nonesensical statements concerning ties between Bush and bin Laden.

I have stated my disbelief of kerry's account of his Viet Nam service, which I find to be completely dishonest.

To the point, if I find a subject posted here that is interesting enough to read, I want to spark healthy debate to fan that interest, not just participate in a pointless stream of half-deliberated "me too" posts.

Fair enough?

Quoted: Thanks Kin, that actually points to coordination.  People leaving the DNC staff and immediately going to work for the 527s... spending patterns on ad buys that show a very high degree of correlation.  What do they have on SBVFT... hmmm one wealthy Republican made a sizeable donation... a PR firm that worked against Dukakis more than a decade ago has been hired.  How about a media consultant that worked for Reagan in the 80s and Ken Starr and independent prosecutor in the mid 90s...  Thats what they've got compared to leadership making immediate switches between entities and the remarkable coincidence of ad buys in the same markets at the exact same time?

Yes, there is obvious  coordination between the Kerry camp and the associated 527's. this is disputed by the DNC but any objective person would have to conclude otherwise.

The same coordination is occuring on the right as well, as any objective observer would also conclude.

I think the Kerry Campaigns claims to have all this great evidence and failing to produce it is on an impotent hope that the FEC will go on a fishing expedition and an inside sympathizer actually come up with "something."

Quoted: Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general? Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different? But to partially address your specific question, I do not support Kerry any more nor any less than I support Bush. I find it interesting that many people here describe themselves as rational, non-emotional individuals that adhere to logic and fact, but descend to emotional outbursts and name-calling as soon as someone steps on their "feelings" by issuing opposing points of view. I have provided opposing views to information that I see posted here in order to illicit debate and to clarify positions - at least that has been my attempt. I have posted opposing data to certain Bush-bashing libertarians who have made spurious, unsubstantiated, nonesensical statements concerning ties between Bush and bin Laden. I have stated my disbelief of kerry's account of his Viet Nam service, which I find to be completely dishonest. To the point, if I find a subject posted here that is interesting enough to read, I want to spark healthy debate to fan that interest, not just participate in a pointless stream of half-deliberated "me too" posts. Fair enough?

 So who you votin' for?

Quoted: I think the Kerry Campaigns claims to have all this great evidence and failing to produce it is on an impotent hope that the FEC will go on a fishing expedition and an inside sympathizer actually come up with "something."

By complaining to the FEC, the Kerry campaign can only hope to sully the RNC/Bush campaign in the public eye, and to attempt damage control, as anyone who follows political campaigns would know that the FEC will do nothing about either RNC/DNC complaint.

Which is precisely why the RNC complaint was withdrawn - so that the issue can be taken to federal court (with th stipulation that proper channels had been exhausted to resolve the dispute.

We will see how serious the Kerry camp is by how they follow up on the FEC complaint. If the follow the trail blazed by the RNC, then they are serious and have some evidence to back up their complaint. If not, then they are probably just in damage control mode.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general? Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different? But to partially address your specific question, I do not support Kerry any more nor any less than I support Bush. I find it interesting that many people here describe themselves as rational, non-emotional individuals that adhere to logic and fact, but descend to emotional outbursts and name-calling as soon as someone steps on their "feelings" by issuing opposing points of view. I have provided opposing views to information that I see posted here in order to illicit debate and to clarify positions - at least that has been my attempt. I have posted opposing data to certain Bush-bashing libertarians who have made spurious, unsubstantiated, nonesensical statements concerning ties between Bush and bin Laden. I have stated my disbelief of kerry's account of his Viet Nam service, which I find to be completely dishonest. To the point, if I find a subject posted here that is interesting enough to read, I want to spark healthy debate to fan that interest, not just participate in a pointless stream of half-deliberated "me too" posts. Fair enough?  So who you votin' for?

Perhaps Mary McAleese, but I am still undecided.

Quoted: Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general? Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different?

Well, looking at John Kerry's consistent gun control voting record in the Senate, I think it is not hard to guess he'll carry his anti-gun torch into the White House.  Especially since traditionally the Democratic party is the gun control party, the Republicans the NRA party.

Are you actually saying the two parties are indistinguishable on gun issues?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general? Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different? Well, looking at John Kerry's consistent gun control voting record in the Senate, I think it is not hard to guess he'll carry his anti-gun torch into the White House.  Especially since traditionally the Democratic party is the gun control party, the Republicans the NRA party. Are you actually saying the two parties are indistinguishable on gun issues?

When George Bush stated that he would renew the AWB if it reached his desk, that pretty much solidified his thinking in my view.

Now, this can easily be dismissed as lip service to appease those who wish to renew the ban, but the same can be said for Kerry - a noted waffler. Sincerely, I am not so sure that Kerry would do anything beyond what has been done previously, and I am doubtful that he would attempt to go beyond the provisions of the existing ban (although I am willing to be convinced).

I fail to see why people want Bush back for round 2. Back in 2000 Bush vocally supported gun control and for that matter Republicans are starting to support it. Sure it's a slow moving deal but eventually there will be plenty who do. Then what? Dems are anti-gun, Reps are anti-gun and we the citizen are severly FUCKED because millions of people refuse to take their heads out of their asses.

Quoted: I fail to see why people want Bush back for round 2. Back in 2000 Bush vocally supported gun control and for that matter Republicans are starting to support it. Sure it's a slow moving deal but eventually there will be plenty who do. Then what? Dems are anti-gun, Reps are anti-gun and we the citizen are severly FUCKED because millions of people refuse to take their heads out of their asses.

You're sort of right and sort of wrong.

Dems will enact gun control very quickly, if given the opportunity.
Republicans will probably come down on the side of gun control, but much more slwly.

The correct way to fix this crap is in the primaries.  Get a good pro-2nd amendment conservative running for office as the Rep candidate.

In the mean time, don't allow the Dem's to get back in power, as you know they are bursting at the seams to enact another, much more harsh AWB.

Who the heck is interested in a "spirited debate" here? I have been around long enough and seen the left in action long enough to not need any further debating.

The left:

1. Wants to take my guns
2. Keep the murder of unborn babies legal
3. Tax the hell out of us all so they can expand big brother to even more spheres of influence
4. Shove their always anti-war shit down the nations throat while dividing the nation and hindering our efforts to fight wars
5. Fight anything involving the Christian religion while supporting atheism, Islam, etc
6. Always be the first to jump up and support anything immoral
7. Attempt to stamp their brand of Socialism on this nation

While the right:

1. Overwhelmingly supports the 2nd Amendment
2. Seeks to stamp out birth control by way of murder (abortion)
3. Keeps taxes low and government smaller
4. Supports the nation during times of war
5. Is not ashamed or scared of the religion worshipped by the vast majority of Americans and upon which this nation was founded
6. Condemns immoral acts
7. Seeks to keep the socialist/communists elements out of our nation

We know this. So what the hell is there to debate? There isn't any point going through this same shit every 4 years. So whenever I see a candidate on the left running against a candidate on the right, I just vote for the person on the right since I already know what each stands for and represents. That's all I need to know! When applying these same standards to this election, I see no change what-so-ever.

So when election day rolls around, I'm gonna go into the voting booth, check Bush/Cheney and walk out, just like I did in 2000. And the same way I did in 96 with Bob Dole. I don't vote for democrats and never will as long as they go against all of my values and beliefs. And the race is between Bush and Kerry. Since this is the race and because it's close, I sure as hell will not go throw away my vote to someone I've never heard of who will not get 1/10th of a percent of the vote anyway.

So again, I ask, what the hell is there to debate here that hasn't already been sorted out since each party defined what they stand for? If democrats want my vote, they'll have to do more than debate with me. I already know who they are, what they are and what they stand for. That why I will not vote for the bastards! If they want my vote, first they'll have to change their ways. So until that point in time, there's no need debating anything with me.

-CH

Quoted: Who the heck is interested in a "spirited debate" here? I have been around long enough and seen the left in action long enough to not need any further debating. The left: 1. Wants to take my guns 2. Keep the murder of unborn babies legal 3. Tax the hell out of us all so they can expand big brother to even more spheres of influence 4. Shove their always anti-war shit down the nations throat while dividing the nation and hindering our efforts to fight wars 5. Fight anything involving the Christian religion while supporting atheism, Islam, etc 6. Always be the first to jump up and support anything immoral 7. Attempt to stamp their brand of Socialism on this nation While the right: 1. Overwhelmingly supports the 2nd Amendment 2. Seeks to stamp out birth control by way of murder (abortion) 3. Keeps taxes low and government smaller 4. Supports the nation during times of war 5. Is not ashamed or scared of the religion worshipped by the vast majority of Americans and upon which this nation was founded 6. Condemns immoral acts 7. Seeks to keep the socialist/communists elements out of our nation We know this. So what the hell is there to debate? There isn't any point going through this same shit every 4 years. So whenever I see a candidate on the left running against a candidate on the right, I just vote for the person on the right since I already know what each stands for and represents. That's all I need to know! When applying these same standards to this election, I see no change what-so-ever. So when election day rolls around, I'm gonna go into the voting booth, check Bush/Cheney and walk out, just like I did in 2000. And the same way I did in 96 with Bob Dole. I don't vote for democrats and never will as long as they go against all of my values and beliefs. And the race is between Bush and Kerry. Since this is the race and because it's close, I sure as hell will not go throw away my vote to someone I've never heard of who will not get 1/10th of a percent of the vote anyway. So again, I ask, what the hell is there to debate here that hasn't already been sorted out since each party defined what they stand for? If democrats want my vote, they'll have to do more than debate with me. I already know who they are, what they are and what they stand for. That why I will not vote for the bastards! If they want my vote, first they'll have to change their ways. So until that point in time, there's no need debating anything with me. -CH

So if you are primarily interested in reinforcing your already solidified views, why post anything at all? Why not just read the same point of view, post after post, and just nod your head in silent agreement?

Are your views so conforming that you have nothing to add to the conversation?

I sincerely doubt that.

Quoted: Quoted: Who the heck is interested in a "spirited debate" here? I have been around long enough and seen the left in action long enough to not need any further debating. The left: 1. Wants to take my guns 2. Keep the murder of unborn babies legal 3. Tax the hell out of us all so they can expand big brother to even more spheres of influence 4. Shove their always anti-war shit down the nations throat while dividing the nation and hindering our efforts to fight wars 5. Fight anything involving the Christian religion while supporting atheism, Islam, etc 6. Always be the first to jump up and support anything immoral 7. Attempt to stamp their brand of Socialism on this nation While the right: 1. Overwhelmingly supports the 2nd Amendment 2. Seeks to stamp out birth control by way of murder (abortion) 3. Keeps taxes low and government smaller 4. Supports the nation during times of war 5. Is not ashamed or scared of the religion worshipped by the vast majority of Americans and upon which this nation was founded 6. Condemns immoral acts 7. Seeks to keep the socialist/communists elements out of our nation We know this. So what the hell is there to debate? There isn't any point going through this same shit every 4 years. So whenever I see a candidate on the left running against a candidate on the right, I just vote for the person on the right since I already know what each stands for and represents. That's all I need to know! When applying these same standards to this election, I see no change what-so-ever. So when election day rolls around, I'm gonna go into the voting booth, check Bush/Cheney and walk out, just like I did in 2000. And the same way I did in 96 with Bob Dole. I don't vote for democrats and never will as long as they go against all of my values and beliefs. And the race is between Bush and Kerry. Since this is the race and because it's close, I sure as hell will not go throw away my vote to someone I've never heard of who will not get 1/10th of a percent of the vote anyway. So again, I ask, what the hell is there to debate here that hasn't already been sorted out since each party defined what they stand for? If democrats want my vote, they'll have to do more than debate with me. I already know who they are, what they are and what they stand for. That why I will not vote for the bastards! If they want my vote, first they'll have to change their ways. So until that point in time, there's no need debating anything with me. -CH So if you are primarily interested in reinforcing your already solidified views, why post anything at all? Why not just read the same point of view, post after post, and just nod your head in silent agreement? Are your views so conforming that you have nothing to add to the conversation? I sincerely doubt that.

Nope. I just see no groundbreaking new discoveries to come from debating this same old same old that's going to change my mind or who I'm voting for, so I don't bother. In order for the dems to change my mind, they can't do it by rehashing the same crap time after time or trying to wrap it in a pretty new package. In other words, I have a set of issues. If and when they as candidates meet those issues, then I will consider voting for them. They are going to have to come and get me. I'm not going to them. So again, until that happens, there's no need for debate. If you feel the need to sit around and rehash the same things we have done for the past 10 years in order to reach the same conclusion, then that's your right. But the answer keeps remaining the same, so I am going to use my energy in areas where I might make new discoveries. As of now, that's not going to happen in politics.

Quoted: Quoted:  So who you votin' for? Perhaps Mary McAleese, but I am still undecided.

 Wonderful candidate.  I'm leaning her way myself.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general? Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different? Well, looking at John Kerry's consistent gun control voting record in the Senate, I think it is not hard to guess he'll carry his anti-gun torch into the White House.  Especially since traditionally the Democratic party is the gun control party, the Republicans the NRA party. Are you actually saying the two parties are indistinguishable on gun issues? When George Bush stated that he would renew the AWB if it reached his desk, that pretty much solidified his thinking in my view. Now, this can easily be dismissed as lip service to appease those who wish to renew the ban, but the same can be said for Kerry - a noted waffler. Sincerely, I am not so sure that Kerry would do anything beyond what has been done previously, and I am doubtful that he would attempt to go beyond the provisions of the existing ban (although I am willing to be convinced). johnrlott.tripod.com/op-eds/OutdoorsBestDems.html "The Democrats' Spin On Gun Control: Pushing for 'reasonable restrictions' is the key to getting the public's vote. Take special note of the bolded parts. By John R. Lott Jr. Have the Democrats really changed on gun control? Would it matter whether Senator John Kerry or President George Bush won the election this year? Democrats have spent much time and effort trying to alter their anti-gun image. They seem to believe that the answers to gun questions really matter for the campaign. Out on the primary campaign trail, John Kerry talked about his boyhood hunting trips, and, before the Iowa caucus, Kerry even took time out to shoot a pheasant. Americans For Gun Safety, a gun-control organization, applauded Kerry's approach as "taking the gun issue to the political center." Senator Kerry has tried hard to sound moderate on the gun issue and has gone so far as saying: "I believe that the Constitution, our laws and our customs protect law-abiding American citizens' right to own firearms. I believe that the right of gun ownership comes with responsibilities." Curiously, all the Democratic presidential candidates made virtually identical statements about gun ownership being an individual right, but they all supported the same "reasonable restrictions" on gun ownership: banning so-called semiautomatic assault weapons, regulating gun shows, opposing restrictions on lawsuits against gunmakers. Given all this sudden agreement, they either all had an epiphany or got the same political advice. It's not surprising to find that a Democratic pollster, Mark Penn, seems to be behind it. A year ago, he produced surveys showing that if Democrats didn't show "respect for the 2nd Amendment and support gun safety," voters would presume that they were anti-gun. "The formula for Democrats," according to Penn, "is to say that they support the 2nd Amendment, but that they want tough laws that close loopholes. This is something [Democrats}) can run on and win on." Remember, Bill Clinton and Democratic strategists are on the record as saying that too strong a stand for gun control probably cost Al Gore the 2000 Presidential election. Other evidence suggests this conversion is just for show. The policy gurus for the Democratic presidential campaigns pitched their candidates at a think-tank breakfast in Washington in January at the American Enterprise Institute. They were explicitly asked where they draw the line on reasonable restrictions. Where do they stand on, say, the bans on handgun ownership in Chicago and the District of Columbia? Only Joe Lieberman's representative answered the question. The now-former Democratic candidate "would oppose an outright ban on handguns, and he is not afraid to say so." Dean's senior advisor, Maria Echaveste, refused to be pinned down because that would be giving in to "wedge issue" politics "as opposed to really talking about values that are fundamental to all candidates and to the American people." But representatives for Kerry, Edward and Clark would not respond. Supporting "reasonable restrictions" sounds moderate, but is a ban on ownership "reasonable"? And if so, guaranteeing an individual right to own a gun doesn't really mean very much. Kerry also has other political baggage on the issue of guns. For example, the Brady Campaign and its predecessor, Handgun Control, have given Kerry a perfect pro-control voting record over his career in the Senate. And when the Senate vote took place earlier this year on reining in the reckless lawsuits, Kerry made one of his very rare appearances since the beginning of 2003. Kerry skipped votes on extending unemployment insurance to prescription drugs to the military, but not the votes on extending the semiautomatic gun ban or the regulation of gun shows. Whatever his current rhetoric, Kerry is passionately in favor of gun control. President Bush strongly supported reining in the reckless lawsuits against gunmakers. Unfortunately, however, he also--in principle-- supported extending the semiautomatic gun ban as well as regulating gun shows. But Bush is not wedded to those issues and strongly urged Senators to avoid sending him a bill for reining in reckless lawsuits with all those gun control amendments tacked on. Bush's stance on guns is far from perfect and he has missed out on many opportunities to educate people about the myths involving guns. But there is a big difference between a president who improves things a little here and there and a convinced Democrat, who, like President Clinton, might use all the power of the office to pass laws and the bully pulpit to make people fearful of guns. Those who care about gun rights may feel somewhat relaxed about the political environment these days, but we would all be in for a nasty surprise if Kerry were currently directing the resources of the presidency. Remember the public service ads put out by the Clinton administration? They were all about young children dying from accidental gun deaths in the home and gave the impression of an epidemic of accidental gun deaths taking children's lives. Of course, despite the pictures and voices of young four- to eight-year-old children, there were only 31 accidental gun deaths for children under 10 in 1999. Yet, with these ads dominating the airwaves, the facts really didn't seem to matter. If you are not convinced, imagine if Kerry had been President after 9/11 and had used the attacks to push for all sorts of new gun-control laws as a means of thwarting terrorist treats. If Kerry wins the election, it will be the Clinton administration all over again. Whether it is the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms or the inaccurate research put out by the Department of Justice, a Kerry presidency will make gun owners and those concerned about self-defense long for the good old days of the Bush administration. John Lott Jr, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, is author of "More Guns, Less Crime" (University of Chicago Press, 2000) and "The Bias Against Guns" (Regnery, 2003). " The big difference is that Kerry has voted for several gun bans in the past.  Bush has never voted for or signed a gun ban of any kind.  He has even signed for CCW reform in Texas.

Kerry's voting record is troublesome, however, I have few doubts about what Bush would do if legislation made it to his desk.

While the article does spell out Kerry's voting record, it also spells out the need for change regarding democratic candidates attitudes toward gun control. Silence can be construed as agreement, but it can also be constued as an unwillingness to take on a seemingly unpopular issue with ones political base. Therefore, I cannot place too much into the speculation of the author as to the extent (or lack of sincerity) in Kerry's new found position regarding gun control.

Polls matter to politicians.

And while it is certainly true that Bush has never voted for nor signed legislation of any sort of gun ban, that is largely a function of the lack of legislation making it to his desk (in federal terms), and not his convictions on the matter. It is well known that he has commited to doing so if the opportunity arose.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Who the heck is interested in a "spirited debate" here? I have been around long enough and seen the left in action long enough to not need any further debating. The left: 1. Wants to take my guns 2. Keep the murder of unborn babies legal 3. Tax the hell out of us all so they can expand big brother to even more spheres of influence 4. Shove their always anti-war shit down the nations throat while dividing the nation and hindering our efforts to fight wars 5. Fight anything involving the Christian religion while supporting atheism, Islam, etc 6. Always be the first to jump up and support anything immoral 7. Attempt to stamp their brand of Socialism on this nation While the right: 1. Overwhelmingly supports the 2nd Amendment 2. Seeks to stamp out birth control by way of murder (abortion) 3. Keeps taxes low and government smaller 4. Supports the nation during times of war 5. Is not ashamed or scared of the religion worshipped by the vast majority of Americans and upon which this nation was founded 6. Condemns immoral acts 7. Seeks to keep the socialist/communists elements out of our nation We know this. So what the hell is there to debate? There isn't any point going through this same shit every 4 years. So whenever I see a candidate on the left running against a candidate on the right, I just vote for the person on the right since I already know what each stands for and represents. That's all I need to know! When applying these same standards to this election, I see no change what-so-ever. So when election day rolls around, I'm gonna go into the voting booth, check Bush/Cheney and walk out, just like I did in 2000. And the same way I did in 96 with Bob Dole. I don't vote for democrats and never will as long as they go against all of my values and beliefs. And the race is between Bush and Kerry. Since this is the race and because it's close, I sure as hell will not go throw away my vote to someone I've never heard of who will not get 1/10th of a percent of the vote anyway. So again, I ask, what the hell is there to debate here that hasn't already been sorted out since each party defined what they stand for? If democrats want my vote, they'll have to do more than debate with me. I already know who they are, what they are and what they stand for. That why I will not vote for the bastards! If they want my vote, first they'll have to change their ways. So until that point in time, there's no need debating anything with me. -CH So if you are primarily interested in reinforcing your already solidified views, why post anything at all? Why not just read the same point of view, post after post, and just nod your head in silent agreement? Are your views so conforming that you have nothing to add to the conversation? I sincerely doubt that. Nope. I just see no groundbreaking new discoveries to come from debating this same old same old that's going to change my mind or who I'm voting for, so I don't bother. In order for the dems to change my mind, they can't do it by rehashing the same crap time after time or trying to wrap it in a pretty new package. In other words, I have a set of issues. If and when they as candidates meet those issues, then I will consider voting for them. They are going to have to come and get me. I'm not going to them. So again, until that happens, there's no need for debate. If you feel the need to sit around and rehash the same things we have done for the past 10 years in order to reach the same conclusion, then that's your right. But the answer keeps remaining the same, so I am going to use my energy in areas where I might make new discoveries. As of now, that's not going to happen in politics.

I see.

Well, if you were to re-examine the issues in your purview, you might find that things are not so black and white in the Left/Right debate.

The ground just might break.

But, to each his own.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general? Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different? Well, looking at John Kerry's consistent gun control voting record in the Senate, I think it is not hard to guess he'll carry his anti-gun torch into the White House.  Especially since traditionally the Democratic party is the gun control party, the Republicans the NRA party. Are you actually saying the two parties are indistinguishable on gun issues? When George Bush stated that he would renew the AWB if it reached his desk, that pretty much solidified his thinking in my view. Now, this can easily be dismissed as lip service to appease those who wish to renew the ban, but the same can be said for Kerry - a noted waffler. Sincerely, I am not so sure that Kerry would do anything beyond what has been done previously, and I am doubtful that he would attempt to go beyond the provisions of the existing ban (although I am willing to be convinced).

Sure.  But do you think Kerry will offer a more assault weapon -friendly White House?

I see this over and over and over again.  Progun types say "Bush is selling us out over assault rifles!"

Yeah, he is more hostile than i would like.

BUT JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!  LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVE!

Are you willing to send the GOP a message about gun rights by helping an explicitly anti-gun political entity?  Who is introducing all the anti-gun legislation?  THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY!

If you dont think Kerry wouldn't be amenable to new, more stringent anti-gun legislation, you're either a fool or a moron.

Bush has said he supports EXISTING legislation.  Please cite additional, new anti gun leislation he supports.  To my knowledge he hasn't.  Meanwhile, DEMOCRATIC senators Corzine and Lautenberg have drafted legislation amping up the current AWB, making ANY semiauto rifle with  a capaicty of over 10 rounds (.22lr guns are excepted) as being BANNED!

One party is anti gun.  One party is pro gun.  This is a pro-gun board.  Why are YOU supporting the anti-gun party while presnting yourself as pro-gun?  It makes no sense whatsoever.

Quoted: Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general? Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different? But to partially address your specific question, I do not support Kerry any more nor any less than I support Bush. I find it interesting that many people here describe themselves as rational, non-emotional individuals that adhere to logic and fact, but descend to emotional outbursts and name-calling as soon as someone steps on their "feelings" by issuing opposing points of view. I have provided opposing views to information that I see posted here in order to illicit debate and to clarify positions - at least that has been my attempt. I have posted opposing data to certain Bush-bashing libertarians who have made spurious, unsubstantiated, nonesensical statements concerning ties between Bush and bin Laden. I have stated my disbelief of kerry's account of his Viet Nam service, which I find to be completely dishonest. To the point, if I find a subject posted here that is interesting enough to read, I want to spark healthy debate to fan that interest, not just participate in a pointless stream of half-deliberated "me too" posts. Fair enough?

I am a Vietnam Veteran who was in Vietnam when Kerry and Fonda took action to portray us as criminals. I won't even pretend to be fair. I would feel justified going far beyond voting against Kerry. None of these political games make one whit of difference to me. I think Kerry would be a disaster for America and I've survived four years of Bush, already.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general? Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different? Well, looking at John Kerry's consistent gun control voting record in the Senate, I think it is not hard to guess he'll carry his anti-gun torch into the White House.  Especially since traditionally the Democratic party is the gun control party, the Republicans the NRA party. Are you actually saying the two parties are indistinguishable on gun issues? When George Bush stated that he would renew the AWB if it reached his desk, that pretty much solidified his thinking in my view. Now, this can easily be dismissed as lip service to appease those who wish to renew the ban, but the same can be said for Kerry - a noted waffler. Sincerely, I am not so sure that Kerry would do anything beyond what has been done previously, and I am doubtful that he would attempt to go beyond the provisions of the existing ban (although I am willing to be convinced). Sure.  But do you think Kerry will offer a more assault weapon -friendly White House? I see this over and over and over again.  Progun types say "Bush is selling us out over assault rifles!" Yeah, he is more hostile than i would like. BUT JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!  LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVE! Are you willing to send the GOP a message about gun rights by helping an explicitly anti-gin political entity? It is completely illogical.

It is only illogical if the premise that Kerry would push a more stringent policy toward gun control (and that the legislature would draft a conforming bill) is true. While the right may say it is so, and the left may wish it so, neither position makes it so.

So?

I don't trust either party on this issue, and choose to exert what little influence I have in the direction that has the highest probability of return. The executive branch does not hold a high probability of return in any scenario.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general? Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different? Well, looking at John Kerry's consistent gun control voting record in the Senate, I think it is not hard to guess he'll carry his anti-gun torch into the White House.  Especially since traditionally the Democratic party is the gun control party, the Republicans the NRA party. Are you actually saying the two parties are indistinguishable on gun issues? When George Bush stated that he would renew the AWB if it reached his desk, that pretty much solidified his thinking in my view. Now, this can easily be dismissed as lip service to appease those who wish to renew the ban, but the same can be said for Kerry - a noted waffler. Sincerely, I am not so sure that Kerry would do anything beyond what has been done previously, and I am doubtful that he would attempt to go beyond the provisions of the existing ban (although I am willing to be convinced). Sure.  But do you think Kerry will offer a more assault weapon -friendly White House? I see this over and over and over again.  Progun types say "Bush is selling us out over assault rifles!" Yeah, he is more hostile than i would like. BUT JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!  LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVE! Are you willing to send the GOP a message about gun rights by helping an explicitly anti-gin political entity? It is completely illogical. It is only illogical if the premise that Kerry would push a more stringent policy toward gun control (and that the legislature would draft a conforming bill) is true.

It is, you fucking moron!

Do you need evidence?  Look how many gun-control bills are introduced and sponsored by Republicans versus Democrats.

Unless you're blind, a liar, or brain-dead, no one would say something like "Well, we have to wait and see who introduces anti-gun legislation before we can make judgements about what party suports gun control and which does not."

HELLO MCFLY!?!?!?!  Who introduces all the anti-gun legislation in Washington?  Not the fucking GOP which gets lots of milk from the NRA!

How old are you?  How long have you been following politics?  If you're older than 30, I would advise you to go to Sylvan learning centers and brush up on the basics of literacy and critical thinking.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general? Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different? Well, looking at John Kerry's consistent gun control voting record in the Senate, I think it is not hard to guess he'll carry his anti-gun torch into the White House.  Especially since traditionally the Democratic party is the gun control party, the Republicans the NRA party. Are you actually saying the two parties are indistinguishable on gun issues? When George Bush stated that he would renew the AWB if it reached his desk, that pretty much solidified his thinking in my view. Now, this can easily be dismissed as lip service to appease those who wish to renew the ban, but the same can be said for Kerry - a noted waffler. Sincerely, I am not so sure that Kerry would do anything beyond what has been done previously, and I am doubtful that he would attempt to go beyond the provisions of the existing ban (although I am willing to be convinced). Sure.  But do you think Kerry will offer a more assault weapon -friendly White House? I see this over and over and over again.  Progun types say "Bush is selling us out over assault rifles!" Yeah, he is more hostile than i would like. BUT JESUS FUCKING CHRIST!  LOOK AT THE ALTERNATIVE! Are you willing to send the GOP a message about gun rights by helping an explicitly anti-gin political entity? It is completely illogical. It is only illogical if the premise that Kerry would push a more stringent policy toward gun control (and that the legislature would draft a conforming bill) is true. It is, you fucking moron! Do you need evidence?  Look how many gun-control bills are introduced and sponsored by Republicans versus Democrats. Unless you're blind, a liar, or brain-dead, no one would say something like "Well, we have to wait and see who introduces anti-gun legislation before we can make judgements about what party suports gun control and which does not." HELLO MCFLY!?!?!?!  Who introduces all the anti-gun legislation in Washington?  Not the fucking GOP which gets lots of milk from the NRA! How old are you?  How long have you been following politics?  If you're older than 30, I would advise you to go to Sylvan learning centers and brush up on the basics of literacy and critical thinking.

I find it interesting that many people here describe themselves as rational, non-emotional individuals that adhere to logic and fact, but descend to emotional outbursts and name-calling as soon as someone steps on their "feelings" by issuing opposing points of view.

Congratulations.

I don't trust either party on this issue

I don't put blind trust in anyone. But I can say I trust the democratic party 98% less when it comes to my gun rights. Why? Receny history.

There's no way that you can compare democrats and republicans as the same on this issue. They are VERY different. You may find a few republican gun control supporters. But what is the exception with the republicans is the norm with the democrats.

With that said, we haven't had any new gun control under Bush. Sure, he said je would renew the AWB if it was re-authorized by Congress. But anyone who knows anything knew that there was a greater chance of an asteroid striking the earth this month than that happening. He used his political smarts to make it a non-issue. And he has made it known he is pro-gun in the past. That's good enough for me and most voters.

Besides, who else is running in this election that has a chance in hell of getting elected that would be better than Bush? It sure as hell won't be Kerry. So making these arguments against Bush just doesn't make any sense. On the other hand, if we were talking about Kerry vs. McCain, I'd have to agree with you and would just stay home on election day. But we aren't. So what is this discussion about?

Whatever, dude.  Explain to me about how the jury is out about which party is more amenable towards gun rights:  Democrats or Republicans.  Show me an example where the Democrats were there fighting for gun ownership rights while Republicans shrank from the issue.  What's that?  You can't?  

I can understand umbrage among gun nuts about Republicans not being as pro 2nd amendment as they would like.  But the idea liberal democrats being somehow a viable alternative.....the pro gun-control party, who hate guns and think they can reduce gun crime by outlawing guns (just like how drug and alcohol consumption was stopped by outlawing them)........such thinking boggles the mind.

Almost as much is why a person who is advocating the gun-control party is doing on a pro gun ownership board, or why she thinks she can change our ideas using completely illogical and untenable arguments?

Quoted: So what is this discussion about?

It's about discussing the issue, obviously.

So, what happens if Kerry wins the election? Have you thought about that? Are you prepared for it?

What avenues of remedy do you have in that scenario?

As I have stated, the executive branch is a no-win scenario, in my opinion, despite the prevailing thought here regarding Bush. It is very likely that there are more democrats than republicans in this country (55% by some estimations), and the democrats are mobilized like never before.

The prospect of democratic control of the executive is a very real probability, and placing your hopes in a single point of control - a politician at that, is not a wise move.

The key to promoting any single issue under these circumstances is to ensure the legislature never brings the bill to fruition. That is where the issue will be fought.

It should be plain enough to anyone who can clearly assess the present situation.

Think about it.

Quoted: Whatever, dude.  Explain to me about how the jury is out about which party is more amenable towards gun rights:  Democrats or Republicans.  Show me an example where the Democrats were there fighting for gun ownership rights while Republicans shrank from the issue.  What's that?  You can't?   I can understand umbrage among gun nuts about Republicans not being as pro 2nd amendment as they would like.  But the idea liberal democrats being somehow a viable alternative.....the pro gun-control party, who hate guns and think they can reduce gun crime by outlawing guns (just like how drug and alcohol consumption was stopped by outlawing them)........such thinking boggles the mind. Almost as much is why a person who is advocating the gun-control party is doing on a pro gun ownership board, or why she thinks she can change our ideas using completely illogical and untenable arguments?

Your thinking is in the wrong direction. The issue can not make it to the executive branch, by then it's too late.

"If George W. Bush truly wants an assault weapons ban, as he has led the public to believe, then he should aggressively fight for it, as he had done with other issues of importance to him," said Joshua Horwitz, executive director of the Coalition to Stop Violence, a group fighting for renewal of the ban.

Gee, if this moron seems to get it, why don't some of the Bush bashers on this board seem to understand it?

You know, someone sounds suspiciously like Imbroglidiot and he does a low post count.

It's about discussing the issue, obviously.

That's fine. But as of yet I am having difficulty understanding what your issue is. So far all I've seen is how you are equating the left and right as one in the same, which can't be farther from the truth and has been pointed out repeatedly.

So, what happens if Kerry wins the election? Have you thought about that? Are you prepared for it?

No, I'm not prepared for it. That's why I am doing everything humanly possible to see to it that Bush is re-elected. You won't on the other hand find me running around message boards downing the one man who is the only alternative to keeping Kerry out of office though. If you are concerned about Kerry, you have a weird way of showing it.

What avenues of remedy do you have in that scenario?

It isn't downing Bush, supporting a candidate with no chance to win and giving up a critical vote that may allow Kery to win. I'll tell you that right now.

If God forbid, Kerry wins, then the first course of action is to make damn sure the ratio of Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate has the proper balance to make sure he can't do anything. Think the type of fallout we saw after the 1994 AWB passed. Outside of that, you have civil disobedience if you so desire. That's about the extent of the avialable options at that point.

However, I see nothing anywhere that would suggest grouping dems/repubs all into the same boat is going to help anything.

As I have stated, the executive branch is a no-win scenario, in my opinion, despite the prevailing thought here regarding Bush. It is very likely that there are more democrats than republicans in this country (55% by some estimations), and the democrats are mobilized like never before.

I disagree. If your estimate was correct, Bush would not be in office now. If your estimate was correct, the race would not be locked in a dead heat at this point. And you're way off regarding the issue of guns. The vast majority of Americans already feel we have enough gun laws. That tells me the more moderate dem voters are also not anti-gun. But it's the far left that seems to control that issue within the party. The fact that not enough congress critters were interested in renewing the ban speaks volumes. They know the public support for it is not there right now, and would be political suicide to touch. But even so, I still feel a hell of a lot better having a republican prez in the oval office who isn't going out of his way to make an issue of it. Imagine how things may have been different had Kerry been in office and was putting pressure on congress to renew the ban.  

The prospect of democratic control of the executive is a very real probability, and placing your hopes in a single point of control - a politician at that, is not a wise move.

Not if the handful of people who would push Bush over the top would get their head out of their ass long enough to see there is a difference between the two parties. And outside seeing to it that Kerry gets beat, what do you suggest? That's all we can do is go vote. You can either go vote for Bush or you can go to war if Kerry fucks with The Constitution. I'd rather avoid that nastiness if at all possible, so the logical thing to do is to vote for a man who won't necessitate such a need in the first place.

The key to promoting any single issue under these circumstances is to ensure the legislature never brings the bill to fruition. That is where the issue will be fought.

Finally something we agree on. And that means we need to pack the Congress with conservative Republicans! Yet the very group that will offer us the most protection also happens to be a group you say is no different than the dems! Where is the logic in that?

It should be plain enough to anyone who can clearly assess the present situation.

Yes, it is. That's why when I walk into a voting booth, I vote straight Republican. That's the surest means we have of keeping new gun laws from being passed.

Think about it.

I have. Have you?

The key is keeping both the executive and legislative branch in firm pro-gun control....sort of like right now when old bans are being ignored and new ones shunned. If you let the liberal left get more power though and that balance may shift. That's why it's critical to support Bush instead of Kerry. Think about the help Kerry could provide to other liberal candidates running for Congress. Think about Supreme Court Justices. While the legislative is the most important branch, the executive is also damn important. I want the strongest front as I can against such shit. And I don't want any side of the perimeter to be under-defended. As of right now, we have the best set-up that weve had in the past decade +. So my attitude is not to fix what isn't broken.

Quoted: Quoted:  So who you votin' for? Perhaps Mary McAleese, but I am still undecided.

Who?   And therein lies the problem.

It is ridiculous to think that any other candidate is viable at this point besides the big two. Any vote for Nader damages Kerry, and any vote for <insert obscure libertarian candidate here> damages Bush. Fortunately, no other candidates have the support that Perot did when he handed Clinton the Presidency, so I'm not too worried about the effects of third party votes on Bush. I'm not saying there aren't other people that I think would be a lot better than Bush, just that none are viable at this time. Kerry, IMHO would be so damaging to the country that it should be worth "holding your nose" simply to help keep the POS out.

Quoted: Kerry, IMHO would be so damaging to the country that it should be worth "holding your nose" simply to help keep the POS out.

Our Founding Fathers allied with the smelly French for the purpose of defeating the British.

If they can suffer that unspeakable indignity, surely I can "hold my nose" with GWB to defeat Redcoat Kerry.

Damn straight! It's nice to see most folks here get it. Now I only hope enough people in this nation get it and show up in November to assure that shitstain Kerry will not be anything more than a senator from Massachusetts. Hell, that's bad enough.

Quoted: Quoted: Whatever, dude.  Explain to me about how the jury is out about which party is more amenable towards gun rights:  Democrats or Republicans.  Show me an example where the Democrats were there fighting for gun ownership rights while Republicans shrank from the issue.  What's that?  You can't?   I can understand umbrage among gun nuts about Republicans not being as pro 2nd amendment as they would like.  But the idea liberal democrats being somehow a viable alternative.....the pro gun-control party, who hate guns and think they can reduce gun crime by outlawing guns (just like how drug and alcohol consumption was stopped by outlawing them)........such thinking boggles the mind. Almost as much is why a person who is advocating the gun-control party is doing on a pro gun ownership board, or why she thinks she can change our ideas using completely illogical and untenable arguments? Your thinking is in the wrong direction. The issue can not make it to the executive branch, by then it's too late.

Ever heard of an "Exexcutive order"? Clinton sure as hell knew what they were!

Bush said he supported a renewal of the CURRENT restrictions. He didn't support expanding the AWB. Also as has been said over and over, NO GUNLAWS HAVE BEEN PASSED SINCE BUSH WAS ELECTED!

Kerry go's out of his way to make it back to vote against guns, but not to extend unemployment? He is a piece of shit snake in the grass. I'm always suspicious of a photo-op bird hunt by a democrat! He has also been spewing the same old tactic of "I support hunting, I hunted as a boy and I will support your right to hunt" BLAH BLAH BLAH BULLLLLLLLLSHIT! KERRY IS A GIANT LIBERAL FUCKHEAD.

Also add that while our troops were being tortured in pow camps Kerry was bolstering the enemy's fight, Same as fatboy Kennedy did by bolstering the enemy over ABU-Grab(sp) and getting Nick Berg's head chopped off. Both of the fuckers should be in jail for treason.

"W"2004

Quoted: Quoted:  So who you votin' for? Perhaps Mary McAleese, but I am still undecided.

Better take a long time to think about that...I mean, what a tragedy it would be if you threw your vote away on the wrong third party candidate...  
You may as well vote for fucking Mickey Mouse.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general? Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different? Well, looking at John Kerry's consistent gun control voting record in the Senate, I think it is not hard to guess he'll carry his anti-gun torch into the White House.  Especially since traditionally the Democratic party is the gun control party, the Republicans the NRA party. Are you actually saying the two parties are indistinguishable on gun issues? When George Bush stated that he would renew the AWB if it reached his desk, that pretty much solidified his thinking in my view.

Then your thinking needs some work.

Here's my thinking when it comes to the candidate's 2A views (and it's based on nothing more than fact):

GWB= Sheep in wolf's clothing

JFK= Wolf in sheep's clothing

Quoted: Here's my thinking when it comes to the candidate's 2A views (and it's based on nothing more than fact): GWB= Sheep in wolf's clothing JFK= Wolf in sheep's clothing

you forgot one...

kinaed= troll

You sir are smoking crack. President Bush said he would sign the AWB so the soccer moms would be happy. Im sure he briefed Senator Frist that if it hits his desk it would be Senator Frists ASS!!
  FREE

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general? Can you explain to me how these two issues are mutually exclusive, and how supporting Bush would be substantailly different? Well, looking at John Kerry's consistent gun control voting record in the Senate, I think it is not hard to guess he'll carry his anti-gun torch into the White House.  Especially since traditionally the Democratic party is the gun control party, the Republicans the NRA party. Are you actually saying the two parties are indistinguishable on gun issues? When George Bush stated that he would renew the AWB if it reached his desk, that pretty much solidified his thinking in my view. Now, this can easily be dismissed as lip service to appease those who wish to renew the ban, but the same can be said for Kerry - a noted waffler. Sincerely, I am not so sure that Kerry would do anything beyond what has been done previously, and I am doubtful that he would attempt to go beyond the provisions of the existing ban (although I am willing to be convinced).

Quoted: kinaed, can you supply me with a good explanation why you support Kerry if you support the Second Amendment and gun ownership in general?

Hi Raven,

Now that I'm in my 50's, and have had buddies killed and maimed in VN, with my boy 18 in a few days and leaning toward the Navy (I was in the MM's under military charter)  reguardless of my 2nd. amendment rights I'll be god damned if I'm going to vote in a draft dodgeing, convicted DUI, drug using comander in chief to commit my boy to war?? No thanks! Some may say "what does it matter, it was 30 years ago?" It does matter! (God!, I wish the GOP convinced Powell to run!)
So, If I have to work EXTRA hard to keep the "Finestines" at bay if Kerry gets in, so be it. At least when the boys and girls go to war, it won't be by the orders of a draft dodger!.
That simple.......

Quoted: I'll be god damned if I'm going to vote in a draft dodgeing, convicted DUI, drug using comander in chief to commit my boy to war?? No thanks! Some may say "what does it matter, it was 30 years ago?" It does matter! (God!, I wish the GOP convinced Powell to run!) So, If I have to work EXTRA hard to keep the "Finestines" at bay if Kerry gets in, so be it. At least when the boys and girls go to war, it won't be by the orders of a draft dodger!. That simple.......

Merchant Marine, eh?

Not voting for Bush, eh?

Anti-gun Powell is your man, eh?

Kerry getting elected not a big deal, eh?

Oooooohkayyyyyy.

Quoted: Now that I'm in my 50's, and have had buddies killed and maimed in VN, with my boy 18 in a few days and leaning toward the Navy (I was in the MM's under military charter)  reguardless of my 2nd. amendment rights I'll be god damned if I'm going to vote in a draft dodgeing, convicted DUI, drug using comander in chief to commit my boy to war?? No thanks! Some may say "what does it matter, it was 30 years ago?" It does matter! (God!, I wish the GOP convinced Powell to run!) So, If I have to work EXTRA hard to keep the "Finestines" at bay if Kerry gets in, so be it. At least when the boys and girls go to war, it won't be by the orders of a draft dodger!. That simple.......

That simple-minded you mean.  You'd think in 50 years you'd have had the opportunity to accumulate a bit more wisdom.  But it seems some people just get older, not wiser.