"On the eve of the upcoming presidential election, Constitutional
constructionists -- Patriot advocates of the liberty and freedom
ordained by our Creator as framed in our Constitution -- were informed
by the Bush administration that President George Bush will sign
renewal of the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer gun-control regulations
scheduled to expire on 13 September, 2004 -- if Congress supports
extending the measure."
Click on link below for full story.
PS: THIS LINK IS A BRILLIANT DEFENSE OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!  -266
 www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/ma20040820.shtml

it is dead, gee whiz

And of course, if you don't vote for Bush, ya gonna vote for what other replacement? Who is likely to get elected if it isn't Bush? Pro-gunner John Kerry, of course. Who voted against  every anti-gun bill that went through.
 get a grip, Bush may not be perfect, but he is so far ahead of John Kerry it is laughable.!!
 cut off your nose to spite your face, vote for any other candidate but Bush, that will really help the pro-gun cause.  
  There is no reason or logic in putting down GWB for stating he would sign legislation "if it is approved by congress".
  Yes, GW & his Dad have signed legislation that was anti-gun. remember if you will, that legislation was passed through BOTH HOUSE & SENATE!!  had it been defeated in either one, it would have never crossed the President's desk for signature. fautl your congresscritter's just as much as the president who signed legislation the "entire congress voted for"./
  I'll vote for Bush, cause Kerry is a quisling.

Well then, let's reward the republicans for stabbing us in the back and double-crossing us.  Let's send the message loud and clear: "You can cheat and lie on us, you can take our money, compromise away our liberties, you can walk all over us, because you're the best and most faithful whore we can find to pledge our troth to!"  This will certainly earn their respect! NO!!  Did Bushie Junior use an executive order to undo the import ban his worthless piece of excrement pappy signed?  Has he undone any of the Clintonista orders restricting parts or ammo imports?  
20 years ago, I agreed with the compromise position.  In fact, I made the mistake of voting for Busheroo Senior twice.  I now hate and regret that with a passion.  Part of the problem was that I was listening to the NRA BS too much.  The only thing that the NRA cares for is membership growth via ever increasing and more draconian gun laws.  If it wasn't for the GOA, we'd be screwed right now!!  When, throughout history, has evil and wickedness EVER been defeated by compromise?!  Name me one instance! Hmmmm??  Bushie Junior is going to lose anyhow!  They will say that it is the economy.  He had his chance to recant his anti-gun position, and he has merely reafirmed it.  By the way, my understanding is that the article referred to references another recent statement.   But, even if it is not, he could still at least have the courtesy to at least lie to us and tell us he is neutral on the ban.  Do you not see the danger of electing back-stabbers and compromiser "conservatives"?!

hey 266-23

the AWB is DEAD, just ask Tom DeLay !!

(there's no bill passed in the senate & NO companion bill in the house you MORON)

Quoted: i hate to say this but i have NOT been extreamly happy with gw. The problem that right now the ONLY OTHER CHOICE is completely unacceptable on every level. As much as i would like to not vote for GW. If he loses things are going to ugly VERY fast. I have done a LOT of soul searching on this and right now W is the only choice. mike

Yeah.  It's like having to choose between having both knees broken or a bullet to the base of the skull.  I guess I'll take the broken knees.  Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

Quoted: "On the eve of the upcoming presidential election, Constitutional constructionists -- Patriot advocates of the liberty and freedom ordained by our Creator as framed in our Constitution -- were informed by the Bush administration that President George Bush will sign renewal of the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein-Schumer gun-control regulations scheduled to expire on 13 September, 2004 -- if Congress supports extending the measure." Click on link below for full story. PS: THIS LINK IS A BRILLIANT DEFENSE OF THE 2ND AMENDMENT!!  -266  www.townhall.com/columnists/markalexander/ma20040820.shtml

'

So who else are you going to vote for?
You didn't post what Kerry's stance on the AWB was.  I wonder why

SNIFF.... SNIFF

The reality of the situation is, if GWB came out and openly opposed the AWB he would catch hell from the media and all thier lefty allies, by seeming to support it he dodges that bullet but he knows damm well that the bill will never make it to his desk.
So if you withhold your vote for Bush as a protest you have awarded a vote to Kerry, who is Nancy Pelosi's little sock puppet and would SCREW gun owners.

DigDug, 4get_No1, cnatra, motoguzzi
Ad hominem vitriol is the technique and methodology of the cerebrally challenged.  Actually, I am not one to talk, considering how I addressed the Bushes!!
Read carefully my previous post.  Also read carefully the Alexander article.  Alexander was not implying that there is a current bill up for consideration.  He was calling attention to the fact that rather than remaining silent on the issue, certain elements of the Bush administration are chirping out the same foolishness that they did almost a year ago, and now right before an election.
Digdug, you assert that I have no idea how politics is played in the US.  Obviously you are convinced that compromise is somehow the road to victory.  I ask you to adduce a single incident of victory by the election of  someone who has stated that he would destroy your right to your semi-autos.  All that I know is that I have voted for NRA endorsed compromisers, and inevitably and inexorably, they have always betrayed our side at the final moment of truth, when everything was on the line!!  So then, who really "is  Nancy Pelosi's little sock puppet and would SCREW gun owners."  Besides, that was a rather emotively based statement, wasn’t it motoguzzi?
 To everyone else:  I appreciate the "lesser of two evils" argument.  I hope and still wish, to a cynical extent, that such an approach could be fruitful.   Perhaps I have been too hasty in my own efforts to vent frustration with a president who obviously disdains one of the most important elements of his base.   I recall only one time, it was 10 years ago, that the republican party at least made a symbolic effort to stand with us gun owners.  The result was the 94 election knock-out of the demo-craps.  Since then, it has been business as usual, and we have been losing ground slowly.  The exigencies of the present situation would seem to be issuing a clarion call for an uncompromised position.  
-266

If the anti's and Kerry have their way there won't beeeeeeeee a 2nd Amendment !  They can't take em from us yet !! so they have started psychological  propaganda to shame you , soften you up a bit while they raise the next generation of firearms haters . It's a free country as long as you vote for who has done been selected for you to choose from .How many times I wished there was a candidate that I wanted and not this democratic lesser of 2 evils  B.S.   !       HAMMER                                                                      p.s. until then vote for Bush

DigDug,
You said,
"266-23,
You have not addressed this statement:
"If GWB wanted the AWB to be renewed, we would already have a renewal in place. What is stopping him? He is the leader of the Republican party of the USA. The Republican party controls the house and senate. One phone call is all it would take for another AWB to be passed if Bush wanted it."
Please either agree with this statement or prove that it is incorrect. Good luck."

Very well, as you are quite adamant and insistent in regard to this matter.  Please understand, that this is not  a personal diatribe against anything you have said.  Actually, I respect your sincerity and have a sense of collegial fondness for almost everybody on this board, because we are all standing for the same thing-Liberty!  The flagitious remarks of insult from a few were ignored because the sources were taken into account.   Furthermore this is not my ego against your ego, or any such thing.  
I disagree for the following reasons:
1.] "If GWB wanted the AWB to be renewed, we would already have a renewal in place."  Your argument rests upon faulty  premises and conclusions.  If GW wanted  What do you mean by "wanted"?  The term is ambiguous and undefined.  If by ‘wanted’ you intend to mean actively seeking to impose I never made such an assertion to my knowledge.  If by ‘wanted’ you wish to imply that he is willing and ready to acquiesce to and support and cooperate to bring into being, then that is fine.  The most recent statements of his administration bear this out.
Your argument, in various formulations and reformulations, which we do not have time to go into here and now,  rests upon what we call various Fallacies of Relevance.  Your premise is logically irrelevant to, and therefore incapable of establishing the truth of your conclusion.  
Manifested in your statement are various formulations of informal fallacies such as Argumentum ad non causa pro causa .  This means to mistake what is not the cause of a given effect for its real cause.  There is also Petitio Principii (begging the question).   Also implied in the construct of your argument is the Fallacy of the Complex Question as well as finally Ignorantio Elenchi (irrelevant conclusion).  
2.]   "What is stopping him?"  Again, I did not say he was actively attempting to enforce this.  But to answer your question:  a marginally pro-gun House of Representatives.  The same thing which I hope will stop Kerry.  Your congressional rep does not want to loose his or her job because of  you the voter.  They are closer to the grass roots.  Apparently, that same motivation does not influence W.  
3.]  "He is the leader of the Republican party of the USA."   Oh really?  My good man, have you been reading the conservative pundits lately?  
4.]  "The Republican party controls the house and senate."  The Senate is divided into three components:  The Liberal Republicans [mistakenly identified as "moderates"}, the conservative republicans, and the Liberal Democrats.  Normally, this would be a disastrous situation, except for # 2 above.  
5.]   "One phone call is all it would take for another AWB to be passed if Bush wanted it."   Again, see #2 above.  
6.] Please either agree with this statement or prove that it is incorrect.   I disagree with your statement for the afore mentioned reasons, which I believe seriously impair the validity thereof.
7.] Good luck.  Hey, same to you!  My best wishes to you and yours.


Lumpy196,
I do not know who I am going to vote for at this point.  Who knows, it may be Bush, but after all these years, I seriously doubt it.   There is the "Lesser of Two Evils’ option.  I am probably going to vote my convictions and my conscience.  Is that good enough?  By the way, seeing that we are prying into personal issues, do you see any incoherence in the "WTF?" in your text and the Matthew 10:28 reference at the end of your post?

266:  If  Kerry wins, you will witness the most draconian anti-gun president in American history.  He voted 51 out of 55 times for anti-gun bills since he has been a senator.  He favors suing gun manufacturers out of business, wants to ban all semi-auto rifles, (refer to S. 1431 which he supports), and on and on and on.  

Since Bush has been president, there has not been ONE anti-gun bill passed.  

If you value the 2nd amendment Kerry is NOT the right vote to cast.  It's just that simple.  Don't fight the facts.  Apparently you are a Democrat who is wrestling with the fact that Kerry is extremely anti-gun and you are trying to justify your vote by painting a false picture that Bush is anti-gun.  He isn't.  Name one anti-gun bill he has signed into law.  I can cite 51 anti-gun bills Kerry has supported.

RDak,
You said,
1.] Since Bush has been president, there has not been ONE anti-gun bill passed.  This is because not one anti-gun bill has been placed before him to sign, at least to my knowledge.  This is due the a marginally pro-gun House of Reps.

2]  If you value the 2nd amendment Kerry is NOT the right vote to cast. It's just that simple. Don't fight the facts. Apparently you are a Democrat who is wrestling with the fact that Kerry is extremely anti-gun and you are trying to justify your vote…
Good grief, where do you get the idea that I am for Scarry Kerry?!  I have never ever voted for a DemoRat for President.   In fact, I have not voted for a Democrat for any office for close to 15 years [that was local when I did].  Let me assure you, I will never vote for a derelect like Kerry!!!  I despise the DemoRats with a passion!!  The DemoRatic Party is 80%-90% corrupt through and through.  The Republicrat Party is ‘only’ 40-50% corrupt, and, though many now doubt this, there still may be a chance to reform it even though the blue-blood liberal wing has been successful in maintaining its control of the Party.  The way to reform it IS NOT by winking at declared treachery!! For example: Just look at all the Pro-gun key-note speakers they will have at the Convention!!  What does that tell you?
I was registered a Republican until 2 ½ years ago when I switched to Independent.  It made sense, since for he last 3 election cycles I have voted for someone like Harry Browne of the Libertarian Party or Howard Phillips of the Constitution Party.

3.] by painting a false picture that Bush is anti-gun  I never said that he was anything nearly as bad as Kerry.  For W’s credit, and this would be the ONLY reason I would VOTE FOR him, he did at least sign the Texas CC into law.  But the Administration has continued to declare that they will support efforts to take away your AR15!!  Like father, like son.  

4.]  Please read the Alexander article in its entirety.

Considering the heavy dues Kerry would be paying to the left and to the socialists if he wins, how could anyone here remotely consider voting for Kerry? I can just picture his cabinet and his picks for US Supreme Court. I can picture Chuck Schumer as Attorney General. Or Ted Kennedy.

Sure, I have issues with Bush that I am not happy with, but good Lord, I could not EVER vote for Kerry.
John

President Bush will never even see the bill, for aslong as we have people like Bill Frist of TENNESEE Holding the fort.

Ben

Momentary troll for MY entertainment.

*King John (Kerry) voice*

By order of their Majesties King John Kerry and Queen John Edwards:

"Henceforth, all the toilets in the kingdom shall be called........ JOHNS".....

DUBYA is the only choice for gun owners. Of course Bush has to pander to the anti-gunners...of course.He must appear sympathetic to the libs.He has no choice,but he WILL NOT sign the ban.Better get hip fast and start sending money to Bush.

266:  Hopefully you'll vote for Bush.  He'll keep our 2nd amendment alive and well IMHO.

The two parties have their "bases", which will be there no matter what they do.

Gun owners are in the Republican base, because the Democrats are known to be anti-gun.
High percentages of minorities, government dependents, and pro-abortion women are in the Democrat base, because  the Republicans will limit their government money, or abortion "priviledges".

In both cases, these "base groups" have nowhere else to turn. They will vote for their party no matter what, because the "alternative is worse".

If you haven't discovered this by now, then you aren't watching.

Both parties mostly ignore their base constituents, because they KNOW that these people have nowhere else to go. Even it the Republicans passed some gun control, they would not lose any votes, simply because "Kerry is worse". Even if Democrats limited some government payouts, they would not lose any votes, because "GW is worse".

The result of this limited choice in the 2 party system, is that only the "undecideds" get catered to by the politicians, because that is what determines the election. Sacrifices on both the right and left are made, to appeal to the middle.

So, politicians always will make some pro-left decisions and some pro-right decisions, and both bases get screwed in the resulting mess. It all comes down to what issue gets the most emotional media coverage.

This is why the original constitution required appointment of Senators by the States, and rigid "checks and balances" were instituted. Since the change to direct election of Senators, there is more "direct democracy" and less Republicanism, which resulted in more "changes by whim" of the poorly informed and easily media-manipulated masses. Checks and balances have been severely eroded, and most decisions are now made by "polls". This is direct democracy at its finest, and you can see the results in the drastic decline of our nation's political system.

We must return to Republicanism, and eschew direct democracy. Democracy is known to  be a very unstable form of government.