Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 7/9/2002 11:13:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2002 11:16:42 PM EDT by Imbroglio]
Agrees with Gore on trigger locks;but wants more enforcement Where They Agree: Regarding guns, Texas Gov. George W. Bush and Vice President Al Gore would, if elected president: [b]Support the current ban on assault weapons.[/b] Prohibit juveniles from possessing assault weapons. [b]Ban imports of high-capacity ammunition clips.[/b] Raise the minimum age for possessing a handgun from 18 to 21. Require that trigger locks be sold with handguns. [i]Source: Associated Press in Los Angeles Times Apr 21, 2000[/i] Bush has endorsed outlawing the import of certain high-capacity ammunition clips. Bush also would raise the legal age for handgun purchases from 18 to 21. [i]Source: Judy Holland, Hearst Newspapers Apr 14, 2000[/i] Supports stronger enforcement of existing gun laws, would provide more funding for aggressive gun law enforcement programs such as Project Exile in Richmond, Virginia Supports requiring instant background checks at gun shows by allowing gun show promoters to access the instant check system on behalf of vendors [b]Supports the current ban on automatic weapons Supports banning the importation of foreign made, “high-capacity” ammunition clips[/b] [i]Source: GeorgeWBush.com: ‘Issues: Policy Points Overview’ Apr 2, 2000[/i] Q: You are in favor of some gun controls? A: I’m in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of people who shouldn’t have them like felons & [b]juveniles[/b]. [i]Source: Des Moines Iowa GOP Debate Dec 13, 1999[/i] Bush said he supported efforts in the Republican-led Congress to raise the legal age for purchase of a handgun to 21 from 18 and to [b]ban large ammunition clips[/b]. [i]Source: Reuters, “Bush favors raising.” Aug 27, 1999[/i] [b][size=4]Bush opposed repeal of the 1994 assault weapon ban[/size=4][/b] and indicated his openness to Clinton’s call to raise the age of legal handgun ownership from 18 to 21. [i]Source: L.A. Times May 1, 1999[/i] An aide to Bush said the governor has “consistently supported since 1994 the idea of instant background checks at gun shows to make sure the people we don’t want to sell guns to are not buying guns.” [b]The aide noted that Bush previously signed legislation prohibiting anyone from carrying a weapon within 300 yards of a school[/b], and holding adults criminally liable if they allow a juvenile access to a loaded gun. [i]Source: CNN AllPolitics Apr 30, 1999[/i] [b]Bush expressed support for some gun control measures, including the ban on assault weapons[/b] and laws designed to keep guns out of the hands of juveniles. [i]Source: Dan Balz, The Washington Post Apr 25, 1999[/i] “People feel like they need to defend themselves.. [b]We need to know who they are and they should be licensed[/b] and trained.” [i]Source: Dan Balz, The Washington Post Apr 25, 1999[/i] Gov. Bush supports the following principles concerning gun issues: [b][size=4]Maintain state restrictions on the purchase and possession of firearms.[/size=4] Bush says he “supports the current ban of fully- automatic machine guns.”[/b] [i]Source: Vote Smart NPAT 1998 Jul 2, 1998[/i]
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 11:17:37 PM EDT
Got [b]ANY[/b] sources newer than 2000? Scott
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 11:21:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: Got [b]ANY[/b] sources newer than 2000? Scott
View Quote
Exactly what I was thinking. Admit it or not, it was the NRA that got him in the white house.. I would say that he owes the American gun owners a favor. BTW, some of those qoutes were kinda taken out of context. Keving67
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 11:26:50 PM EDT
No "high capacity clips", eh? Ok. I'll trade in my n>10 round clips for some n>10 round magazines. Though this means I'll probably use my SKS less. Is 8 "High Capacity"? Maybe less Garand too...
Link Posted: 7/9/2002 11:39:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/9/2002 11:40:49 PM EDT by Imbroglio]
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: Got [b]ANY[/b] sources newer than 2000? Scott
View Quote
Nothing but the administration's recent statement that "reasonable restrictions" and bans on guns that are "prone to criminal misuse" are not infringements on the 2nd Amendment. Feel free to try to find any quotes newer than 2000.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:32:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: Got [b]ANY[/b] sources newer than 2000? Scott
View Quote
And you somehow think he's changed his stance since then?
Originally Posted By keving67: Exactly what I was thinking. Admit it or not, it was the NRA that got him in the white house.. I would say that he owes the American gun owners a favor. BTW, some of those qoutes were kinda taken out of context. Keving67
View Quote
Why, hoping that Bush is somehow going to have the dramatic shift from what he's doing now to becoming pro-gun? Here's what he's going to tell the NRA when the AWB 2004 is on his desk.... What have you done for me lately? ...and we'll be stuck with the same, or possibly worse. Only now it'll be OK because it was Bush who let us keep our now Pre-Postban guns, and out Pre-preban guns. whoo hoo. what a way to go. And some of you people want to re-elect him already.....wait for him to prove that he's worth it first.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:34:46 AM EDT
Originally Posted By QBit: No "high capacity clips", eh? Ok. I'll trade in my n>10 round clips for some n>10 round magazines. Though this means I'll probably use my SKS less. Is 8 "High Capacity"? Maybe less Garand too...
View Quote
They can define "clip" any way they want. As the law stands now, it's an "ammunition feeding device." Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:42:06 AM EDT
[sarcasm]But would you have preferred if Al Gore banned "assault weapons"? If Gore banned high cap mags? If Gore were in the White House and said the 2nd am. isn't about the individual right to keep and bear arms instead of Bush saying that it does(except for full auto guns, and "assault weapons", and people who push a person in a drunken fight 40 years ago, and small handguns, and large handguns, and privacy w/o background checks, and gun shows, and people who are under 21, and guns that aren't locked up, and nonviolent criminals, and drug users, and teachers, and pilots, and passengers on planes, and ... )?[/sarcasm] So what exactly is the difference between bush and gore on guns? Not much. Just different words for the same goal: slow abolition of guns.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 12:51:31 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sfoo: Why, hoping that Bush is somehow going to have the dramatic shift from what he's doing now to becoming pro-gun? Here's what he's going to tell the NRA when the AWB 2004 is on his desk.... What have you done for me lately?
View Quote
I believe Bush is more pro-gun than he's able to let on. He was certanly pro-gun as Governor of Texas, and I don't think he's changed all that much on his stance. But he has to play politics at a much greater level as President than he ever did as Governor. But here's an idea. Let's keep any new bans from getting that far. Let's make it a point to remind those in Congress that the 94 AW caused some incumbents at the time to find their opponents elected. Let's remind them that anti-gun rhetoric cost Al Gore a lot of rural middle America, including his own home state which ultimately cost him the election. Let's remind Bush that the pro-gun crowd is generally the one that backs him 100%, and any machinations towards more gun control will cost him that support. Let's remind those sons of bitches at the NRA that we give two shits about hunting and the 1994 AW Ban and any legislation even remotely looking like a new implementaion needs to be lobbied against heavily. Let them know that they will lose your membership if they do not actively lobby against it.
...and we'll be stuck with the same, or possibly worse. Only now it'll be OK because it was Bush who let us keep our now Pre-Postban guns, and out Pre-preban guns. whoo hoo. what a way to go. And some of you people want to re-elect him already.....wait for him to prove that he's worth it first.
View Quote
The problem with rhetoric from the pro-gun crowd is that it never gets anything done. Say what you will, but at least when the anti-gun folks talk they get things done. If everyone who had a problem with the 94 AW ban actually did something instead of just talking about how it pisses them off, we'd see it gone with no possible chance of being implemented in the immediate future. Unfortunately, for the most part, we gun owners are all talk and no action. Only 4 million or so out of 80 million care enough to join the NRA. Hell, my grandmother has been a member of the NRA for 20 years now and she doesn't even own a gun, but when they started talking gun control back in the 80's she decided she didn't want some windbag deciding whether she could have one or not. I doubt there are many non-gun owners who are NRA members, but there sure are a lot of gun owners who won't even spare the price of a couple boxes of good ammo on joining. Then again, maybe that has something to do with the direction of the NRA itself, for good or for bad. Start mailing your Congressmen now. Start combatting the anti-gun groups at the local level now. Start recruiting members for the NRA/GOA/JPFO now. Otherwise, we're all screwed and we'll just have something else to bitch about come 2004. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:11:21 AM EDT
Originally Posted By GodBlessTexas: ...He was certanly pro-gun as Governor of Texas, and I don't think he's changed all that much on his stance. But he has to play politics at a much greater level as President than he ever did as Governor.
View Quote
Hence my previous statements in this thread. Politicians put their career ahead of what's right. And to think Bush isn't cut from the same stock as his dad and many others would be a mistake. Now, he can suprise us, and you deftly outline how to help ensure that a better route comes to pass. Of course, if 10% of the members here followed, it would be nice. If 20% did it would be a freakin' miracle. Liberals aren't stopping us, apathy is.
...Let's keep any new bans from getting that far. Let's make it a point to remind those in Congress that the 94 AW caused some incumbents at the time to find their opponents elected. Let's remind them that anti-gun rhetoric cost Al Gore a lot of rural middle America, including his own home state which ultimately cost him the election. Let's remind Bush that the pro-gun crowd is generally the one that backs him 100%, and any machinations towards more gun control will cost him that support.
View Quote
I'd love to believe that were true, but in case you haven't read it let me point you to another thread about the AWB we had recently where members were *STILL* going to vote for him if he resigns it.
Let's remind those SOB's at the NRA that we give two shits about hunting and the 1994 AW Ban and any legislation even remotely looking like a new implementaion needs to be lobbied against heavily. Let them know that they will lose your membership if they do not actively lobby against it.
View Quote
Relying on the NRA for anything other than more "send us money" notices is folly. And hunting isn't the issue.
...Unfortunately, for the most part, we gun owners are all talk and no action. Only 4 million or so out of 80 million care enough to join the NRA. Hell, my grandmother has been a member of the NRA for 20 years now and she doesn't even own a gun, but when they started talking gun control back in the 80's she decided she didn't want some windbag deciding whether she could have one or not. I doubt there are many non-gun owners who are NRA members, but there sure are a lot of gun owners who won't even spare the price of a couple boxes of good ammo on joining. Then again, maybe that has something to do with the direction of the NRA itself, for good or for bad.
View Quote
The media has been far to effective in portraying the NRA as a bunch of stupid idiots who want everyone to have machineguns carried concealed all the time. And people keep believing that. Where I used to work folks would joke about the NRA, and I would of course try to correct them, but they don't care. A few of the gun owners there did, but about half didn't.
Start mailing your Congressmen now. Start combatting the anti-gun groups at the local level now. Start recruiting members for the NRA/GOA/JPFO now. Otherwise, we're all screwed and we'll just have something else to bitch about come 2004.
View Quote
Now there's a sensible idea.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 1:51:32 AM EDT
Originally Posted By sfoo: Hence my previous statements in this thread. Politicians put their career ahead of what's right. And to think Bush isn't cut from the same stock as his dad and many others would be a mistake. Now, he can suprise us, and you deftly outline how to help ensure that a better route comes to pass. Of course, if 10% of the members here followed, it would be nice. If 20% did it would be a freakin' miracle. Liberals aren't stopping us, apathy is.
View Quote
I completely agree. I think we've taken enough crap for so long that a lot of us secretly believe it's hopeless. And when that is the case we are indeed our own worst enemy.
Relying on the NRA for anything other than more "send us money" notices is folly. And hunting isn't the issue.
View Quote
Yes, and no. I do not love the NRA, nor do I even like them. But they are currently the best thing we have until the GOA and/or JPFO gets to those kind of membership numbers. Make no mistake, the NRA is one of the most effective lobbying bodies in the country. The key is getting them to lobby for the issues that truly matter. And you're right, hunting isn't the issue. But it's specifically what the NRA seems to be most dedicated to.
The media has been far to effective in portraying the NRA as a bunch of stupid idiots who want everyone to have machineguns carried concealed all the time. And people keep believing that.
View Quote
But things don't stay liberal forever. We're seeing a definite shift to more moderate and even more conservative views in the popular media because those are the views held by a lot of America. The increased gun sale numbers post 9/11 show that people still believe in their heart of hearts that guns can protect them. It just takes something so scary as 9/11 to do it.
Start mailing your Congressmen now. Start combatting the anti-gun groups at the local level now. Start recruiting members for the NRA/GOA/JPFO now. Otherwise, we're all screwed and we'll just have something else to bitch about come 2004.
View Quote
Now there's a sensible idea.
View Quote
Let's hope people aren't so apathetic that they just ignore the problem. Now is the time for building up gun rights. The attitude of the average citizen is where it needs to be. Unfortunately, no one is acting upon it. Remember the Alamo, and God Bless Texas...
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 4:29:19 AM EDT
[size=4]And your answer to all this, Imbroglio, is.....vote for Gore next time, or for the Third Party wiener, or what?[/size=4] Forget the rest, Jeremiah, what do you suggest we do about this anti-gun nutjob, George W.? Let's hear your suggestions.... Eric The(IThoughtNot)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 5:14:38 AM EDT
Work like you are preparing for the worst, hope like George W. is the second coming of John Browning.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:08:23 AM EDT
Ya gotta wait for GW to get passed the Nov election...trying to hold on to Congress and hope for a conservative Senate...then wait for another couple years to his second term election...Give him a second term and a conservative congress and senate and some decent judges...perhaps then things will change for the better...one should hope for the best and prepare for the worst.. oh wow I actually agree with G-man again....scary..very scary
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:25:49 AM EDT
[b]Posted by GodBlessTexas[/b] [b]Make no mistake, the NRA is one of the most effective lobbying bodies in the country.[/b] The biggest and most effective is [b]AARP[/b] and they are extremely anti.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:29:54 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: [size=4]And your answer to all this, Imbroglio, is.....vote for Gore next time, or for the Third Party wiener, or what?[/size=4] Forget the rest, Jeremiah, what do you suggest we do about this anti-gun nutjob, George W.? Let's hear your suggestions.... Eric The(IThoughtNot)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Oh, you've got the right idea. "But I'm going to vote for W anyway, even if he signs a new ban in 2004, because if we don't the Democrats will win."[rolleyes][rolleyes] Then what? If W is elected again will he magically become a gun owner's best friend? [b](IThoughtNot)[/b]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:34:14 AM EDT
[b][i]Si vis pacem, para bellum![/i][/b] 'If you desire peace, prepare for war! That's a seeming contradiction that has been around since at least the time of Cicero, the Roman poet, author, and statesman. And it's the honest to gosh truth! [b]9divdoc and garandman[/b] get it, shouldn't the rest of you folks! What George W. Bush does or does not do respecting the AWB that comes up to expire in Sept., 2004, will depend solely upon the Congress that is elected in the 2002 elections later this Fall! If the Republicans regain control of the Senate, and maintain a better grip on the House, then there will be no need to worry about that despicable law being extending for another ten years, or, gulp, being made permanent! But when you get down to brass tacks, I am sitting here in my office with both a pre-ban AK and a post ban AK, within reach. Examining those two weapons carefully would reveal....almost nothing that could be viewed by someone not familiar with either weapon! No removable muzzle device, no bayonet lug? So what! The Clintonistas have done everything they could do to disarm us and still they have arrived at...nothing! Nothing! Heh-heh-heh! Nothing of any consequence to us in the short term, and the long term will depend solely upon what all of us who hold the RKBA dear, decide to teach our children and proselytize others concerning. If we preach our gun gospel, it will be heard. If we don't preach, it will never be heard, and it, and all of us, will be consigned to the dustbin of history, as simply a wild and starry eyed dream of foolish people who thought that they could defend themselves rather than allowing the government defend them! And the fools even thought those rights were given them by a divine Creator! If we preach and the message is not heard and harkened to by the people, then we have done our duty and cannot do any more. Let me know refresh your collective memories with a little remarked upon speech given, extemporaneously by Ronald Reagan at the close of the Republican National Convention in 1976, after he had lost that party's nomination to Gerald Ford. The crowd was on its feet, with Ford at the podium, shouting 'Reagan, Reagan, Reagan.' Ford shrugged and motioned to Ronald Reagan, sitting with Nancy in the 'nose-bleed' section of the stadium, to join him on the stage! [b]The crowd went bonkers![/b] As Reagan worked his way down to the stage, the crowd began to hush, and not a word was to be heard, as the Great Communicator approached the microphone, and, with the permission of Mr. Ford, began to address the crowd. [b]Now, do you want to hear what he said?[/b] Eric The(Hmmm?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:36:03 AM EDT
A simple question to all those bashing Bush. What is your REALISTIC answer? Yes, I think it would be great if some libertarian minded (not the current Libertarian Party of Harry Brown) candidates could be elected to all branches of government, but that is IDEALISTIC, not REALISTIC.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:43:14 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: What George W. Bush does or does not do respecting the AWB that comes up to expire in Sept., 2004, will depend solely upon the Congress that is elected in the 2002 elections later this Fall!
View Quote
That is true. But I hope you are not suggesting that W not be held accountable for any of his actions when the new bill does (or doesn't) reach his desk.
If the Republicans regain control of the Senate, and maintain a better grip on the House, then there will be no need to worry about that despicable law being extending for another ten years, or, gulp, being made permanent!
View Quote
It will only be a matter of time before a GOP controlled congress passes new gun controls. (Aren't Republicrats wonderful?)
If we preach our gun gospel, it will be heard. If we don't preach, it will never be heard, and it, and all of us, will be consigned to the dustbin of history, as simply a wild and starry eyed dream of foolish people who thought that they could defend themselves rather than allowing the government defend them! And the fools even thought those rights were given them by a divine Creator! If we preach and the message is not heard and harkened to by the people, then we have done our duty and cannot do any more.
View Quote
Complete 100% agreement, and I'm trying my best, as I hope most AR15.com'ers are too. Well said.
[b]Now, do you want to hear what he said?[/b]
View Quote
I read it when you posted the speech a few weeks ago. [:)]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:45:07 AM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76: So what exactly is the difference between bush and gore on guns?
View Quote
That if Gore were in office, we would have had dozens of gun control laws introduced and many of them passed, whereas with Bush we've had none.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:46:47 AM EDT
Eric is right. In short, Dubya is a stop gap measure that buys us time to preach the gospel of the gun. Politicians have NEVER been the answer to Americas needs. You Dubya bashers act as if he is the solution. He AIN'T. WE are. You Libertarians act as if some "player to be named later" is the solution to our problems. He AIN'T. WE are. So get off your @$$, quit whining about who does or doesn't occupy the White House, and go out and make your vision of a gun-plentiful America happen [b]YOURSELF.[/b]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:47:51 AM EDT
Originally Posted By LARRYG: A simple question to all those bashing Bush. What is your REALISTIC answer? Yes, I think it would be great if some libertarian minded (not the current Libertarian Party of Harry Brown) candidates could be elected to all branches of government, but that is IDEALISTIC, not REALISTIC.
View Quote
And this attitude is why that goal remains unrealistic. I would love to see Democrats win every election in the country, if it meant that 50% of Republicans were voting their conscience instead of for the lesser of two evils.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:54:51 AM EDT
Post from stubbs -
I would love to see Democrats win every election in the country, if it meant that 50% of Republicans were voting their conscience instead of for the lesser of two evils.
View Quote
Yes, being at the back of the room with absolutely no voice in what is happening in the front of the room is wonderful! Do you know what you're saying? Do you understand what the upshot of that would be? It would mean War. Just Civil War, with all its attendant horrors, that's all. Eric The(SeriouslyRealistic)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:58:26 AM EDT
Post from stubbs -
I read it when you posted the speech a few weeks ago.
View Quote
Really, I did? I had forgotten, but then you appear to have forgotten its content, as well! So bear with the others in the class, [b]stubbs[/b], maybe they didn't read the assignment a few weeks back, eh? Go to: [url]http://www.ar15.com/forums/topic.html?id=131238[/url] Eric The(Teaching)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 7:17:12 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2002 7:20:15 AM EDT by QuikSilver]
Originally Posted By stubbs: And this attitude is why that goal remains unrealistic. I would love to see Democrats win every election in the country, if it meant that 50% of Republicans were voting their conscience instead of for the lesser of two evils.
View Quote
The problem is that some people believe that the country is already on its way towards an inevitable end....some say since 1934, some since 1968. Either way its probably not the way many people would want it to go here. Exactly what someone else does by chosing the lesser of 2 evils is buys time. It will happen, its happened everywhere but here. Get yours while you can. Eventually they will have plugged all the holes in the plan. With the massive influx of immigrants from Mexico, almost everyone of them is a guaranteed vote for socialism. Its sad, but unless there is a drastic shift in the way things are going, nothing will change and inevitably there will no more guns....
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 5:42:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: Do you know what you're saying? Do you understand what the upshot of that would be?
View Quote
Yes, I know what I'm saying. The upshot would be that at least 25% of the voting population would have finally realized voting "just so the Democrats will lose" will get us no where different; it never has and it never will. And 25% of the voting population ain't bad! And Yes, I do remember what that Reagan speech says; and yes, I too am being SeriouslyRealistic.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 5:53:01 PM EDT
stubbs, the mistake you (and most libertarians and third-party types) are making is in assuming that if all the people for whom the RKBA voted third party, it would make a significant difference. It would not. The vast majority of people in the country would vote for other issues above the RKBA.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 5:53:50 PM EDT
Still ain't got no "puddin" huh, Imbroglio? Bush was our only choice. Whatever his faults, he's done more for the 2nd Ammendment than any other President. I'm glad we got him instead of Gwhore!
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:21:06 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter: stubbs, the mistake you (and most libertarians and third-party types) are making is in assuming that if all the people for whom the RKBA voted third party, it would make a significant difference. It would not. The vast majority of people in the country would vote for other issues above the RKBA.
View Quote
I contend that it would make a noticeable difference, but besides that, you are right. If the 10 million (very liberal estimate) RKBA folks vote their conscience, that would not change much in our favor. For a difference to be made, people who are concerned over and vote for security/4th amendment/1st amendment/etc would need to vote libertarian too. Common sense. But since this is a gun site, and we are all gun owners, I think it makes sense to concentrate on the RKBA wing of the political debate.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:31:43 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stubbs: I contend that it would make a noticeable difference, but besides that, you are right. If the 10 million (very liberal estimate) RKBA folks vote their conscience, that would not change much in our favor. For a difference to be made, people who are concerned over and vote for security/4th amendment/1st amendment/etc would need to vote libertarian too. Common sense.
View Quote
Won't happen though. The Libertarian party lacks the leadership to draw those groups together.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:33:19 PM EDT
So what do we do fearless autoposter leader Imbrog|io? I must have missed your follow up post.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:53:02 PM EDT
ETH Post [quote}Yes, being at the back of the room with absolutely no voice in what is happening in the front of the room is wonderful! Do you know what you're saying? Do you understand what the upshot of that would be? It would mean War. Just Civil War, with all its attendant horrors, that's all. Eric The(SeriouslyRealistic)Hun [/quote] So what is your point? Sometimes in order to save a village you have to destroy it. Voting for modern day Republicans will get you to same place as voting for Demoncrats, only a little slower. I'm tired of voting for the lesser of two evils. Yea, you are right, not voting for Bush will cause you trouble. But shit, you are going to get the trouble later on. Might as well stand up now and fight for what is really right!
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 6:54:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By GodBlessTexas: I doubt there are many non-gun owners who are NRA members
View Quote
You'd be surprised at how many politicians are NRA members yet don't own any guns. You can guess why.
But things don't stay liberal forever. We're seeing a definite shift to more moderate and even more conservative views in the popular media because those are the views held by a lot of America.
View Quote
I think it is more of the fact that the public news networks are losing viewers in droves to cable news services that are more moderate and conservative. They're doing it for survival reasons, the same reason the NRA now all of a sudden wants to get rid of the AW ban.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 7:20:12 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stubbs: The upshot would be that at least 25% of the voting population would have finally realized voting "just so the Democrats will lose" will get us no where different; it never has and it never will.
View Quote
Really, then tell me in what year the DEMO-controlled Congress passed [b]Brady II[/b], you remember the Plan they had for us gun owners - any more than ten weapons or 1,000 rounds of ammo stored in your home and you had to apply for and obtain an 'Arsenal License'! Gee, I don't seem to remember that law passing and being signed by Clinton, nor do I remember having to make certain that all city statutes and ordinances were complied with to obtain that Arsenal License. What happened? The Congressional Republican landslide of 1994, is what happened! Did it make a difference? You tell us if it made a difference in your life! Eric The(ItDidMine!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 7:30:17 PM EDT
Post from Kroagnon -
You'd be surprised at how many politicians are NRA members yet don't own any guns. You can guess why.
View Quote
Stupid politicians know that the NRA is the 800 pound gorilla on Capitol Hill, even if a vast number of otherwise intelligent gunowners don't seem to understand that simple fact! Eric The(NRALifeMemberSince1976)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 9:07:57 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2002 9:12:03 PM EDT by Imbroglio]
Originally Posted By SeaDweller: So what do we do fearless autoposter leader Imbrog|io? I must have missed your follow up post.
View Quote
Just keep doing the same thing your are already doing and hope there will be a different outcome. I am just reading all of the fantastic rationalizations.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 9:28:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/10/2002 9:29:14 PM EDT by SeaDweller]
Originally Posted By Imbroglio:
Originally Posted By SeaDweller: So what do we do fearless autoposter leader Imbrog|io? I must have missed your follow up post.
View Quote
Just keep doing the same thing your are already doing and hope there will be a different outcome. I am just reading all of the fantastic rationalizations.
View Quote
Nah, I know the future has already been determined. You are taking the path they have laid out for you. There will always be anti-gun fcks in congress proposing gun crap. This will never end. We are doomed. Shit, now you're making me sound like you!
I am just reading all of the fantastic rationalizations.
View Quote
Hopefully not from me!
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 9:40:26 PM EDT
Originally Posted By RikWriter:
Originally Posted By libertyof76: So what exactly is the difference between bush and gore on guns?
View Quote
That if Gore were in office, we would have had dozens of gun control laws introduced and many of them passed, whereas with Bush we've had none.
View Quote
Really? With a Republican House? I think this brings up a good point. Who the President is doesn't really matter that much. It is who controls the House and Senate.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 9:44:59 PM EDT
Originally Posted By Imbroglio:
Originally Posted By DScottHewitt: Got [b]ANY[/b] sources newer than 2000? Scott
View Quote
Nothing but
View Quote
Nothing but stating what no president or supreme court justice has had the cajones to state in more than 40 years!!!!! Fuck man, this guy is as pro-gun as any president is ever going to get given that 60% of the people still approved of Clinton during the impeachment and 15% of the people are selfdestructive dolts like you who spread their votes among the dozen other singleissue noname thirdparty imbeciles or simply stay home and pretend they're too inegmatically wise to cast a vote for either of the two people who actually have more than a snowball's chance in hell of really becoming president. Face reality and grow up. Adapt improvise and overcome but don't be a fucking moron by ignoring the fact that the foundation of actually putting US Law and the Constitution into day-to-day practice is based on what's "reasonable". Your view of the Constitution and the 2nd amendment make you sound like one of those nutjob creationist bible literalists.
Link Posted: 7/10/2002 10:09:49 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SeaDweller: So what do we do fearless autoposter leader Imbrog|io? I must have missed your follow up post.
View Quote
We'll do what the Soviets did when their government turned on them. Hunker down and wait it out. All evil empires fall with time. Stick to your family and faith in secret, grudgingly obey in public. Or take a tip from the IRA.....
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 6:24:00 AM EDT
Originally Posted By libertyof76:
Originally Posted By RikWriter: That if Gore were in office, we would have had dozens of gun control laws introduced and many of them passed, whereas with Bush we've had none.
View Quote
Really? With a Republican House?
View Quote
Yep. Would have happened. There are enough Republican reps in the House that would have exchanged a yes vote on a gun law for political favors later.
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 7:53:11 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/11/2002 7:54:37 AM EDT by Branson]
If Bush is pro-gun than why does the White House oppose handguns in airliner cockpits? I guess he would rather chase our airliners around with F16s flying combat air patrols over our OWN country, costing millions of dollars a day, threatening to shoot down innocent civilians with AMRAAM missiles in the event of a hijaking, than allow those innocent civilians to exercise their right to self-defense. Yeah, Bush is pro-gun...
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 7:59:03 AM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun:
Originally Posted By stubbs: The upshot would be that at least 25% of the voting population would have finally realized voting "just so the Democrats will lose" will get us no where different; it never has and it never will.
View Quote
Really, then tell me in what year the DEMO-controlled Congress passed [b]Brady II[/b], you remember the Plan they had for us gun owners - any more than ten weapons or 1,000 rounds of ammo stored in your home and you had to apply for and obtain an 'Arsenal License'! Gee, I don't seem to remember that law passing and being signed by Clinton, nor do I remember having to make certain that all city statutes and ordinances were complied with to obtain that Arsenal License. What happened? The Congressional Republican landslide of 1994, is what happened! Did it make a difference? You tell us if it made a difference in your life! Eric The(ItDidMine!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
If half of those House GOP reps were Libertarian, it still wouldn't have passed.
Originally Posted by RikWriter: Yep. Would have happened. There are enough Republican reps in the House that would have exchanged a yes vote on a gun law for political favors later.
View Quote
How can one say that and, in practically the same breath, support the election of GOP candidates?
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 8:00:22 AM EDT
Post from Branson -
If Bush is pro-gun than why does the White House oppose handguns in airliner cockpits?
View Quote
Who knows? Just another piece of incredibly bad advice that he's been getting from folks who ought to know better! But, George W. is pro-gun enough to have campaigned on, pushed through the Legislature, and signed, a CCW, which shows me his original thoughts on arming citizens! He'd better wake up though and smell the coffee, and not that 'espresso' crap they've been serving him in DC! Eric The(HeNeedsToComeToTexasMoreOften!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 8:38:17 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/11/2002 8:41:03 AM EDT by oneshot1kill]
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 12:04:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stubbs: How can one say that and, in practically the same breath, support the election of GOP candidates?
View Quote
Because we don't have any choice right now but to try to improve the Republican party from within.
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 3:09:11 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: He'd better wake up though and smell the coffee, and not that 'espresso' crap they've been serving him in DC!
View Quote
Does anybody not see that Bush is NOT making these decisions of his own accord? Our country is run by a junta headed by Dick Cheney and also Colin Powell, Condoleeza Rice and Donald "take that hill again and again" Rumsfeld. Cheney opposes guns in cockpits. Cheney is only as pro gun as the money comes his way. The NRA obviously hasn't been donating lately.
Link Posted: 7/11/2002 3:36:10 PM EDT
Originally Posted By stubbs: If the 10 million (very liberal estimate) RKBA folks ...
View Quote
I'd love to see that many folks as Pro-RKBA. But where are they? Maybe half that number, I would agree with. Maybe.
Origianlly Posted By Reaganite: this guy is as pro-gun as any president is ever going to get
View Quote
And he's still not pro-RKBA. He's politician. Politics come first. If you still believe he is, well, here's your sign, have a nice day.
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: But, George W. is pro-gun enough to have campaigned on, pushed through the Legislature, and signed, a CCW, which shows me his original thoughts on arming citizens!
View Quote
Please, by all means, keep thinking his past is going to make him Pro in the future. His mind is on what he has to do to get re-elected, not on helping us out.
Originally Posted By Imbroglio: Just keep doing the same thing your are already doing and hope there will be a different outcome.
View Quote
Which for most pro-RKBA folks is exactly NOTHING but bitch about stuff on gun boards and in the shop to their buddies. See page one of this thread for God Bless Texas' great post on how to make the AWB go away.
Top Top