Anybody think that publicly he is saying, "Yes, I support the renewal of the AWB Ban of '94."

Then behind the scenes he is calling in all his "chips" in Congress saying, "If that bill gets to my desk you all are done!"

I think he may be hedging his bets.  Looking good to the casual democrats/fence sitters, but knowing full well that it will NEVER make it to his hand.

Huh, huh?

Anybody else agree?  

Well, then what does the below signify...


Thursday, May 08, 2003

WASHINGTON — President Bush favors a bill introduced Thursday that would permanently ban assault weapons, but he is awaiting an administration study on how effective the current ban has been, White House spokesman Ari Fleischer said.

The outcome of the study will not affect Bush's support for the bill introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., said another Bush spokesman, Scott McClellan.

Nor will the National Rifle Association's opposition to the bill, Fleischer said.

The NRA supported Bush in the 2000 election, pouring more than $1 million into his campaign. Last year, the group's leaders took credit for putting Bush in the White House.

But their opposition to the Feinstein bill pits the group against Bush. Fleischer said Bush didn't care.

"Often, the president will agree, of course, with the National Rifle Association. On this issue, he does not," Fleischer said.

Asked whether Bush believes the 1994 law has been effective, Fleischer said, "There are indeed studies under way that will determine that, and we'll await those studies to make any final conclusions."

McClellan said the study was being conducted by the National Institutes of Justice, an arm of the Department of Justice. It wasn't clear when it will be completed.

Bush backs the bill regardless of the study's findings because he thinks the assault weapons ban is "reasonable," McClellan said.

Fleischer declined to predict whether the Feinstein measure will pass.

But Karl Rove, President Bush's senior political adviser, predicted it will fail, according to a gun-rights activist who saw Rove speak Wednesday in New Hampshire.

The activist, Sam Cohen of Concord, N.H., said in a telephone interview that Rove "said that Bush was sticking to his position, but that Congress would never pass the legislation."

Fleischer was asked about Rove's comments but neither confirmed nor denied them. A Rove spokeswoman did not return calls seeking comment.

The Feinstein bill would also would ban the import of large-capacity ammunition clips. The 1994 law prohibited only the domestic manufacture of large clips.

Sen. Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island is the lone Republican sponsor of the bill. "We need the president's help to get the votes," Chafee said.

The Senate sponsors predicted they would get their measure through the Senate, but said the bill faced a tougher road in the House of Representatives.

"The president is going to have to say to some on the extreme, 'You're wrong.' But he's going to have to do more than say it. He's going to have to work for it," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., the lead sponsor of the ban when he served in the House in 1994.

Fleischer was noncommittal about how much energy Bush will expend in getting the measure passed. "You'll be able to judge the president's actions by observing them yourselves," he said.

Feinstein addressed gun-control supporters who complained that her bill is too weak and should instead be modeled on California's assault weapons ban. Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., and Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., are taking that approach in a House bill they authored.

"We'd like it to be better, but we know if we push it too far, we'll have no bill," Feinstein said.

Indeed, a ploy!

A ploy?

I hope so.

You know, I'm not happy with what Fleischer said on the subject....

....but I still have this lingering suspicion it's all politics. I think he's saying it in the hope it won't reach him.

I wish I had more to present here in terms of evidence, but it's just a gut feel.

Mark my words, the AW ban will never be passed, the president will never have to deal with the issue.

``We have the votes in the House and Senate to make sure this never sees the light of day,'' said Grover Norquist, president of Americans for Tax Reform. ``It's never getting to the president's desk. It is a dead man walking.''

I dunno.

But I do know that this subject is one of the signs that separates Bush from a truly GREAT president like Reagan. I support Bush. But in a scenario such as this Reagan would probably just say "assault weapons ban? We don't need no stinkin' assault weapons ban!" If Reagan didn't like something, he said so. He wasn't perfect, and he had his own 'scandals'. But he was confident and just mowed-over most of the liberal crap out there. I miss that. Evidently junior didn't learn from his dad that comprimise with liberals does NOT work -- EVER.

People must realize that we, as Assault Weapons Fans, are a minority.
As much as I'd EMOTIONALLY appreciate GWB loudly and publically supporting the repeal/sunset of the AWB....

....I know that might not be the smartest thing to do.

Whatever Bush does or supports, his liberal enemies will oppose.  Assault Weapons is a pretty easy issue to demagogue and demonize.
I think a low profile is the best position, politically.
At least if one is goal oriented, and that goal being the AWB sunset.

I do beleive GWB doesn't ever want to see this bill reach his desk. However, I do think he agrees personally with the AWB and WILL sign it if it does reach his desk.

 S-I

What if some of the stupid [b]R[/b] party members change their vote because of this alleged ploy?  They might think he really wanted it, possible right?  That would not be good.

I [b]hope[/b] it is a political ploy.  You have to listen very closely to exactly what is said, and then try to see how it fits in the Big Picture.

It would enable him to say, "It wasn't me- Congress let the law die", which could be expedient in working with several groups.  There is an election coming up next year and this could be useful.

As I said, I [i]hope[/i] it is a ploy.  I didn't vote, though, because it's too close to call.  I'd just be expressing an opinion with nothing to back it.

A ploy? Oh you guys are so deaf.....how many times does the man have to say that he is against the second amendment before you believe him?

When did he ever say he was against the second amendment?

[noclue]

Ed, I think the guy is telling us what we don't wanna hear, and some of us aren't paying attention. The man says he supports re-authorization. No place to hide there. Sad as it is, I predict passage, and him signing the bill. Look for someone else besides a repub elected president in 2004, 'cause I think enough gun owners will get off the Bush boat. Those on the fence, will go Constitution party, or some such......We got 'em elected in '94, (I was on my county Republican Central Committee), by working like hell. They made promises then, like abolishing dept. of education. Bush and the repubs just expanded it with Ted Kennedy by his side. This is not a magic show. I think it IS a duck.  [:D]

[beathorse]

I'm hearing his words loud and clear, so let's be clear on that.  I have also read NUMEROUS articles on the subject.

However, there is a lot of political wrangling happening that is not necessarily "public".

My theory is that he is saying what may be unpopular to be said, KNOWING, that the outcome will be so joyous that it might not matter since the AWB will not come to him to sign.

If he outright says, "This is a crock, the AWB never stopped one ounce of crime, etc, etc..."

The Democrats won't FEEL good about him and may not vote for him since he is so "soft" on domestic "crime" issues.

If he supports it outright, and I am wrong, oh well.  We won't lose anything we already have by re-ratifying the bill.

I might not vote for him if it comes through, but I would likely vote for him if it doesn't...

I still think it is a ploy to politicize it and make the issue "less than clear".

Ed

 

Just like he said that he opposed Campaign Finance Reform, yet signed it anyway?
Just like he supported small, leaner government, yet proposed and signed the biggest increase of Big Government ever?
Just like he claims to love freedom, yet supports stuff like Total Information Awareness and signed the Patriot Act?

Bush is not Reagan. He [b]lies[/b] just like all other politicians. His position is one of the few, if not the ONLY, campaign promise he's kept. No Bush for 2004!

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say if they saw people claiming that the 2nd Amendment is a "special interest"? Indeed, I wonder what they would say to so-called gun owners like you who agree with it?

Hello AWB.
Goodbye GWB.

Hello Democrat President
Hello:

Registration
Liberal SUPREME COURT JUSTICES

Goodbye Individual Gun Rights

How sad that 38% of the poll agrees with you. George Bush claims to be a born again believer. Do you and 38% of this board think he is playing a Clintonesque word game? That he is a lier? So far in his presidency his word has been good. There's NO reason to believe this is any different.



And what about those of us who fought the original AWB?? They barely got it through, and they controlled the house, senate, and executive branchs. Now we control all three, and we should re-elect them for passing it?
THE AWB is a direct infringement of the 2nd, on precisely the type of weapons most suitable for militia use. We are supposed to be reversing gun laws, not just hanging on.



I take the man at his word. I have no evidence Bush is a game player.....

Yes it is a ploy to ban "assault weapons", just like Daddy did.

But you are allowing yourself to be pained by the extreme socialist left. In no way does anybody who owns an AR-15 an "special interest extremist". It's all or nothing for any compromise is a loss. Even the NRA seems to be realizing that, though I want to see them commit actions to back up their words.

It should offer comfort in knowing that those of us who believed that he is an honest, great president, should no longer delude ourselves to consider him an asset to our cause.

I have more than I'll ever need, but it's never enough. [:)]

You mean the Ronald Reagan who signed the 86 Machine Gun Ban? Or were you referring to the Ronald Reagan who supported the Brady Bill once he was out of office?

[shock] Uhh, excuse me? Campaign Finance Reform Act? Patriot Act? Total Information Awareness? Homeland Security Act?

He's a born-again [b]liar[/b]! How can u possibly say he's a "man of his word"?! [rolleyes]

To be fair to Reagan, anybody with any sense who supported the Second Amendment would have signed the 1986 Firearms Owners Protection Act, even with the machine gun ban provisions.

Here is an excellent history on the bill:
[url=www.guncite.com/journals/hardfopa.html]Firearm Owners Protection Act[/url]

With this bill, the NRA was so successful at cutting off future attacks on the Second amendment that most gunowners still don't appreciate how their bacon was saved because Volkmer was way ahead of the game here.

Without this bill, there would be no "gunshow loophole" for antis to bitch about because there would be no gun shows. Personal sales wouldn't be excluded from requiring an FFL. You would still have to register ammo purchases just like a firearm. The ATF could still "inspect" you out of the firearms business without any due process to protect you. Finally, the government could still have brought you into court and leave you holding the court costs even if you proved your innocence.

The bill was never supposed to pass at all. The Democrats had an 80 vote edge in the House and had killed the bill every year for the past seven years in committee. They got so cocky about it, that they assumed it would die in committee again in 1986 and didn't bother to prepare any alternate bill that gutted Volkmer's original proposal.

So they were shocked when Volkmer got the majority of the House to support a motion to force the bill out of committee on short notice... the Dems didn't have any time to stop him so in the last few minutes of committee debate they slapped the machinegun ban on the bill hoping that would kill it on the House floor or give them another chance to kill it in a Senate/House conference committee (which the Democrat House would get to control).

The Republicans barely controlled the Senate though and they avoided the conference by taking the House bill direct to the Senate floor with no changes. So they took the bill warts and all rather than give the Dems a chance to kill it once again.

Ever hear the old saying, "Everything before the 'but' is a lie?"

Oh, yeah. We can all sit here and watch them try and out-kook one another...

Although everyone seems to be focusing on Bush and what he'll do if it hits his desk, the problem is that if it does make it to his desk, we've already lost.  Really, with a Republican house and senate, there's no way a gun control bill should ever make it to the oval office.  We should be obsessing with what our individual senators and reps are going to do with it, so as to prevent Bush from ever having to deal with it.

Well, that is key to defeating it -- I wanted a little more "background" to the politics of it.  I think he is a shrewd businessman first, ENRON, etc, and a politician second.

He is telling the "company" one thing so that the EEO and HR folks are happy{Dems}, and he schmoozing the CFO and accounting {Congressional Repubs} to make sure the "profit margins" are right for when the bonuses come out {re-election campaign}....[:D]

Just my take on it...

I don't think anybody is disputing that. Indeed, if it passes the Senate then we need to do another cleanout in '04 like what happened in '94. If it passses the House then something is really really wrong.

But a high-profile Republican (in name only, sadly) like Bush saying that he supports the ban because it's "reasonable" and "best for all Americans", might turn some votes in favor who might not have supported it. From what I hear Feinstein wouldn't even have sent the bill if Bush said he would veto it.

We need to make sure it doesn't even get out of commitee in the Senate OR House as a rebuke not only to the extreme socialist left, but as a statement to RINOs like Bush that we won't stand for this crap.



I'm not taking a swing at Liberty. Just trying to figure out why he thinks Bush is a man of his word when his actions speak otherwise. [>:/]

Yeah, you shouldn't have to qualify a statement with "but"......

Why pick a fight with the democraps when they're making total idiots of themselves with nothing more to bitch about than Him landing on an aircraft carrier? Don't give them any REAL issues to complain about. KILL IT IN COMMITTEE!!!Write your senators and congressmen today! If your rep's suck, write to another one, even if your not in their area, and let them know how you feel. IF THEY DO SUCK, WRITE THEM AND TELL THEM THAT YOU WILL DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO SEE THAT THEY ARE IN THE UNEMPLOYMENT LINE AFTER THE NEXT ELECTIONS!

So far Bush has meant everything that he has said.  I see no reason to doubt him now.  From all appearances he believes "assault weapons" are bad and that the "ban" was a good thing.

I do hold out hope that if the uselessness of the legislation is illustrated to him that he might change his mind.  I don't think he's a gun-grabber, but I don't think he's a staunch advocate for the Second Amendment either.

Are we graded on spelling??  [:D]

During the campaign, he said he opposed it, but would sign it if passed. SAME as the AWB!! That's why when he signed it, he said it was un-constitutional. That's why he will sign the AWB.



He supported all the above, how is that lying?




I have not seen him turn his back on any of the socialist schemes he campaigned on, have you? George Bush tells it like it is, and some eat it up. Where has he lied?

He hasn't lied and is the greatest president of all time. No other leader of the free world in history has given the people, through legislation, freedom from fear. I wish you you all that insist on holding on to 200 year old outdated principles, would get with the 21st century and realize that the government we have now only holds benevolence in it's heart for people everywhere.