Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 5/8/2003 10:25:36 AM EDT
Just watched todays White House briefing...

Ari Fleisher was asked if Dubya would renew the AWB... according to Fleisher's response, the Pres. currently supports the renewal of the AWB, however he is waiting on the results of several studies on it's crime fighting effectivness to "further inform his position...". Sounds like a lot of wiggle room if you ask me...

Another reporter reminded Ari that just yesterday, Carl Rove (senior adviser to Dubya) said that the AWB would "never make it out of congress"... ahhh, the politics of politics... leaving the Pres. to play to both side... i.e. he can say he'll renew, but if it never gets to his desk... he's off the hook with both sides...

FYI.

STP.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 10:38:48 AM EDT
Sherman, It looks like we may soon be joining you Canucks installing flash hiders on our AR rifles. Bush is now realizing he's made a HUGE mistake supporting renewal. CRC
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 11:11:06 AM EDT
I wrote to him explaining that he will never win over anti-gun voters. But he can alienate us, the pro-gun voters that won the election for him. I hope he listens. I also hope we fight hard enough in Congress that the bill never makes it to his desk. Kill the beast as quick as you can....
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 11:41:46 AM EDT
Posted by John_Wayne777...
I wrote to him explaining that he will never win over anti-gun voters. But he can alienate us, the pro-gun voters that won the election for him.
View Quote
[b]This should be the core statement in every letter, fax & E-mail that is sent to Pres. Bush concerning the AW ban.[/b] Throw in constitutional arguments & crime statistics if you like, but the central issue we need to drive home to GWB is that it is politically suicide for him to even pay lip service to the idea of a renewed AW ban!!! He may be sporting high job approval numbers [i]now[/i], but trust me... things are going to tighten up for him the closer we get to the 04 elections. He can't afford to alienate his base, and he needs to be reminded of this early & often!
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 3:38:18 PM EDT
Send the President a note, or a fax every month. And your Congressmen too.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 4:23:04 PM EDT
Everyone needs to write him and Chaney and remind them of two things: (1) he got elected because gun owners voted against Gore and (2) his dad lost because gun owners turned against him when he signed the 91 import ban.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 4:30:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2003 4:35:32 PM EDT by LoginName]
My letter to the Prez. (not e-mail, although I suppose I could do that as well). Dear Mr. President: I am writing to you to express my concern regarding upcoming legislation that would extend the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. I am well aware of your previous statements that you support the current ban as written, and that if such a bill was passed by both houses of Congress, that you would sign it. While I find that troubling what really concerns me is how enthusiastically you would petition fellow Republicans to enact new legislation… be it in it’s current form or something much worse. I’m imploring you not to take any active role in seeking an extension of the ban (as has been demanded by certain Democratic legislators). I’m a veteran and gun owner of many years and take great pride in our country’s firearms heritage. It would be an abomination if my children and grandchildren could be denied a right to an activity I’ve always respected, enjoyed and admired. Seeking to ban a certain class of firearms based on their appearance and alleged capabilities is ineffective and senseless legislation that only provides incentive for the anti-gun people to erode our heritage even further. The preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights is something I will not compromise on or ignore. It is my hope that you and fellow Republicans will take an active stance to preserve that right. Respectfully, LoginName :)
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 4:37:29 PM EDT
Originally Posted By LoginName: My letter to the Prez. (not e-mail, although I suppose I could do that as well). Dear Mr. President: I am writing to you to express my concern regarding upcoming legislation that would extend the 1994 Assault Weapons ban. I am well aware of your previous statements that you support the current ban as written, and that if such a bill was passed by both houses of Congress, that you would sign it. While I find that troubling what really concerns me is how enthusiastically you would petition fellow Republicans to enact new legislation… be it in it’s current form or something much worse. I’m imploring you not to take any active role in seeking an extension of the ban (as has been demanded by certain Democratic legislators). I’m a veteran and gun owner of many years and take great pride in our country’s firearms heritage. It would be an abomination if my children and grandchildren could be denied a right to an activity I’ve always respected, enjoyed and admired. Seeking to ban a certain class of firearms based on their appearance and alleged capabilities is ineffective and senseless legislation that only provides incentive for the anti-gun people to erode our heritage even further. The preservation of our 2nd Amendment rights is something I will not compromise on or ignore. It is my hope that you and fellow Republicans will take an active stance to preserve that right. Respectfully, LoginName :)
View Quote
Good letter - nice but good.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 4:48:57 PM EDT
newspeak, double good there going to rase choco to 2 grams per week, double good ,double good 1984
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 5:37:05 PM EDT
Good Luck !!!!
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 6:32:30 PM EDT
Canucks can have flash hiders? Also. Mabey someday we can repeal the Machine Gun ban or at least make some kinda license to own a new one.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 7:47:18 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ZRH: Canucks can have flash hiders? quote] The AWB doesn't extend to canada ;-)
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 8:48:16 PM EDT
President Bush's E-Mail address is: president@whitehouse.gov Tips: Be polite, and be reasonable. Also, be brief!
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 9:20:17 PM EDT
Having been a White House volunteer reading W's mail (by March 2001 they were flooded!), I can state that brief is good, polite is essential, and please use spell-checking software first. Cheers, Otto
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 9:48:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By ZRH: Canucks can have flash hiders?
View Quote
Yup... bayo lugs and tele-stocks galore up here in the GWN... however, 5 rounds max in the mag... you can buy 30 rounders, but they're all pinned to 5... We have our own "firearms issues" up here mind you... beside the fact that ALL of our guns have to be registered with the Regime... the registry (setup in 1998) has run over budget by almost $900,000,000.00... no shit... that's NINE HUNDRED MILLION DOLLARS...and counting... Fact... there are more firearms in "private hands" in the US then there are people in Canada... the best estimates are that there's something between 3 and 11 million guns in Canada, but no one really knows... current NRA membership runs about 4.5 million people... that's almost the entire populations of the Provinces of British Columbia and Alberta combined (or 2/3 of western Canada)... STP.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 10:17:10 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/8/2003 10:18:18 PM EDT by Edge767]
I've just sent five letters: [list] [*]Two to my Representatives.[/*] [*]Two to my Senators.[/*] [*]One to the President.[/*] [/list] I'm going to send new and different letters to them each month. I'm also going to collect their responses (if any). It should be interesting.
Link Posted: 5/8/2003 10:17:43 PM EDT
If only we could rollback to pre-1986 laws. Actually I hear about the registry alot. We get Canadian radio and TV here in upstate NY. I just wasnt real clear on the details. Not supporting gun control here but at least in Canada they're not afraid of drive by bayonetings or evil flash hiders. lol Thanx for the info.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 1:49:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2003 1:54:00 AM EDT by M4C]
Originally Posted By Potter_Sherman_T: Fact... there are more firearms in "private hands" in the US then there are people in Canada...
View Quote
The ratio is something like 8:1 By most estimates, there are some 200 million firearms in private American hands (to roughly 25 million Canada population). Canada may be a poor comparison: there are quite possibly more [I]small arms[/I] in America [B]than there are in possession of all the armed forces of the planet combined.[/B] Safe to say, wouldn't you think?
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 3:36:37 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2003 3:37:12 AM EDT by Beowulf]
Well, probably not. Just counting the AK's, there were over 50 million produced. That's a mighty good start towards 200 million and most of them are probably still working, somewhere.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 5:24:58 AM EDT
Originally Posted By ZRH: If only we could rollback to pre-1986 laws.quote] How about we roll back to 1776 law and go by the constitution like it's supposed to be. The right to bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED. Where in that statement does it say machineguns, and short barreled rifles, with this doodad or that doodad are restricted? Most people like to use the argument that in those days they had muzzloaders so they couldn't possibly have comprehended the dangers of modern military weapons weapons. Well think of it this way... the rifles the farmer used back then were the EXACT same rifles the military used, the kentucky long rifle, kentucky pistol and the brown bess. At that time, these weapons were considered the deadiest and most modern firearms in the world.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 5:46:55 AM EDT
The US constition was 1789 not 1776
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 5:54:30 AM EDT
Most people like to use the argument that in those days they had muzzloaders so they couldn't possibly have comprehended the dangers of modern military weapons weapons.
View Quote
When people give me this ignorant a$$ argument I tell them thats why the Founding Fathers built the ammendment system into the Constitution. If a part of the Constitution no longer fits the times you pass an Ammendment. But since it is very unlikely that they could get one passed, the just get liberal judges to bypass the Constitution by "interpreting" it.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:13:35 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2003 8:17:36 AM EDT by RenegadeX]
Originally Posted By Potter_Sherman_T: Just watched todays White House briefing... Ari Fleisher was asked if Dubya would renew the AWB... according to Fleisher's response, the Pres. currently supports the renewal of the AWB, however he is waiting on the results of several studies on it's crime fighting effectivness to "further inform his position...". Sounds like a lot of wiggle room if you ask me...
View Quote
The most sickening part was when he said re-enacted it was a "campaign promise". If the [so-called] assault weapons ban is re-enacted, Bush will not be re-elected, nor will the Republicans mantain control of the Senate or House. When Republicans re-gained control of the House in 1996, they voted to REPEAL it. It PASSED overwhelmingly. The Democratic Senate did nothing, and it died. Any Republican who by now has not figured out Gun Control is a losing issue is an idiot. REPEALING Gun Control is a WINNING issue. Almost all Gun Control Laws were enacted when Republicans were a minority in Congress. Republicans should be voting to REPEAL Gun laws, not enact them. This is a Democratic Trap, and Republicans fall for it time and time again, because of biased media coverage. The reality is, a Republican can only lose votes on gun control, as no liberal is going to suddenly vote for them if they pass a gun law. But a lot of conservatives will stay home, or vote somewhere else. See 1992 election when Bush41 passed a boat load of gun control, and promised more.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:16:08 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2003 8:18:48 AM EDT by RenegadeX]
Originally Posted By Edge767: I've just sent five letters: [list] [*]Two to my Representatives.[/*] [*]Two to my Senators.[/*] [*]One to the President.[/*] [/list]
View Quote
Don't forget the power players in the House and Senate, who actually control whether legislation gets to the floor for a vote: Speakers and Majority leaders.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:19:49 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2003 8:22:26 AM EDT by Energizer]
If they don't renew it, they still have til September 2004 to do so... If they renew it, would that extend it another 10 years from the date of the renewal, since they are "renewing it" not making it permanent?
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:47:06 AM EDT
"If they renew it, would that extend it another 10 years from the date of the renewal, since they are "renewing it" not making it permanent?" Actually the way the new legislation submitted in the Senate yesterday is worded, it would make in effect make it permanent! See below: The legislation would reauthorize the 1994 assault weapons ban by striking the sunset date from the original law. This would: * Maintain the ban on the manufacture and importation of 19 types of common military style assault weapons - for all time. * Maintain the ban on an additional group of assault weapons that have been banned by characteristic for 8 years. * Continue to protect some 670 hunting and other recreational rifles for use by law-abiding citizens; and * Preserve the right of police officers and other law enforcement officials to use and obtain newly manufactured semi-automatic assault weapons -- helping to prevent instances when law enforcement agents are outgunned by perpetrators.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 8:59:23 AM EDT
When Republicans re-gained control of the House in 1996, they voted to REPEAL it. It PASSED overwhelmingly. The Democratic Senate did nothing, and it died.
View Quote
Actually the Senate was Republican controlled; but the Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole didn't want to deal with it during an election year so he reneged on a promise to bring the repeal to the Senate floor for a vote (not that it would have passed anyway).
Don't forget the power players in the House and Senate, who actually control whether legislation gets to the floor for a vote: Speakers and Majority leaders.
View Quote
And on that note, the Washington Times broke a story today where a spokesman for the House Majority Leader said [b]"It has zero chance"[/b] and said that neither the Senate or House bills were going anywhere. Keep up the pressure on the House though. They'll be taking a lot of flak from the media for this and they need to know that the average joe is still with them. Obviously the Dems think they have an election winner here, anybody notice that Feinstein's bill changes from 10 years to 8 years renewal to insure the next renewal (of stuff that isn't banned forever by this bill) comes up on an election year? They must have invested some resources in making this an avenue of attack in 2004.
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 9:19:23 AM EDT
I gotta start writing more!
Link Posted: 5/9/2003 11:26:02 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/9/2003 11:27:34 PM EDT by GiggleSmith]
Originally Posted By ZRH: If only we could rollback to pre-1986 laws. Thanx for the info.
View Quote
[soapbox] Screw That! Let's Roll back to 1968! And Import some Glock 18's, Uzi's, G3's...[uzi]
Link Posted: 5/10/2003 12:36:10 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/10/2003 12:44:23 AM EDT by ConfederatemummyAR15]
Originally Posted By ANGST: The US constition was 1789 not 1776
View Quote
Is not the 'Declaration of Independance' the first document listed in the constitution? Declaration of Independance->Articles of Confederation->Constitution The Constitution is a "living" document and has been alive since the DOI.
Top Top