PRO:

1. UN Small Arms Restrictions blocked by US

2. Attorney General declares Second Amendment is individual right - reverses 35 years of previous Justice Department doctrine on the matter.

3. Attorney General refuses to allow legitimate purchase of NICS data to be used for fishing expedition - Ashcroft stops grabbers from sifting through NICS data of legitimate purchasers to look for "terrorists".

4. Ashcroft changes NICS data holding from 90 days to 1 day - NICS data on legitimate purchases will now be purged from the system in a single day as the law intended rather than being held onto for 90 days per Clinton policy

5. Bush supports and will sign lawsuit preemption bill

6. Bush ends taxpayer funding of useless HUD gun buybacks

7. Signs bill arming airline pilots. Signs bill closing loophole that prevented cargo pilots from being armed

8.  Signed the appropriations bill containing the Tiahrt Amendment that protects gunowner privacy by making item #4 the law of the land.

9. Gets chance to have several things he claims to support (lawsuit preemption, gunshow background checks, semi-auto ban) on a single bill. Sends letter to Congress asking them to consider only lawsuit preemption.

10. Partially repeals Clinton ban on import of some semi-auto firearm parts instituted in Summer of 2000 to allow import of parts for repair purposes.

And here is the big one:

The Republican party has now gone to bat for us, not once, but THREE times (March, July, and September) to stop any renewal of the ban. This is a ban that polls show having the support of greater than 60% of the public. Admittedly,  the public wouldn't support it if they were better informed but that is beside the point... the Republicans bucked the majority to support us.

Anybody catch the horrendous grilling the Republicans took last night? See the horrendous lies being told about the ban and the blame being piled on the Republicans? It would be hard to miss since it was on the nightly news for ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN as well as special coverage on Nightline and World News Tonight. That doesn't even count pro-ban editorials in the NYT, USA Today, Washington Post, Atlanta Journal Constitution, Chicago Sun-Herald and San Fransisco Gate as well as dozens of smaller papers.

Not only did the Republicans do this for us, they did it DURING AN ELECTION YEAR when every single House seat, 1/3 of Senate seats and the White House are up for grabs.

Forget for a moment that most of the pro-RKBA candidates running for office are Republican. Forget that two Republican Senate candidates have declared support for repealing the 1934 NFA during their campaigns. Forget that if a Republican candidate replaces all the GOA F rated Senators retiring this year, we will get 5 Senators who are rated B or better by the GOA.

The Republicans could have saved themselves a major ass-kicking in the press by simply selling us down the river. They didn't. They stood by us even when the polls showed it wasn't the popular thing to do and that does not happen too damn often in politics. The Republicans have earned my vote on gun rights.

Amen brother. I know nobody is perfect (my republican party included), but it is commendable what they have done IN AN ELECTION YEAR to keep us from being totally assfucked by the left. It scares the hell out of me to think that there are people out there who believe the AWB has anything to do with machine guns, grenade launchers, or what ever else these idiots can dream up. We just have to keep fighting--this shit is far from over....

Yeah, but John Kerry was holding this shotgun the other day, he can't be all bad.

4 more years!

Here is my e-mail sent to LAPD Chief Bratton last night:

Dear Sir,

As an American, I am utterly disgusted with the remarks Chief Bratton made while performing on the ABC News program "Nightline." I cannot bring myself to call his stint an "interview," given the sheer magnitude of half-truths and whole lies he offered up in his defense of the '94 Assault Weapon Ban.

Saying with a straight face (albeit with eyelids fluttering away like a hummingbird's wings) that the sunset of this law will lead to carnage and blood in the streets is not only folly and hyperbole, it is agenda-driven sensationalism.

Even more bizarre is his comment concerning about 50 police officers being killed by people using assault weapons recently. The chief alluded to the fact that the AWB was important to the families of the slain officers and implied that the law worked for them. What sane person with two brain cells to rub together could make such a claim? Those officers were killed, it was implied, by rifles covered by the ban. HOW DID THE AWB PROTECT THOSE OFFICERS? How on this green earth did the AWB benefit the families of the slain officers? Does the chief have an answer or just more lies?

As underhanded as those comments were, it pales in comparison with the following: While discussing the amount of guns in America and those who own them, the chief said that President George W. Bush took an oath of office to protect the country "against all...action, foreign and domestic." I could see the chief pause right before replacing the word "enemies" with "action." What was the chief implying? That American gun owners and the guns they own are "enemies of the state?" That the Federal Government should treat us as such? It is astounding that a law enforcement officer would even mutter such a thing in private conversation, let alone ON NATIONAL TELEVISION. What would the chief like to see? Detainment camps full of law-abiding American citizens? Private property siezed and destroyed under the guise of "public safety?" Is THIS the role Chief Bratton wishes law enforcement had in the United States? The shame!

It's been said that law-abiding Americans have nothing to fear from their law-enforcement servants. After Chief Bratton's performance tonight, I am convinced there is plenty to fear.

Sincerely,

Wobblin' Goblin

Former State Representative
51st District
State of Connecticut

Yup, this is one of the reasons I will be voting Republican.  I have disagreements with them, but on some of my hot button issues, they have performed well.

The Republicans talk a good talk, but Reagans '86 ban and Bushs '89 ban are still fresh in my mind. Those bans have to go away too before the Republicans will get my vote again.

I'm still voting for Badnarik (Libertarian).

Quoted: The Republicans talk a good talk, but Reagans '86 ban and Bushs '89 ban are still fresh in my mind. They have to go away too before the Republicans will get my vote again.

1) Why blame Reagan for the machinegun ban since it was a Democrat controlled House of Representatives that slipped the ban onto the Firearm Owners Protection Act using the power that committee domination allowed them. The choice was to either swallow the poison pill of the machinegun ban and get the rest of FOPA - without which we would already be sunk or veto FOPA (which had been defeated seven times in seven years - it was only through extreme sloppiness on the Dems part it even passed in 1986) and have access to machineguns (at least until Clinton gets into office) but have no protection for FFLs, no protection for people crossing state lines, ammo registration, no mail order ammo sales, no gun shows, etc. etc.

Check out this link to at least understand the protections we have today because of FOPA and imagine what eight years of Clinton would have been like without those protections:

www.hardylaw.net/FOPA.html

2) The 1989 ban is based on the "sporting purposes" clause of the 1968 GCA and is backed up by the Clinton-era Unsoeld Amendment which codifies some of the 1989 import restrictions as law (can no longer be repealed solely by executive action).

We currently have 52 senators who think it is still OK to ban semi-automatic firearms based on cosmetic differences. If everybody who suppports guns rights voted Libertarian this election, we would have 53 Senators who think that is OK; plus a Vice-President and President who agree.

On the other hand, if they vote Republican we go from 47 Senators who oppose such nonsense to as many as 52 (realistically) or 54 (pie-the-sky not going to happen) - including two Senators who support repealing both the 1968 GCA AND the 1934 NFA. We also get a VP who voted against the ban on non-existent plastic guns (one of two out of 435 votes I might add) and a President who has done all of the above.

Name me one other President who has accomplished more for Second Amendment rights in the last 50 years. Name me one thing that voting Libertarian has accomplished for Second Amendment rights. Instead of bitching about what hasn't been done show me some tiny seed of a realistic plan for how you propose to do better by supporting the LP.

Quoted: The Republicans talk a good talk, but Reagans '86 ban and Bushs '89 ban are still fresh in my mind. They have to go away too before the Republicans will get my vote again. I'm still voting for Badnarik (Libertarian) in order to do my part to see KERRY elected.

Fixed it for ya.

Dittos.  The GOP at the federal and state level has earned my pro-gun vote in a big way going back to 1999.

GunLvr

Quoted: The Republicans talk a good talk, but Reagans '86 ban and Bushs '89 ban are still fresh in my mind. They have to go away too before the Republicans will get my vote again. I'm still voting for Badnarik (Libertarian) Kerry (same end result).

Uh... Reagan is dead.
He won't be passing much more gun legislation.

Especially relevant today I think!

Quoted: The Republicans talk a good talk, but Reagans '86 ban and Bushs '89 ban are still fresh in my mind. They have to go away too before the Republicans will get my vote again. I'm still voting for Badnarik (Libertarian).

Then you're still, in effect, voting for Kerry, who has PROMISED to pass another AWB.  

I'm still voting for Bartholomew_Roberts in whatever elected office he wants to run for.  

Quoted: Quoted: The Republicans talk a good talk, but Reagans '86 ban and Bushs '89 ban are still fresh in my mind. They have to go away too before the Republicans will get my vote again. I'm still voting for Badnarik (Libertarian) Kerry (same end result). Uh... Reagan is dead. He won't be passing much more gun legislation.

Remember also the Republican Party pretty was sometimes anti-gun whenever it suited them or to their political advantage, I forget who exactly said it, but during the Cliton years "where else are they going to go(the gunners)?" when the Republican leaders supported some anti-gun legislation. because those folks in the Republican Party leadership had taken the gunners for granted.

So be it. If Kerry wins, maybe the Republicans will get the message this time.

What message?

"No matter what steps you take to advance the interests of gun owners, we'll continue to punish you for the transgressions of your predecessors, so yeah, go ahead and fucking ignore us completely because all the work you're doing on our behalf is utterly unappreciated"

Something like that?

Quoted: So be it. If Kerry wins, maybe the Republicans will get the message this time.

What a remarkably clueless and shortsighted thing to say.  The GOP is the LEAST of our worries---somewhere over SIXTY PERCENT of the American people support the AWB.  If you want politicians to be pro gun you'd sure as hell better work on making the PUBLIC THAT ELECTS THEM progun.  But maybe that makes too much sense...  

Remember GWB #1, banned the importation of Sig 550s, Galils, HKs etc.

Quoted: Remember GWB #1, banned the importation of Sig 550s, Galils, HKs etc.

Remember that THERE WAS NO GWB #1.  The first President Bush was GHWB. Remember that the current President Bush is not his father.

Quoted: So be it. If Kerry wins, maybe the Republicans will get the message this time.

You'd cure a headache by cutting off your head.

Un-fucking-real.

SG

because those folks in the Republican Party leadership had taken the gunners for granted.

Take a look at that list again, does it look to you like the Republican party is taking us for granted? Did they or did they not just buck an issue where polls showed 68% public support to help us?

The Republican party is currently running a solid batch of pro-gun Senators for the open Senate seats. Two have announced support for the repeal of the 1934 NFA during their campaign - imagine how that must play for soccer moms. Most of them are rated B or better by GOA. The Republicans are actively seeking our votes and sending up candidates worthy of them. Voting third party or Democrat in this election will do two things:

1) Send the message to the Republicans that courting gun owners is wasted effort .
2) Insure we do not get a pro-RKBA majority in the Senate and keep us on edge waiting for the next ban.

As an independant voter, I have to come out and say that Bush will be getting my vote this time. While I think that by and large, the 2 major parties arent all that different nowadays, I see no viable 3rd parties at this time.  I'd rather die than vote for Kerry, and while I don't like some of what the Republicans have done, they did stand up, more or less, for this most important issue.

If we don't show them our support this time, there may not be much incentive to stand by us gun-owners next time.

Quoted: Quoted: Remember GWB #1, banned the importation of Sig 550s, Galils, HKs etc. Remember that THERE WAS NO GWB #1.  The first President Bush was GHWB. Remember that the current President Bush is not his father.

Okay, I got the Bushes mixed up, I stand corrected. George Herbert Walker Bush, POTUS #41

Quoted: because those folks in the Republican Party leadership had taken the gunners for granted. Take a look at that list again, does it look to you like the Republican party is taking us for granted? Did they or did they not just buck an issue where polls showed 68% public support to help us? The Republican party is currently running a solid batch of pro-gun Senators for the open Senate seats. Two have announced support for the repeal of the 1934 NFA during their campaign - imagine how that must play for soccer moms. Most of them are rated B or better by GOA. The Republicans are actively seeking our votes and sending up candidates worthy of them. Voting third party or Democrat in this election will do two things: 1) Send the message to the Republicans that courting gun owners is wasted effort . 2) Insure we do not get a pro-RKBA majority in the Senate and keep us on edge waiting for the next ban.

I meant back in the days of the Clinton Administration. I distinctly remember the top dogs of the Republican Party said, "They have no where to go. Where are the gunners going to go?" And personally, I wil try not to let that happen again.

This year, since I live in Kali-fornia, and barring any last minute campaigning for GWB Jr. by Ahnold, John Kerry will win just on the fact that the Dems lead the Republicans in voter registration by a decent margin. This year I will probably write in Ralph Nader just to needle the Dems.

Let's be realistic.

The Republicans ARE going to sell us down the river on this issue.  

There WILL be another AWB enacted next year by the REPUBLICAN-MAJORITY in Congress and GDub will sign it.  It is a free ride for them. They get to show their "kinder, gentler" side and we haven't got a argument that anyone can understand.  The "real rifle" crowd is not going to go to bat for us.  They think that we are crazies anyway.  They dislike ARs almost as much as the anti-gun crowd.  It doesn't help that the Chiefs of Police Association is screaming for the ban to be re-instated.

My real fear is that they will make it worse than the first one.  

It is very sad but it is just a matter of time.

Quoted: Let's be realistic. The Republicans ARE going to sell us down the river on this issue.

 

There is nothing realistic about your argument. The Republicans offered a bill repealing the ban the very same year it was passed. They even passed that ban repeal in the House in 1996 and continued to offer it every year until 2003. Because of Republican efforts this year, the ban finally sunset.

The only reason the ban passed in March is that 10 of the 51 Republicans are anti-gun (as opposed to 43 of the 49 Dems). I'll go out on a limb and bet you $100 right now, that if we vote our guns in March and put GWB and any three of the following Republican Senate candidates* in office, you will not see GWB signing any legislation banning semi-autos during his term.

*Coors, Martinez, Nethercutt, Demint, Jones, Burr, Keyes, Thune

Quoted: Let's be realistic. The Republicans ARE going to sell us down the river on this issue.   There WILL be another AWB enacted next year by the REPUBLICAN-MAJORITY in Congress and GDub will sign it.  It is a free ride for them. They get to show their "kinder, gentler" side and we haven't got a argument that anyone can understand.  The "real rifle" crowd is not going to go to bat for us.  They think that we are crazies anyway.  They dislike ARs almost as much as the anti-gun crowd.  It doesn't help that the Chiefs of Police Association is screaming for the ban to be re-instated. My real fear is that they will make it worse than the first one.   It is very sad but it is just a matter of time.

Way to think positive and work towards a positive end.  I'm going to go kill myself now.  Please read/watch about it tonight in the news.  I'll be sure to attach all the evil features to my gun right before I pull the trigger.  There's no point in living.  Time of death will be 11:59PM.  The first ban has sunset, BUT I'm sure there will be another ban even worse than the first, SOME DAY anyway...  You just wait and see.  [/SARCASIM]  

Didn't some of those Republicans help put the original '94 AWB in place? And a reporter asks the head of the RNC "didn't you just betrayed some of your supporters?" and the guy goes, "where are these people going to go to? They have no place else to go." The gunners should recognize this fact and that we should make the Republicans EARN the support of the gunners every election.

Quoted: The gunners should recognize this fact and that we should make the Republicans EARN the support of the gunners every election.

So are you disputing that they have earned it this election or do you just want to hammer home the point that ten years ago, 38 Republicans out of 175 supported the ban in the House (as opposed to 177 out of 254 Democrats)?

Quoted: Didn't some of those Republicans help put the original '94 AWB in place?

And how many of those guys are still in office pray tell?

Quoted: Let's be realistic. The Republicans ARE going to sell us down the river on this issue.

Only if too many of us share your defeatist attitude and give up.

Quoted: The Republicans talk a good talk, but Reagans '86 ban and Bushs '89 ban are still fresh in my mind. Those bans have to go away too before the Republicans will get my vote again. I'm still voting for Badnarik (Libertarian).

So, you are doing your part to get Kerry elected.  Congratulations.................not.

Quoted: So be it. If Kerry wins, maybe the Republicans will get the message this time.

This gets the award for STUPID REMARK OF THE DAY!!!!

Quoted: Quoted: So be it. If Kerry wins, maybe the Republicans will get the message this time. What a remarkably clueless and shortsighted thing to say.  The GOP is the LEAST of our worries---somewhere over SIXTY PERCENT of the American people support the AWB.  If you want politicians to be pro gun you'd sure as hell better work on making the PUBLIC THAT ELECTS THEM progun.  But maybe that makes too much sense...

Rik, you don't really believe that 60 percent figure do you?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: So be it. If Kerry wins, maybe the Republicans will get the message this time. What a remarkably clueless and shortsighted thing to say.  The GOP is the LEAST of our worries---somewhere over SIXTY PERCENT of the American people support the AWB.  If you want politicians to be pro gun you'd sure as hell better work on making the PUBLIC THAT ELECTS THEM progun.  But maybe that makes too much sense...   Rik, you don't really believe that 60 percent figure do you?

I don't know Larry...I think it's probably true because the vast majority of people don't know what the AWB really says and believe the media bullshit about it banning "machine guns."

Good list!

There will always be anti-gun-politicians trying to wear Republican clothing.  That's the whole reason I signed up for the party so I could be in some of the primary happenings.  When I first turned 18, I registered as an independent.  I wasn't going to bow to what they were spoon-feeding.  I found two things:
* After thoroughly researching each issue/candidate...I consistently voted on the conservative ticket
* I was missing out one the beginnings of the election and only got to participate in the final play of the game.

We are the Republican party just as we are the NRA and other groups.  It's a continual fight, but we shape as we go.  I took my family to DC some time ago, and we visited the offices of our congressional representatives.  If they weren't there, we left a hand-written note.  We kept it simple, and focused on a couple of points...the big one was the RKBA.  In each of those cases, there were messages from the rep waiting for us when we got back, and he called again soon after.  I'm penning more letters today to send off....not expecting phone calls again...but the anti-gunners aren't resting on this issue, why should we?

Quoted: Quoted: The Republicans talk a good talk, but Reagans '86 ban and Bushs '89 ban are still fresh in my mind. Those bans have to go away too before the Republicans will get my vote again. I'm still voting for Badnarik (Libertarian). So, you are doing your part to get Kerry elected.  Congratulations.................not.

I think Bush JR. has learned not to alienate the base.  Happy AWB Sunsett!!!!!!

Quoted: Quoted: Let's be realistic. The Republicans ARE going to sell us down the river on this issue.   There is nothing realistic about your argument. The Republicans offered a bill repealing the ban the very same year it was passed. They even passed that ban repeal in the House in 1996 and continued to offer it every year until 2003. Because of Republican efforts this year, the ban finally sunset. The only reason the ban passed in March is that 10 of the 51 Republicans are anti-gun (as opposed to 43 of the 49 Dems). I'll go out on a limb and bet you $100 right now, that if we vote our guns in March and put GWB and any three of the following Republican Senate candidates* in office, you will not see GWB signing any legislation banning semi-autos during his term. *Coors, Martinez, Nethercutt, Demint, Jones, Burr, Keyes, Thune

I'll belive it when GDub says he'll veto another AWB.  Has he said that? NO.  He said he WOULD SIGN IT.

During his term?  Hmmm.....do you have a pre-ban receiver that was once a rifle?   Let me think about a PROPER bet.

Y'all seem to think that just because they have an "R" behind their name that they are going to oppose another AWB.  Forget it.  Why should they risk political capital for a bunch of assault weapon whackos?  Think about it.  Who cares but us?

Quoted: Quoted: Let's be realistic. The Republicans ARE going to sell us down the river on this issue.   There WILL be another AWB enacted next year by the REPUBLICAN-MAJORITY in Congress and GDub will sign it.  It is a free ride for them. They get to show their "kinder, gentler" side and we haven't got a argument that anyone can understand.  The "real rifle" crowd is not going to go to bat for us.  They think that we are crazies anyway.  They dislike ARs almost as much as the anti-gun crowd.  It doesn't help that the Chiefs of Police Association is screaming for the ban to be re-instated. My real fear is that they will make it worse than the first one.   It is very sad but it is just a matter of time. Way to think positive and work towards a positive end.  I'm going to go kill myself now.  Please read/watch about it tonight in the news.  I'll be sure to attach all the evil features to my gun right before I pull the trigger.  There's no point in living.  Time of death will be 11:59PM.  The first ban has sunset, BUT I'm sure there will be another ban even worse than the first, SOME DAY anyway...  You just wait and see.  [/SARCASIM]

I'm working toward a positive end but there is not much traction there.  You can believe in the Tooth Fairy but it doesn't make him real.  You can bet that there will be another ban and that it will be worse than before...UNLESS we can convince the "hunting community" that this is the "nose of the camel in the tent" and that they will be coming after them next -- which hasn't worked so far.

Don't shoot the messenger...just the facts, Ma'am.

While I do respect all opinions, I think there are many here that see the world as "black and white" rather than many shades of gray.

Politics, especially, are many shades of gray.

We will never be able to elect a President that represents all of our views.  We will have to vote for the person that best represents us.

This election, like the 2000 election, is about voting for the best electable candidate that we feel come closest to our views.  For now, it really does boil down to GW or Kerry.  No matter how you slice and dice it, the reality is that one of these two - no others - will occupy the White House next January.

You choose.

CMOS

Quoted: I'll belive it when GDub says he'll veto another AWB.  Has he said that? NO.  He said he WOULD SIGN IT.

So are you honestly suggesting that with a Republican Senate and House, the President wished to extend the ban and wasn't capable of convincing his own party to play along?

During his term?  Hmmm.....do you have a pre-ban receiver that was once a rifle?   Let me think about a PROPER bet.

Name what you want to bet and add Vitter (R-LA) to the above list of Senators as well. I can wait four years to claim my prize; but I do mean this to be a serious wager.

Quoted: Ask Arnold how he feels about .50 BMGs...

Is this a shock to anyone who paid ANY attention to what Arnold has been saying? He campaigned as an anti-gun politician and he signed anti-gun legislation.

However, Arnold is still a minority in the Republican party. In 1994, about 20% of Republicans in the House voted to support the ban. 70% of Democrats supported the ban.

In 2004, things changed... 20% of Republicans supported the ban in the Senate. 86% of Democrats supported the ban in the Senate.

I don't have any problem with slamming a gun grabber regardless of whether they have a (D) or an (R) after their name. Where I have a problem is when people suggest that their is no difference between a vote for John Thune vs. Tom Daschle, Pete Coors vs. Ken Salazar, or GWB vs. JF'nK

When Zell Miller stands up for the Second Amendment, I don't see anyone saying "Way to go Democrats! Stand up for the Second Amendment!". Yet every time some fringe Republican casts an antigun vote I have to listen to a slew of comments about how Republicans in general have stabbed us in the back.

There are nine open Senate seats this year. The Republicans have offered up nine pro-RKBA candidates for those seats - the least pro-RKBA of them has a GOA rating of B-. Two of them have made public statements supporting a repeal of the 1934 NFA.

The Democrats have offered up 2 pro-RKBA candidates for those same nine seats (Alaska & Oklahoma). Everywhere else, they are offering candidates who think the AWB is a good idea and that Chucky and Diane would make excellent heads of the Senate Judiciary.

Third parties are irrelevant in this election. None of them are going to win, all of them are going to repeat the same patterns of failure that are already well established for them. I'm not saying all Republicans are pro-gun; but like it or not, the fortunes of gun owners at the federal level are tied to the success of Republicans in the 2004 election. If the Republicans win big in the Senate, we do too. If the Republicans lose big anywhere, so do we.

Quoted: Ask Arnold how he feels about .50 BMGs... www.petenelson.com/temp/arnold_ca_gunowners.jpg www.issues2000.org/Governor/Arnold_Schwarzenegger_Gun_Control.htm

Girlie man

The Republicans have won my political & financial support for this election cycle.

... which is why I authored this thread: The Essential "Thanks for Allowing the AWB to Expire" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread

Give it a look & use it as you see fit.

NYP

Quoted: I'll belive it when GDub says he'll veto another AWB.  Has he said that? NO.  He said he WOULD SIGN IT.

He never said he would sign ANOTHER AWB.  He said the he was in favor of extending the CURRENT AWB.  The CURRENT AWB is no longer CURRENT.  He made no promise to sign a NEW one.  If fact, I don't remember him saying that he would sign anything, I just remember him saying he was in favor of extending the current (now dead) one.

Here's a little clue for you since both your comprehensive and reading abilities seem to suffer:

"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?

Quoted: Ask Arnold how he feels about .50 BMGs...

Arnold isn't the President, and he isn't in Congress.  He's the problem and responsibility of the people of California.

Quoted: Quoted: I'll belive it when GDub says he'll veto another AWB.  Has he said that? NO.  He said he WOULD SIGN IT. So are you honestly suggesting that with a Republican Senate and House, the President wished to extend the ban and wasn't capable of convincing his own party to play along?

The question is whether he wants to or not?  Once again, he's got a lot of things on his plate, why should he pander to us?  Could he, if he wanted to?  Maybe.  But everything has its price.

During his term?  Hmmm.....do you have a pre-ban receiver that was once a rifle?   Let me think about a PROPER bet.

Name what you want to bet and add Vitter (R-LA) to the above list of Senators as well. I can wait four years to claim my prize; but I do mean this to be a serious wager.

The bet is that there will be another AWB enacted while GWB is Pres -- if elected?  You say there won't and I say there will?

Quoted: Quoted: I'll belive it when GDub says he'll veto another AWB.  Has he said that? NO.  He said he WOULD SIGN IT. He never said he would sign ANOTHER AWB.  He said the he was in favor of extending the CURRENT AWB.  The CURRENT AWB is no longer CURRENT.  He made no promise to sign a NEW one.  If fact, I don't remember him saying that he would sign anything, I just remember him saying he was in favor of extending the current (now dead) one. Here's a little clue for you since both your comprehensive and reading abilities seem to suffer: "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?

A distinction without a difference.  If Congress enacts an extension OR another, different ban, GWB will sign it.

Hey folks, I'm on your side.  I don't want this stupid legislation either.  But just believing ain't making it true.  We have to lay the pressure on -- and now is the time. If I understand the quote correctly, I'm thinking that I tend to agree with Mr. Horwitz.  If Bush REALLY supports us, then he should say it.

By the way, I'm not a Bush basher.  I'm trying to operate in the REAL world.  I'm voting for Bush for other reasons.  If you vote for Bush -- or most other Republicans -- solely to prevent another AWB, then you are going to be very disappointed.