I never knew this before, but I was alerted by one of my friends about Bush's stance on high caps, handgun and "assault rifle" possesion. This is what I got from his web site:

[url]http://www.georgewbush.com/issues.asp?FormMode=FullText&ID=38[/url]

"Increase the age for possession of a handgun:
Increase the minimum age from 18 to 21.  Governor Bush supports raising the age from 18 to 21 to possess a handgun without parental supervision.  Under current law, a person must be 21 or older to purchase a handgun."

"Supports Juvenile Assault Weapons Ban:
Semi-automatic assault weapons ban for juveniles.  This would extend the current limitations (subject to the current exceptions) on youth possession of handguns to semi-automatic assault weapons. "

"Supports ban on importation of high-capacity ammunition clips: Include imported high-capacity ammunition clips to current ban.  Governor Bush supports extending the current ban on high-capacity ammunition clips to include those imported from foreign countries. "

"Supports child safety locks for all handguns:
Child safety locks for handguns.  Governor Bush supports voluntary efforts to equip all handguns with child safety locks.  If Congress passed legislation requiring mandatory trigger locks for all new handguns, he would sign it.  He is concerned, however, that such legislation not be seen as a panacea, because adults still have to be responsible for using the trigger locks and for monitoring their children's actions."

I'm sorry I ever voted for that bastard. I doubt Cheney and Ashcroft (if they do currently support the views we believe in on the web site) can change his mind. I'm voting Libertarian for now on.

themao [chainsawkill]

He was the lesser of 2 evils,where would we be right now with Gore?

You would have felt better with Gore in the White House?

A vote taken away from Bush was a vote for Gore.  Just like a vote for Nader was a vote for Bush.

Gore would have signed an CA SB23 type law in a heartbeat.  You don't see that on Bush's list.   You also don't see a promise to renew the 1994 ban.  The 'current' ban expires in 2004.

I have no problem with 3 of those 4.  I do want my hi-cap mags though.

Other than that, what's the big problem?  How many 15 year olds you know that should have preban Ar's without their parents' consent?

SAY WHAT!???

Dude this is nuts! You think Bush is anti-gun now!?

Are you nuts how do you get that from that web site?

Looks to me as if he is givving tghe left wing cry babies some gun laws that will not do any thing just to make them happy.
These laws will not do a thing it's all BS a bluff to ceep the anti-guners off his and our backs.

Don't be so fast to jump on the Pres. All us big boys have a nation to run, if it's to scary for you if you don't get every thing you want right away then step back.

Oh grow the F**K up !
He is the most Pro Gun President since Teddy Roosevelt. That website is a Campaign leftover
for Christ's sake !
Look what has been done in the last month.

They all are cut from the same anti-2nd Ammendment mold.  The ultimate objective is to disarm the US so that it might be merged into the NWO.  One just does it a little slower than the other.  If Bush were truly pro-2nd Ammendment there would be serious attempts to return our freedoms to us.  Not that I believe they have actually taken them away as all gun laws are unconstitutional,period!! The day is coming when we will have to make the same decisions our forefathers did at Concord Bridge........

Bush is smarter than many think.I believe he will protect the 2nd.

Political promises to avoid alienating the "soccer moms" while not destroying his base. I. E. BS to get the office. What has he done since winning the election? Has he asked for or supported any new gun laws? Has he appointed pro 2nd staff? Has he ended the HUD "buyback" debacle? Has the FBI expanded it's illegal registration database? Sure, I'd like to see more, but he has shown us solid progress.

Open your eyes man.

Thermao,

Get a grip.  Even if Bush thought every gun control law in this century was completely unconstitutional and should be repealed (a proposition that I highly doubt), he can't just come out and say it.  He would never have got elected.  After 60 years of socialism in this country too many people are afraid of freedom.  His being in favor of all that stuff deprives the gun grabbers of a visible enemy for them to rally against. It also lets him get on with all the other parts of his adgenda.  Meanwhile, his man Ashcroft is setting the legal stage for a major 2nd amendment coup.  He makes it the official position of the justice department that the 2nd amendment protects an individual right, but he says that doesn't mean the government can't regulate guns if it has a compelling interest to do so.  And, he certainly intends to enforce whatever gun laws exist.  Traitor to the cause you think?  Absolute genius think I.  So far the Bush administration has pretty much just said what most people already believe to be true.  That the 2nd amendment applies to people (after all, that is what is says in plain english) and that the government has the power to regulate firearms.  So back to Ashcroft.  Enforcing the gun laws keeps the political heat off as well as generates lots of criminal cases.  Eventually, one or more get contested on 2nd amendment grounds.  Every time the DOJ has to argue one of these cases, they take the position that it is an individual right but that the government's infringement is justified.  With both sides arguing that it is an individual right, the only question to be decided is how far can the government go in infringing it.  Luckily, the 2nd amendment provides very little wiggle room on that point.  It doesn't even have a reasonableness test like the 4th amendment.  Unless judges start adding their own arguments, people are going to start getting acquitted on 2nd amendment grounds.  Eventually, the Supreme court will end up hearing a 2nd amendment case.  With Ashcroft as AG it is hard to see how they can decide anything other than it protects individual rights.
The Bush administration is doing right by us.  There is no hope of regaining our RKBA through purely legislative means.  Arresting the slide is achievable, but progress up the slippery slope is unlikely.  The fear mongering mass media has too much influence on the terms of the debate.  The founders knew that legislative bodies were not reliable protectors of individual rights, so they gave them extra legal protection through the bill of rights.  Our best chance of regaining our rights is through favorable court rulings.  Ashcroft, appointed by G.W. Bush at significant political cost, is setting the stage to make it happen.  These are exciting times for RKBA.  I think the gungrabbers are in for some nasty weather.

First, I want to point out something from that web site. They mention "juvenile" possesion of assault weapons. First off, there is no such thing as a semi-auto assault weapon. Second, juvenille implies under the age of 21, not 18 according to the legal language floating around in these bills.

As for "growing up", I have grown up considerably the last two years. I've finally come to realize that the Republicans will not take us to the promise land. They love the state just as much as the Democrats, but they use the state in a different way.

Watch out for Ashcroft. He still thinks the feds have the right to regulate firearms, which in fact they don't. The Federalist Papers, written by the signers of the Bill of Rights, clearly says that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is to allow for citizens to carry and possess any form of weaponry they want. It was intended that citizens would be able to repel any attack or infringement of their rights by federal troops, much like the colonists did at Lexington and Concord over 225 years ago. Here is a link about it:

[url]http://www.lewrockwell.com/dieteman/dieteman61.html[/url]

You guys have to realize that continued support of the Repubs will not improve things. They have failed at it for the last 10 years, and they always cave in to the Democrats. So what if Gore got in? In the end, the result would be the same, it's just that the Republicans take a longer period of time to do it.

In the end, I don't think that Bush or Ashcroft will improve things from where they are today. Bush seems to cave into the Democrats on everything: Tax cuts, Patient's Bill of Rights, Oil Drilling and the environment. He has not stuck to his guns. Cheney is even upset and is probably the only Republican in his administration that has his head on straight. Well, I still hope for the best, but right now, I'm depressed and worried.

themao [chainsawkill]

Garand Shooter,

I never said Bush wouldn't sign a renewal of the ban, he might, but Gore DEFINITELY would renew the ban.
In fact, if the Republicans are in control of Congress in 2004 (iffy), then Bush can head off the renewal BEFORE it gets to his desk.  Do you think Gore would do that?

Bush picked Ashcroft for AG, Gore would have kept  or picked someone like Reno.

Given the choice, I'd rather take my chances with Bush.

Sweep,

Is the lesser of two evils good?  In this case, yes.  Did you have a better alternative?  Vote for a Libertarian Presidential ticket?  Brown didn't have a chance in hell of being elected!  At least with the Republican party (joined with a few pro-gun democrats) we have a CHANCE!  We would have had NO CHANCE with Gore in the White House.

Some of you guys are a lil. F@#$%ed up in the head.
Bush is gon-a grab all the guns and run America right in to The New World Order HA[>Q]

Have youlost you mind? It may be fun running all over like Tim McVeigh Jr. but it's why Most peopel buy the left wing bull, all they need is so guy talk like some of you and we can all try to tell people the truth for 100 years and never change a damn thing.

You talk about how Bush needs to give you back your rights but do you know it's not just up to him?
Do you know how it works in DC or are you just an ass that wants to run his trap?
And this hight cap mag crap is no big deal, if you nned a hight cap mag GO TO A GUN SHOW!!!!!
we can fix the law even if he wants the rest of the ban stay law.

I just don't get some of you people if you
, it must be nice to so smart and be the only ones to the truth.

Well cry baies just take min. and get uh-hold of your selves. Ask your self this why would some one want to take over us in the way you say they will? This would not do them any good, if one was to try it it would be about money and we make much more of it the way we are.
And like I said one man can't take your rights from you even Bush.

Guys like you are real cowards, but as Americans aways have we will not let any one get you, even the .........NEW WORLD ORDER [:O]

You can judge a man pretty well by checking out who his enemies are.

This President has pissed off A LOT of anti-gun types.

I hope he keeps it up.

Very well put Sweep.  Thanks for the clarification.

I pointed this out long before the election, people didn't care then and they don't care now.

Anyone that thinks that this a "win" is just fooling themselves. The republicans keep playing the game where the socialists have set all of the rules. Bush put that anti-gun stuff up just to do one thing and even people here agree: to get votes. It is obvious that he and his handlers do not think that gun owners are a big voting block otherwise he would have not publicly taken that stand. Don't think so? What is a greater risk for him:

Be like george "no new taxes" sr. and risk taking heat from the media that his pre-election stand on gun control was a lie?

Or

Support gun control and piss off gun owners who have next to no media influence?

It is going to be the latter.

What more gun control is he going to push to get put in a second term? A ban on .50 cal? A ban on the sale of all >10 round mags?

The GOP KNOWS that they can just string you along all they want because the sheeple gun owners will not "waste their vote" on a 3rd party.

The Republic is lost and you people are helping it's demise, one vote at a time.

a2car:

No one here is talking about Bush grabbing all of our guns and bringing us into a new world order. This is about Bush NOT taking a stance to repeal existing laws that limit our rights to purchase and own machine guns, shotguns, high caps, etc. As for being cowards and cry babies, we are the ones that give a damn. I'm intelligent enough to vote for someone OTHER THAN a Republican now, because I recognized their hyprocrisy and lack of a back bone. The only way to change the way things work in Washington DC is to change the way things work in our local communities and states via electing TRUE Bill of Rights supporters.

As for the rest of you guys, did you read the article I posted? Maybe I should make a second post. I think I convince you neoconservatives out there that supporting the Republicans in the long run will get us no where in life.

themao [chainsawkill]

Perhaps actually FIGHTING to restore this Republic instead listening to the shepple make excuses for the schmuck in the white house!

[b]Libertas an Mortis!![/b]

Post from Imbro|io -

First, I am not, nor have I ever been, a 'sheeple.'[:D]

Voting for a 3rd Party at this particular time in US history is not a wise thing to do. Just ask yourself, what are most gun rights supporters gonna do?

If the answer is vote Republican, which it has always been in the past, then we are seriously diluting the RKBA vote by dividing into pro-gun Republicans and pro-gun Libertarians. Sarah Brady must contribute often to Libertarian candidates.

If the answer is vote Libertarian, then what is the Libertarian Party doing that is costing it so many pro-gun votes?  Why did Harry Browne get fewer votes in 2000 than Ron Paul got in 1988?

Face it, after all these years, the Libertarians have managed to capture what? less than 1% of the votes cast in national elections.
Oh yes, and one (two?) statewide office somewhere in the entire USA!  

Even Ron Paul had to come to the Republican Party to be elected, and would you say he is influencing the GOP to move in the right direction? Damn straight!

There is no alternative way to win this fight but absolute cohesion on our part.

The great majority of gun rights people and organizations have decided, for better or worse, to cast their lot with the Republican Party. We would be fools to divide our numbers in the face of an overwhelming enemy.

History may well forgive us, but our children and grandchildren would not.

If you want to make a difference, make it in the Republican Party. Take it away from those 'country club' RINOs, who never wanted to mix it up with the [i]hoi polloi[/i] in the first place.

It's kinda like church. How many people do you know who refuse to go to church simply because of all those 'bastards, hypocrites and sinners' that are in attendance?

So you permit your church to be overrun with the wrong folks because you, yourself, would not deign to go in and 'cleanse the Temple' on your own!

Well if the Republican Party needs to be cleaned up so badly, why not 'shanghai' it and use it to further our pro-gun agenda?

Eric The(JustAThought)Hun[>]:)]

I think that W and Ashcroft are playing "Good Cop, Bad Cop" with the antis.  W acts like the sheeple want, until it becomes time to put ink to paper, and then says "But the Attorney General says this is most likely unconstitutional, I cant sign it." or something to that effect.  Also, it allows W to posture toward public opinion (however wrong it might be, he still needs to get re-elected), while Ashcroft works in the courts to remove current ones.

Kharn

I see it like this.  I don't mind mostof those proposed laws.  I am 19 and here in Nevada I can'town a hand gun.  I don't mind because I know people who are my age who if thy owned a handgun would do somthing stupid with it and get shot or shoot some one.

I am all for gun control.  The type of gun control that comes from responcible gun owners not people who want a power trip.

Done I spoke my peice.
[sniper]

Your are aware that outside of the internet there is something called the "real world"?  And in this real world there are numerous competing interests and lots of complacency?  Are you also aware of something called "politics" which is the process by which the competing interests and philosophies vie for the power to affect social policy?  Unlike chess or poker, politics is a game without fixed rules. However some strategies are better and some are worse.  People who are successful in politics (becoming president is considered successful) generally get that way by mastering successful strategies.  Now I'm now politician, but it seems clear from observing those that are, that running around taking firm stands on controversial issues is not one of the better strategies.  Standing on the front lawn of the white house saying you personally are going to see to it that people have unfettered access to machine guns and big giant baby killing magazines to put in them would be unwise in the real world.
I certainly don't know what GWs true opinion is on RKBA.  I can't read his mind, and politicians generally don't take concrete positions on anything.  You can only judge him by his actions like appointing a pro RKBA atty general.  You aren't going to have your rights restored through the congress there aren't enough people that care about high caps and utility weapons to outweigh the sheeple (this is the tyranny of the majority, and you are not the majority on this issue).  The president could simply refuse to enforce the unconstitutional laws, even if he did, so what?  The laws would still all be on the books and the next president could easily decide to enforce them again.  How about armed rebellion?  Even if you could prevail (a one in million shot) who is to say that you will end up with a government that is any better that what you have now.  We could end up like France or Cuba.  Our best chance right now is through the courts.  Basically, our rights will only be restored by courts striking down unconstitutional laws.  Ashcroft has already improved our position tremendously.  Even if don't think Bush is pro-gun enough, it won't matter if we start to win in the  courts.  A favorable supreme court ruling will diminish the gun grabbers legislative power tremendously.
We have to continue to fight the gun grabbers agenda in congress and elsewhere, but if we are to prevail, it will ultimately be though the courts.  Ashcroft is stacking the deck in our favor.  We could still lose (nothing in life is certain), but our odds of winning have improved significantly.

Garand Shooter -

COme on, man!!!!!! You KNOW that ain't true.

As it stands right now, if there were a FULL FRONTAL ASSAULT on our gun rights right now, all the "deer rifle owners" would gladly give up their 2x a year entertainment to keep their 401K's and their SUV's.

While the repubs are FAR from perfect, they ARE giving us time to change public opinion.

[b]EXACTLY!![/b] But if that happened how many people who are "...using the lesser of two evils approach to train and get supplied..." would really stand up and fight when the time came? And how many are truly "training"?

Not a flame or directed at you beekeeper, just people who use that argument in general.

Sweep, I think you misunderstood.  He is saying that gun control is responsible gun owners policing themselves rather than some power hungry bitch in D.C.

I recently read that President Bush was in favor of renewing the 1994 Crime Bill & that Ashcroft stated he would enforce these measures.

I believe I read this on the KeepAndBearArms website.

I will try to find it & post it here.

"The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule."
H.L. Mencken

All I can say is it's our fault we only have two choices.  We need more selection when it comes to picking our leaders.  I for one wish like hell WE had a choice now.  I'll get flamed but Ol Ross Perot was(is) a nut but he was all about changing our system.  Crazy as he is I still like his ideas.  Get our government back from Washington.

Why should I have to? It isn't my party. IF YOU SEE A PROBLEM THEN YOU FIX IT! The majority currently in the GOP have NO OBJECTION with "reasonable, common sense gun control" and are taking the if it ain't broke don't fix it approach. This means UNTIL YOU AND OTHER GOP MEMBERS CLEAN HOUSE that anyone voting for a republican president will HAVE TO accept a degree of gun control no matter who is the candidate.

Again the question is, how much gun control are you willing to accept? The longer you wait, the more gets passed and the easier it is to accept additional restrictions on the 2nd amendment. When are you going to say NO MORE???

Gee the Libertarians got more state and local candidates elected than all of the other 3rd parties combined. The LP even got a candidate elected to state rep. in Vermont. They ARE building something from the ground up.

I am really beginning to believe that the GOP party line towers are afraid of what freedom truly would be like and is why they have such intense hatred of the LP.

Post from Imbrolio -

Oh, I think I finally see your point. There is no need for YOU to join in any party, because it's not your party?

Jeees, and I thought we were all in this fight together. So sorry, Imbrolio, I mistakenly thought you were 'one of us.'

For the rest of you, just imagine if the Founding Fathers had fought it out just as cleverly as Imbrolio has suggested.

'Sorry, Gen. Washington, but until you give the British Army a good whipping, and clear the area of all the Redcoats, my boys and I are gonna sit this one out. Besides which, our little 1% has great plans on mounting an absolutely devestating attack on the British at some point in the not too distant future, with just a little luck and patience, and some other imponderables, the details of which escape me at present.  But good luck to you, Sir.'

What a Revolution that would have been with each group of Rebels looking to see if their own plans, leaders, homes, etc., were being as well looked out for as the other groups'!

I believe the old saying goes something like:

[size=5]United We Stand, Divided We Fall![/size=5]

But then I just may be overstating this, just a bit. You may be right, we may need to look idly on while the f*****ing country goes down in flames and we can always feel good about the points we have scored on the old AR15.com boards on that old Internet system, we all used to enjoy so much.

You don't think THEY would let US keep that, did you?

Sorry, again, I thought this was OUR fight.

BTW our House is still on fire, Sir. What shall we do?

Eric The(PardonMe,Again)Hun[>]:)]  

So sorry, but the Libertarian Party is not even on the radar screen in national politics.

The Green Party is the Third Party for the DemocRats to fear and, thank God, they are doing a very good job in costing the DemocRats dearly. Can you say 'President Gore?'  

Thank God that the Libertarians haven't [b]yet[/b] cost the Repubicans the Presidency!

All of the carping about not getting a fair shake with the Media, etc., is just reality, baby.  You/we will NEVER be loved by the Media.  Get used to it.  George W has.

So I take it that none of you voted for Ronald Reagan in either 1980 or 1984? Too busy with decriminalization of pot to assist in helping Mr. Gorbachev 'tear down that Wall?'

What is it like to be on the sidelines during such historic movements as the 'Reagan Revolution?' and the 'Collapse of the Soviet Union?'

BTW, when did Brady II ever pass in Congress? What? It hasn't passed yet? Why not? Because [b]Republicans[/b] in the House won't let it!

But we have more sure sign of faith in the GOP when it comes time to extend the Assault Ban in September, 2004.  

Will there be a fillibuster in the Senate to stop it's renewal? If so, it will be lead by [b]Republican[/b] Senators.

Will there be House Committee Chairmen who won't let the bill out of their committee for a vote on the Floor? If so, it will be [b]Republican[/b] committee chairmen who will be doing the stalling!

Will there be a President who, if faced with a bill that has made it out of both chambers, veto the renewal of the AW ban?  If so, it will be a [b]Republican[/b] President who will be making that decision.

I don't know about you, but I will be using all my connections to my Congressman (Sam Johnson, R-Tx), my Senators (Gramm, R-Tx; Hutchinson, R-Tx), and to my Party, to make certain that our President makes the right decision!

And the sad, sad part of all this is - I'm not certain which way Libertarians want this story to end!

So go ahead and vote Libertarian in the mid-term elections in 2002, we all cherish your right to 'vote your conscience.' And, if, in so doing, you deprive Congress of a few additional Republican congresscritters, don't fret.

Cause we are learning (albeit, slowly) that we can't count on you aynway.[:D]

Eric The(IMeanReally'Sad'!)Hun[>]:)]