forsook
Says the gun nut:
Last month, a gunmaker friend of mine was audited for two weeks by the BATFE, who found the usual number of small errors and omissions in 20 years’ worth of 4473s, and two rifles that couldn’t be accounted for. Then next week he was informed that his manufacturer’s license, which was up for renewal, would not be renewed. No reason given. His life’s work and his livelihood, and that of a dozen other people, down the toilet without a word why. Our government at work.
I mentioned this to a friend of mine who is an elected official (Republican) and a Bush supporter (though rapidly running out of patience) and asked if this sort of thing wasn’t odd under an administration that is supposedly friendly toward gun owners. After all, smart bureaucrats take their direction from the top, and a high-handed BATFE was something that we expected to see from Bubba Clinton, not from W.
His answer surprised me.
“There’s a lot of that,” he said. “Not only the BATFE, but the Fish & Wildlife Service is refusing to grant CITES permits without giving a reason, and often in contradiction of their local offices. They’re screwing the hunters, too.”
“Why?” I asked.
“Because Bush isn’t watching the store. He’s so preoccupied with Iraq that these guys are running amok and no one’s stopping them.”
Really? I thought it just ran in the family since daddy Bush ordered the ATF to restrict the importation certain semi-automatic firearms. At first, I thought daddy Bush was just mad about the whole jack-booted thugs comment. But that occurred after the 1989 executive order to ban ugly weapons. And sonny Bush supports the ban on weapons that look like assault weapons. I think it runs in the family.
The Bushes are more Connecticut than Texas.
November 21st, 2006 at 2:02 pm
I believe Senior was the only (Southern?) Republican Senator to vote for the GCA of ’68. And if I remember correctly, the President, when Governor of Texas, vetoed the first concealed carry law that was passed. I have wondered whether, in the case of Senior, it was anti-gun or protectionism. American manufacturers, Colt and Sturm Ruger in particular, lobbied very hard for the anti-importation provisions of the GCA and the AWB. Could it be that the President just prefers chainsaws?
November 21st, 2006 at 3:50 pm
The thing is, W has always been from Connecticut.
That’s one of the things that made the Liberals so furious at him – He Used To Be One Of Them!
Until he was “Born Again” and found religion, that is. Now they see him as a traitor.
He’s always been a RINO.
Many people just didn’t want to see that.
9/11 turned him into an Evangelist of “Freedom”. He is prostilyzing freedom throughout the world like it is a religion. That is pissing off a lot of people too.
Oh, and he’s stubborn. He doesn’t seek other people’s opinions before he makes up his mind. He holds little meetings, gets input, then announces his decision. He often has his mind made up before the meeting is even scheduled. I’ve worked for jack-asses like that – it’s infuriating. It’s like you are being pandered to.
(Or whatever the word is that I’m looking for.)
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:40 am
Bush only gets a handful of political appointments in any of the bureaucracies. That makes it largely impossible to implement policy changes that the established bureaucrats don’t want to implement. Thanks to our civil service laws, there is literally no way to “throw the bums out.” To my mind, this makes the civil service laws unconstitutional, violating the guarantee of a republican form of government.
November 22nd, 2006 at 12:41 am
Bush isn’t a conservative at all. Best way to describe him is a “Christian Liberal.” On anything other than God issues he’s right there with Teddy and the rest of them.
November 22nd, 2006 at 1:40 am
Bush is a liberal Yankee. His social class makes him seem conservative, but all — every single one — of his ticks are right out of Darien, Greenwich, Camden, and so forth. He has never been much of a conservative but he has been shrewd enough to listen to people who knew the lay of the land. He lost that shrewdness in DC, probably because he was surrounded by people telling him that he was very smart for the first time in his life. And so he reverted to his natural instincts, and started behaving like a somewhat more belligerent Ted Kennedy. Most of the people I know here in Houston really hope that he goes back to his people in two years and doesn’t come to Houston. Everyone feels sorry for him, but we don’t want him here either. People in Texas are appalled at a number of things (the water issue with Mexico that Bush keeps putting off to the tremendous advantage of Mexico, the whole illegal alien issue, the amazing spending growth, jerking around the oil industry on regulations, not doing something about the EPA, etc., etc.), but the gun stuff is certainly something on everyone’s mind. The people who, two years ago, were assuring me that Bush was “just playing politics” when he said THREE TIMES that he would sign another assault rifle ban if it came across his desk are dead silent when that is brought up (by me, twisting the knife), and after this election two of them set aside some money to buy guns because they are pretty sure that he will do it.
Think of Bush as Teddy Kennedy with an “R” after his name and you won’t be surprised by anything he does.
I really hope that he doesn’t come back to Houston.
November 22nd, 2006 at 6:03 am
Bush I and now bush II have ruined the Republican Party as the home of the conservatives. THAT’S their real legacy.
November 22nd, 2006 at 7:55 am
Alec Rawls is 100% correct. There’s a reason why the Deocrats were so adamant that the new DHS / TSA had to be federal employees: They’re all unionized and natural Democrat supporters.
November 22nd, 2006 at 8:34 am
Yes, GW is a RINO. BUt, he did not veto the CHL here in Texas. The CHL is what propelled him to power. Ma Richards, the prior Governor of Texas, vetoed the CHL saying she couldnt trust us boys wouldnt go out shooting each other in the street. GW ran on a pro CHL stance and won. He signed the CHL a couple of months after taking office. And I trully believe it is a not minding the store thing. GFW in BATF (should be the name of a mans clu, not a guvmint agency) have risen to power from the Klintoon era and where never removed (new tone and all) so they are now in positions to make policy decisions without adult supervision.
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:10 am
The first certifiably pro-gun Democrat candidate for President (and I mean HONESTLY pro-gun, not just the ‘I’ll tell you whatever lies you want to hear until I get into office’ , Bill-Clinton-in-camo-with-a-shotgun version ) will pull so many voters away from the Republican candidate that his head will spin. The Republican party as a whole hasn’t been pro-Second Amendment to any positive extent for half a decade now.
The NRA and American gun owners are in the same position as the NAACP: One side thinks it owns them and therefore sees no reason to do anything for them; the other side knows that it’ll never get their votes so doesn’t bother trying.
November 22nd, 2006 at 9:47 am
Why don’t we start printing the names of the government officials who levy these fines? Perhaps if officials knew that they would be accountable to the public they would be a little bit more circumspect in their aggressive assault on our freedom.
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:39 am
First of all, I’d like to see someone cite the response of the NRA to this situation, before I go all wobbly and start waking up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat, only to find out this is yet another urban myth.
Second of all, DaveP, surely you admit that the NRA has been very, very careful to avoid blindly joining “us” at the hip of the Republican party. The NRA regularly supports DHIMMIcRATs who are pro-gun. I’ve seen their ratings, and I’ve seen them endorse DHIMMIcRATs over Republicans. Certainly, this is not the norm, and that speaks to the shame of the DHIMMIcRAT party, but it’s a false allegation to compare the NRA to the NAACP, an organization that indeed is entirely owned by the DHIMMIcRATs.
Can someone provide names and dates to certify that the NRA was notified of this gentleman’s loss of a license and livelihood? And provide validation that the NRA did nothing in response?
November 22nd, 2006 at 11:43 am
Paul, you can search for many such cases. But here’s\ one that came to mind. I don’t have a site in this particular instance, other than the word of a gun writer for Field and Stream.
November 22nd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Paul, the RNC has held BOTH houses of Congress AND the Presidency for six years now. Would you care to tell me what POSITIVE changes have been made for the average American gun owner? Have you been keeping up with the scandals emanating from the ATF for the past half-decade or so? All we got was the sunset of the AWB (with Republicans voting to renew it, and President Bush announcing that he’d sign a renewal if it crossed his desk). Did the NRA, who were President Bush’s margin of victory in five states in ’00, hold his feet to the fire?
Time to spend on Internet gambling bills and Bridges to Nowhere; and how much to spend on one of the Republican Party’s core constituencies? And how much time does the organization that’s SUPPOSED to represent that constituency spend campaigning for them?
Like I said: the minute the Democrats put up a candidate who can claim to support gun owners’ rights without having his/her nose grow a yard, the Republicans are in BIG trouble.
November 22nd, 2006 at 3:17 pm
Not only did the AWB sunset under Bush II, but we got liability protection for gun manufacturers as well. That is pretty big and historic accomplishment if you ask me. Most democrats, even from the bluest of areas, still don’t want to touch gun control policies with a 10′ pole. Remember how dark things were during Clinton’s administration? Those were depressing times, and it looked like things would only get worse, but so much has changed since then for the better.
Life if good, we live in the greatest country on earth, under the best living conditions in the history of mankind, so stop being such sourpusses. Sure, stay vigilant, write your representatives in gov’t, etc., but lighten up and enjoy want we have.
November 23rd, 2006 at 2:24 pm
DaveP: First you said this:The NRA and American gun owners are in the same position as the NAACPhow much time does the organization that’s SUPPOSED to represent that constituency spend campaigning for them
DaveP, if you want to rant on about how disappointed you are in Repubs, that’s fine. You’ll not be wrong. In fact, you could not be more right.
But don’t be dragging the NRA into your bash, comparing it in any way with the NAACP. You could not be more wrong.
Truth, boy. Focus on the truth. And don’t besmirch a great organization just because you’re bitter.
November 23rd, 2006 at 2:28 pm
Say Uncle,
I’m with you on Sandy’s gun shop being an outrage. But I’m going to wait for a citation to more of such incidents before I buy the party line that GWB is on a warpath against gun owners.
Tick. Tock.
November 24th, 2006 at 12:26 am
Paul a’Barge, I am not buying the misnomer of “great organization” for the NRA. I left them because I was tired of them betraying me and the constitution. What the Hell business do they have writing gun control laws? Project Safe Neighborhoods, Project Exile, Gun Free Schools, all these gun control schemes originated in the offices of the NRA, and were lobbied for by them. There are many other examples of them working against the interests of their membership.
I believe the comparison to the NAACP is apt. Neither really want to solve the problems and serve their constituency. If the problems are solved, their access to the corridors of power are less influential since there is not much for them to do. Neither can they justify sending all those hysterical “Send more money, this job is lasting longer than I thought” contribution solicitation letters. Hell, yes the job is lasting longer. They’re helping the other side as an exercise in job security.