July 16, 2004

Et tu Hugh? (Part Two)

In a very surprising turn of events, I received a response from Mr. Hewitt concerning my post questioning his statements about the AWB, its importance & the elections.

I had e-mailed Mr. Hewitt telling him of my post that disagrees with his position. I've done this a few times before when we were in disagreement but honestly I didn't think he'd take my objections seriously enough to respond to them as he hadn't in the past. & I couldn't say as I'd have blamed him. This blog doesn't have a staggering number of daily visitors (which is mainly my fault as my posting has been & probably will be erratic for some time). Neither is my writing that eloquent. About the only thing I do have going for me is that some of the readers I do have run bigger blogs (as it were) themselves. I mention this to clarify that I didn't expect a response not because Mr. Hewitt is totally uncaring, but because the return for him more or less having an on line argument with me is not that tantalizing.

But write he did. Here is his e-mail:

"Publicola: ...I think you
don't confront my central argument, which I used with the G-Man yesterday:
The analogy from Guam. Put another way: Would you rather have the ban
repealed (expire) and Bush lose, or the ban renewed and Bush re-elected
along with a GOP majority in the Senate. Don't take the easy way out
and say we can have both. if the choice is between those two things,
then tell me your choice. If I could have both, I'd take both, but I
don't think we can. So our disagreement, if we have one, is about the
reliability of our abilities to predict electoral results, not over the
Second Amendment. Cheers Hugh"

To directly answer his question: I'd rather have the AWB expire even if it meant Bush losing.

I must point out a few things about my answer: I'm not a Bush fan. Unless he starts pushing a more absolutist stance on the Right to Arms then I have little use for him. To me, Bush is not different enough from Kerry (in regard to the Right to Arms) to merit any preference for one over the other.

For me (& I understand other people place different levels of importance on different things) the Right to Arms isn't the only issue I look at in a candidate but it's the most important. It's the litmus test that must be passed before any other issues are considered. If a candidate fails that first test then the rest are meaningless to me.

Why? To put it very simply, if a candidate agreed with all my other repositions, yet sought to deny me the means of defense then I'd be solely relying on said candidates benevolence. Without Arms then I have no way of making sure that the candidate or another candidate doesn't backtrack & disrespect the other Rights I hold dear.

So even if I did find Bush to be agreeable on every other issue (which I do not) I couldn't vote for him after he signed a renewal of the AWB or any other prior restraint based gun control law.

But Mr. Hewitt's question is a little flawed. He assumes that the "easy way out" of his question is to opt for both Bush & an expired AWB. He even states that he would prefer it that way. But then he goes on to say that he doesn't think it's possible.

It is. It is very possible to have an expired AWB & Bush re-elected. It is even more likely than having Bush re-elected after signing an AWB. Know why? Here's one answer. Over here we find another. & if those two posts by Bitter Bitch & Mr. du Toit aren't convincing enough, take a look at Mr. du Toit's comments for that post. They aren't all saying they'd abstain from voting for Bush should the AWB get renewed, but it should be enough for you to realize that Bush will lose support if he signs an AWB renewal. How much? That's difficult to say.

I think three things caused Clinton to be elected in 92: Bush Sr.'s backpedal on "no new taxes"; his executive order banning the importation of certain "assault weapons"; & to a lesser extent what the statist bastards U.S. Marshals, FBI & ATF did to the Weaver family in Idaho. (I say to a lesser extent & I'm sure it alone wouldn't have done the damage to Bush Sr.'s campaign, but I do recall another Republican incumbent president losing after a very questionable act of aggression which he was ultimately responsible for).

Bush has cut taxes. Not nearly enough to satisfy me (since one penny taken under the current system is nothing more than theft) but perhaps enough to placate his base on that issue. But if we couple his spending habits & apparent affection for big government with a renewed AWB I think enough of his base will stay home to make it, at best a narrow victory.

Listen, Kim du Toit is no libertarian. He's as conservative as conservative can get. He hates the democratic left in this country with a passion. This is the same Kim du Toit who regularly speaks of the joy in seeing little children using Schumer as a piñata. If it were legalized I think he'd have to be fought to be first in line with the tar & feathers on Capitol Hill, & I think he'd be comatose before he relinquished his place in line. He's not crazy about some of Bush's positions, but all in all he'd absolutely hate the very thought of a democrat in the White House. I've seen him & Mrs. du Toit argue quite eloquently in their own blogs as well as the comments sections of other blogs why conservatives in particular should hold their nose & pull the lever marked "Dubya" in November.

From that man comes these words:

"If the Republicans allow the AWB ban extension to get out of Congress, and if GWB signs it into law instead of vetoing it, I will not vote in November."

Is that clear enough? If Bush does sign the AWB he may still win, but it would be a squeaker. All because an AWB renewal would be the last straw for a lot of otherwise staunch Republicans.

It seems that Bush is counting on the support of the fence sitters if he pisses off his base over the gun issue. Remember '96 anyone? A lot of people who voted for the AWB didn't have jobs in Congress that year.

So I most heartily disagree that it's impossible to have an expired AWB & a republican in the White House for four more years. In fact it's more probable than the alternative.

Mr. Hewitt does not recognize this. Maybe it's because in his circles he simply doesn't have much exposure to the gun owning part of the Republican base. Or perhaps he feels that the AWB really isn't that big of a deal & is surprised that anyone feels it is. Maybe he's been listening to the NRA instead of the gun owners themselves. Whatever the reason I fear Mr. Hewitt is making the same mistake Bush is making: ignoring the gun owning base.

Mr. Hewitt states that he feels the disagreement we are having is more over our ability to call this election rather than our views of the 2nd amendment.

As to the first I agree in part but disagree in part - namely, we do have a differing opinion on how to call this election, but the difference is deeper than that. Mr. Hewitt is trying to steer the election towards the result he thinks is most likely (Bush being re-elected even if he signs an AWB renewal) while I'm trying to steer the legislation they way I want it to go (namely, the AWB expiring).

In other words Mr. Hewitt has assessed two possible outcomes & is concentrating on one of them which he feels is most likely, whereas I see at least four possible outcomes & I'm pushing for the one most desirable.

So we have differing views of the outcome of the election in November, but also different approaches to our actions.

I can tell you right now how Bush could secure a landslide in November:

The very first thing would be to renounce any support for any unconstitutional gun control law. Start with the AWB then move on to the GCA, the NFA, the FOPA, The Brady Bill, & the Lautenburg amendment (which made domestic violence misdemeanors a disqualifying offence for gun ownership). That would include a promise to not enforce such laws while demanding congress repeal them as well as vetoing (I know, he'd have to look up the word) any new laws congress passed.

Next, urge all Americans to take responsibility for their own safety. Tell them that the government cannot protect them & in fact has the potential to harm them more than any other domestic or foreign threat. Tell them America was founded by self reliant people & it's damn timed they started living by their example.

Add onto that an apology for the drunken sailor-esque spending & government expansion with a promise to stop & reverse both as much as humanly possible plus a factor of two.

To put icing on the cake announce support for the fairtax plan with one alteration: reduce the rate from 23% to 12%. After all if the idea is to limit government then reducing their income seems like the best possible solution.

If he did all four of those things & explained intelligibly why those four things were so necessary he'd not have to worry about a thing. It wouldn't be unanimous by any stretch, but I'd estimate he'd get 70 to 80 percent of the Electoral College minimum.

But if he just did the first two he'd still walk away free & clear.

Why? Because when presented with the facts most Americans will respond to the option that allows them the greatest freedom. If Bush showed that he trusts Americans to determine their own fate instead of viewing them as children to be parented then Americans would respond. Oh, the howls form the socialists & the power hungry would be deafening I'm sure. But ultimately they'd prove ineffective.

Tell me, who could vote against a man who says that it's the person's behavior, not the type of firearm they have, that needs to be subject to legislation? & who among us could honestly say we wouldn't vote for the man who would subjugate & almost completely eliminate the IRSS?

But that is all wishful thinking - as far as Bush attempting such a bold move.

What is more realistic, though highly improbable, would be for Bush to simply renounce his support for the AWB. It takes all of ten minutes to explain why the AWB does not do anything to achieve its stated goals of crime reduction. It takes 5 minutes to explain what it does accomplish in terms of the slippery slope towards gun confiscation. Add on another 5 for a brief review of why the framers sought to keep military style weapons in the hands of the people & why it's as relevant today as in 1791. In 20 minutes Bush could secure his base & almost guarantee victory in November.

He won't, but he damn well should.

What it comes down to is Mr. Hewitt is taking a "work with what you've got" approach to Bush. I'm sure he could lists points where he thinks Bush falls short, but Mr. Hewitt concludes that Bush is the better of two choices & it's more important to downplay Bush's flaws than try to correct them.

& I'll be the first to admit that for most people the Right to Arms isn't the "end all be all" of platforms for a candidate to have. Many people will look to other things - namely the War on Terror, to determine who they think is best for the job. But as I said in the first post on this subject, Mr. Hewitt as well as Bush are out of touch with the gun owning base & they both ignore the importance of that.

Mr. Hewitt linked my critique of his ideas concerning the AWB renewal & the elections, though I think he misconstrued my meaning:

"More blog support for the book from The Corner, Publicola (though not very happy with my theory that winning elections trumps assault weapon ban victories),..."

I did not link Mr. Hewitt's book to promote it. Then again I won't discourage anyone from buying it. I haven't read the book & at the risk of judging it simply by its cover I'd have to say that I'd disagree with the overall theme of the thing & probably won't but it. I might see if the local library has it in order to find out just how much I disagree with the topic (voting for republicans no matter what, from what I've heard of it) but it's not on my top 100 lists of books to buy before the Revolution. :D I linked it simply to provide some background on what was being discussed. I neither support it (since I haven't read it myself) nor condemn it (since I haven't read it myself).

But to say I'm unhappy with the theory is an understatement. It'd be like me saying Mr. Hewitt wouldn't be thrilled if the U.S. turned into an Islamic/ Marxist theocracy overnight.

A reader named Poshboy provides (in the comments to Et tu Hugh?) the quote in question from Mr. Hewitt's book which I badly paraphrased & mixed with his on air comments:

"But the gun absolutists have to realize that the prohibition on individuals owning machine guns and high-powered automatic weapons makes sense to a large majority of Americans. So if the GOP agrees with this consensus, the gun absolutists should sit down and shut up. By demanding a theoretical purity, they endanger a working majority. Control of assault weapons in not the first step down the slippery slope. It isn't even a slope. It's called a broad consensus. Live with it, strengthen your side, and all will be well."

I won't provide links as I think the ones from the first post on this subject are adequate to prove my points:

The AWB has nothing to do with machine guns or any other form of automatic weapon. It deals only with semi-automatic weapons.

The AWB has nothing to do with the power (or lack thereof) of the weapons in question. It strictly limits cosmetic features that at best minimally impact functionality.

Neither the AWB or the NFA (which regulates automatic weapons) is a complete prohibition on civilian ownership. The NFA imposes an unconstitutional tax & registration while the AWB prohibits new manufacture. Both freeze the supply available to civilians, but neither prohibits civilian possession of items made before the respective laws.

If the GOP agrees with the consensus that the AWB is a good thing, I'd submit that it's a fallacy on both parts. After all, if a professor of constitutional law doesn’t understand what the AWB is & does in the legal sense then it's obvious that a large part of the people who support it probably don't understand it either.

Given that, it's not excusable to say the GOP shouldn't be blamed because they agree with the majority of people. That applies doubly to when the people have been misinformed. After all, if the majority of the population felt that women should be considered a man’s property then would that excuse the GOP siding with them? By all means no.

Mr. Hewitt seems to indicate that the GOP should follow the will of the people. & to a point I would agree. But when the will of the people directly harms the Rights of the individual then the people must be opposed. When the consensus is based on misinformation one shouldn't go along with it - one should correct it.

"...By demanding a theoretical purity, they endanger a working majority..."

I'm not even sure where to begin with that one. The "theoretical purity" we're demanding should not be seen as a threat to a "working majority" since that purity is...well, pure. If the majority of the people have an issue wrong at its core then placidly going along with them for the sake of unity is not the most desirous course of action.

The fact is most Americans do not understand the AWB. It's pretty clear that a very intelligent & knowledgeable law professor doesn't understand it as it's written. I believe Jefferson said something once about the proper solution to a populace that was ill informed was education. (I'd go further & remind you of Madison who said that laws to complex to be understood or to long to be easily read are worthless even if enacted by a representative government, but that's another aspect of this.)

It's very simple: tell the public that the ban affects only certain features on newly manufactured rifles. Those features do not make a rifle more powerful or deadly - they merely aid in the comfort of the shooter at best. Point out that any crime committed with an "assault weapon" could have just as effectively been committed with a non-"assault weapon". Remind them of the DC sniper who used an AR-15 (which if it has certain features would be an "assault weapon") to fire one shot per victim at a distance of less than 150 yards. Point out that Columbine happened after the "assault weapons" ban was enacted. Also if I recall California’s "assault weapons" ban was in place when the murders at Stockton happened. The ban simply does not materially affect a firearms function, nor did it prevent any of the most heinous shootings that have been attributed to "assault weapons".

When's the last time you heard of a bayoneting? Recall when the cops couldn't find someone because he was using a flash suppressor? Ever seen anyone hit any target at a distance of more than 20 feet while firing a rifle "from the hip"? Has the local convenience store instituted a "no grenades" policy because they've been used so frequently in robberies? Ever hear how a folding stock helped someone use a rifle in a crime? If you live in the states, then the answer to all of the above is "no".

"Assault weapons" as defined in the AWB are functionally no different than rifles that have been used by Americans for non-criminal purposes since the first decade of the twentieth century. The Remington Model 8 is a prime example of a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine that was marketed to civilians in the early 1900's. The Ruger Mini-14 is a rifle that is semi-automatic & uses a detachable magazine.

Oddly enough, the two firearms mentioned above are not classified as "assault weapons" despite their use of a detachable magazine & semi-automatic operation. However if we throw a folding stock on the Ruger (scroll down a little for the pics) it becomes an "assault weapon" (if it was made after 1994) & the owner is subject to federal imprisonment.

Flashbunny has a nice little movie called "The Truth About 'Assault Weapons" that presents things a bit more dramatically. Eric Morgan & Dave Kopel penned a piece in 1991 called The "Assault Weapon" Panic: Political Correctness Takes Aim at The Constitution that takes a more scholarly approach to the issue. & just for fun, there's even a quiz available to test your knowledge of which firearms are "assault rifles" & which aren't. Take the quiz if you haven't already.

So educating the public as to what the "assault weapons" ban means is a much simpler & preferable tactic to just going with the flow of an ill informed public.

Mr. Hewitt's premise is based on the idea that most people support the AWB. & this may (or may not) be true. What is overlooked is that the support for the AWB is more often than not based on errors of fact (i.e. what "assault weapons" are) & if you correct those errors the support for the AWB often evaporates.

Mr. Hewitt also asked me to include the following quote, which precedes the one I've been discussing in his book:

"Guns are part of the American fabric, and only a fool would tell [gun enthusiasts] that they can't have their weapons. Terrible accidents happen, and sometimes nuts go nuts with automatic weapons, and carnage and tragedy result. But guns aren't going away. Ever. No Republican should ever think about pushing a gun control agenda on the party."

Actually all of the "nuts" that have "go[ne] nuts" & committed terrible crimes have (to my knowledge) used semi-automatic as opposed to automatic weapons. The only recent exception that comes to mind is the infamous Hollywood Bank robber shoot out. I bring up this seemingly nitpicky point to show that automatic & semi-automatic are often used interchangeably by people who are even generally supportive of the Right to Arms. This kind of error, while seemingly benign, leads to the errors of facts which make people support the AWB to keep those "machine guns" off the streets.

The problem, as I see it, is that Republicans do often push for gun control. Bush actively supported a program that calls for the strict enforcement of every gun control law on the federal books. Now some will give him a pass on that as the laws were already in effect when he stepped into office, but I don't overlook the fact that he is supporting gun control. & gun control that just won't hold up to a strict scrutiny application of the second amendment.

I agree that Republicans should not attempt to push for gun control, but I fear Mr. Hewitt simply doesn't recognize the fact that, in too many instances, that's exactly what they're doing.

Here's what I left in the comments of Mr. du Toit's post about not voting if Bush signs an AWB renewal:

I'll agree that the AWB has little practical effect - at least on me personally. My taste in long guns runs towards full powered semi's that rhyme with Kerand & my buying habits (in terms of long guns) aren't really affected by the AWB.

The mag restriction is a little different, but except for a delightful little .22 I have the AWB simply means I use 10 rounders instead of an 11 rounder (fortunately I have a few pre-AWB 25 rounders for the .22).

So all in all my life isn't affected that much by the AWB. & that's precisely why it's such a big deal.

While it only materially affects a small portion of the gun owning community it sets a precedent that Congress has the authority & duty to ban weapons with certain features.

Now contrary to what's been asserted by some, the real world is not exclusive of actions based on principle. Either principles we agree with or disagree with are acted on all the time. The principle that the AWB asserted are the thing that should concern us all, even if we personally suffer no real world effects from it. & that principle that was asserted was that the government is more fit to decide what arms we may or may not have than we are as individuals.

There is another aspect about what's been said hear concerning principles generally & the AWB specifically - the idea that if it doesn't affect us personally it's not important enough to make a stand on. This is the same kind of flawed logic that keeps the Fuddites holding their "wabbit" guns dearly while not giving a damn about those "scawy bwack wifles" getting banned. It divides the gun owning community & ensures that a unified front won't be presented as long as the objects of prohibition are carefully selected.

Let me state it simply - if you don't give a damn about the AWB because it doesn't affect you personally then don't come bitching to me when, after they've taken away the guns I care about, they come after the ones you happen to like.

The AWB is a big deal to every gun owner - even those who only own a single shot bolt action .22. It's not because it necessarily has a real world effect on us all, but because the principle behind it can & will effect us all.

That being said I've got C-Span2 on as I type this. It seems Frist has used a procedural move to block any "non-relevant" amendments to the lawsuit reform bill they're debating about. I do not know if Frist has the ability or the spine to hold off any attempts to bring up Difi's AWB renewal, but as of right now (as far as I can tell) it's working.

& why did Frist do this considering he failed to use his muscle to stop an AWB renewal vote in March? It probably has no small part to do with several pleas from pro-gun orgs (i.e. not the NRA) & bloggers to call Frist (along with your senators) & tell him to oppose the AWB at all costs or he & his entire party will lose their vote. Add that to the increasing rumblings by staunch republicans about taking the first week of November off if an AWB is still with us then & it may be a sign (albeit this is just conjecture) that the republicans will respond to the wishes of its constituency IF said constituency gives them a clear choice.

I bring this up as an aside, but an important one.

So what we have here are two schools of thought: one says that no matter what Bush &/or the republicans do we have to vote for them this year because "they're our last chance". The other side is saying that if we don't take steps to change the republicans’ direction now then in the long term we'll be lost.

I happen to be partial to the latter position. It may cause some short term grief (no one ever said Kerry would be a good choice for pres) but I would much rather put up w/ short term grief right now than to see both parties slide even further to the left as a result of my attempts to delay discomfort.

It's a decision I base on principle, but not exclusive of the pragmatic considerations. Quite simply I feel that if we keep rewarding republicans for bad behavior (such as renewing the AWB) we're just reinforcing that bad behavior, which in the long run will hurt us far more than putting up with 4 or even 8 years of Kerry while the republicans get religion (so to speak).

If you have a toe that's badly frostbitten you try to save it. But it very well could get to the point where you have to choose between cutting the toe off or letting infection set in. The first option will be painful in the short term but will prevent long term damage. The latter action could very well kill you, though not right away.

Some people will tell you that voting 3rd party this year will be just like cutting off your big toe, & I agree - as long as the modifier "badly frostbitten with infection starting to set in" precedes "big toe". You may not feel as strongly as I do about the things the repubs have done contrary to our wishes, but I sincerely hope that, should the AWB be renewed, you will understand that the choice isn't about getting a repub in who is the lesser of two evils, but about either cutting off your diseased big toe or waiting for the infection to kill you.

Mr. Hewitt wants Bush to win. I cannot say that he is 100% happy with everything Bush has done but it's obvious he feels Bush is the best option this election even as is. So instead of trying to point out the places where Bush needs improvement he tries to concentrate on the places where he feels Bush is strong.

There are always 3 options, no more no less, in any situation: accept it as is, change it, or leave the situation. With regards to Bush it's obvious that Mr. Hewitt has opted to accept him the way he is. For me, personally, I've chosen to leave Bush as it were. But the remaining option - trying to change Bush - is one that should not be discounted.

So after many paragraphs of rambling it basically comes down to this: I disagree with Mr. Hewitt's assessment that the choice we face is a renewed AWB & Bush in the White House or a sunsetted AWB with Kerry in the White House. It's much more likely that if the AWB is renewed Bush will have alienated enough of his base to cost him the election. I am not sure if Bush is aware of this, but it does occasionally seem like some in his administration think it's possible.

I don't particularly care for Bush. I'm not crazy about Kerry either. But I will offer this advice for Mr. Hewitt & any/all republicans who wish to have the "R" associated with the majority of the government:

Stop downplaying the AWB. It's a much bigger deal than some would have you believe. Send messages to Bush &/or any other Republicans stating simply that a sunsetted AWB is the best plan if re-election is the goal. Tell them that their base is getting damned tired of Republicans supporting gun control smugly; relying on the idea that republican voters won't vote Dem no matter how strongly they feel about the Right to Arms.

Tell people do contact their congress critters as well as Bush & leave a very simple message: if you vote for an AWB renewal you'll lose my vote, but if an AWB renewal is passed your entire party will lose my vote.

Extreme? Possibly, but it'll send a very clear message that A: no individual vote or the AWB will be tolerated & B: no party tactics that would allow the AWB to be renewed will be tolerated. Either keep the Republican Party true to its PR as being pro-Right to Arms or hope the ill informed soccer moms outnumber the gun owners at the polls.

If/when Mr. Hewitt reads those last paragraphs I can almost imagine the mental cringe & simultaneous dismissal of that particular strategy. & I can understand his perspective. Kerry would be a terrible choice for pres & threatening Repubs to stay in line seems like a risky way to drum up support.

But here's the deal (& yes I'm repeating this a lot in the hopes it will sink in) if an AWB renewal is passed the Republicans will have a very tough fight. They'll lose a lot of votes from their base & it may just be enough to get Kerry in the White House. You can either try to convince the pro-Right to Arms republican base that the republicans disrespecting their Right to Arms by passing an AWB renewal isn't a big deal (& good damn luck with that one) or you can try to keep the Republicans in power from making a terminal error.

You see Kerry (& the Dems) as barbarians at the gates? Fine. I can't say I’m in total disagreement with you. But instead of pretending that the guards (the Repubs) are doing their job it'd be better to point out the ones that are sleeping while on guard duty & urging them to get their act together.

I won't vote for Bush (unless a miraculous change in him occurs in the next few months) as I don't care for his treatment of my Rights. But more important to me than this election is the direction the government will take over the next twenty years or so. So I offer advice on how to guarantee Bush's re-election (& the Republicans in general). Not because I want them to win per se (I'd be much happier with a government run by Libertarians or Constitutionalists)
but because if we can swing the Republican Party away from the left lean they've been experiencing then it will benefit us all. I'd have no problem with the Republicans if they simply respected my Rights. The image of the Republican Party is much closer to my goals than the Democrats' platform usually is, but the Republicans fall far short of their PR in practice.

So it's either change the Republican Party into a Party that respects my Rights, or to hell with them. They've already screwed up enough in my view that I'm voting third party, but many people may still have faith in them. I'll grant that I'm a bit more radical than perhaps the majority of people. However I'm fairly certain that the lack of satisfaction with the Republican Party is not something only radicals are experiencing.

Bush may be the lesser o two evils. In my book that's still evil, but a lot of people are glued to the "one of two choices" playbook. & that's fine. But instead of merely accepting the choices as is a better idea would be to try to change the lesser of two evils into something good.

If the AWB is renewed it'll spell big trouble for the Republicans. If you want to avoid this then bring it to the Republicans attention & urge them to respect the Right to Arms. Downplaying the advocacy of gun control by certain Republicans might work with those behind enemy lines (Kalifornia, Massachusetts, etc...) where gun control is the norm, but in pseudo free states such as Colorado & both Carolinas you're not going to convince enough gun owners to vote for a candidate that's essentially bitch slapped them. At least not enough to see the "R" beside the names of a majority.

For further education on the subject of the Right to Arms I recommend the following blogs:


Clayton Cramer

Betsey's Loyal Minion

End The War On Freedom


Geeks With Guns

Heartless Libertarian

Hell In A Handbasket

Kim du Toit

Les Jones

Musings Of The Geek With A .45

Nashville Files

No Quarters

Right Side Of The Rainbow

Say Uncle

Stop The Bleating

The Smallest Minority

The Spoons Experience

The Bitch Girls


This is only a small sampling of the pro Right to Arms bloggers out there. In fact no one on my blogroll (with the exception of some blogs that are part of a group listing) is not at least pro-gun sympathetic to some extent. Any of the blogs I listed in this post or on my blogroll are at least as well written (usually better written to much better written) than mine is. So if you doubt that my opinion of how important the gun control issue is typical, visit them. I'll send out a meme that poses the simple question "Would you vote for Bush if he signed an AWB renewal?" & I'll set up a post to link to the answers.

Posted by Publicola at July 16, 2004 02:54 AM
Post a comment

Remember personal info?