Assault Weapon Ban

Publicola asks an important question:

If the "Assault Weapons" Ban is renewed will you vote Republican generally & Bush specifically this November?

His reasoning parallels mine, although we come to different conclusions because our key issues are different. I think that second ammendment rights are important, and he makes some telling points that give me things to chew through, but for me the key issue is foreign policy (a superset of the war on terror). I'm going to paint with a broad brush here, so don't get all nitpicky on me. Comments are certainly welcomed.

With President Bush at the helm, America is once again pursuing her best interests. All of the Euro-whining and the moonbat barking basically boil down to the same thing: America is doing what it feels is best for America, and if another country doesn't agree, well, that's just too damn bad. According to some, we're only supposed to act if we get permission from historical friends and allies, regardless of how they've behaved towards us in the present and recent past.

France is diplomatically deft but otherwise irrelevant. Germany is still trying to shake off its national angst over WWII and the effects of reunification, rendering it less than effective on an international scale (other than economically). On a personal note, I found the Germans to be the most racially prejudiced people I've ever met. Is that a European trait? I don't know, but Germans are wonderful people that definitely have a strong bias against non-whites. And America is a mongrel country to them, which may explain some things. Moving along, you have Spain, Italy and Portugal, important locally, but much less so on the international stage.

These countries, and the rest of Europe, have been 'dealing' with the unpleasant facts of the world for decades. Rather than solving their problems, they compromise, usually by devising a solution designed to buy time. They hope the problem will go away in the meantime, or perhaps someone with authority (aristocracy or bureaucracy) will take care of it. It's been pointed out for years that NATO relies almost entirely on US air transport. Are the other NATO nations rushing to build military cargo aircraft? Of course not, but they are finding time to write regulations to define how much curve an imported banana is allowed.

Why are we taking these people into consideration when deciding on US national policy? Because we have to, but over the years that aspect has grown from being one consideration to become THE key consideration.

The foreign policies of this administration recognize that fact. John Kerry wants to bring back the old way, the safe way, the European way. He wants to 'deal' with the world instead of solving its problems as they affect America.

George W. Bush is no friend to the armed citizenry of the US, but he would never bow down to international pressure (via the UN) to impose stricter gun controls. I'm not so sure than John Kerry wouldn't think that a fine idea, since the rest of the world would want that.

I'm sorry if you feel that you couldn't vote for President Bush if the AWB is renewed. I hope you're right when you speculate that there wouldn't be a significant difference in the arena of second ammendment rights under Kerry. That's a helluva gamble though, in my humble opinion.

For the record: I'm anti-AWB. It's stupid legislation, designed to make people think something is being done without actually addressing the perceived problem.

Posted by: Ted at 09:59 AM

Comments

Posted by: Doug Pratt at July 17, 2004 04:38 PM (zFC/x)

Posted by: Robert the Llama Butcher at July 18, 2004 10:19 PM (AaBEz)

Posted by: Ironbear at July 20, 2004 02:14 PM (kOoql)

Processing 0.01, elapsed 0.0072 seconds.
18 queries taking 0.0056 seconds, 11 records returned.
Page size 8 kb.
Powered by Minx 0.8 beta.