Where are the jobs - Page 4 - Shooting Sports Forum


News and Political Forum News and Politics spoken here!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 02-21-2011, 17:07   #76
Super Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,122
Originally Posted by p35bhp55 View Post
Now I would like some news of the "teachers strike" that justifies Gov. Walkers actions.
There is none, just a easy scapegoat to balance the budget. When I took early retirement I had to reduce my personal budget by 30%. Now knowing that there are different levels of importance in what I need I reduced from the lowest of importance first. I had little choice in fix costs such as utilities & mortgage, but I could make changes to my cable bill, driving habits, etc.. I consider the CBA a contract, one that a good faith aggrement was made in by both sides. It is one of the fixed costs to work around. I doubt very much that the Governer is reducing his pay by a large amount or even getting rid of his staff. I suggest he start by answering the phone himself and cutting his secretary and staff first.
__________________
"I have no issues with people of all types being here, I do have a problem with the more extreme ends of any spectrum trying to dominate and push out moderates and opposites." Bill Plein
gossman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 18:53   #77
Full Member
 
TX expat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 75
Well here's a few links. Don't bother with the semantics that a sick-out isn't a strike, OK.

Wisconsin Teachers Take "Sick-Out" Day to Protest - Yahoo! News

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/17/us...n.html?_r=2&hp

Madison schools closed Wednesday due to district-wide teacher sickout

Madison Schools Cancel Classes Due to Teacher Sickout - WBAY-TV Green Bay-Fox Cities-Northeast Wisconsin News

Wisconsin:

Fake Sick Teachers May Cost Wisconsin Taxpayers at Least $6 Million - Wisconsin Protests - Fox Nation

Regarding your Repub/Dem equality on gun control, I'm sorry but you are just wrong. I'm not saying that some Dems aren't pro-gun, and I'm not saying some Repubs aren't for more control, but as a general party platform the Dems would toss 2A and the Repubs are more inclined to protect it. Look at the liberal strongholds of California and New York for perfect examples of how the Democrat platform on gun control is put into practice vs just about any place else that has a stronger Republican populous.

As to the GHB thing, I'm sorry but I'm missing any EO he wrote banning any assault weapons. The article is juxtaposing the President and the BATF, which are obviously two different entities. I completely agree that then President Bush allowed a gun control situation to arise from his administration, but I don't see any Executive Order regarding such.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TX expat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2011, 22:33   #78
Super Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,122
It's a contract. If we do not honor good faith contracts then where the hell are we going. Plenty of pontification but it comes down to keeping ones word. The unions there are willing to take the cut in benefits and wages yet the Governor wants more, he wants to end the ability to have a CBA. The union members are not getting fat and happy off the nipple of society, the reports are that the Wisconsin state workers make 8% less than their private sector employees. Here in Oregon they have done nothing but take a reduction in wages and benefits every contract time, they have been going backwards for two decades. This last two years they have been forced to take further reductions through forced 2 week furloughs. They are not getting rich by any means.

Please, if you want to be taken seriously, I suggest the commentaries end on what you think the other posters political leanings are. It seems that there is always a need to make snide remarks about others rather than stick to the facts. It is getting tiresome, the majority of people do not fit into a single box.
__________________
"I have no issues with people of all types being here, I do have a problem with the more extreme ends of any spectrum trying to dominate and push out moderates and opposites." Bill Plein
gossman is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Old 02-22-2011, 02:55   #79
Full Member
 
Win_94's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 152
Originally Posted by Kevin View Post
and for some reason the talk is aimed the the GOP?
It is as if the GOP are the parents.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.


To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Win_94 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 05:33   #80
Full Member
 
TX expat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by gossman View Post
It's a contract. If we do not honor good faith contracts then where the hell are we going. Plenty of pontification but it comes down to keeping ones word. The unions there are willing to take the cut in benefits and wages yet the Governor wants more, he wants to end the ability to have a CBA. The union members are not getting fat and happy off the nipple of society, the reports are that the Wisconsin state workers make 8% less than their private sector employees. Here in Oregon they have done nothing but take a reduction in wages and benefits every contract time, they have been going backwards for two decades. This last two years they have been forced to take further reductions through forced 2 week furloughs. They are not getting rich by any means.

Please, if you want to be taken seriously, I suggest the commentaries end on what you think the other posters political leanings are. It seems that there is always a need to make snide remarks about others rather than stick to the facts. It is getting tiresome, the majority of people do not fit into a single box.
Are you talking to me?
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TX expat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 09:21   #81
Full Member
 
OrenG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Democratic People's Republic of Fail-i-fornia
Posts: 316
Originally Posted by freesw View Post
Global warming is a fact no matter who's in office.

Heat waves and storms rage on the just and unjust alike.

I agree we need to reduce the debt, pronto. Letting the Bush tax cuts expire on the top 1-2% wasn't a bad idea, especially not when income trends of past thirty years are considered.

Regarding jobs, and government spending, developing renewable clean energy is every bit as important as developing the atom bomb and the space program were. We should be doing it as a national priority.
Oh god. Wake up freesw.

Climatic Research Unit email controversy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
__________________
"A fear of weapons is a sign of retarded sexual and emotional maturity." - Sigmund Freud
OrenG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 09:55   #82
Super Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,122
Originally Posted by TX expat View Post
Are you talking to me?
If the show fits, wear it. Arguments are much more effective if one refrains from making personal comments towards the other poster about their "assumed" political positions along with other personal matters. Civil discourse is a great hallmark of a free society.
__________________
"I have no issues with people of all types being here, I do have a problem with the more extreme ends of any spectrum trying to dominate and push out moderates and opposites." Bill Plein
gossman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 11:04   #83
Full Member
 
TX expat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by gossman View Post
If the show fits, wear it. Arguments are much more effective if one refrains from making personal comments towards the other poster about their "assumed" political positions along with other personal matters. Civil discourse is a great hallmark of a free society.
LOL. Get over yourself. I didn't do anything you have any reason to whine about. All I did was ask how you could support such a liberal agenda as you do and still find it acceptable to be pro-gun. Which, by the way, you never actually answered. You just typed out your political and social resume, as if that was supposed to mean something. You don't have any business involving yourself in political discussions if you are so easily put off by one simple question. I didn't call you any names, nor did I disparage your political beliefs, nor did I make any personal comments about your political beliefs. I asked you a question. I even went so far as to apologize for my assumption based on your other posts in this forum, even though, once again, you never even answered my question.

Civil discourse would imply that you were actually debating something, which you are not. So how about you not bother to tell me what I need to do to be taken seriously, I'm not having a problem dealing with actual facts... Now that I've figured you out, you don't have to worry about me embarrassing or offending your sensibilities. I will no longer try to have any discourse with you whatsoever.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TX expat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 13:13   #84
Super Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Posts: 6,122
Being pro working class is not a "liberal" agenda. The act of ending the ability to enter into CBA's is an act of despotism. If that right ends how long before the minimum wage act is torn away? Wages have already been removed from the concept of productivity, back in 1980 when the stalwart of the modern Republican party was hijacked by big business and false ideals of individuality. If they are sucessful destroying CBA's, it will speed up the already march towards creating a massive American serfdom, where modern day fuedal lords decide who eats, and who doesn't. America was not founded by a single ideal nor by a single person. It was created on the concept that all men were to be free, not where one big business acts with a "divine right of royalty". CBA's allow the interaction between business and labor, to maintain a balance where both can work together, within defined rules.

Being pro labor has nothing to do with being pro-gun. In fact, business has demostrated far more intolerance towards firearms by disallowing firearms even in the parking lot. Being pro-gun does not make one a Republican, Democrat, or member of any other political or religious party. If I had to be pidgeon holed, it would be more towards libertarian beliefs, but even then there are issue with that group that I do not see eye to eye. I use my whole brain, not just one side. My beliefs are (like many) developed by my personal understanding of world history, my religious faith, and my personal history.

As my comment about "if the shoe fits..", I will stick by that comment. It was not directed at any single person, but to everyone who is participating or thinking about participating in this thread or any other threads. Again, I find it facinating that there exist people who claim to stand for the ideals and the freedoms of the Constitution yet have little problem with disallowing disenting voices to speak. All sides have a legitimate reason to speak and to be heard here. As far I know, Kevin has not made this site a single opinion site yet. PerfectUnion has been known throught the gun websites as one where all members can have a voice, without the usual shoutdowns and remarks that poison the majority of sites. It would be nice if we can all work towards keeping that distinction. It is easy to take the low road, why not travel on the high road here. There are plenty of other places that are willing to allow rudeness to be the norm, why pollute a new one?
__________________
"I have no issues with people of all types being here, I do have a problem with the more extreme ends of any spectrum trying to dominate and push out moderates and opposites." Bill Plein
gossman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 16:44   #85
Isolationist Libertarian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,421
Here's the New York Times article from when Bush made his temperary ban permanent in early July 1989. The temp ban went into effect in March of the same year. Now, if this doesn't suit you I just can't help it. I know he did it, the NRA knows he did it and the GOA knows he did it, not to mention the NY Times and The Washington Post.

Import Ban on Assault Rifles Becomes Permanent
By SUSAN F. RASKY; Special to The New York Times
Published: July 8, 1989
Sign In to E-Mail

Print

WASHINGTON, July 7— The Bush Administration declared a permanent ban today on almost all foreign-made semiautomatic assault rifles. Imports of the weapons have been suspended since spring.

The permanent ban affects all but 7 of the 50 models included in the spring suspension. It does not affect the far larger number of virtually identical weapons manufactured domestically, nor does it affect foreign-made semiautomatic weapons already in the United States.

Americans own about three million semiautomatic weapons, according to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, an agency in the Treasury Department that enforces national gun laws. About 25 percent of those weapons are foreign models, including semiautomatic versions of military assault rifles like the Israeli Uzi or the AK-47 Soviet infantry rifle.

Administration officials said that without the ban 700,000 to one million foreign-made assault weapons would have been imported into the United States this year, but they acknowledged that the slack would easily be taken up by domestic manufacturers. A Significant Step

''We're not saying it will solve the basic problem,'' said Stephen E. Higgins, director of the firearms bureau, who announced the ban.

Today's decision is a significant step in the evolution of the Administration's gun control policies. It puts President Bush clearly at odds with the National Rifle Association and will almost certainly increase pressures on him to approve restrictions or an outright ban on domestic versions of semiautomatic assault weapons.

''The President was informed of the findings and decisions, and fully supports them,'' Alixe Glen, a White House spokeswoman, said of the ban announced today.

Senator Howard M. Metzenbaum of Ohio and Representative Pete Stark of California, both Democrats and leading Congressional advocates of stricter gun control, criticized the President for not going far enough and pledged to press for tighter restrictions on domestically produced assault weapons. Bills Pending in Congress

Several such bills are pending in Congress, and Mr. Stark said that with his action today Mr. Bush had given ''tacit approval'' to the idea of restricting all assault-style weapons. ''If one of these bills goes through, the President certainly will have no logical reason to justify a veto,'' Mr. Stark added.

Senator Metzenbaum said he would ask the Senate Judiciary Committee to approve legislation barring domestically manufactured assault weapons when it meets next Thursday.

Asserting that domestic assault weapons were ''favored by drug dealers and street gangs,'' he added, ''Any police officer will tell you it doesn't matter if you are killed by an imported or American-made assault weapon -you are just as dead.''

Semiautomatic rifles are those that require no manual action except a separate trigger pull to fire each bullet. Automatic weapons like machine guns fire a stream of bullets with a single trigger pull. President Shifts Stand

In the Presidential campaign last year Mr. Bush, a hunter and longtime member of the N.R.A., opposed to any bans on assault weapons. But a public outcry after a drifter armed with an AK-47 killed five schoolchildren in Stockton, Calif., in January helped convince others in the Administration that some limits were needed.

At the urging of William J. Bennett, the director of national drug control policy, the Administration suspended imports of certain types of semiautomatic assault rifles in March. The President expanded that temporary ban as part of a broader anticrime program that he announced in April, and said he would make it permanent for imported weapons that did not have a legitimate sporting use.

The 43 types of semiautomatic rifles now barred from entry into the United States were part of a group of 50 evaluated by the firearms bureau in a three-month study. The bureau has authority under the 1968 Gun Control Act to block imports of weapons not generally suitable to sporting use, but it does not regulate domestic manufacture of weapons.

Mr. Higgins said the bureau concluded that there were ''viable, clear differences between semiautomatic assault rifles and semiautomatic rifles used in traditional sports.'' Some distinguishing features of assault-style weapons, he said, are the ability to accept a detachable magazine and a centerfire cartridge that is less than 2 1/4 inches long. Six Rimfire Rifles Exempted

A centerfire cartridge is one whose detonator is set in the center of the cartridge base, rather than in the rim of the base. High-power rifles typically use centerfire cartridges.

Of the seven models exempted from the import ban, six are .22-caliber rimfire rifles and the other is a gun called the Valmet Hunter, which had been considered during the suspension period to be one of the AK-47 types.

Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, called today's action ''a slap in the face to millions of Americans who voted for George Bush because of his well-publicized opposition to new gun control.'' The import ban, he said, would have no effect on crime and drug problems, but would ''simply be another infringement on the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding American citizens.''

The National Rifle Association said it would ''fight this decision in the courts, on Capitol Hill and at the ballot box.''

Photo of Stephen E. Higgins, director of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms, displaying some of the foreign-made assault rifles that the Bush Administration has permanently banned. (NYT/Jose R. Lopez)
__________________
four more years.....groan.
p35bhp55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 16:50   #86
Isolationist Libertarian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,421
TX says
"Well here's a few links. Don't bother with the semantics that a sick-out isn't a strike, OK."

So if the Arkansas lawmakers decided to do a blitz on gunowner rights and I used my sick days to go to Little Rock and protest I would be stirking?

I'm not even sure if I had a side in this, certainly know from my past taxes in WI were too high already, but If you are wondering how Republicans lose people in these situations just keep typing.
__________________
four more years.....groan.
p35bhp55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 19:17   #87
Full Member
 
TX expat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 75
p35 - I know what happened and how it came about. My question with what you originally wrote was you said Bush signed an Executive Order which started the assault weapons ban; which he did not. I am fully aware of his culpability and his actions behind the BATF ban; I'm pretty sure I made that clear from the outset. All I wanted from you was some proof of the EO you spoke of because I had heard that before and I had no personal knowledge of it. After a lot of searching since this topic started I've pretty much determined that nothing was done by Executive Order.

On your second post, your hypothetical argument isn't even remotely applicable. The teachers are 'sick' as an organized group. The schools have to close because the 'sick' teachers have left their jobs and responsibilities without approval, as organized by the union. One person taking an approved sick day from a job that, I assume, would have no affiliation to what the government is proposing to do, is not even remotely close in scope or action to what the teachers are doing. Are you honestly going to say that the teachers leaving the schools with no choice but to shut down so they can go protest is OK? In the real world, when you leave your job like that you get fired.

Honestly I could care less what you do or don't see, or if you are lost to the Republican cause. I'm not a Republican, so that matters not to me. I am, however, happy to see some politicians finally start to address any deficit that this country seems intent on doing everything possible to avoid dealing with.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TX expat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 20:24   #88
Full Member
 
freesw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Austin
Posts: 33,143
Originally Posted by OrenG View Post
1. Wikipedia is not a reliable source, particularly for controversial subjects (which this one wouldn't be, if it weren't for dirty industry -funded disinformation).

2. And it appears you failed to read your own source.
The investigations concluded that there was no evidence of scientific malpractice and Jones was cleared of any scientific misconduct.[11] They reported that while sharing of data and methods was in line with common scientific practice, it was desirable that there should be greater openness and information sharing.[12] The Select Committee report concluded that "the scientific reputation of Jones and the CRU was untarnished".[8] The CRU was commended for their maintenance of temperature proxy chronologies by the Science Assessment Panel, which also found that although some of their statistical methods may not have been the best for the purpose, better methods might not have produced significantly different results. The panel deplored the tone of much of the criticism and said some was "selective and uncharitable", but believed the questioning would result in improvements to working practices.[13] The question of alleged failure to comply fully with the Freedom of Information Act was left to the third review, published on 7 July, which concluded that the responsibility lay with the university administration rather than with the CRU research unit.[12] It said that there was "unhelpfulness in responding to requests" and that "e-mails might have been deleted in order to make them unavailable should a subsequent request be made for them".[14][15] A separate review by Penn State University into accusations against Michael E. Mann cleared him of any wrongdoing, concluding that "there is no substance" to the allegations against him.[16]
Global warming denialism is wackjobbery, plain and simple. The weight of real science overwhelmingly concludes that global warming is a fact, and that human industrial activity is not only a major cause of it, but the one factor we could actually do something about. The so-called "Climategate," however, is a fabrication. Even the most rudimentary search turns up ample evidence to prove that.
freesw is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2011, 22:52   #89
Full Member
 
CZDiesel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Colorado Springs, Co
Posts: 582
Wow! All I have to say is.... I love the new energy here now
__________________
A good plan violently executed now is better than a perfect plan executed next week.
Gen. George S. Patton
CZDiesel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 02:05   #90
Isolationist Libertarian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,421
It seems like everybody knows but you.....Guess you could buy the book.

Guns in American Society: A - L - Google Books
__________________
four more years.....groan.
p35bhp55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2011, 17:20   #91
Isolationist Libertarian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,421
Don’t Blame Liberals for Gun Control

by Richard Poe


NEWSMAX.COM - Anti-gun crusaders seem worried about the advent of a Republican administration. Heaven knows why. Republicans, in recent years, have managed to do nearly as much damage to the Second Amendment as Democrats.

In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."

It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."

It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.

Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."

One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.

Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation’s strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.

Gun control crusaders argue that the Republicans are simply yielding to grassroots pressure, to gain political advantage. But polls show little evidence of such pressure.

A Gallup/CNN/USA Today survey taken in June 1999 – only two months after the Littleton massacre – showed that the number of Americans who favored stricter gun laws had declined by 20 percent since 1990.

Public support for gun control has dwindled even further since then. An Associated Press poll released on the one-year anniversary of the Littleton shootings shows that Americans favor strict enforcement of existing laws over new gun laws – the exact position of the National Rifle Association (NRA) – by 42 to 33 percent.

That same month, a survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 6 percent of Americans believed that tougher gun laws would prevent future school shootings.

Meanwhile, a Tarrance Group poll has shown that only 5 percent of Americans want gunmakers and gun dealers held responsible for misuse of firearms.

Clearly, the pressure for gun control is not coming from the grassroots. It comes from those layers of society that the left calls the "ruling classes" – academics, Hollywood stars, Washington insiders and multibillion-dollar media conglomerates.

The latter are particularly influential in pushing anti-gun propaganda. A study by the Media Research Center released in January 2000 showed that television news stories calling for stricter gun laws outnumbered those opposing such laws by a ratio of 10 to 1.

The blame for this media bias is traditionally assigned to "liberal journalists." And, indeed, most journalists do hold left-of-center views. A 1996 survey of working journalists by the Roper Center and the Freedom Forum showed that 89 percent had voted for Bill Clinton in 1992. Only 4 percent identified themselves as Republicans and only 2 percent as conservatives.

Yet, their "liberal" views probably have less impact on the media’s anti-gun bias than most people assume. Rank-and-file reporters have little power to influence the political spin even of their own stories.

When I worked at the New York Post in the mid-1980s, I found the newsroom filled with liberals. They grumbled constantly about the paper’s conservative slant. But they went along with it, because it was company policy.

Liberal news organizations are no different. Political bias comes from the top. Rank-and-file reporters simply do what they are told.

Those of us who cherish our Second Amendment rights are keeping our fingers crossed about George W. Bush. But the monolithic commitment America’s "ruling classes" have shown toward gun control makes one wonder whether even a president is free to buck the current.
__________________
four more years.....groan.
p35bhp55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 14:41   #92
Full Member
 
TX expat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 75
Originally Posted by p35bhp55 View Post
It seems like everybody knows but you.....Guess you could buy the book.

Guns in American Society: A - L - Google Books
Ok, well it took me almost a week to get everything nailed down but I have some definitive answers for you, and while it's nice to think that I'm smarter than everybody, as you put it, there are plenty of folks who know that Bush never used an Executive Order to ban the import of assault weapons in 1989.

Here's the response of an Archivist at the National Archives where all Executive Orders are recorded and archived.

Within the published Code of Federal Regulations - 1989 Compilation, Title 3 - The President, I searched the subject index and the numerical listing of Executive Orders signed by President George Bush for the year 1989. The first one signed was Executive Order 12663 of January 6, 1989 and the last one signed was Executive Order 12698 of December 23, 1989; however, none of the documents pertain to banning the import of assault style rifles. Perhaps, President Bush "ordered" or authorized a Federal agency head (i.e. the Treasury Department's Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms) to issue a ban on the importation of such rifles. The order may have been in writing but was not a signed numbered Executive Order.

I also received this from an Archivist at the George Bush Presidential Library:

The ban on importation of certain semiautomatic assault-type rifles was actually a series of actions taken by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. They acted under the authority of the Gun Control Act of 1968, which prohibited the importation of firearms unless of a type that was generally recognized as suitable for sporting purposes (specifically 18 USC 922(g), 925(d)(3)). On March 14, 1989, ATF announced that it was temporarily suspending the importation of certain semiautomatic assault-type rifles pending a review of whether the rifles met the "sporting purposes" test under the statute. On July 7, 1989, ATF announced the results of its study, which concluded that a few rifles on the suspension list should be approved for importation according to the above test, but that the remainder should be permanently banned.

While President Bush approved the suspension, he did not issue an "order" banning the rifles. You may be interested in a press statement on April 5, 1989, in which Press Secretary Marlin Fitzwater announces an expansion of the number of rifles banned temporarily. It can be found on our web site at George Bush Presidential Library and Museum :: Public Papers. I found that statement by searching the Public Papers on our web site by the term "semiautomatic", and that result set might be of interest as well.


And lastly, I spoke with the Gregg Carter, who authored the book you used as your proof that "everyone knows" but me. Gregg said "It was an executive order with a small e and a small o". Taken in that sense, the President's breakfast requests are an executive order...

So there you go, no EO was used by President Bush to ban the import of assault weapons during his term in office.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TX expat is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 17:21   #93
Isolationist Libertarian
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,421
You win, I read every order in 1989 and never found it. but it was still done by executive order and the captitals and the number doesn't change the intent, don't see how this makes them any more "friendly" to gunowners.

Honestly I thought it was done by one of the orders where he vested his authority to someone, there were several of those that year. I've believed this for 22 years and we didn't have the net when this started. Changes nothing about the way I feel towards the Bush bunch and the Repugnants and my reading trying to find this only made that stronger.
__________________
four more years.....groan.
p35bhp55 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-01-2011, 17:46   #94
Full Member
 
TX expat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 75
No sir, I totally agree with you, it absolutely doesn't change intent. It's probably better to describe it as 'done by executive direction' though, as an Executive Order is a lot different than a law put into place due to the President's direction. I agree it wasn't a gun friendly move on the President's part and I'm pretty sure that President Bush lost a lot of support (and NRA dollars) over his decision. I can't say it cost him a second term, but it sure didn't do him any favors when election time rolled around.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TX expat is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
china, free trade, jobs

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 12:19.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
All information is copyright by Perfectunion.com unless already under copyright.