Prometheus 6

Sorry, the only insult or victimization here is to Bush. Bush leans more left, or at least is more willing to compromise, than most people on the left realize. Hell, more than most people on the right realize. The lack of funds is a two-fold thing; the first being a recognition that the project safe streets/neighborhoods/bathtubs/whatever really doesn't do more good than harm, & the second that Bush's fondness for trying to appeal to the far left at the expense of his base is not appreciated.

The 'black market gun crimes" being discussed as the focus of the de-funded programs are just that - statutory crimes involving the sale or more commonly the possession of firearms. Now most people would think that this means bank robbers won't be prosecuted for lack of federal funds to do so. BS. Violent crimes will not be affected. What will happen is perhaps the budget won't allow for spending an extraordinary amount of time trying to get John Doe sentenced to 20 years because he had a pistol in his trunk when he scored a nickel bag.

The majority of the crimes prosecuted under any such programs are of necessity based on prior restraint - i.e. that a person has the potential to do something harmful. They have the same effect on lowering rates of vilent crime as would vigorously prosecuting a law that forbid the wearing of earth tone shirts. With each there's a certain number of people with violent intent who get taken out of society before they commit more violence, but far more people that lack violent intent are caught in this overly broad net.

Course I'd have been much happier if Congress had not just withheld funding, but issued a decleration stating that such laws violate the federal constitution & the Rights of the people, but for now I'll take what I can get.

Still it's nice to see that the Times is not wavering in its efforts to undermine constitutionally enumerated individual rights that it sees as inconvenient. That's perhaps the only reason they'd have an editorial that seems sympathetic to Bush.

Bush leans more left, or at least is more willing to compromise, than most people on the left realize.

Oh, stop. We don't realize it because we've never seen an example of it.

I'll say this, though. I wasn't joking about my position of firearms: if anyone has them I want them too. It's been way too long since I felt familiar with firearms though and I'm starting to feel threatened by the people who feel threatened. And there's a lot of crazies in the mainstream. So I may need to find a weapons range, take up sport shooting.

Examples? look at the budgets he proposes. Look at the increase of government that can't be attributed to the September the 11th attacks. Look at his support for the "assault weapons" ban & a few other items of gun control, like the one that just got de=funded. Look at his desire to bolster, not eliminate social security. If you look at strictly domestic issues Bush accomplished a lot of what Clinton wanted to but coudn't. Now I'm not saying he's uber-leftist or socialist, just that his closer to the center than most realize (& that'd include him crossing the center line). He's a Republican, true. But he's definitely not conservative. An authoritarian centrist would describe him best. But it's easy to see an authoritarian in action & chalk it up to being right wing.

About the other thing - You & I disagree on quite a bit, but if I can ever provide any assistance as far as geting into shooting for sport or defense I'd be more than happy to. Hell, if you ever make it out to Colorado I'll take you to the range myself - ammo on me.

On Bush, I may have taken positions further to the left than you like but he hasn't taken a single progressive position on anything of substance. And he has not compromised with progressives at all.

Not on Bush, I may get with you, seriously. Things aren't anywhere near critical but critical is on my radar screen. Doubt making it to Colorado, though. I like my urban thing.