Will you vote for Bush and the Republican Party if the AWB is renewed?

Publicola's trying to start a meme. He's asking whether those of us who support the right to keep and bear arms will vote Bush/Republican in November if the assault weapons ban is renewed. He says no.

I will not vote for Bush or any Republican if the assault weapons ban is renewed.

At risk of dimishing the impact of my statement, I wasn't planning to anyway. Michael Badnarik and the Libertarian Party have my vote in the elections this year, and the Libertarians have it as a general rule. Why is that, though, when I definitely am more sympathetic to the Republican position than the Democratic position, and the Republicans can actually get people elected to national office? Simple: The Republicans can't be trusted. They talk the right talk on most issues. But they won't back it up. They don't vote their rhetoric.

At least the Democrats vote for what they say they support, even if they refuse to call it socialism.

I've been a committed libertarian for years. Up until this year, I never doubted my choice of party, but as November approaches I have found myself asking hard questions. I support the Libertarian platform 100% as a matter of principle, but the application of those principles to Iraq and Afghanistan seems to me a dangerous thing. We cannot afford to leave either nation without our presence, our support, and our good example. An American government that acts primarily within its own borders, rather than entangling itself into the affairs of other nations, is the right long-term principle, but we cannot simply withdraw unilaterally and expect the terrorists to honor a truce; they will sense weakness and they will strike.

Bush is strong on foreign policy and national security overall. He's committed to staying in the Middle East and creating a free and democratic nation in Iraq (and possibly Afghanistan as well). I think that is the best long-term strategy: give the region a taste of freedom and a taste of hope. It's a long-term plan that won't be easy to pull off, but it's the best plan we've got. He's not a perfect candidate on those issues, but he's light-years ahead of Kerry, and though I cringe to say it, Badnarik would probably be a national-security disaster in the present times.

So this year, Bush might have had my vote. But he flubbed it on domestic policy; with the exception of tax cuts and some trivial policy statements, he's flubbed *every single issue* domestically. Let's review:

1. Support the assault weapons ban.
2. Pass the Patriot Act to restrict our freedoms
3. Seek to pass an expanded version in secret...
4. ... and when the secret is exposed, try again... and again.
5. Allow appointees to stonewall and sabotage the armed pilot program.
6. Ignore the principle of separation of church and state
7. Deficit-spend like a sailor on shore leave
8. Give in to the Democrats on socialized health care
9. Give up on privatizing social security
10. Failed to every raise the issue of national concealed carry for ordinary folk
11. Failed to close the borders to illegal immigrants and terrorists
12. Failed to pass a firearms liability protection bill.
13. Trampled the Bill of Rights

I hardly need to go on. The man is a complete disaster on every policy he's touched except terror and taxation.. and there are some questions about terror. Afghanistan and Iraq needed to be dealt with; Iran and North Korea still do. He's got that going for him, but precious little else... and he's betrayed his base. On the assault weapons ban, on the deficit, on health care, on liberty. There are a lot of disillusioned Republicans and gun owners out there.

The good news? Those polls you see that claim large numbers in support of the assault weapons ban don't lie. They're commissioned by the anti-gun groups, of course, so they distort the questions a bit to keep the people answering them from actually understanding what they are being asked, but there are lots of people out there who think "military-style firearms" can and should be banned.

The bad news? Let's think about who those people are. The people who support renewing the ban are responding to a poll. They may be "likely voters" but they aren't likely to vote based on their opinions of the assault weapons ban. Probably about 40-50% of those favoring the ban are Democrats who will vote for Kerry no matter what; the rest will look at Bush on a variety of issues and won't be swayed by any single one. Bush isn't going to get the fiscal responsibility vote this year, for example, and frankly the soccer mom vote isn't going to go Republican.

The people who oppose renewing the ban are dedicated activists who understand the firearms laws and probably consider themselves 2nd Amendment absolutists (or not far from it). These people will vote the gun-rights line and they will mobilize others to do so. You won't see them on the media, but they'll be proselytizing on the internet, on the phone, and in person with their friends. If you can convince them that Bush is a pro-gun candidate who will actually fight for their gun rights, they're worth probably hundreds of votes each.

Recent polls suggest that in Michigan, 76% of voters support the assault weapons ban. Now, this is an anti-gun poll with misleading questions paid for by an anti-gun organization in a liberal bastion. It's safe to assume they aren't underestimating support for the ban. But even so, 24% of the people in Michigan oppose the ban. Since Michigan has a population of about 10 million, that's 240,000 people who are opposed to the ban. And they are the ones with the guns.

The long-term legislative agenda of the anti-gun lobby is an extremely risky one. They do not understand the passion with which many gun owners view the 2nd Amendment and the right to arms. They do not comprehend the consequences of success. Should they ever succeed in passing a bill that says, to borrow some appropriate quotations, "Mr and Mrs America, turn them all in" will be answered by "... from my cold, dead hands!"

In 1994, the original assault weapons ban was not enough to trigger this response. Perhaps the sunset date in the bill prevented it; perhaps the fact that it did not attempt to confiscate existing guns; perhaps the purely cosmetic nature of the banned features. But that was in 1994, under Clinton, when the Democrats had a great deal more power. The Republican party could blame the ban on him, say they had to make deals and play along. It's been 10 years, and we have a supposedly pro-gun President, a supposedly pro-gun House, and an evenly balanced Senate.

If Bush and the Republican Party want to betray their base, by passing and signing a gun control law while the supposedly-pro-gun party is in power, the message they will send to gun owners is simple: it doesn't matter who you vote for, both sides will vote to take your guns away.

By trying to finesse the gun control issue, Bush may get some short-term benefits. But it's a risky strategy, because he will not be able to deny responsibility should more gun control laws pass on his watch. Saying the Democrats did it won't help him when the Democrats aren't even remotely in power. And by thoroughly betraying the trust of the gun owners, Bush will have ensured that they look elsewhere.

If voting and even electing Republicans is not enough to prevent gun control from being enacted, those gun owning activists will throw their vote and their activist support behind other candidates. Libertarians, Constitutionalists, whatever it takes. If the Republican party passes gun control while able to control both Houses of Congress, and Bush signs it, the Republican party will have abandoned all pretense of being pro-gun. Pro-gun voters will no longer have a viable candidate to vote for. Some of them will move to third parties, in the hopes of creating a viable pro-gun alternative. What I fear is that some of them will decide instead to vote with lead.