That article was written almost exactly one month to the day before Bush's first election. It's what's known as a hit piece. It's deliberately slanted to place Bush in the worst light possible. Try using actual data instead of leftist cant.croc870 wrote:That's not a very nice assumption. I thought this was pretty well known, but here is one link about the issue.
http://articles.latimes.com/2000/oct/03/news/mn-30319/7" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Edit: This little gem is typical of the kind of junk that liberals propagate: "In many cases, concealed gun permits were given to applicants who were obviously unfit. Some had prior conviction records." Doh! Read the law bozos. Once someone has been convicted of a crime, the clock starts. After a period of good behavior, they get the right to carry a gun back.
Of course, the liberals don't want criminals to have any restrictions on their rights at all except when they can use it as "proof" of the error of the right's ways. So criminals should get early probation, government help in readjusting to society, etc., etc., but dear lord, let's not let them have guns after they've proven they can be trusted.
I hate liberals. They're such liars and scumbags, it's hard not to.
