As I Predicted, George W. Bush Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban

Toogood Reports ^ | April 15, 2003 | By Chuck Baldwin

[Uncle Bill]

As I Predicted, George W. Bush
Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban

TooGood Reports
By Chuck Baldwin
Chuck Baldwin Website
April 15, 2003

In this column dated December 17, 2002, I predicted that President G.W. Bush would support the so-called assault weapons ban first promoted by former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Diane Feinstein back in 1994. Interestingly enough, the gun ban became law on the strength of a tie-breaking vote by then Vice President Al Gore. The ban is scheduled to sunset next year, but Bush is joining Clinton and Gore in supporting an extension.

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The president supports the current law (the Clinton gun ban), and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

This must come as quite a blow to people such as the leaders of the National Rifle Association who campaigned heavily for Bush touting him as a "pro-gun" candidate. Since his election, the NRA and others have repeatedly reaffirmed their support for Bush, because he is "pro-gun." Well, now the mask is off!

I have tried to warn my readers that Bush is not a true conservative. He is not pro-life; he is not pro-family; he is not pro-Constitution. And now we know he is not pro-gun.

Instead of reversing the miserable policies of Clinton/Gore, Bush is helping to harden the cement around those policies. The gun issue is no exception.

The so-called assault weapons ban was the benchmark piece of legislation reflecting the anti-gun policies of people such as Clinton, Gore, Feinstein, and New York Senator Charles Schumer. It was also the number one target of the NRA. In fact, the NRA all but promised their supporters that a Bush presidency would help reverse this Draconian gun ban. Instead, Bush is pushing Congress to extend the ban.

A bill to reauthorize the gun ban will be introduced by Senator Feinstein in the coming weeks. It must pass both chambers of Congress to reach the President's desk. The best chance of stopping it will be in the House of Representatives. However, in order to defeat this bill, it must resist the power and influence of the White House. This will be no small task.

Not only is Bush betraying the pro-gun voters who helped elect him, he is breathing new life into a nearly dead anti-gun movement. Most political analysts credit Bush's pro-gun image as the chief reason he defeated Al Gore in the 2000 election. They also credit the pro-gun image of the Republican Party for helping them to achieve impressive wins in the 2002 congressional elections.

Now, Bush is giving new credibility to anti-gun zealots such as Schumer and Feinstein and is helping to reinvigorate the anti-gun momentum that had all but been put on ice.

However, the real question will be, "Will pro-gun conservatives continue to support Bush?" Bush is every bit the "Teflon President" that Clinton was. Conservatives seem willing to overlook anything he does, no matter how liberal or unconstitutional it may be. Will they overlook this, also?

If you truly believe in the Second Amendment and are willing to do something about it, I suggest you go to the Gun Owners of America website. They have a quick link set up which allows people an opportunity to conveniently send email to the White House about this issue. Go to the gun ban "alert" button. From there you can voice your disapproval with the President's decision to betray his constituents by supporting this new round of gun control.

Once again, the ball of freedom and constitutional government is in the court of the American people. Will they keep the ball and do something with it, or will they hand it off to the neo-conservatives at the White House? We'll see.

---

PLEASE Don't Sit out 2004, EVEN IF Bush signs the AW ban extention

Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban

---

"That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks."
George W. Bush - Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17,2000.

MORE INJUSTICE ON THE WAY - Bush GUN CONTROL
"Gene Healy, a Cato Institute scholar, recently provided a thorough exploration of the unintended consequences of one law, the new Bush-Ashcroft plan to federalize gun crimes, known as the Project Safe Neighborhoods program. The unintended consequences of this law are frightening."
NOTE: Same Article in Washington Times.

There Goes the Neighborhood: The Bush-Ashcroft Plan to "Help" Localities Fight Gun Crime, by Gene Healy

"W. Wimps Out on Guns"
The Bush package includes several pet causes of the gun-control lobby, including $75 million for gun locks; $15.3 million for 113 new federal attorneys to serve as full-time gun prosecutors; and $19.1 million to expand a program by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms aimed at preventing youths from obtaining guns. Although Bush stressed that he simply wants to "enforce existing laws," the fine print of Project Safe echoes the gun-grabbing Left's call to ban the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips."

Project Safe Neighborhoods, A Closer Look

LAURA BUSH:
"During her San Diego speech, for instance, she said nothing about the school shooting that occurred 20 miles away in El Cajon the day before, although in a television interview she condemned it, adding that she thinks more gun control laws are needed.

"I think that's very important," she said when asked by CNN whether stronger gun laws are needed."
Source.

EMERSON & THE SECOND AMENDMENT

A Gutless Supreme Court Decision - Gun Control

Republican Leadership Help Push Gun Control

Bush's Assault On Second Amendment

NEA Resource Text Guide In Regards To The Extreme Right - Where Do Your Kids Go To School?
"The radical right says it is pro-life but it bitterly opposes gun control legislation"

or

A Problem With Guns?

Thanks for that Patriot Act George

[Dan from Michigan]

Nothing was deleted, or is this another one of your "Depends on the meaning of is" things.

[dcwusmc]

And recall the statment that "Extremism in the pursuit of Liberty is NO VICE and Moderation in the pursuit of Justice is NO VIRTUE?" Attributed to Barry Goldwater... It's true. Were it not for EXTREMISTS, you would not have ONE SINGLE RIGHT left today. Incrementalism would have eaten them alive. Just as, without the Extremists, Slavery would not have ended in 1862 or thereabouts. You NEED extremists in order to just hold on to what you HAVE, let alone enjoy the whole range of liberty intended by the Founders. Some of us tend to make you uncomfortable... which is understandable... people who don't have the stones to stand up for what they believe in are rather uncomfortable around those who do... I guess it's guilt that you are getting a FREE RIDE on the backs of those who care enough about freedom to actually get into the battle and DO something about it. So enjoy your guilt.

[Technogeeb]

Well, as to the reading comprehension and to who actually read the newspapers at the time, I have history and facts on my side

No, you don't. The literacy rate in New England was over 90%, and well over 50% even in the worst areas. The protestant communities considered literacy necessary; since without it their children would be unable to read the Bible.

Let's face it, only landowners originally had the vote

This is not true. Qualifications for voting were set by the state. Some had restrictions on owning land, but not all. There have never been any federal requirements under the Constitution that voters own land.

You can dispute it, but you are wrong, and I advise you to read some history books

You need to read some better ones, because the source of your "history" is horribly misinformed.

You REPEATEDLY called W a sinner if he signs the AWB. Last I looked, it was G-d's domain to make that call

W is a sinner whether he signs the AWB or not; for all have sinned. But dcwusmc is correct to label that particular act as a sin, and a particularly heinous one. The Bible is very clear on the fact that oath-breaking is a sin, and it is self-evident to anyone with even the most basic moral compass that the AWB is a clear violation of the 2nd amendment, and therefore support of that act is a violation of an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution.

[Technogeeb]

But would you be able to suggest a sinless man for whom to vote?

My standards are not even remotely so high. I only demand one who does not commit the worst of sins; violation of the highest law of the land and his oath of office to protect it. The Constitution certainly isn't a minefield; it just isn't that difficult to comply with it.

[k2blader]

Well, I believe all sins are equal, so we differ there too.

However, now that I understand a little better where you're coming from, I respect your position. And I support your right to vote for or against whomever you'd like.

FRegards,
k2

[kevao]

Hey, it shouldn't take you this long to review my post and tell me what it was that I "deleted" from the Constitution.

[dcwusmc]

Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer! I would suggest that purple is NOT a good color for anyone!

[Jim Robinson]

My opinion is that it looks like a whole lot of people are blowing a piece of leftist anti-Bush propaganda (published, by the socialist/marxist Washington Post, no less) all out of proportion. Looks like a whole lot of anti-Republicans are gleefully jumping onto the Washington Post's leftist Bush bashing bandwagon. My advice to those who are so happy to bash Bush and the Republicans ought to be very careful who they go to bed with. Destroy the momentum currently building for one of the very rare conservative led governments in all of U.S. history and they're liable to wake up with a real gun-grabbing socialist whore, ahem, as in Hillary Clinton, in the White House.

No wonder conservatives can't make any real headway in government. As soon as the momentum starts building, out come the hand-wringing doom and gloom naysayers, for whom no conservative is good enough, to smear and destroy any and all progress made todate by the Republicans, and by doing so, reinstalling the leftist liberals to their socialist government command posts.

And the downward spiral to socialist hell spins on.

Time to break the cycle by not surrendering to the left or to the well-meaning, but misguided right-wing naysayers. Continue the Republican conservative revolution. Dump the RATS!

BTW, it's a real laugher when right-wingers start allying themselves with known leftists (International Answer, for example) and then have the audacity to accuse conservative FReepers of being "statists." Many of these same "right-wing conservatives" (probably mostly Buchanites or self-labeled so-called "paleocons") have openly allied themselves with the marxists, communists, anarchists, and other anti-war Hollywood type leftists against Bush, against defending America, against defending freedom, and against Republicanism in general. FReepers are statists for backing Bush? Yeah, right. By that same logic, that would make Buchanan and his paleocon followers marxists, or in the very least, useful idiots, for supporting the Washington Post and the real unAmerican, freedom hating Hollywood anti-war gun-grabbing left, et al.

"We have met the enemy and he are us." The paleocons are fond of using this Pogoism as applied to mainstream conservatives, but, in many cases, I'd say the finger points right back at them. The anti-Republican conservatives seem to be the enemy of sustained conservative government.

I'm a liberty minded individual who backs the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 100%, but there is no way that I'm going to dump Bush or dump the Republican majority. Not now. Not ever. The momentum is building and will continue to build. If we want to remove liberalism and socialism from our government and restore constitutional limits, etc., then, IMHO, we cannot possibly allow the Democrats to regain control. Reelecting president Bush, and gaining larger majorities in the House, the Senate, and the Judiciary and also in state and local governments is a must if we are ever to retake America and our Liberty. This is my goal for the coming election cycle and beyond.

Naysayers be damned. Full speed ahead!

[k2blader]

Thank you, Jim, and agreed!!!

FSP, just for your info ping.

[diamond6]

THANK YOU, JIM! NOW WE KNOW WHERE YOU REALLY STAND. I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. AS FOR ME, I'M GETTING BORED WITH THIS SUBJECT. GOOD NIGHT NOW!

[k2blader]

Indeed, diamond. :-)

Have a great evening.

[FSPress]

The money has become more important than anything. California's colors have finally shown through. It's a long way from where it was in 98 99. There never was a core belief in the constitution on this site was there.

[FSPress]

The money has become more important than anything. California's colors have finally shown through. It's a long way from where it was in 98 99. There never was a core belief in the constitution on this site was there.

[Uncle Bill]

UP IN ARMS?

Read related story

---

Will your vote be affected if President Bush signs extension on 'assault-weapons' ban?

It would be such a constitutional betrayal, I'd have no choice but to vote against him	31.46% (1809)

I'd be disappointed but would still vote for him	24.66% (1418)

I'd be outraged and tempted to vote for a candidate from another party	13.60% (782)

It's not an issue that would affect my vote	12.17% (700)

I would have voted for Bush but definitely won't if he signs extension	10.26% (590)

I'd never vote for Bush, under any circumstances	4.02% (231)

Other	2.23% (128)

It's a step toward needed gun control and I'd be more likely to vote for him	1.41% (81)

He's finally beginning to see the necessity of gun control, but I still wouldn't vote for him	0.17% (10)

It's the right thing to do, but I wouldn't vote for him because I'm a Democrat	0.03% (2)

---

TOTAL VOTES: 5751

View previous Polls

[Jim Robinson]

Barbara/Streisand. I believe wholeheartedly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. I live and breath for restoring them and our Liberty and for dumping the socialist liberal RATs out of their controlling positions in government. That's why I am passionately opposed to allowing any Democrat from gaining or holding office.

I see the Democrats and their socialist platforms as the enemy of freedom, enemy of Liberty and enemy of the Constitution (not too mention just flatout corrupt and their party platform, ie, socialism, slave taxism, gun control, government sanctioned and enforced homosexualism and abortion, etc., as purely evil).

I see dumping the RATS and not allowing them into government in controlling numbers as the first step (note: "first step") in restoring constitutional government. Those who are bent on dumping the Republicans are simply going to reinstall Democrats in their place and forestall any chance of constitutional restoration. What good can that possibly bring?

Here's the roadmap:

• First step: Dump the RATs.
• Elect Republicans.
• Build a controlling supermajority.
• Appoint and confirm conservative judges.
• Repeat at all levels of government.
• As majorities build: dump the least conservative of the Republicans and replace with with more conservative candidates.
• One by one, build cases against existing unconstitutional law and or prior Supreme Court decisions and bring to the newly conservative courts to strike down or reverse.
• Lobby the conservative congress to repeal existing unconstitutional laws.
• Lobby the congress to begin dismantling the socialist welfare state and the police state.
• Build cases for repealing all unconstitutional gun control laws and lobby congress and or the Supreme Court to get it done.
• Repeat for each area where federal government has overstepped its constitutional bounds.
• Repeat above at state and local levels.
• Build a case for amendments to repeal the 16th amendment and abolish the income tax, the IRS, FICA, the SSA, medicare, etc.
• Build a case for an amendment to repeal the 17th amendment and bring to congress and to the people.
• Ensure that the second, fourth, fifth, ninth and tenth amendments are fully restored and enforced.
• Restore state and local government control (ie, the people) over crime, social, welfare, education and environmental issues.
• Enjoy and diligently defend the Liberty newly restored and secured for ourselves and our posterity.

Repeat as necessary.

[tpaine]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."


As I said, there is no room for liberal or authoritarian debate on this issue.
According to the U.S. Constitution, this is one of our primary unalienable rights. They cannot deprive you of this. Just take a Constitutional stand and refuse to give up your gun.
Any Congressman who tries to infringe your right is a traitor to the Constitution and deserves to be defeated.

103 Posted on 11/28/1999 11:24:02 PST by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com)
__________________________________


That was then, this is now:

"I'm a liberty minded individual who backs the Constitution and the Bill of Rights 100%, but there is no way that I'm going to dump Bush or dump the Republican majority. Not now. Not ever."
-Jim Rob-

How do you square the above, with this?

"Any Congressman who tries to infringe your right is a traitor to the Constitution and deserves to be defeated."

[Jim Robinson]

See my roadmap above. If anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears.

[FSPress]

Then let's get the show back on the road. Right now it's going to the left.

[Jim Robinson]

The show is on the road. Time for the naysayers and obstructionists to get aboard.

[Kenno]

Once again, you're assuming that the best way for Republicans to win is to suck up to the anti-gun crowd. The committed anti-gunners will vote Democrat anyway. For that matter, most hard-core conservatives will vote Republican anyway. However, the blue-collar union Democrats in states like West Virginia will desert to the Democrats in droves if Bush sells us out on the 2nd Amendment; after all, they already disagree with us on issues like Davis-Bacon and the minimum wage, so becoming anti-gun will make them less likely than ever to vote GOP.

If you really want to continue the GOP revolution, get on Bush's case to reverse himself, and quick.