UPSET GUN OWNERS SET TO DUMP BUSH

Unhappy with President Bush's decision to support continuation of a controversial gun ban passed during the Clinton administration, many gun owners say they'll dump Bush in 2004 and vote for someone else if he signs new legislation extending the prohibition.

Angel Shamaya, founder and executive director of the KeepAndBearArms.com website, said in a single day some 4,300 people responded to a poll on the site asking if respondents would continue to support Bush if he renewed a ban on so-called "assault weapons," initially passed in 1994.

According to polling results by midday yesterday, that figure had climbed to near 4,900 people, with most – more than 93 percent – responding "no" to this question: "If Congress votes to re-authorize the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein federal so-called 'Assault Weapons' ban, gives the bill to President Bush and he signs it into law, would you still vote for him in his bid for re-election to the presidency in 2004?"

Less than 7 percent said they'd still support Bush if he aids in reauthorizing the legislation.

The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, among other things, banned the manufacture and importation of certain military-style semi-automatic rifles, dubbed "assault weapons" by bill supporters, while limiting magazine capacity to just 10 rounds. It is considered a crowning achievement for anti-gun groups, but to get more support, the bill's sponsors inserted a 10-year sunset provision, which takes effect in September 2004 – weeks before the general election.

Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association were hoping the GOP-controlled Congress would allow the law to expire. The current Congress and administration are considered the most gun-rights friendly in a more than a decade, but Bush's comments last week threw that presumption into doubt. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight-Ridder newspapers that the president "supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

"There is no such thing as gun control, only incremental gun prohibition," said Brian Puckett, co-founder of national gun-rights organization Citizens of America, of the ban itself. "Gun owners must grasp another political reality, which is: Allowing the government to get away with dictating the features of some guns sets the judicial, legislative and psychological precedent for allowing them to dictate the features of all guns."

"Our gun-rights organization, along with many others, took a stand for Bush in and after the 2000 election," Shamaya told WorldNetDaily. "From urging even Libertarians and third-party voters to support him to helping account for 'lost' military votes in case it came down to that, we fought to turn the Texas governor into a president. If supporting a semi-automatic rifle ban – the Feinstein/Clinton gun ban, no less – is how he intends to repay us, he's lost his marbles."

While the results of the KABA poll are non-scientific, they do provide a glimpse into the angst of gun owners. As WorldNetDaily reported, some lawmakers and gun-rights advocates are also upset with Bush's stance.

"I was surprised and disappointed to learn of the report of the president's support for continuing the ban on homeland-security rifles, aka semi-auto rifles," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Virginia-based Gun Owners of America, a group with 300,000 members nationwide.

"I am also puzzled. Why would George Bush want to help Democrats? The issue, when it was opposed by most Republicans, cost Democrats the House in 1994 and the White House in 2000," Pratt said. "Banning the homeland-security rifle is pure Washington, but anti-Constitution and anti-homeland security."

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, also decried the current ban and does not support the president's position to renew it.

Gun-rights supporters voiced their opinions to WorldNetDaily regarding Bush's decision.

"I will not vote for [Bush] if this ban is in place by Election Day," one WND reader said. "I am a Republican who will vote for a Democrat if I have to, if they fight against this bill. All of my conservative, gun-owning friends are exactly the same as me."

"Recently we saw on TV our soldiers handing out AK-47s to Iraqi volunteer cops," said another reader. "Our government handing out AK-47s to people they do not know, folks that have not passed an FBI background check … Yet our government would fall over backwards before even suggesting that Americans arm themselves. Quite hypocritical, I think."

"I've said long ago that 'we'd see' about Bush on guns when this opportunity finally came about," said another. "What a non-surprise. One could wrap a dill pickle in a Godiva Chocolate box and bow, but the contents remain the same. …"

"He stated during the campaign he supported the law. I am pro-guns and pro-NRA, but I agree that Bush should support this assault-weapons ban," said one reader. "When in Washington you have to pick your fights carefully and this is not one worth expending political capital on."

Gun-rights activists were also upset by the president's stance because it comes at a time when a new series of lawsuits against gun makers is being launched by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and others.

One retailer/activist, Concealed Carry Inc., of Oak Brook, Ill., has even begun a campaign to "cooperate with the NAACP" and is refusing to sell firearms to blacks.

"I am going to use the broad authority granted me as a federally licensed gun dealer to prevent straw purchases by denying sales to African-Americans. To insure fairness, there will be no exceptions," said John Birch, president of Concealed Carry Inc. He said he'll continue to ban sales to African-Americans "until the NAACP asks us to, at which point we will be pleased to resume sales."

"We must let Bush and the Republican party know that if they don't support our rights we will either refuse to go to the polls or we will vote for a third party," Puckett said. "If you give them your vote even when they sell you out, they'll keep selling you out."

"President Bush created the so-called Homeland Security Department, yet he wants to continue a ban on homeland-security rifles and has done nothing to protect the sieve laughably called a border," Shamaya added. "Bush's support for a ban on semi-automatic rifles is a vote to leave patriots in this great nation with inferior defensive capabilities."

And ... what do computers and cars have to do with owning an AK-47? Your trite remarks do not answer my question.

1. The same liberals who want to take away Second Amendment rights are also opposed to people owning SUVs, as is constantly pointed out by Rush Limbaugh. "Why does anyone NEED a SUV?" demand such leftists.

2. You do not understand the difference between actual assault rifles and the kind of SEMI-automatic firearms that are affected by this ban. An ASSAULT RIFLE (most of them are actually CARBINES, not rifles, as they have less range than the longer barrelled rifle) has a selector switch on it. When you turn the switch to "FULL AUTO," it fires like a machine gun. When you turn the switch to "SEMI-AUTOMATIC," you can only fire a one shot at a time, but do not have to manually work a lever, bolt, or pump action to eject the empty cartridge and load a new one. That is why it is called "SEMI-AUTOMATIC."

The term "automatic" refers to a mechanism in the weapon that ejects the empty, fired cartridge casing and loads the next round from an external or internal magazine that holds the unfired cartridges. Some of the weapons use mechanical AUTOMATIC reloading, like the German Luger pistol, and others use "Blowback" technology that captures the gases from the firing of a cartridge and forces the gas back into the weapon to work the mechanism that reloads the next cartridge. An "automatic" carbine fires and reloads as long as your finger presses the trigger. A "semi-automatic" must have the trigger depressed in order to work the mechanism to eject and load. They are SINGLE-SHOT weapons, not AUTOMATIC weapons. The only differences between the banned weapons and hunting weapons that are semi-automatic are:

A. A semi-automatic carbine has a shorter range.

B. Some semi-automatic carbines "look like" the military arms from which they are copied. An AR-15 "looks like" an M-16, but has no flash suppressor or lug for receiving a bayonet. Actually, this makes the AR-15 LESS of a "militia" weapon than an M-16, and, according to one Supreme Court decision, it is MILITARY ARMS that are those protected by the Second Amendment, as a militia is supposed to drill and train with actual military weapons, not with civilian market knock-offs. That decision identified all the military weapons that were protected under the Second Amendment by branch of service and specialty, such as an Artiller soldier could own the military sidearms of the day that were applicable to the artillery, an artilleryman's sword and revolver. A cavalryman could own a saber, revolver, and carbine that were in use in that branch of service. An infantryman could own a long rifle in use in the service and a bayonet to be fitted on the long rifle.

The Second Amendment does not secure SPORTING ARMS, although no one should be worried about them. The Second Amendment actually supports the ownership of MILITARY ARMS. I am talking about the small arms used by the branches of the service that are not crew-served weapons, such as machine guns, Stinger missiles, etc. Crew-served weapons require more than one soldier to use them. No one in the militia kept howitzers in their front yards. The Supreme Court only addressed small arms used by individual soldiers.

What this means is that, in addition to the Second Amendment as an issue, the erosion of the institution of ACTUAL State Militias, organized by State Governments and regulated by Congress, as opposed to the National Guard system we now have, should also be discussed with the issue of gun ownership. To be a true militia, the officers have to be recognized by the Governor and Legislature, and they must regularly drill and train, with the militia being under the regulations established by Congress.

Assault "Rifles" and Machine Pistols/Submachine Guns: People confuse these two weapons. An assault rifle has the same fully automatic capabilities as a submachine gun, but has a carbine configuration (shorter rifle) and can accept a bayonet. The carbine also does not fire PISTOL ammunition. A submachine gun fires the same caliber of ammunition that the primary sidearm of an army fires. In World War II, the German MP-40 fired 9 millimeter pistol ammunition and the US Thompson submachine gun fired 45 caliber pistol ammunition like the Colt .45. Like the assault "rifle" (Assault rifle was the German designation for such weapons, but they are not rifles) the submachine gun is designed to be most effective in close quarters combat. "Sweeping" and "brooming" are terms used to describe what they are intended to do, as the submachine gun was originally designed to "sweep" World War I trenches of enemy troops once an attack caused soldiers to enter enemy trenches or fire down into them at close range.

The only real assualt RIFLE was the Browing Automatic Rifle. It was fully automatic (fired like a machine gun) was not crew-served, and was constructed in the configuration of a large rifle.

What I wish for...is Republican leadership, and not a few of the rank and file, to grow a set of guts.

And what makes you think I don't??

Uhmm... Is this a trick question? How 'bout the rest of your post!

Did you see the Democrats backing down when their only advantage was a single seat in the Senate?

What about the Estrada nomination? Does it look like they're worried about having their feet held to the fire for their contempt of the Constitution?

I'm glad he's gone, but Lott would still be majority leader if he'd just told the democrats and the press "piss off...I was being nice to an old man on his birthday."

Here's a word to the wise; if you're gonna call yourself a Christian, don't make excuses for the Bible.

You flatter yourself by claiming "to tend to face reality." You're running away from boogie men. That's why I keep asking you for the upside. Your nebulous fear the President could be weakened by supporting gun rights is not connected to any objective reality.

That being said, he will most definitely be weakened by failing to support gun rights. The only question is "how badly?"

If you want to play "chicken little," that's your business. But for pete's sake, stop covering up your lack of intestinal fortitude by trying to convince others your "sky is falling" proposition has merit. In fact, you're proving it has no merit by not having an answer to the upside question.

... I do support President Bush and also realize that he is not perfect and he has a hell of a mess to clean up after the 8 yr. nightmare called Clinton. I also realize that it has take over 40+ years to screw this country up to the point it is today and there is no way that Bush can clean this mess up over night ..

Set aside the validity of this statement; what does it have to do with guns? What, in your mind, would be a better hill to fight for than the restoration of the clear intent of an article of the Bill of Rights?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.