Posted on 11/13/2003 12:45:22 PM PST by 45Auto
George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisers have decided that their best strategy for the 2004 campaign is to focus on the "doctrine of preemption." The obvious goal is to portray the president as a hero in the war on terror, conveying the notion that he is the one who is able to keep America safe. Unfortunately for Bush, his position on the assault weapons ban may cause his reelection plans to unravel.
Many conservatives currently feel comfortable backing Bush for a second term. For one thing, he cut taxes, and the economy is on the rebound. He has shown courage by taking on global terrorism. He appointed as Attorney General a man who believes that the Second Amendment supports an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Bush is every conservative's dream, right? Think again.
During his 2000 campaign, candidate Bush voiced his support of the assault weapons ban that was passed during the Clinton administration. The federal law is scheduled to expire on Sept. 13, 2004, and Bush, speaking as president, has already stated that he supports its reauthorization.
Some have tried to excuse the president's position by arguing that he is merely telling people what they want to hear, stating publicly that the ban is a good thing while remaining confident that renewal of the ban will never even make it through the House of Representatives. That may offer some comfort to disgruntled conservatives, but it is important to remember that 38 Republicans voted for the ban in 1994 and 42 voted against its repeal in 1996. That doesn't bode well for freedom-loving Americans.
Don't be surprised in the coming months to see the Bush administration pushing for a renewal of the assault weapons ban by promoting it as an effective tool in our fight against terrorism. After all, such a ban would make it easier for law enforcement officers to break up terrorist organizations here in the United States. In 1993, for example, a raid on a Muslim commune in central Colorado turned up bombs, automatic weapons, ammunition and plans for terrorist attacks.
On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft, testifying before Congress, revealed an al-Qaida training manual that had been discovered in Afghanistan. The manual, he claimed, told terrorists "how to use America's freedom as a weapon against us." The fear was that terrorists in the U.S. would exploit loopholes in our gun laws in an effort to arm themselves – and with radical groups like Muslims of America already purchasing guns, we can't be too careful.
Like most federal laws, the assault weapons ban was originally passed with the assumption that Americans are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety. This, of course, has been historically a safe assumption on the part of our elected officials in Washington. But Bush's position on the assault weapons ban may very well come back to haunt him when he seeks to reconnect with his conservative base in 2004.
The hypocrisy of the president has already been revealed. He spoke out in favor of the government's prerogative to trample on the Second Amendment – under the guise of "reasonable" gun legislation – at the same time he was sending troops armed with fully automatic weapons to Iraq. This may seem like a stupid question, but if soldiers are allowed to carry assault weapons in order to provide for the common defense, why can't that same right be extended to civilians who want nothing more than to defend their homes and families?
John Ashcroft once said during his confirmation hearing, "I don't believe the Second Amendment to be one that forbids any regulation of guns." Far be it from me to contradict the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the country, but the Constitution forbids exactly that. The federal government is barred from passing any law that may infringe upon the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Period. It can't be explained in simpler terms than that.
President Bush would be wise to reconsider his position on the assault weapons ban. If he isn't careful, he and other members of his administration may end up alienating the few true conservatives left in the Republican Party – and that would be a mistake this close to election time.
As the President stands gawking at millions of illegal aliens pouring into our country, creating massive, nationwide lawlessness, while this open border lunacy has lit the fuse to this national security time bomb......
As some of you just appear to "shut up and take it".
Eventually you wont have any freedoms or even a sovereign country left to worry about.
Because it's a blatant violation of the Tenth Amendment.
Question (directed especially at any politician who would consider voting to extend the ban): Why did it take a constitutional amendment to empower the federal government to ban alcohol during Prohibition, but not to ban certain semi-automatic firearms?
Note that both bans were supported on the same grounds (public safety, not everyone can use booze/guns safely, etc.)
Never before has the federal government banned the simple private ownership of any item which they are not explicitly granted power to control by the Constitution. Machineguns? Nope, they were careful to simply apply onerous tax fees and regulations on them. Drugs? Nope, most possession laws are *state* laws, the feds only get involved in *trafficking*, which is interstate or foreign commerce of narcotics. And so on.
You are just simply wrong. Not only are you cluless about our founders use of assault weapons. They intended future citizens to have the same access to the best tools the same way that they did. Perhaps you are forgetful, or just selectively so, the founders owned their own cannons. What do you think Ben Franlin's job was during the war?
"I am an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man doing his best to preserve our nation in its deadly fight against an enemy as evil as it has ever faced."
Such weapons? They are needed to oppose tyrants and traitors.
"cut and run at the least excuse."
We'll see what goes down when the hand's played.
Yes, and after the firearms, they'll repeal the tax cuts, raise taxes, undo the partial birth abortion ban, raise taxes, defund the military again, raise taxes, undermine home schooling and vouchers, raise taxes, appoint socialist judges and justices, raise taxes, give licenses and voting rights to illegals, raise taxes, fund NPR, attack religion, raise taxes, create new government agencies instead of consolidating them, raise taxes,......but they love you.
The important lesson from that election was that even with a wildly popular Republican in what was thought to be a close election, 13% of Californians voted for a true conservative candidate. This is almost as great a margin as Ronald Reagan won in 1984. Furthermore, a high level of dissatisfaction among the base opens up the possibility of an effective third party candidate who can triangulate the president and take even more votes (think Perot).
It is in the interest of all Republicans and conservatives to make sure that the Republican party doesn't loose its base. We must remember that unlike liberal voters, many conservative voters put principles and issues over party affiliation and political expediency. They simply won't vote for a public official who undermines their ideals, and beating them up about it won't will only alienate them further. Whether the Republican candidate has a better fiscal policy or whether he may or may not appoint better judges doesn't matter if they are no better on these critical issues. Nor will the idea that Republican Party just needs to compromise its principles to win now and will become more conservative later. The base is composed of voters, and like any other political demographic they can't be neglected or forfeited and expected to turn out to vote and volunteer.
The more the president moves to the center to capture undecided and swing voters, the more he will loose from his base. We all should contact the president (and other Republican candidates) to make sure that this doesn't happen.
BS. I work in the field and know how things work. We can elect someone much more conservative if he sells the package correctly. Bush is PERCEIVED as much more conservative than he really is.
they understand that the AW ban is essentially irrelevent to anything.
Tell it to the dems that got fired in 94.
preserve our nation in its deadly fight against an enemy as evil as it has ever faced.
The greatest evil our nation has faced isn't in a foreign land. Saddam and Bin Laden are evil, but not as evil as tyrants here at home. I'm not calling Bush a tyrant. I don't think he's a bad guy personally, just someone that gets bad advice at times. But tyrants here like a Janet Reno type are the biggest evil. George Soros is the biggest evil.
would not want as an ally because they will cut and run at the least excuse.
That's BS. I don't cut and run. Rather I call out those that do. If he signs the RAT's AW ban, than I will not vote for him for backing RAT policies.
That is what is to be done now. What remains to be done
will have to wait until the congressional bm takes place... then we'll reanalyze (as it were).
I'm not a republican, though I voted for Bush and his dad. I'll decide when it's time.
Don't give him anything to sign. Maybe some of the republican senators need to hear
more of this from us, well prior to the 04 election. Most of the posts on this thread
are either "it ain't gonna pass" or "I won't vote for W if he signs it. Non sequitur.
It's time to press congress now. It may become time to press W later.
LOL! Sure I do...barrel first.
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.