The Assault Weapons Ban May Be Bush's Undoing

TooGood Reports ^ | 13 November 2003 | Lee R Shelton IV

[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.

[Sci Fi Guy]

If Bush supports/allows reauthorization of the AWB, he has lost my vote.

Did you vote for him the first time? It's my understanding (and I may be wrong) that he made this as part of his campaign to get elected in 2000. As much as I hate it, Bush is keeping a promise he made. After what happened to his Father, Bush will never go back on a campaign promise.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Is that you? I always imagined your hair being a little longer in the back

I rather share a meal or a beer with the man in the photo, than some weak, pansy, career politician/lawyer in suit. You know, the DC types that claim to be conservative while selling this country and our people out on a daily basis.

[spunkets]

I don't remember any promise. He just said he supported it. He should make sure it doesn't get to his desk. BTW, Bush sr. made the promise to his own supporters, then betrayed them at the hands of the rats. In this case betrayal of a great number of his supporters will be by his own choice to do so.

[StoneColdGOP]

No, "all conservatives" did not vote for him.

Nor will "all conservatives" vote to re-elect him.

[yarddog]

I honestly don't know what to do.

I voted for Bush although I suspected he would be just about what he has turned out to be. For a little while I thought maybe he was going to be ok but now I don't think so.

Gore was so bad that I just couldn't stand the idea of voting for him but it might have been the best thing. The Republican party really needs an attitude adjustment. I think the only way is to just quit voting for them when they spit on us.

Maybe a few more years under the radicals would do more good in awakening us than a few more of death by degrees. I have more respect for an avowed Commie than someone who really believes in nothing.

[tpaine]

Well made points.

FR's flying monkey squad, who support Rino prohibition principles on guns, booze, cigarettes, drugs, -- IE, - any 'safety issue' ban, will compeletly ignore them. - So it goes in FR's bush league.

[Eaker]

Some things are worth fighting for. I am one frog who is getting pretty damn tired of thanking the Republican chefs for "only" turning the water in the pot up a "few degrees" this year.

Ping to that Matt!!!

Nice picture too! What a cool name, "Longarm".

[tpaine]

What a clown.

It is still perfectly 'legal' to own muzzle loading cannon. There are no restrictions.
[ and, -- virtually any other type, as long as you pay the unconstitutional "transfer tax"]

[dalereed]

"All conservatives knew this about Arnnie in advance and still voted for him"

This is one that didn't and wouldn't under any circumstances. I for one did my best to tell everyone that he was a no good socialist but they voted for him anyway out of sheer mindless fear!

[ExSoldier]

"If that crap is extended in any way other than in an overide of a veto, Bush will lose in '04. "

Gee what IS it about pols from both parties that they forget the great Republican takeover of the US Congress in 1994? Even Clinton said it was over the first AWB! Duh. We must punish these idiots no matter the political cost so that even the mere mention of gun control sends them all screaming down the streets in terror.

That means to oust Bush 43 if he signs a new law. Even Dean can't destroy the republic in four years. If Clinton couldn't (and he really tried), Dean won't be able to do so. The best recourse is to install into Congress a pro-2nd amendment majority that is both filibuster and veto proof.

A very wise and now deceased friend of mine once told me that the republic rests upon three boxes: The Ballot Box; The Jury Box and the Cartridge Box If you want to avoid use of the third use the first often and well!

[Travis McGee]

Naw, that's Uncle Cletus. This is me.

[Rifleman]

There were privately owned war ships, the most powerful weapons systems exant, during the Revolution. And the Constitution (post Revolution of course) acknowleges their existence in "Letters of Marque and Reprisal". Local militias, organized by private individuals had cannon, purchased by private individuals.

As to your argument that the advance of technology trumps rights, how about the 1st Amendment? Does a newspaper have to hand set their type and print on a muscle powered flatbed press to have freedom of the press? Does my freedom of speech not extend to what I may speak on the telephone?

The Founders were educated men who lived at the dawn of the industrial age. They understood technical progress (although the current speed of it would likely astound them) and if they had wanted to restrict the RKBA to the Brown Bess and fowling pieces they would have done so. Their intent was that the population would be as well armed as the infantryman.

[ppaul]

[TC Rider]

The original made it through a Dem controlled House, the renewal will never make it past Tom Delay.

The overreaching Dems will never go along with renewing the present one anyway, which gets Bush off the hook. The Dems want to right a super-duper AWB.

I think the Instant Check system is a good thing.

Bans on black rifles and shotguns is ludicrous.

I think it's very important to keep the heat on wobbly Republicans and gun friendly Dems, but all is not lost.

(Can't wait to stock up on cheap highcaps.)

[Tailback]

Then we'll have a Clinton or Clintonlike candidate who'll take away all guns. Smart.... very smart..... not!

No, what we have is a faster road to the eventual destination. The AWB won't make it to Dubya's desk because it will be dead in the House. If it makes it to Dubya's desk and he signs it I will never ever vote for a single Republican again.

[yarddog]

Do you think a person should have to undergo a government inspection to exercise their God given rights?

Perhaps before we discuss highly volatile political issues we should undergo a background check to make sure we were never convicted of being an anarchist.

[bybybill]

The Rats are much more likely to try to take to take our guns then GWB and the Republicans. We would have lost them long ago if it wasn`t for the NRA and the Republicans in Congress.

[45Auto]

Yeah, it will stay a "fringe" issue and have no bearing on the election IF it sunsets on schedule. It won't mean a thing if Bush gets re-elected by a 60/40 margin. That could happen given his performance in the last years. However, if its as close as the election of 2000, then he can't afford to piss off even 1% of his core constituency. I figure there are about 1 million hard-core RKBA advocates and 'gun nuts' that take their gun rights very, very seriously. There is perhaps another 5 million who are for the RKBA, but are not hard core about not compromising some of their ability to own firearms. (There are many more gun pwners in the country, but most are "casual" gun owners). Still, a million P.O.'ed voters could make a difference. I'm betting that the Pres is a smart man; he better hope that his colleagues in the House (and maybe the Senate) don't send him an omnibus bill with a new, improved version of the AW ban appended.

[45Auto]

Well, he promised the wrong thing to the wrong people; his margin of victory was so thin in 2000, that promising something to people who aren't going to vote for you (in '04) anyway is folly. By that logic its better to promise the moon to RATs and liberals, and at the same time piss off your usually loyal core constituency. That is what his promise has wrought if the damn ban does not sunset on schedule.

[Mulder]

Stop a moment and think how much the Dems will "negotiate" with you when they pass laws taking away all firearms!

They can pass an edict declaring the sun to rise in the west and set in the east.

Just because they pass an edict doesn't make it so.

Should traitors infiltrate the American government and announce an edict that attempts to repeal the 2nd amendment, I would guess that those traitors would find themselves "negotiating" with Patriots from 300 yards away.