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.
Upto, and including a mile.
He is really scary in the field!!
Ask him about the hat if you don't already know about SEAL policy!!!
Gun-grabbing didn't start with Klinton, nor did it end when he left office.
Both parties, at the top, are to blame for the unconstitutional gun laws.
If he's so busy fighting evil, why does he want to waste finite federal resources prosecuting Americans who put bayonet lugs on their rifles?
Sounds like that only helps the 'evil doers' by diverting resources from pursuing them.
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.
Are you saying you have no problem with gangbangers with yard long rap sheets sheets being able to pick up a Glock at your neighborhood gun store?
The fact is, that if he wants one he will get it, and without too much trouble. Taking away all citizens rights in order to inconvenience the gangbanger is not my idea of the proper role of government.
I had also rather the gun dealer get the profit than a thief.
There is a good or at least some reason for almost all laws. The problem is there is a better reason for most of them to not exist. It is called freedom.
You are ingnoring two factors, one our favor, and one against. President Bush is a man of his word, he said before he was elected that he would sign an AW Ban renewal. He said it again, through his spokesmen, after he was elected. He tends to keep his word. OTOH, he also is a man of honor who took the "support and defend" oath, and if he can be convinced that the second amendment completely prohibits such a law, he will veto it and explain the reason he didn't do what he said he would. So there is hope he might not sign it, and a victory in the Supreme Court in the Silveira case would go along way to convincing him of it's unconstitutionality. (And even if it didn't, a win in that case would make getting the federal AW ban declared unconstitutional by any number of courts would be a slam dunk as well)
You are on the right track, but with the wrong method, petitions, and form letters are not all that effective. Phone calls work, if someone wants to organize a phone call campaign I would be 100% behind that, I will even contribute to the orginazation of a call campaign.
And are you saying that if they are prevented from buying that Glock at the gun store, they won't or can't get one anyway? They are currently prohibited from doing just that, but they get guns anway. Thomas Jefferson knew that such laws only effect the law abiding.
We have plenty of gang shootings and drive bys in San Antonio. They've stayed away from where I live, although not far away. Good for them though, I'll shoot back, and I practice more than they do, plus I'll use a long gun if I can. When I had an apartment that faced the thoroughfare, I often kept my M-1 Carbine beside my computer desk, never knowing if my FReeping might be rudely interupted. :)
Generally speaking it doesn't work that way. Most welfare pimps and those who think criminals have more rights than the law abiding, are also forever wanting to take away the guns from the law abiding. Conversely, anyone who trusts the people with arms is not likely to be planing anything too nefarious. It's a litmus test as it were, reflective of the polycriters overall philosophy.
That is where I am, a gun grabber with an R behind his name is just as much a gun grabber as one with a D behind his name.
Right after I run out of ammo.
Of course it doesn't, but those folks shouldn't be out on street, where they can get a full auto AK-47 for alot less than you'd pay for an AR-15. BTW, "assault rifles", like that full auto AK, are not what the Assault Weapon Ban affects. It affects only semi-autos, and not only rifles, but also some pistols and shotguns. It also bans full capacity magazines, which could come in handy should one need to repel a mob, as was done by some LA area Korean merchants a few years ago during the "Rodny King" riots. They "voted" against the mob, from their rooftops, literaly.
Illegal since the 1930's without a Class III(unconstitutional as well).
--------------
BTW - "Kooks" that shouldn't be allowed to own a "Assault Rifle" should not be allowed on the street. I wouldn't trust them with a car, knife, gasoline, or fists.
This ain't about protecting your family. It's about protecting Freedom. Seems you missed that part of it. That's why you miss the part about your umpteen guns being confiscated for the same reason they took the "assault" rifles.
Karl Rove forgets this at his peril.
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.