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.

[Mulder]

The nerve of someone who supports an assault weapons ban.

I'm guessing you can't even state what an 'assault weapon' is, nor can you summarize the AWB.

If I can't protect myself and my family with the umpteen guns I already have, then there's something radically wrong with my aim ---- and an assault weapon ain't gonna help

And who are you to make that decision for 100 million other families?

(it certainly won't deter an attacker any more than if they know I am armed to the teeth with my other rifles and guns.)

So what? The Second Amendment isn't about deterring home invaders.

I wholeheartedly support the Second Amendment

And Madonna is a virgin.

but that still does not eliminate the fact that some people (yes there are unstable kooks out there) who simply should not be able to get their hands on an assault rifle.

Well, I'll partially agree here. The BATF and FBI goons responsible for Waco, Ruby Ridge, and a host of other atrocities against the American people "shouldn't be able to get their hands on an assault rifle".

[Mulder]

President Bush is a man of his word

Like he kept his word when he said he would veto the CFR bill?

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.

He cares about as much about the Constitution as his predacessor did. Hell, he hasn't even vetoed a single bill yet. Do you really believe that EVERYTHING Congress has sent him is constitutional?

Anyway, I seriously doubt he has even read the bill and doubt that he could even summarize it's key points accurately. He's simply doing what his political advisors tell him, in this case.

So there is hope he might not sign it

I doubt it. He's as anti-gun as his daddy was. The elites, be they Bushes, Doles, Clintons, or Kennedys, don't like guns in the hands of us peasants.

[Travis McGee]

Is there a car sticker available like that RKBA you posted?

[Jeff Head]

Simple, direct, to the point...you're darn straight.

[Badray]

"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."

Exactly. We survived clinton for 8 years, we can survive Dean or even hillary - as disgusting as that thought is, but we cannot reward Bush or the GOP for signing a renewal or an extension.

[Badray]

"I voted for Bush because I didn't want gore and I knew the next time I could get a real conservative."

I did the same, but who is the 'real conservative' for the next time?

"Taking steps backward is not an option."

Do you mean like accepting a pubbie president who will ban guns like any dem gun grabber?

[neverdem]

He said that it(the Iraq War) needed doing, and he wasn't going to wait when he knew it was the right thing to do. I think he'll take the same approach on the AWB if it reaches his desk.

If he does that, then he'll break his history of casting no vetoes so far. Similarly, he could re-establish his bona fides with his base, especially folks that are particularly, certain one-issue voters. It might destroy the rats for good.

Maybe it's time to go to bed. I'm dreaming already.

[Badray]

"Contemplate the mangled bodies of your countrymen, and then say, 'What should be the reward of such sacrifices?' Bid us and our posterity bow the knee, supplicate the friendship, and plough, and sow, and reap, to glut the avarice of the men who have let loose on us the dogs of war to riot in our blood and hunt us from the face of the earth? If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude than the animating contest of freedom, go from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains sit lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen!" --Samuel Adams

[xdem]

But every time I read comments like the above in which people demand unlimited assault guns "or they will not vote for Bush," I just want to wretch.

It's not just about guns. It about the Republican's continuing betrayal of an important constituency. And it's been going on since January 20, 1989.

[The_Eaglet]

Good commentary.

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.

Do you have the exact quotes from President Bush (the earlier statement from President Bush would be nice, too)?

[Jeff Head]

Dyno, when speaking of those who oppose the AWB, you stated that...

I just want to wretch.

No real disrespect intended, but go ahead...maybe it will get some of the fuzzy logic and sickness that is invading your thinking over the second amendment out of your system.

A so-called assault weapon to these oath-breakers and ninnies is nothing more than a semi-automatic rifle...ulitimately they will want to ban all of them too...and then it will be on to the other 97 weapons you sarcastically claim to hold.

The issue nehind the left/socialists/elitists/utopians move against firearms of any type is simple and it is historical. If the masses do not have weapons, the masses cannot effectively oppose them.

Be careful, with the logical extension of your thinking, you are in danger of slipping into the thought mode of Hand Gun Inc. (HGI) or the Million Moms.

The hard, cold, brutal reality is that this is where it leads.

[sheltonmac]

I wholeheartedly support the Second Amendment...

Whatever. If you think it's fine for the government to ban "assault" weapons, then let's also take them away from police officers. After all, if they can't protect and serve with the umpteen other guns they already have, an assault weapon ain't gonna help.

Oh, what's that you say? If cops don't have access to state-of-the-art firepower, then they would be out-gunned by the criminals and couldn't properly defend themselves? Well, don't you think that citizens should be entitled to the same protection? No? Hmmm.

[sheltonmac]

I am an NRA member...

Just a guess, but I don't think the NRA will be calling you to do any campaigning for them. You'd be a great kneepad salesman, though.

[xsrdx]

SUNSET THE AW BAN

[xsrdx]

I am an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man

You then, are part of the problem.

The 2nd Amendment isn't about hunting, nor does it specify limits on magazine capacity.

The NRA leadership sees this for what it is - unfortunately, some NRA members do not, because they can't fathom why anyone would need an "assault weapon".

"NEED" has NOTHING to do with it.

[longtermmemmory]

The left knows the ban is a deal breaker for most people. Thus since the left can't actually get it passed, they will publicise as much possible the fact that Bush said he supports it and would sign it, IF it reached his desk.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I never said anything about hunting.

[The_Eaglet]

What about the libertarians?

I object to the Libertarian Party for reasons that have nothing to do with guns ...

I have some objections to Libertarian planks, too. Where available, I would chose the Constitution Party candidate. However, I suggest checking whether the Libertarian candidate has those positions that you object to. Just as there are Democrats that go against the party line, there have been Libertarians that might agree with you more than with their party.

For example, RTKBA and the right to life are both important to me. If a Libertarian (or independent) agrees with me on these issues, I would vote for him over the Democrat or Republican. I would also vote for him if he embraced these ideals and the Constitution Party platform more consistently than a Constitution Party candidate.

[justshutupandtakeit]

How do yours fit? I am sure they are well used since you appear ready to suck down whatever lunatic crap is available.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Riiight there are LOTS of those for sure.