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.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Never said anything about technology trumping anything merely pointed to the idiocy of making this essentially irrelevent issue the focal point of an election.

Ships were often privately armed and the Constitution referenced them but prohibited States from having them except in time of war. However, they were in government service and sailed in international waters so are irrelevent to the 2d amendment which refers to "arms" or weapons which can be carried not cannons, not bombs, not biological warfare agents but muskets, rifles, pistols, swords, knives, maces, spears, cutlasses etc.

Militas now are limited to "well-regulated" militias which are trained and officered by officers appointed by the states. Militias in those days were almost exclusively organized by towns, townships, counties or states though a few very rich men may have had their own.

The Founders were speaking of ARMS not all weapons. If you can't carry it its ownership is not protected.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Cannons may be legal but are not protected by the second amendment anymore than a nuclear weapon would be.

[Mulder]

Riiight there are LOTS of those for sure.

Keep laughing, bootlicker.

For millions of American, the oath they took to defend the Constitution means something more than simply being the object of ridicule from the elitists at their $100/plate dinner parties.

[LTCJ]

what we'll have is a Republican party that only seems to advance conservative principles when they are the party out of power.

Did you acquire a Federal Truth Stamp before posting this, Citizen? You may be too perceptive for the good of the Masses. Off to the camps with you.

[Lurker]

Better to get it out in the open than have them taken away piecemeal.

If Bush reauthorizes this, I won't vote at all, let alone for any Republican.

L

[BCR #226]

[qb]We got the original (imported) "assault weapons" ban courtesy of an executive order by a Publican President. X41 personnaly banned more guns than X42. [/qb]

not to burst your bubble but the 89 ban was just a reinterpretation of the 1968 sporting purpose clause. There is no executive order from Bush sr. regarding importation.

As others have stated, I will not vote for Bush if he signs a continuation of the AW ban. I will not give my vote to someone posing as a conservative who is going to do the same things as a Dem. If they are going to ban guns, let the Dems be blamed for the bloody civil war that will result.

Mike

[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently you understand little of the constitution or that "arms" are weapons which can be carried in the hands or arms. I have no objection to allowing the "ban" to expire since it is not important one way or another.

It is important to keep those who want to defend America from being distracted (and thereby aiding the RATmedia attacks on Bush) by irrelevencies. Few things are more amusing than watching ideologues cut off their noses to spite their faces and claim it is because of "principle." They allow the worst enemies of the 2d amendment to attain more power because of fanaticism.

Conservatives side with those fighting the enemies of America not those attempting to undermine those who are. What you pretend is a conservative is simply a backstabbing ideologue.

I doubt your understanding of the constitution could pass the test I could give you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Never been to such a dinner or even a $10 a plate one. However, I can see who is supporting our enemies or should I say who are manipulated so easily it is scarey.

Loons who undermine Bush apparently are incapable of understanding that by doing so they are aiding those who are against everything they claim to stand for.

So how is the Crackpots Against Bush organizing going?

[stevio]

I intend on keeping the pressure up on all my elected officials.

bybybill,
So at what point do you say enough is enough?

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is a MYTH that we are less free than in 1810. A myth that is only possible when the realities of our history are ignored. One has to ignore the inconvenient facts of slavery, class oppression, state involvement in religion, morality, state repression of freedom of expression to believe the average American was more free then than now.

One could be punished for adultery by the state, for not going to church, jailed for debt, forced to join Slave Patrols in the South (or be fined), run out of town or killed for avocating abolition of the slaves. Abolitionist newspapers were routinely seized from the Southern mails as were magazines not politically correct toward the Slavers. Their offices burned. Of course, Blacks had NO constitutional rights until the aftermath of the DemocRAT Revolt in 1861. Afterwards the ex-slaves had few that were respected. They were killed in the thousands by the malicious ex-Slavers, denied the rights to bear arms, denied the right to participate politically, driven deliberately to economic ruin, denied educations.

Women had few rights at all. Only for the rich, white man was there anything close to the freedoms we know today.

There is a big difference between the parties though the ideological blind pretend not to see any. The difference is easily seen by studying (or at least being familiar with) the history of the RAT party and its devotion to evil for its entire life.

You cannot base political views today upon a Mythology and expect to be successful.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is false that those weapons were the Assault weapons of the day. Those were the ORDINARY weapons of the day.

Nazi Germany is not the issue here but rather Will ideologues who can't reason very well be manipulated into opposing a Leader who America desparately needs so that the RATmedia will win again?

A fool is one who lies about what weapons of 200 yrs ago were like to one who knows better. A fool is one who cuts off his own nose to spite his face and proclaims it is principle that causes him to do so.

[BayouCoyote]

"I'll see you on the beach..."

Roger that.

[tpaine]

Cannons may be legal but are not protected by the second amendment anymore than a nuclear weapon would be.
-202-

---

Learn to reason about what you read.

Cannons are arms, and our right to own them cannot be infringed upon. However, ~using~ them can be reasonably regulated.

Nukes/chem/bio weapons are indiscriminate hazards, thus their very ownership can be so 'regulated', by rule of law, as to limit possession to national defensive purposes.

[Travis McGee]

What WEAPONS did the patriots of 1780 carry while they marched across fields ASSAULTING enemy positions?

Nice try. Better luck next time.

And if you can counter my arguement that musket balls and rusty goose-gun nails were MORE deadly in 1780 (given the medical care) than rifle and pistol bullets are today, I'd love to hear it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The terrorists came to this country LEGALLY.

Police officers are not "routinely" murdered by illegals. Exaggeration of the problem (which is a real problem) will not help solve it.

The real issue is when will Americans stop hiring these people. My contention is they will NOT because hiring others to do the shit work would cost them too much.

These people have always been welcomed with open arms throughout our history during the larger portion of it there were no such thing as "illegal aliens" since they wandered back and forth across the borders at will with no concern from the locals, states or feds. Only in the last fifty years or so has such a catagory been created.

Here in Chicago we have illegals from Mexico, Poland and Russia in large numbers and they are a small problem certainly not the crisis that exists in Cali., and the SW states. But again much of that crisis is because of the welfare costs which they absord but which the constitution says must be provided.

Addressing this issue effectively will require calm thought and planning not hysterical distortions and exaggerations.

[from occupied ga]

But again much of that crisis is because of the welfare costs which they absord

Right on the money; however, when you say

but which the constitution says must be provided.

you lose us conservatives. I cannot see where in the constitution it says welfare must be provided.

[xsrdx]

It is false that those weapons were the Assault weapons of the day. Those were the ORDINARY weapons of the day.

That distinction - YOUR distinction - proves your bias.

The AW Ban is not "irrelevant" - if I want a flash hider, pistol grip, 30rd mag and collapsible buttstock on the same rifle, I can't do it without either paying far more than the gun is worth, or breaking the law.

And that, fellow NRA member, is fundamentally WRONG.

You may be happy with the sanitized versions of military arms available today - and the subsequent disincentive for military rifle manufacturers to sell to civilians - but many are not.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Sometimes they carried pitchforks, staves, swords, clubs. Is there an Assault Pitchfork Ban proposed? THAT will be the last straw then its the Constitution Party for me.

As for the rusty nail hypothesis, it is interesting but mere speculation. Tell you what I'll take an assault rifle and you take the blunderbuss w. nails at 100 feet and we will see who survives.

Artillary was routinely loaded with that kind of junk in those days and while messy not particularly deadly. It was not a first choice.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Perhaps you haven't noticed that I have never spoken in favor of the Ban merely what should be the reaction wrt the President should he sign it.

[justshutupandtakeit]

That is the fourteenth amendment, Section I last clause. I don't think it was originally meant that way but when the term "persons" was used a whole Pandora's box was opened.