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]

Cannons are artillary.

[xsrdx]

merely what should be the reaction wrt the President should he sign it.

It would be a significant betrayal of a VERY large constituency that went to great effort to ensure he was voted into office.

It would not go over quietly.

[ppaul]

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

I dunno.
But an enterprising FReeper would probably make a few bucks offering a few for sale.

[CDHart]

"Then all the guns will be gone."

I can't believe that most of us would line up to turn in our weapons just because the government says we have to. Of course, I could be wrong."

Carolyn

[ppaul]

Stickers here: http://www.rkbabang.com/

[justshutupandtakeit]

Militia units were organized by states, or other political subdivisions only they (and very rich men) could afford artillery. Individual members were required to have firearms (not cannons) those were the arms referenced within the 2d. Minute men did not drag a cannon from their basements to assemble, they grabbed the rifle/musket at the door and ran. Those were the arms they could "bear" not artillery.

[justshutupandtakeit]

False, it would p.o.ed the tiny percentage which, in most cases, opposed him before the nomination and probably still does. Those who are easily led around by holding out the will-o-the-wisp of perfection to undermine the attainable.

It would cost the President few, if any, votes.

[from occupied ga]

That is the fourteenth amendment, Section I last clause.

nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

I don't get welfare out of this. Due process and equal protection don't constitute welfare

[justshutupandtakeit]

The laws related to provision of welfare must be applied equally. Or schooling or hospitalization etc.

Of course, this is moot should the powers that be decide to start deporting illegals.

[thackney]

"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

BTTT

[xsrdx]

will-o-the-wisp of perfection to undermine the attainable.

You continually underrate the significance and impact of the AW Ban legislation.

Keep it up, eventually they will come for the guns you DO care about.

[from occupied ga]

The laws related to provision of welfare must be applied equally. Or schooling or hospitalization etc.

This dodges the constitutionality of welfare in the first place, which is what I was talking about.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Only an ideologue can see no difference in the parties. They are essentially hopeless and malcontents who look for any excuse to go off on a tangent. No one can count on them.

Like a man looking for a bride rejects one beautiful girl after another because none are perfect, I don't take them seriously. One is a little too tall, another a little too short, one has a crooked nose another a big nose, one has a gap in her teeth another's teeth are crooked, yada yada yada.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Most welfare is state provided not federal but it still has to meet that test. Nor is welfare new it was provided by counties during the days of the Founders. Not like today but it was there.

[Shooter 2.5]

Granted, Bush is the lesser of two evils but he's a much better candidate than someone who's party has promised to disarm the American People. I'm not going to go back to cop politicians in the Rose Garden bragging they further destroyed the Second Amendment.

The Republicans do know that Gun Control is a losing proposition. I was on the Senate and Assembly debates for Wisconsin here on FR and the Republicans, except for two reps, are all for Second Amendment Rights. I don't want to criticize a party for the actions of two people.

Unfortunately, Bush promised during a very tight election that he would sign the Bill IF it reached his desk. I took that as a challenge to elect as many Congressmen and Senators who would make sure it would never reach that desk. He said it before the election. I hope you notice how many people here on FR are suddenly waking up to that fact. I don't believe they were active in the presidential election to notice. And now they're all upset? Where were they back then?

Making things worse, believe it or not, make things worse.

[spunkets]

" or other political subdivisions only they (and very rich men) could afford artillery"Yes like the local taven patrons and groups of craftsmen.

"Those were the arms they could "bear" not artillery."

The intent of the founders and the govm't prior to FDR was that the arms were sufficent to fend off the armies of tyrants. That is the measure.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Given the state of the RATmedia influence on the American electorate today election of a more conservative man than Bush is impossible. You are fantasizing if you believe otherwise.

Bush is as conservative a president as has ever been elected and it was by the slenderest of hairs. Only his personality was able to overcome the phobia against conservatives so pervalent in America.

Dems did not lose in '94 because of an AW ban but because of the Hillary care scam and the generally sleaziness of the Clinton administration. I doubt even one RAT lost his seat because of that ban.

I agree that the RATmedia Axis of Evil is our greatest danger that is why the blustering nutcases threatening to vote against Bush and empower these fools is so dangerous.

Join the RATS and see where that gets you.

[Atlas Sneezed]

Because it bans the types of arms that are most useful for citizens to secure their freedom against tyranny.

Why else would Army troops charged with providing for the common defense be issued such rifles?

[tpaine]

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.
-218-justshutupandtakeit


justshutupandtakeit wrote:
Cannons are artillary.

---

You are a very confused & ignorant person on the subject of guns and on our RKBA's..

Please, keep on posting. You are a perfect foil for rational gunowners..

[T Wayne]

IMO Bush is POTUS right now because of his perceived stance on the second. If he extends the AWB, that perception will change for enough citizens to see to it that he is a one term POTUS.

If I am being screwed, it really doesn't matter whether the screwer is R or D.

And the issue to me goes beyond the second. Its what the USA is really about.

Or as others have pointed out, FREEDOM!