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.

[Barnacle]

The single issue bozos are best excised from the GOP anyway.

I often get the feeling that the party attitude has become, “The Conservatives are best excised from the GOP anyway."

[flashbunny]

You are the one who isn't thinking about this. Instead you are offering the traditional platitudes of the party over principles crowd.

The truth:

Republicans have control of the senate and the house. If gore was president now, renewal of the AWB wouldn't be an option. They would oppose it because they know it is the right thing to do. It only passed in a democrat controlled senate after a tie breaking vote by algore himself.

But now we have bush in the white house. Instead of standing on principle, the rove doctrine seems to be to sellout your positions before your opponents can even attempt to use them against you. And the president will get certain senators to go with him, just because that's what they do. So instead of having a spine, they vote with the political wind.

And according to you, all this is a good thing because it's better to willingly give up your constitutional rights than to be put in a position where you'd actually have to put up a political fight to keep them.

And you called people who disagreed with you idiots in a previous post. Hah.

[The_Eaglet]

Any law must not be judged by how it will be used by our friends, but by how it could be abused by our enemies.

Good point.

[DBrow]

Ask 100 judges if "well-regulated" means

Correct- the fight is, "Ask 51 Senators if the 2nd amend. refers to an individual right..."

[Dead Corpse]

More common among freedom's real proponents is that, "I didn't leave the GOP, the GOP left me."

When the Rats sold out to the commies, the GOP slide left to take their place.

[Centurion2000]

Then we'll have a Clinton or Clintonlike candidate who'll take away all guns.

And then you will have the second American Revolution

[Poohbah]

The American people, overwhelmingly, support the AWB. That's the political reality.

They wouldn't support an effort to repeal it. But they wouldn't have a conniption if it died a natural death. They might very well have a conniption if ONE man (Bush) vetoed an extension.

The key is to make sure it never gets to Bush's desk.

[Barnacle]

I sometimes wonder if JFK would be considered a Conservative by today's standards.

[Dead Corpse]

Go back and look at the party platform of the time. Yes, he would actually be to the ideological "right" of Bush.

And they wonder why they average around 50% of the voting population actually doing so. They keep giving us "death" or "slow death" choices.

[spunkets]

" Political parties are about garnering consensus from the priorities of diverse factions. Meanwhile, real people in the real world get the real work done."

So, make sure the law dies and Bush just stands back like Sgt. Schultze.

[MindBender26]

Wrong, the Senate has no voice in Constitutional interpretation.... and I remind you, it wasn't too long ago that there were 51 Dems.... and their will be again if these supposed gun rights supporters help elect more Dems!

[AnnaZ]

NOTHING on Free Republic caused your guy McClintock to garner only 13% of the vote.

Where did I say it did?

 

Luxuriate in your 13%.

Keep up the attitude. It will fill the Pubbie ranks.

 

Don't blame others if you are feeling politically powerless.

The American way is political powerlessness. Political power is the aim and point of the Left.

 

[Tares]

Like I said, if the choice is winding up with no rights in 10 years versus 50 years, I would prefer 50, but I will vote for never.

Vote for never, and get 10. Not smart. These issues are not static, people's opinions can be changed. The right strategy is to convince your fellow citizens of the neccesity of the right to keep and bear arms. Then the elections will take care of themselves.

Voting for a fringe candidate is the same as giving up the fight. Get in the mainstream and fight for liberty, that is where the battle will be won or lost. What if only one or two thousand Bush voters in Florida voted for Harry Browne or Howard Philips in 2000 instead of Bush? Al Gore would be president. He would have done much more than just sign an extension of the ban, he would have made it a top priority to get it enlarged. The Clinton agreement with Smith and Wesson would still be in effect. Tens or hundreds of millions of additional tax dollars would flow to anti-gun groups.

This is an ongoing war and must be fought as such. Sometimes it is better to regroup and live to fight another day. Abandoning the battlefield to the enemy (i.e. voting for a third party candidate and giving the victory to rabid anti-gunners) is not the way to go. The battle will be won or lost one step at a time. Voting for "never" in this case is like abandoning the battlefield because someone you thought was your ally isn't fighting as strongly as you'd like. Your sometime ally will be even less likely to fight on your side, making victory all the less likely.

This from someone who voted for Andre Marrrou, Harry Browne, and Howard Philips in the last three presidential elections. No more. The terrorists would have toasted America by now if these guys were in power.

[Spirited]

Promises, promises. I think this is day dreaming.

Time for Bush, Wolf, Allen, Warner and a few others to understand that voters do not live on promises. The thinking is all wrong and what they have been taught is going to be proven faulty.

A wise man put it this way: "Pro 13:12 Hope deferred maketh the heart sick: but [when] the desire cometh, [it is] a tree of life."

Too much "heart sick" out there right now in the past GOP voters ranks. Surmise is beginning to be that the choice is between a "rattler" and a "cobra".

[justshutupandtakeit]

Arsenals were definitely run by the government and are even referenced within the Constitution. One of the first projects of the new nation was to set up manufacturing capabilities for armaments and military equipment. During the Civil War even the Confederacy established government run factories to produce artillery. The Springfield Arsenal is world famous for the guns it produced.

No matter what Franklin was to do, artillery not stored in private homes nor owned by private individuals or groups.

Artillery was extremely unwieldy and hard to move especially if the weather had any wetness or the ground was wet. It was not of use in pursuing Indians, in fact, it was worse than useless in those cases because it slowed down any unit to a crawl.

Alexander Hamilton first came to Washington's attention when he was an teenage officer in a New York artillery company. The state required mathematical knowledge to receive his commission. That was standard at the time of the Revolution which is the period I am speaking of. Mathematics was a necessity for any aiming other than just pointing in a general direction and firing.

[DBrow]

They have no voice in Constitutional interpretation is correct.

They do get to vote on gun ban bills, though, and this will be the fight before anyone takes the new law they pass to the Supremes for interpretation.

Best way to avoid sending the issue to the Supremes is to vote NO first, yes? And that takes at least 51 to say no.

If 51 feel that the 2nd means individual rights, then it is more likely they will vote down a gun ban or reauthorization of the AWB. Then the issue of whether or not Bush signs the bill is moot.

[justshutupandtakeit]

These aren't party faithful. These are remnants of the Third Party goofs and the complainers that Bush was the candidate of the Party foisted off on the "real" conservatives. Many didn't even vote for Bush.

[MileHi]

The appropriate meaning in this context is " A governmental order having the force of law." Or "A principle, rule, or law designed to control or govern behavior."

Nonsense. Prove that. I see that you are well impressed with your vast knowledge, it seems you are a member of a very small club.

[Dead Corpse]

Ask a bellmaker how he would make a blackpowder cannon. Your average blacksmith probably could figure it out. Back then, anything metal was handmade by the local smith.

Your assertion that only government agencies had them is just preposterous.