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.
Bears repeating.
I'm speaking of what will happen if Bush signs the AW ban.
As for Engler, he dealt with a Rat house from 91-94 and 96-98, as well as a media that hated his guts. He was very conservative fiscally and conservative on social issues as well(outside the death penalty which he opposed), especially on life issues. He signed CCW as well(as did Bush).
Carl Lenin is an aberration. He's been here for 25 years. Debbie Stabusall won because Spence ran a weak campaign and was left wing on immigration issues, and a moderate on other issues. Conservatives were lukewarm to him at best as well.
The last conservative to lose was Posthumus, which was expected to be a blowout. We got two conservative through anyway statewide. Mike Cox and Terri Land.
As for the areas I referenced, those are NOT republican areas.
Macomb - Swings, socially conservative, populist.
St Clair - Marginally GOP at best. Populist.
the UP North Michigan - Leans Dem, socially conservative, populist
Shiawasse - Elected dems for 20 years. Starting to shift. Social Conservative, populist
Eaton - Went for Tabor(Most right wing state rep) and Granholm.
Monroe - Swings, socially conservative and populist.
So banning certain types of semi-auto rifles is just "one minor aspect of gun ownership"? Where will you draw the line? Lunatic fringe, huh? Sounds like a democrat talking point to me.
"Threatening to commit political suicide is not a conservative position."
I've seen you use that same line while arguing against other conservative positions.
It is juvenile, immature, shortsighted and indicative of those who are not true conservatives merely poseurs ready to leave the field to the enemy at the first displeasure crying "Wah, wah I'm going to take my ball and go home."
So those like yourself who argue in support of the liberal democrat position are the true conservatives? Now I get it.
"Join the enemy if you haven't already."
You ever hear of a saying which goes: "protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic"? If you had ever served in our country's armed forces it might be familiar. Somehow it doesn't suprise me that to you it is a foreign concept.
You have also been trying to make the point that it (The 2nd Amendment) doesn't apply to infantry rifles.
Take a good look folks....If I didn't know better I could swear that Chuck Schumer wrote that crap. Does anyone actually think this guy has a clue what the 2nd Amendment is about?
You think? Maybe your right, after all, this continued invasion of millions has only been going on now for 20 plus years.
Better remain calm, take our time and think about this.
LOL! Thanks for the belly laugh.....
Show us where in the Constitution it says that the goverment must provide welfare benefits to those persons entering our country illegally. Let's see...you're in favor of banning guns, pro-welfare and pro-illegal immigration. Tell me again why you think you're a conservative?
The defense of Freedom is the only valid justification for war. All else is simply a quest for domination and the imposition of a particular minorities will on the rest. Freedom is a gift extended to others. It's a condition that exists when folks restrain themselves from micromanaging what are properly the affairs of others and respect their property and economic efforts. Freedom is not a set of privileges, that is continuosly diminished as time and "advancement" procede, or necessitate.
The 2nd Amend. is not limited to self defense, or sport. It is about the right to resist the armies of tyrants that desire to impose their will. Slavery and serfdom have been abolished, it will not return to this land w/o a fight.
"It is interesting to note the fanaticism it has generated particularly when the chance of the House extending it is zero. It won't even be brought up for a vote but that has not stopped the foaming at the mouth, blustering and threatening.
The fanaticism is as old as the United States itself. That's manifest in the Bill of Rights itself and throughout US history. There are those that would like to bury the evidence of it and that's the only reason you see folks talking about it now. You wouldn't hear anything about it if there was no threat to the right and Freedom itself. There is though and it's very evident.
"True conservatives are circling the wagons around the President to defend him from the RATmedia attacks rather than posturing and making empty and idiotic threats."
The president is not as important as Freedom. You'll not get the wagons in a circle if you tic off and attack the drivers, or betray some of them to the enemy, because they are expendable.
" You can shoot someone in most cases once but more than that is not allowed."
LOL!
Well said.
Looking at the last 20 presidential elections as a basis of comparison, it is very unlikely that the President will be reelected by as large of a margin as you are mocking. It is in the best interest of all Republicans to do everything that we can to make sure that a similarly large margin of conservative voters isn't alienated in this next presidential election as there was in the last California gubernatorial election. No one owes their vote to your candidate, and the tone you and others have shown by publically belittling the principle-over-party-affiliation conservatives here can do far more to undermine the President's reelection than having them stay home ever could. Regardless of your intent, your comments here are hurting the President's cause.
Thoughts ~ :)
No, I don't think the 3rd party twilight-zone, fantasy-lander's hate GWB with as much vitrol as the lunatic left does.
"Slippery slope" is one way to think of it, but I prefer "thin end of the wedge". As it currently exists, the Assault Weapons Ban is more aggravation than anything else - it merely forces the gun manufacturers to make cosmetic changes and little else. The ban on manufacture of "high capacity" (actually standard-capacity) magazines is the worst part.
The law need not be repealed; it dies automatically by virtue of a sunset provision. In order to continue past the sunset date, a bill must be passed which would re-authorize the '94 law... but here comes the wedge, being driven deeper: with the new bill, additional provisions can be added, making the ban bigger.
The original AW Ban has done absolutely nothing to reduce crime, and in fact has piled on the technicalities to the point where a gun purchaser is more likely to be in violation of the law (example: some muzzle brakes received the okey-dokey from BATF, which later took another look and decided that no, it really suppressed the muzzle flash too much, so it was actually a flash hider, and therefore illegal. Meanwhile, a few thousand of the things had been sold).
If only EVERY ineffective law on the books could sunset. This is indeed a rarity.
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.