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.
That comback may indeed be accurate, but what it comes down to is principle. If we say it's okay for Bush to renew or extend the ban, then how to we criticize other 'reasonable' (gagging as I type that word) restrictions?
If the GOP does what clinton does in this regard, how does that make them any better or any different than the clinton crowd?
The decision to do this is not easy and the results may be distasteful, but that doesn't mean that we should shrink from principle or from our responsibilities to our posterity.
These freedoms were paid for in blood. I can't sign them away as easy as some would.
BTW, these comments are NOT directed at you personally. I know that you understand the stakes involved here and that you do not take them lightly either.
That's the bottom line. Thank you.
Well, I guess that solves the problem. The world will never forget you.
What choice would you select if we had two cars driving TORWARDS a cliff at varying speeds instead of two cars driving over a cliff at varying speeds?
Which car would be easier to stop before it drives off the cliff?
Me too. Besides, I doubt shutup would even showup.
You have added another good analogy to describe Bush's intentions to allow continue legislation that infringes on the right to bear arms, therefore violating the Supreme Law of the Land.
Geritol also pointed out the fallacy of voting for those who campaign to usurp to a less extreme than others in #265.
True.
Thank you. That one really deserved repeating.
The insults that McClintock supporters had to endure during the recall race were beyond the pale and illustrated a portion of the Pubbie party that no one could ever mistake for "compassionate" (a term apparently attached to "conservative" to deny the existence of such a power-at-all-costs-even-the-Constitution wing). Prior to that race I thought such types were solely the slanderous creation of the Left, but I was wrong. They exist.
Why is taking common sense and reality into voting unprincipled? Don't you think that voting for McClintock and thus risking putting Bustamente into office is a bit Jonestownish? I do and I'm a conservative. If you keep waiting for the perfect candidate, you will end up with nothing. BTW, I don't know whether or not I'm a "Pubbie" because I don't know what a "Pubbie" is.
A variation of the line that you used with Juanita Broaddrick after raping her, Bill.
Well, you have clearly identified yourself and what you want to do to people with that comment.
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.