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.
Here you are, on this very thread boldly supporting the gun grabbing AW law:
True conservatives understand there is no chance of electing a more conservative president than Bush and they understand that the AW ban is essentially irrelevent to anything.
Our nation and its liberties existed for almost 150 yrs before "Assault" weapons were even invented. Such things were never even imagined by our founders.
I am an NRA member who believes prohibition of such weapons is not a reason to refuse to back a good man doing his best to preserve our nation in its deadly fight against an enemy as evil as it has ever faced. Those who turn away from him are neither conservatives nor patriots rather they are such as one would not want as an ally because they will cut and run at the least excuse. You are either with the President or doing the work of the RATmedia. The choice is yours.
93 posted on 11/13/2003 2:24 PM PST by justshutupandtakeit
Proof positive, from your own lying lips.
Case closed.
The truth, as usual, lies somewhere in between. justshutupandtakeit is not supporting the AW ban; he is minimizing it's relevance. You're wrong, tpaine, and you are extending what his statements are to encompass a viewpoint that he probably does not hold.
Of course, j.s.u.a.t.i. and I disgree on the point of the relevance of the AW ban, quite strongly. I vehemently appose the continuation of the AW ban, and the significance of it is marginal at the moment -- because it deals mostly in cosmetics (except the 10-rd mag cap) -- but, if reapproved, expect all sorts of new restrictions that are NOT cosmetic.
Some people are single-issue voters. Their opinion is no less valid, no less patriotic, no less stalwart and solid as yours, who has a blended opinion based on many issues. They are solid allies when considering that position, and you make a mistake to denigreate them.
I personally am a two-issue voter: Jobs and guns. GW Bush is getting much closer to earning my vote, but if he actively pushes for an AW ban, he may lose it. I don't suspect he will be pushing for it too hard.
You are either with the President or doing the work of the RATmedia. The choice is yours.
I have never taken to this sort of absolutist 'ultimatum'-like statement. One can be with the President in some areas and not others. One can also be ambivilent about a given facet of his performance. On the whole, one must decide the issues that concern them and make a decision to support, oppose, or become apathetic towards a President, based on the internal weight you place on those issues.
Perhaps, but I have yet to be convinced of that. If we define the cliff as cutoff-point at which further gun-control measures are applied, and that the free-fall is increasingly prohibitive gun laws, and the splat at the end as a total ban on handguns, rifles or shotguns, I think the analogy holds up well. Democrats and Republicans both seem to be edging towards greater acceptance of gun controls, where Democrats are in a hurry and Republicans are a little more circumspect.
denigrate
He is supporting the man that is supporting the ban. That's the truth.
he is minimizing it's relevance. You're wrong, tpaine, and you are extending what his statements are to encompass a viewpoint that he probably does not hold.
Probably? He freely admits that he doesn't care if assault weapons are prohibited.
The AW ban is a stupid, misguided piece of legislation.
Those that claim it has no impact are generally folks that have little interest in that type of firearm - somewhat akin to the "Saturday Night Special" discussion - it doesn't affect MY gun, so what do I care?
Clearly, it's a problem on principle - slippery slope, camels nose, whatever - but ultimately, it's another class of firearm rendered "outlaw" based on emotional rhetoric.
Practically, though, it has other less obvious, but significant impacts - the 10rd mag limit is the most insidious.
Glock built the G17 to work with a two column, tapered magazine. In order to a. comply with the law and b. prevent simple alteration, Glock had to develop a less than ideal solution for their "civilian" market - the result is that for full size Glocks, 10rd magazines DO NOT function as well as the standard magazine.
Perhaps most insidious, very few people really know the law. Thus, the ban has the effect of creating criminals out of people doing their level best to be law abiding, simply by combining a pistol grip with a collapsible stock.
Finally, and dramatically, most manufacturers of first class gear are forced to build second rate junk in order to comply with the law.
Cosmetic, perhaps, but if given the choice, who with any sense would choose the HK SL8 over a semiauto G36.
Police departments virtually NEVER pick the post ban configuration for rifles, even when they choose semiautos, because post ban is SUBSTANDARD.
Combine that with the fact that "assault weapons" don't get used in crimes - and you have a poster child for horrendously bad gun legislation.
Thus, you support a man who says he will sign a bill prohibiting such weapons. -- You support signing the bill..
You are committing a retroductive fallacy of soundness (somewhat taking the form of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy). To wit:
Allow me to demonstrate by example where this fails:
There is a difference between not caring about a topic and supporting a given position.
I don't care much one way or another about abortion, but if someone tells me I am a pro-choicer because of that, I will most certainly object.
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.