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.

[joesnuffy]

"Bush's Un-doing?"....I dunno about that
His pop signed a law banning imported military look alike semi autos that was sneaked through congress in the middle of a Sunday night...
That wasnt his un-doing
Ahnold holds the uber left wing view of Americans owning firearms..(no one but the elite should privately own weapons)
All conservatives knew this about Arnnie in advance and still voted for him...
I know quite a few gun owners who dont believe that anyone should own "assault rifles" (which the banned arent in the first place) or high capacity handguns..
They will still vote for GW regardless..
One thing for sure there is gonna be some heavy debating...by the "Lying & Bowling for Columbine" crowd...

[ArrogantBustard]

What about the libertarians?

I object to the Libertarian Party for reasons that have nothing to do with guns ...

[taxed2death]

"The assault weapons ban may be Bush's undoing."

Either that or the stupid open borders policy.....or perhaps the fact that he's spending money we don't have faster than Marion Barry in a DC crack-house.

[Big Mack]

If the AWB makes it through congress and GWB signs it, I will be the first to vote for hitlery next Nov. We might as well get this Civil War II started while my generation can still pull a trigger and remember why we are pulling it. The next generation is lost to the "me first" idea and could care less about their rights. None of my adult children enjoy the shooting sports nor hunt.

[Dan from Michigan]

1. 2nd Amendment.
2. Slippery Slope. One version of the 'reauthorization' bills will give the Attorney General(UNELECTED) power to ban any semi-automatic on a whim. GSWarrior - Golden State? Think Bill Lockyer with the power to ban all semi-automatic guns, which are over 1/2 of all guns.
3. Very few so called 'assault weapons'(I hate that term) are used in any crime. Usually they, or their 'copies' are used in target shooting competitions. The AR-15 and the M1(an AW in Jersey) are most commonly used in those.

[Abe Froman]

I have already nearly bolted from the Bush barn, and am considering voting against him on other grounds (lack of commitment to conservative priciples). If the assault weapon ban makes it to his desk and he signs it my vote is gone for good.

As my dad said, "when I vote for a Republican I don't want them to get in there and pander to the Democrats, I want them to kick ass!!"

[556x45]

The 'logic' of this group is amazing! So, if the dems told you to turn in all your guns youd comply? Please, I want to hear your answer.

[GSWarrior]

Been there, done that.

[Dan from Michigan]

I'm part of that 'me first' generation. Most gun grabbers I know are boomers.

[Dan from Michigan]

I'd still vote Republican....but not for the top spot if he signs it.

[GSWarrior]

Thank you. And thank you for not being snide.

[Tree of Liberty]

Agreed. Going against the RKBA is a deal-breaker for me.

[T Wayne]

Ummmmm, Hungry Hogs!

[Trailerpark Badass]

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

No, what we'll have is a Republican party that only seems to advance conservative principles when they are the party out of power. A Democrat president wouldn't get jack passed. Too bad the Republicans turned into Socialists when they finally achieved the power they've (we've) been working for for so long.

[theFIRMbss]

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

No, that happened on
the first day of Bill's term two...
Remember, he sent

the national guard
door-to-door taking our guns?
Oh, or was that just

panic mongering
using Clinton's name back then?
Every time freepers

continue to use
that name to jerk peoples' knees,
we look like we're nuts...

[Dan from Michigan]

Absolutely. We should all be hammering our congress critters on this.

Mike Rogers should be alright, but I got two jerkoff sinators who are beyond worthless. Debbie Stab-me-now and the senile traitor Carl lenin.

[556x45]

It was billed as a crime stopper. However, even at the time the FBI said that nearly no crimes were committed w/ such weapons (it was a fraction of a percent). However, the dems were bent on shoving it thru despite the facts. This ban also included high cap magazines...of which there are millions still in use. Nothing about this bill was designed to stop crime. I feel it was just a building block for stricter laws eventually leading to complete bans.

[Triple]

"Then we'll have a Clinton or Clintonlike candidate who'll take away all guns." - MB 8

Or die trying.

I have the same line in the sand. If AWB does not go 'Tango Uniform' - I 'll vote for the Constitution or Libertarian candidate.

[ASA Vet]

Execpt that the federal AW ban has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons,
those being banned (or taxed) since 1934

So what you're saying is that these are two different unconstitutional bans.