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.
I replied to Jsuati:
Thus, you support a man who says he will sign a bill prohibiting such weapons. -- You support [the] signing [of] the bill. ..
You are committing a retroductive fallacy of soundness (somewhat taking the form of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy).
To wit:
Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
George W. Bush supports the AW ban.
Therefore, Jsuati supports [the man in signing] the AW ban
Case closed. Both you & Jsuati have some serious problems with elementary logic & reasoning.
Now you say:"It is still true that individuals rarely, if ever, owned cannons for use on land..."
Which is it, cannons were not owned by private individuals or they were?
They are arms - arms are weapons. Period.
Further, private individuals owned warships - which are "arms."
And before you attempt another obfuscational tangent, the whole point of this disagreement is that you were asserting [falsely] that private individuals did not own cannons as some sort of suport for the proposition that cannons are not "arms." Now you have asserted that they did own cannons, which calls into question your assertion that cannons are somehow not "arms." The whole disagreement barely touches on the premise of this thread. However it does serve to illustrate your lack of understanding of people who actually do understand the constitution. If the elected officials share your arrogant view of us than we are in for a bumpy ride.
Is there a line in the sand for you? Or will you just rationalize away every intrusion into liberty?
Absolutely.
Also, there is nothing wrong with communicating very clearly to both Congress and the White House that an extension of this bill will cause many conservative gun owners to sit out or vote third party.
If the bill somehow gets to Bush's desk after such a campaign it would mostlikely be the result of a very, very close vote.
That would give Bush cover for a veto with the explanation being along the lines of "such a hotly contested law with dubious actual relationship to reducing crime should not be renewed by such a slim margin, if this law is truly the will of the American people they will contact enough legislators that Congress is able to override my veto..."
Or some other such drivel - but you get the idea. It's all about political cover. Pro AWB voters aren't going to vote for him anyway.
Therefore he just needs to be able to explain to the 70% or so of Americans who don't have a dog in the hunt and don't understand the issues. IF he gets out there and explains that the ban has no effect on crime then Americans won't have a problem with the veto.
This doesn't mean I'm voting for him if he does sign it - I'm getting to the point where I want the next revolution to occur - you know, the one that the Socialists are pushing for. Might as well get it over with while I can still take part in it.
JMO.
So if Bush (or any politician) tells you that he is going to screw you that we should vote for him because he was honest enough to tell us that we're going to get screwed? Are you insane?
It appears as though you are projecting. Your ignorance in the field of logic is being quite clearly shown.
So, according to you:
Hey, listen. I'm not above letting a person be ignorant and uneducated. My role is not to be a teacher. I'll get out of your way whilst you remain ignorant and become smug about it.
Well, because that is not necessarily true.
See, Bush also can PUSH for the AW ban. That would definitely lose my vote. If he just lets it die but mouths the politically correct party line, he keeps my vote.
I disagree. If a person takes the time to go into a booth, and selects NO presidential contender, they are making a clear statement: "I will not vote for either form of tyranny."
Now, tyranny certainly still would come -- but at least they have thrown the finger at it.
Try reading my following sentence. Don't feign support for him in the first place.
You shouldn't vote for George W. Bush. You should vote for ... ah ... um .... well ... somebody else. Or nobody at all.
But, you'll either be self-destructive or irrelevant. But, it is fun drawing principled lines in sand.
Your solution is to surrender them one at a time. No thanks.
"You haven't stated ONE fact to refute anything I have said. In fact, this whole thread is based on the supposition that Bush will do something when IT WON'T EVEN COME TO A VOTE IN THE HOUSE. Hysteria for nothing."
That is your take that it won't come to a vote. Can you or any one else guarantee that? No. There is nothing wrong with warning Bush of the outcome of his signature is. I'm sorry that you can't handle it.
"True patriots are those citizens who understand that the nation is under attack by its deadly enemies, the Islamic terrorists, and who rally around the President as he tries to handle this deadly threat. Such people understand that NO president will do EVERYTHING like they want and they understand that the alternatives to Bush would be disastrous."
True patriots realize that the government doesn't disarm it's citizens when it is under attack by outsiders and terrorists who walked across our open borders. Aside from that, that most a terrorist can do is kill me. A far worse fate is to surrender my rights to my own government. I WILL NOT live as a slave. Bush has done some good things and some pretty stupid and offensive things. I've not threatened to withhold my support on any of those issues for the very reason that you state. No one will please me all of the time. This is my line in the sand.
"Just as those who voted for Perot rather than Bush I paved the way for the destruction of American National security and allowed our enemies to buy our most up to date technologies from the Abomination and his eight yrs of treason."
And we survived those years and enough people realized how bad 4 years of algore would have been. But that doesn't mean that we should put up with a pubbie stabbing us in the back on guns. Bush is getting plenty of advance warning. For once, he should strap his domestic balls on and actually veto something that he disagrees with or believes to be unconstitutional. That he promises to sign tells me a lot about him and it ain't good.
"9/11 was one of the rewards the nation reaped from their shortsightedness and political immaturity. The price for such behavior now will be much higher. Those Americans who, after 9/11, recognized Bush is a true leader concerned about our nation were not all Bush supporters in 2000. But now they are."
Maybe for a time, but not all of them remain. You keep calling Bush a 'true leader'. His political skills are showing him to be more like Bill Clinton than George Washington -- he'll do whatever it takes to get him reelected. That makes him a true politician, not a true leader.
I opened the pod bay doors, Hal. :o)
Here is the remainder of your other post.
"Don't board his ship in the first place. But, don't delude yourselves that you will have any positive influence attaining other Conserviative priorities that only George W. Bush and a GOP majority Congress can codify into law."
I did delude myself into thinking that he, along with a GOP majority Congress would enact conservative priorities in 2000. After supporting Keyes throught the primary election, I reluctantly supported Bush, campaigned for him, and voted for him because I was able to delude myself.
After spending our tax money like a drunken democrat, failing to veto ANYTHING, and signing into law some of the most egregious and unconstitutional, and freedom destroying laws, I am no longer under any illusions of him being conservative. I am loyal to this country and to principle, but not to any politician and not to GWB. He, like any other pol, must earn each and every one of my votes. If he fails to see the result of his promise to sign, then he deserves to lose his job. If he doesn't care to see the potential of his promise to sign, he doesn't deserve to be reelected. If the results are ugly, it will be his responsibility, not mine. He has the power to do something about it.
" You should vote for ... ah ... um .... well ... somebody else. Or nobody at all."
That remains to be seen. I will not do anything to help him until I see what he will do. Then I will decide who will get my vote.
It is an analogous example of the form of argument you are falliciously advancing.
Go take a college course in Logic, perhaps you will not appear to be so ignorant, and you certainly won't be quite as smug about it. :o)
I will leave it to lurkers and fellow freepers to make up their own mind on who has a logic minor and who has not had even a passing aquaintance with a logic book. :o)
Is there nothing important enough to you that will cause you to withhold your vote? What is your process for deciding who gets your vote? I'd love to see how you arrive at your decisions.
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.