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 think it would be interesting to hone the premises to demonstrate your sillyness even more glaringly:
Of course, it does not follow that Jsuati even KNOWS Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas -- but hey, don't let me stop you from proclaiming otherwise! You're on a illogic roll, and it's kinda endearing to watch. :o)
Note that all I have done is removed the term AWB and substituted an arbitrary person's name, thusly keeping as close to the form of your retroductive fallacy of soundness.
The Republicans control the House. The Republicans control the Senate. If an Ugly Gun ban bill makes any progress at all in a totally Republican controlled Congress, we will know for sure that the Republican Party no longer (if it ever really did) really supports RKBA.
If the Republican Party wants gun owners to vote for President Bush in 2004, it will make certain that no gun control bill (particularly an UG ban renewal) ever lands on his desk for him to sign. Althoubh the onus is really on the Congressional leadership to make sure this is and remains a non-issue, the buck stops in the Oval Office.
If the Republican Party is the Party of Gun control, voting for its candidates is not "self constructive", nor does it constitute "relevance".
Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
George W. Bush does not like Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas.
Therefore, Jsuati does not like Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas.
Of course, it does not follow that Jsuati even KNOWS Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas -- but hey, don't let me stop you from proclaiming otherwise! You're on a illogic roll, and it's kinda endearing to watch. :o)
Note that all I have done is removed the term AWB and substituted an arbitrary person's name, thusly keeping as close to the form of your retroductive fallacy of soundness.
Laz, the problem with your "logic" is that while Jsuati might not know who this person is, the AWB and Bush's position on it are very public knowledge, therefore the illustration above is not relevant to your disagreement with tpaine unless Jsuati states that he/she is not familiar with the AWB and Bush's support of that bill.
My comments are directed at those who have chosen THIS SPECIFIC policy action to wholly determine whether they will support President Bush's re-election next November. To stake it all on THIS issue, as a statement making reprimand to the GOP, is terribly counter-productive in my estimation.
You asked someone else, where is the line? It's not being crossed yet, in my personal perception. That's all we have, our individual viewpoints of current threat. I would support a total lifting of the AWB, I will inform my Congressmen, the national GOP fundraising orgs, and anyone else that I don't want that legislation successfully passed in the House and Senate. But, if a reauthorization IS passed, I'm not going to throw the country back into the hands of Hillary/Dean/Leahy to punish the GOP for their impertinence.
I own several firearms, and most every individual in my social group does as well. Mainly shotguns and hunting rifles, but about half own a handgun as well. The line will be crossed when the "authorities" try to designate our Wingmasters or 1100s or Glock .45s as assault weapons subject to banning. That's not in the works, IMO, in fact in Minnesota we just became a "shall issue" CCW state. Only because we put enough Republicans in the Legislature and Governor Mansion to get that right made into law.
That's positive progress, and it was only possible because we had real life officeholders working for our benefit.
Things are better now than they were in 1999. They'll be better still in 2005 if we can get enough Republicans, and their overwhelmingly conservative ideologies, into political office.
I'm not going to draw the label of "gun grabber" because I hold that pragmatic political position, so be it. Regards.
So that's why it's a make or break issue for me. I don't vote to reelect traitors and back-stabbers.
Excellent summation.
"I'm not" should be "If I'm"
Then you'd be better served to state that Bush is as conservative a president as we've had in the late 20th century...you can't really claim he's as conservative as anyone, then say you utilize a sliding scale for making the comparison.
Nossir, that was not the thrust of my argument. That was an incidental comment. Consider my argument without that incidental thought and my logic should be clear.
The thrust of my argument was that Jsuati would need, by necessity of tpaines conclusion, to NOT LIKE Phil Snead because G.W. Bush does not. This conclusion cannot follow, because it is fallicious.
Take care and "endeaver to persevere" as Chief Dan George has said.
FReegards
I am one of those. I have held my nose on many other issues. I have written to complain and I've withheld financial support for the National GOP committees, but this is my core issue. This is my line in the sand.
"It's not being crossed yet, in my personal perception....I own several firearms, and most every individual in my social group does as well. Mainly shotguns and hunting rifles, but about half own a handgun as well. The line will be crossed when the "authorities" try to designate our Wingmasters or 1100s or Glock .45s as assault weapons subject to banning. That's not in the works, IMO, in fact in Minnesota we just became a "shall issue" CCW state. Only because we put enough Republicans in the Legislature and Governor Mansion to get that right made into law."
So, since your ox isn't being gored, you don't care yet? Maybe when they get to your 'line', it will be too late to get anyone to care. I care if Saturday night specials are targeted. I care when black powder rifles and 50 cals are targeted even though I own none of these weapons. I object on principle.
I don't see spending being cut. I don't see departments being eliminated. I don't see a lot of the things that we dreamed of when we finally had a GOP majority. I don't hold out much faith any more. They don't even pretend any longer that these are the goals of the GOP.
I've looked at CCW progress as a good thing too. Then I wonder if this isn't just defacto registration. I don't trust government. Never did. Never will.
That's not a very smart thing to say to a Navy Seal. This man would make sausage-links out of you armed only with a head of broccoli. You could have any number of firearms you wished, I'd still put my money on Trav.
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.