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.
If Bush actively works congress over to make sure it is voted out, I will not vote for him.
If it makes it out on it's own and he signs it, I would lean against voting for him.
If it does not make it out of congress, I will vote for him.
If it makes it out of congress and he vetos it, I will contribute to him, work on his campaign, and drive people to the polls on election day.
You completely underestimate the skills of a Seal. Their whole concept is stealth and being able to sneak up on you. There is no way an auto weapon is going to help you. He'd make it to cover or concealment, ditch you, and then the stalking would begin. You'd hear him sharpening the head of broccoli to a fine razor edge, and then... nothing.
Unless you have him strapped to a table or chained to a tree, you'd be toast.
Other than that I surrender.
justshutupandsurrender.
;^)
You won't admit it, but that is exactly what you are doing if you condone this action by Bush. If enough of you say you will vote for him anyway, he has nothing to lose by signing. At least you could make him worry about signing it. Can't you see that blind allegience is defacto surrender?
" I would be willing to wager that no vote will take place in the House or if it does it will be defeated."
You can hope, wish or hold your breath all day long. You are putting your faith and our rights in the hands of politicians who care more about holding onto their job than anything else. You have no idea of the pressure that will be brought to bear and what events will occur to increase that pressure.
"Bush will not be detered from doing what he promised by the blustering of tiny minorities which never supported him in the first place."
You continue to assert that he never had our support or votes. He had a substantial amount of that support or he would just be a footnote in history.
"Terrorists have NOT "walked" across our borders they all arrived quite legally."
Walk, drive, fly? Who cares? They haven't been deterred and there are still open borders and we have no idea if others have literally walked across and are awaiting orders.
"Nor are the American people "being disarmed" by Bush. He is one of the few courageous enough to stand up and say such laws are wrong and ineffectual in achieving their ostensible purpose."
You better reread his remarks. First he said that it is an individual right. Then he said that it is subject to 'reasonable restrictions'. When you have to apply to the government for permission to exercise your right, it is no longer a right, but a privilege. What the goernment gives, the government can take away. The administration also has argued against a few 2nd Amendment cases being advanced to SCOTUS for hearings.
"Your concern about tyranny is appropriate but any attack on Bush will only hasten such a thing not diminish its chances."
If that is the intent, then let it be sooner rather than later. But if you can see that outcome, why can't Bush or his advisors? Or do they and they just don't care?
"The alternatives will only hasten the slavery you fear. Yet, that is what you THREATEN Bush with? It is assinine."
"Still, if you will not fight for the right when you can easily win without bloodshed, if you will not fight when your victory will be sure and not so costly, you may come to the moment when you will have to fight with all the odds against you and only a precarious chance for survival. There may be a worse case. You may have to fight when there is no chance of victory, because it is better to perish than to live as slaves." Winston Churchill
"After 8 yrs. of selling defense technology to the Chinese, giving the N.Koreans nuclear technology and oil, allowing OBL to establish the means to kill thousands of Americans IN THIS COUNTRY, Gore was only defeated by the grace of God and Free Republic. Had Gore won you could forget it, it would have meant this country was finished. Now we have been given another chance and the ideologues are threatening to turn it over to our enemies once again?
No. We gave the GOP an opportunity to do the right thing and they are on the verge of blowing it. I will not take responsibility for what the party has done and failed to do. I will only call them to account for it.
"Bush is no Clinton and the inability to understand this is indicative of the shortsightedness and blindness of your position. Just why in hell does the RATmedia hate him with such a passion if he is merely another Clinton? This makes NO sense whatsoever."
I'm not equating their beliefs, actions, or policies only their political drive. They both pander and will do what is necessary to win, not necessarily what is right.
"He owes NOTHING to the extreme far right. It never supported him preferring instead to chase will-o-the-wisps like Keyes."
If the Keyesters (in great numbers) had not backed Bush after the primary, Bush would not have won. If Bush believes or behaves that way next year, he will be another one termer. That will distinquish him from clinton, in that he will not be bright enough to understand the concept of not thoroughly pissing off your base.
"These are the people threatening most loudly and Bush will rightly pay them no mind."
At his own peril.
"Not that he pays anyone or any group deferential attention. Unlike Clinton he does what he believes to be correct no matter how popular or unpopular. THAT is a leader."
So he believed that CFR was the right thing to do? And the Kennedy Education Bill was the right thing? If that is his idea of leadership, then I guess that I just don't share his vision.
Glad you think so. It is an argument that takes the form:
Of course, I think my other comparitive argument, successfully refuting your silliness, was more instructive. It is as if you are arguing that:
I'll leave it to lurkers and fellow freepers to make up their own mind on who has had even a passing aquaintance with logic.
Someday you'll bump into logic in the hallway. At that point -- if you introduce yourself -- you'll have a passing aquaintance with logic.
But don't forget to introduce yourself!!!
;^)
The case is closed to men with closed minds. Agreed.
The fact that jsuati doesn't really care about the AW ban is not a reason to claim he supports it. I don't care about abortion, yet I cannot be said to support it.
tpaine, I gather you have had little or no college education. Is that true?
For a man to be incapable of simple substitution of subjects in a logical compound statement is breathtaking. I can only conclude you have had very little formal education.
That bar is set high enough to let just about anybody by clinton get by scot free.
"Another would be pushing a gun control law which totally disarmed the American people."
Since disarmament will not come in one sudden movement, but incrementally this means that you won't resist until it's too late to be effective.
"You are under the impression that I vote Republican NO MATTER WHAT. That is NOT the case. I am supporting a particular person here NOT a party."
That is the impression that you give with your comments.
My logic stands, above, and is still unassailable. My observation that you seem to be uneducated, formally, at a college level is neither related to the argument, nor is it an attack. Lots of people are not college graduates, and I wouldn't consider it an attack to observe thusly.
Nossir. My observation stems from the fact that you seem to have a great deal of difficulty substituting proper subjects in a simple logical compound statement.
Most people who have had logic courses have very little difficulty grasping the concept. I, myself have a logic minor at a baccaulaurette level. Not that that should matter: I have successfully refuted your rather silly comments without invocation of credentials, as "minor" as they are.
I cannot speak to jsuati's mindset, but, I conjecture that if he does not really care about the AWB, then it follows that he would not consider it a breach of his oath of office if he signed it.
The funny thing is, you and I agree about the AWB. But I cannot allow you to say things that are inconsistant with logic and reality, unchallenged. That is the reason that I have steadfastly pointed out the consistent logical flaw in your argument. I will continue to do so endlessly, so long as you persist in your illogic. I may attempt to address it through other means. Perhaps I will introduce you to Venn Diagrams and Symbolic Logic. I could use the refresher and you clearly could use the lesson.
Yes.
Yes, I will do this. I will demonstrate in a fashion wherein which it will be impossible for you to deny, that your conclusion is flawed. That is, unless you are willing to be so intellectually obtuse as to claim 1 = 2. :o)
Why yes, I did refute your illogic. I will do so again when I return from an evening engagement.
Get a grip on reality.
I wish you would. I know you won't.
Anyone can see you are tooting your own horn in an attempt to discredit my logic.
I would never invoke the logical fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam (the Appeal to Authority). In fact, it took me this long to even (grudgingly) admit that I had a minor in logic. It's not much of a credential, for that matter. So let us return to your faulty logic, instead. I will (re)(re)(re)deconstruct your illogic when I return.
You need education.
I will provide it.
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.