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.
Over the last several decades, RKBA advocates and 2nd amendment rights' supporters have seen the slow whitering of the RKBA and the slow withering and increased 'gun control' which will inevitably lead to an attempt at a total ban, a national "needs based" licensing system, a national registration database (some say it already exists; it certainly does in California), and perhaps a confiscation. Those enemies of freedom have nothing to lose; all they need is patience, while we lose the RKBA slowly over the years. Look where gun rights were prior to 1968 and compare that to where we are today.
Its true that some great progress has been made in the number of states that now have a "shall issue" CCW laws; these have been interpreted as a "turning of the tide" against private gun ownership. That is true to some extent, but when the government has totally changed the RIGHT to keep and bear to the PRIVILEGE to keep and bear, then "What the government giveth, the goverment can take away."
One federal law is all it would take to negate every state's CCW issuance.
The sunsetting will be more than symbolic; it will mark a REAL turning point in the right to arms, so basic to the liberty of the citizens of the Republic. And we cannot ever expect that any member of the RAT party leadership will ever stop trying to destroy the private ownership of guns. The minute those "fine gentlemen" regain control of government, they will once again start hammering the RKBA. So in the meantime, it would be nice to see a gesture of "rolling back" egregious gun laws on the part of the Repubo Party, the self-appointed "party of freedom".
Why do you say that? How can you be that sure?
He signed the ban on partial birth abortion, now if he lets John Ashcroft fight for it, he'll have my bvotes, but, I do not envy those who come to take my guns.
If GWB renews or extends the ban, why does he deserve our vote?
Would you tell your wife or girlfriend that you will stay with her even if she cheats on you?
Why would you stay with a president that takes your freedom from you?
If not? "I'll see you on the beach..."
All conservatives knew this about Arnnie in advance and still voted for him...
Seriously, the AW ban as it is does little more than annoy the heck out of me. The AW ban 'strengthened' as Feinstein and Schumer want it signed would be terrible. As sure as the sun rises, any bill that makes it to Bush's desk will be 'strengthened', count on 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.