Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban

Washington Post ^ | April 12, 2003 | Unknown

[Mini-14]

The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.

Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority of the NRA. Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.

[VRWC_minion]

I guess they didn't read the first paragraph of the (Wash Post) article posted: "The President supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

There is a trap in all this that waits to be srung. If Bush announced at this time he was against the current law, all hell would breal lose by accusations that his administration wasn't supporting the current laws.

[Mr. Mojo]

one-issue charlies.

If Bush proposed legislation to ban all firearms, and his GOP base all told him to go to hell, would you consider that base to be a bunch of "one-issue Charlies"?

[VRWC_minion]

If it hits his desk, and he signs it Bush will have lost my vote forever

If memory serves, Bush has lost yoru vote forever about 9 times now.

[Tancredo Fan]

I am still ducking. Noone here to defend him yet?

the RINO in this guy is really beginning to show. Just wait for 'Patriot Act II'.

[Dane]

Therefore, we should vote for him. Gotta love circular logic.

Yep that circular logic of those who don't get a 100% fresh baked loaf of bread, with a card with smooches all over it, go to the next bakery where they readily accept and buy a moldy rancid loaf of bread the democratic party has to offer.

[Mr. Mojo]

That's why I'm waiting for him to actually sign the renewal before I officially give up on him.

[Godebert]

"Repealing the assault weapons ban right now just isn't good politics, Bush has other things to worry about."

You're right.....Bush is more worried about "good politics" than upholding his oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States of America.

[chnsmok]

Then in a few decades the assault weapons ban will die a quiet death and few people will get very excited about it.

I guess 20 years isn't too long to wait to be a law-abiding citizen again. (For some. Not me, of course.)

[TexasCowboy]

"COB, I want my hat!"

Okay, Okay!!

Oh, hell, I forgot to tell you!
I spilled a can of oil in the hallway, and I needed to mop it up quick!
Your hat was....uh,....close.
You can be proud, though. It did a real good job!
It's almost all the same color now, and you won't have to worry about your brain squeaking when you wear it.

[Eaker]

Order them here. Mike, the owner is a great guy!!

Order Here

Click on the "Tee-Shirt" guy.

[lainie]

Well Saddam's (November 2000) decision to accept only euros as payment for oil (and not dollars) factored heavily. Either way, Bush was acting in the interests of the USA, right or wrong; agree or disagree. I personally don't buy the "W's oil buddies" stuff.

But upholding this or any gun ban is still telling the American people they aren't to be trusted... and feigning support is to say that we can't handle the truth. I think the overwhelming support of Americans for the president and this current war situation (coupled with the change of attention after 9/11) ought to be enough for him.

The prevailing logic from here is that, if a combined conservative president/house/senate can't fix things, then nothing ever will.

[VeniVidiVici]

Ok. I only read about half the posts since I have to run somewhere so if this has been answered, forgive me.

Just how, and what, has this "assault" weapons ban affected the sales of semi-auto weapons? I can go to a gun show and buy an AK-47 or 74; I can get an M16 knock-off at my local gun store (or the previously mentioned gun show); I can buy just about anything it seems.

So what am I missing out on? Rifles with flash supressors (a really dumb thing to ban)? Magazines that can handle more than 10 rounds (I can buy grandfathered ones)? A bayonet mount (whoever thought this should be banned is smoking something)?

Granted that ban was an idea of the left to get around the 2d Amendment. And in an ideal world nothing would be banned. But the reality being what it is - the obnoxious elitists of the left lying to a good percentage of American sheeple - I think it's better to pick and choose our battles or we could end-up like England, Australia and Canada.

The people of KA have a need to worry. It won't be long before the idiots in control there ban ALL weapons.

[lainie]

You mean like they said in 1994? "Oh, it'll sunset in '04."

A few decades? How many generations have to be disarmed?

The way to keep this travesty from reoccurring is for the government to Do Nothing. There is no legislation to defeat if the government does Nothing.

Jiminy Christmas.

[TexasCowboy]

"He and his friends will profit obscenely from this."

I've heard this until I'm sick of hearing it!

Do you know ONE damn thing about the oil business??
What is the name of George Bush's or Dick Cheney's oil company?
How are they going to manage the oil wells that are producing much less drill new ones?
It takes massive infrastructure to take on a project that size and a massive amount of money!
Before you open your mouth engage your brain and find out how oil companies operate!!

[Dane]

the RINO in this guy is really beginning to show. Just wait for 'Patriot Act II'.

Wow. Even parts of Patriot Act I didn't get through because of the silence of the Tancredo cheerleaders on FR.

Two of America's most prominent conservative leaders and a former Democrat ambassador and Boston mayor have written a letter to President Bush opposing a Justice Department proposal that would permit state and local law enforcement agencies to track down illegal immigrants as a way to fight terrorism.

David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist president of Americans for Tax Reform - a top political analyst - and former Boston mayor and ambassador to the Vatican Ray Flynn who heads the Catholic Alliance took the side of police officials and immigrant rights activists in urging the president to prevent the proposal from being implemented.

Police officials across the nation have already criticized the idea, warning that it would endanger their relations with immigrants. especially because they would be reluctant to report crimes fearing they might be exposed to charges of immigration law violations.

According to the New York Times' Eric Schmitt, on Friday the three men wrote to the President complaining that the plan, now being reviewed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, would create a dangerous precedent because it would empower local authorities to become enforcement tools of the federal government.

"If local police are to enforce our immigration laws, will they soon be required to seek out and apprehend those who violate our environmental laws, or the Americans with Disabilities Act as well?" the three men wrote

Keene, Norquist Oppose Bush Plan

And not a peep from the malcontent Tancredo cult on FR, while Tancredo is employing illegal Mexicans to redecorate Congressman's Tancredo's basement in his house in the Denver area.

[Kevin Curry]

Why don't you pull your head out of your clymer and run for president yourself? For that matter, run for ANYTHING and make a difference.

Don't let the fact that you couldn't get elected even if there were no other candidates running, dissuade you.

[Mr. Mojo]

Why don't you answer my question, you big-government loving prick?

[inquest]

First of all, look up the definition of circular logic. It doesn't apply to the situation you described.

Secondly, only one person on this thread has said that he would support Democrats in retaliation for this, and I agree that would be foolish. No one else has advocated that.

[halfdome]

He looks a lot better in jeans and cowboy boots than I do, too. Swoon.

[Dane]

Secondly, only one person on this thread has said that he would support Democrats in retaliation for this, and I agree that would be foolish. No one else has advocated that.

Really, it seems that alot of the self-described fatalistic "constituionalists" on this thread were going to withhold their vote(i.e a defacto vote for the democratic candidate) over this.

Hey that's their right, if the one issuers want to get hot and bothered, but it is also my right to point out their knee jerk one issue foolishness, IMO.