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.

[Kevin Curry]

Good post. Bush has walked this tightrope about as well and carefully as it can be walked. He is striving for overall strategic success within a befuddling mix of tactical wins, losses, and draws.

There are tactical losses and draws that annoy me enormously, from the Patriot Act, to CFR, to assault weapons restrictions. But I have also seen this President jettison the infernal Kyoto accords, deep-six the ICC, and take a stand against the racism of affirmative action. And he prosecuted the war with Iraq brilliantly, straight-up, and in the face of every two bit leftist and defeatist that currently draws breath.

Overall, we're making progress, tacking against a socialist wind that the Democrats had almost sixty years to stoke to Hurricane velocity.

[Henrietta]

You can start by reading some of the posts on this thread that have links to such info. There are several. Try the Gun Owners of America page.

[Henrietta]

Yes, that's a good start! Thanks for posting.

[jmc813]

There's a difference between being anti-gun and not wanting people to be toting around machineguns, assault riffles, and other such guns.

Agreed, but those who don't want people to tote around machine guns, rifles, and other such guns are anti-2nd Amendment. That's almost as bad as being completely anti-gun.

[Henrietta]

"as well as why anyone would need an assault rifle."

The 2nd amendment says I don't have to show a "need" for an assault rifle, or any other kind of gun. Just like the first amendment says I don't have to justify the books I read or the church I attend.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"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."

Bad analogy. Bread serves to improve and sustain one's health. What improves and sustains one's liberty? Firearms rights.

So since both parties are happy to worsen the health of my liberty, they are each offering me loaves of bread laced with different amounts of poison. One loaf has a slight amount that can't be tasted, and which goes down easy. Over time, if I eat enough, I (my liberties) may die. The other (offered by the Democrat baker) has much more poison, tastes bitter. May people will try to tell me how much better it is to live longer, and enjoy the delicious taste of the second baker's bread (like feeling good about having someone with moral character in the White House!) They will tell me that I shouldn't try to put the "better" baker out of business, because the alternatives are so limited.

In either event, I find a third source of sustenance, because at the very least, even if I risk starving to death, I don't wish to help either poisonous baker, and odds are that one of the bakers will realize that he will prosper more by getting rid of the poison.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"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)?"

Two responses:

1. If all the militaries of the world find a need for these things, there must be some merit to them for defending liberty against tyranny.

2. You might well enjoy being able to buy grandfathered stuff, if at a price. Is that the bequest of liberty you want to pass on to future centuries of "free" Americans? The precedent that only archaic arms may be kept and borne by citizens?

FYI: There is only one machine gun for every 1000 Amrican citizens. Does that sound like an adequate defense against the threat of a standing army that our founders feared, especially since "great minds" have concluded that such weapons are the ideal tool for the foot soldier?

[samtheman]

All right. I got a bunch of replies to my post that the "assault weapons ban" does nothing. Most of them were quite nasty and insulting. Go figure. But the ONLY thing that anyone could come up with that the ban bans is ammo clips greater than 10 rounds. That's it? A bunch of you people are threatening to kiss off Bush over THAT? And that with the full knowledge that there are thousands of the large clips available all over the country legally for low cost?

Let's see. Bush has appointed John Ashcroft as AG, who in turns has, for the first time I know of, taken a stand that explicitly states the second amendment applies to individual rights. He has joined the Emerson case that stated same. Bush (and Ashcroft) support the right to conceal carry, again the only President and AG in history to publicly take that stand.

And there are folks here who are gonna support the Dem candidate (that's what you do if you don't vote for Bush) over this one item? . . . shaking my head . . . And I thought the folks are DU were unreasonably radical.

You are right.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Why don't you pull your head out of your clymer and run for president yourself?"

Instead of being a jerk with the personal attacks, you would be wiser to listen to what you are hearing from the "Base" you have taken for granted. If "winning" is so important, you should work to keep these people happy. Don't defend Bush. Instead, help take him to the woodshed, so that he can learn a lesson, do the right thing, and earn back the votes of people who actually put Constitution above party.

[The Old Hoosier]

American Politics is/should be about finding the middle ground that suits the population as a whole. It shouldn't be all about hardcore partisanship and finding that middle ground after the dust settles.

So what you're saying is, we should give away half the loaf before we even begin to negotiate with the other side.

Great idea. It worked for Bush's father.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Banning the importation of hi-capacity magazines"...

FYI: It is LEGAL to import such magazines, as long as they were made ofter the ban.

You can buy them for a couple of bucks in many instances, because all the foreign military surplus that has hit the market as modernization occurs.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

I've learned a lot buy reading this thread- mostly that I am missing out on a lot of good bets.

It is not so much that the Dog loses bets, as it is that I charge usurious interest rates.

[Technogeeb]

But the ONLY thing that anyone could come up with that the ban bans is ammo clips greater than 10 rounds. That's it?

No, that's not it. It also creates entire classes of firearms that are legal for bureaucrats, but not for citizens. It creates a two-tier legal system, where someone who works for a police department or happens to have a job at the Department of Health and Human Services can own certain items, but someone else cannot. Even ignoring the 2nd amendment issue, it creates a system where some people have more "rights" than other people.

That's it?

First, that's not it; there are numerous other restrictions in the bill (for example, it makes some firearms completely unavailable to the public, because "low-capacity" magazines simply aren't manufactured for them. It makes some shotguns illegal for the same reason. It makes certain erogonomic features such as a pistol grip unavailable on certain firearms, meaning they can't be used by people with some medical conditions).

A bunch of you people are threatening to kiss off Bush over THAT?

We're not threatening; we proved we would do it in 1992 and 1996. This isn't theoretical; you need to understand that if this bill passes then Bush is going to lose. If you really want Bush to win, then you need to make sure this bill never gets out of Congress. The Republican party needs to get a clue; they can't win without us. The anti-gunners aren't going to vote for you no matter what you do; the only thing passing anti-gun legislation is going to do is lose you votes.

And that with the full knowledge that there are thousands of the large clips available all over the country legally for low cost?

You're showing your ignorance. First, there are a lot of guns that have ZERO normal capacity magazines available. Any firearm manufactured after the date of the ban won't have any legal normal capacity magazines for ordinary citizens; they will only be available for the government (and if the manufacturer doesn't make low-capacity magazines available, the firearm is defacto banned). Second, the magazines that are in circulation wear out with use. The result of your dismissal of this issue will be the effective disarmament of future generations, and then their inevitable enslavement.

Let's see. Bush has appointed John Ashcroft as AG, who in turns has, for the first time I know of, taken a stand that explicitly states the second amendment applies to individual rights

This just goes to show how far things have degenerated. Suddenly the appointment of a moderate (and Ashcroft is a moderate; he believes in limitations that were considered extreme as late as the 1980s, such as the total ban on selective fire rifles, even though no such legally owned private weapons have ever been used in a crime) on the gun rights issue is now some great service to the cause of civil liberties.

He has joined the Emerson case that stated same. Bush (and Ashcroft) support the right to conceal carry, again the only President and AG in history to publicly take that stand

Surely you can't be this clueless. Until FDR, gun control at the national level didn't even exist. The number of presidents who have been active supporters of firearm rights far outshadow the meager attempts at lip-service to the cause by the current administration.

And there are folks here who are gonna support the Dem candidate (that's what you do if you don't vote for Bush) over this one item?

You're the one being a radical; insisting that a clear infringement of the Constitution is no big deal. If it isn't that much of an issue, then why bother to support it in the first place? If it really doesn't matter to you, then why not just let the law sunset and not lose the election?

[The Coopster]

If it's all about oil, how come we didn't stay in Kuwait 12 years ago? Why not take over Mexico, which has A LOT more oil under it than Iraq?

Sole reason for the invasion? Be careful, man. Crack can kill you......

[Miss Marple]

Henrietta, I do not care to discuss this issue. I do not own weapons, although I support your right to own them. I do not think that assault weapons are the sole purpose of the Second Amendment.

I will caution you that attacks on my appreciation of freedom are not going to win me to your position, just as hysterical rants of the gun-banners are not going to win me to theirs.

You are free to support the lifting of the ban, and you are free to contact your Congressman and Senators. Making snide remarks to me isn't going to accomplish anything.

[The Coopster]

That's not the point I was making. But thanks for beating that dead horse here again. Got anything new? Got anything productive to do but bitch? Get on the phone, and let W know. It's the only way to at least try do do something now, and it's a damn sight more productive than sitting around here grumbling and plotting.

[Dog Gone]

Oh, you don't need to actually win bets. All you have to do is claim that the winnings are owed. Or so it seems.

[Dog Gone]

It is not so much that the Dog loses bets, as it is that I charge usurious interest rates.

You have a penchant for understatement that is not fully appreciated.

[Long Cut]

"FYI: It is LEGAL to import such magazines, as long as they were made ofter the ban"

True. It's why I'm currently considering the purchase of a Spanish CETME...the mags are a GREAT price. However, there ARE benefits to banning the import of such mags...like the business and jobs created domestically for their manufacture in the U.S. The same CETME's reciever, by law, is manufactured HERE, not overseas, and this should please those who support keeping jobs and business here.

[Long Cut]

Like I said, I'm willing to give the President the benefit of the doubt on a LOT of issues based upon his performance to date. To put it another way, I respect and trust my Commander-In-chief to do the right thing, which I could NOT say of the prior occupant of that position. I doubt that I could say it about the alternative to this one, too. This drives a great deal of my thinking. Also, it is incumbent upon me to support the chain of command of which I am a part.

I also understand completely how such an issue could place him in an untenable position. For those at the very top of the descision-making process, things are SELDOM as cut-and-dry as they are to anonymous posters on Internet sites.