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.

[Taxman]

Bears repeating:

"I interpert that to mean our job is to keep it from getting there [the President's desk] in the first place, and am doing what I can from here to effect that." [Emphasis added.]

Exactly! If the legislation does not pass either the Senate or the House, it sunsets. And it is up to us to work over our respective Representative and both Senators to ensure this legislation does not pass either the House or the Senate!

We need to find out just how much clout we have, and this issue is a good place to start.

[rintense]

And fools like you

Now is that really necessary?

[alwaysconservative]

Well, since this verified by looking at his campaign promises, and usually we're very happy that this is a man who keeps his word, it's hard to imagine that it is untrue. Heck, it's not even worded as slantedly as the WP's usual!

What many of you are forgetting is that September 11 changed the landscape for many of the campaign promises. President Bush should have no difficulty after that event and after the successful war on terror in Afghanistan and after the liberation of the Iraqi people in saying, I've thought about extending the ban, and decided against it.

If you really want to make your opinions known, tell them to Karl Rove. He helps navigate the political consequences for the President, and I don't believe that this is a mistake he would let President Bush make.

[Teacher317]

And certainly we shall try, but there are two disturbing things to note:

First, that was our plan with CFR, and we failed.
Second, as with CFR, GWB promised to (and did) sign it if it hit his desk. Not only does that show a lack of leadership, it also shows that he doesn't seem to care about supporting those issues that are most important to those of us who worked very hard to get him (and a majority of Congresspersons) into office.

If he doesn't support me after all the work I did for him, why would I want to support him for not doing much for me on domestic issues? He's doing more for the freedoms of people in other nations than he is for the freedom of American citizens. (Security he's handling decently... but I'm reminded of Ben Franklin's old saw about those who trade liberty for security.)

[Teacher317]

I thought about making that point (an "escape clause" for GWB, if you will), but since he isn't electing to use it (the article was about is re-affirming his intent to sign it), it's mostly a moot point.

[rintense]

Philosophical arguments aside, the simple fact that assault weapons are banned, and machine guns, etc aren't is simply absurd. The basis for the law is incredibly shallow and illogical.

As I have said on other occasions, my whole problem with any anti-gun law is that they are trying to put a band aid on a gapping wound- and that wound isn't the second amendment. It's the behavior and rationale that causes a person to pick up a gun and purposely kill (as I understand the soccer moms think guns are used for). All the gun laws in the world will not change that behavior, that need to murder. Take away a gun, and that person will just find something else to satisfy their need to kill.

Hell, if they ban assault rifles, then why not ban ritalin. It's done just as much 'so-called' harm.

[Dan from Michigan]

Golly, folks. A bunch of you are being ridiculous. The assault weapon ban defined assault weapons as "guns having one or more of the following characteristics:" which, if I remember correctly, were bayonet, flash suppressor, etc. etc. Extending this bill does NOTHING.

BS.

1. It'll help the dems more than anything in swing states. Bush needs Michigan, Ohio, Penn, Tennesee, Missouri, Arkansas, New Hampshire, and Florida. Angry gun owners will sit home, or vote out of spite.

2. A new bill has to pass. The gun grabbers will want to add more guns to fit the so called 'assault weapons' definaion. Look at Illinois right now. They want to ban all semi-autos and all guns over .50 cal. That's your shotgun.

3. It's a lack of loyalty. Gun Owners worked overtime to help W. If W stabs them in the back, even symbolicly, it opens the door to dems, especially one like Howard Dean who is at least a gun moderate.

Bush has been very good to gun owners and second amendment watchdogs, and you better not forget it.

Bush has done well on symbolic things and did well on giving the UN the finger, but he also signed McCain Feingold and the unPatriot Act.

[chnsmok]

Excellent.

[rintense]

Hey, I asked an honest question. And I got some very nice, sincere replies. I just want to learn why others would use them. I've down a pretty quick turn around on this issue having read some of these replies. Perhaps if more folks would reply in the same fashion, more people would change their minds.

That withstanding, it's time to contact your congressmen!

[Eaker]

HC, we are on the same page on this issue.

El Roy just purchased a rifle that is supposed to shoot the round that is depicted at the top of the picture. As you know the bottom round is .223, middle is 30.06 and the top is.............

Please explain to him that he not only looks silly, but is crazy too.

Thanks.

[rintense]

Karl Rove... *shudders* Don't like him at all. There's just something about him...

[rintense]

I've down a pretty quick turn around on this issue having read some of these replies.

Um, that should be I've *made* a pretty quick turn around (and *downed* a few beers...)

[alwaysconservative]

Sorry, I just don't buy the timing or agenda of the article (wasn't the WP the one that encouraged the fiction that most of President Bush's father's generals were trying to get a "message" to him about the war?), or that the President, who has made no stupid political decisions yet, decided in the midst of his march to victory, that he would toss away a staunch base of support without a very valid reason? It just doesn't fit that a man who is willing to ignore the hysterics of the left on the march to war would throw away the support he has generated by winning those wars. I repeat: if you feel strongly about this, email the White House at president@whitehouse.gov and let him know how you feel.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

El Roy just purchased a rifle that is supposed to shoot the round that is depicted at the top of the picture. As you know the bottom round is .223, middle is 30.06 and the top is.............

He wrote me about this a couple of days ago and invited me to the range. I am trying to get a transfer to somewhere safe, like Baghdad, before he finds an open day to go shoot the thing.

[TexasCowboy]

"Can we agree that El Roy looks silly?"

Both of you comedians need to remember that I'm sitting here with a .50 caliber Barrett on my lap.
As you can see by this comparison of rounds, I can hit you anywhere in the Houston area:

From bottom to top: .223, 30.06, .50 caliber

[chnsmok]

Is that a 50 caliber?

[rintense]

Well get used to the timing aspect of it. With the victory in Iraq, the liberals (and their media delivery system( are going to do everything in their power to make the President look like the bad guy here at home. This is why, even though I may feel strongly about something, I always wait until I hear it from the man himself.

[HoustonCurmudgeon]

Is that a 50 caliber?

Yes it is.

[chnsmok]

My husband was doing a job in Colorado Springs and went to this place shooting off those things. He thought he died and went to heaven. Just HAD to have one, you know.

[Long Cut]

A fair number of gun owners had no idea WHERE Perot stood on guns...they simply assumed that he was progun due to his biography (and don't forget, this was BEFORE the alternative media of the Internet and talkradio were in full swing to inform them). A like number voted Buchanan(pointless) or simply stayed home.

Slick never DID get a true majority of the vote, remember. Thanks to the waverers, he didn't need it.