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.

[lainie]

We can certainly hope so. If that's the RNC plan ... to have the president feign support knowing full well it'll never make it to him, great. I guess. How about just doing the right thing? I'm for that.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Can any one of you truly say that we will be better off if the CIC in 2005 is a Democrat because of single issue voters on the right?"

I can. When we can punish the anti-Constitutionalists like Bush, and teach them that they do not automatically win gun owner's votes, then they will learn to take a stand in defense of the Constitution. BIG PICTURE. LONG RUN.

Which party is leading the charge to spend our money and roll back our liberties is not particularly important. Restoring the Constitution is.

Do you think that the Patriot Act and its bretheren would have slicked through Congress if GORE had been President?

[Shooter 2.5]

There you go again telling posters what the NRA will do or not do.

I suggest if you aren't a member of an organization, you quit speculating to their actions. If you're member of another group, tell us what that group is doing.

[Brian S]

SO you're all for unConstitutional bills as long as they give the GOP an advantage? How principled of you.

I've been hearing a lot of that philosophy as of late by those who call themselves neocons.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"There is more to it than this."

Alert us when Bush or Ari announces that is was a big error, and that Bush supports sunsetting of the bill (I'd even tolerate it if he justified his support of sunsetting because the ban was proven ineffectual, instead of the proper objection that it is abhorrent to the Constitution.)

[JudgemAll]

Let us remember that this is not the first time Bush is being ill advised but has turned against the advice. We have been penetrated by liberal institutions and foreign services intent on overthrowing the US government. The Washington Post is foremost in that goal. Maybe we should be more worried about the the illness than the symptoms in this "Bush bashing for his mistakes".

[Dane]

You don't read very deeply do you? I noted "domestically" he is behind the curve and failing us. Overseas, he's doing great. Why can't we find someone who can actually be strong at home and abroad? I'd like it if he supported freedom for Americans as strongly as he asserts it for Iraqis!

Well gee, domestically Bush has a strong house but a mushy middle Senate. You want him to act like a dictator.

Like I said in 99, Feinstein and Schumer pushed through a draconian gun bill through the Senate at the height of Clinton's popularity, it died in the House, the same will probably will happen here.

Like I said, why don't you study up on the present political realities instead of flagellating yoursel over being "betrayed".

[sargon]

Well, there you have it.

Let's hear the apologists explain this one away.

If he supports this, he's lost my vote, which I gave him in 2000.

Actually, he already lost my vote with the abomination known as the Patriot Act.

I support the War on Terror, not the dissolution of the 2nd and 4th Amendments.

[JudgemAll]

Alert us when Bush or Ari announces that is was a big error,

I will be vigilant, but vigilant about the process and the support for the process, not necessarily the results.

[Teacher317]

Actually SCOTUS will finally put a spike through the ad bans once and for all.

The same pathetic line you all used after he signed CFR... it has yet to happen, and does not change the point that this tripe should never get to SCOTUS in the first place if he was doing his job of upholding the Constitution. (That's the same logic as saying, "it's okay that the bank-robber is getting all the cash from the vault... when the cops catch him, he'll never be able to do it again! Why should I, as the security guard who is responsible for defending the vault, bother getting involved?")

But you go ahead with you rants without taking into consideration of the past makeup of previous congresses and total lack of knowledge of political warfare.

So signing unConstitutional bills is acceptable in a President as long as it is part of political maneuvering? Are you sure you're not a Clinton fan?

You may wish away political warfare, but alas it does exist and it would do you well trying to understand it rather than wishing for a perfect political utopia.

Amazing... you say that it takes "utopia" to get a President who respects the Constitution, so that you can continue to defend a man just because he has an "R" after his name.

[lainie]

I'm not a knee-jerk conservative and it's rather unfair of those of you bent on labeling me so. I've been following this issue since the 2000 campaign, waiting to see what Bush does. He hasn't done anything yet but the quotes come from the WH. The WP has nothing to do with it.

[The Coopster]

No, but basing all of your voting desicion on a single issue is just plain stupid.

Look, 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. To often, that ends up tilting toward the liberals - they're not so easily divided and conquered like the single issue crowd. Look at this thread. Based on an article in one of the most liberal pulications out there, you've all got your panties in a wad, crying "treason", and vowing do vote for someone else? Who is the other viable candidate that you'll vote for?

Get some perspective, people. You've got to choose your battles wisely. And quit fighting those who are on your side.

[Shooter 2.5]

Since this is coming from the Washington Post we do have to be careful whether this is accurate or not. It's possible they are bringing this out to counteract his popularity.

I would suspect them of printing this out to watch the fun as the Freepers and conservatives tear into each other.

And it looks like it worked.

[Atlas Sneezed]

I AM an NRA member. They are useful idiots that provide some benefits. They are certainly not enemies to the cause.

But they have a track record of selling our rights up the river, and helping some anti-rights candidates just becaus ethey are "R"s.

They should learn that you occasionally have to "shoot" one of your own that gets out of line, to keep the rest in line.

[JudgemAll]

I will be vigilant, but vigilant about the process and the support for the process, not necessarily the results.

And should I add that those not paying attention to the process do not mention that this comes from a gloating traitorous Washington Post working for foreign and enemy intelligence services, intent on spliting us. Why would that be?

[Teacher317]

to have the president feign support knowing full well it'll never make it to him, great. I guess. How about just doing the right thing? I'm for that.

That's the problem. The Dems have another "fork" for this Bush. If he signs it, he loses a significant part of his base. If he breaks his word and refuses to sign it, then "lies like Daddy" hits the headlines. He put himself in this corner, and is hoping Congress and the sycophants can bail him out.

[longtermmemmory]

If algore had been in the presidency they would have set the bill of rights aside by emergency executive order in what would be called protective custody, for the brief period of the war on terrorism. Anyone, ANYONE who opposed the chairman of national security Hilary's actions in defense of the nation against these secret unknown terrorist would be detained for questioning. All private ownership of firarms would be suspended as a national security threat to the governemtn forces.

[heckler]

BIG PICTURE. LONG RUN.

George Bush MUST be re-elected in 2004. Why? The courts.If we do not have JUDGES who stand by the constitution it doesnt matter who is in the White House or who controls Congress. In this matter G.W. is making all the right picks. This is the single most important thing he can do in office and he cant do it if he is not re-elected.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"I would suspect them of printing this out to watch the fun as the Freepers and conservatives tear into each other."

We (at least those who support the second amendment) aren't tearing into other Freepers. We're tearing into a President for his terrible policy.

The Bush Legacy:
Permanent Assault Weapons Ban.
Patriot Act.
Campaign Finance Reform.
Steel Subsidies.
Increased federal education budget.
...

[chnsmok]

And quit fighting those who are on your side.

You are right. I will contribute to and vote for someone who is on my side.