The only thing surprising, is that people are surprised.
Posted on 04/12/2003 12:34:04 PM PDT by Unwavering Conservative
Bush Supports New Extension of Assault-Weapons Ban
By Shannon McCaffrey Knight Ridder News Service
WASHINGTON -- 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 for the NRA. President Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the current ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.
The White House comment comes just before the NRA's annual convention and as the gun debate overall shows signs of fresh life after several years of near hibernation. Republicans now control the House and the Senate and are using their newfound power to breathe life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda. This week, they pushed through a bill in the House to give gun makers and dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits.
The assault-weapons ban is considered a crown jewel by the gun-control movement, and even though its expiration is more than a year away it is already being watched closely.
The White House comment surprised those on both sides of the gun issue.
"That's lousy politics," said Grover Norquist, an NRA board member who leads the conservative pro-Bush group Americans for Tax Reform.
Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center said it "creates a huge problem for Bush with the NRA."
"The NRA said they would be working out of the Oval Office when Bush was elected. This creates an interesting situation for them," he said.
Matt Bennett of Americans for Gun Safety applauded Bush's stance but urged the president to use his political clout to push for Congress to act. If Congress does nothing, the ban could just expire.
Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, said Bush's support was somewhat irrelevant.
"Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided by the Congress," LaPierre said.
If it is, the NRA has reason to be optimistic.
This week's action on the immunity legislation for dealers and gun makers reflects the interest of Republicans to resurrect the pro-gun rights agenda.
Congress had been poised to act on the bill last fall, but the deadly sniper attacks in the Washington area prompted a delay. The measure has enough co-sponsors in the Senate to pass that chamber unless Democrats dig in their heels and filibuster.
Supporters of the immunity bill say it shields gun makers from bankruptcy because of frivolous lawsuits that became popular during the Clinton administration.
Lawsuits filed by cities against gun manufacturers -- modeled on similar litigation against the tobacco industry -- have so far been unsuccessful but have kept gun makers tied up in court.
The active gun debate stands in contrast to several years of inaction.
Democrats largely abandoned the gun issue in the 2002 midterm election after some determined that it had been an albatross for Democratic presidential hopeful Al Gore in 2000.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., elected to Congress on a gun-control platform after her husband was killed and her son wounded by a deranged gunman on a Long Island commuter train in 1993, acknowledged that some Democrats are nervous about the gun issue nowadays.
"But it's coming back. I think you're going to see it popping up a lot this session with the Republicans in control," she said
The only thing surprising, is that people are surprised.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
The best Shakespeare quote ever.
Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!
This advice is better told to G.W., since "we" are the one who "brung" him. Without the votes of gun owners, he would not have won in 2000, and he needs to understand that without our votes in 2004, he won't be re-elected. The anti-gunners aren't going to vote for Bush no matter what, so he has nothing to gain (and everything to lose) by caving in to the Left on this issue.
People can make all sorts of claims that it is "stupid" to not vote for Bush when the alternative is worse, but the fact remains that they will not vote for someone who betrays their fundamental rights. Bush supporters might not like it, but they need to learn the same lesson that caused his father to lose in 1992 and Dole to lose in 1996; and that is that a very large percentage of the gun rights vote goes only to those that support gun rights.
For those that make claims about "what about the war on terrorism; surely you don't want someone like Gore as president?" the answer might shock you. A lot of gun owners (correctly) see the gun issue as more important than saving the lives of another 3000 New Yorkers. Their principles are such that a fundamental Constitutional issue like the right of citizens to protect themselves is as important the day to day policies of the country, even in something as vital as national defense; since ultimately it is the same issue.
Imagine if the candidates of both major political parties refused to do anything to stop the terrorists. Would you be willing to vote for the candidate that wanted tax cuts even though it would mean another airliner into a skyscraper? Although I'm sure there are some that would (unfortunately, the only requirements I've seen some people on FR place on their candidates is that they have an "R" after their names on the ballot), I would hope the majority would see that they are being given a false choice, and refuse to support any president who is unqualified due to his unwillingness to defend the Republic. In the same way, any president who refuses to support the 2nd amendment is in clear violation of his oath of office to uphold and defend the Constitution, and thus is unqualified for that office.
See ya, loser.
Neither will I. I've cut the Repubs a lot of slack because the alternative is so bad, but this is my line in the sand.
Rhetorical question, right?
The Libertarian party was more then willing to have the boreders closed after the attacks on 11Sep2001. Then they wanted to stop all visitors from the middle east from gaining entry without a background check.
Really? Can you give any documentation? What is their view today?
One idiot employee made that statement at an NRA function prior to the elections of 2000. That was never an official statement by the NRA.
That simple message needs to be delivered to the White House - loudly, clearly and often.
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.