Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban

Salt Lake Tribune ^ | 4-12-03 | Shannon McCaffrey

[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

[demosthenes the elder]

then, obviously, it is ever more important to do as I have already suggested (see post#9)

[Shooter 2.5]

So we have to work together with the gun groups so it doesn't reach his desk. That will take more time and work than simply sitting out the election in case he does sign the Bill.

I don't want to wake up some morning and find out the Bill was passed because I spent more time on threads like this instead of writing the White House.

[ARCADIA]

You're kidding; this thing would never have died in committee, its one of the the biggest issues the left has going for it. What's your point?

We elected a republican to protect our gun rights and the guy refuses to veto a worthless piece of legislation. If he doesn't have the will to protect our interests, then why should I have the will to vote for the SOB.

[BushCountry]

The assault weapon ban is useless as it stands now. What the hell is everyone complaining about? Currently, I can go to any gun show here in Florida and buy enough fire power to take over Iran. Heaven forbid, he is doing exactly what he said he would during the election. Honor is a hard thing to find in a president, but evidently this means nothing.

BTW, we don't live in a perfect world. You will never, I mean never have a president that is 100% lock step and barrel with your beliefs. You have to learn to take the good with the bad, that is part of growing up and life. If you are worried about a police state, the banned weapons are not going to help. I police forces are armed to the teeth now, since 9/11 the police force in Lakeland where I live can carry any weapon they want (they are loaded for bear) and have M16s.

[tpaine]

We elected a republican to protect our gun rights and the guy refuses to veto a worthless piece of legislation. If he doesn't have the will to protect our interests, then why should I have the will to vote for the SOB
-arcadia-


This is typical of the 'new' FR. We supposedly are a gathering of constitutional conservatives.
- The new emphasis is on supporting party politics. - And GOP politics are increasingly not conservative, as we see, -- they are the politics of appeasment.

[demosthenes the elder]

hang on... I finally got enough coffe in me to kick start my brain:
You are right.
Dubya does NOT have to play these games.
He'd do better to just stand up and be counted as NOT supporting this legislation, and vowing to veto it.
The people he is trying to cozen will never vote for him no matter what, and he is costing himself our confidence and many of our votes.

[RLK]

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association ...

-------------------

Thank God we didn't get that idiot Owlgore in as president.

[CatOwner]

I wholeheartedly agree! While in the past giving up the White House on "principal" might have been seen as noble, doing so know with our national security at stake is way too risky. The thought of Hillary or Kerry or Edwards or Gore being President is way too horrific.

[CatOwner]

know = now

[Atlas Sneezed]

"So, to sum up your position, you would rather have a President who has a greatly negative effect on your rights, and will not protect the security of our country; rather than a President who will have a somewhat negative effect on your rights, and who will protect the security of our country to the best of his considerable ability?"

Essentially correct for me. I'd rather some anti-liberty tyrant who turned up the heat and stimulated a real response, than a mushy Republicrat who is simmering the frog to death.

If I am going to have a President who doesn't care about my liberties and the Constitutoin, then I'd rather send the Republicans a painful message they might learn from, in hopes that they start doing the right thing in the future.

(And don't try to convince me that "open borders" Bush cares about protecting the country. Frankly, Bush fears leading on real border security because the Dems would call him a racist. I think that Gore or Hillary would have had far less reason to fear securing the borders. Imagine the Reagan Dems sticking with Gore as he shuts the borders, and gets serious about illegal immigration. Just as only Nixon could go to China...)

[Atlas Sneezed]

"The Democrats are eviscerating themselves on national security issues, and you want to hand them the White House in 2004 because Bush isn't a perfect conservative candidate."

Whether a leader is competent or not in dealing with other nations is relatively unimportant compared to whether he is willing to uphold his oath to protect my Constitutional liberties. Bush is falling flat on the IMPORTANT stuff.

I fear a government encroaching on my liberty FAR more than a bunch of ornery suicide bombers.

[CatOwner]

"Essentially correct for me. I'd rather some anti-liberty tyrant who turned up the heat and stimulated a real response, than a mushy Republicrat who is simmering the frog to death."

You mean you would rather have a Bill Clinton as President for 8 more years? Are you saying that the country is better off than we were prior to Clinton's election? If your answer is yes, we lose.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"GWB needs to play such games to get reelected, sadly."

What two votes is he going to get to make up for my wife's and mine if he does not demonstrate leadership on the AW ban?

When offered a major tyrant and a minor tyrant, I'll support neither.

[tpaine]

hang on... I finally got enough coffe in me to kick start my brain:
You are right.
Dubya does NOT have to play these games.

He'd do better to just stand up and be counted as NOT supporting this legislation, and vowing to veto it.
The people he is trying to cozen will never vote for him no matter what, and he is costing himself our confidence and many of our votes.
-DtE-


Thank you, exactly my point. -- Now you need to convince BC here below, that Bush can denouce his campaign pledge without losing 'honor':

"The assault weapon ban is useless as it stands now. What the hell is everyone complaining about? Currently, I can go to any gun show here in Florida and buy enough fire power to take over Iran.
Heaven forbid, he is doing exactly what he said he would during the election. Honor is a hard thing to find in a president, but evidently this means nothing."
-BC-

'Limiting firepower' is an honorable pledge, in your book, is it? Funny, I always thought the 2nd was pretty clear about "shall not be infringed"...

[ccmay]

People! Relax!

You are watching a skilled politician at work.

W. knows good and well that Congress is not going to bring up the AW ban. It will sunset next year, and soon we will be back to the way things were.

This is a harmless way for him to put a lock on the votes of many liberals who like him and want to vote for him. I have no doubt that he is on our side. I have no doubt that this is done with a wink and a nudge to the NRA. I have no doubt that he WANTS the NRA to issue statements of concern and disappointment, to help him run from the center in 2004.

After re-election, he will not lift a finger in support of further gun control efforts, and might even help us make progress on national concealed-carry and other pro-gun reforms.

If you allow your absolutist opinions on the 2nd Amendment to keep you from voting for the greatest friend gun owners have had in the White House since Ronaldus Maximus, then you're a fool. Keep your eyes on the prize. This is a tactical feint on the battlefield, not a grand over-arching strategy.

My views on guns are to the right of probably 99% of Americans, but I realize that no politician could currently get elected who so forthrightly called for unlimited national concealed carry, for example, or repeal of the 1986 MG ban. That's OK. I'll take what I can get now, vote for Bush, and keep working to shift the goal posts rightwards. It's not even a vote for the lesser of two evils; it's a vote for imperfect good instead of pure evil.

Don't be an idiot. Dance with the one what brung ya.

-ccm

[Atlas Sneezed]

"So we have to work together with the gun groups so it doesn't reach his desk."

I disagree. I voted for him so that HE would lead, and protect ME (and my liberties). I have no intention of protecting him from the unsavory task of upholding his oath, and sending a message to the gun-grabbers that the era of encroaching our rights is over. Thia is his job, and if he won't do it, I'll find someone else who will.

I will vote for the most viable candidate (including a Dem) that takes a courageous stand to defend and restore my constitutional liberties, particularly firearms rights.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"If you are worried about a police state, the banned weapons are not going to help."

I disagree, but that is another issue altogether.

The real issue is whether we can have an historic instance where the destruction of our firearms rights is at least slightly reversed. I mean, geeze! It was a superficial, symbolic measure, which sunsets automatically, which has demonstrably failed to provide any benefit. It is revenue neutral, and is filled with arbitrary, irrational, and absurd regulations, that can lead to long prison terms for otherwise lawful citizens.

If a Republican House, Senate, and White House can't summon up the minuscule courage to do THIS, then I have no use for them.

It's not like they've been protecting my other liberties, or making meaningful reductions in taxes and regulations like Reagan did.

[demosthenes the elder]

see #66
forgive me: I am a pint shy on blood and was 2pints shy on coffee when I wrote that brainwashed rubbish about W having to play games.

[Atlas Sneezed]

"You mean you would rather have a Bill Clinton as President for 8 more years? Are you saying that the country is better off than we were prior to Clinton's election? If your answer is yes, we lose."

If electing Hillary for eight years cause Republican leaders to read the Constitution, and get a spine, I'd be delighted. Painful lessons are not soon forgotten.

As a bonus, the Bushbot-types might actually read and oppose things like the Patriot Act, if Hillary were proposing it. And Hillary would probably do a better job with securing the borders (since she wouldn't be spinelessly afraid of being called a racist.)

[Atlas Sneezed]

"After re-election, he will not lift a finger in support of further gun control efforts, and might even help us make progress on national concealed-carry and other pro-gun reforms."

I voted once to get him elected and he hasn't lifted a finger (except the middle one) regarding my firearms rights.

Are you saying that I need to trust that re-election will transform him into someone who starts upholding the Constitution?