"That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks."
George W. Bush - Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17,2000.
Posted on 04/14/2003 7:45:39 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
Edited on 04/17/2003 6:40:21 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
As I Predicted, George W. Bush
Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban
TooGood Reports
By Chuck Baldwin
Chuck Baldwin Website
April 15, 2003
In this column dated December 17, 2002, I predicted that President G.W. Bush would support the so-called assault weapons ban first promoted by former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Diane Feinstein back in 1994. Interestingly enough, the gun ban became law on the strength of a tie-breaking vote by then Vice President Al Gore. The ban is scheduled to sunset next year, but Bush is joining Clinton and Gore in supporting an extension.
Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The president supports the current law (the Clinton gun ban), and he supports reauthorization of the current law."
This must come as quite a blow to people such as the leaders of the National Rifle Association who campaigned heavily for Bush touting him as a "pro-gun" candidate. Since his election, the NRA and others have repeatedly reaffirmed their support for Bush, because he is "pro-gun." Well, now the mask is off!
I have tried to warn my readers that Bush is not a true conservative. He is not pro-life; he is not pro-family; he is not pro-Constitution. And now we know he is not pro-gun.
Instead of reversing the miserable policies of Clinton/Gore, Bush is helping to harden the cement around those policies. The gun issue is no exception.
The so-called assault weapons ban was the benchmark piece of legislation reflecting the anti-gun policies of people such as Clinton, Gore, Feinstein, and New York Senator Charles Schumer. It was also the number one target of the NRA. In fact, the NRA all but promised their supporters that a Bush presidency would help reverse this Draconian gun ban. Instead, Bush is pushing Congress to extend the ban.
A bill to reauthorize the gun ban will be introduced by Senator Feinstein in the coming weeks. It must pass both chambers of Congress to reach the President's desk. The best chance of stopping it will be in the House of Representatives. However, in order to defeat this bill, it must resist the power and influence of the White House. This will be no small task.
Not only is Bush betraying the pro-gun voters who helped elect him, he is breathing new life into a nearly dead anti-gun movement. Most political analysts credit Bush's pro-gun image as the chief reason he defeated Al Gore in the 2000 election. They also credit the pro-gun image of the Republican Party for helping them to achieve impressive wins in the 2002 congressional elections.
Now, Bush is giving new credibility to anti-gun zealots such as Schumer and Feinstein and is helping to reinvigorate the anti-gun momentum that had all but been put on ice.
However, the real question will be, "Will pro-gun conservatives continue to support Bush?" Bush is every bit the "Teflon President" that Clinton was. Conservatives seem willing to overlook anything he does, no matter how liberal or unconstitutional it may be. Will they overlook this, also?
If you truly believe in the Second Amendment and are willing to do something about it, I suggest you go to the Gun Owners of America website. They have a quick link set up which allows people an opportunity to conveniently send email to the White House about this issue. Go to the gun ban "alert" button. From there you can voice your disapproval with the President's decision to betray his constituents by supporting this new round of gun control.
Once again, the ball of freedom and constitutional government is in the court of the American people. Will they keep the ball and do something with it, or will they hand it off to the neo-conservatives at the White House? We'll see.
PLEASE Don't Sit out 2004, EVEN IF Bush signs the AW ban extention
Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban
Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban
"That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks."
George W. Bush - Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17,2000.
MORE INJUSTICE ON THE WAY - Bush GUN CONTROL
"Gene Healy, a Cato Institute scholar, recently provided a thorough exploration of the unintended consequences of one law, the new Bush-Ashcroft plan to federalize gun crimes, known as the Project Safe Neighborhoods program. The unintended consequences of this law are frightening."
NOTE: Same Article in Washington Times.
"W. Wimps Out on Guns"
The Bush package includes several pet causes of the gun-control lobby, including $75 million for gun locks; $15.3 million for 113 new federal attorneys to serve as full-time gun prosecutors; and $19.1 million to expand a program by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms aimed at preventing youths from obtaining guns. Although Bush stressed that he simply wants to "enforce existing laws," the fine print of Project Safe echoes the gun-grabbing Left's call to ban the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips."
Project Safe Neighborhoods, A Closer Look
LAURA BUSH:
"During her San Diego speech, for instance, she said nothing about the school shooting that occurred 20 miles away in El Cajon the day before, although in a television interview she condemned it, adding that she thinks more gun control laws are needed.
"I think that's very important," she said when asked by CNN whether stronger gun laws are needed."
Source.
EMERSON & THE SECOND AMENDMENT
A Gutless Supreme Court Decision - Gun Control
Republican Leadership Help Push Gun Control
Bush's Assault On Second Amendment
NEA Resource Text Guide In Regards To The Extreme Right - Where Do Your Kids Go To School?
"The radical right says it is pro-life but it bitterly opposes gun control legislation"
or 
Thanks for that Patriot Act George
Bush 2004... It's in the bag.
Yet, in his sense that we must avoid war with militant Islam, lest we find ourselves at war with all Islam, President Bush is surely right.In the last century, America was threatened by a global communist revolution. Avoiding all-out war, we outlasted it. And we can outlast this Islamist revolution. What we must avoid is a war of faiths, a war of civilizations between Islam and America. And those who propagandize for such a war are the unwitting or willful collaborators of Osama bin Laden.
--Pat Buchanan, December 2, 2002
What difference does it make if Bush violates his oath and my rights today or Hillary does it tomorrow?
Just a simple question, who would you rather have in the White House at the current time or even in the future, Bush or Gore(Hillary, Kerrey, Edwards etc.) or a candidate of your choice.
Come on you can name your candidate of choice, be honest. After you name him/her then we can go over the real world politcal machinations of your choice. That is called fair debate, not the incessant malcontentism you seem to want to wallow in.
Wow, I disagree with Pat on that one. We did outlast a communist revolution but this islamist revolution means wacko cannon fodder combined with those around the world like Nkorea, China, Iraq etc who would give these people the ability to hurt the US. You cant really expect to outlast that. It is a situation where some would hope to attack us without being responsible for it. We have to show that it wont work that way.
Why won't you answer this question before asking your own? Coward. And dishonest, to boot!
You couldn't be more wrong, mate.
Let me say that my admiration for Mr Bush has steadily grown over the last year. He came into office and was immediately presented with perhaps the toughest challenges any president could face- a direct attack, on the country. And he has handled himself with calm aplomb throughout that crisis, and the subsequent ramifications. If he can now turn himself towards domestic problems with the the same forcefulness, he could end up as one of the great presidents.
But let me register with you the difference between admiration, and adoration. You and your crew on FR are not doing Mr Bush any favours by suppressing heartfelt, genuine criticism of him. I believe that a sellout of gunowners is not in *his* best interests, or of conservatives in general. I say again: in politics, you do not undercut your core constituency. You reward them. In this case, if the AWB issue is properly handled timewise, we could end up with the situation where we have grateful gunowners filling our voting booths in Nov 2004, and a grateful NRA filling our campaign coffers. And simultaneously, Feinstein and Schumer running an anti 'assault weapon' scare campaign, which will in reality 'scare' even more gunowners into those booths. What we don't need is pro-gun, anti-immigration candidates dragging votes away, because the president wants to be a centrist. Cheers, By
You will also find out where the senate and congress stand on the issue.
Wow fair debate is now dihonest. All I asked NMC EXP is who his/her candidate for the White House was and after that we could discuss the real world political machinations of that candidate.
You and NMC, it seems, don't want to discuss the real world, but only want to wallow in your malcontentism.
What adoration? On this thread it has been spelled out many times the political reality of this issue. The reality that this issue will come down to a vote in the House, where it only passed 10 years ago because of the 10 year limit. Ashcroft in March basically said to Feinstein that the ban was ineffective, but no the malcontents wish to focus all their energy on being "betrayed" and not looking at the recent history of this looming politcal battle.
I pity your incessant bitterness.
Trying to get you to be optimistic, who is your candidate for the White House in 2004?
Come on you can name him/her. Then we can debate the real world political machinations of his/her chances, or are you afraid of the real world politcal machinations, and thus your incessant bitterness.
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.