As I Predicted, George W. Bush Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban

Toogood Reports ^ | April 15, 2003 | By Chuck Baldwin

[Uncle Bill]

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.

There Goes the Neighborhood: The Bush-Ashcroft Plan to "Help" Localities Fight Gun Crime, by Gene Healy

"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

A Problem With Guns?

Thanks for that Patriot Act George

[conservativefromGa]

I'm a heretic...I agree with the ban. I know...I know...it is an infringement on the 2nd ammendment...and I know criminals will end up getting these guns anyway, but if a ban will keep these cop killing weapons out of the hands of just a few bad guys, I think it is worth it. A 15 shot 9mm or a shotgun is all you need to defend your home and your property...and I don't think machine guns are necessary for hunting. Keeping them legal is no huge benefit to the law abiding public...offers no extra protection to home owners, and makes it easier for criminals/terrorists to kill LOTS of people in few seconds. Things like this seem like common sense to me...There should be SOME limits, just as there are with free speech. flame away hey num nuts a 15 shot 9mm is not possible under the AWB It ban all magazines of 10 rounds only thing left is a dwindling supply of pre ban that cost $150

[Mulder]

My initial reply should have stated "being used on a large scale".

With regards to the school shooting in Lousisina, I thought schools were "gun free" zones.... a lot of good the law did there.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Actually, there is no license, per se, or recurring tax on machine gun ownership. There is a transfer tax paid when MGs are transferred between unlicensed individuals. Also, MG dealers and makers pay an annual SOT, but are exempt from transfer taxes.

[diamond6]

Ask Iraq if they need a Constitution to grant these rights, in order for them to truly enjoy them. Again, there are limits to the rights you have. See my previous post.

[Deb]

That's been my experience too.

[Hank Rearden]

Has he reversed any of Sh#*head's policies? Has he vetoed anything? I don't think so.

Let's see some liberation here at home for a change, George.

[DBrow]

"So you think owning C4 plastic explosives is a right?"

C4 is ordnance, not arms or firearms.

OTOH, consider the constitutional provision for marque and reprisal. What arms may be required under that provision? Puts the second amendment in a whole other light.

[sinkspur]

You don't own any weapons, do you?

Two Glock 9s, an S&W .380 for the little lady, and a Defender.

[LaraCroft]

I know what you mean.

What difference does it make to vote in GOP if they do the same un-constitutional boneheaded things that the libs do?

Egads if we could get just one principled constitutionalist in office, and the Libertarians are the closest thing there is to that, unfortunately.

4 or 8 years to erase all the unconstitutional laws, and then a strong military pres again to build that up.

[Capitalism2003]

can someone tell me...honestly...why anyone needs to own an automatic assault rifle? What purpose to these types of guns serve...other than spraying a crowd of cops/innocents with bullets? We should do everything possible to keep them off the streets.

[conservativefromGa]

hey num nuts a 15 shot 9mm is not possible under the AWB It ban all magazines of 10 rounds only thing left is a dwindling supply of pre ban that cost $150 ok I guess i should call myself numb nuts now for the spelling mistakes. Never type in anger

[diamond6]

I couldn't have explained my argument any better than you just have. Good analysis.

[Jesse]

So you think owning C4 plastic explosives is a right?


I have a two part answer.

First, we were talking about firearms, not explosives. You are doing what so many anti-gunners do, which is to change the debate in mid-stream. I should be happy, I guess, that you didn't jump to the question of the private ownership of nuclear weapons right away, since this is what usually happens. Even a moron knows that discussing the ownership of firearms and nuclear weapons are two different things.

Now if you you want to discuss whether I think the private ownership of high explosives is a protected right, my answer is yes. And in fact, the federal government agrees with me for the most part, as does society. Most private individuals can own and utilize high explosives. What the hell concern is it of yours if I want to go out on my farm and blow up a car, just for the hell of it?

I believe that all citizens (until they screw up and are convicted of most felonies) have an unquestioned right to own unregistered firearms...whether single shot or semiautomatic, small or large. Frankly in my world that would include machine guns. Private arms in the hand of citizens are the vaccine against tyranny by the state.

But I recognize the reality here. So I favor the continued ability of citizens to own machine guns and would repeal the 1986 ban on new machine gun transfers to individuals. I would merely request that all citizens be able to own machine guns after paying a nominal (less than 200 dollar) tax.

I also believe that ownership of larger weapons should be allowed, but registration would be required. This would include howitzers, pack guns, grenades, mortars, etc. In fact, current law permits this but a 200 dollar tax must be paid on each explosive device.

At some point I do draw the line, because the line is drawn on use even in government. No, I do not think private individuals should be allowed the ownership of nuclear weapons, but I do not think that states should own nukes. Even on a military level, the use of nuclear weapons is not an individual decision, unlike that of machine guns, mortars, explosives, etc. Much as Bush might want to, say, nuke the headquarters of the DNC, he cannot, even though he is commander in chief.

[Cultural Jihad]

Don't you have a fascist town council or something to violently overthrow? Try the dog pound, Fred.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Subject to background checks and taxes, no FEDERAL law prohibits ownership by a civilian of a fully-automatic weapon.

Possession of machine guns by non-licensed individuals is prohibited by the FOPA of 1986. However, machine guns registered before May, 1986 are grandfathered and legal to own.

[Mulder]

Again, there are limits to the rights you have.

Spoken like a true statist....

Exactly which of my Rights do you propose to limit?

[Long Cut]

"are portable machine/tommy guns really that different from assault rifles?"

No, but we are discussing neither assault rifles nor machine guns with this law. Both of the above are, by definition, FULLY-AUTOMATIC weapons. Got it?

So-called "assault weapons" are REALLY SEMI-automatic-only. That means that, like a pistol, they only fire ONCE for one trigger pull.

The term "assault", applied to these weapons, is a made-up term.

[Ramius]

I'm a heretic...I agree with the ban. I know...I know...it is an infringement on the 2nd ammendment...and I know criminals will end up getting these guns anyway, but if a ban will keep these cop killing weapons out of the hands of just a few bad guys, I think it is worth it.

How are any of these things a "cop killing weapon" any more than any other weapon? Do you actually know weapons?

A 15 shot 9mm or a shotgun is all you need to defend your home and your property...and I don't think machine guns are necessary for hunting. Keeping them legal is no huge benefit to the law abiding public...offers no extra protection to home owners, and makes it easier for criminals/terrorists to kill LOTS of people in few seconds.

The 2nd amendment is not about self defense or hunting, nor is the "assault weapons" ban about machine guns. Buy a book sometime.

Things like this seem like common sense to me...There should be SOME limits, just as there are with free speech.

Figures. flame away

OK....

[Mulder]

Check out this thread.... lots of crap being spewed out.

[diamond6]

No reason at all, except to mow a bunch of people down.