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

[dcwusmc]

I said I couldn't say what their CHANCES were... and you keep ignoring the questions YOU are asked...

[Uncle Bill]

Hello Laz. So great to hear from you. Some of the responses here would make me laugh if it wasn't so serious. It's sounding so CFResque. If you scroll through this, you'll see the same old tired names defending the indefensible, if you know what I mean. Betrayal always has consequences. So does blindness and foolishness. Thank God there are those that spoke up and documented what they experienced:

Q.) Did the camp inmates ever bring up the topic, "If only we were armed before, we would not be here now"?

A.) Many, many times. Before Adolph Hitler came to power, there was a black market in firearms, but the German people had been so conditioned to be law abiding, that they would never consider buying an unregistered gun. The German people really believed that only hoodlums own such guns. What fools we were.

---

"Hold on, my friends, to the Constitution and to the Republic for which it stands. Miracles do not cluster and what has happened once in 6,000 years, may not happen again. Hold on to the Constitution, for if the American Constitution should fail, there will be anarchy throughout the world."
Daniel Webster, 1851

[diamond6]

What "their" chances were? Who's they? Do you have a candidate better than Bush for 2004 you'd like to promote? I'll be able to answer the question posed to me within minutes, but I'd like to hear the answer to this question by both you and Uncle Bill, before I do.

[dcwusmc]

I named names... go back and read.

[dinodino]

Do you have a single principled bone in your body? Do you vote for the candidate who best represents your views, or do you vote because you are afraid the other guy will win?

All of you "conservatives" who are supporting the extension or reauthorization of the AW ban should be ashamed of yourselves.

[Dane]

Bite me...

Ah the usual malcontnet reply. Oh well dcw, I will leave you to let you stew in your own bitterness, maybe your head will explode from your incessant bitterness and the idea of rational debate will be forwarded 100 fold.

Good night.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..I'll be able to answer the question posed to me within minutes, but I'd like to hear the answer to this question...

LOL!

Counsellor, answer the ones I've put to you, before calling for more.

[TLBSHOW]

So does blindness and foolishness.

BUMP

[TLBSHOW]

its an upside down world but REAL conservatives are not fooled

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...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....

Forget 'Ashcroft in March.'

Bush, in April, says he supports extending the AWB. That's what this thread's about, bud.

[diamond6]

Dog. It's based on principle that I support Bush. I will explain all of my reasons when YOU, dcwusmc, and Uncle Bill will give me a straight answer to my question. How about it? Too difficult for you?

[diamond6]

I'll have you know, I posed this question over 6 hours ago, and the only one I believe who gave me a straight answer was tpaine.

[diamond6]

Actually one other freeper did answer my question. That's it. Everybody else is just a malcontent with no real solutions.

[dcwusmc]

Ok. Run off, ChickenSh!t, and ignore the question you were asked at least four times. Your colors (yellow) are showing. Buh-byeeeeeeeeeeeeee

[dcwusmc]

I replied with names. You responded with "Who? What do you think their chances are?" Now I have answered and you evade. Is your real name Dane by chance?

[wku man]

Well, I hope it never comes to that, but if they do eventually come for your Winchester, there'll be no one left standing next to you. By then, the rest of the nation will have either been disarmed, or will have taken their weapons and gone into the hills. Picking and choosing "good" versus "bad" guns will only lead to the day your Winchester is declared an "assault weapon". By then, the battle lines will long since have been drawn. We neeed your help now, bro.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[diamond6]

You were the one that actually had some names, although I didn't recognize either of them.

Here is a partial list of conservative issues/values that Bush stands for: 1. prolife; 2. prolife ultra-conservative judges; 3. probably the biggest tax cut we've ever had; 4. war on terrorism; 5. war on Afghanistan and attempt at democracy in their country; 6. war on Iraq, regime change of Saddam, removal of chemical weapons once they're found, and democracy; 7. tough hardline stance against North Korea, who are now changing their tune, now that they see we are willing to fight; 8. hardline stance against Syria, which will probably result in the release of Iraqi leadership they are harboring; 9. a strong Christian faith and moral foundation which shapes his decisions, because he has convictions.

You see. I do have the guts to answer questions, unlike many of the blowhards in this thread, who are nothing but malcontents.

[dinodino]

Here's an answer for you: if Bush goes this route, he doesn't get my vote. As for who (if anyone) WILL get my vote, I'd have to see the list of candidates. If I don't like any of 'em, I ain't votin' for any of 'em. Get it?

[diamond6]

Good night, now.

[dinodino]

Too bad he doesn't care to uphold the Constitution.