"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
Only moderately so. It's been three years, and even partial-birth abortion is still legal. So far, Bush has done nothing but given lip service to the pro-life cause.
2. prolife ultra-conservative judges;
Bush's judicial nominations have been moderate, not "ultra-conservative". Just because leftists oppose them doesn't make them conservative; they oppose anyone that isn't as far to the left as they are.
3. probably the biggest tax cut we've ever had;
Not even close. That honor goes to Reagan.
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;
None of these things are "conservative", they are merely the president doing his job to defend the country. FDR fought the Nazis in WWII, but that didn't make him a conservative.
9. a strong Christian faith and moral foundation which shapes his decisions, because he has convictions.
If he really had convictions, he wouldn't violate his oath of office.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
I knew it. You don't have one.
I'd put Bush's conservative batting record at around 250 which is another way of saying his liberal batting record is 750. The reality is that Bush is a big government liberal--republican label notwithstanding.
AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.
I knew it. You don't have one.
Just like Bush 1991... was "in the bag".
No, by simply what the Constitution says. Words mean things, and the text of the Constitution is about as clear as words get. Next you'll be trying to defend Clinton's definition of what the word "is" is...
there wouldn't be a single candidate left in the Senate or House, let alone the presidency, due to them all being in violation of the Constitution
First, you're wrong; not everyone violates their oath of office. While they might not be in the majority any longer; they do exist (although they tend to be constantly ridiculed by people like you). You appear to be legitimizing the worst sort of criminal behavior (violating what is, literally, the highest law of the land) simply with the excuse of "but everybody's doing it".
Right now, it is Bush. If he signs this legislation, it will be someone else, even if I have to write in a candidate. While they might not have a chance of being elected, at least I won't have sided with evil like you plan on doing.
I knew it
You know nothing, other than how to sell out what little principles you might have and chastise others for refusing to do the same.
If no new 3rd party candidate emerges between now and Election Day 2004 I'll probably vote for the candidate of the Constitution Party. There's your answer.
Hiltery is one democratic candidate that would force me to seriously consider voting for Bush. But I don't think the Witch will be a factor in this race...deal with it.
Yes you are. You are just too morally bankrupt to realize it.
You've just proven my point.
You don't have a point; your entire moral foundation is to get "your" candidate elected, regardless of what he actually believes. If Bill Clinton had an (R) after his name on the ballot, you would surely vote for him just as willingly.
You don't have a clue what is a violation of oath, or what is unconstitutional
Obviously I know far more than you about the subject; you can't even grasp that the words of the Constitution actually mean what they say, or that an oath to "uphold and defend" that Constitution means not trying to dismantle the concepts embodied within its words. If you are so clueless that you don't realize that the AWB violates "shall not be infringed", then you are of the same mentality as Clinton; neither of you believe words mean anything.
My point is that you have such a wharped definition what's unconstitutional that no one would be able to stay within it.
Nonsense. With a few rare exceptions, just about every president before FDR stayed within its bounds. Your morality is so degenerate that once again your only excuse for such heinous violations of the oath of office is the false claim that "everybody does it".
Your faith in God is corrupt; you deny what God himself says about the sacredness of oaths (Leviticus 5:4), and you willingly tolerate (and even embrace) those who violate their oaths. Of course, you'll probably now try to make some argument that the Bible doesn't really mean what it says either.
I support him, because he believes what I do about issues that are the most important
In other words, neither of you think keeping an oath is even relevant to the issue. You have no fundamental principles. You are neither hot nor cold. God says your kind makes him vomit (Rev 3:16).
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.