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

[Technogeeb]

Your deliberate twisting of the Word is vomitous

I'm not twisting words; that's what your side is doing. It isn't twisting words to believe that the text of the Constitution means what it says, and that taking an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution and then violating that same Constitution is oath-breaking.

You have embraced moral relativism to such a degree that you are unable to recognize even the most basic of truths.

[k2blader]

You know neither who I am nor what I believe.

I reject utterly your extreme misapplication of the Word to "fit" your ulterior motives.

[k2blader]

Once more, you try to use God, the same God who finds your position so sinful that it makes him want to vomit, as justification for your cause.

Sweet irony.

[dcwusmc]

I didn't say YOU have... yet you support one who has taken an oath to do something and then does the opposite of what his oath calls for. To uphold, support and defend the Constitution for the United States does NOT mean to violate it or allow OTHERS to violate it with impunity. Yet, it is this very activity which Dubya proposes to do with his support, political posturing or not, for a law which clearly and egregiously violates the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

[Technogeeb]

I maintain that post was a heinous twisting of Scripture

Then you maintain a lie. The Bible is very clear that it is far better to never make an oath than to make it and break it; and the Bible is also very clear that breaking an oath is sinful.

But it is a heavy charge and not to be taken lightly.

No, it isn't to be taken lightly. But that is exactly what your side is doing. Some of you claim that it just doesn't matter, while the remainder of you can't even grasp the basic principle that the oath is being violated. Even now, you continue to support the side of sin.

So prove it without doubt.

Easy. The Constitution says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The President takes an oath to preserve and protect the Constitution (most, including this President, have added "so help me God" to that oath). The so-called AWB clearly amounts to an "infringement" at the very least (and objectively, to far worse). The status quo is that this AWB will sunset, and for the President to extend it is an active act of will, and thus the President, if he signs it, is breaking his oath of office.

Tell me exactly how diamond or I have done "the OPPOSITE while PROFESSING to believe."

You are embracing oath-breaking, and therefore embracing sin. If you were an atheist or agnostic (or a member of a religion that accepts oath-breaking, such as Islam) then it wouldn't be an issue. But diamond brought religion into the issue as justification for his beliefs; which, considering that God is quite clear on the subject that what Bush is planning on doing is quite evil, shows that his beliefs are corrupt at best, and false at worst.

[AlGone2001]

Would you support another candidate who has your views on the gun laws, yet supports abortion?

In all honesty, everyone has their own top issue, but it seems to me that you are failing to look at the whole man.

[dcwusmc]

I would like to know where you read in Sripture that it's OK with God to take an oath and then violate it as you see fit. And... if you READ the Bible, you KNOW that Jesus Himself told his Apostles that those who did not own a sword, should sell their cloaks and BUY one... remember that?

You DO need a change of profession and you need to sue your "professor" for misfeasance, MALfeasance and just plain ignorance of the Constitution for the United States. It was DELIBERATELY written so even a retired old mud Marine like me, who swore an oath to protect and defend it, could understand it without taking years worth of courses in twisted logic, getting camels through the eyes of needles and assorted irrationality which have become the hallmarks of the modern legal "profession."

[Technogeeb]

I'd like to know what commandment in the bible says, "Thou shalt not limit an individual's right to own ANY arms of his choosing"?

Once again, you show your allegiance to the father of lies. Even though Christ commanded all his followers to be armed (even if they had to sell their coat to be able to afford it), the issue is more fundmental than that. The Biblical issue here is oath-breaking, and it is the sin that you are embracing.

[Technogeeb]

You know neither who I am nor what I believe

If you do not believe what you have posted, then you are a liar. If you do believe it, then you embrace oath-breaking, a far worse sin. Either way, your position is sinful. If you and diamond did not want to have your sins exposed, you should not have falsely brought up the name of God to defend your point of view.

I reject utterly your extreme misapplication of the Word to "fit" your ulterior motives.

Of course you do, just like other so-called Christians reject the other parts of scripture that contradict their carnal worldviews.

[k2blader]

I think diamond made an excellent point in #1084.

Can you address this?

What makes this AWB issue more important than the other violations of the Constitution carried out over the years?

[diamond6]

Obviously, GW, myself, many other freepers, and many other Americans have a different interpretation of the Constitution than you do. But I'm sure you're always right.

[diamond6]

You guys seem to gloss over the "well regulated militia" part of that amendment, don't you? Don't you think that's the kind of parsing you accuse me of doing?

[k2blader]

I appreciate your taking the time to respond.

As you seem to have no ability to separate God's plan from your own, there is nothing else for us to discuss further.

But rest assured there will be formerly pro-AWB and formerly anti-AWB souls in heaven.

Have a good day.

[diamond6]

Touche!

[FSPress]

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

As I said, there is no room for liberal or authoritarian debate on this issue. According to the U.S. Constitution, this is one of our primary unalienable rights. They cannot deprive you of this. Just take a Constitutional stand and refuse to give up your gun. Any Congressman who tries to infringe your right is a traitor to the Constitution and deserves to be defeated.

103 Posted on 11/28/1999 11:24:02 PST by Jim Robinson (jimrob@psnw.com)
[ Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | Top | Last ]

[dcwusmc]

That HAS been addressed. Since the Right to Life entails the Right to Self-defense and Defense of Country, the Right to Own and Possess the Means of Doing so (RKBA) ALSO flows from the Creator. This right is ACKNOWLEDGED AND PROTECTED by the Second Amendment... no where is such a right GRANTED by the Constitution, for that would mean that anybody coming along could alter or modify it at their whim. Yet the Founders felt so strongly about it that it was second on the list that was adoted. ANY infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is ultimately an infringement on the Right to Life, for being denied the means of PROTECTING one's life means that one's life is now at the mercy and under the control of whomever has DENIED that right.

[Uncle Bill]

"Say, did anyone notice that Uncle Bill got his fraudulent photo removed by the moderator. Anything else we should know that you've been feeding us Bill?
1,107 posted on 04/17/2003 9:55 AM PDT by diamond6

---

Fraudulent? LOL! And you call yourself a Christian? Maybe that attorney part is coming out. By the way, how can your guy Bush smile like a third grader next to that criminal witch?

It came right off of an article in the Salt Lake Tribune. Too funny.

Bush Administration Lawyers Defending Hillary - Gratis

A Bush administration insider has privately leaked word that a deal was struck between Democratic congressional leaders and the Bush White House not to prosecute Bill and/or Hillary Clinton on an array of charges

Back to guns.

[k2blader]

Thank you for re-addressing it for me.

And I agree.

I think we simply differ on how this issue affects our vote.

And while President Bush has indicated he supports reauthorizing the AWB, the final decision is not yet in. He may do the right thing.

[Dan from Michigan]

You guys seem to gloss over the "well regulated militia" part of that amendment, don't you

It's been addressed several times.

1. We're the militia.
2. The right OF THE PEOPLE(forgot that part) to keep and bear arms isn't RESTRICTED to the milita. There's also that FREE state and SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED part in there as well.

[dcwusmc]

THAT has ALSO been addressed... the Militia is, by custom and Statute, every able-bodied male in the country. Also females who are part of the Organized militia, or National Guard. The UNorganized militia, by the way, was called to duty when Todd Beamer said, "Let's roll" on September 11, 2001.

ALSO... the Miller Case of 1939 was pretty explicit... it allowed the tax on sawed off shotguns because it took no judicial note that such were commonly in use by military forces. That they were mislead by a lie on the part of FedGov and that they were not even informed of the tax on MACHINE GUNS says that they were aware that EVERYONE, save a very few public officials was part of the Militia and entitled to have his ownership and possession of MILTIARY-grade weapons affirmed and protected.

Now... who's parsing and glossing over? Not MY side... not now or ever.