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

[k2blader]

Thanks for this post. I was wondering what Jim's opinion might be.

Should the last sentence be modified to read: "Any Congressman or President who tries to infringe your right is a traitor to the Constitution and deserves to be defeated." ?

[brownie]

"it was DELIBERATELY written so even a retired old mud Marine like me . . ."

That is historically incorrect. Most people could not read back then, and the framers of the constitution could care less what the "average" person thought.

Quick question, does the right to keep and bare arms also apply to a saw, rpg or a stinger missle? How about chemical weapons? Those are all arms! The constitution says the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed.

If not, why not? Maybe it is possible to have some disagreement over what the amendment means without it being a "sin" to disagree with your position (as all of your posts indicate you believe). Or, if it is a sin to disagree with you, then tell me where to send my weekly tithe as you are apparently g-d or at least claim to know him better than anyone else.

It is clear that this is a hot button issue for you, but your threats to bite off your nose to spite your face and/or calling everyone else sinners is not a logical and/or compelling argument. Nor is your argument that you know g-d better than everyone else, or your argument that you served the country. A lot of us here also served.

[FSPress]

http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3840d0615878.htm#103

Glad to make you happy. Here's the link.

[k2blader]

Thanks again.

[freeeee]

GW, myself, many other freepers, and many other Americans have a different interpretation of the Constitution than you do.

Oh, you forgot a few people who agree with you... Bill Clinton, Hillary!, Algore, Janet Reno, Dianne Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Ted Kennedy. There's more, but you get the idea.

The AWB was their doing after all. How pround you must be to share their < spit > "interpretation of the (living) Constitution".

[Jesse]

well regulated militia

This phrase and the wording of the Second Amendment have been parsed before. Suffice it to say, that well regulated militia can also be interpreted to mean the people who bear the arms, not the arms themselves.

The founding fathers had an abiding trust in the people over government, realizing neither is perfect, but that overall power in the hands of even imperfect elements of the people is much preferable to situation where the power is in the hands of an imperfect government.

[dcwusmc]

Nor did I MAKE arguments that I "know [G]od better" than you... or that I served my country to the exclusion of others. And I SURELY did not call others SINNERS. God says that of ALL of us. I did not call that out against anyone. Learn to read with comprehension before you accuse.

And if my comment that the Constitution was DELIBERATELY written to be understood by the people is incorrect, WHY was it that the Founders felt constrained to write the Federalist Papers and publishe them in various newspapers AS AN APPEAL TO THE PEOPLE? Your comment is utterly bogus on its face. (Or do you refer to going to GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS as being the only way to learn to read... in which case you would be correct, as THERE WERE NO GOVERNMENT SCHOOLS at the time.)

WRT the TYPES of arms, I am totally comfortable with ANYONE owning anything he can afford. Or she. I would personally draw the line at owning chemical or biological weapons as they are too prone to accidents... as the Army found out with its "accident" in Utah years back. And I cannot afford liability insurance that would cover such events... So with area weapons like that (or area DENIAL weapons, actually), if someone can afford liability insurance and the proper sort of storage, fine. However, I would venture to say that NO ONE COULD afford the liability and such things would not be privately owned. RPGs... LOVE to have some. And the land necessary to play with them safely. Though my preference is the M-79 "Blooper" we had in Vietnam. Automatic weapons... I prefer the Browning M-2 .50 cal "Ma Deuce" for mounting on my Jeep. One day I would love to afford to buy a battlewagon from the Navy... complete and functional.

Now, you MAY send me your weekly tithe if you so desire. And I'll thank you for it. But you need not actually WORSHIP me; in fact, I'd prefer that you DIDN'T do that. God might not be so understanding...

[kevao]

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

Actually, you CAN gloss over the "well regulated militia." Grammatically, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," is a participle phrase, which can be removed from the sentence without changing the meaning of the sentence, which in this case is embodied in the independent clause: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The Founding Fathers knew how to write English. Unfortunately, thanks to our fine public schools, the sheeple no longer know how to read it.

[Technogeeb]

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

Of course not; you just simply don't understand how to parse even the simplest of english phrases. Try going to a dictionary and seeing what "well-regulated" means. The example most often used at the time was "a well-regulated clock", as in one that keeps proper time, and as both tradition and the explicit writings of the founders (as well as current US law in Title 10) asserts, "militia" is nothing more than the people who can carry arms.

The 2nd amendment is quite correct when it states that a well-regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state. That you seem to not mind the hampering of that militia through gun bans shows that you aren't interested in having a free state. Fortunately, the founders were far wiser than you, and placed the guarantee that the right to keep an bear arms should not be infringed (so that goal of a free state, and the militia that secures it, be achieved).

What they didn't take into account was that people like you would come around that would be so amoral that they would not only corrupt the meaning of those clear words, but would even advocate the breaking of oaths in the defense of the Constitution which embodied them.

Don't you think that's the kind of parsing you accuse me of doing?

No; you're not parsing. You're simply ignoring the clear meaning of the words (of both the Constitution as well as those of the God you falsely claim to serve).

[Technogeeb]

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

There will be former thieves in heaven as well; but that is not justification to excuse theft. Oath-breaking is a sin, regardless of your position on the AWB issue.

[brownie]

Well, as to the reading comprehension and to who actually read the newspapers at the time, I have history and facts on my side. You can believe that everyone in early america was home-schooled to read and that the founders cared a whit about the opinion of the average poor worker, but you would be factually and historically wrong. Let's face it, only landowners originally had the vote, and that was not a majority of americans. You can dispute it, but you are wrong, and I advise you to read some history books before spouting ill informed opinions.

As to what weapons anyone can own, I am a conservative and believe in the right to bear arms, but would never agree w/ or support your extreme position. I don't think you would find even a large percentage of NRA members supporting your "anyone can own anything" position.

Go back and read your own posts. You REPEATEDLY called W a sinner if he signs the AWB. Last I looked, it was G-d's domain to make that call. Learn to understand what you are writing before you hit the post button.

[k2blader]

There will be former thieves in heaven as well; but that is not justification to excuse theft. Oath-breaking is a sin, regardless of your position on the AWB issue.

Agreed. But would you be able to suggest a sinless man for whom to vote?

Please also read my post #1138.

[Consort]

Someday, the Republican Party will be big enough to no longer need one-issue unreliable voters.

[dcwusmc]

Well, I would not expect the average NRA member to do that either. Since many of them are "hunters" and not interested in anything else and since the NRA itself has a PRESIDENT who is afraid of anyone who would own an AK-47 and since the NRA has CONSISTENTLY worked to abrogate the Second Amendment on the alleged grounds of taking "the best we can get" but somehow never getting any breaks OUR way... so that really makes it, on the evidence, a gun-grabbing collaborationist organization, wouldn't you say?

Oh, and Mike Bellisles had "facts and history" on his side, too... remember what happened to him? Sure, it was propeprty owners who voted. But there would have been a lot more of them than you claim... and their opinions WERE courted by the Founders. So keep your "history and facts" on your side. I am sure they'll be cold comfort when the rest of the Constitution gets trashed because you were too f*ing lazy to defend it when you had the chance. "Incrementalism RULES"

[diamond6]

It's too bad that you have to delete a portion of the Constitution in order to suit your purposes.

[dcwusmc]

And as to the sinner remark, talk to technogeek or geeb, not me. And learn to read with CORRECT ATTRIBUTION, OK?

[FSPress]

So, what do you think a "well regulated militia" means? I am curious.

[Technogeeb]

That is historically incorrect.

Sorry, but you're mistaken.

Most people could not read back then,

Not true; the literacy rate was significantly above 50%.

and the framers of the constitution could care less what the "average" person thought

Again not true; the Federalist papers themselves were originally published in newspapers, as a way to convince the "average" person of the value of the new constitution.

Quick question, does the right to keep and bare arms also apply to a saw, rpg or a stinger missle? How about chemical weapons? Those are all arms! The constitution says the right to keep and bear them shall not be infringed

Yes it does, and yes some of those are arms (chemical weapons are not; they are munitions). As far as a saw, rpg, or stinger goes, they are legal right now; they are simply regulated by the taxing authority under the Constitution (a stretch of Constitutional powers, but not a deliberate usurpation of non-constitutional powers like the AWB). If you think that these weapons shouldn't be in the hands of the public, the correct way to resolve that situation is by Constitutional amendment. To grant new powers to government (such as the power to regulate munitions or abridge the 2nd amendment) is why the amendment process is there.

If not, why not? Maybe it is possible to have some disagreement over what the amendment means without it being a "sin" to disagree with your position (as all of your posts indicate you believe).

dcwusmc did not bring religion into the argument; diamond did (in post 1095). If he didn't want the fact that oath-breaking is sinful and counter to the word of God to be revealed, then he shouldn't have brought God into the argument in the first place.

Or, if it is a sin to disagree with you, then tell me where to send my weekly tithe as you are apparently g-d or at least claim to know him better than anyone else.

I don't see where dcwusmc claimed "to know him beter than anyone else". But I do take God at His word, and his word insists that oath-breaking is a sin. That you apparently wish to re-define the word of God just like you want to re-define the Constitution suggests that dcwusmc is closer to him than you or diamond are.

It is clear that this is a hot button issue for you, but your threats to bite off your nose to spite your face and/or calling everyone else sinners is not a logical and/or compelling argument

Where did dcwusmc call "everyone" else sinners?

[dcwusmc]

I didn't see where he "deleted" ANY part of the Constitution for any reason. He merely stated that the phrase, "A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a Free State..." is not grammatically or LEGALLY necessary to complete the STANDALONE PHRASE, "...the right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED." Grammatically and legally, the last phrase is a complete, stand-alone sentence. The "modifier" does NOT, in any way, change the meaning of it. It only serves to give ONE reason for including that God-Given right to be forever protected BUT NOT GRANTED by the Constitution for the United States. And we know now, don't we, who is the Militia?

[kevao]

It's too bad that you have to delete a portion of the Constitution in order to suit your purposes.

Sorry, exactly what did I delete? We're talking about the Second Amendment here, all of which I cited. To wit:

Amendment II

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.

So what did I leave out?