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
"Thats why Im for instant background checks at gun shows. Im 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
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." ?
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.
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".
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.
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).
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.
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.
Agreed. But would you be able to suggest a sinless man for whom to vote?
Please also read my post #1138.
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?
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?
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.