As I Predicted, George W. Bush Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban

Toogood Reports ^ | April 15, 2003 | By Chuck Baldwin

[dcwusmc]

JimRob, I love you as my brother-in-arms, but it appears to me that you haven't finished thinking this thing through yet. Politicians operate on a reward-punisment basis. They are like small children and know nothing else. So when you tell someone with an (R) after his or her name that he or she has YOUR VOTE NO MATTER WHAT, then they have ZERO incentive to change their Unconstitutional behaviors. They know they can count on you, just because of that (R)... which is why we deride the bush-bots so much... They profess (most do, anyway) that they want smaller FedGov and a Constitution that reigns supreme, but they give their pubbies NO INCENTIVE to change. There is NO PENALTY attached to voting for or introducing Unconstitutional or EXTRA-Constitutional bills so why not? Why not is that there MUST BE A PENALTY and the only one we have left short of voting from the rooftops is to cast our votes for someone else no MATTER the consequence. If your pres or your senator or your congresscritter with the (R) after their names can ONLY BE SURE OF YOUR VOTES AND SUPPORT WHEN HE DOES THE RIGHT THING and he knows his reelection hinges on your support... why would you not choose to withhold that support and that vote when he takes such a public position on CLEARLY Unconstitutional legislation? If you do NOT, he has no motivation to change his evil ways and come to his senses.

[Jim Robinson]

First of all, I have no idea if Bush really said what the Washington Post claims he said. I've never heard him say anything like that. I sincerely doubt that George Bush is a gun-grabber.

[Jim Robinson]

If you have a better plan please lay it on me.

[Jim Robinson]

Are you a believer in the Washington Post?

[tpaine]

If anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears.
-JR-



REPUBLICAN LIBERTY CAUCUS POSITION STATEMENT
Address:http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-rlc/721810/posts

[spunkets]

"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"?"

Thou shalt not covet thy neighbors goods.

Thou shalt not steal.

Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

It involves not only the taking of goods, it involves userping the will and rights of another. In doing so, most often the takers bear false witness against the folks they are denying, with direct defamatory statements and a failure to honor the truth about their abilities and intent.

Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself

That means ones neighbor is entitled to the exercise of will, that you also enjoy. His rights are to be respected as yours are. It is forbidden for you to attempt to become sovereign over that individual, even by proxy with a vote.

[Jim Robinson]

Yes, that's fine. The Republican Liberty Caucus promotes electing Republicans and defeating Democrats. I'm in complete agreement.

[Kenno]

Bush didn't say anything. Scott MacClellan (the last name says it all), a WH staffer, stated that Bush would sign the "assault weapons" ban's renewal if it came to his desk. This was posted in the Washington Post, a reputable although liberal newspaper. Trust me, the Bush administration might not correct something like this if it appeared in Mother Jones or any other such far-out leftie rag; but if the Post incorrectly attributed something like this to the Bush administration, Ari Fleischer would be all over it. So you can rest assured that it's true.

[Total Package]

Doesn't The house have to pass the extension first?

[FSPress]

Bush backs renewing ban on assault weapons
By SHANNON McCAFFREY

WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault-weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election.

"The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.

http://www.chron.com/cs/CDA/ssistory.mpl/nation/1864203

[Kenno]

Yes, but there are plenty of RINOs ready to vote for it. There are also plenty of DINOs who will vote against it; but the fact that Bush is now on record as supporting it does not bode well for stopping the bill. Bush needs to reverse himself, and quick.

[Jim Robinson]

We shall see. In the meantime, I'm not panicking, Nor am I going to jump into bed with the Democrats. Not now. Not ever.

[Jim Robinson]

Bush is not on record. Period.

[Captiva]

A) You're really good with HTML

B) I knew I should have voted for Gore instead of Bush. Damn.

[Kenno]

Neither am I. But many union Democrats, themselves gun owners, will. Like you, I hold out some hope that Bush will see the light. But, until he does, I'll be on his case. My overall point is that the GOP needs to realize that, in addition to being the right policy, getting rid of this unconstitutional law is good politics. Given the choice between picking up solid blue-collar workers, and trying (unsuccessfully) to lure flighty women and wannabe women with unconstitutional laws, why on earth would we pick the latter?

[Kenno]

Actually, he did endorse renewal of the ban in the 2000 campaign. Enough time went by without further mention of it that most of us concluded that he had regarded that as a youthful indiscretion. If MacClellan is to be believed, it wasn't. So we have to get on Bush immediately if not sooner. It does no good to either Bush or the GOP if we worship him as a god while the rest of the country dumps him.

[spunkets]

"I sincerely doubt that George Bush is a gun-grabber."

Ditto.

There are powerful forces targeting Freedom, the Bill of Rights and President Bush. Those people are just playing dangerous games.

[semaj]

Main Entry: 1as·sault Pronunciation: &-'solt Function: noun Etymology: Middle English assaut, from Old French, from (assumed) Vulgar Latin assaltus, from assalire Date: 14th century 1 a : a violent physical or verbal attack b : a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces c : a concerted effort (as to reach a goal or defeat an adversary) 2 a : a threat or attempt to inflict offensive physical contact or bodily harm on a person (as by lifting a fist in a threatening manner) that puts the person in immediate danger of or in apprehension of such harm or contactWebster's Dictionary

Main Entry: 1weap·on Pronunciation: 'we-p&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English wepen, from Old English w[AE]pen; akin to Old High German wAffan weapon, Old Norse vApn Date: before 12th century 1 : something (as a club, knife, or gun) used to injure, defeat, or destroy 2 : a means of contending against another Webster's Dictionary

Main Entry: assault weapon Function: noun Date: 1973 : any of various automatic or semiautomatic firearms; Webster's Dictionary

[Eaker]

We shall see. In the meantime, I'm not panicking, Nor am I going to jump into bed with the Democrats. Not now. Not ever.

Where do you draw the line Jim? There is a line as all honorable people have one. The Second Amendment is the line for some of us. Where is yours?