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

[Fred Mertz]

Your knitting needles don't scare me.

I hope they are licensed.

[Ramius]

I will not vote for either one.

Then have a nice day. You're irrelevant.

[Trailerpark Badass]

A 15 shot 9mm or a shotgun is all you need to defend your home and your property

The AWB restricts you to a 10-shot 9mm, unless you purchase magazines made before Sept. 1994. These are getting more rare and expensive every day.

As for the rest of your point, let me just say I disagree strenuously.

[Dan from Michigan]

EMAIL don't work.

Call the comment line - 1-202-456-1111

[toothless]

Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American...[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.
---Tenche Coxe, The Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788

[diamond6]

How about my previously stated scenario, which you didn't answer? Say you have a religion that requires you to commit a human sacrifice? If we criminalize that, isn't that an infringement of your right to religion?

[Fred Mertz]

Two Glock 9s, an S&W .380 for the little lady, and a Defender.

I do not own a single weapon.

But my hands are registered with the FBi as lethal weapons.....

[rintense]

Look, after learning about this bill and that machine guns are legal, it makes this bill look that much more reactionary and silly. It won't even make it out of the House. Toss me some tin foil, but considering that this is 18 months away (and look at all the reactions on FR already), it is pretty clear to me that someone on the left is starting to spill these 'traditionally conservative issues' to once again divide the GWB base.

Start looking for more articles about the environment- which got a similar uproar last year and was much ado about nothing, and yes, taxes. The left can't beat GWB on their own, so they will do the next best thing- divide the base.

[cruiserman]

I don't think the Constitution gives us unlimited rights to do anything.

The Constitution gives us nothing. It gives the gov't certain powers and recognizes God-given, individual rights.

[Mulder]

What purpose to these types of guns serve

To protect the Constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic.

[poet]

Hmmm, food for thought.

jimmy carter, bill clinton and GWB proved that anyone can be president.

Want to be my campaign manager? 8>)

FReegards

[Long Cut]

"However, I'd like you provide documentation to support your assertion that they are."

Sorry, I'm off to bed, duty calls early, lately. The relevant laws are the 1934 Federal Firearms act and the 1986 VVolkmer-McClure act.

It would be SO nice if these threads began with the proper definitions of the relevant guns, as so many people are woefully uninformed as to exactly what is being discussed.

Oh, BTW, there are about 750,000 privately-owned machine guns in the U.S., everything from submachine guns to belt-fed .50 caliber Brownings and, I'm serious, 6,000 round-per-minute miniguns. Since the 1934 law (before this, they were completely unregulated), only ONE (1) crime has ever been comitted with a legal, privately-owned machine gun. The perp was a cop.

[Ramius]

You might be on to something there.

[spodefly]

Maybe Ms. President Clinton II will repeal it.

[scubadave]

Gun control is working in England--for the tyrants and the criminals (Berettas now sell for $200, fully-automatic HKs now $600 in London):
Dan Rather lets the truth slip!

[rintense]

As I said on a thread the other day, if the NRA, the right, etc, wants to gain supports to let this ban drop, all they need to do is put it in simple comparable terms. Machine guns = legal. Assault weapons = illegal. People are smart enough to know a dumb law when they see it. I should correct that and say that people are *now* smart enough to know a dumb law when they see it.

[conservativefromGa]

No reason at all, except to mow a bunch of people down. yes that would be the purpose of a gun to kill people. Enemies foreign and domestic . looters, suicied bombers, whoever you need to kill to protect you life liberity and property

[Mulder]

Say you have a religion that requires you to commit a human sacrifice? If we criminalize that, isn't that an infringement of your right to religion?

Do you really see a similarity between some psycho who is sacrificing people and some vet with a WWII surplus rifle in his basement?

[Trailerpark Badass]

However, I'd like you provide documentation to support your assertion that they are.

I could let you look in my safe.

[TLBSHOW]

I haven't really followed this issue that much but do we know for sure that this will be signed by President Bush?

But I always say keep their feet to the fire.... you just never know..........