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

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.

"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.

"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."

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.

Source: JOSEPH FARAH, EDITOR OF WORLDNETDAILY - SOUNDS OFF

The Constitution is clear.

"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."

That's what it says, in its entirety. What does it mean?

It's quite simple. The founders recognized the principle that only an armed populace would have a hope to remain a free people. Two things, they said in the Second Amendment, could not be infringed by government: a well-regulated militia and the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The militia, in their eyes, was not a government force -- not a National Guard, not a standing army. It was the people. "Well-regulated" certainly didn't refer to government regulation. It meant orderly, disciplined, efficient, reliable.

"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms....."
Samuel Adams - United States Congress, Bill of Rights Ratification, 1779

Ashcroft on gun rights
"Ashcroft added the Second Amendment did not prohibit Congress from enacting laws restricting firearms ownership for "compelling state interests."

That one, little ambiguity is big enough to drive a freight-train loaded with new unconstitutional gun restrictions through. It's ominous – and provides the gun grabbers with all the ammunition they need to continue lobbying for more and more limits on gun sales at the federal level. It's a bad choice of words. It's a mistake – pure and simple.

What are "compelling state interests"? For members of Congress and other Washington policy-makers, "compelling state interests" translates to "whatever reason the government finds."

Therefore, "compelling state interests" is a loophole that renders the Second Amendment moot – at least in the minds of most Congress critters.

Further, the Justice Department said it would continue to defend existing gun laws in court – presumably, even real bad gun laws.

Why? Federal gun laws are inherently unconstitutional. They are counterproductive. They are wrong. They open the floodgates to more errors. By conceding this point to the other side of the debate, Ashcroft has ensured ultimate defeat on an issue critical to the preservation of freedom in this country.

The Second Amendment is pretty clear to those of us who understand English and history: "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."

Who was the militia at the time the Second Amendment was drafted? It was made up of "the people" – individuals who were universally armed for their own protection and for the ultimate safeguard against government tyranny, imposed either from foreign lands or by homegrown domestic tyrants."

Source:

What was the original intent of our founders with regard to firearms? Here's a sampling of their unambiguous opinions:

James Madison: "The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. A well-regulated Militia, composed of the people trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country."

Samuel Adams: "And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to prevent the people of the United States, who are peaceable citizens, from keeping their own arms."

Thomas Paine: "Arms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property ... horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."

George Mason: "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."

George Washington: "Firearms are second only to the Constitution in importance; they are the people's liberty teeth. A free people ought to be armed. When firearms go, all goes. We need them every hour."

Thomas Jefferson: "No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms. ... The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."

Alexander Hamilton: "The best we can hope for, concerning the people at large, is that they be properly armed."

Many of these great men warned with equal passion against the government arming itself by creating what they feared would be a standing army or national police force. Consider the following:

Elbridge Gerry: "What, Sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. Whenever Governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins."

Noah Webster: "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops than can be, on any pretense, raise in the United States."

Tench Coxe: "The power of the sword is in the hands of Congress? My friends and countrymen, it is not so; for the powers of the sword are in the hands of the yeomanry of America from sixteen to sixty. The Militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous and irresistible. Who are the Militia? Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. The 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."

When you consider the letter of our Constitution, and then consider its spirit through the words of the men responsible for authoring it, there is no question about the individual's right to bear arms. But there is grave reason to doubt the right of the federal government to authorize wielding them for any reason other than war.

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.