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.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/896337/posts?page=286#286

Start here and work your way up. The truth will even set you free...

OK, Ape. I've read them all. I still don't see anything that answers my question: What do you think is a "well-regulated militia", and how does it reconcile with your position that anything goes for any citizen with regards to arms? I've given you every post that you've made following my comments and I still don't see anything. Maybe you can find it for me. Of course there's a lot of insults to go through to figure that out.

By the way, if you want to know about my position vis a vis your question, you can start with #24. I think I've explained my position ad nauseum and completely to just about anybody with even a fourth grade literacy. Here are your comments below:

I defend the Constitution so I'm a communist RAT? Surely you know you've lost then. Go look in the mirror. You make the case for repealing the amendment that gave women the vote.

Who's my hero Schultz?

Hehehe. Easter always brings out the whackos...

What? Oh, it's just you...you never answered the question nor substantiated your claims. As I said before I will say once again: if you can't answer a direct question, stay home.

I see you choose not to substantiate your view nor answer my question, either out of lack of knowledge or because the answer will drown your baby. Have a good day. I'll be here if you ever want to answer a direct question.

Nice. The old 'answer a question with an answer'.

I've actually read, studied and regurgitated the Federalist Papers and every framework document/support document. I've probably forgotten more than you've learned during your year in higher ed.

So, answer the question so your come-uppance can continue.

If you don't have the answer, easier on you to just admit it.

"President Bush will prove he supports our second ammendment right. Ashcroft has already spoken to our rights to bear arms...and President Bush doesn't micro manage."

Bush and Ashcroft have proven beyond all doubts that the Constitution is not relevant to them. So, go ahead and cheer them on. After all, politics is just a feel good activity for everyone that doesn't truly give a rip about Constitutionally-affirmed rights and freedoms. It's no wonder America has gotten to this point when faux conservatives applaud the nipping and gnashing of the framework of this nation.

It's the folks that wait for tyranny to reach their own doorstep that I personally feel sympathy for. By then, it could be too late. You live in a different, much less viable and more tyrannical, unconstitutional society than your ancestors. And your grandchildren's children will be able to look back and see what a goof-troop you led before you passed on. Which amendment to the Constitution will you next allow to slide into oblivion?

I see you wait until I step out for awhile to finally address a post. How it of you. Furthermore, tell me what the Founding Fathers referred to as a militia. I know the answer; I'll wait for you to answer though.

This is easier than shooting fish in a barrel.

Your words are very clear. They show you to be duplicitous.

"I fully support the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment"

The he** you do! You feel it incumbent upon yourself to define which firearms I can use! You ARE DANGEROUS to this Republic.

Tell me where in the Constitution it says I can't!

You can't do it! The Constitution allowed and should still today all me to own the exact same firearms the government owns!! That's the whole damn point!!!

What part of 'SHALL NOT INFRINGE' do you find incomprehensible? Does it matter to you if a murderer murders with a long arm, short arm, crossbow or Bowie knife?

"I don't have a problem if someone wants to own one .. but I also don't want our country turning into the backwards 3rd world country"

Your tact of reasoning breaks down over and over again. The difference between America and a 3rd world nation is the Constitution and those willing to defend it. Are you afraid of people walking the streets with semi-auto short firearms near your children? You can't see those firearms...

If you or the entire population doesn't want the governmental affirmation of your rights via the Constitution, then elect representatives to subvert it and face whatever consequences exist...or, of course, move out of America. I guess you have outed yourself as a non-Constitutionist now. Good work. Then I did my job and can live with myself.

What other people do that is wrong and out of my control does not deter me from doing what is right.

The only way evil triumphs is if good men do nothing.

What an assinine argument on your way to wiping your back end with the Constitution...

We've been hammering away and will take another trip back east shortly. Bush reversed his support against CFR and signed it, attacking the 1st Amendment. He can now reverse his support for renewing the un-Constitutional ban and his attack on the 2nd Amendment. But, then, the attack on the 4th Amendment being freshly won with the signing of the 'Patriot' Act makes me doubt this President remotely cares about the Constitution.

These politicians and political parties remind me of the apostate church and its leaders. No adherence to anything but the whims of the day and holding onto power.

Absolutely no use for the documents that keep us out of the ditches. Just making up crap as they go, only pointing to the truth when it's politically expedient.

To everyone saying: "this isn't true" and "just wait and see what W does" and "blah, blah, blah" - well, it's pretty obvious the RATS understand the game better than you, or else you're one of the gun-grabbing RATS yourself. You either understand support the Constitution and "shall not infringe" or you don't. I pity those who don't.

I can absolutely, with 100% clarity, state to you that I would use the power of the veto, the power of logical/moral persuasion and the power of the people to uphold my oath to the Constitution of the united States. If it violates the Constitution, I won't be a part of it.

"There will NEVER be a President we agree with 100 percent on all things. Thats just humanly impossible, especially in light of the fact that NONE Of us are alike/identitcal either physically or mentally."

The answer is simple. Either a candidate is for the Constitution and will uphold it or not. Rewarding the ones that won't is not helping. Giving them a pass because they sometimes do is ludicrous. They take an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies, both foreign and domestic - if they betray it, then all bets should be off.

Too much fun watching gun grabbers urinate on themselves for one night. Have a good week all - except you gun grabbers. Have pleasant nightmares along with extreme anxiety when your psychotropins run out.

The Mini-14 is a great firearm. Seems to overheat easily, but, yes, the M-14 is a classic.

"Then why do we have laws?"

We should have a law against murder. That way, it would never happen again. Man, keep going. You're funny. In a sick way...

Of course it hasn't thought out what differs from an individual and a government...

You have a 'loon' infatuation. Seek counseling. However, when prepared right, loons taste an awful lot like bald eagle.

Sorry, my blood boiled over into my reserve tank and I read you wrong. Can't promise it won't happen again. Thank God I gave up booze. The Constitution was written for a remedial level of literacy, and yet far too many on this thread are either too stupid or intellectually dishonest (if not outright communist gun-grabbers) to understand "Shall not infringe...".

"I must be a lefty Communist."

Maybe. Maybe you're a left-left-center socialist who lost its brain/concience or made a mistake in the past in an election or two...

"Don't you think, you're getting a little ahead of yourself, Chicken Little? We're a long way from banning rifles or any handguns for that matter."

Oh yes, a long way.

Tell that to the Australians who have lost their firearms and are now losing their CROSSBOWS!

Man, you take the cake.

However, your illogical and anti-Constitutional ramblings are good for the museum which will house the carcasses of classic communists when it's all said and done.

That's alright. d6 and the rest of the communist gun-grabbers are making the best case for why we have a Constitution. Because some day, these types will be sending the JBTs from their bunkers...if they make it in.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 346 | View Replies

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

Posted by ApesForEvolution to diamond6

On News/Activism 04/14/2003 10:05 PM PDT #348 of 1,522

What comprised the militia when the Constitution was written? Individuals, just as the rest of our inalienable rights. RKBA is for the individual for the protection of the collective perpetuation of a free people.

You don't know Jack...

And why shouldn't I be allowed to defend myself and my family if and when JBTs or foreign invaders hit my doorstep? Kazillions of pounds of dope make it into America, but those with no regard for life or law don't get full-autos? Either a man is responsible with a firearm or his is not.

Nail, meet hammer.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Post Reply | Private Reply | To 268 | View Replies

Between the NRA and GOA (and inspite of the small percentage of morons that pay NRA dues and yet are still for banning 'assault' 'weapons'), Bush picked up several million votes.

How many of those votes doesn't want this go 'round??

The last time I was glad I owned a now banned semi-auto was when my partner was suppressing fire so my nephew could get to his cell phone and call police...for backup.

Bush also said he was against CFR, which he signed. So now he's taking down the 2nd with the 1st which only will lead to taking down the whole damn Constitution.

The phrase "well-regulated" does not mean "regulated by government" as you might think. When it was written, "regulated" basically meant "disciplined" or "orderly", as in "a well-regulated life".
Secondly, utilizing your interpretation of that adjective phrase would not authorize the use of government power to regulate guns, but only militias.

Finally, your interpretation leads to a direct contradiction: how can a government-limited ("regulated", using your definition) right be anything but infringed???

Thanks Teach for a straight answer to a straight question. Thank you Uncle Bill for some relevant quotes.

I decided to do a little word defining myself. However, I used a simple tool, a dictionary. Here are the simple definitions to help clarify what "well-regulated militia" might mean, courtesy of a neutral American Heritage dictionary. Note the italicized definitions:

"well" - 1. Satisfactorily. 2. With skill. 3. In a comfortable or affluent manner. 4. Advantageously. 5. With reason or propriety; properly. 6. Prudently. 7. On close or familiar terms. 8. Favorably. 9. Thoroughly. 10. Entirely. 11. Far.

"regulate" - 1. To control or direct according to a rule. 2. To adjust in conformity to a specification or requirement. 3. To adjust for accurate and proper functioning.

"regulation" - 1. A principle, rule, or law designed to govern behavior. 2. A governmental order having the force of law.

"militia" - 1. Those who are not part of the regular armed forces, but who are called to military service in an emergency.

Putting these all together, what do they mean?

"Well" was meant to signify that there was a standard. Satisfactorily, with skill, properly, and prudently all convey a standard that must be met to be "well". Doesn't sound like your average Joe on the street, does it? While there might be quite a few people in the U.S. who could meet that criteria, it's certainly not everybody.

"Regulated" was meant to show that there were restrictions or limitations placed on it by the government. That's right, that old bugga boo. This is conveyed by the words to control, adjust for accurate and proper functioning, law (yes, law) to govern behavior, and governmental order having the force of law. Need I say any more?

Finally, "militia". Not part of the regular army. We agree on that. But then, called to military service in an emergency. That implies that some entity must "call them up". Who is that they that will call them up? It also must be the "military" Then, it is for an emergency. Sorry, that doesn't mean for human or even duck target shooting

I trust I've answered this question in full. Flame away. I'm sure some of you will have a bunch of nasty names for me. Sorry, I'm just the messenger for American Heritage.

As to your question, Teach, I will get to that also, when I can.

Kiss Bush Goodbye
"As the president speaks so highly of our troops brining liberty and freedom to the Iraqi people, how is it that at the same time he is determined to reduce ours? If the president goes through with the renewal of the unconstitutional Clinton semi-auto ban law, he will surely find out in the next election that all the gains made in the Republican Party will evaporate. Gore lost his home state, which the Democrats acknowledged was due to his anti-gun positions, and this election will be no different for the president.

As a Republican Team Leader for Southern California who contributes to the NRSC, as well as to all those key senator races during the mid-term election, this president will not get my vote in 2004 if this ban is in effect on Election Day.

We want and expect our gun rights restored – and the protection of liberty and freedom maintained – in this country as well as Iraq! California is awash in unconstitutional gun laws and the nation should not follow in the foot steps of the abomination called the California Legislature."

"As terrible as last week's shooting in Atlanta was, as terrible as all the gun killings of the past few months have been, one has the almost satisfying feeling that the country is going through the literal death throes of a barbaric era and that mercifully soon, one of these monstrous episodes will be the last. High time. My guess, in fact, is that the hour has come and gone -- that the great majority of Americans are saying they favor gun control when they really mean gun banishment...I think the country has long been ready to restrict the use of guns, except for hunting rifles and shotguns, and now I think we're prepared to get rid of the damned things entirely -- the handguns, the semis and the automatics."
Roger Rosenblatt - Time Magazine, former top editor of U.S. News & World Report - Article titled: "Get Rid of the Damn Things." - Source

"Suppose the Second Amendment said, 'A well educated electorate being necessary for self governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed,'" Levy urged the audience at the National Press Club. "Is there anyone who would suggest that what that means is that only registered voters have a right to read?
Robert Levy, a Georgetown University law professor and constitutional scholar at the Cato Institute. Source: Citizens Mount Constitutional Challenges to D.C. Gun Ban

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.