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.

Here's a short political fill-in-the-blank /multiple choice test.

The following are excerpts from a March 23, 2002 Washington Times piece by Bill Sammon.

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

--------- Urges More Foreign Aid

"MONTERREY, Mexico: -------- yesterday said Americans are duty-bound to 'share our wealth' with poor nations and promised a 50 percent increase in foreign aid, but 'We should give more of our aid in the form of grants, rather than loans that can never be repaid,' he said. 'We should invest in better health and build on our efforts to fight AIDS, which threatens to undermine whole societies.'

"In addition to the moral, economic and strategic imperatives of increasing foreign aid, ------ said, it could also help in the war against terrorism.

"'We will challenge the poverty and hopelessness and lack of education and failed governments that too often allow conditions that terrorists can seize and try to turn to their advantage"

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

Who is quoted above?
a) Bill Clinton
b) Al Gore
c) Hillary Clinton
d) Jessie Jackson
e) Reverend Al What's-His-Name
f) Bono and the pop band U2
g) Whoopie Goldberg
h) George W. Bush

Hint: he's very popular here at Free Republic.

"This is another manufactured outrage. Bush stated in the 2000 campaign that he supports the ban as it is currently mandated."

Bush stated he would enforce the existing gun laws and not seek any additional ones. This existing law is expiring. By stating he would sign its extension, he is in effect supporting a new gun law and violating his pledge.

"So, if it was important then they didn't vote for Bush."

It was important then, but I voted for Bush in the general election for obvious reasons - I'm Republican and the alternative was unthinkable and even worse for gun owners. But I DIDN'T vote for Bush in the primary.

"Why would a person who supports the intent and letter of the law not reauthorize it when it expires?"

Because by signing an EXTENSION of an EXPIRING law, he is, in effect, authorizing an ADDITIONAL law. I suppose this is a matter of perspective, but based on the majority of responses here, I would think most people who are posting here view it that way, and most gun-owners I know do also.

"So, the gun owners who consider this prohibition THE political issue of import to them didn't vote for Bush in the first place."

Wrong. Gun owners like me who voted for Bush first time around did so because the alterantive was unthinkable and because Bush was presented as a more sympathetic alterantive to gun-owners. On the other hand, my guess is NO ONE who was pro-gun voted for Gore, unless they have been living under a rock, or are from Arkansas, which is probably the same thing.

"Gun owners who are okay with the ban won't change their Bush vote for that reason."

Don't count on it. I am a Republican, I voted for Bish and I am a gun owner. I am stating categorically that if he signs an extension to Jim Florio's generated Feinstein-Schumer assault rifle ban I will neither vote for, nor campaign for, the man a second time around. I am tired of being ignored. Further, I can assure you that a great many gun owners in the swing states of the south and central U.S. who went for Bush first time around will either sit on their hands, vote for a third party candidate, or vote Democratic next time around. That will loose him the next election as many of those votes were quite close in 2000.

"The people who are squealing like stuck pigs didn't vote for Bush in 2000, so their withdrawl of support in 2004 is hard to lament."

I addressed this issue above.

"This is NOT a make or break issue for 90% of gun owners - like me. I see no threat to the 2nd Amendment of our Constitution through this ban."

You are naive if you are indeed what you present yourself as - a gun-owner.

The "Assault Rifle Ban", the laws against "Saturday Night Specials", laws against multiple purchases of firearms, proposed laws against guns exceeding or below certain calibers, ballistic fingerprinting, smart-gun bills, waiting periods, etc., etc. , are merely a long succession of unending efforts by the anti-gun extremists to totally eviscerate the Second Amendment and reduce it to a level of total irrelevancy.

This is dangerous for two reasons:

1) it erodes a basic and very significant individual human right, i.e. the right to self-defense, and

2) it sets the stage for similar actions against any other amendments the left chooses to target int the future.

The "Assault Rifle Ban" originated in New Jersey with Governor Jim Florio. He was a one time governor. RARELY in New Jersey State history was a sitting governor EVER denied a second term. His Asssault Rifle Ban was one of many reasons, in a very close election, which drove him from office. It may just have made the difference between defeat and victory. It WILL make a difference for Mr. Bush. Once the war in Iraq is over, the balance of pro and anti-Bush opinions will return to historical levels for a Republican President.

As an aside, an "Assault Rifle Ban" is really a phony issue.
Fully automatic rifles were long illegal according to federal law without a special Federal Permit. What the Assault rifle laws were doing, in effect was outlawing rifles which had a magazine capacity in excess of X number of rounds which impacted many fine target weapons. Also, since there were many people who had purchased these weapons legally, the enactment of this ban was, in effect, a punative, post ex-facto law which constituted an illegal taking without fair compensation. To be fair, the government should have bought back, at fair market value, every legally purchased "assault rifle" when the ban went into effect. They obvioulsy did not because the cost would have been prohibitive AND the engineers of this legislation WANTED to hurt LEGAL gun owners. Criminals, of course, pay no attention to gun laws, and customarly do not employ "assault rifles" anyway.

Finally, the intent of the Second Amendment, which is the only real constitutitional basis for private ownership of firearms, is to allow civilians to learn the use of military arms and, should the need arise, employ them to defend their freedom against foreign invaders or oppression by a domestic tyrant.

One final point. I have a strong suspicion Carl Rove is behind this. Mr. Rove has presented himself as the guiding hand of Mr. Bush's mid-term victory in Congress. Mr. Rove has been espousing many viewpoints which are at odds with mainstream Republican and even mainstream American thinking - like persecuting Seantor Tancredi of Colorado who is trying to do something to address our porous borders.
Mr. Bush's midterm triumph was due a number of fortuitous factors which combined to his benefit. Providing Mr. Rove with too much credit for this is an inaccurate assessment of the situation.

"God Bless America."

Amen.

"I've seen this show before here. Set up a faux showdown and demand an outcome that is certain to be unmet so that all the principled purists can demonstrate their superhuman character and patriotic courage as they abandon George W. Bush and the Republican Party in a Nathan Hale like moment."

I'm not sure what "faux showdown" means - I don't speak French and I'm not about to learn it, especially now.

But this is not a phoney issue. I was always a conservative, generally voted Republican, believed in the principles of the founding fathers and the concept of strict consitutional contruction. I have also always been a gun-owner. I became a registered Republican to vote for the great Ronald Reagan in a primary, and have voted straight Republican since, also helping on political campaigns. At times I have had to hold my nose and support a liberal Republican because the alternative was unthinkable.

But I'm dead serious on Feinstein-Schumer. I was always a bit suspicious of Bush, voted for his opponent in the primary, but he won me over quickly in the President debates with the Boron. But I weill no longer support liberal Republicans or Republicans who don't stand up for constitutional rights. I would never vote for a Democrat, but Bush will not see my vote again if he sign this bill
- TRUST ME.

"Bah! Just about every guy I know and hang with owns firearms, and NOT ONE would be influenced by this issue. I'm talking 12-13 of us, every one of us has a Remi Poppa Pump or Deer Rifle, some guys have handguns. Not one of them would give a damn."

Well, maybe you SHOULD give a damn. Shoot black powder??
They are trying to get a law passed banning all firearms .50 caliber and over. Nothing succeeds like success. It's the principle here as much as the firearm.

Today magazines over x number of cartridges, tommorrow, magazines with more then y number of cartridges, next year only single shot rimfires and only single shot shotguns.
You guys don't really get it. What they are trying to do, and are succeeding in doing, is incrementally restricting types of firearms, who can have them, of what age, under what circumstances, etc, because they have tried all-out gun bans and those failed. Since they can't get an all-out ban, they will go for the alternative, incremental restrictions.

Sometime ago I posted a verbatim article extracted from a New Jersey Newspaper for the Methodist Church (the Methodist Church has OFFICIALLY taken a stand in opposition to all wars, to the death penalty, and to private gun ownership.) A spokesperson for that church applauded New Jersey's recent enactment of a "smart gun" law for handguns.
He admitted it wasn't a total ban on handguns, but said this was the best they could get AT THE MOMENT.

Like laws requiring trigger-locks??? How about the Massachusetts Legislature putting a trigger lock on a Revolutionary War Committee of Safety Musket which has hung in their chambers for decades. These people are fantics, they are dedicated, and their goal is to get your guns - all of them - one way or the other.

"Americans don't want 25 caliber chain guns or M16s or Kalishnikovs on the streets."

All of these were legal if sold in only a semi-automatic mode until only a few years ago and were seldom if ever used in a crime. Also, there are other type guns - target weapons - effected by the "assault rifle" bans.

Few people who voted for Bush in 2000 will not vote for him for refusing to sign Feinstein-Schumer, few who voted against him in 2000 will support him in 2004 for signing Feinstein-Schumer, but very many WILL refuse to vote for him in 2004 after supporting him in 2000 for signing Feinstein - Schumer.

"I'm a 2nd Amendment evangelist but your world view is alien and distasteful to me. So ... just leave the GOP and slam the door for dramatic effect."

Sorry I spoiled your day. I thought we were having an intelligent exchange on a subject of mutual interest.

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.