Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

As I Predicted, George W. Bush Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban
Toogood Reports ^ | April 15, 2003 | By Chuck Baldwin

Posted on 04/14/2003 7:45:39 PM PDT by Uncle Bill

Edited on 04/17/2003 6:40:21 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]

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


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial
KEYWORDS: assaultweaponsban; bang; banglist; bush; guns; secondamendment
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,561-1,5801,581-1,6001,601-1,6201,621-1,638 next last
To: spunkets
The clause, a well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state", is an incomplete thought. It is not a statemnt at all, not does it imply, or directly attach some conditional to the intent, or the meaning of the central idea and command of the amendment.

You're right, that is an incomplete thought. That's why the clause should not just end there. It states: "A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." The full sentence implies that a well-regulated militia is equated with the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The clause is just pointing out a term "militia" that was based on what was a current situation, the British troops oppressing the people. Organized militia, which consisted of the people was what existed at the time. You can't just say that clause doesn't make sense, so we can remove it. They put it there for a reason.

1,581 posted on 04/21/2003 7:49:00 PM PDT by diamond6 ("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1579 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
The dictionaries still hold the meaning of the word regulated. Webster's(A beetter dictionary) has it as, "bringing order and method". You'll probably find something similar in A.H. Order and method implies and also brings skill. THe idea was to develope skill though drill and familiarity with arms, so that individuals were competent in there use.

Yes. You are correct. That is another possible definition. However, I don't believe it makes my point any less valid. Does the NRA really bring order to anything? They make bring method, they may bring skill, but it is laws that bring order.

1,582 posted on 04/21/2003 7:52:32 PM PDT by diamond6 ("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1579 | View Replies]

To: ArneFufkin
Nobody will accept that a Remington 870 Pump Load is a semi-automatic assault weapon to be seized. Ain't gonna happen.

I take it you don't like in Illinois. Daley's allies is trying to ban Remington 870's there as .50 calibers.

1,583 posted on 04/21/2003 7:54:17 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1553 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Like LIVE
1,584 posted on 04/21/2003 7:59:19 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1583 | View Replies]

To: Mo1
Nope, I get pissed at the position you appear to have taken WRT the Constitution. Your posts strongly indicate that you believe as I suggested. Otherwise you would more than likely have been proud enough of your position to have come right out and STATED IT UNEQUIVICALLY as I have and others have. You seem shamed to believe as you do... which is why I suggested that you develop some principles. So you can overcome and defeat the shame that you appear to be drowning in.
1,585 posted on 04/21/2003 7:59:24 PM PDT by dcwusmc ("The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1526 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
The Constitution provides the right to bear arms. However, just because there is a right, doesn't mean there are no limitations to the right. For instance, you may have a right to free speech, but does that allow you to yell, "Fire" in a theater, when there is no fire? You may have the right to freedom of religion, but if your religion requires human sacrifice, is Congress prevented from passing laws prohibiting it?
1,586 posted on 04/21/2003 8:01:02 PM PDT by diamond6 ("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1577 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
" The full sentence implies that a well-regulated militia is equated with the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

There is no such equality. The attached clause is nothing more than the attachment of a desired result to the absolute right the founders intended to preserve and protect. It is the skill of the well acquainted, that I outlined in 1579, they were noting and it's necessity to a free state. Specifically, the government did not include this to establish militia, provide for it's armament, or place any other condition whatsoever on the people's right. Especially a note that jusifies infringement, because the central statement of command forbids it. The first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights are not establishing any power of govm't, they explicitly enumerate rights and prohibit infringement.

1,587 posted on 04/21/2003 8:04:38 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1581 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
The Constitution provides the right to bear arms. However, just because there is a right, doesn't mean there are no limitations to the right.

====
I understand what you are saying, I think. One last question and then I will quit. Does the Constitution provide the right to keep and bear arms because of the need for a well regulated militia?
1,588 posted on 04/21/2003 8:05:49 PM PDT by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1586 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
" when there is no fire"

Nor does the 2nd allow justification for the use of arms to infringe on the rights of others. The right to arms is not a right ot use them improperly. the same goes for Free speech. The right does not justify it's improper use.

1,589 posted on 04/21/2003 8:07:54 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1586 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
The first 10 Amendments, the Bill of Rights are not establishing any power of govm't, they explicitly enumerate rights and prohibit infringement.

And what does "infringement" mean to you? Are you saying that none of the Bill of Rights allow restriction or limitation of these rights by the government?

1,590 posted on 04/21/2003 8:12:23 PM PDT by diamond6 ("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1587 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
"Does the NRA really bring order to anything? They make bring method, they may bring skill, but it is laws that bring order."

Yes it does bring order. It is an association of folks with common interests, goals and rules. The same association is found in the construction of a government. Govm'ts however involve mandatory membership and obedience to their dictates. There is no order to be found whatsoever in banning inanimate objects, only in defining and regulating there use. Both the NRA and former government activity did just that. They provided for rules governing their proper use.

1,591 posted on 04/21/2003 8:14:14 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1582 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Can the government compel you to own arms?
1,592 posted on 04/21/2003 8:18:22 PM PDT by FSPress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1591 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
" And what does "infringement" mean to you? Are you saying that none of the Bill of Rights allow restriction or limitation of these rights by the government?"

That was given back in #1587. The right does not imply it's misuse. Just as the right to speak does not protect it's misuse by a robber announcing a holdup. The 2nd Amend. does not mean the right allows arms to be used as a tool of coercion to enforce the verbal threats made during the robbery. The right to self defense is a valid right, that the right to bear arms can provide for effective enforcement. A right is not infringed by restricting action that infringes on the rights of others. It is infringed when the exercise of that right is limited absolutely w/o regard for any action taken by the holder of that right.

1,593 posted on 04/21/2003 8:24:06 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1590 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
"Can the government compel you to own arms?"

No.

1,594 posted on 04/21/2003 8:24:58 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1592 | View Replies]

To: dcwusmc
Nope, I get pissed at the position you appear to have taken WRT the Constitution. Your posts strongly indicate that you believe as I suggested.

Hmmm .. the key word here would be "appear"

As for the posts that I actually did make .. I believe I stated that I support the 2nd amendment. But I guess you missed that part

1,595 posted on 04/21/2003 8:26:48 PM PDT by Mo1 (I'm a monthly Donor .. You can be one too!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1585 | View Replies]

To: FSPress
I understand what you are saying, I think. One last question and then I will quit. Does the Constitution provide the right to keep and bear arms because of the need for a well regulated militia? I believe that was the original purpose, based on the historical context at that time. Since the threat was more immediate with the British soldiers, they wanted people to be able to defend their freedom and property against the British government and the replacement American government, to avoid having the same oppression in the future.
1,596 posted on 04/21/2003 8:27:58 PM PDT by diamond6 ("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1588 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
I think I understand what you're saying. However, I think you're argument is kind of like saying, illegal drugs are not dangerous by themselves, only when they are improperly used. I think that some armaments, like some drugs, are so dangerous they should not be allowed for the average citizen.
1,597 posted on 04/21/2003 8:33:04 PM PDT by diamond6 ("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1591 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
" And what does "infringement" mean to you? Are you saying that none of the Bill of Rights allow restriction or limitation of these rights by the government?"

That was given back in #1587. The right does not imply it's misuse. Just as the right to speak does not protect it's misuse by a robber announcing a holdup. The 2nd Amend. does not mean the right allows arms to be used as a tool of coercion to enforce the verbal threats made during the robbery. The right to self defense is a valid right, that the right to bear arms can provide for effective enforcement. A right is not infringed by restricting action that infringes on the rights of others. It is infringed when the exercise of that right is limited absolutely w/o regard for any action taken by the holder of that right. Is the right to keep and bear arms imited "absolutely",when a law is passed by government restricting the use of some, but NOT ALL, weapons?

1,598 posted on 04/21/2003 8:41:51 PM PDT by diamond6 ("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1593 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
CORRECTION: " And what does "infringement" mean to you? Are you saying that none of the Bill of Rights allow restriction or limitation of these rights by the government?"

That was given back in #1587. The right does not imply it's misuse. Just as the right to speak does not protect it's misuse by a robber announcing a holdup. The 2nd Amend. does not mean the right allows arms to be used as a tool of coercion to enforce the verbal threats made during the robbery. The right to self defense is a valid right, that the right to bear arms can provide for effective enforcement. A right is not infringed by restricting action that infringes on the rights of others. It is infringed when the exercise of that right is limited absolutely w/o regard for any action taken by the holder of that right.

Is the right to keep and bear arms limited "absolutely",when a law is passed by government restricting the use of some, but NOT ALL, arms to individual citizens?

1,599 posted on 04/21/2003 8:43:51 PM PDT by diamond6 ("Everyone who is for abortion HAS been born." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1593 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
" I think that some armaments, like some drugs, are so dangerous they should not be allowed for the average citizen."

Some drugs have no other purpose, but to alter the mental state of the user. Other drugs have several very useful purposes. I happen to think the same way about those, although no one thought to restrict their use 'till the AMA dreamed it up at one of their first conventions. My favorite drug, aspirin, comes under assault regularly. There is no constitutional justification for banning drugs, or restricting the use of them to permissions granted by those with a particular license.

There are no individual weapons that are so dangerous to life, or liberty that they need to be banned. The bans in place now are precident setting infringements that are a dangerous threat to Freedom.

1,600 posted on 04/21/2003 8:51:12 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1597 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,561-1,5801,581-1,6001,601-1,6201,621-1,638 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson