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

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..before criticizing the Prez, let's first see if the renewal even gets to his desk. There's a decent chance it won't...

Scott McLelland's statement pretty much removes any doubt on that. The question is, were his comments a trial balloon, to see how the re-signing of the AWB will play, amongst the faithful?

[Mulder]

I thought you said our rights were unlimited.

I assumed you understood what a "Right" is....

Obviously you don't.

You don't have the Right to harm others except in defense. You do have the Right to do what you please unless it harms others.

[diamond6]

These are competing rights, and the right to life trumps my free exercise of religion in this case. Simple possession of a firearm should not be a crime.

OK. Then, I take it you don't have any problem with a convicted murderer who is released from prison owning anything he wants.

[Dan from Michigan]

I don't believe there is any reason that machine guns should be allowed. If they are legal now, I don't understand why. However, I'd like you provide documentation to support your assertion that they are.

With a Class III NFA, Machine Guns are allowed.

There is no reason also why they should be banned. Why? Since only one(maybe Two, I forgot which) crime has EVER been committeed with a Class III, and that was by a cop, so if they should be banned, we can start by banning them from cops.

Also, another reason is the Second Amendment. Read Federalist 46.

[Fred Mertz]

Don't pass out that propaganda. People here can see through it.

[Dan from Michigan]

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

Bwahahahahahhahahahahhaahah. That's a so called assault weapon and illegal.

[Trailerpark Badass]

This was one of the main issues that made me choose Bush in 2000.

I don't understand. Bush made it clear during his campaign that he supports the AWB. I don't why anyone is surprised or thinks that this is some liberal dirty trick.

[CyberAnt]

"Bush is clearly a liberal and must be thrown out!"

ROTFLOL!!

[frostbit]

Arrgh...So much misinformation.

The definitions:

"Assault rifles" for these purposes, are semi-automatic centerfire rifles, with more than ONE of the following:

* Detachable box magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds;
* Collapsable stock;
* Flash suppressor;
* Bayonet lug;
* Pistol grip, either alone or with shoulder stock.

The whole argument seems to boil down to definitions. How is the exact same rifle, without a flash suppressor, less dangerous? If the person holding either rifle is a moron, someone could get hurt. If they're law abiding, someone could protect their family. Injuring or killing someone without just cause or excuse is already illegal, no matter what the weapon.

</Off soapbox>

[diamond6]

Thanks for the information. Seems you know a lot about this. No need to insult me. However, I also saw that somebody mentioned a 1986 ban concerning machine guns.

[montag813]

I'm so sick of these a$$hols trying to tear down our President. I am a political consultant, and I admit that YES this is being done to avoid giving percentage points in key states among women to John F. Kerry in Nov 2004...and that it is an understandable calculation on the part of Rove. That's politics. It is also true that it will be shot down in Congress as part of the plan. I understand people are angry about it. But to advocate leaving the ballot space blank or voting for some other party for President makes you no better than the Libertarians, who cost us two Senate seats last cycle.

If you want John F. Kerry as your next President than just say so. But stop trying to hurt George W. Bush over one issue.

[Ford Fairlane]

everyone knows that 'semi' automatic weapons can easily be converted into fully automatic weapons...

BULL

I have a manufacturer's FFL. I build weapons for the military & local LEO's. Some can be converted easily, but for the most part it requires machine work & additional parts, & it is not something the basement "gunsmith" can do.

[Jesse]

Kapish?
146

No answer.
The neo-free republic.



?????

[Trailerpark Badass]

Then, I take it you don't have any problem with a convicted murderer who is released from prison owning anything he wants.

Most violent crimes are committed without guns. Can we trust convicted murders with bricks, bats, his bare hands? If someone is a threat to commit violence they should remain in jail.

[LurkerNoMore!]

He's done all that? Nah. Still too liberal for me. ;)

Shoot, haven't ya heard? He's as liberal as Chuck Schumer.

[poet]

Yes, he has lost my vote and at least 20 other Constitutional Consevatives in my sphere of influence.

We will remind people of his NEW spending of $982,000,000,000 on social programs and the demoRAT policies he has embraced.

He, like his dad are great "wartime" presidents, but, their domestic economic policies leave much to be desired.

FReegards





















FReegards

[Capitalism2003]

pointing out what these weapons can/have done is propaganda?

[DBrow]

"everyone knows that 'semi' automatic weapons can easily be converted into fully automatic weapons."

It would make more sense to just start with metal and make your own with a Bridgeport.

There is no evidence that semiautos are being converted. BATF has banned any semiauto that can be easily converted- that's why open bolt 9mm semiautos are not for sale legally anywhere, and this is not a part of the AWB.

There are no news items relating to converted semiautos, unless you have a better search engine than Google? Can you please post evidence?

[rintense]

can someone tell me...honestly...why anyone needs to own an automatic assault rifle?

Why does someone need a SUV

Well, here's my college professor's question: does advertising sell products we need, or do we need products that advertising sells? But, an SUV isn't guaranteed by the Constitution. RTBA is. But, to me, the drive to limit both SUVs and guns is driven by the same, leftist need to feed class warfare.