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

[Kadric]

"Don't paint a broad brushed stroke for all Republicans. Does somebody want to explain to me - objectively, without flaming me - why people should own assault weapons? Aren't these clearly weapons of war? Aren't they also used only against people? Isn't this overkill? (literally)"

Well I would prefer a full auto but in the wisdom of politics they decided that they are to bad. So they decided to make it illegal to manufacter them for civilians. So a firearm that use to cost $700.00 in 1982 now cost over $7000.00 This is quite counter to the proven fact that Legally owned full autos are one of the safest firearms. There has been 1 use to commit a murder since 1934 and to top it off it was by a police officer. The simple fact remains that if I want it and it does not interfer with your rights how is it in your rights to interfer with mine?
Is there any reason for to own a car that can go over 65MPH?
Is there any reason for you to own your own house?
Is there any reason for you to have a broad band internet conection?

[Byron_the_Aussie]

...everybody speaking against the ban claims that the Constitution gives them an unlimited right to own any arm they want....

Buffalo bagels.

The intent of the Founders is crystal clear, and has already been explained on this thread. Matter of fact I would have thought Iraq provided an example of exactly what they intended the Second Amendment to guard against.

[Pete'sWife]

That's it.

I'm voting for the democrat next time.

[dogbyte12]

Think at what liberal democrats had to put up with avec Clinton. Clinton was pro death penalty, pro Nafta/Gatt... workfare, signed welfare reform. Democrats held their noses and voted for him though, because they knew that generally overall he was a liberal, and the positives outweighed the negatives.

Then ya have the crowd here who are getting 95% of what they want. Ban on federal funding for overseas abortion, conservative judges (when the senate doesn't fillibuster), tax cuts, strong foreign policy, etc... etc... but he isn't politically pure enough.

Thinking like that is what gave us George W. Bush as president. It is called the Green voters in Florida. Michael Moore and Phil Donahue decided Gore wasn't pure enough for them, so they stumped for Nader in Florida. Now democrats hate them for it.

[DBrow]

"I brought up this point, because everybody speaking against the ban claims that the Constitution gives them an unlimited right to own any arm they want."

The constitutional clause granting us the right to petition for a letter of marque and reprisal has been used in the past to cause Congress to authorize private individuals to outfit entire ships with rifles, pistols, cannon, bombs, and chain shot. These individuals used the hardware to wage private war.

The Supremes in the Miller case limited the right to military arms. Presser, however, made no distinction.

And, if you want explosives, there are few states in which you cannot legally purchase them, likewise machineguns.

I said it before, one more time: The Assault Weapons Ban we are discussing has nothing to do with machine guns or any other weapon than certain narrowly defined semiauto firearms and ammo magazines. Please stick to the topic of the Assault Weapons Ban.

[billbears]

CD, personally I'm tired of waiting and seeing. It's getting worse by the day. Yes, I voted for him, so I can complain about him. It is my right as a voter. This President has severely disappointed me. Not to say Gore would have been any better. With him, the other half of the land in the respective states would have already been wildlife preserves by now probably

[Tancredo Fan]

I can't wait until 2004 so I can do my part to help get rid of this disgusting RINO. This guy has been a disaster.

Thanks for the ping. Well put.

[LurkerNoMore!]

That's it.
I'm voting for the democrat next time.

Not me. I'm donating AGAIN to FR right now, thanks to Uncle Bill.

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..as you know, the government is pretty well armed so in order for the people to defend themselves (should the feds go nuts), they would need equal arms....

Not at all.

Think backwoodsmen vs. the British Army, or the Vietnamese against the US and Australia. And we've just seen an example in Iraq, of how the army of a tyrant may not want to fight.

[frostbit]

True, but the fully auto rifles would be regulated as a Class 3 weapon (If built prior to the ban). I apologize for the oversimplification, I just got frustrated reading the thread.

Parts of the AWB apply to all firearms, most notably the ban on detachable magazines holding more than 10 rounds, manufactured after 1994.

This is what happens when lawmakers try to split hairs. Stupid lawyers.

[Drammach]

So why don't we allow people to own hand grenades, bombs, or nuclear weapons? Is there any limit to what should be allowed?
Those things are "Ordinance". They are not "Arms". The writers of the bill of rights knew the difference then, too.

I am an old man now, but I can remember going out to Gran'pa's farm for the 4th of July.
Gramps would wake me up at sunrise, and we would take the pickup out to one of the fields.
He would then pull a half stick of dynamite out of his bib overalls, and secure it under a tree stump that needed moving.
He would then light the fuse, we would retreat to the pickup, parked some distance away, and watch the stump fly, insuring that the whole township knew that it was "Independence Day".

That was some 50 years (or more) ago, but it was still america.
Gramps bought that dynamite at the local hardware store, without any permits, licenses, background checks, or government supervision.

Ordnance IS arms, just as is a rifle, pistol, or any knife, club, or esoteric oriental throwing star, etc..
Explosive materials and devices are, and let me stress this, simply tools, mostly used for good, sometimes abused.

The fact that a small percentage of people may use something for evil purposes is NOT a license to ban it for use by ALL..

I know individuals I would trust with an Atomic Bomb.
I also know Nations and Leaders of Nations I would not trust with a hand grenade.

[Yankee]

Think backwoodsmen vs. the British Army, or the Vietnamese against the US and Australia. And we've just seen an example in Iraq, of how the army of a tyrant may not want to fight.

Yeah! Think Fedayeen charging an M1A1 Abrams.

On second thought...........

[FractalMan]

Agreed. I am a conservative; however, I am not really too concerned about making the purchase/ownership of so-called assault weapons illegal. When was the last time anyone on this forum thought to themselves, "Cripes, I wish I had an assault weapon instead of this measley rifle! If I had it, I could have killed that (man) (rodent) (buck) (ex-wife) much faster!"

[Kadric]

"So why don't we allow people to own hand grenades, bombs, or nuclear weapons? Is there any limit to what should be allowed?"


Please show me the laws saying I can't own these. Not the laws pertaining to licenses. I can show you the law stating if I have a firearm that has a Flash suppressor, pistol grip, and collapsible stock made after Sep 1994 I am committing a crime.

[BlazingArizona]

I swear to Allah I'm this close "" to voting Libertarian. yeah yeah I know all the aruguments by now so I don't need a lesson, thanks

Go ahead. We're not all Saddam-loving peaceniks.

[Consort]

Well, well, well.....the Ship Of Fools is fully manned again, under sail on the high seas again......and heading for the rocks again, as it did in 1991. This is a nice gathering of misguided conservatives, DUers and Table Talkers pretending to be conservatives, and assorted other dregs who want to vote their "conscience" or their "principles" regardless of what it does to our country.

[Capitalism2003]

how about a compromise...Legalize every gun on the planet...semi automatic and full automatic...I would support this IF, the punishment for using this weapons was dramatically increased. If any gun, of any type is used in an assault, there should be a MANDATORY death penalty for the perpetrator...If any gun is used in a robbery, there should be a LIFE SENTENCE...mandatory...no parole. This should be a national law and it should be publicized well. There will be no little 'double time' laws as we have now for gun crimes...The punishments will be much, much more severe...so severe, that nobody would even dream of committing a crime with a gun. I feel the same way about legalization of drugs...legalize everything...all the hard drugs...crack...heroin...PCP...BUT, if anyone is caught driving under the influence of these drugs (or alcohol for that matter), I believe the penalty should be a minimum of 12 months in prison for the first offense, along with a hefty fine. I'm a libertarian on most issues, but when it comes to the PHYSICAL SAFETY of Americans, I believe govt has a legitimate role to play...If we are going to respect the freedoms of law abiding citizens, allowing them to own whatever they want...we need to magnify the punishment for those who break the law 100 fold...Anyone who threatens law abiding citizens should not see the light of day again.

[FractalMan]

There is a law in California that if you plan on obtaining a nuclear weapon, you must notify the State Authorities. Now there is a useful law!

[Light Speed]