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

[Fred Mertz]

There's a decent chance it won't.

I'll have some of whatever you're smoking.

[woofie]

When Triggers are locked only Trigger will have guns...or something like that

[The FRugitive]

Well I hope if we make a big enough stink now we can avert this disaster.

I said in 2000 that this would be my litmus test. The only thing that could possibly cause me to sway on that is repealing of the income tax.

If he vetoes the AWB I will vote Bush. If he makes repeal of the income tax a major issue I will vote Bush.

Anything else and I will not. If that's the case and a pro-life candidate runs on the LP ticket I'll vote Libertarian.

If not that then constitution. If not that then I'll abstain from voteing for president.

That's my current plan.

Nobody gets my vote for free. That's the problem with the Republican rank and file...too many people give throw away their vote by voteing Republican regardless.

[diamond6]

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)

[Mulder]

You want to lose ALL of your guns?

LOL!

You make it sound like some tyrant can simply decree (illegally) that we have to turn in all our guns, and it will happen.

As my friend DWSUWF put it before he was banned (loosely quoting): to a Patriot, such an edict would be little more than a bump on the road of the highway of life

Some treasonous witch can declare something as absurd as the earth is flat, blacks have to sit in the back of the bus, or we have to turn in our guns. And in the case of each, there is no moral or legal requirement to follow such an insane edict.

[Ramius]

Roger that.

Yes, the AW ban is stupid law. No, it doesn't do anything real. Yes, it infringes on the 2nd. It is NOT, however, the end of the friggin' world.

We will survive it, and the 2nd amendment will survive it. Timing is everything.

[oldvike]

Before criticizing the Prez, let's first see if the renewal even gets to his desk.

Frankly, that doesn't even matter to me now that the President is on record as being opposed to the 2nd Amendment.

[HairOfTheDog]

So you'll be voting for Hillary, I take it?

But stomping their foot in disgust feels really good.

[Southack]

"Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said..."

Have you researched this issue enough to even know who is Scott McClellan and whether or not what he says matters or is even accurate?

[uncbob]

The current law is a farce
You can get all the so called assault weapons you want with cosmetic changes that make them legal

The real danger is if they modify the law to close this loop hole

[chance33_98]

Hmmmm, a mostly conservative pro military Bush in office or a liberal? Easy choice. This should put to rest the whining liberals at DU, et al, that we are all bush bots who worship him and love all he does. I will vote for Bush again, even though we disagree on some issues (like this one). Can Bush do better? Sure, could Clinton? No.

[Drew68]

I've read that he's giving lip service to this while knowing that Tom Delay will nuke it. That's the political calculation.

I think you are probably right. I think it is unlikely that this bill will ever see his desk. Bush is probably hoping the whole issue will go away. It is a lose/lose situation for him. If he vetoes the bill, he will lose a large segment of "soccer mom" voters, if he signs it, gun owners will retaliate at the voting booths.

Furthermore, while I still hope it is allowed to sunset, the AWB is a bit of a joke. So-called "assault" rifles are still plentiful. Romanian Kalashnikovs can be found for less than $300 at gun shows --cheaper than the Chinese one I purchased prior to the AWB!

[Ramius]

The only thing that could possibly cause me to sway on that is repealing of the income tax.

Whoops, I'm sorry. I mistook this for a rational argument. I would really recommend starting out with reasonable expectations, and then work from there. Just a thought.

[July 4th]

Reading the responses on this thread reminds me of why the Republicans are often referred to as the "Stupid Party."

Yeah, I know what you mean. Many Republicans actually vote on principle rather than blind party loyalty. It comes back and bites us in the a$$.

[Fred Mertz]

...why people should own assault weapons?

Don't fall for the propaganda.

The answer is so that people can keep their government at bay.

[Mr. Mojo]

Frankly, that doesn't even matter to me now that the President is on record as being opposed to the 2nd Amendment.

I assure you that I despise his position on this issue as much as anyone here, and I've Freeped all parties concerned mercilessly. But I'm not going to stay at home or vote for a third party loser (or a Rat) come election day. Are you?

[Cultural Jihad]

The answer is so that people can keep their government at bay.

We should allow assualt weapons, and then shut down the seditious militia nutcase organizations who spout off such nonsense as you have.

[diamond6]

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

[oldvike]

But I'm not going to stay at home or vote for a third party loser (or a Rat) come election day. Are you?

I can honestly say that I don't know what I'm going to do. I do know that I'd be physically ill if I ever heard the words "President Hillary Clinton".

[Unwavering Conservative]

Dubya is vehemently anti-RKBA, but he has to be sneaky with it because he is a Republican.

That is my honest opinion of his stance on the RKBA.