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 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 1,621-1,638 next last
To: Yankee
Drammach:
"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."
#234


Yours is a voice of reason in a free republic gone mad.
#247
281 posted on 04/14/2003 9:32:46 PM PDT by P_A_I
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 266 | View Replies]

To: cyncooper
W'04
Broken glass
FMCDH

Liberty
282 posted on 04/14/2003 9:33:09 PM PDT by Liberty Valance (Keep our Soldiers in your prayers.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 252 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
Well maybe we have something in common. I shoot alot too but with my camera and I am constantly desiring lenses that I can't afford. Right now none of the lenses I want are banned, hopefully by the time I can afford a Cannon 100-400mm L IS USM lens ($1500) they will still be legal. :-)
283 posted on 04/14/2003 9:33:13 PM PDT by FractalMan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 264 | View Replies]

To: KingKongCobra
Bush is going to lose these same 13 voters who show up on every gun related thread to profess they're leaving the party.

13 voters? Try 4-5 million in the NRA, 500,000 in SAF, the members of GOA, and all the non members who vote their guns.

Two words. West Virginia. Two more. New Hampshire. Throw in the Democrat cross voters(on guns) in Michigan, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Tennesee, Arizona, Nevada, New Mexico, and Colorado.

According to Alan Gottlieb of SAF, gun issues swing an election 5% - Either way. This is almost as big of issue as taxes.

284 posted on 04/14/2003 9:33:57 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 251 | View Replies]

To: Cultural Jihad
...I don't think President Bush needs or wants the votes of those who think they need to stockpile assault weapons for the purpose of violently overthrowing the government someday....

Our side needs every vote it can get at every election. But the biggest plus about gunowners is that they are very often the most motivated campaign workers, too.

285 posted on 04/14/2003 9:35:07 PM PDT by Byron_the_Aussie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 260 | View Replies]

To: dogbyte12
I agree.
286 posted on 04/14/2003 9:35:47 PM PDT by Consort (Use only un-hyphenated words when posting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 277 | View Replies]

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

The British tried to shut downt the "seditios militia nutcase organizations", but they weren't very successful, were they?

287 posted on 04/14/2003 9:36:01 PM PDT by Mini-14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: OOPisforLiberals
Again - I'd like to stress for those who don't believe. There is a state-wide bill in Illinois RIGHT NOW that would ban posession of ALL SHOTGUNS. Semi-auto or otherwise. All shotguns gone. -All-

Think handguns are far behind? Teehee - dream on.

Then "high powered .30 cal scoped sniper rifles"

The AW thing is simply the bulwark against the -real- assaults.

Just Google Illinois and "Sb.1195"
288 posted on 04/14/2003 9:36:02 PM PDT by OOPisforLiberals
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 256 | View Replies]

To: Dan from Michigan
One thing not in your equation. The dems are likely to run a candidate who favors trigger locks, gun limits, longer waiting periods, etc... etc...

They will also be pro abortion, pro affirmative action, pro leaving Alaska to the Caribou. It's not cut and dry.

289 posted on 04/14/2003 9:36:38 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 284 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
It is very clear from your posts that you really don't know much about this topic. I suggest you take the time to actually READ the gun laws you say you support. Then, do some research on guns. Read some gun law stats and history. Check out other countries that have banned guns.

If you have the time, read "Unintended Consequences". It is a real eye-opener.
290 posted on 04/14/2003 9:36:58 PM PDT by Feiny
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 112 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
I don't support civilian ownership of nuclear weapons, however, you may make your case and try to convince us.
291 posted on 04/14/2003 9:37:12 PM PDT by Mini-14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: poet
You equate GWB with the likes of carter and clinton and expect normal rational people to take you seriously?

Ain't gonna happen.
292 posted on 04/14/2003 9:38:06 PM PDT by cyncooper (thousands of cheering Iraqis yelled, "America, America, America," and "Bush, Bush, Bush.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: Fred Mertz
I might move up to the UP.

We have registration here though on pistols.(Thank the KKK, literally - 1920's law) :(
Other than that, it's beautiful up there.

293 posted on 04/14/2003 9:38:10 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 265 | View Replies]

To: rintense
Right to Keep and Bear Arms
294 posted on 04/14/2003 9:38:26 PM PDT by Mini-14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Mini-14

Should we label you a 'statist'? ;)

295 posted on 04/14/2003 9:38:29 PM PDT by Cultural Jihad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Mini-14
Depleted uranium .44 rounds? Legal or not?
296 posted on 04/14/2003 9:38:50 PM PDT by dogbyte12
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 291 | View Replies]

To: Mulder
Real leaders inform and persuade as Reagan did.

I remember Reagan.....had he informed me on this issue, I wouldn't have these questions now.

Reagan is no longer President....Bush is!!!

297 posted on 04/14/2003 9:39:39 PM PDT by Krodg (We have the ability because the leader in command knows who's in control....God Bless America.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 271 | View Replies]

To: hove
Bush lovers have to understand that Bush and Clinton are two peas in a pod.

Another not to be taken seriously.

298 posted on 04/14/2003 9:39:48 PM PDT by cyncooper (thousands of cheering Iraqis yelled, "America, America, America," and "Bush, Bush, Bush.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
"How about a machine gun? Should we let anybody get these, too?"

No, you shouldn't be allowed to have a machine gun.

299 posted on 04/14/2003 9:40:26 PM PDT by Mini-14
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: diamond6
I didn't say Bush was a liberal. I said he's a moderate where I come from. I come from possibly the 3rd most conservative county in Michigan.

Off-hand

Bad:

Liberal on education with the feds involved in it.
Soft on guns(slight anti as of now)
Campaign Finance Bill (CFR)
Patriot Act
Increased Spending(although defense spending was necessary)

Good:
Told the UN to get stuffed on Small Arms treaty(I'll give credit where it's due)
Foreign policy in general
Lowered taxes(not enough, but the blame there goes strictly to senate)
Against Affirmative Action.

300 posted on 04/14/2003 9:41:32 PM PDT by Dan from Michigan ("I have two guns. One for each of ya." - Doc Holliday)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 257 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 261-280281-300301-320 ... 1,621-1,638 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