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

[Deb]

Hey, Mr. Magistrate. How ya doin'?

Gimli is a dwarf. A very large dwarf.

Good to see you.

[poet]

I am Not a one issue voter!

There are many reasons I will not vote for him in 2004, not the least of which is his obcene spending of our tax dollars.

[Kadric]

I set this as a test before voting. If it does not go away I'll not vote for him again.

[PuNcH]

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.

Funny, we have a republican controlled house, senate and president and it is reasonable to expect a new gun ban. Cant do anything about the IRS and the income tax. That would be insane.

[okiesap]

If you really believe my statements about candidates movng center is liberal crap you are suffering denial. Clinton won by surfing the middle. Perhaps you helped his cause by voting for Perot. Clinton won again despite his tax increases and support of gun control.

When either party shifts too far to the right or left, they lose.....the swing voters don't like THE PERCEPTION of extremism, even though the protection of the 2nd amendment is anything but. Plus the "soccer moms" become frightened

Going back...Nixon won because McGovern was the counter culture candidate. Reagan won in 1980 because even those on the left couldn't stomach four more years of Carter's EXTREME inability to lead as epitomized by the Iran hostage crisis and runaway inflation.

Reagan won again due to Mondale's EXTREME promise to raise taxes.

Dukakis had no charisma, Bush 41 had a little. Charisma combined with centrist campaigning wins elections.

[poet]

"expect normal rational people to take you seriously?"

A definition, if you please.

[strela]

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.

Some "prediction." Bush has repeatedly, publicly stated at least since 2000 that he supports the assault weapon ban (see http://www.issues2000.org/Celeb/George_W__Bush_Gun_Control.htm).

And yes, I believe he is wrong wrong wrong on this one.

[wardaddy]

CJ,

History around the world in former private gun ownership nations is replete with incremenatalism.

Assault weapons as defined by this bill are simply semi-automatic firearms with a few extra bells and whistles.

A true assault weapon is already stringently controlled and have been for 70+ years.

After high capacity semi-automatic rifles then it will be semi-automatic period or perhaps long range or certain optical attachments....and then it will end up one day like the UK...nada except hunting shotguns with birdshot or target .22s all conveniently stored at the constables office unless you are landed gentry.

And meanwhile, epidemic crime will continue and peaceable folks will have less chances of defending themselves.

These gun control groups want to disarm the country...make no mistake. Give them an inch and they take a mile. Look at the Brady Bill database....Ashcroft is having to threaten local authorities to force them to destroy a database which was never supposed to be a database to begin with...and guess what?...they still aren't listening in the blue zones.

Further...you bring up a sticky hypothetical: insurrection...do you think that is not possible here again....nothing is "not possible". Think of 50 years of Hitlery and company and all the erosion of freedom and CULTURE that will accompany that.

How will our descendents throw off that yoke? March thru the streets like Ghandi?

Nah...I like the option of firearms to keep us free. Call me a kook. I watch the world...and I learn from precedence.

But never fear...if they can't outlaw guns...they will simply outlaw gunowners....that is the other half of their pincher movement.

Nevertheless....we must support our side no doubt and not throw away votes towards certain doom but we had better work very very hard to make sure W and our congress folks hear us.

They do take us for granted though...they know we have no option and they are hell bent in creating a Republican super majority even if it means moving left a bit.

Whatever...I hope we don't waste the political capital whenever we finally get it.

[Joe Hadenuf]

The Republican establishment needs to learn the lesson, the hard way if necessary. The 2nd amendment is not negotiable. If we let him get away with this then it will be worse in the long run.

I agree. There should come a time in life when one puts down his foot, and takes a stand.

This is that time.

[PuNcH]

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

You've obviously bought into the "assault weapons" ban based upon the emotional term "assault weapon". Congrats you're another republican who has bought into leftist propaganda. All they had to do is make it sound bad in the title and that was enough to win you over.

[Yankee]

It may come as a surprise to you but there are some people who are very conservative, yet know nothing about guns.

Like my girfriend who knew nothing about, and was afraid of guns when I met her.

Over time she became interested, and I took her to the range and taught her to shoot. Now she has an appreciation for guns, gun safety and responsible gun owners, and is no longer succeptable to the loony anti-gun arguments of the left

But you aren't going to persuade people like her by starting off with "I'm arming myself against a tyrannical government".

She was already a pro life and anti tax conservative when I met her, but being a suburban Long Islander, the gun issue was foreign to her.

[Drammach]

I don't think the Constitution gives us unlimited rights to do anything. I think you misinterpret the Constitution. For instance, we may have the right to free speech, but we don't have the right to yell, "Fire" in a public theater, when there is none. Try it sometime. You'll end up in jail.

Such tripe.
I hear this non-argument all the time, even from the mouths of so-called Supreme Court Justices.
It's a false analogy.

You not only have the Right to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre, You have an OBLIGATION to do so, in the case of an actual fire.

What you DO have, is responsibility for your actions.
Yelling "fire" in a crowded theatre falsely may cause panic, and injury in the ensuing rush to get out.
You would be held responsible for creating said panic, and for the injuries ensued.

As to "unlimited rights":
Amendment IX RULE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE CONSTITUTION
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

Amendment X RIGHTS OF STATES UNDER CONSTITUTION
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.

The only limits on rights are those limits placed on the United States government, and the States.

The PEOPLE reserve ALL Power to themselves, except that which they "grant" to the Federal and State governments.
The PEOPLE can and may, at any time, decide to change those rights, or deny them to any governmental authority.

Please correct your assumptions.
The people of the United States do, indeed have unlimited rights.

[Dan from Michigan]

True to some extent, but the 'mushy middle' isn't so cut and dry. In a lot of states, the middle is socially conservative and economically liberal.

Macomb and Monroe County Michigan are centrist counties. Don't run anti-gun there though. On the same note, don't bash the unions there either or appear too 'pro-business'.

[ApesForEvolution]

Bush also said he was against CFR, which he signed. So now he's taking down the 2nd with the 1st which only will lead to taking down the whole damn Constitution.

[Brimack34]

You can tell the War is over. We are back already. I am not saing you are wrong. I just think of people like Olympia Snowe and others in the same party trying too knock down the Bush approval rating.

[ApesForEvolution]

The last time I was glad I owned a now banned semi-auto was when my partner was suppressing fire so my nephew could get to his cell phone and call police...for backup.

[Trailerpark Badass]

I'll probably go shooting on election day.

[SocialistSuk]

A few points:

1. The AWB is silly and only bans scary looking weapons that fit the previously stated definition:

"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

Most modern automatic pistols have >10 capacity mags, and whats with the flash suppressor and bayonet lug? The last time someone was bayoneted in the country was the Civil War. As pointed out much deadlier weapons legally exist. This law only affects honest citizens.

2nd, The main reason for having the 2nd amendment is protect ourselves, especially from the possibility that our government would fall into the wrong hands, or foreign invasion. As such, Americans should have access to the same small arms that the U.S. Military uses. The same as when the country was founded.

3rd, outlawing machine guns and other weapons have proven not to be effective for lowering crime. It only makes honest citizens criminal and victims.

[B Knotts]

A question: can you guess why some of the most die-hard Bush supporters support him even when he takes liberal positions?

The answer is really quite simple. :-)

HINT: Republican != conservative

[ExSoldier]

"What I've liked about Bush is that he seemed like a real guy. I don't appreciate this even if it's a political game of his."

I totally agree...and it was my first thought that he must know that the Republicans will never let this fly so he's trying to draw from a much broader base than conservatives...trying to start the next election season now. Still, playing "politics" with the Constitution is unacceptable and I would clearly expect it if the name was Clinton or Gore....not from a man who said the most influential person in his life is Jesus Christ.

Don't any of these idiot politicians learn from HISTORY? Bush is President because of the gunowners who are also democrats crossed party lines enough times in enough states to swing the votes in those states. And just look at 1994 when this garbage was passed the first time...see how many Dems paid with their political lives. I don't understand how Jeb can be so progun with the double dealing of his dad and older brother as examples. I know Jeb personally...and IMHO he'd be a damn sight better President than GW!