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

[Black Agnes]

Why would this be an 'group' right when the rest of the BOR were individual rights? Even Ashcroft disagrees with you.

[Dan from Michigan]

I see no alternative but to stay the course and work on W and Rove...and our congressmen.

I called the comment line and I called my Congressman's office. I'll also talk to my congressman in person tomorrow if I can make his event.

Carl Lenin and Debbie Stabusall are worthless.

[diamond6]

Don't you think, you're getting a little ahead of yourself, Chicken Little? We're a long way from banning rifles or any handguns for that matter.

[B Knotts]

The Constitution doesn't "give" rights. It enumerates and guarantees them. The rights are given by the Creator.

[billbears]

2 billion dollars of taxpayer money for hydrogen based cars. Not to mention the neocon attitude here lately. Yes I do have a problem with the Republican party. Considering they're spending faster it seems lately than the Democrats. What about limited government?

[Drammach]

Make no mistake.

Diamond6 knows plenty about the gun grabber issue.
He/she is obviously anti-gun, and a liberal activist.

As evidence, look at the "boiler plate" responses, policy statements, and general rhetoric.
The party line, spouted, verbatim.

[Dan from Michigan]

I may not know a lot about guns, but I do know a lot more about the Constitution than you. Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? That would now fall to our National Guard.

Where's your source to back that up? That's not true BTW. Both by Federalist 46 and US code.

[ApesForEvolution]

What comprised the militia when the Constitution was written? Individuals, just as the rest of our inalienable rights. RKBA is for the individual for the protection of the collective perpetuation of a free people.

You don't know Jack...

[OOPisforLiberals]

Retarded.

The first 2 amendments close with the exact same wording :

...the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.


So, is "the right of the people" different between the 2 amendments right at the top of the BOR? You're deluded if you think that's the case.

[Deb]

So, are you going to wait the year and a half for this bill to come up for renewal before you put that foot down?

Funny how the usual folks display the usual indignation when provoked by the usual BS.

[B Knotts]

Tell it to Karl Rove.

[ApesForEvolution]

That's alright. d6 and the rest of the communist gun-grabbers are making the best case for why we have a Constitution. Because some day, these types will be sending the JBTs from their bunkers...if they make it in.

[ez]

Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia?

You are 100 percent wrong. You need to read the Federalist Papers regarding the Second Amendment.

[OOPisforLiberals]

Really. So the bill in the Illinois legislature which explicitly bans shotguns doesn't exist? Its all in my imagination? It hasn't been argued over for 2 months? It time for consideration hasn't been extended to Dec 31?

Please, explain my hallucination.

[honeygrl]

"If we let him get away with this then it will be worse in the long run. "

You think a Democrat in the office will be better in the long run?

[wardaddy]

One of hundreds of articles today on this matter:

By Shannon McCaffrey Knight Ridder News Service April 12, 2003 WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault-weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder. Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority for the NRA. President Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the current ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension. The White House comment comes just before the NRA's annual convention and as the gun debate overall shows signs of fresh life after several years of near hibernation. Republicans now control the House and the Senate and are using their newfound power to breathe life into the stalled pro-gun rights agenda. This week, they pushed through a bill in the House to give gun makers and dealers sweeping immunity from lawsuits.

I sure not one to advocate jumping ship into a sea of futility but it is cause for concern. We can only hope that the House of DeLay will not let this see the light of day in the Senate where those clubby weasels would feel obligated to offer up something for W's desk. I plan to write DeLay and my congresswoman Marsha Blackburn and do what I can to kill these germ before it multiplies.

[Dan from Michigan]

Well, in Texas, vetoing a right to carry law is political defeat. Ashcroft's comment to me is more symbolism than substance. It's a small plus, since he also said there was restrictions on it. The individual right part is significant.

Source

[diamond6]

You're right. The fact that I voted for Reagan means nothing. I must be a lefty Communist.

[Deb]

What's your beef against the cars?

[frostbit]

"Do you know that the 2nd amendment was originally based on a state-run militia? That would now fall to our National Guard."

Nope.

The 2nd was several years before the laws organizing the militias. And as defined in the Federalist papers, 'militia' was defined as every able bodied man that could be called up.

The National Guard analogy wouldn't be accurate here. Any organized force, being enlisted and duly sworn in, would have fallen under the definition of the Continental Army. The 'militia' refered to the general non-sworn public.