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

[George W. Bush]

Bush is clearly counting on there not being a large enough bloc of gunowners who resent this to cost him serious votes. He assumes he will be perceived as more pro-gun than any Democrat. The same will largely be true of Republican races in Congress.

We'll see. Gun owners routed the Democrats and put Newt in power. And Rove certainly made many many mistakes in Bush's first campaign, from the failed attempt to win the black vote (excusable) to the completely idiotic attempt to win in California (stupid). I don't think that in domestic politics that Rove and Bush have become more shrewd or principled, especially to core constituencies. If anything, they've moved farther away from activists in the Republican party.

Bush could cost himself the election doing this. His father was run out of office by disgusted conservatives. And, despite the scolding the GOP still tries to administer that failing to vote for Spook Daddy gave us eight years of Clinton, I think the voters know that if Spook Daddy got away with breaking his Read-My-Lips promise, that he was going to go very liberal on us in a second term. And that, once re-elected, Spook Daddy might have been just as liberal as Clinton was. I like to think that W. is a lot smarter and more politically perceptive than his father was. I suspect that Bush will have to do something for the gun constituency to keep their votes. If he extends the personal weapons ban, he'll have to make a very large effort to do something else that will satisfy the entire gun movement and make them accept the trade-off over the assault weapon ban. Otherwise, he probably should expect his appeal to rabid gunowners to drop by as much as 25% in some states, people who just won't show up to vote for him unless he does something to strengthen gun ownership or to repeal restrictions, some within he power of the executive branch.

I notice Bush will finally get a partial-birth abortion ban. Doing things like this can satisfy the one-issue voter base in the party. Bush will have to do something comparable or bigger for gunowners if he expects to hold their vote after supporting a renewed assault weapons ban.

[ApesForEvolution]

"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."

Oh yes, a long way.

Tell that to the Australians who have lost their firearms and are now losing their CROSSBOWS!

Man, you take the cake.

However, your illogical and anti-Constitutional ramblings are good for the museum which will house the carcasses of classic communists when it's all said and done.

[Dan from Michigan]

The Supreme Court also agreed with you there BTW.......

[honeygrl]

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

They may not be able to make you turn in all your guns but they sure can make it *really* dificult to buy one and register it.

[diamond6]

That's me. I'm a regular Gorbachev. What an idiotic statement. Why don't you look at my credo down below. I'm sorry that I don't fit your paper thin narrow sense of what a conservative is. You can stick up your ass. Does that sound like a liberal?

[Mulder]

Clinton won by surfing the middle

Klinton won by moving to the right and because poppy sold out EVERY single constituency group in the Republican Party.

Both candidates moved to the middle, but one was moving right and the other left. Guess which one got an anemic 37% of the vote?

Clinton won again despite his tax increases and support of gun control.

Klinton won again because the GOP ran a washed up candidate because it "was his turn". Klinton had an approval rating of under 40% in 1995, but the RINOs stabbed Newt and the boys in the back, causing Klinton to be re-elected.

swing voters don't like THE PERCEPTION of extremism

So is that why the extremist Reagan won 49 states in 1980? Or why the extremist GOP candidates won 50+ seats in 1994?

Charisma combined with centrist campaigning wins elections.

Reagan had only one and won 2 landslides (3 if you count poppy riding his coattails in 1988). Gingrich had neither and led the most decisive mid term victory in 50 years.

[wardaddy]

This is how it all started. Incrementalism. Today we fight for basically semi-auto rifles with high cap mags and folding stocks and if we keep being defeated then we will indeed be fighting for grandpa's duckgun or little Timmy's 22.
Local governments are already way beyond this restriction and examine how the not supposed to ever be a database Brady Bill has turned out....it is indeed a database in direct contrast to the law.

If you can't see this coming, you aren't paying attention...with all due respect.

[SevenDaysInMay]

"Compelling State interest" is the bottom line when ruling that our Constitution does not apply to government.

[okiesap]

Even if you have the best of intentions, do you see any danger in giving up a liberty/right you CURRENTLY have? I'm at least as concerned about politicians who will pass legislation for votes than I am about legal owners of any weapon. That said Bush will get my vote because the alternative is a horrible prospect. And I do admit I would keep my distance from owners of certain weapons, which is the purpose of the owner anyway.

[Kadric]

Not quite accurate. The State's role was in training and unit structure, the people were to supply their own equipment. As for the National Guard, it was formed due to the fact that the States themselves would not meet their requirements. Would you agree that a member of the State Milita should have weapons on par with those normally carried by the average Military person?

[PuNcH]

Frankly, 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.

You clearly dont know what the assault ban is..

Those of you who dont actually know what the assault weapons ban does need to explain why there should be a ban on semi-automatic rifles. If you cant think of a good reason then you need to just drop the whole "assault weapon" propaganda and stop acting like tools.

[B Knotts]

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.

ROFL

Tell it to the Founding Fathers. They seem to have a different view.

[wardaddy]

We have it a bit better down here except for the Fords in Memphis who are just southern accent Rangelians.

[ApesForEvolution]

"I must be a lefty Communist."

Maybe. Maybe you're a left-left-center socialist who lost its brain/concience or made a mistake in the past in an election or two...

[ez]

Bush could cost himself the election doing this.

Au contraire. One of the only ways Bush can lose is if he goes back on his campaign promise to "support existing law", and the media relentlessly points out how he broke a major campaign promise just like his Daddy did.

Let the House kill this monstrosity.

[wardaddy]

Where are you?

[dcwusmc]

YES. It is not the weapon, which is none of government's business (short of WMD), it is the MISUSE of same. Got it yet? "...shall not be infringed" means exactly that... Self defence is NOT A RIGHT GRANTED BY GOVERNMENT OR THE CONSTITUTION... IT IS A RIGHT GRANTED BY THE CREATOR!!!

[Ford Fairlane]

his profile says he is a lawyer - he must not have ever had to take a constitutional law class, either that or he went to a lousy school

[diamond6]

I know a lot about history. When the Constitution was formed, they were worried about states having problems with the federal government. They formed state militias. That is where the right to bear arms came from. I also had a year course in Constitutional Law in law school from a conservative professor. And your credentials?

[OOPisforLiberals]

I dunno - that seems like a giant leap of faith. I'm not 100% up on the House/Senate leanings on this sort of thing. Do you really think it'll be allowed to sunset? Talk about a media shitstorm if it looks plausible.