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

[Diddley]

Either you are seriously misinformed, or deliberately misleading.

When exactly were flame throwers used at Waco?

Maybe. Maybe not.
And tanks?
I love how Conservatives are so civil, don't you?

[Dec31,1999]

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

This is that time.

I disagree. I think the time to take a stand will be in the election cycle of 2008. There is no way that Bush will not be running in '04, and that he will not be the most electable Republican/ "Conservative". We must all hold our noses and vote for him again. To do anything else will invite a Rat to the White house, which we can less afford.

The situation stinks, but it's reality. I don't think we can survive another Democrat in the White House.

[wardaddy]

I'm disappointed but hope that the folks in the House who are a bit more convergent with my views on this will kill it before it can get legs.

It has as to be expected brought out the hard right versus moderate to liberal culture contingent battle on this forum.

I've only been on this thread for about an hour and no one has smeared me as a Paleo yet...I'm shocked.

Regards.

[B Knotts]

There is no way that Bush will not be running in '04, and that he will not be the most electable Republican/ "Conservative"

Correct. That is why he must reverse his position on this, pronto.

[ApesForEvolution]

Too much fun watching gun grabbers urinate on themselves for one night. Have a good week all - except you gun grabbers. Have pleasant nightmares along with extreme anxiety when your psychotropins run out.

[wardaddy]

That anamoly was pointed out to me by Travis about a year ago and it's stuck....like a rusty fishook..lol

It's a great perspective.

[Drammach]

Then why do we have laws?

Gee, you're the big lawyer.. You don't know?

Let me get you started on the basics..
1st, read the Declaration of Independence.
2nd, read the Preamble to the Constitution.
3rd, read the Federalist/Antifederalist Papers.

Then, you need to get an education in law.
( One that doesn't grant degrees by mail. )

[Deb]

I will bet you a pair of green suede Prada 5 inch spike heels that there's more to the statement and the reauthorization never happens.

[Travis McGee]

Sooner or later, simply based on the law of averages and 280 million citizens, there is going to be a horrendous "assault rifle massacre".

It may be the result of a deranged individual, an Islamikazi terror cell, or it may even be set up with a little help from some group which would stand to benefit from the resulting laws and the chaos and mayhem which would ensue.

At least it does in my novel.

[frostbit]

"Either you are seriously misinformed, or deliberately misleading.

When exactly were flame throwers used at Waco?

Maybe. Maybe not.
And tanks?
I love how Conservatives are so civil, don't you? "


No 'maybe' about it. They weren't. Waco fires were set from within, as evidenced on the thermal cameras and internal audio.

As for the 'tanks', I assume you are referring to any armored vehicle as a tank, just as the media does.

Maybe the ATF should have waited to bring out the 'tanks' until some of their agents were shot and killed. Oh, that's right - they already were.

I'm not trying to defend the ATF's actions here, just trying to straighten facts out. This thread is rife with half truths and outright falsifications to further individual agendas.

Hope that was civil enough for you.

[Diddley]

, , , why people should own assault weapons?

It has always been my position that we should be able to own any weapon that might be used against us. That gets us to flame throwers and tanks (Waco).

Obviously, I am a neophyte (not neocon).
Is there a flaw with the above argument (not specific facts)?

In truth, one should be able to own anything (perhaps excluding a barrel full of leaking toxin).

[Feiny]

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

I don't think so.....diamond6 is just misinformed. I had similar views before educating myself on the gun issue. Most folks I know who are "for gun control" are completely clueless about guns as well as the current gun laws.

diamond6, if you are truly interested in learning, i can send you some links to check out.

[wardaddy]

Yep...there is no choice....the alternatives are much worse times 1000.

And W and Rove know that. I'm sure they think that we will stay (and most of us including me will) and that they can get more soccer mom votes and crossover semi liberal Dems.

Nothing succeeds like success does it?

[Consort]

Clinton was elected by a coalition of Democrats who voted for him and Conservatives who didn't vote for Bush. They let the "Read my lips" thing cloud their better judgement.
Ross Perot drew misguided disgruntled Conservatives and Independents who normally vote Republican. Result: Eight years of direct infection of the fabric of America and many years of indirect residue from those 8 years.
Don't blame those of us who voted for Bush, but we, too, are the victims of your mistake.

[Krodg]

Thanks,

Sometimes it is very difficult to even ask a question on this board. It seems like every thread is met with jokes & ridicule but if you keep digging there is some knowledge.

I do understand the argument here, I just don't understand giving control to the opposing party for this issue. It seems like giving in 'to teach them a lesson' will insure the very thing we are fighting against. The Democrats will be back passing the same issues the holdouts were protesting and the Republicans will wonder where their voters are......nobody wins.

[Deb]

Geez, at least give it a news cycle.

[diamond6]

I'm always interested in objective, factual information. I'm also interested in views that are not based on total emotion. If you'd like to provide me information, I'm willing to review it.

[Travis McGee]

Visualize President Hillary Clinton and Atty General Chuck Schumer.

Then visualize an "assault rifle massacre" by a deranged individual.

With or without help.

[Dec31,1999]

He tried that with CFR, and lost. Perhaps that was his way of getting Congress to take seriously its decision to lead the country in the way it wants it to go intead of depending on politically damaging vetoes.

IOW, let's hope the Congress has learned its lesson and will kill the bill if they really believe in 2nd amendment rights.

He's deflecting the heat back to the House and Senate, which willl accomplish two things; he gets to put pressure on them to only pass serious bills, and he gets to be reelected.

It may work.

[aSkeptic]

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. We may have freedom of religion, but if our religion called for human sacrifice, and you did it, you would be tried for murder.

What if there is a fire in the theater?

What if your religion is wrongly politicized?

Can't any object be used as a murder weapon?