"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.
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.
"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 
Thanks for that Patriot Act George
No. See comment 431.
These are actual words. Try to read them, Joey.
Much better. I'll take an armoured vehicle for a tank.
Thanks.
:-)
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".
2008? LOL! I can see the Republicans and other insider, club members will be telling us the same thing in 2012.....and again in 2016 and on and on while the American people, who were enjoying the ever warming water are now being boiled....
Two of America's most prominent conservative leaders and a former Democrat ambassador and Boston mayor have written a letter to President Bush opposing a Justice Department proposal that would permit state and local law enforcement agencies to track down illegal immigrants as a way to fight terrorism.
David Keene, Chairman of the American Conservative Union, Grover Norquist president of Americans for Tax Reform - a top political analyst - and former Boston mayor and ambassador to the Vatican Ray Flynn who heads the Catholic Alliance took the side of police officials and immigrant rights activists in urging the president to prevent the proposal from being implemented.
Police officials across the nation have already criticized the idea, warning that it would endanger their relations with immigrants. especially because they would be reluctant to report crimes fearing they might be exposed to charges of immigration law violations.
According to the New York Times' Eric Schmitt, on Friday the three men wrote to the President complaining that the plan, now being reviewed by Attorney General John Ashcroft, would create a dangerous precedent because it would empower local authorities to become enforcement tools of the federal government.
"If local police are to enforce our immigration laws, will they soon be required to seek out and apprehend those who violate our environmental laws, or the Americans with Disabilities Act as well?" the three men wrote.....
Keene, Norquist Oppose Bush Plan
Not a peep of support for Ashcroft from the regular immigration malcontents.
Joe, you have no knowledge, a jerking knee, and a loud mouth. Quit before you dig yourself a bigger hole.
On another note to lurkers, Keene and Norquist are getting in bed with the ACLU against Ashcroft.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, and this without any qualification as to their condition or degree, as is the case in the British government.
Federalist 29 - The Well Regulated Militia
What plan for the regulation of the militia may be pursued by the national government is impossible to be foreseen...The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious if it were capable of being carried into execution... Little more can reasonably be aimed at with the respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped ; and in order to see that this be not neglected, it will be necessary to assemble them once or twice in the course of a year.
Who are the militia? are they not ourselves. Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people. - Tench Coxe.
Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.
That's just a start........ <A href="
Your quite welcome missy.
That's why he let CFR pass, and why he WILL let this pass, if need be. He has no choice. Most voters in America have no idea of the importance of gun rights. They are not Freepers or historians.
Therefore it is up to us to contact our reps in droves to prevent the passage of the bill in question, in order to stop further incrementalism upon the right to keep and bear arms.
We all know this stuff. It's basic.
But the sticky part comes with occupation. If the Iraqis want us out of Bagdad, they can do it with snipers alone. Even a tank driver or helicopter pilot likes to walk around some times. BANG! from 1,000 yards away in an apartment complex. Repeat 100 times a day, how long will we stick around?
In the USA, resistance would be even more effective because:
/1/ The resistance looks the same as the govt forces, and speaks the same language.
/2/ The resistence already owns more than 15 million sniper rifles, AKA scoped deer rifes, with a lifetime supply of ammo.
/3/ Many of the govt forces would be sympathetic to the resistance, and would feed them intell, addresses of top politicians, etc.
/4/ Many members of the govt forces would "moonlight" with the resistance, bringing AT weapons, explosives, etc.
If you think an America with 15 million sniper rifles in private hands could be governed by a tyrant, you are delusional. Forget the attack helicopters. Think about the politician's home addresses, and 15 million potential snipers.
Check out my novel at the link above, I wrote an entire novel around this scenario, and posted half of it (28 chapters) on the website.
Dane! Speaking of bigger holes! LOL!
Just kidding Dane, But you do make ol Joe feel like I'm selling American flags at an Ali Baba concert in downtown Mogadishu......
Incrementalism works both ways. I think the president is well aware of this fact, which is one of the reasns why he would prefer not to jeopardize his reelection.
We have to win hearts and minds first. We've just begun. There's a lot more work to do.
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.