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

[Cultural Jihad]

And instead of going after the problems and the law breakers, the government focuses on law abiding citizens....

You boxed yourself into a corner by dragging your pet gripe into the thread, Joe, since a person who possesses an illegal AW is breaking the law, too.

[Kenno]

I believe that the majority of Americans believe the anti-RTKBA rhetoric.

Wrong. Even the most left-leaning polls show a consistently large majority believing that the 2nd Amendment confers an individual right to keep and bear arms.

It is true that polls show that most people support some gun control (wrong though I believe such a view to be). Nevertheless, the issue still works strongly to help Republicans, because among those who vote for gun control as a major issue, there are very few Republicans; but among those who vote against gun control as a major issue, there are many union Democrats.

Gun owners don't just vote; they decide elections.

[Dane]

Bush won the heavily democratic UP of Michigan, as well as West Virginia

Gore was anti-coal and Gore's envirowhacko positions probably hurt him the most in WV.

Interesting that you leave that factor out and focus on your pet issue.

[Consort]

Funny how you people bend over backwards trying to get liberals to support you but take conservatives for granted.

We take nothing for granted; we vote for the least socialistic electable candidate. Liberals no longer have a party of their own. The once decent Democrat Party was taken over by socialists and liberals hang on like cysts. Liberals are a dying breed.

[Kenno]

The two are connected in the minds of many blue-collar workers. To Joe Six-Pack, Gore wants to get rid of coal because Gore is a sissy rich kid; and to Joe Six-Pack, Gore wants to get rid of guns because Gore is a sissy rich kid.

[Timesink]

Gun owners don't just vote; they decide elections.

True. Forty-eight percent of the people that voted in November 2000 owned at least one gun. I doubt very many of them voted for Gore.

[Dan from Michigan]

60% gunowners according to exit polls voted for Bush. 79% of gun rights activists voted for Bush.

[KingKongCobra]

Gore will probably be the candidate in 2004.
The crop of losers that they have are so pitiful, they're going to have to 'draft' AlBore.

[Dec31,1999]

Good point. They are also weak on the issue of abortion, having fired Matt Drudge for wanting to braodcast a picture of an unborn child reaching and graping a doctor's hand in the middle of an operation. I looked for the picture, but I couldn't find it.

But at least they have Hannity for us, and others, which would have been impossible only 8 years ago.

Let's keep pushing for more, is my point.

[Kenno]

One irony I've noticed is that Republicans who go moderate actually do worse among moderates than those who stick to their principles. There are two reasons for this: first, the "soccer mom" type of moderates vote Democrat because they are flighty and easily swayed when the GOP seems to be losing momentum; second, the Reagan Democrats vote Democrat because the moderation of the GOP usually comes at the expense of their pet issues, like gun rights.

[Joe Hadenuf]

You boxed yourself into a corner by dragging your pet gripe into the thread, Joe, since a person who possesses an illegal AW is breaking the law, too.

Huh?

The context of what was being discussed was that if someone commits a crime with a gun, the government should go after the criminal, instead of passing gun laws on law abiding citizens.....

Please, think before you post.

[Boot Hill]

diamond6 first asks:

Q:   Why should people own assault weapons?

And then unintentionally offers three outstanding reasons for owning them:

A:   Aren't these clearly weapons of war?

A:   Aren't they also used only against people?

A:   Isn't this overkill?

The answer to all three of those is, of course, a resounding and emphatic, YES!

The heart and core of the Second Amendment doesn't have a damn thing to do with hunting, target practice, gun collecting or fending off common criminals. Our founding fathers were unanimous in their conviction that the Second Amendment was necessary as one final bulwark against tyranny.

That's why every person that loves freedom should own so-called "assault rifles".

Regards,

Boot Hill

[Kenno]

That's my point. I'm trying to stake out a POC (plain old conservative) position between the neos, who will support gun control if Arnold Schwarzenegger likes it, and the paleos, who secretly would love Bush to sign this bill so as to get revenge for Buchanan losing three times. The POC position: e-mail Bush and tell him to get his ass in gear!

[PuNcH]

I guess not. Ashcroft came up with a proposal to help abate illegal immigration and terrorism and not a peep of support from your malcontnent crowd.

"White House officials say they fear that the proposal as written could lead to racial profiling and lawsuits resulting from police abuses. They warn it could put a strain on relations with Latin American nations and alienate Hispanic voters, targets of ardent GOP wooing for their votes in the upcoming November election where control of the House and Senate is up for grabs."

Of course we support enforcement of the law. This doesnt seem to be going anywhere. And once again they need to woo everyone but their conservative base.

[Cultural Jihad]

Not at all. A person who possesses an illegal weapon is committing a crime, much like your beloved boogeymen in brown skin who choose to cross the border without governmental permission.

[Dane]

The two are connected in the minds of many blue-collar workers. To Joe Six-Pack, Gore wants to get rid of coal because Gore is a sissy rich kid; and to Joe Six-Pack, Gore wants to get rid of guns because Gore is a sissy rich kid.

So the main issue was that Gore was a sissy rich kid, which is true. After 9/11 Gore would probably have launched a couple of missles that would hit a couple of camels and that would have been it. The taliban would still be in power and Gore would be kissing the frenchies butt in the UN.

See, politics transcends more than one issue, but you can focus on your one issue and help the Hillary's and Schumer's of the world or try to understand modern American politics and the current machinations of the legislative branch.

JMO, but Bush puts out a position where he can't get attacked from the left and the House, where 90% of seats are safe, kills it with the help of some pro-gun democrats, like they did with the Feinstein, Schumer gun control bill in 99 after Columbine.

I know you will bring up CFR, but CFR has turned out to be a kind of "please don't throw me into the briar patch" situation. The soft money waterfall for the demo's has been turned off, the Pubbies are leading the demo's by a 4 to 1 margin in hard money fundraising and the most vile part of CFR(the ad bans) will probably be thrown out by the courts.

[Joe Hadenuf]

You know, I am getting a little tired of your weak race baiting BS.

[PuNcH]

Joe, since a person who possesses an illegal AW is breaking the law, too.

Explain an example of an illegal assault weapon?

[Dec31,1999]

Maybe you are right, really. I just don't see people who support marxist democrats, draconian non-smoking laws, abortion, homosexuality, poor schools, taxpayer-funded everything, etc, to be gun rights supporters. It just doesn't happen around here.

It just doesn't seem to go with the territory.

[SendShaqtoIraq]

"If he vetoes the AWB I will vote Bush. If he makes repeal of the income tax a major issue I will vote Bush.

Anything else and I will not. If that's the case and a pro-life candidate runs on the LP ticket I'll vote Libertarian.

If not that then constitution. If not that then I'll abstain from voteing for president"

Then you're an idiot. The only thing voting Libertarian or abstaining does is get us another f'ng democrat in the White House.