"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
"It will send an unmistakable message: If you use a gun illegally, you will do hard time."
George W. Bush - Source
Welcome to Future Felons of America
Living the outlaw life: Freeing your inner outlaw
""The U.S. Code, which contains all federal statutes, occupies 56,009 single-spaced pages. Its 47 volumes take up nine feet of shelf space. An annotated version, which attempts to bring order out of chaos, is three feet long and has 230 hardcover volumes and 36 paperback supplements. Administrative lawmaking under statutes fill up the 207-volume Code of Federal Regulations, which spans 21 feet of shelf space and contains more than 134,488 pages of regulatory law. … Federal law is further augmented by more than 2,756 volumes of judicial precedent, taking up 160 yards of law library shelving."
And you’re certain you’re not breaking one of those laws?"
If you let them out of prison there is really no way to stop a thug from getting a firearm. He can steal one. He can buy it on the black market. He can have a friend go purchase one for him.
The only way to stop a thug from killing others with a gun is to keep him in prison the rest of his life or take his life.
Someone who has demonstrated they are a violent psycho who has no regard or respect for life should not be walking our streets.
Not a flame....just a question. Where did you get the idea that the 2nd Amendment was created for "sportsmen"?
"I have a magazine extension that adds a one round extra capacity to a glock magazine. If I put this on my ten round magazine that makes the capacity eleven rounds, I have just committed a felony. It is a felony to modify a firearm magazine to hold merely one more round than a ten round magazine! What exactly makes the 11th round so evil that I could go to prison for it?! Answer: FEDERAL REGULATIONS of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994."
You can bet I will be writing Senators and George Bush about this one. I will not vote for George Bush or anyone who votes to renew this totalitarian ban on firearms.
89 posted on 01/24/2003 3:40 PM PST by 2nd_Amendment_Defender
The Second Amendment reads: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
This Amendment is often misunderstood. A well-regulated militia means a well-maintained and armed body of men composed of the common people. The Amendment emphasizes that such militias are necessary to secure the freedoms of the people.
George Washington said on this subject, "A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." Thomas Jefferson also stated, “"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."
The Second Amendment is not about sport or hunting, it's about keeping a check against government power. Military type weapons are best to arm peace keeping unorganized militia in the U.S.A. to protect our liberties.
Current Results
| Viewer Poll |
||||||||||||
| Should Congress extend the so-called assault weapons ban? See Story
|
I hope you are right.
The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban doesn't address automatic firearms. Those were banned from importation in 1986. Let me address the real problem here. If you let a whacko out of prison there is really no way to stop a thug from getting a firearm. He can steal one. He can buy it on the black market. He can have a friend go purchase one for him.
The only way to stop a thug from killing others with a gun is to keep him in prison the rest of his life or take his life.
Someone who has demonstrated they are a violent psycho who has no regard or respect for life should not be walking our streets.
Control the criminal, not the guns.
Also, read Post 567. It talks about the Second Amendment and how it protects our liberties.
If Congress votes to re-authorize the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein federal so-called "Assault Weapons" ban, gives the bill to President Bush and he signs it into law, would you still vote for him in his bid for re-election to the Presidency in 2004?
Hell No, and I'll tell all of my friends to abandon him, too! 81.3% 960 votes
No. 12.8% 151 votes
Yes. 3.6% 43 votes
Yes, I would still vote for him, even after he proves that he's a traitor. 2.3% 27 votes
Total Votes: 1181
Funny, felons cannot be compelled to register their firearms, inasmuch as it violates their 5th Amendment protection against self-recrimination.
Fortunately we have a Constitution to prevent the rest of us from being ruled by what various people with hangups about this or that "think" we need or don't need. Unfortunately, said Constitution is routinely flushed down the toilet by politicians right and left and center, and by a Judiciary more interested in implementing social policy than adhering to the Constitution.
Let's see: ignorant of basic legal and historical facts, political views based purely on emotion...yep, sounds like a liberal.
Not yet. I thought the plan for CFR was to let the courts kill it.
Sad, isn't it?
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.
