As I Predicted, George W. Bush Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban

Toogood Reports ^ | April 15, 2003 | By Chuck Baldwin

[philman_36]

"With fame, in just proportion, envy grows." Edward Young

[dirtboy]

What I've liked about Bush is that he seemed like a real guy. I don't appreciate this even if it's a political game of his.

I think Bush is counting on the House to allow this to die. It's a political calculation, but, quite frankly, presidential elections nowadays are won by swinging moderate votes, as neither liberals nor conservatives can win national elections by themselves. There are a lot of voters in the mushy middle who are scared of those mean-looking military-type weapons and can't envision why anyone would need them for deer hunting - in other words, they've bought the arguments of the gun grabbers. It stinks like dead meat, but that's politics nowadays.

I think we need to work our respective Congresscritters to help give them the political cover needed to oppose this so it never gets to Bush's desk. That's the best place to kill this - and RINOs are the weak link. Likewise, we need to swing conservative Democrats from rural districts such as in Pennsylvania where, outside of Philly, there is a strong pro-gun sentiment.

[dirtboy]

He doesn't need an assault weapon and I don't think anyone else does.

You can make that argument about EVERY right listed in the Bill of Rights. "Don't need the 4th Amendment, if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear." Or, "You don't need to worry about self-incrimination if you haven't broken the law." Should I go on?

The so-called assault weapons ban is nothing but gun control incrementalism - there is nothing special about the lethality of these weapons, but, since they look like military weapons, it is an effort by the gun-control crowd to frame the debate over gun rights into the ability to hunt, not the ability to defend yourself or against a tyrannical government.

[Cap'n Crunch]

Great post, #549, thanks for all the info!

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Kinda fun to see that complete whackjobs at work, isn't it?

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Well, there's all 771 people who really care about it, most of whom didn't vote for him anyway.

No loss.

[Fred Mertz]

I think we need to work our respective Congresscritters to help give them the political cover needed to oppose this so it never gets to Bush's desk.

That's sound advice, dirtboy.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Excellent response......

[Joe Hadenuf]

I have read the posts on this and cannot believe how far to the left this site has gone. Now there are posters discussing which guns to ban, and other posters who see nothing wrong in anything Bush does.

Their leftist konservatives, and party boys. The bottom line with many is as long as *their* little party gets elected, everything is OK, regardless of what they say or do.....

[Atlas Sneezed]

"I've read that he's giving lip service to this while knowing that Tom Delay will nuke it. That's the political calculation."

If we can rely on Delay to protect our rights, than it shouldn't matter if Hillary were in the White House, right?

[Atlas Sneezed]

"Before criticizing the Prez, let's first see if the renewal even gets to his desk."

So if he had said "I'd love to lynch some Negros!", you'd be OK with that, as long as he never actually did it?

[Joe Hadenuf]

I've read that he's giving lip service to this while knowing that Tom Delay will nuke it. That's the political calculation.

Could you provide a link or source to this?

[Brett66]

I'm trying to find it,but I forgot where I saw it. It was a pretty good analysis piece. Little did I know I was posting the first reply on 600 post thread. I hate when that happens. :)

[Fletcher J]

Sorry Cap2003, but that's a bad plan. You see, people like you have already let this country go down the slippery slope of gun confiscation.

You recommend that a 15 shot 9mm is all anyone needs for self defense. Sorry to bust your bubble, but magazines that hold over 10 rounds are outlawed by the very legislation we're discussing... Next time, you should specify a pre-1994 15 round mag, because technically your post advocates that others commit a felony by purchasing an unlawful firearm.

By the way, machine guns aren't necessary for hunting, but you are setting up a strawman to do battle with. Do you really think that the framers of the constitution wrote the second amendment because they were worried about protecting your right to hunt? Let me know what you think after you get a chance to read the constitution.

Have a nice day.

[Joe Hadenuf]

Thanks.

[Brett66]

Found it:

In surprise move, Bush backs renewal of assault weapons ban

[Shooter 2.5]

As if this wasn't discussed already.

So is everyone on this thread going to do something about it?

I doubt it. The ones who can't wait to say they won't vote for him, never voted for him in the first place.

The ones who claim the assault weapons ban doesn't effect them don't remember all of the bans that were supposed to take place but were stopped by the very people who are fighting this ban.

I think we're close to a thousand posts on this subject. We should be using that energy to write and call the White House and explain that this bill has to die before it reaches the President's desk.

[Brett66]

That wasn't right, there was commentary on the above refrenced article that was on this site. (it's a couple of articles down)

Transterrestrial Musings

[Atlas Sneezed]

"When the election rolls around, and they begin to fully comprehend the consequences of a Rat infesting the WH again, most of 'em will come to their senses."

Keep up that wishful thinking.

It got Clinton elected.

[Nucluside]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, AS A LAST RESORT (emphasis mine), to protect themselves against tyranny in government"-Thomas Jefferson

I also suggest you read the Federalist Papers and what Madison had to say about weapons and rights. I resent you calling our Founding Fathers nut cases.