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

[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.