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

[estrogen]

I agree with you Diamond6. My husband is a gun collector, member of the NRA and an avid hunter. He doesn't need an assault weapon and I don't think anyone else does. You can hardly say that an assualt weapon is a sportsmens gun. Well...flame away all

[Fred Mertz]

It's spelled assault.

And you should crawl back under your rock.

[Mulder]

why people should own assault weapons?

For starters, it's our Right as Americans and Free men and women. One could also ask: why should anyone own a copying machine? The principle is the same.

Aren't these clearly weapons of war?

In the initial Supreme Court ruling on guns (US vs Miller in 1933) the basis of the ruling was that the gov't could regulate certain guns only if they weren't weapons of war. At least the understood the 2nd amendment better than most today, but they will still wrong in their ruling that ANY guns could be so regulated.

Anyway, the whole point of the second amendment is to ensure that the American people DO posses "weapons of war".

Aren't they also used only against people? Isn't this overkill? (literally)

No. Millions of Americans use them to target shoot or teach others how to shoot. The only way I could ever envision them being used against people is to defend the Constitution against all her enemies.

The question you should be asking is: "what are the politicians planning to do to us that is so bad that they don't want us to have rifles around?"

[rintense]

What is RKBA?

[Unwavering Conservative]

Dubya is anti-gun, yet he is sneaky with it because he masquerades as a Conservative.

I think he is as liberal as Chuck Schumer.

[Jesse]

So you think the second amendment is really meant to protect duck hunting?????

[Mulder]

The answer is so that people can keep their government at bay

Exactly.... Jefferson stated as much in our founding document.

[oldvike]

Right to keep and bear arms.

[Fred Mertz]

Where I live, everyone owns what they need to protect themselves.

I need a few more hand grenades, but I'll trade and barter for them.

[D Rider]

Right now I have a coyote problem. I keep a rifle by my bedroom window, with a clip nearby. It's tough enough trying to get a shot of on those critters. But to have to deal with trigger locks also,what a pain that will be. I might have to switch to claymore's.

[Cultural Jihad]

So you think owning C4 plastic explosives is a right?

[diamond6]

How about a machine gun? Should we let anybody get these, too?

[Unwavering Conservative]

RKBA = Right To Keep and Bear Arms

aka 2nd Amendment

It is the right that makes all other rights possible.

[Ramius]

Don't paint a broad brushed stroke for all Republicans. Does somebody want to explain to me - objectively, without flaming me - why people should own assault weapons? Aren't these clearly weapons of war? Aren't they also used only against people? Isn't this overkill? (literally)

I can explain it. The AW ban is a stupid law that bans certain guns based on the way they *look* not what they do. A real "Assault Weapon" is a submachinegun that has been heavily regulatated for decades. The "Assault Weapons" that were banned under this act are merely semiauto rifles, not submachineguns.

Are they used only against people? Well... of course they are. That's why guns were invented. That being the case doesn't make it a *bad* reason. I myself have used a firearm to end a hostile situation and I didn't even need to fire a shot. That the gun was intended to end a life was not relavant to the situation. It was there, and without it the situation may well have ended in the loss of life.

The "Assault Weapons" that are subject to the ban are merely rifles. They are no different from most other rifles other than how they look. They look scary, therefore they scare journalists. Journalists then write scary stories about them and then stupid people vote accordingly. That's really all there is to it.

[poet]

Is any clear thinking person surprised that he is just another lying politician who has fooled the public into thinking he is an honorable guy.

[Constitution Day]

Wait and see bump. STILL steamed.

[LurkerNoMore!]

Do you think President Bush is as liberal as Chuck Schumer?

[Ramius]

So why don't we allow people to own hand grenades, bombs, or nuclear weapons? Is there any limit to what should be allowed?

Those things are "Ordinance". They are not "Arms". The writers of the bill of rights knew the difference then, too.

[Mulder]

My husband is a gun collector, member of the NRA and an avid hunter.

Oh, so he has an evil "sniper rifle"?

You do realize that most hunting rifles fire rounds MUCH more powerful and with significantly more range than a typical .223 "assault weapon" round.

He doesn't need an assault weapon

That's his problem, not mine.

and I don't think anyone else does

Since 1994, there have been around 1 million AR15's sold to Americans. That doesn't count other semiautos, nor those made before then. So how exactly do you propose to steal millions of rifles from Americans?

[Deb]

First of all, where's the link to the quote by the WH spokesman?

Second, the law doesn't come up for renewal for a year and a half.

Third, when Ashcroft was ambushed at a congressional hearing by DiFi and badgered about whether the law would be expanded, he gave everyone the impression it would not only not be expanded or revisited, but might be allowed to die.

Of course, it's never too soon for uncle bill and his buds to start their usual JBS Chicken-NWO-Little routine. Has he ever been right about anything?

BEWARE THE BUILD-A-BURGERS!!!!