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

[Atlas Sneezed]

"come on folks...everyone knows that 'semi' automatic weapons can easily be converted into fully automatic weapons..."

Aside from the technological falsity of your statement, why wasn't there a rash of machine gun violence in the pre-1934 (and pre-1986) days when machine guns were unregulated (and available at market prices)?

They were available by MAIL ORDER for goodness sake!

[rwfromkansas]

Ah. Nevermind then.

[KingKongCobra]

It's an election year bill. It's going to happen so that ir can be removed as a campaign issue. The best we can hope for is a 1 year extention which moves the issue into a non-election timeframe where it can be quietly killed.

Make no mistake, this is a popular bill with the general population and it needs to be dealt with pragmatically. To kill it outright during an election year would be a dangerous political move.

[Fletcher J]

An "assault weapon" IS a measly rifle. You're letting the media control your logic by using faulty terminology. What the Democrats and the media call "assault weapons" work no differently than the .22 rifle you may have used as a kid.

Real machine guns have been strictly regulated since the 1930s. This legislation outlaws *semi-automatic* rifles based on appearance. I can legally purchase a semi-auto AR-15 right now, but if it had a bayonet lug or flash suppressor, that looks "militaristic" and would be a felony. In other cases, rifles with evil-looking black stocks are illegal and identical models with wood are OK.

Want to add a pistol grip, flash suppressor or folding stock to a straight stock repeating rifle made after 1994? Do so under the current law, and you've committed a felony. This makes no sense.

[wireman]

Anybody who wants an "assault" weapon and does not have a criminal record should be allowed to own whatever he pleases.

It's not your business. It's not the government's business.

Now, if that person uses ANY weapon to commit a crime, he should be imprisoned and kept in jail until he no longer poses a threat to society.

Criminals, by definition do not obey the law. What is the sense of having a law that constrains only the folks who weren't going to break it in the first place?

[fifteendogs]

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.

Let's see, if I vote for a demoncrat, we'll see bigger government, higher government spending, bigger deficits, attacks on our first amendment rights, attacks on our second amendment rights, attacks on our fourth and fifth amendment rights, and no conservative judges. You're right, if I want these things all I have to do is vote republican.

[Nucluside]

Even though there are millions of "assault" weapons in the country statistically they don't show up on crime reports. Many not so smart police are against all gun ownership because of an unrealistic perceptions of threat to themselves.
Fact is, on the three occasions I called police -from 8 blocks away- it took them 45 minutes to get there.
Police are primarily guys who show up with a note book and ask "What happened?" I saved my own life with a gun two times and caught a prowler one time.

BTW, ALL weapons are military weapons!

[TLBSHOW]

Don't worry about it.

600 posts later and don't worry about it?

You are just lucky yesterday we had the first nice day and I was outside for most of it or I would have had more to say then. Our job is to stop this is before he would have a chance to sign it.

We know he signed CFR and then joked about it. We know the Patriot act was done under him and we know that Clinton has been given free reign to do more treason against America. So I would not put it pass him to sign this too and say he didn't want to sign it.


Our job is to keep his feet to the fire as best we can.

What will be interesting is if he does anything about the communist threat of Russia and North Korea and Cuba. That will be one of my bottom lines with him. Because to do nothing but talk when we could liberate at least Cuba in less than 2 weeks and North Korea in less than a month. We should and must do it. If all he does is appease the commies that would be BS.......

As for gun control here in America it must be stopped by W and reversed or he will be showed to be a socialist gun taker like Blair.

I sure don't like what Laura has had to say on the gun matter. Has he done any recess appointments yet for Estrada or anyone it is day 2 on this matter right now.

[Nucluside]

After having gone through the whole thread, I agree that the Second Amendment is threatened only by the 19th Amendment. Conversely, rintense appears to be the only one out there with any developed political acumen. She's right, the Pres. will mouth a few patronizing platitudes and this idiocy will die.
I might remind y'all that President Reagan said if we agree 75% of the time, it's great. Now, the 2nd Amendment is the most important right we have, because it guarantees the others, but if we become one issue people we end up with some a-----e as Pres. who has MANY issues against us...like a Clinton?
Given the magnitude of the issue, did you notice what Wayne La Pierre had to say about it? As mild as his statement was, I can't help but feel that a deal has been worked out.

Let's watch this one very carefully and unload our full political fury when it will count!
Respectfully, AK Nucluside

[B Knotts]

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

Hey...I did vote for him. I also volunteered my time to work campaign events. So, don't give me that crap.

I'm certainly willing to give him a chance. If he can prevent this from reaching his desk, while claiming to be in favor of it...fine. He can do that, and I'll still support him.

But if that approach fails, and it reaches his desk, and he signs it into law, well...I'm afraid I will have to rethink my support.

[Redcloak]

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

Counting on House and Senate Republicans to show some backbone and do the right thing is like counting on the Iraqi Republican Guard to fight to the death. If it happens, it will have been by accident!

[af_vet_rr]

What will be interesting is if he does anything about the communist threat of Russia and North Korea and Cuba. That will be one of my bottom lines with him. Because to do nothing but talk when we could liberate at least Cuba in less than 2 weeks and North Korea in less than a month. We should and must do it. If all he does is appease the commies that would be BS.......

I agree with a lot of what you say about President Bush, he has done many things that have left me...uneasy.

But I disagree here for several reasons. First, we should not get in the habit of being nation builders. Clinton tried and failed miserably, and it's not our job to be propping up and rebuilding other nations when our nation could use a lot of work.

Second, Fidel will be dead soon, I'm sure the Cubans will handle things.

North Korea will not take a month. Not you specifically, but many people are under the impression that air power can fix anything. Air power can't do a lot if 100s of thousands of North Koreans are running around Seoul and in and around the South Korea population(look at a map and you'll see how close South Korea's capital is to the border). The North Korean military is much much better than Iraq's (they didn't get most of their good stuff destroyed a decade ago) and North Koreans, I believe, would stand and fight.

We don't need to be nation builders, we can exert a lot of pressure on countries without military force. We can starve North Korea if we choose to, we feed many of them.

[MEGoody]

I'm no gun expert. What do they classify as 'assault weapons' and what would the average guy need these for?

[TLBSHOW]

We can starve North Korea if we choose to, we feed many of them.


That is part of the problem, we feed and help commies since the 1930's and what has it done for us? Nothing at all.

[Taxman]

How did Speaker Hastert vote on the original legislation?

If Speaker Hastert is on our side, he and Rep. Delay can keep the legislation bottled up indefinitely, unless a discharge petition is signed by 219 Representatives.

We have a lot of work to do!

[MEGoody]

"Anybody who wants an "assault" weapon and does not have a criminal record should be allowed to own whatever he pleases."

I tend to agree with you. I have a friend whose husband would own anti-aircraft weapons if he could, just because he is in love with firepower. (I think it gives him a testosterone rush. LOL) Anyway, he's the sweetest guy in the world (well, except for my husband), and has only occasionally used a pistol for target practice. He used to do some hunting but has stopped that as he has gotten older.

[Osage Orange]

You wrote:

"The only thing that could possibly cause me to sway on that is repealing of the income tax. "

MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

So...help me out here. Are you saying you will throw away the gun issue.....for repealing of the income tax?

Ummmmmm...this brings to my mind many thoughts. But I'll wait for your answer.

FRegards,

[Sender]

We should do everything possible to keep them off the streets

I agree 100 percent. My AR-15 cost me an arm and a leg because of the stupid AW ban, and it used to get all scratched up and dirty when I kept it in the street. Now I keep it inside with all my other guns. That's very sage advice IMHO.

[Leatherneck_MT]

Gun Control under Dems, Gun Control under Republicans.

I don't think there is much of a difference when it comes to that.

I don't have a clue? I didn't live under that ass they had as a leader.

I've served my time, I was in Gulf War one and I fully support this effort. But I will not compromise my principles and hold my nose to vote for a jackass that is going to further erode my constitutional rights.

You can baa baa along if you want, but I refuse to.

Semper Fi

[Ford Fairlane]

Personally, I think it is about time we send a message

maybe something like this

Dear Mr. Bush, Mr Frist, Mr Delay:

Just to let you know our feelings on the matter of the second amendment:

If any incumbent Republican either

a)supports anti gun legislation, or

b)fails to support pro gun legislation,

we will vote for their opponent in the next election,

no matter who that opponent is.

No compromise.

Have a nice day