"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
That isn't what you have done. In your ignorance, you have posted pictures of illegal, fully automatic weapons, and implied that they have something to do with the current gun ban (which only covers self-loading rifles, i.e., "semi-autos", with certain cosmetic features that make them look similar to the weapons used in the photos you posted, but which are mechanically different).
Of course, even this ignores the fact that the only people who died in the event from which you took those photos were the perpetrators themselves; they would have done far more damage with "ordinary" hunting rifles.
You post like a Democrat troll. On the assumption that you're just confused and not really a troll, you need to realize that it is you and people like you that are the problem. You need to be more tolerant of the rights enjoyed by your fellow citizens, because the facts are on their side. Even ignoring the fact that the private ownership of guns like these make both the nation collectively and the citizenry individually safer (a fact supported by all the non-biased research in the field), the fact remains that it is a fundamental Constitutional issue. You can no more be for this ban, a clear violation of the 2nd amendment, and be a good citizen than you can be for a book ban (or some other violation of the 1st amendment) and be a good citizen.
If the government can violate a fundamental Constitutional right, then they can violate any of them. What if they were trying to ban Cathlicism? They could make more than enough arguments with the illusion of validity (priest scandals, etc) to claim they are "doing it for the children". Would you ignore the Consitution in that matter as you are in this one? After all, no one is proposing a total ban on Christianity. You would still have other types of Christianity from which to choose. Those that are already Catholics could be "grandfathered"; the law would just ban the conversion of new Catholics. Would you claim that those Catholics trying to fight to preserve their faith are somehow "dividing the party" and that they should be willing to abandon their beliefs because it makes things easier for you unbelievers in the political arena?
Hastert- WE WILL HAVE A GUN CONTROL BILL
Working for the children
Having a semi-auto lets me get 3 or 4 of the pack before they are out of range, otherwise I could only hit one.
Every one I can kill is one more cat or dog that doesn't get killed
I regularly use more than 10 shots - after the first shot they are running and usually over 150 yards away, they are hard to hit
Can you please give an example of an illegal assault weapon?
Clearly, you don't know anywhere near as much about the Consitution, or our country's history, as you think you do. The militia is the body of citizenry at arms. Under the U.S. Constitution, it has NEVER been a state matter; the militia is an agent of the federal government (delegated to it by the people), the only power reserved to the states under the Constitution was the appointing of officers.
That would now fall to our National Guard
It would seem you are as clueless about current law as you are about Constitutional law. The federal code (title 10, section 311 of chapter 13) defines the militia; it is NOT the National Guard, although members of the national guard do make up part of its composition. Under the law:
The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States..., (plus it includes females who are members of the national guard).
Of course, this ignores the fact that the 2nd amendment does not secure the right to bear arms to the militia, it secures "the right of the people", the same phrase used in elsewhere in the Constitution (1st amendment, etc) when refering to the citizenry at large. The writings of the founders are extremely clear on the matter; the right to bear arms is an individual right. The collective right (as if such a thing actually existed) argument is an invention of the 20th century, just like the national guard itself.
Someone packing a pair of these WMD can do far more damage than even the most powerful weapons of 1776. There MUST BE LIMITS to what people can own. Your argument taken to it's logical conclusion would be against ANY INFRINGEMENT on the right to 'keep and bear arms'...and this is just ridiculous."
646 posted on 04/15/2003 12:32 PM PDT by Capitalism2003
War May Redefine Gun Control
"Other gun control advocates are pushing to have guns declared as "weapons of mass destruction (WMD)." For example, House Bill 1210 in Washington State defined a WMD as a "device, object, or substance that a person intends to use to cause multiple human deaths." No specific weapons were mentioned but the Seattle Times opened its March 15 coverage of the bill with the sentence, "An anti-terrorism bill has spurred debate among lawmakers: Is a gun a weapon of mass destruction?" Possession would have been a class A felony had the bill passed with above-referenced language. Many in the pro-gun rights camp view the WMD argument as an indication of attacks to come.
Latest Democrat Extremism: Guns Are Weapons of Mass Destruction
Most rifles since before 1900 could pierce a modern day bullet proof vest.
Can you please give an example of an illegal assault weapon?
I can't wait for this little gem to hit the streets.
Do you think we can get a permit for an XM29?
I realize I'm in the minority, but I agree with that statement. You won't be able to keep someone from owning a firearm anyway.
No, I also agree. Of course I'm against violent people obtaining tools which can be used to hurt people. I just happen to realize that laws won't keep them from getting them. The only thing the law will do is keep the law-abiding from obtaining similar tools. And if these tools are firearms, the laws themselves should be unconstitutional. The result is an ineffective unconstitutional law that effect only law abiding citizens.
Something else for everyone to think about: Do you really want to live in a society where only the government is allowed to have guns?
You know practically nothing about history. Your incompetent posts on the Constitutional issues relating to this subject on this thread essentially prove that.
When the Constitution was formed, they were worried about states having problems with the federal government. They formed state militias.
Your statement is so ignorant as to be laughable. Surely you can't be this stupid. Do you really not know that the various militias of the States existed long before this time? Before even the concept of a "united" states was proposed?
That is where the right to bear arms came from
The "right to bear arms" predates even the colonization of the Americas. It was derived from the common law rights of Englishmen, and was assumed to be the "natural" right of any free man. That you are so ignorant as to believe that it was invented by the states just shows how ignorant your views really are.
I also had a year course in Constitutional Law in law school from a conservative professor
You need to ask for your money back. And while you're at it, you need to look up the concept of "appeal to authority". It is a common fallacy in argument that any properly educated person would know to avoid.
A word processor can spew forth many more words per minute than the old quill pen from the 1770s. Therefore, the founders surely didn't mean to allow you use a word processor when they wrote the 1st amendment, right?
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.