"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
Yes, but it is you that is being the extremist. You want to reinterpret clear language in a bill of "rights" to suggest that a right guaranteed to the people is somehow a government power instead.
A WELL REGULATED MILITIA
Yes, a well-regulated militia. It's necessary to have one to guarantee the security of a free state. That's why the government isn't supposed to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms. Not only does it seem that you failed to understand Constitutional law, you don't even seem to have a 6th grader's grasp of how to diagram a sentence. Either that, or you clearly have no understanding of what a "right" is, let alone a "militia" (the body of people at arms).
When the founders wrote the document, it took a full minute to load your one shot musket every shot...
And it would seem you are as incompetent about military history as you are civil history.
A few of today's weapons can pierce bullet proof vests
More incompetence from you. Just about any centerfire rifle cartridge can "pierce bullet proof vests". Under your logic, ever single rifle would be banned. But that's what you really want in the long-term, isn't it?
Someone packing a pair of these WMD can do far more damage than even the most powerful weapons of 1776.
WMD? Really? Are you that much of idiot that you can't tell the difference between small arms and nuclear weapons?
There MUST BE LIMITS to what people can own.
Spoken like a true socialist.
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.
It is ridiculous to you only because of your brain-addled world view. The powers of government are those delegated to it and derived from it by the citizens. The 2nd amendment is very clear that the right to keep and bear arms was a right that the people reserved to themselves, and that government could not infringe upon it. Legally, the only way to change that contract is by another constitutional amendment. Your insistence that the government can act otherwise shows that you are nothing more than a petty advocate of tyranny.
I'm just old fashioned and attracted to violins.
Click Me:
Can I Legally Own A Machine Gun (or a Suppressor)?
FAQ ON NATIONAL FIREARMS ACT WEAPONS
Everybody, now everybody, just calm down
They are extremely reliable and efficient during times of civil unrest. If a hurricane hit, or a tornado, or a California lingering rolling black-out, or some other man-made or natural disaster, you'd probably appreciat a neighbor with one of these guns. Or better yet, having one all to yourself in defense of your home and family.
That aside, it's an invalid question. In America, we don't have to show a need to own the things we want to own. Who needs a cars that travels faster than the speed limit, or an internet connection that is faster than 5 second web page rendering? Don't answer that, in America you don't have to rationalize it to me or anyone.
I'll ignore all the fundamental reasons (discussed on this and other threads) and give you a practical one that won't require you to understand constitutional law or political theories on freedom. Do you remember the riots in Los Angeles back in the early 1990s? Do you remember the Korean shop-keepers, who were able to protect their property and their lives (and the lives of their families and neighbors) against the looters with semi-auto rifles?
Those rifles are the ones being classified as "assault weapons" under this law. The law isn't banning machine guns (those were regulated in the early 1930s, and the only legal one ever used in a crime was owned by a police officer who would be immune to the restrictive regulations in any case, since such laws nearly alway exempt government agencies).
In addition, this law bans magazine capacities above 10 rounds. The result is that the Korean shop-keeper in the same situation wouldn't have the luxury of being able to fire "warning shots" like they did in that situation; they would have no choice but to shoot to kill or be murdered by the mob attacking them (and if the mob wasn't deterred, possibly both).
I realize that you probably don't have the time or the desire to do the research (but if you do, you can verify this information easily), but you should realize that according to the statistics these guns simply aren't used in crimes more than a tiny fraction of a percent (.26 of 1% according to the last FBI numbers I saw). In addition, they have the illusion of being dangerous to those that don't know any better, but the fact is that the intermediate cartridge they shoot is far less powerful (and less deadly) than the typical hunting rifle round.
In other words, just about all the arguments against them are based on lies; and lies are a bad foundation for public policy, even ignoring the Constitutional issues.
This is shameful.. We actually have FReepers arguing against the Constitution and the 2A on this.
It's no longer: "Well, you should vote for Dubya anyway because that's the only way for our side to move the ball." Which is debatable, but still an honorable and thoughtful position. The end result being the same, furthering our constitution and our Freedom. The only thing in dispute is the logistics of getting from our present point A to a future point B.
In this argument the fact that we are both sides desire the same end result is never in doubt. It's just a matter of getting there.
However, it's now become: "We support unconstitutional federal gun laws, because we agree with them."
That's sad. I can remember a time when someone with thought's like that would be ashamed to show their face on FR and ran a high risk of being zapped as a disrupter right out of the box.
Now we aren't just differing on the way to acheive our common goal. Now we have two very distinct sides with a very different agenda.
I happen to think that when you are issued your weapon in basic training, that weapon should be yours for life.
I also happen to think that there are certain weapons that do not reflect the original meaning of the second amendment and as such should be banned by the federal government.
I don't recall this.. It may have been painted as a "white lie" at the time also. I dunno, but I suspect allot of people weren't aware of it, judging from the responses I see here.
Besides, I don't do personalities. I am interested in issues. People lose their objectivity when they set out to "defend" their favorite religion, politician or country. They decide where they want to be first, then the entire debate is focused on getting there.
Maybe, but that's a different debate. In the AWB what you're seeing play out is a ban on cosmetic features and other superficial criteria. It's a boondoggle that's not actually keeping anyone safe, but it is being used to successfully divide and conquer gun owners.
People hunt deer with "sniper rifles" and ducks with "riot" or "scatter" guns.. We both know that.
I don't even have a gun here right now and I haven't fired one in years. I never owned an "assault" weapon and don't ever plan on buying one.
But I know that if they are successful in this, then pretty soon it's going to be the "sniper" rifles and the "riot" guns they are after.
They are not going to be appeased. In my opinion offering up "assault" weapons as a sacrifice to please these demons will only whet their appitite and the people I see here willfully casting off the constitution will be only too happy to oblige them on all counts.
I don't think allot of people know what they're talking about to be honest.
Tell them you don't think they should be allowed to have "sniper" rifles and "scatter" guns either, watch them sign on like good little sheep.
Thorough and thoughtful responses welcome.
Like others have asked: "What is an Assault Weapon"?
Answer: ANYTHING the Government says it is. They could make a sling shot into an "assault weapon".
To illustrate how arbitrary the definition of assault weapons are the original Berreta 9mm handgun had a magazine capacity of 16 bullets. This gun was deemed to be an Assault Weapon under the legislation because of that. Oh, you can still buy that gun today or a Glock BUT the magazines now hold only 10 rounds. So, that extra 6-bullet magazine makes the VERY SAME PISTOL an Assault Weapon.
I have to wonder when the Feds will make any gun with more than a one round capacity ILLEGAL. This is all about SLOWLY eroding gun rights away over time.
Doesnt that mean you should know what an "assault weapon" actually is????
What's cosmetic about functionality. If those attributes seren't functional, they wouldn't have been added to begin with.
I am a Christian (social) Conservative myself. Every Conservative I ever met and respected though had a latent libertarian streak though.
It might take some looking to find it, but the good ones all combined that "leave me alone" Libertarian attitude in their ideology somewhere.
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.