As I Predicted, George W. Bush Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban

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.

"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."

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.

[Copperud:] "The words 'A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the
security of a free state,' contrary to the interpretation cited in your
letter of July 26, 1991, constitutes a present participle, rather than a
clause. It is used as an adjective, modifying 'militia,' which is
followed by the main clause of the sentence (subject 'the right', verb
'shall'). The to keep and bear arms is asserted as an essential for
maintaining a militia.

"In reply to your numbered questions:

[Schulman:] "(1) Can the sentence be interpreted to grant the right to
keep and bear arms solely to 'a well-regulated militia'?"

[Copperud:] "(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and
bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere
or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with
respect to a right of the people."

[Schulman:] "(2) Is 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'
granted by the words of the Second Amendment, or does the Second
Amendment assume a preexisting right of the people to keep and bear
arms, and merely state that such right 'shall not be infringed'?"

[Copperud:] "(2) The right is not granted by the amendment; its
existence is assumed. The thrust of the sentence is that the right shall
be preserved inviolate for the sake of ensuring a militia."

[Schulman:] "(3) Is the right of the people to keep and bear arms
conditioned upon whether or not a well regulated militia, is, in fact
necessary to the security of a free State, and if that condition is not
existing, is the statement 'the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed' null and void?"

[Copperud:] "(3) No such condition is expressed or implied. The right to
keep and bear arms is not said by the amendment to depend on the
existence of a militia. No condition is stated or implied as to the
relation of the right to keep and bear arms and to the necessity of a
well-regulated militia as a requisite to the security of a free state.
The right to keep and bear arms is deemed unconditional by the entire
sentence."

[Schulman:] "(4) Does the clause 'A well-regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State,' grant a right to the
government to place conditions on the 'right of the people to keep and
bear arms,' or is such right deemed unconditional by the meaning of the
entire sentence?"

[Copperud:] "(4) The right is assumed to exist and to be unconditional,
as previously stated. It is invoked here specifically for the sake of
the militia."

[Schulman:] "(5) Which of the following does the phrase 'well-regulated
militia' mean: 'well-equipped', 'well-organized,' 'well-drilled,'
'well-educated,' or 'subject to regulations of a superior authority'?"

[Copperud:] "(5) The phrase means 'subject to regulations of a superior
authority;' this accords with the desire of the writers for civilian
control over the military."

[Schulman:] "(6) (If at all possible, I would ask you to take account
the changed meanings of words, or usage, since that sentence was written
200 years ago, but not take into account historical interpretations of
the intents of the authors, unless those issues can be clearly
separated."

[Copperud:] "To the best of my knowledge, there has been no change in
the meaning of words or in usage that would affect the meaning of the
amendment. If it were written today, it might be put: "Since a
well-regulated militia is necessary tot he security of a free state, the
right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged.'

[Schulman:] "As a 'scientific control' on this analysis, I would also
appreciate it if you could compare your analysis of the text of the
Second Amendment to the following sentence,

"A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security of a free
State, the right of the people to keep and read Books, shall not be
infringed.'

"My questions for the usage analysis of this sentence would be,

"(1) Is the grammatical structure and usage of this sentence and the way
the words modify each other, identical to the Second Amendment's
sentence?; and

"(2) Could this sentence be interpreted to restrict 'the right of the
people to keep and read Books' _only_ to 'a well-educated electorate' --
for example, registered voters with a high-school diploma?"

[Copperud:] "(1) Your 'scientific control' sentence precisely parallels
the amendment in grammatical structure.

"(2) There is nothing in your sentence that either indicates or implies
the possibility of a restricted interpretation."

Professor Copperud had only one additional comment, which he placed in
his cover letter: "With well-known human curiosity, I made some
speculative efforts to decide how the material might be used, but was
unable to reach any conclusion."

So now we have been told by one of the top experts on American usage
what many knew all along: the Constitution of the United States
unconditionally protects the people's right to keep and bear arms,
forbidding all governments formed under the Constitution from abridging
that right.

I'm no gun expert.

Few of us are. This is more about rights than about guns.

What do they classify as 'assault weapons'

THERE'S the first problem. At the moment, what they classify as an "assault weapon" ranges widely, from a totally legal rifle with a tiny bolt on the end to hold a bayonet (like the military does), to (get this) two tiny metal L-shaped pieces (called "sears") that can be added to a rifle (by a gunsmith or someone with more knowledge than I) to make it fully automatic (YES, you read that right, the two pieces of metal, weighing less than a few ounces, qualifies as an assault rifle), from fully legal rifles with flash suppressors added (those make the flame leaping out of the end of the gun spread out and less intense), to accessories that make the gun look like an automatic rifle (this is basically how it is described in CA law).

The elephant sitting in the living room on this issue is that these gun-hating morons also leave the door open to revise what qualifies as an "assault rifle" at their discretion (read: whim) at any time. You may invest $2000 in a beautiful new piece, and tomorrow, you must turn it in because owning it makes you a felon (complete with the loss of your right to vote). Ready to play THAT fun little game? And exactly where does this do justice for anyone, protect anyone, or make anyone freer?

and what would the average guy need these for?

DO NOT FALL FOR THEIR STUPID QUESTIONS!!!! Nobody EVER asks what we need our other rights for. Don't dare EVER let someone ask you this questioin about the 2nd Amendment.

Here's the answer, though, in case you find a sincere person such as yourself asking: The Founders knew how important it was that the citizenry be able to, at ANY time, defeat ANY army that threatened them, either foreign or domestic (actually, we wrote and rewrote rules against standing armies back then, but we eventually decided that having a military was too important). The ONLY way to guarantee that a bunch of untrained farmers could beat a world-class army (like they did to the Redcoats) is for those farmers to have the same basic weapon that the footsoldier of the world-class army. Today, that is the "assault rifle" (AR-15, M-16, MP5, etc). With both sides evenly matched in basic firepower, our lack of experience and training is compensated by our huge numerical advantage (45 million hunters againt China's 3 million soldiers? Fuhgeddaboudit!), and the fact that our troops will never be massed in one location (think guerilla tactics and VietNam... world-class armies CAN be fought by untrained farmers!).

If we don't have similar weaponry, and are limited to 5-shot capacity .22 caliber handguns in confronting brigades of armored soldiers with 300 round assault rifles, we don't stand much of a chance, numerical advantage be darned.

Hope that helps!

There MUST BE LIMITS to what people can own.

Plainly, you are a freedom-hating [citizen]. I pity you. How anyone can be said to be free, when they can be told what they may or may not possess, when other citizens are allowed to have those very same items? (Check out the state, local, and federal officers' gunrack rooms sometime... and what they take home.)

When the founders wrote the document, it took a full minute to load your one shot musket every shot...A few of today's weapons can pierce bullet proof vests and spray a crowd full of people with 50+ shots in a few seconds. Someone packing a pair of these WMD can do far more damage than even the most powerful weapons of 1776.

First, the armies and navies of 1776 had cannon, which are far more powerful than any rifle (try taking down the stone walls of a fortress with an AR-15 sometime).

Second, read my post #690 in case you are interested in the real reason, discussed in the Federalist papers, that the cyclic rate of fire is irrelevant to the discussion. All that matters is what the common foot-soldier carries.

They (and these folks are US citizens, you know... how about that Equal Protection Clause?) carry around H&K MP-5's, M-16's, and suppressors? Then WE should have H&K MP-5's, M-16's, and suppressors. Period.

Quick pre-rebuttal: The basic footsoldier may or may not carry grenades, but they are not applicable, here. A grenade is a non-selective weapon, and not an "arm". It is probably more accurately categorized as a bomb, and therefore not part of the debate... just thought I'd head you off at the pass, there. ;^)

Can someone tell me what the Second Amendment means? Please explain it word for word, letter for letter, accounting for all words, phrases, there order, and all puncuation?

Others have done a more formal job, but I'll try to provide one of minimum verbosity:

"A well-regulated militia,"

A militia is the body of people at arms. Well-regulated means "properly functioning", as in a well-regulated clock being one that keeps proper time. Thus, a "well-regulated militia" is one that is properly trained at the use of arms (marksmanship, etc.)

"Being necessary for the security of a free state,"

Dependent adjective clause, describing the previously mentioned "well-regulated militia". The author is asserting that it is necessary to have a "well-regulated militia" if a "free" state is to be secure. Obviously, a militia isn't necessary for the security of any state (since a standing army could just as easily protect a dictatorship), only a "free" one. Also note that we are dealing with "a state", i.e., a nation, not "The States" (the formal form used in the Constitution when referring to the member States. Proof of this is self-evident, since it is a "right", something owned by individuals, and not a "power", something granted to government, that is being discussed).

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms"

The description of what a "right" is would take volumes; so we'll describe it as the "natural, God-given ability" even though that description is inadequate. "The People" are those establishing this covenant between themselves and the government, who are delegating certain powers to government. "Keep" means to own. "Bear" means to carry. "Arms" are weapons useful for defensive purposes. Thus, this section thus means "Our natural, God-given ability to own and carry weapons."

"shall not be infringed"

"Infringe" originally meant "to enter by gradual steps or stealth into the posesstions or rights of another", i.e., "encroach" in a way that violates rights or the property of another.

Thus, in simpler terms, the 2nd amendment means that a populace trained at arms is necessary for freedom to be secure; therefore the natural, God-given ability to own and carry weapons shall not be encroached upon.

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.