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

[Jesse]

"He doesn't need an assault weapon and I don't think anyone else does."


Do we really have to go through what the difference is between a right and a privilege, and a need versus a right?

A right is inherent, God-given, and not dependent upon what another person thinks it is or should be.

A privilege is.

A need is essential for the survival or well being of a person, but is not necessarily a right. For example, you have a need to eat. You do not have a right to force me to feed you.

Why is it you believe that what you think should be, should be for me?

[LurkerNoMore!]

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

yes or no, please

[diamond6]

I'll admit, I may not be as knowledgeable about which guns apply to this law, as you. However, would you be in favor of allowing the public to purchase machine guns?

[Ramius]

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.

Yeah, right. Then please go vote for Chuck. He could use the votes, I'm sure.

[MatthewViti]

well said!

[Lancey Howard]

The Second Amendment's biggest threat is the Nineteenth Amendment.

[sinkspur]

I'm fairly certain that Bush is a one termer.

Yeah. All you disgruntled unappeaseables will vote for big fat Howard Phillips. LOL!!!

Hi Uncle Bill! You're a breath of fresh air.

You must like regurgitated garbage.

[noutopia]

A vote for a libertarian is a vote for the Democrats to win.

[savedbygrace]

There aren't many two-termers, Fred. Most only won a single election. A few years ago, I counted them, but I've forgotten the total. I'm too lazy to add it up again.

[P_A_I]

Why should people own assault weapons?
Because they get assaulted without weapons?

Aren't these clearly weapons of war?
Clearly, aren't all weapons used in war?


Aren't they also used only against people? Isn't this overkill? (literally)
People literally kill people. Overkill is a good way to avoid bring slaughtered.

[Keith]

No, principle means you agree with most of their policies...this "I'm not going to vote for Bush" crap is music to Hitlary's ears. Gimme a break. The Dems will give you a better choice?

This isn't about the PERFECT candidate, it's about the BEST candidate with the best chance to win. If you want to vote for one of those throw away your vote candidates, go ahead, Nader's people made Bush Florida victory possible.

Go ahead..............make their day.

[oldvike]

LMAO!

[Mulder]

How about a machine gun?

First of all, machine guns aren't illegal so long as you jump through all the hoops.

Secondly, you, like most sheeple, have no freaking idea how many "machine guns" the American people possess. It's likely well over 1 million. And when is the last time one of these have been used for a crime?

Should we let anybody get these, too?

By your question, you automatically assume that you have power over other Free men and women, which you don't.

In America, INDIVIDUALS have Rights and possess all the power. We loan a little bit of that power to the gov't to secure our Rights, as Jefferson so eloquently stated in the Declaratation of Indepdendence.

Gun ownership (of ANY firearm) isn't something the gov't "lets" us do. It's our Right as Free men and women.

[Cultural Jihad]

[Bush] is just another lying politician who has fooled the public into thinking he is an honorable guy.

LOL! And that's why you are a great poet and he is just a President.

[The FRugitive]

Ramius it was leaked some months back that the Bush treasury department was researching dropping the income tax and replaceing it with a consumption tax.

[Capitalism2003]

I'm a heretic...I agree with the ban. I know...I know...it is an infringement on the 2nd ammendment...and I know criminals will end up getting these guns anyway, but if a ban will keep these cop killing weapons out of the hands of just a few bad guys, I think it is worth it. A 15 shot 9mm or a shotgun is all you need to defend your home and your property...and I don't think machine guns are necessary for hunting. Keeping them legal is no huge benefit to the law abiding public...offers no extra protection to home owners, and makes it easier for criminals/terrorists to kill LOTS of people in few seconds. Things like this seem like common sense to me...There should be SOME limits, just as there are with free speech.

flame away

[LurkerNoMore!]

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?

NO.
And I've been a 4 year follower of Uncle Bill and his research.

[DBrow]

Diamond, please define what you mean by "assault weapon", and compare that with the Federal definition. What exactly in legal terms is an "assault weapon"?

Schumer declared that "assault weapons" were so powerful that states did not allow their use in hunting, because they were so devastating that they would not leave any edible meat. The truth is, some states do not allow them for hunting because they simply are not powerful enough to drop a deer or elk with one or two shots. A Colt AR-15 (assault weapon if it has a flash hider and bayonette lug) has nowhere near the power of a 30-06 Garand (not an assault weapon).

If you are going to take the approach of, why on earth does anyone need one, think of the rubric you'd use to justify owning anything at all, from a gun to a car to a knife or laptop.

I used an "assault weapon" 112 times this week in sanctioned competition. Someone else did varmint control on her ranch. Someone else blasted 25 clay pigeons. Someone else has a collection of rifles. Some National Guard folks own their own rifles. Some keep a semiauto for home defense. Choice.

Can you post links to five crimes committed with "assault weapons" according to the federal definition? If you can please do so.