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

[diamond6]

I definitely think the AWB law should not define your vote. I honestly think whether it is in effect or not, it's not going to make a major difference. This one law is not a slippery slope. I don't agree that because there is a ban on assault weapons, that will lead to a ban on rifles. I think there have been some good arguments about whether assault weapons are really more dangerous, and that has relevance to me. However, I don't think the 2nd amendment gives an average citizen to own whatever he can get in his arsenal to equal the federal government, as many in this post have argued. Nor will that ever be possible in this technology age. I'm not suggesting that we take guns away.

[PuNcH]

What types of guns do you think should be banned. Semi-autos? Bolt-action rifles with an effective range of 800 meters? Handguns? shotguns?

Please explain what guns could be legal and how they would be regulated.

[diamond6]

You can question my intelligence all you want, but you're making an emotional argument. I'm not suggesting that we do away with the 2nd amendment, and it's obvious that there are interpretations both ways on this issue. There are rights that should have more priority than others. Do you believe that the 2nd amendment has more importance than the right to life?

[gtech]

It's ludicrous to expect any pity for those who whine because they can't buy armour-piercing ammo, or who pine for bazookas in case the dog-catchers make too many demands upon the hapless and helpless populace.

If these ideologue gun-nuts would expend a fraction of their energy they now do wailing over their fantasy victimhood and instead helped a child to learn to read or visited a shut-in or mowed the widow's lawn, it would be a much better world, indeed

Admit it, you're just afraid of guns.

Your irrational fear makes you incapable of understanding the important issues of personal freedom and basic rights to life and defense of self and country involved.

[diamond6]

I do. You get that from having faith in God. You are resorting to a lot of name calling, but it's not too becoming of you. Do you have a belief and faith in God?

[Motorcycle Cowboy]

He's only banning "assult" style guns, so I'm not too worried. I do agree tho, hes def. not a right-winger. And for that I say...

IMPEACH the son of a bush

[PuNcH]

It's ludicrous to expect any pity for those who whine because they can't buy armour-piercing ammo, or who pine for bazookas in case the dog-catchers make too many demands upon the hapless and helpless populace.

What is armour piercing ammo? Can you give an example? Do you know that neither armor piercing ammo nor bazookas is an example of an illegal "assault weapon"?

Can you give an example of an illegal assault weapon just so we all know that you know what you are talking about and not just expanding from the leftist propaganda term "assault weapon"? So far all your examples are false.

[chnsmok]

So I take it your right to bear arms is more important than the right to life?

When what happened in Australia happens here, our right to life (not to mention liberty and persuit of happiness) will be in serious jeopardy.

[PuNcH]

I don't agree that because there is a ban on assault weapons, that will lead to a ban on rifles.

An "assault weapon" that is a rifle....is a rifle.

[diamond6]

That is a good question. I would have to take it on a case by case basis. I'm not sure if I would ban any of what you just listed, except if the semi-automatic weapon could be converted to a fully automatic machine gun type weapon. I don't think anyone should get to own a howitzer or a bazooka. If they have been allowed in the past, I would not suggest going house to house and rounding them all up.

[Eaker]

Anyone unable to cope with this reality will just have to learn to lump it.

Or perhaps vote from the rooftops. Of course you won't get a vote, because sheep like you will have already been shorn and slaughtered.

YOU can cope with losing YOUR Constitutional rights, I don't care, but don't lump the rest of us into your group of traitors who would give up freedom for safety.

[Trailerpark Badass]

Admit it, you're just afraid of guns.

He's (she's?) more afraid of people. People that can't be trusted with guns, intoxicants, freedom. Every gun owner's a spree killer, every pot smoker's an addicted layabout.

Makes you wonder where he developed his low opinion of other people. Maybe he's in prison?

[Jed Eckert]

It's time to visit this link again:

http://www.awbansunset.com/

[Consort]

"As I Predicted, George....."

Great prediction, but don't get any stupid dumbass ideas about not voting for Bush or voting for a Democrat or a third party or not voting at all. And drop the "good conscience" and "principles" things while you're at it.

[diamond6]

Just because someone has a different view than you on one issue - the AWB law - doesn't make that person a traitor.

[dcwusmc]

The Second Amendment is about PROTECTING the right to life. It is the BEDROCK of our God-given (NOT Government-granted) rights. The Constitution merely forces Government to RECOGNIZE AND PROTECT that right, without which NO RIGHTS ARE POSSIBLE. So, in a word, the answer to your question is YES! IT IS THAT IMPORTANT!

[Eaker]

You don't know anything about me, but you are sure full of hate. I think you need God in your life.

Judgmental jerk aren't you? Does your God impart you with the knowledge of what others need? If you need time to go handle one of your snakes before you answer that it is okay, because I don't care about your answer anyway.

I know all that I need to know about you from this one statement.

[PuNcH]

except if the semi-automatic weapon could be converted to a fully automatic machine gun type weapon.

The BATF is already aware of semi's and the possibility of conversion to full. They do regulate them to make it more difficult but it is something that a determined person can do. Would you then support banning semi-autos?

[Dan from Michigan]

It was cooked up by a rabid anti gun Californian whose name escapes me.

Josh Sugarmann, VPC - I THINK

[diamond6]

Guns have nothing to do with protecting the right to life of an unborn child. Where do you stand on abortion? Isn't that more important than owning an assault rifle?