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

[Eaker]

We'll keep that in mind the next time we find ourselves ruled by a king.

Funny that you choose to use the royal "we" in this statement. You seem like the type that would make a really good subject.

[Dan from Michigan]

And in this country, with citizens owning millions of guns, we kill 2 million babies a year. So what relevance does owning or not owning guns have to do with this issue?

Maybe because the same lobbies that push for your freedom grabs(It's not gun control, it's freedom control) are the same lobbies that push for abortion on demand.

Sources - Tides Foundation, George Soros, Joyce Foundation, McArthur Fund, Packard Foundation.

[diamond6]

Do you think we should have the right to kill a baby? And what does the right to life of the unborn have to do with guns, since we have the right to bear arms, and our country kills 2 million babies a year?

[Eaker]

Great answer!!!!

[PuNcH]

Would you both agree that England's gun restrictions is about what where gun laws should be?

[diamond6]

No.

[spunkets]

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

The right to bear arms is an extention to the right to life. Arms are an effective means to protect life, rights and the freedom of will men have been gifted with. Without the unencumbered right to arms men are at the mercy of those that do the encumbering and force their will upon others.

Your use of the right to life here is limited. I take it you are refering to the unborn. It so happens that the use of arms to defend life has, as it's justification, the matter of responsible action. There is no justification I know of to take up arms to end the killing of the unborn. The responsibility of the slaughter of millions is not directly related to anything I have done, or chosen to do. It could progress to forced, direct involvement. In which case I will actively seek to destroy those that make the attempt. Untill then, I will restrict my activities to lawfull action at the ballot box and word of mouth.

Note: Without an effective means to oppose the destroyers, their will reigns.

[Eaker]

Do you think we should have the right to kill a baby? And what does the right to life of the unborn have to do with guns, since we have the right to bear arms, and our country kills 2 million babies a year?

This is a gun control thread............What are you even doing here???

[Technogeeb]

But apparently we should just ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of the constitution

Of course you would; just like your kind ignores all the rest of the Constitution. You have already proven that you don't even know what "well-regulated" or "militia" means.

[Black Agnes]

It's a troll. Please don't feed the trolls. :-D

[wku man]

"He's only banning "assult" style guns, so I'm not too worried.'

So when will you start worrying? When your Remington Model 700 in .30-06, with a 3-9x Redfield scope is taken away becuase it's a "sniper rifle"? When your 1911-style .45 is taken away because it accepts a magazine with a capacity larger than six? When your grandfather's old Winchester Model 12 is taken away because it's a pump shotgun, and therefore is considered an "assault weapon" under some new law? Yeah, it's only "assault weapons" today, but what will be an "assault weapon" tomorrow? We need your help, bro. Help us today, otherwise there may not be anyone left to help you tomorrow.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Dan from Michigan]

uhhh...it's the national guard.....VPC told me.

[Eaker]

And I know better too!!!!

LOL

[tpaine]

"We'll keep that in mind the next time we find ourselves ruled by a king."
-cultj-


'We', cj? The imperial 'we' is typical of your addled view.

One suspects the flip-side of those who publicly obsess and wring their hands over the supposed frustrations gun control are themselves petty bullies and wannabe tyrants, seeing their emotions as a proxy for reason.

[PuNcH]

So can you then explain logically why semi-autos should be banned without jumping to the term "assault weapon" which you dont seem to fully comprehend and is simply an emotional response.

Or will you admit that you are making an assertion that assault weapons should be banned but that you dont understand what you are talking about to actually back up your assertions?

So far you arguments can be summed up this way, "I support the banning of some semi-autos of which I cant define because people shouldnt have VX gas and machine guns."

[Cultural Jihad]

Not at all. The right to self-defense is inalienable. I and most other rational non-ideologues and non-fixated beings, draw a reasonable line in an age of technological explosion and successful self-governance.

[diamond6]

My only point to bringing this issue up is that I believe it is more important that we elect good moral leaders who have fundamentally good character. This is only my opinion, and I'm not claiming it for anyone else, but for me candidates that espouse views that support abortion are the scariest, most disgusting, vile individuals of all. If a presidential candidate was in support of allowing any and all guns, but supported the pro-choice movement, there is no way I could in good conscience vote for that person. For me, that is how important the right to life of an unborn child is. But that's just me.

[Black Agnes]

When it jumped from gun control to baby killing it blew its cover.

[PuNcH]

So you dont think the chinese would need a right to firearms because even if they didnt have to live under forced abortion they would simply ALL kill their own children anyway. No need to defend you family.

[jeremiah]

Besides the obvious reason for owning a weapon, such as hunting and target shooting. Our constitution provides for owning of the common weapon of the time for defense. Now this does not only mean defense of property, but of home and homeland against all comers, including our own govt or outsiders.