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.

I respect you freepers' opinions, even though you don't seem to respect mine

Respect is not an entitlement; it has to be earned. If it were merely some issue outside of the structure defined by the Constitution, your opinion might have some merit; but because we're dealing with a Constitutional issue, your opinion is self-evidently inferior to that of those against whom you are arguing.

In other words, there is simply no way to be a good Conservative and be for the AWB. It simply isn't possible. Even if you were opposed to such weapons, the only Constitutional (and thus conservatively acceptable) mechanism allowing for its passage would be for you to advocate a repeal of the 2nd amendment, passage of another amendment delegating power to the Federal government to regulate firearms, and then passage of such a law. While you would be opposed in that effort, at least that opinion might be recognized as having a certain validity. Your current position, however, to legitimize what is clearly a violation of the highest law in the land, deserves no more respect than an opinion advocating any other illegal activity. In ethical terms, all you are doing is expressing sympathy for a criminal act; the reason you aren't getting any respect for your opinion is that it deserves none.

I'm not sure why anyone would be baffled.

FBI: If You Defend The Constitution, Are Against The UN, And Make Numerous References To The Constitution, You're A Terrorist

Gun Supporters Baffled By Bush Stance - White House Backs Renewal Of 'Assault Weapons' Ban

WorldnetDaily
By Jon Dougherty
April 15, 2003
Source

President Bush's stated support for the renewal of a controversial "assault weapons" law passed during the Clinton administration has caused anxiety and consternation among a spate of gun groups, gun owners and fellow Republicans.

"I was surprised and disappointed to learn of the report of the president's support for continuing the ban on homeland security rifles, aka semi-auto rifles," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America. "I am also puzzled. Why would George Bush want to help Democrats? The issue, when it was opposed by most Republicans, cost Democrats the House in 1994 and the White House in 2000.

"Banning the homeland-security rifle is pure Washington, but anti-Constitution and anti-homeland security," Pratt said.

White House officials did not immediately respond to requests from WorldNetDaily to clarify the president's position. According to administration spokesman Scott McClellan, Bush "supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," Knight-Ridder newspapers reported Saturday.

Legal analysts say gun groups may end up on the positive end of things. Congress – dominated by pro-gun-rights Republicans – may simply fail to reauthorize the law, which is set to expire in September 2004 just weeks before the November elections.

Jeff Deist, a spokesman for Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, typified that position. He said his boss does not support the 1994 law and would not support a reauthorization of it.

National Rifle Association Executive Director Wayne LaPierre hinted White House support may be unnecessary.

"Ultimately, I think this issue is going to be decided by the Congress," LaPierre said.

But gun-rights groups do worry about Bush's position should Congress vote on a new bill to extend the current law. One such measure, reports said, will be introduced by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., an original Senate sponsor of the 1994 legislation that banned importation and manufacture of certain types of semi-automatic rifles and limited magazine capacity to 10 rounds.

Then-Rep. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., led the effort to pass the bill in the House; Schumer is now a U.S. senator from New York.

During his 2000 campaign, Bush said he supported the current ban but was not clear on whether he would back an extension of the law. And in recent testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, Attorney General John Ashcroft – traditionally a gun-rights supporter – would not say whether the administration supported an extension. Instead, he quoted from a 1999 Justice Department report that found the ban's impact on violent crime wasn't clear.

Despite the potential setback, gun rights groups got a reprieve last week when the House overwhelmingly passed legislation protecting gun manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits. As WorldNetDaily reported, lawmakers passed the measure 285-140, with most Republicans backing it, while Democrats were split.

"We shouldn't use the judicial process to bankrupt an industry that makes a legal product," said Rep. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wis., chairman of the House Judiciary Committee, upon the bill's passage.

"I am happy with the strong bipartisan support of this vote," said the NRA's chief lobbyist, Chris W. Cox. "This common-sense measure has the support of the White House and the support of the majority of members in both chambers. The United States House of Representatives sent a clear message to gun-ban groups that they cannot circumvent the legislative process in their efforts to advance their political agenda."

Current events could also shape the political aspects of the gun debate, according to Independent Institute research fellow and FoxNews.com columnist Wendy McElroy. In a column today, she wrote that considering more women were serving in today's military, "an unprecedented number of Gen-Next women have overcome their mothers' aversion to guns."

"The underlying facts of the gun debate remain much the same as before Sept. 11 and the war. The award-winning criminologist professor Gary Kleck states that firearms are used defensively 2.5 million times a year," McElroy said. "Forty-eight percent of those incidents involve women defending themselves; most of the time a shot is not fired. The conclusion: Women benefit from gun ownership."

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.