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

[TERMINATTOR]

He was probably too conservative. This joints turning into a clone of DU, if you hadn't noticed.

Molon Labe!

[Mulder]

He got banned because he wouldn't take any crap from an emotionally distraught female poster who had a bad relationship once, and made it the fault of ALL men.

Here is the thread:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/829398/posts?q=1&&page=1#1

It's a damn shame that someone's sense of humor was bad enough so that they banned him. He was one of favorite posters and certainly the wittiest poster here.

[Marysecretary]

Thanks, Dan, for the information. I appreciate it. Mary

[Marysecretary]

That's a good answer Rytwyng.

[Marysecretary]

I will take everyone's thoughts into consideration. Thanks. Maryxxx

[slowry]

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, AS A LAST RESORT (emphasis mine), to protect themselves against tyranny in government"-Thomas Jefferson

It appears this is incorrectly attributed to Jefferson. See here.

[Marysecretary]

I have No idea. I'm just pondering...

[Marysecretary]

We have coyotes roaming our back lot. I wonder if one got a hold of our cat who disappeared. I've thought about that.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

Waco was no big deal.

[Marysecretary]

I never read her stuff, really. I was just wondering why an assault weapon is necessary. I appreciate everyone's point of view on this. Maryxxx

[Uncle Bill]

Bush Favors Extending Assault-Weapons Ban

Join Together on-line
Staff
4/16/2003
Source

The Bush administration said it supports renewing the federal assault-weapons ban, despite a push by the National Rifle Association (NRA) to let it expire, the Salt Lake Tribune reported April 12.

"The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

The announcement came as a surprise to those on both sides of the gun debate, especially since the NRA has made eliminating the ban a top priority.

"That's lousy politics," said Grover Norquist, an NRA board member who heads the conservative group Americans for Tax Reform.

Joe Sudbay of the Violence Policy Center said the president's pledge to renew the ban "creates a huge problem for Bush with the NRA."

"The NRA said they would be working out of the Oval Office when Bush was elected. This creates an interesting situation for them," he said.

Matt Bennett of Americans for Gun Safety said Bush's endorsement isn't enough. He must press Congress to renew the measure. Not doing so would cause the ban to expire, Bennett said.

Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the NRA, agreed that the issue would "ultimately be decided by the Congress."

---

Love, George W. Algore

[Uncle Bill]

The myth of small-government Republicans

[dcwusmc]

No it's not. Though I consider abortion to be murder, which should be dealt with under state criminal laws and NOT an anti-abortion statute or amendment. As I said, RKBA is the BEDROCK OF ALL our rights, for it enables we, the People, to ENFORCE our rights in the last resort. Without it we live at the whim of whomever holds power, as the peasants did in medieval times, when the local "lord" could come over on a bride's wedding night and kick her new husband out of the marriage bed and put himself in it... is that the sort of society you envision?

[Uncle Bill]

Patriot Act To Be Made Permanent?

THE PRESIDENT: Good morning and welcome to the White House. Today, we take an essential step in defeating terrorism, "while protecting the constitutional rights of all Americans"

[Nucluside]

RE quote "incorrectly attributed to Jefferson":

I will definitely research this.

1. What I have researched are the Federalist Papers, and as far as the aims (no pun intended) of the Founding Fathers and U.S. Constitution are concerned, there is no question about what they mean in reference to the Second Amendment.
Anyone who
a. says the Second Amendment relegates weapons ownership to a militia only
b. has not read the Federalist Papers
is arguing from emotion only, and the argument is both wrong and based on ignorance.
2. One of the statements Jim Robinson makes as a "for instance" in his introduction to new members of our forum is that Second Amendment rights are a given and that we will not participate in discussion of gun laws, which have been placed as obstacles in our path to restoration of our basic freedoms, of which one is that, according to the Constitution, gun laws are unconstitutional.
What we will do, however, is oppose all gun laws that don't apply to convicted felons.

[Nucluside]

We have to oppose ALL gun laws. What I'm saying is that I can't believe that this bill will ever clear the Congressional committees, given that Americans have become more "pro-gun" since 911. I agree with rintense and a couple of others that Bush is just posturing to emasculate gun control as a 'Rat issue. I regret the disingenuous nature of that sort of political manuver, but you (presumably) and I are not politicians.
We have to think ahead to '04 and getting more conservatives in congress to outvote the 'Rats and RINOS, the latter which we must try to eliminate in primaries. The more conservatives we get in congress the more conservative Bush can be. This sets the table for Supreme Court nominees, who will decide the real future of our Constitutional rights.
The congress, ultimately, cannot take away our gun rights, but the Supreme Court can if a bunch of 'Rats and/or liberals are nominated.
If the Supreme Court performs the tyrannical act of denying our Second Amendment rights I think the time will have come for armed insurrection.

[Nucluside]

"...I come from...Illinois, where all politicians are liberals..."
I'm not trying to be preachy here, but you guys have to support and elect conservative Republicans in the primaries. If you send liberals to the general elections you will get liberals in public office.
Get organized and take over the party at precinct levels. You can do this if you march in with a bunch of like minded people. Don't try to tell me this is impossible; I've done it! From there you have your organization to build on to elect your conservative candidates in the primaries. Just voting ain't enough. You have to work your a--es off.
When do you start? RIGHT NOW. Most 'Pubs never do anything until a couple of weeks before an election.

[Nucluside]

"Sorry, I'm not falling for that strategy again."

Good point. But don't you agree that it's a little too soon to fold up the tents and vote for Democrats and libertarians, the latter which is also like voting for Democrats?

[Ford Fairlane]

you guys have to support and elect conservative Republicans in the primaries. If you send liberals to the general elections you will get liberals in public office.

I wish it was that easy

Our local county republican party is controlled by a bunch of weasely lawyer types who are only interested in kissing the butts of the next guy up the ladder from them, trying to improve their political careers

A few years back a few of us tried to get involved & were basically told to get lost & leave it to those who understand how the Illinois republican party works (read "Lawyers")

Of course the conservative democrats around here are in a spot just as bad - their party is controlled at the local level by lawyers & union bosses

[Dan from Michigan]

I've been saying that for a LONG time. Glad I'm not the only one.

I'm a precinct delegate and I'm also on the County Exec Committee. This is where the candidates for local offices come from.