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

[Dan from Michigan]

How many control it? Any chance for a coup if you all run for precinct delegates? With election losses like last time, the timing is right.

[Mini-14]

"Rice is more anti-gun than Bush."

Nope. I read an article in which she defended gun owners, and provided examples of how her father protected her family using firearms.

[diamond6]

I was just scrolling the beginning of this thread trying to learn why exactly this issue is of such importance to fellow FReepers that they'd use it as a "litmus test" and reason to vote against President Bush.

As many of the posts did seem rather hostile, I found your questions brave and thought-provoking. And while I didn't scroll through all the answers, I think now I understand to some degree the other side of the argument. Thank you for your very complimentary post. I believe that the people on this thread who would use the AWB law as a litmus test on whether or not to vote for Bush are on the fringe. I don't believe they see the forest among the trees. I'd like anybody to name for me a potential candidate who is a bigger defender of conservative positions and values than President Bush.

[Ford Fairlane]

At the top level maybe 6 - 10 control it, lawyers & a couple of local media people, but they have the full support of the local "young republican" and "young professional" groups (75% lawyers or legal professionals), at least 50 that are basically toadies that do all the leg work

On my side there are a bunch of pissed off farmers & small businessmen, but we all work 12 hrs a day & finances are limited, plus most of the small businessmen that are not happy with the current state won't do anything because they dont want to get on the bad side of the chamber of commerce or the economic development corp. of macon county, both of which are controlled by the same group of people

[diamond6]

I was just scrolling the beginning of this thread trying to learn why exactly this issue is of such importance to fellow FReepers that they'd use it as a "litmus test" and reason to vote against President Bush.

As many of the posts did seem rather hostile, I found your questions brave and thought-provoking. And while I didn't scroll through all the answers, I think now I understand to some degree the other side of the argument.

Thank you for your very complimentary post. I believe that the people on this thread who would use the AWB law as a litmus test on whether or not to vote for Bush are on the fringe. I don't believe they see the forest among the trees. I'd like anybody to name for me a potential candidate who is a bigger defender of conservative positions and values than President Bush.

[Uncle Bill]

"I'd like anybody to name for me a potential candidate who is a bigger defender of conservative positions and values than President Bush."

Is that some type of joke? Define conservative. You're an attorney. You should be able to do it.

[diamond6]

Can't do it, can you?

[Uncle Bill]

Of course I can. You're the one that just made the comment. You stated that Bush was big defender of conservative positions and values. What are you talking about?

[diamond6]

Name one candidate you would support for the 2004 presidential election that is a bigger defender of conservative positions or values. Is that so difficult?

[diamond6]

Name one candidate you would support for the 2004 presidential election that is a bigger defender of conservative positions and values. Or is that too difficult for you?

[dcwusmc]

Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo...

[Uncle Bill]

Don't change the subject. You stated that Bush was a big defender of conservative positions and values. What are you talking about? Name some. If he's a big defender of them. It should be easy.

[diamond6]

Ron Paul and Tom Tancredo...

Who? Do you really think they have any chance at all?

[diamond6]

I didn't change the subject. It's you make a straight answer to a question. I know exactly who I am voting for in 2004 - George Bush. You're the one who says he's not conservative enough.

[diamond6]

[CORRECTION]I didn't change the subject. It's you who can't make a straight answer to a question. I know exactly who I am voting for in 2004 - George Bush. You're the one who says he's not conservative enough.

[Uncle Bill]

That's what I thought. You can't even defend his BIG conservative positions. And good grief, you state you're an attorney. It wasn't a trick question. I'm ever more hopeful. Thanks.

[diamond6]

Bush's positions are so well known, even someone as ignorant as you can figure them out. But you have answered my question. Must have rendered you speechless. I rest my case.

[Zack Nguyen]

Would you allow a machine gun to be purchased by anyone?

No, a someone with a felony criminal record, or history of mental health problems should not be allowed to own a gun. Other than that I could not care less who owns a machine gun. Very few people intent on murder will drive down to their local ammo supply store and buy a machine gun, register it with the government, pay the requisite taxes, and so on.

[Uncle Bill]

Bush's positions are so well known, even someone as ignorant as you can figure them out.

Name those BIG conservative positions. Come on.

[diamond6]

I'll tell you what. I posed my question first. You name who you would propose for 2004, and I will answer your question. If you can't answer that question, than what you have been espousing throughout this thread is just a lot of hot air. Are you even going to be voting?