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

[Uncle Bill]

If you can't name all these BIG conservative positions and values, why would you vote for George?

[Zack Nguyen]

Wow, that is a really good way to put it. Excellent reasoning.

[diamond6]

Next freeper care to answer my question? Bill doesn't have an answer.

[tpaine]

diamond6
Mine is not an emotional response at all. I don't pretend to be an arms' expert. As I stated before, I would take each arm on a case by case basis.
801 -d6-



Excellent. As a lawyer then, you should know that these prohibitive assault weapons 'laws' violate due process, on a "case by case basis".
Fiat bans are not due process. The only 'crime' supposedly commited is possession of the newly declared 'criminal' object.
Can you agree?



>>>>>>>>>>>CRICKETS<<<<<<<<<

Or do you "rest your case", unable to reply?

[Uncle Bill]

LOL. You made the statement. I asked the easy question of stating all those BIG conservative positions and values that Bush stood for. Good grief. What are you afraid of. I guess someone here will have to help you out. Surely, there must be one.

[diamond6]

I don't think you have a clue what due process is. The Congress can make laws that are constitutional. Whether they are constitutional laws are for the judiciary to determine. I disagree that the AWB law is unconstitutional, but we will find out if it is approved and later challenged, won't we?

[diamond6]

Now, do you have an answer to MY question? Or are you like Bill and muted on the subject?

[diamond6]

Now, do you have an answer to MY question? Or are you like Bill and muted on the subject?

[Uncle Bill]

LOL. I asked a simple question. You couldn't, or wouldn't answer it. The reason you're pinned down, is Bush IS NO CONSERVATIVE. Thus, he can't be a big defender of conservative positions and values, as you stated. You've proven me right. Thanks.

White House Seeks to Expand DNA DATABASE

[k2blader]

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 tend to agree with you.

From what little I've read on this thread, the issue is one with many facets. I think some of the arguments against reauthorizing the AWB are sound, and I respect some of the FReepers who have shared them.

But this one issue is simply not reason enough for me to say I will not vote for President Bush again. Perhaps because of this another person will come along and label me a “leftist” or “Bush-bot” or something to that effect, but it won’t matter. I’ll still vote for whom I’d like.

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

The term “conservative” is fairly subjective one, but I can say I wish President Bush were *more* conservative. However, it seems best to deal with realities rather than ideals. If I were to insist on voting only for a candidate with whom I agreed 100%, I’d either never vote or vote for one who’d never win.

[diamond6]

As they say, silence is golden.

[Technogeeb]

but I fear Rice is more anti-gun than Bush

Ironically, Rice is more pro-gun than anyone else in the administration, even Ashcroft. She has described herself as a "Second Amendment Absolutist".

[tpaine]

Excellent. As a lawyer then, you should know that these prohibitive assault weapons 'laws' violate due process, on a "case by case basis". Fiat bans are not due process. The only 'crime' supposedly commited is possession of the newly declared 'criminal' object.
Can you agree?
924 tpaine

I don't think you have a clue what due process is.

Nor I, - you. -- You have very odd ideas about constitutional law.

The Congress can make laws that are constitutional. Whether they are constitutional laws are for the judiciary to determine.

Not so, in that ultimately it is up to the people, through the amendment process, as per alcohol prohibition.

I disagree that the AWB law is unconstitutional, but we will find out if it is approved and later challenged, won't we?

We are all aware you disagree.
I'm asking why[?], seeing that the only 'crime' supposedly commited in the AWB 'law' is possession of the newly declared so-called 'criminal' object.
Can't you formulate an answer?

[diamond6]

I answered your question. Can you answer mine? As they say in attorney parlance, "Non-responsive"

[tpaine]

Your 'guestion' is inane to my argument with your position on constitutional law.
-- You are asking it in at attempt to avoid answering mine.

[tpaine]

No, you have not addressed my question. -- Obviously, you are in denial on the issue.

[heckler]

It's all quite simple.

The AWB is a battle WE can win without G.W.

A vote against G.W. in 2004 gains you......what?..a warm fuzzy while some Demo takes away ALL youre guns?

All else is just mental wankering.

[diamond6]

Can any other freeper come up with ONE viable candidate for president that is more conservative than Bush?

[Uncle Bill]

Indeed it was claimed by former President Bill Clinton that the lobbying efforts of the NRA and other pro-gun groups were directly responsible for the Democratic loss of the House of Representatives in the 2000 election and partially responsible for Al Gore's loss of the Presidency to George W. Bush.

In an interview with CBS News on December 18th 2001, "You've got to give it to them, they've done a good job. They've probably had more to do than anyone else in the fact that we didn't win the house this time. And they hurt Al Gore."

USA Today quipped, "Guns played a key role in Gore's loss of Arkansas, Tennessee, and West Virginia, any one of which could have delivered him the presidency."
SOURCE: Armed Females of America - Pro-Gun Women On Full Auto

[tpaine]

"--- some Demo takes away ALL youre guns?
All else is just mental wankering"



I've been hearing that same mental wankering from the Rinos who passed the 68 GCA for far to long.
How long before the Rino/Demo coalition takes away ALL your guns? -- You tell me.