"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.
Posted on 04/14/2003 7:45:39 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
Edited on 04/17/2003 6:40:21 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
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.
"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 
Thanks for that Patriot Act George
I'm stopping after reading your post. Too many people on FR have fallen for the liberal lie hook, line, and sinker. Or maybe they're just stupid. Either way, when at least 50% of participants on a website that is supposed to represent conservatism are spouting statist positions, it helps you understand how little the blood of the Founders means to most conservatives.
The AWB is a battle WE can win without G.W.
Agreed. I know that I will not hold it against the president if it never reaches his desk. He can help influence passage, but if he's just doing lip service, I can live with that in a political climate.
A vote against G.W. in 2004 gains you......what?..a warm fuzzy while some Demo takes away ALL youre guns?
No, it gains us power and credibility. If Bush loses the WH because of this, the message is once again crystal clear. The elected Dem will not be able to take away all our guns. The Repubs in the congress will not attempt to pass further unconstitutional 2nd amendment restrictions. The next Republican president won't (or shouldn't) either. It's a win as far as I'm concerned.
"BUT THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION WILL PROTECT OUR RIGHTS!
Ignoring the prominent role Republicans have played in "gun control" from the Brady Law (pushed through by Bob Dole) to the horribly abusive enforcement programs Project Safe Neighborhoods and Project Exile (See the Cato Institute Policy Analysis, "There Goes the Neighborhood" http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-440es.html), many gun owners are still snoozing, figuring George W. Bush and John Ashcroft will protect their rights.
But why should we expect that? Remember:
And anti-gun activists like the Bradys and the Million Moms recognize weasel words when they hear them. They may dis the Bush administration publicly, but privately they know that Bush, Ashcroft, and the vast majority of other politicians will not oppose them -- especially when they can point to horrors like the current east-coast shootings. In the emotion of the moment, anyone who points out that "gun control" doesn't stop criminals, or that it's unconstitutional, or that it only creates more victims, is shouted down as a cold, uncaring, crime-loving monster.
This is how freedom is lost: Pressure groups push, using emotion to overcome facts and logic. Politicians -- who don't have any principles to ground them, anyway -- cave in. And as the song says, they take just "A Little Bit More" (http://www.jpfo.org/livefree.htm).
That'll be the day.
That'll be the day.
Judging by the size of the Federal Government... Bill Clinton!
Contrast the following behaviors from this admin:
On the one hand, they have come out in support of an unconstitutional edict infringing on our Constitutional Rights. As conservatives, we're expected to shut up and take it.
On the other hand, when a WH aide (or some such employee of the executive) made a comment about "AIDS being a gay disease", that community wasn't expected to shut up and take it. Quite the contrary, the indidividual who made that statement was fired.
What is a conservative Republican supposed to believe about an adminstration that cares more for gay "rights" than gun Rights?
"In 1998, President Clinton announced a general ban on the importation of more than 50 non-recreational, modified assault weapons. The Treasury Department concluded that modified semiautomatic assault rifles that accept large capacity military magazines "or LCMM rifles" are not "particularly suitable for or readily adaptable to sporting purposes" and are generally not importable. The more than 50 models of firearms affected by the decision are modified versions of military assault weapons that were banned by the Bush Administration in 1989 or by the assault weapons ban of 1994."This reaffirmation of the President's campaign promise is a positive step in protecting the American public. We are equally encouraged by Attorney General Ashcroft's view that the ban is constitutional. Given the President's enormous prestige in his party, having the White House on our side should help insure that the Republican House and Senate will pass meaningful legislation to keep these weapons of war off our streets. Unlike NRA head Wayne LaPierre, who apparently believes the President is `somewhat irrelevant' to this debate, we look forward to working with President Bush to reauthorize an effective law banning assault weapons.
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.