Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

How Assault Weapons Import Ban Cost Bush 41 Re-Election
"Unintended Consequences" ^ | 1996 | John Ross

Posted on 04/18/2003 3:25:56 PM PDT by Atlas Sneezed

What follows is an excerpt from a historical novel:

"Haven't seen a single Bush bumper sticker," Henry Bowman said calmly as he took another drink of his soda. John Parker nodded.

"No sh**. I think he's going to lose."

"Lose, hell," Henry said. "He's already thrown the election." Parker raised an eyebrow in a questioning gesture. Henry continued. "We'd've been much better off with Michael Dukakis, from a civil rights standpoint, at least."

"What do you mean?" This came from a slender man in a khaki shirt who had overheard the conversation.

"Bush banned semiauto imports by executive order in '89. Got his 'Drug Czar' buddy to say it was a wonderful idea. Could Dukakis have gotten away with that? Hell, no. He wouldn't have dared try it, because the Republicans in the House and Senate wouldn't have played ball. They'd have screamed bloody murder. Bush got away with it, though, 'cause he's a Republican, and now it's going to cost him the election."

"Come on, Henry," Parker said, forcefully but without rancor. "Bush has all kinds of problems. The economy is lousy, and people haven't forgiven him for breaking his 'no new taxes' promise."

"And let's face it," Karen Hill added, "a lot of voters, particularly women, don't like his anti-abortion stance. Those are the things that're going to end up costing him the Presidency." Henry Bowman was shaking his head. A crowd was starting to gather, but no one interrupted.

"I'll give you the taxes thing, but that's still only a small factor, and I'll prove it to you in a second. Your other issues are curtain dressing. Economy? The economy was terrible in 1982, and the public didn't turn against Ronald Reagan. Reagan was also at least as much against abortion as Bush, and more women voted for him than Carter in '80 or Mondale in '84. The reason George Bush will lose in three weeks is because he sold us out on gun rights." Henry Bowman and John Parker both saw a number of the people around them nodding in agreement. John Parker began to protest.

"That may be a part of it, but-"

"No 'buts', John. I'll prove it to you. Look around. How many guys do you see here right now who you know saw active duty and are proud of it? I don't mean everybody wearing camo--anyone can buy that at K-Mart. I mean guys wearing boonie hats and dog tags with their division numbers on' em, or guys in Gulf War uniforms, or old guys with tattoos and shrapnel wounds and arms missing. How many do you see around here right now? A lot, right?

"George Bush is a genuine war hero from the Second World War, right? And last year he got a half million men over to Iraq, ran Hussein out of Kuwait, and only lost- what? Eighty soldiers? That's less than I would expect would get killed in a half-million-man training exercise with no enemy." The people gathered around were nodding in agreement.

"So?" John Parker said.

"So Bush is a war hero--I really mean that--and look who he's running against. Should be no contest among vets proud of their military service, right?" Henry grinned wickedly at John Parker. "Just go around and ask some of these vets here if they're going to vote for the President in three weeks. Take your own poll."

"I'm not!" shouted a veteran of Korea who had been listening to Henry's argument. "Your friend's dead right."

"Me neither," spat another. "He sold us out." A half-dozen other veterans grunted in agreement. No one contradicted what Henry Bowman had said.

"Is anyone here--not just veterans, but anyone--planning to vote for Bush?" Henry asked in a loud voice. No one volunteered with an affirmative answer. John Parker's mouth opened in amazement.

"Too many Republicans have this crazy idea that since their party usually isn't quite as much in favor of throwing away the linchpin of the Bill of Rights, they can take our votes for granted," Henry said to what was now a crowd of forty or fifty people. "In a few weeks, they're going to find out that taking us for granted was the biggest mistake they ever made in their lives. Except that the news will undoubtedly focus on the abortion issue, or the bad economy, or how Bush didn't seem compassionate, or some other horse-sh**, and miss the real story."

"You really think we're the ones going to cost him the election?" a man in his fifties asked. "Not sayin' I disagree with you, but...everyone always acts like all the other issues are the real important ones. You know-the ones that get elections won or lost."

"Let me ask everyone here a question, then," Henry said. It was obvious he believed in what he was about to say.

"Pretend I'm George Bush, and it's Monday, the day after tomorrow. The first debate-which is tomorrow night-is over. I didn't say anything at all about the gun issue in the debate. It's now Monday, okay? Since I'm still the President, I tell the networks I'm going to give a State of the Union address, or a press conference, or whatever you call it on short notice. I'm going to give it that night, since the second debate isn't for a couple of days. I get up in front of the cameras, and here's the speech that goes out over every network Monday night." Henry looked over at John Parker. "Cut me some slack if I get some details wrong; I'm winging it here, okay?" He cleared his throat.

"My fellow Americans, I would like to address a serious issue which faces our country today: the gradual erosion of the individual rights of our honest citizens. Our government, including my administration, must shoulder much of the blame for this problem. It is time for me to acknowledge and repair the damage that has been done."

Henry paused for a moment to collect his thoughts before continuing.

"The Soviet Union has collapsed. People around the world are throwing off their yokes of oppression and tasting freedom for the first time. It is an embarrassing fact, how-ever, that our government has forgotten about individual rights here at home. It is time to acknowledge and correct the infringements we have inflicted upon our citizens in the name of 'crime control'.

"Decent, honest Americans are being victimized by a tiny fraction of the population, and it is our government's fault. It is our fault because we politicians have continually passed laws that stripped the law-abiding of their rights. As a result we have made the crime problem much worse.

"Our great economic power comes from the fact that Americans determine their own economic destiny. It is time we let Americans once again determine their own physical destiny." Henry Bowman saw the audience hanging on his words. He took a breath and went on.

"In 1989 I prohibited importation of firearms mechanically and functionally identical to weapons made before the Wright Brothers' invention of the airplane in 1903. I hoped that banning these guns would reduce crime. It hasn't. The only people denied the weapons that I banned are those citizens in our country who obey our laws. These are not the people our government should punish, and I now see what a terrible decision that was. "Some politicians are now calling for a national 5-day waiting period to purchase a handgun. The riots last spring showed us the tragedy of that kind of policy. One congressman has even introduced a bill to repeal the Second Amendment to our Constitution. The Bill of Rights enumerates human rights, it does not grant them. That is something that we in government have forgotten. Repealing the Second Amendment would not legitimize our actions any more than repealing the Fifth Amendment would authorize us to kill whoever we wanted."

Henry noticed several people smile at the notion of George Bush acknowledging his responsibility for government intrusions in a State of the Union address.

"All dictatorships restrict or prohibit the honest citizen's access to modern small arms. Anywhere this right is not restricted, you will find a free country.

"There is a name for a society where only the police have guns. It is called a police state. The Second Amendment in the Bill of Rights is not about duck hunting, any more than the First Amendment is about playing Scrabble. The entire Bill of Rights is about individual freedom.

"In my recent trip to St. Louis, Missouri, I found that violent criminals have a government guarantee that honest people are unarmed if they're away from their homes or businesses. It's a felony for a citizen to carry a gun for protection. Giving evil, violent people who ignore our laws a government guarantee that decent people are completely helpless is terrible public policy. It is dangerous public policy. Our Federal and State governments have betrayed the honest citizens of this country by focusing on inanimate objects instead of violent criminal behavior, and I am ashamed to have been a party to it. It is time to correct that betrayal.

"Accordingly, I am lifting the import ban on weapons with a military appearance, effective immediately. I am abandoning any and all proposals to ban honest citizens from owning guns or magazines that hold more than a certain number of cartridges. I will veto any bill that contains any provision which would make it illegal, more difficult, or more expensive for any honest citizen to obtain any firearm or firearm accessory that it is now lawful for him to own. I will also encourage the removal of laws currently in effect which punish honest adults for mere ownership or possession of weapons or for paperwork errors involving weapons. I will work to effect repeal of the Gun Control Act of 1968 and the National Firearms Act of 1934 in their entirety.

"Tomorrow I will appoint a task force to investigate abusive practices of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms. I will ask for recommendations as to how that department can be made to shift its focus from technical and paperwork errors to violent criminal activity. I will demand the resignations of all agents and supervisors who have participated in any entrapment schemes or planting of evidence.

"Our government has betrayed its citizens and tomorrow morning I intend to start correcting that. Good night."

Screams of "Yeah!," "Damn right!," and "That's it!" came amidst tremendous applause from the several dozen people who had been standing around listening.

"Okay, that's the speech," Henry said in his normal voice after the applause had died down. He did not notice the look on John Parker's face. "Then, the next morning on the news, you see that Bush has indeed rescinded the import ban, he's named the people on the Task Force, and he's fired Bill Bennett. A couple of senators have offered to draft legislation repealing the National Firearms Act and GCA '68, and you hear Bush say on camera that he's all for it, and you hear him encourage other legislators to support this much-needed reform.

"Question number one: What are all of you going to do now?"

"Do everything we can to get George Bush re-elected!" one man yelled immediately. He was joined by a dozen similar responses. Henry Bowman laughed.

"Not bad. And we haven't even asked question number two, and it's the real clincher: If George Bush gave the speech I just gave and did the things I just described, how many people who were already going to vote for him do you think would change their minds? How many people do you think would say 'Boy, I was going to vote for Bush, but now I'm not going to'?"

"Nobody," John Parker said under his breath. "Anyone who didn't like your speech would already be against the President." John Parker was thinking frantically.

"Exactly. So he picks up four or five million votes, and loses none."


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Editorial; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: bang; banglist; bush41
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 301-311 next last
To: livis_dad
There is no separation, if somebody decides to elect a democrat over a republican on one issue then its the candidates fault, not the voters fault.

And what does a pound of "fault" buy you? When your infantile, stubborn, thumb-sucking helps to elect a Hillary Clinton, what are you going to do then?

141 posted on 04/18/2003 11:06:53 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 139 | View Replies]

To: JMack
Boy, first the women in combat thing, and now this. Will we ever agree?

Yes...Pooh likes guns.

142 posted on 04/18/2003 11:07:48 PM PDT by wardaddy (Hootie to head EEOC...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Squantos
Read later !
143 posted on 04/18/2003 11:09:15 PM PDT by Squantos (Cum catapultae proscriptae erunt tum soli proscript catapultas habebunt.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
It's the line of the politcal naif; or a two year old.

They'll " teach 'em ", by helping someone far worse get elected and then whinge about how rotten, the person they helped is. But then, they have " principles " don'tcha know, " vaunted prihnciples " about cutting off their collective noses to spit their collective faces and to hell with everyone else. Ask what they're doing in REAL life and you'll find out that they haven't/don't actually DO anything at all. They just come here to moan and complain. Writing a letter, putting it in an envelope, placing a stamp on it, and mailing it, is more effort than they can bring themselves to do.

144 posted on 04/18/2003 11:10:25 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Well said. Politics is about persuasion. These whiners cannot persuade so they thump their chests and posture menacingly. They do not run for public office themselves, and it is just as well. Who would vote for them?
145 posted on 04/18/2003 11:17:24 PM PDT by Kevin Curry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: Kevin Curry
Oh, they'd get a few votes; even the most peculiar of candidates get a few. But, actually DOING anything, except voting, is far too much bother for any of them to do. :-)
146 posted on 04/18/2003 11:22:56 PM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 145 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
They'll " teach 'em ", by helping someone far worse get elected and then whinge about how rotten, the person they helped is. But then, they have " principles " don'tcha know, " vaunted prihnciples " about cutting off their collective noses to spit their collective faces and to hell with everyone else.

Which is better: to have the Senate split 45/0/55 [pro-gun Rep/anti-gun Rep/Anti-gun Dem] or 30/40/30? In the latter case the Republicans have a sizable majority, while in the former they're in the minority; nonetheless I would feel my liberties were more secure in the former case than the latter.

147 posted on 04/19/2003 12:32:34 AM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 144 | View Replies]

To: supercat
And if the former, then guess what ... you'd get zero, nada, bupkiss of what else you want; or do you ONLY care about one kind of ammo, which is what the current broohaha, is about .

Cutting off your nose, over ONE thing, means that you get nowhere. With a minority,who do you think sets the agaenda ? I'll help ya out here ... it isn't " our " side.

148 posted on 04/19/2003 12:38:22 AM PDT by nopardons
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 147 | View Replies]

To: nopardons
Cutting off your nose, over ONE thing, means that you get nowhere. With a minority,who do you think sets the agaenda ? I'll help ya out here ... it isn't " our " side.

True, but 45 Senators can block anything from getting through, IF at least 41 of them refuse to budge and they aren't undercut by their party's leadership (thank you Bob Dole). By contrast, anti-gun forces take control of the Republican Party, they will work to ensure that the pro-gun Republicans can't block any anti-gun legislation. They will also seek to punish pro-gun Republicans come campaign time.

Illinois offers a good example of what happens when the RINO Party takes over the Republican Party. Fixgeralt isn't the world's most conservative Republican--far from it--but he's been ousted by the state RINOs because he refuses to accept their corrupt games.

149 posted on 04/19/2003 12:51:30 AM PDT by supercat (TAG--you're it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 148 | View Replies]

To: ping jockey
Funny, but all of this garbage about GWB being anti gun is coming from the wachos at Gun Oweners of America. The NRA supports GWB 100%.
150 posted on 04/19/2003 1:11:44 AM PDT by bybybill (first the public employees, next the fish and, finally, the children)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 136 | View Replies]

To: HuntsvilleTxVeteran
We need to come up with a way to defuse these one issue Republicans.

I'm a one issue voter who make the reccomendations to my wife and daughters. I study each issue one by one. We discuss votes before and after the election. Generally, they vote about 99% in line with my thinking because I don't belittle them for holding a personal opinion. So, I guess my one vote is actually 3.90 votes.

Issuse #1 Illeagal immigration.

Issue #2 2nd Amendment

#Issue #3 Education-Homosexual support in classrooms Issue #4 Taxes- Reduction of

President Bush doesn't have a chance with me unless I see changes in each of these single issues!

Necessary for my vote is.....Close the borders, remove gun controls, bring God back into the classroom and get the queers out, get a decent tax deduction for all American citizens.

151 posted on 04/19/2003 2:14:27 AM PDT by B4Ranch ( "It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards".Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
Your Ashcroft comment made me think about Manetta. Who in the Bush administration pushed to get guns into cockpits? We are finally getting pilots trained to carry weapons in the cockpit, 18 months after 911.

Praise Homeland Security. /sarcasm

152 posted on 04/19/2003 2:28:11 AM PDT by B4Ranch ( "It's too late to work within the system, but too early to shoot the bastards".Claire Wolfe)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 106 | View Replies]

To: All
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=12553
Action: now's the time to walk the walk...by talking the talk
As you know, the assault weapon ban renewal starting to come out of the woodwork. The time to help nip it in the bud is now.
For the US house:
http://www.house.gov/
For the Senate:
http://www.senate.gov
 
www.awbansunset.com
 
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18114
"In surprise move, Bush backs renewal of assault weapons ban "
 
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=18430
Gunman opens fire in New Orleans school with Ak-47
After this, will "they" realize that:
1. their metal detectors weren't good enough
2. their security wasn't good enough
3. their "no guns allowed" signs weren't good enough
4. they created a victim disarmament zone
5. laws don't prevent madmen from breaking them
No. They'll realize that the gun laws aren't strict enough.
 
Congressional Watch
 
State Legislative Watch

153 posted on 04/19/2003 2:54:36 AM PDT by backhoe (The reason we enjoy Rights is because hard men with guns in hand stand before the barbarians...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Crusader21stCentury
In other words no...

And no selling out the Kurds. (Article points to day #47 in the Kurd Sellout Watch series on Slate.)

154 posted on 04/19/2003 4:09:50 AM PDT by risk
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: Nick Danger
Its a clever plan?
The Democrats have learned form
their defeats on gun issues and are
backing off making it a central issue.
And if fact many Democrats now
claim to be for gun rights.
So Bush simply making a huge mistake.
155 posted on 04/19/2003 4:31:04 AM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: bybybill
Bush has come out for extending
the "Assualt"(weapons that frighten Senator Fienstein) weapons ban.
156 posted on 04/19/2003 4:33:41 AM PDT by Princeliberty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: nopardons; Kevin Curry
But, actually DOING anything, except voting, is far too much bother for any of them to do.

I hate to interrupt all of the back patting, but what do you two DO? Do you know FReepers and take part in FReeps? Do you organize political activities an assemble locally? If so can you verify any of this, or are you just blabbing?

I'm asking an honest question. I'd love to hear you both come back and say "yes a$$hole, these FReepers know me and we're both very politically active".

157 posted on 04/19/2003 5:06:22 AM PDT by AAABEST
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 146 | View Replies]

To: Possenti
You just ain't thinking right, that's all.

Voting is like eating at a resturant
where you dislike everything that is on the menu.
There is nothing on the menu that you 'want' to eat.
But, none the less, you 'have to' eat something.
So you order the food that you dislike the least.

In over 30 years of voting, I can count the number of times
that I voted 'for' someone on the fingers of one hand.
Most of the time I find myself voting for the candidate that I dislike the least.

Regardless of how much you think you can't digest Bush or the Republican
Party, because you think they do not stand up for the constitution and your rights.
Trust, me on this:
The alternative would be even harder to digest, by an order of magnitude.

Of course you could just sit out the election from disgust.
Or you could cast a 'protest' vote for some 3rd party candidate.
But either of those choices is just a 'cop-out'.
You are then, in reality, just letting someone else order your dinner for you.

Bush, and the republican party certainly do not offer up all of the things
that I wish they did, or stand firm on the issues I wish they would,
But they are far far better than any 'real' alternative,
and I for dang sure a'int gonna let somebody else order my dinner for me.

I will vote Bush/Republican and try to do whatever I can to influence legislation
by making my views known to my elected oficials.
That is the ONLY viable option.
158 posted on 04/19/2003 5:26:03 AM PDT by error99
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: error99
Exactly... He raised taxes after making such a show of promising not to... that stuck in the voters craw big time... far more than the ban on "assault" weapons. This combined with the fact he ran a very bad campaign and the press was overwhelmingly biased toward his opponent. Assault weapon's ban did not lose 41 the election.
159 posted on 04/19/2003 5:32:54 AM PDT by HamiltonJay
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Beelzebubba
I like what Bush is doing in Iraq. There are three reason why, if he is a one term president.
IMO, one is Guns,
two is Gays,
and three Abortion.

I hope I'm wrong and he wins by a landslide.

160 posted on 04/19/2003 5:34:50 AM PDT by mickie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 121-140141-160161-180 ... 301-311 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson