How Assault Weapons Import Ban Cost Bush 41 Re-Election

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

"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.

"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 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."

"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.

"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.

Lots of people voted for Perot, for lots of reasons,I am not arguing that some people voted over the "assault weapons" ban... I am saying that that segment was not large enough to have "lost" bush the election. Bush 41 lost because he ran a HORRIBLE campaign, raised taxes after saying he wouldn't and because the press was overwhelmingly biased against him.

W won't lose in '04 over keeping the existing ban in place either. All those people who "protested" in 92 remember exactly what they got from that Perot protest vote... they got WACO, RUBY RIDGE et al for it... cutting off nose to spite the face never works, and its not been long enough for them to forget it.

What is this "group" going to do in 04? Vote for Gore? Hillary? Kerry? Be realistic. Bush administration has done more for Gun Rights than the previous 3 administrations combined... or have the gun "nuts" already forgotten the shift of the administration to state unequivicably that the 2nd ammendment is a right for individuals, unlike Bubbas administration? Be real. I commend them for their beliefs, but if they truly value their right to keep and own guns, they need to stop acting like Zealots and recognize who their friends are.

The "assault" weapons ban is a political non starter, every gun on the "banned" is already out on the streets under a different name with a little change in its appearance. The ban has done nothing to stop people from owning guns... its an ineffective law, one that made some anti gun nuts feel better, but certainly doesn't stop those who want guns with the features of the "banned" guns from getting them. Given that fact why would any politician open that hornets nest? Getting rid of the ban does nothing more than give the press and liberals an argument to scream over. It doesn't return gun features to the public, it doesn't make the public any more or less safe, and all its going to do is motivate the anti-gun activist machine. Its a political non starter.

"Be realistic. Bush administration has done more for Gun Rights than the previous 3 administrations combined... or have the gun "nuts" already forgotten the shift of the administration to state unequivicably that the 2nd ammendment is a right for individuals, unlike Bubbas administration? Be real. I commend them for their beliefs, but if they truly value their right to keep and own guns, they need to stop acting like Zealots and recognize who their friends are."

Right now I'd say their greatest fan is Michael Moore.

The only think right now that could make Bush a 1 termer is if the economy flames completely out. He's definately handled himself well politically. He no longer has to worry about the overwhelmingly biased press, because FNC and other outlets are out there, so they can't gang up on him like they did his dad and get away with it.

Its still a long way to 11/04, but right now, Economy flame out is the only real concern to Bush's re-election.
As to abortion I don't know why you are fielding this one as an issue, but is putting forward the right canidates for the judiciary, and that's where Abortion will fall, and the Dems know it, which is why they are killing themselves to stop it. Also, BUSH ended partial birth abortion, something Bubba vetoed what? 2 or 3 times? So I don't see how his stand on that is going to cause him to lose.

Bush's only weakness is the Economy, at least at this point, anything can happen, but he's not going to lose because he didn't get rid of the assault weapons ban or end gays in the military or not ban abortion outright.

So why would the White House send some "spokesman" (you'll notice it wasn't Bush, Ari, or Karl) out to raise this issue more than a year before it is likely to come up in Congress?
'Cause it'll take about a year for the sheeple to forget about it.
Why take a position at all?
The parable of the wheat and tares?
And if you're going to take one, why take one that will be as popular with the base as "read my lips"?
Good question. I have no comments.

This is some kind of Stategery.
Piss poor Stategery, IMO. Just look at the damage it is doing in such a small community like FR. I haven't looked, but I'd be willing to bet that DU is loving that and the statement.

Well, I'm sure there's a difference between what I mean and what you think I mean. No, I'm not saying mobilize the militia. "Fighting back" can refer to a plethora of actions taken by people who are pushed past their own personal lines.

An abused wife can "fight back" by calling the cops, and filing charges against her scumbag husband. A conservative college student who's flunked by a liberal professor can "fight back" by pursuing action throught the university. In the case of those of us upset over Bush's intent to sign an AWB extention, we'll "fight back" by voting for someone other than Bush, or writing someone in.

Now is not the time to "fight back" in the manner I'm sure you thought I was referring to (and if I'm making unfair assumptions about you, I apologize)...but insane, ineffective and unconstitutional laws like the AWB in '94 moved us one step closer to that point. When the so-called "leaders" we helped elect take a big ol' steamy leak on our constitutional rights (AWB, CFR, "Patriot" Act, etc.), we move yet another step closer.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

"...or have the gun "nuts" already forgotten the shift of the administration to state unequivicably that the 2nd ammendment is a right for individuals..."

No, but you've evidently forgotten the weasel words at the end of Ashcroft's statement, where he said our RKBA is subject to reasonable government restrictions (not the exact wording, but the same meaning). So, Mr. Ashcroft, what are "reasonable government restrictions"? As I recall, he's never addressed that question.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

"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%."

Oh, they do? Well, LaPierre supports Bush, as do his lackeys on the Board of Directors (then again, they support that "Smart Growth" "Agenda 21" land grab crap, too), but I know of many, many current and former members of the NRA who don't agree with LaPierre and the Board. I'm one of them. So 100% is a slight exaggeration.

By the way, I'm a member of both the NRA and the GOA, and contribute regualrly to the 2d Amendment Foundation, so I guess that makes be a triple wacko, eh?

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

Piss poor Stategery, IMO. Just look at the damage it is doing in such a small community like FR.

There are hotheads everywhere who will jump to the barricades on the slightest pretext. Sometimes they don't even know what they're doing.

There was thread here, maybe a year or so ago now, from a guy who came to warn everybody that a legislator in South Carolina had introduced a bill that would repeal the law that forced local sheriffs to issue CCW permits. Second Amendment advocates had worked for years to get that law passed, and here comes this guy to repeal it. He urged all Freepers to call and write NOW to "defeat bill number so-and-so."

And sure enough, everybody piled on. The legislator was pilloried. People promised to call and write. Here was another assault on our basic freedoms.

For some reason, I just didn't trust this guy. Something about his note set off my "doesn't know what he's talking about" alarm, and I set out to find this bill — if it existed on line.

It took a while, but I did find it, and it did exactly what the fellow claimed, and in an apparently under-handed manner. Buried in the middle of it was a single clause that merely said, "Section blah-de-blah is hereby repealed in its entirety."

You had to actually go look up the other law, and see what Section blah-de-blah really was, to find out that it was the section that authorized the CCW permits, provided for a bureaucracy to print them and keep track of them, made the local sheriffs responsible for issuing them, and basically said that the sheriffs could not deny a permit to anyone without a really, really, good reason.

So was this new bill what the guy told everybody it was? Would it end the right of the people to carry concealed weapons? Not exactly.

The main thrust of the bill was to eliminate the requirement that people have a permit in order to carry. You could just carry — no permit required. After making that the law, the bill went on to repeal all the machinery for printing and registering permits.

And here were hundreds of Freepers ready to go to war to keep this bill from becoming law. All because they didn't take the time to understand the larger game.

Let's not have that happen here.

I understand "the larger game" all too well.

Do you? What do you think the larger game is?

You sent me over to a thread where Senators Schumer and Feinstein are sending a letter to Bush to thank him for this statement by spokesman Scott McClellan. "We hope we can all work together to yada yada ya."

If I'm Rove, the first thing I notice is that Hillary is not a co-signer. In fact, no other Democrats signed on to this letter. And there don't seem to be any RINOs aching to be part of this either.

Do you believe that Chuckie Schumer sent this letter out without Hillary knowing about it? Don't you think Feinstein would have wanted to corral at least one RINO, to make this a "non-partisan effort?"

There is a larger game here, and I don't believe that it's what you think it is. This was towing a big, slow target over the enemy camp, to see who would shoot. Most of 'em seem to be staying in their bunkers. Hmmm.

"Hang on a moment, if it's just an import ban on assault weapons...who wanted to buy a gun from abroad anyway? America makes the best guns as it is!"

The Bush import ban is different from the Clinton AWB that will sunset unless reauthorized. Bush's ban was by executive order, and stopped the importation of such rifles as the HK 91, FN FAL, AUG, etc., and prevents the importation of semi-auto versions of the G36 and other up to date arms. Europe has been a far better innovator in small arms than the US, due to our firearms laws since 1934. We have a 40-year-old M-16/AR-15.

And the Clinton ban simply lets Bushmaster start selling guns with flash hiders and normal magazines.

"He fumbled a few key points about the 1939 US Supreme Court decision _US v Miller_, for example, and in his passages about the JFK assassination he leans way too much towards some of the more tinfoil-hatted conspiracy "factoids", including the highly questionable and the outright discredited."

I'm curious what are the most serious errors on these subjects. I thought he was pretty spot on with Miller, and the JFK stuff (quite brief) focused on the difficulty of making the shots as alleged, and how a shooter would have shot earlier, when the motorcade was approaching head on.

There is a larger game here, and I don't believe that it's what you think it is.
Then clue me in!
This was towing a big, slow target over the enemy camp, to see who would shoot. Most of 'em seem to be staying in their bunkers.
That is your larger game? Sheesh...seems like a waste of brain cells on your part.
The larger game, to me, is an attempt to disarm America altogether, plain and simple. That link said more than ""We hope we can all work together to yada yada ya." That link distinctly stated that they're going after more legislation and shows that even when what is wanted is gotten it will never be enough. You do a great disservice to others reading this particular thread with that shortsighted view.
One piece and one step at a time is how it's going down and you're playing, IMO, political expediency with our political birthright too.

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.