How Assault Weapons Import Ban Cost Bush 41 Re-Election

"Unintended Consequences" ^ | 1996 | John Ross

[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."

[Atlas Sneezed]

"We should all stand and be counted....counted for EVERY firearm, book, or ammo purchase that we make. Let THEM get nervous!"

I disagree. They already know about evey round, every firearm due to the excise tax paid by manufacturers. The fact that much of that stuff is going into UNKNOWN hands should make them even more nervous, and less tempted to try to track it down after a ban.

[jammer]

Ross Perot was a nutbag. But Bush didn't lose because of him. His entire political base was created due to the Bush handling of the White House. Bush lost because of Bush.

[jammer]

You can't use 1996 as an example of anything. Clinton had routed Newt and we Republicans responded with Bob Dole. BOB DOLE for heaven's sake. No wonder people stayed home. Never in our history have two parties each deserved to lose more.

[Tailback]

I hope you are right about your take of this Nick. Time and time again Dubya has outwitted the Dems and I hope that this is another of those times. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, but if he does sign it, I vote Libertarian.

[jammer]

Why is it MY duty to persuade a damned politician--any damned politician--to adhere to an oath he/she took to defend the Constitution?

[Nick Danger]

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.

I'm not doing a disservice to anybody. You talk as though Chuck Schumer and Diane Feinstein run the U.S. Government. They've written a letter, so the Republic is in peril. Oh, cool yer jets.

The "larger game" I'm referring to is twofold: getting George Bush re-elected in 2004, and pushing as hard as possible to achieve a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate.

I would agree with you if you told me that supporting gun control is a hell of a way for Bush to seek re-election. But I'm not convinced that that's what he's doing.

You'll recall that Bush once said that he didn't need authorization from Congress to go to war in Iraq. That set off a big round of huffing and puffing from Congressional Democrats, who walked right into the trap. They insisted, no they demanded, that Bush seek such authorization. What happened? They got creamed on the vote, and they got pushed right onto a wedge issue that has split the Democratic Party — and is still causing divisiveness today. In the process, the whole Party got tagged with labels like "not serious," "unpatriotic," "inept," and "McGovern again." In addition, numerous Democrats have been successfully portrayed as trying to have it both ways — they voted for the authorization, and then made peacenik noises. None of that helps them. It has turned Kerry into a joke.

Gun control is a similar wedge issue for Democrats. The whine-and-brie set on the Upper West Side loves it, and so do the activist types who dominate the Democratic primaries. But woe betide the Democrat who votes for it almost anywhere else. This is why we get the Chuck and Diane show, and why nobody else seems that interested — not even Hillary, whose ambitions include someday carrying a state besides New York and California.

A reasonable question is, "Who is this Scott McClellan guy who announced Bush's support for the ban renewal, and was he involved in the machinations that set the Democrats up on the Iraq Resolution issue?"

Here are two quotes from an AP story on August 28, 2002:

• The White House announced this week that if it decides to invade Iraq, it's not legally bound to seek Congress' authorization. Bush spokesman Ari Fleischer said the president hasn't ruled out seeking their approval.
• Speaking in Crawford, Texas, where President Bush is vacationing, White House spokesman Scott McClellan said hearings would be "part of a healthy discussion about how we move forward on Iraq."

Maybe the game here is to involve the Democrats in a "healthy discussion" about gun control.

[Jesse]

Thanks for the links...makes it easy to send messages to not only your representative but the House Policy Committee, Speaker of the House, etc. I urge everyone who thinks the ban should sunset to write.

[jammer]

Bye. We don't need you.

Then what the hell are you arguing about? Methinks that you're whistling in the dark.

[Chancellor Palpatine]

I talk about it because I don't want them to take decent people with them by taking away any implication that their ideas are worthy, of merit, or will accomplish anything.

[Mr. Mojo]

"Bush banned semiauto imports by executive order in '89. Got his 'Drug Czar' buddy to say it was a wonderful idea.

Has a 'Drug Czar' ever been on the right side of any issue?

[Nick Danger]

I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, but if he does sign it, I vote Libertarian.

And a lot of others will just stay home. If that actually passes, and he does sign it, it's "read my lips" all over again. It's the knife in the gut of his own base.

But that is so obvious that I can't believe that's the plan. Nothing in the political history of the Bush Administration points to them being that dumb. On the other hand, they have demonstrated a remarkable ability to "juke" the Democrats right out of their shorts, by feinting left and then running right.

[Mr. Mojo]

"In a few weeks, they're [GHWB's administration] going to find out that taking us [2nd Amendment defenders] for granted was the biggest mistake they ever made in their lives."

I highly doubt that X41 realized his mistake, even after his loss to Klintoon. And it appears his son didn't learn the lesson either.

[backhoe]

Thanks for the links...

You bet!

[jammer]

... I don't want them to take decent people with them...

Hmmm. So I can infer from your statement that they are indecent people? If so, I guess the line between Democrats and Republicans really IS blurring--what a tactic!

[bybybill]

Where did you read about the "press release"? How come the NRA isn`t talking about it?

[BradyLS]

Nobody is going to take your guns or mine as long as we use them in a reasonable, responsible way.</>

Right. When the definition of "reasonable and responsible" is "duly registered with the state and 'conveniently' stored in a NG armory," where will YOUR arms be?

[BradyLS]

What is this "group" going to do in 04? Vote for Gore? Hillary? Kerry?

The national election is when you vote for your Party. The Party candidate is the cypher. But you ALWAYS have the PRIMARY to vote for favorite candidate.

[HamiltonJay]

Well we're just going to have to disagree with the cause/effect of the ban.

In terms of Bush losing because of any stand on it, it just isn't going to happen. While the NRA may be the biggest lobby group, its membership is still only 1% of the population. The idea, that you will take Bush out in the primaries over any sort of stand on the assault weapons ban is IMHO delusional.

Right now, the administration is not fighting for or against the ban, and that is the smart political move. I suppose we will find out through the primaries if its going to be a groundswell of pro gunners who are going to punish Bush... but reality its not going ot happen. Here in PA the same nonsense was being spewed over Rendell (who is an ardent gun controller and always has been) The gun lobby here kept saying, oh wait, those rural voters are going to tip it to Fisher etc etc etc, just wait until the middle of the state comes in... etc etc etc... and it didn't happen.

AWB is a non starter politically, the damage any canidate would take for trying to topple it at this time would far outway any inroads he would make, particularly with a part of the electorate that has already learned its lesson about being a 1 issue electorate in 92 and 96.