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."

[EternalVigilance]

This is some kind of Stategery. It's probably intended to bait the Dems into doing something stupid.

You very well may be right. Sources very high up in the NRA scoff at the notion that the White House is going to back it.

Hope they realize they are affecting the base of their own party with this, though.

[Ichneumon]

Somebody on TV was discussing the '92 election and kept mentioning 41's health problem. I can't remember what that problem was?

Lack of a spine.

Instead of standing up for Republican principles, he caved on too many issues, including "no new taxes" and the gun import ban.

By 92 I was sick of him, which is why I voted for Clinton, who at least appeared (although it soon became obvious it was just dishonest PR) to have actual principles and ideals and pretended to be more middle-of-the-road than Bush 41 turned out to be. At the time Clinton seemed less liberal than Bush 41.

Okay, fine, I was an idiot, and quickly learned the error of my ways, the fact remains that Bush 41 sold out his alleged principles and alienated his base, just as the book excerpt which starts this thread points out.

[Possenti]

One-issue Republicans?

The 2nd Ammendment should be the ultimate litmus test for any candidate.

Why on earth would you vote for someone who doesn't trust you to exercise a God-given right?
Would you vote for someone who told you that you couldn't go to a particular church?
Would a candidate get your vote if he censored everything you said and/or wrote?

Wake up.

[MadIvan]

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!

Regards, Ivan

[AAABEST]

That book was a GREAT read. The political and social aspects were just part of the package. I've rarely read a novel where the author was so well informed and had such detailed knowledge on such a variety of issues.

John Ross caught quite a bit of hell after writing it including having his family harassed. When I heard our government considers it "subversive" reading, I made sure I paid with my credit card when I purchased it. They think such stupidity as flagging book buyers empowers them, when in reality it empowers us if you think about it.

[Carry_Okie]

I always enjoy your posts, Nick, because you think. It would seem to me that the point of this is to let us know that it's up to us to kill it in Congress and give us time to get organized to get it done. It might also help gun rights advocates with screening candidates. It might also be putting us on notice that if we can't keep Congress in line he won't take the heat for it in the middle of the campaign which sounds more like a Rove thing than a Bush thing.

There's nothing quite like a defining issue.

[Possenti]

There is no way I would vote for a democrat, but if Bush signs a renewal of the "assault Rifle" ban, I am staying home.

I'll go one further...

I WILL vote Democrat - Yes - even Hillary. At least she's up front about what she wants to do with civilian-owned guns.

Many Republicans, including Bush (and his daddy), will smile and pay lip service to gun owners, while stabbing them in the back at the first opportunity.

[Ichneumon]

Of course, Clinton's economy rhetoric and Perot's vote-sapping had NOTHING to do with Bush 41 leaving office... nothing at all...

No one's saying it had "nothing" to do with it. Those things made him vulnerable. But the straw that broke the camel's weakened back was self-inflicted.

Bush 41 could have overcome them if he hadn't already shot himself in the foot by not sticking to his guns, so to speak.

Perot would have just been a distant third-party candidate like all the others if Bush hadn't already given large numbers of Republicans reason to jump ship.

Breaking his "no new taxes" pledge lost a *LOT* of votes. So did his gun ban. As the book excerpts asserts, he could have most likely overcome the "no new taxes" gaffe (especially since it probably helped weaken Clinton's economic broadsides) if he hadn't also p***ed off millions of pro-gun people.

It's not smart to tick off the economic conservatives. It's not smart to tick off the constitutional conservatives. But to do *both* at the same time is simple suicide.

[Possenti]

We need more citizens with 'nads as big as yours.

[wku man]

Write us off as "one issue" voters at your peril. I think even you're smart enough to realize that we're not concerned only with the 2d Amendment, but to us, it is a line in the sand. Everyone has their line, that if pushed beyond it, they'll push and fight back. This is ours. We figure that if this president, who we supported and helped elect in 2000, is going to take our concerns for granted, then what does it matter who crosses our line? Pubbie or Rat, it makes no difference. If you and the other Pubbies who are so ho-hum on the RKBA don't understand that, then too bad for you. You need us, we don't need you. If you were smart, and I'm sure you are, you'd be trying to help us instead of ridicule us.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Ichneumon]

I agree this comming out now stinks. What is the back ground of the person who said this? is this a leaker? This feels more like a troll by democrats to divide republicans who feel strong about the second ammendment.

Personally, I hope it was "strategery" on Bush's part (or his advisers) to get the pro-gun base fired up to white-hot level in order to be ready to fight against what will surely be an equally passionate effort by the anti-gun folks to *renew* the ban.

It really is best to defeat this in Congress, and/or the court of public opinion, than to let it reach Bush's desk and put him in the position of having to become the sole poster-child for "putting assault weapons back on our streets" in the 2004 elections.

I think/hope that the "Bush would sign it" leak is a signal to us to get off our duffs and kill the renewal *before* it gets passed, instead of sitting back lazily in the belief that Bush would veto it so why should we bother fighting it?

This is *our* fight, and we shouldn't make/expect Bush to take the political bullet for it.

[tpaine]

We need to come up with a way to defuse these
one issue Republicans.
They say if you don't agree with my one issue,
we will keep democrats in power to punish any-
one who doesn't agree one hundred percent with
my one issue!
4 -HTV-

Not at all, - we need to come up with a way to convince these
Republican politicians to stand on constitutional principles.
They say if you don't compromise on gun issues, it will keep democrats in power!

I say bull!

[Nick Danger]

What is the back ground of the person who said this? is this a leaker?

It was Scott McClellan, a duly-appointed "White House spokesman." He said this in a conversation with a Knight-Ridder reporter.

Scott is the son of Republican Carole Rylander, who was elected Comptroller of Texas in 1998, the year Bush ran for re-election as Governor. Scott was her spokesman. He came into the White House with the transition team... he was the "Bush transition spokesman." Now he's a "White House spokesman."

This isn't a leak, and he is probably not doing anything out of school. He was sent on a mission to say that, probably by Karl Rove. Chances are, given the timing of the expiration, Rove sees this coming as an issue that might arise in the campaign. Maybe he's just poking around the edges of it... partly to see how the base reacts, and partly to see how eager the Democrats are to jump on it. By using McClellan, they can always back away from it later.

[jim_trent]

And of course, we were SOOOOOOOO MUCH BETTER with Klinton.

[sarcasm off]

[Ole Okie]

Somebody on TV was discussing the '92 election and kept mentioning 41's health problem. I can't remember what that problem was?

Graves disease.

I quote from the National Graves' Disease Foundation Website:

"The leading cause of hyperthyroidism, Graves' disease represents a basic defect in the immune system, causing production of immunoglobulins (antibodies) which stimulate and attack the thyroid gland, causing growth of the gland and overproduction of thyroid hormone."

Both George H.W. and Barbara Bush were afflicted with it.

[longtermmemmory]

troll alert...

[Poohbah]

Write us off as "one issue" voters at your peril.

All you have to do is figure out how to solve the following equation:

Let X equal the number of votes swinging away from George W. Bush if he vetoes an assault weapons bill extension.

Let Y equal the number of votes swinging toward GWB if he vetoes an assault weapons bill extension.

Solve the equation such that Y is greater than X.

That is one thing that the alleged "hard conservative" base never did figure out.

The NRA bloc voted in 1994--mostly by accident.

And then they stayed home to varying degrees in 1996, 1998, and 2000. The early results say that they barely showed up in their 1988 numbers in 2002.

If the NRA bloc refuses to vote, and to generate a LOT of votes, then politicians will naturally ask "What have you done for me lately?"

[Ichneumon]

Write us off as "one issue" voters at your peril. I think even you're smart enough to realize that we're not concerned only with the 2d Amendment, but to us, it is a line in the sand.

I've always enjoyed this essay on that topic:

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?

by L. Neil Smith
lneil@lneilsmith.com

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?

Permission to redistribute this article is herewith granted by the author -- provided that it is reproduced unedited, in its entirety, and appropriate credit given.

[AAABEST]

"Nads" ....lol.

NADS

[verity]

Nonsense!