Posted on 04/22/2003 5:15:55 AM PDT by Beenliedto
Weapons and Assaults on the Constitution
The Bush administration recently surprised and angered many pro-gun conservatives by announcing its support for an assault weapons ban passed in 1994. The law contained a ten-year sunset provision, and is set to expire in 2004 unless reauthorized by Congress. A spokesman for the administration stated flatly that the President “supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.”
Perhaps this should have surprised no one. President Bush already stated his support for the ban during the 2000 campaign. The irony is that he did so even as the Democratic Party was abandoning gun control as a losing issue. In fact, many attribute Gore’s loss to his lack of support among gun owners. The events of September 11th also dealt a serious blow to the gun control movement, as millions of Americans realized they could not rely on government to protect them against terrorism. Gun sales have predictably increased.
Given this trend in the American electorate away from support for gun control, the administration’s position may well cost votes in 2004. The mistaken political premise is that while Republicans generally support gun rights, so-called “assault weapons” are different and must be controlled. The administration clearly believes that moderate voters from both parties support the ban. “Who could possibly need such weapons?” is the standard question posed by gun control advocates.
Few people asking that question, however, know much about the banned weapons or the Second amendment itself. The law in question bans many very ordinary types of rifles and ammunition, while limiting magazine capacity for both rifles and pistols that are still legal. Many of the vilified “assault rifles” outlawed by the ban are in fact sporting rifles that are no longer available to hunters and outdoorsmen. Of course true military-style automatic rifles remain widely available to criminals on the black market. So practically speaking, the assault weapons ban does nothing to make us safer.
More importantly, however, the debate about certain types of weapons ignores the fundamental purpose of the Second amendment. The Second amendment is not about hunting deer or keeping a pistol in your nightstand. It is not about protecting oneself against common criminals. It is about preventing tyranny. The Founders knew that unarmed citizens would never be able to overthrow a tyrannical government as they did. They envisioned government as a servant, not a master, of the American people. The muskets they used against the British Army were the assault rifles of the time. It is practical, rather than alarmist, to understand that unarmed citizens cannot be secure in their freedoms. It’s convenient for gun banners to dismiss this argument by saying “That could never happen here, this is America”- but history shows that only vigilant people can keep government under control. By banning certain weapons today, we may plant the seeds for tyranny to flourish ten, thirty, or fifty years from now.
Tortured interpretations of the Second amendment cannot change the fact that both the letter of the amendment itself and the legislative history conclusively show that the Founders intended ordinary citizens to be armed. The notion that the Second amendment confers rights only upon organized state-run militias is preposterous; the amendment is meaningless unless it protects the gun rights of individuals. Georgetown University professor Robert Levy recently offered this simple explanation:
“Suppose the Second amendment said ‘A well-educated electorate being necessary for self-governance in a free state, the right of the people to keep and read books shall not be infringed.’ Is there anyone who would suggest that means only registered voters have a right to read?”
BTW Mr. Toomey is running for Sen. Spector's seat in Pa., all the support we can get will help the country.
Mike
If the US House leadership cooperates they could refuse to allow it to come to the floor for a vote in the first place - just let it die. I know that sounds too easy. The wimpy Senate will probably re-authorize it or tack it on as an amendment to some other legislation.
Well he may get by with it, but it would be a much more courageous thing to do to oppose the law and let it sunset. He stood up to Iraq and Afghanistan because it was right, now he should stand up to the unconstitutional gun banners.
I'd also like to know how many anti-gun women and girly-men will vote for GWB if he doesn't veto a reauthorization? Remember, these are the same people that can't stand his stance on the War on Terror, the environment, the role of government in our society, the economy, etc. How many of these folks, who believe that Bush is a bumbling, incompetent tool of the VRWC will really vote for him for signing one particular law, when his Democrapic opponent will be able to claim a long list of anti-gun "accomplishments?" The answer is probably well under 10,000 across the nation. The flip side of the coin is that at least a couple hundred thousand, and perhaps a couple of million, will simply not go to the polls when betrayed like this. They, their money and their time will disappear, hurting Republicans across the country.
I know that Bush IS a very smart guy, and that he's gone out of his way to avoid his father's mistakes. In light of that, and the facts/opinions cited above, I am extremely perplexed by this latest statement - especially in view of how the (many-times-burned) Democraps are running away from the issue. All that I can say is that I didn't vote for Bush's dad in '92, largely because of HIS stance on guns (i.e. the politically-motivated Executive Order in '89, banning the importation of foreign "assault rifles," which opened the floodgates for all of the anti-gun legislation in the 90's), and I will do the same regarding GWB in 2004 if he allows the Constitution to be shafted again. Just as in '88, this policy is NOT what I voted for in 2000 - and I will not stand for being lied to AGAIN.
Note that if there is anything done to the renewal that would make it worse than the current act, Bush could veto it without having to worry about any promise he made re its renewal.
It is my sincere hope that he is subtley (who knows if that is spelled correctly?) trying to encourage the Dims to add all kinds of crap to the renewal bill, with the purposeful goal of letting them paint themselves even further into that little corner on the left side of the room - and to then veto and be able to campaign as a 2nd Amendment defender. As I said, I know that he's smart and that he's learned lessons from his father's '92 loss - but if THIS is what actually occurs, he will be a real political genius. However, in the meantime a core constituency of the Republican Party is pretty ticked off - he really needs to do something along the lines of what you mentioned.
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.