Bush gun control plan is threat to homeland security

www.lp.org ^ | 4.24.03 | libertarian party

[freepatriot32]

WASHINGTON, DC -- President Bush's support for renewing a Clinton administration ban on so-called assault rifles sends the wrong message to terrorists and other criminals, Libertarians say.

"Politicians who want to disarm vulnerable Americans at a time like this are a threat to homeland security," said Geoffrey Neale, Libertarian Party chairman. "The government simply can't protect everyone, all the time, but at least it can allow Americans to protect themselves."

The 1994 assault weapons law, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and then-Rep. Charles Schumer, D-NY, banned the manufacture and importation of certain types of semi-automatic rifles and prohibited magazines of more than 10 rounds. Bush administration spokesman Scott McClellan set off a public furor recently when he said the president "supports reauthorization of the current law," which is set to expire in September 2004 because of a 10-year sunset provision.

But banning guns sends terrorists and other criminals the message that Americans are even more vulnerable than before, Libertarians point out.

"Fortunately, terrorists carrying semi-automatic rifles haven't yet stormed a shopping mall, an office park or a busy urban area, but they could," Neale said. "If that happens, shouldn't their victims be able to shoot back with the same weapons the terrorists are using?

"Of course, an assault weapon may never be used to thwart a terrorist assault. But if overturning this gun ban saves just one life, it will have been worthwhile."

The main justification for the gun ban -- that assault weapons are a favorite choice for criminals -- doesn't stand up to logical scrutiny, Neale pointed out.

"According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, assault weapons are used in less than 1 percent of violent crimes, and the FBI admits that far more people are killed every year by knives and blunt objects than by any kind of rifle, including an 'assault rifle,' " he said. "So banning assault weapons to protect public safety makes as much sense as banning knives and baseball bats."

The threat posed by assault weapons is so exaggerated that Joseph Constance, a deputy police chief in Trenton, NJ, once told the Senate Judiciary Committee: "My officers are more likely to confront an escaped tiger from the local zoo than to confront an assault rifle in the hands of a drug-crazed killer on the streets."

The bigger threat is that Bush will follow through on his promise to sign the renewed assault weapons ban, Neale said.

"When it comes to supporting crime-victim disarmament laws, Bush is a recidivist," he said. "Just eight months after terrorists commandeered four airlines on September 11, Bush opposed a House bill that would have allowed armed pilots in the cockpit. Fortunately, the president reversed himself in response to public pressure -- and the legislation was approved."

Now Bush seems to be repeating his mistake -- and that's bad news for homeland security, Libertarians say.

"Let's urge Bush to flip-flop in the direction of freedom again and let this gun ban quietly expire," he said. "It's time to stop the government's assault on public safety."

[freepatriot32]

what is so suprising about this is that it isnt all that suprising welcome to the age of the Feinstein republican but cheer up at least it isnt a democrat taking away our right to own a gun and defend ourselves from foriegn terrorists and run of the mill domestic criminals its a guy with an elephant after his name doing it so i guess its A-OK with everyone

[antaresequity]

But if overturning this gun ban saves just one life, it will have been worthwhile."

What a stupid comment. Does anyone here actually care how many lives this saves or costs?

Message to the policy makers: Safety isn't the the issue; Just keep your damn hands off my guns.

[templar]

"Fortunately, terrorists carrying semi-automatic rifles haven't yet stormed a shopping mall, an office park or a busy urban area, but they could," Neale said. "If that happens, shouldn't their victims be able to shoot back with the same weapons the terrorists are using?

I hate to point it out, but this is a ridiculous statement. In none of these situations would a citizen be likely to have an AK (or similar) along with him, much less available for ready use while being fired on. I doubt that concealed carry is going to result in many people with an M16 in their purse or hip pocket. Perhaps the author should have considered his reasoning more thourghly before writing.

BTW, I support and advocate the repeal of all Federal firearms laws. And I mean ALL Federal laws regarding firearms, not just the AW ban.

[flashbunny]

Well, if I had a folding stock AK or a krinkov, I suppose I could conceal it under my leather coat in the winter time.

Ah, who am I kidding. My state doesn't even allow concealed handguns!

[TLBSHOW]

"Just eight months after terrorists commandeered four airlines on September 11, Bush opposed a House bill that would have allowed armed pilots in the cockpit.

***Fortunately, the president reversed himself in response to public pressure -- and the legislation was approved."***
.......
SEND THE MESSAGE LET THE BAN DIE-SINCE THE PRESIDENT REALLY DOES WORK FOR THE PEOPLE NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND..........

THE PRESIDENT AND JEB BUSH BOTH LISTEN TO FREEPERS....

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/901099/posts?page=

HERE MORE INFORMATION FROM THE

www.gunowners.org




Others reported that White House staff would not discuss your concerns unless you could give them the exact law number or the exact section from the US Code. We have provided the White House with the appropriate information, so hopefully that won't be a problem anymore.

ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION:
Last week's GOA alert has resulted in thousands upon thousands of e-mails going to the President. There is still no official retraction from the White House, however.

........



www.gunowners.org
Apr 2003
As Semi-auto Issue Heats Up...
Official denials, attacks and silence abound
Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585
"The president supports the [semi-auto ban], and he supports reauthorization of the current law" -- White House spokesman Scott McClellan (The Washington Post, 4-12-03)


Tuesday, April 22, 2003

Hats off to all of you who took action last week in response to the White House's distressing announcement.

After GOA alerted activists like you, we saw almost 10,000 e-mails generated to the White House IN THE FIRST 24 HOURS ALONE.

Many websites posted the GOA alert, and Internet news agencies picked up GOA's message as well.

WorldNetDaily.com ran with the story and quoted GOA's Executive Director as saying that this ban was "anti-Constitution and anti-homeland security" since these guns are clearly protected by the Second Amendment.

The Brady Campaign responded by attacking GOA as a "radical gun group" that was calling for these guns to be "legal and available to all."

How ironic. Aren't they the "radicals" who are out of step with the American people?

After all, the overwhelming majority of the American people correctly view the Second Amendment as safeguarding an individual right. The Brady Bunch doesn't think it does.

Meanwhile, a poll on the KeepandBearArms.com website reports that 90% of the respondents will NOT vote for President Bush in 2004 if he signs a bill reauthorizing the 1994 Clinton-Feinstein ban.

This would not be a surprise. Former President Clinton found out just how unpopular this semi-auto ban was when he lost control of the Congress as a result of it.

"The fight for the assault-weapons ban cost 20 members their seats in Congress," he told the Cleveland Plain Dealer after the election, and is "the reason the Republicans control the House."

Well, he almost got it right. The real number of Congressmen who lost their seats because of that ban was over 60, according to the Dec/Jan 1995 issue of Campaigns & Elections magazine. And contrary to Clinton's assertion, the semi-auto ban doesn't cover real assault weapons at all.

Poor guy... Clinton never could get his facts straight.

But he was right about one thing. The ban did cost him control of the Congress as gun owners abandoned the Democratic Party in droves.

Understandably, the recent Bush administration announcement has touched a sensitive nerve in the pro-gun community.

Knight Ridder and The Washington Post carried the above statement by White House spokesman Scott McClellan, and a mini-firestorm has resulted.

Some have speculated that with the President riding very high in the polls as a result of the war, the White House was using the opportunity to reveal its support for a very unpopular gun ban.

This may explain the timing of the announcement. Regardless, the official response from the White House has been less than encouraging.

Some of you reported that White House operators accused callers of not knowing what they were talking about -- that there was no Scott McClellan at the White House and that no such announcement had been made.

(Yes, Scott McClellan is a spokesman for the White House; and you can read the original news story at http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A11013-2003Apr11 on the Internet. McClellan's official title is: White House Deputy Press Secretary.)

Others reported that White House staff would not discuss your concerns unless you could give them the exact law number or the exact section from the US Code. We have provided the White House with the appropriate information, so hopefully that won't be a problem anymore.

ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR ACTION:
Last week's GOA alert has resulted in thousands upon thousands of e-mails going to the President. There is still no official retraction from the White House, however.

If you haven't sent the pre-written e-mail to President Bush yet, please go to http://www.gunowners.org/activism.htm to do so. For those of you desiring additional ways to contact the President regarding the semi-auto ban, you can use the following information to call, fax or snail mail him:

President George Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20500
Fax: 202-456-2461 or 202-456-1907
Phone: 202-456-1414

If you have not contacted the White House at all yet, please use this opportunity to make your voice heard. It is absolutely vital that we continue inundating the White House in opposition to this ban, and that we do everything we can to repeal it. The pre-written letter from last week's alert has been included below for your convenience.

------ Pre-written message ------
Dear President Bush:

I oppose the Clinton-Feinstein ban on common household firearms.

And that is why I was surprised to hear White House spokesman Scott McClellan say that you support the current ban, along with its reauthorization (The Washington Post, April 12, 2003).

I am taken aback for a few reasons. First, you clearly ran on a pro-gun platform in your race for the White House in 2000. As a result, you were elected President because gun owners all over the country went to the polls and voted for you. Most notably, pro-gun voters delivered three key Democratic states into your column -- Tennessee, West Virginia and Arkansas. Without these three states, Florida would never have been an issue.

Second, former President Bill Clinton has repeatedly stated that passage of the 1994 semi-auto ban cost him control of the Congress. In other words, many Democrats lost their jobs because they voted for this ban. Gun control is a losing issue politically.

Third, the Clinton-Feinstein gun ban is clearly unconstitutional and outlaws the very guns and magazines that millions of people have relied upon to defend their homes and families. The website of Gun Owners of America gives the statistics showing that these banned firearms are rarely used to commit crimes or murders -- in fact, more Americans are killed by knives.

I hope that Scott McClellan was in error and that his statement does not represent your views. And so I trust you will be open and honest with me. Will you OPPOSE the Clinton-Feinstein semi-auto ban and OPPOSE its reauthorization?

Please let me know.

Sincerely,

http://www.gunowners.org/a042203.htm

[droberts]

Of course it's A-OK, I mean can any administration that gives us the Patrioct Act be all that bad?

[Thane_Banquo]

I love how they say about every leftist policy, "If it saves just one life..."

What about the Stalinist system of justice in USSR? The harsh penalties and ease of conviction might have kept several people from murdering, but does that mean such a system is desirable?

Moreover, what if a law saves many lives, but costs many more?

[cynicom]

The outer perimeter of guards for Bush are not carrying capguns or water pistols.

[TLBSHOW]

wal-mart caves and bans toy gun sales in New York State...

[cynicom]

Like father, like son, one term seems to fit both.

[verity]

""Fortunately, terrorists carrying semi-automatic rifles haven't yet stormed a shopping mall, an office park or a busy urban area, but they could," Neale said. "If that happens, shouldn't their victims be able to shoot back with the same weapons the terrorists are using?"

LOL!

[jmc813]

ping

[joesnuffy]

There is no doubt that ALL bad guys....fear/respect an armed population....
Bad guys in govt. tend (in the name of being tough on crime)..to want to disarm honest hard working law abiding tax payers....Bad guys in crime tend to think this is good for them...
Bad guys in govt. do little to get rid of "real" criminals... gang bangers, organized criminals. (Russian Mafia/KGB for example), illegal aliens & other smugglers imo

[mvpel]

We need to push out the "assault weapon" term and replace it with "homeland defense rifle."

[Carry_Okie]

"Of course, an assault weapon may never be used to thwart a terrorist assault. But if overturning this gun ban saves just one life, it will have been worthwhile."

A hilarious use of the old gun grabber canard.

[marktwain]

"If that happens, shouldn't their victims be able to shoot back with the same weapons the terrorists are using?

I hate to point it out, but this is a ridiculous statement. In none of these situations would a citizen be likely to have an AK (or similar) along with him, much less available for ready use while being fired on.

Tell the Israelies how rediculous it is. Many people, myself included, keep a military style rifle in the vehicle. I recall an incident in Texas where a citizen shot an killed a murderer who was shooting a state trooper who was on the ground.

If your opponent is using rare events to attack you, it is reasonable to use just as rare events to discredit him.

[marktwain]

a citizen (used a rifle to shoot) shot and killed a murderer who was shooting a state trooper who was on the ground.

Typing too fast.

[meenie]

Ah don't know why that their cowboy frum Texas wud want to do away with guns, Clem. "Maybe he's afraid uf them shootin' iruns". This has to be a first. A cowboy that is afraid of guns. He must be a rhinestone cowboy.

[Amerigomag]

I'd like to see a compromise between the 2nd Amendment and common sense.

Purchase and possession of "assult weapons" is legal but their public diplay and use is not. No practice at the firing range, no transportion between residences without permit and no public display.

From my perspective an "assult weapon" has only three uses. Defense of the home, defense of the country and use during civil insurrection. None of these uses are infringed by this compromise.

[Jhoffa_]

The 1994 assault weapons law, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-CA, and then-Rep. Charles Schumer, D-NY..

Common sense issues related to the design and effectiveness of the firearms in question and Constitutional issues aside... THIS REALLY FROSTS ME.

This is a trophy Di-Fi doesn't deserve to have in her case. This thing should be allowed to sunset and die while she screams and stamps her little cloven hooves.

May this ridiculous law sunset and pass away to the utter disbelief of every democrat gun grabber in the galaxy.