Bush gun control plan is threat to homeland security

Libertarian Party Press Releases ^ | 4.23.03

[Enemy Of The State]

Bush gun control plan is threat to homeland security

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."

 

[Cacophonous]

As an interesting contrast, Saddam Hussein was arming his citizens there at the end...

[Enemy Of The State]

Ping!

[harpseal]

So far we have a statement from the White House that GWB supports extending the Assault Weapons Ban unless and until his political operatives start really lobbying for this the bill will die in comittee and never make it to the floor. This gives Bush the best of both worlds the Rats vcannot use it as a campaign issue for the Succer moms and the AWB expires on Sept. 14, 2004.

[basil]

I have to agree with the Libertarians on this one. Whatever can Bush be thinking? It's common knowledge that Bush could never have been elected without the Pro2A voters in this country.

[Cacophonous]

Way to take a stand, George. Are all Texans that wishy-washy?

[Jeff Head]

"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 write of just this sort of event in Volume II of my Dragon's Fury Book Series

Below is a link to the excerpt I have up on my site regarding that event in the novel.

TERROR AT FOOTHILL MALL

[Libertarianize the GOP]

http://www.freerepublic.com/perl/bump-list

[joesnuffy]

We also have been arming Iraqi citizens to protect their businesses and homes from looters and rapists..
We were issuing full auto-AKs with NO BACKGROUND checks... No Waiting Periods...
And many muslims men are guilty of domestic abuse charges for disciplining their women...
meanwhile back in the land of the free and home of the brave............

[Cacophonous]

Yeah...Saddam, who was hated by his people arms them...President Bush, loved by his, welshes on the 2nd Amendment...what am I missing?

[yarddog]

This is not only wrong and unconstitutional, it is an almost unbelievably bad political move.

Bush will get very nearly zero votes from gun control proponents but he will lose a lot from freedom loving voters. I would never vote for any of the current democrats but I also will not vote for Bush if he pushes this.

[Possenti]

The Bushbots will be out in full force on this thread to make any and all excuses for why we should still support this enemy to the 2nd Ammendment. ("Hey - we're at waaahhrrr! We should make some sacrfices"...etc..etc...) Save it for your country club meetings, RINOs.

If Bush renews the ban, he's a one-termer. Mark my words.

[Nick Danger]

So far we have a statement from the White House that GWB supports extending the Assault Weapons Ban unless and until his political operatives start really lobbying for this the bill will die in comittee and never make it to the floor. This gives Bush the best of both worlds the Rats vcannot use it as a campaign issue for the Succer moms and the AWB expires on Sept. 14, 2004.

You broke the code. This thing has zero chance of getting out of the House. None, nada, zip. Knowing that, Bush can play the Dems like a fiddle.

"Bush gun control plan" indeed. Don't these people understand that when you hold both houses of Congress plus the White House, you can choose where to kill it, and let the other guys play politics with it to bat the other party around? C'mon, let's enjoy our time in the Sun. We don't need to run like scared chickens all the time.

[Enemy Of The State]

"If Bush renews the ban, he's a one-termer"

If Bush renews this ban he will certainly lose my support.

[Shooter 2.5]

Unless you two were out to lunch that day, during the campaign, Bush said he supported the ban.

He also said we didn't need any more gun control.

The NRA stated the fight against the Assault Weapons law started during the November 2002 elections. We did make some headway in electing A rated candidates.

Let's get to work by calling our Representatives and Senators so this never reaches his desk because we can't allow another dem back into the White House.

[Taxman]

Do you FReepers find it interesting that in all the hype and hysteria about "Homeland Security," no government organization has suggested that owning and carrying a personal weapon might, just might, be a good idea?

I am reminded every time 9-11 comes up in print or in conversation that for the want of four handguns and nineteen bullets, 3,000 people died.

And, I am determined not to be disarmed, particularly when "my" government is urging me to be "prepared!"

Since I cannot "prepare" myself when I fly, I no longer fly.

My fervant wish is that the Attorney General would expand his statement re: private ownership of guns to declare that all gun control laws are unconstitutional, and that any American who chooses to exercise his/her Second Amendment Rights will not be arrested for "preparing" to defend his/her life and liberty should it become necessary.

Vermont is the only state in the Union that understands and respects the Second Amendment, and their law should be the law of the land. Its almost enough to make me want to move there!

[Shooter 2.5]

I think once we get all the states with a CCW law and the streets remain bloodfree, we can start working on loosening up the requirments. Hopefully, all the states may get their laws in onother couple of years unless we have to have a couple of bad examples like California, Illinois and Massachusetts.

We've come a long way since the Morton Grove, Illinois type gun bans that were threatening all over the country.

[Knither]

And let's all remember to take our assault rifles, fully loaded, every time we go to the mall, the movies, a restaurant, or any public place that might be shot up by terrorists. Do they come with some kind of shoulder strap so I can easily carry mine and still carry my big packages from Sears and the Footlocker? I don't have mine yet, but I'm saving up for one. We won't have any trouble, once this ban thing is lifted, carrying them around to defend ourselves, will we?

Oh, and church. We definitely ought not to leave them home when we go to church! Think how many could be killed if the terrorists stormed a church!

[yarddog]

You are about as dumb as a post.

There are quite a few places where it is and has been legal for a long time to take your gun to church, the mall, etc. I don't recall there ever being trouble because of it.

Fact is tho that according to the only people who have ever really studied it scientifically, there are more than two million crimes prevented in the US annually by citizens with guns. The overwhelming majority of which are not fired.

[risk]

As an interesting contrast, Saddam Hussein was arming his citizens there at the end...

You can't arm apathetic people at the last minute and expect them to defend your country against A10s, Apaches, and SAWs teams. It takes weeks of committed training and practice to become proficient with military grade rifles for a populace to be ready for anything like that. This is just one argument for us to strengthen our vigilance by eliminating bans like this (and the BMG50 proposals) so people can keep their skills sharp. It's also a strong suggestion that we should be thinking about citizen home defense tactics as well as simple target practice.

The McCain-Bayh Citizen Soldier initiative seems to have fizzled out, unfortunately. But it seemed like a step in the right direction: we need a formal way to organize in defense of our communities.

A call to service in a time of war

Short-term enlistment would entice even well-educated and well-off Americans to bear arms.

by Marc Magee and Steven J. Nider

"The United States does not consider it a sacrifice to do all one can, to give one's best to our nation, when the nation is fighting for its existence and its future life. It is not a sacrifice for any man, old or young, to be in the Army or the Navy of the United States. Rather it is a privilege."
—Franklin D. Roosevelt, Dec. 9, 1941

"I'm asked all the time, what can I do to help? People say, 'Well, gosh, I want to be a part of the war against terror.' And my answer is, love somebody. Be a good mother or dad."
—George W. Bush, Jan. 30, 2002

With America embroiled in a global war on terrorism, with the increasing likelihood of a conflict with Iraq, and with tensions rising on the Korean peninsula, public attention has turned to a crucial question: Who is doing the fighting and dying for all of us? President Bush has been silent on this question, choosing instead to make a call to part-time volunteerism the service component of his war mobilization. New Democrats, by contrast, have been working since 9/11 to reconnect national service and national defense.

On Dec. 2, 2002, this hard work paid off when the military pillar of the Bayh-McCain "National Call to Service" bill—a new short-term "citizen-soldier" enlistment program—was signed into law as part of the fiscal 2003 defense authorization. This initiative represents the most important change in military recruitment policy since the draft was ended. It enables volunteers to sign up for 18 months of service on active duty—the average enlistment now is four years—followed by service in the Reserves and then either a period of availability in the Individual Ready Reserves or civilian service in AmeriCorps or the Peace Corps. By shortening the length of enlistment and basing recruitment on a call to service rather than the current focus on cash incentives, this citizen-soldier plan offers the nation's most fortunate sons and daughters a voluntary equivalent of the old draft—a way to contribute to America's defense without choosing a military career.

The military's current recruitment strategy—one based on economic incentives and career-track enlistments—does not entice many well-off or well-educated citizens. For example, the percentage of Americans in uniform with college experience is only 28 percent, versus 56 percent of the civilian population. The disconnect between American elites and the military is even greater. The percentage of congressional members with military service has declined from 75 percent in 1971 to less than 34 percent today. In addition, despite the large-scale military mobilization since Sept. 11, 2001, only a few members of Congress have a son or daughter in the armed forces, and only one of those is in the enlisted ranks.

The new short-term enlistment option offers a way to reverse this growing civilian-military divide. Research by Northwestern University professor Charles Moskos, the country's pre-eminent military sociologist, demonstrates that use of the new short-term enlistment track could help share the burden of military service more equitably by removing one of the most important barriers to military service for college graduates: the long-term enlistments, which graduates perceive as obstacles to their larger career goals. In addition, the enlistment of these citizen soldiers could help ease the growing strains on our military created by the long-duration campaigns of the war on terror by bringing more full-time soldiers into a force overly reliant on reserve personnel. Finally, even with the largest increase in defense spending since the Reagan administration, having the resources necessary to win the war on terror will require that we make every effort to get the most out of each dollar. By meeting our recruiting needs through a call to service instead of larger cash incentives, the enlistment of citizen soldiers will make certain that we have the resources needed to carry on this fight as long as necessary.

While the passage of the military pillar of the Bayh-McCain national service bill is a significant step forward, much more needs to be done this year to assure that we meet the challenges ahead. We propose three benchmarks for success in 2003. First, the new citizen-soldier program should be brought up to scale by assuring that important occupations with short training programs, such as military police, psychological operations, and military intelligence, are included in the initial implementation plan and by setting a target of recruiting 25,000 citizen soldiers in the program's first year. Second, the military pillar of service should be connected to an expansion of civilian service opportunities by increasing the size of the AmeriCorps program by 25,000 members in 2003 and dedicating one-half of the increase to homeland security projects. Third, the nation's leaders should go beyond the president's call for part-time volunteerism to make a clear call for full-time national service, including service as citizen soldiers. Only then will we begin to meet the challenges to our collective security—just as President Franklin D. Roosevelt called for in 1941—with the privilege of service to the nation shared equally by all its citizens.

Marc Magee is the director of the Center for Civic Enterprise at the Progressive Policy Institute. Steven J. Nider is director of foreign and security studies at PPI.