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."

 

[TigersEye]

Well said. Spoken to the choir here, but well said. ; )

Unfortunately I'm not so sure we can pass him off as a recent immigrant on the basis of his remarks. All too many native sons have been brain washed in that sort of new-age thinking. The mindset you describe.

He definitely started off by throwing around some nasty innuendos about us but that's probably just a kneejerk reaction to his fear of firearms which is born of ignorance and fed on propaganda. If we don't all throw rocks at him perhaps he'll find out something he never knew. Re-education has to start somewhere.

[risk]

I live for the day I escape this State and it's banal ever-increasing restrictions on freedom.

I don't blame you. I live far away from my aging parents, and my father is a WWII vet whose days left on earth are surely numbered. I can't spend enough time with him and my dear mother, as I can't afford to fly to visit them very often.

But I have a good job here, working for a great company, and I consider myself lucky. I'll stick it out as long as that is a mutually-agreeable arrangement. In the meantime, I consider it my duty to vote here, and keep my government appraised of my opinions.

In any case, we fought for for this state, and we're going to keep it.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"because I have a CCW, I took the gun home with me right away"

How nice. Your goverment license allows you to get a gun.

[PatrioticAmerican]

Let's not insult morons. Knither is a liberal, not a moron. At least morons try.

[CHICAGOFARMER]

nope

Never heard of it??

[M Kehoe]

Thanks for the ping. Great read. I enjoyed it so much I got pi$$ed reading it. You really put the reader "there".

5.56mm

[Taxman]

It all boils down to taking personal responsibility for your life and that of your family and FRiends.

Those who depend on government are doomed to a life of wretched and multiple disappointments, IMHO.

Oh! How I would love and admire statesmen/women who run for and are elected to office on a platform promising to truly serve the interests of their constituents rather than feather their own nests and the ever-growing government nest!

They forget that even Eagle's nests, if they become too heavy, break the limbs that hold them and fall to the ground. There is a lesson in the Eagle's nest metaphor that all politicians should apply to government: when it gets too big and too heavy, it will fall.

Many well-meaning men and women get into politics committed to upholding the Constitution and serving the will of the people. But, all to soon, they get seduced by the (wrong, IMHO) power and the glory, switch sides, and begin to put the government's (whether it be local, state or federal) interest above the Constitution and the people's interest.

When that happens, we all loose.

Time to search out those rascals and throw them out of office!

[Taxman]

That probably is a true statement, but I can stil work to that end.

You will note that each and every one of the "Gun Control" laws on the books have only one intention -- protect government poobahs FRom irate citizens. They are not intended, despite all the "Social Justice" posturing and lies by those who advocate more stringent gun control laws, to provide any measure of protection for the citizenry.

[Shooter 2.5]

The next time we can get a live feed during a legislative debate on guns, I hope you can watch it.

The contrast between the two parties is striking. On one side is the anti-gun dems with their pleading, lies, cajoling, rants and threats.

On the other side is the Republican pro-gun people who talk about Rights, the Constitution and Freedom.

It's nice to be on the side of pro-gun side.

[Taxman]

What you are missing is that in order for you to exercise your God given Second Amendment Right, you have to have a license FRom a government agency.

No license, no "legal" carry.

Pray tell, where is it stated that the government has the authority to license a God given right?

Government "assumed" the authority, and have never relenquished it. And, since the legal system is mostly designed to protect the government FRom the people, it is unlikely that We the People will ever (except in Vermont) be able to FReely exercise our Second Amendment Rights.

The law once was that if you misused a weapon (and got caught), you got punished for your action. Clean. Neat. Cut and dry. Break the law, go to jail. Deeds have consequences. "Commit the crime, do the time."

Now, just the mere ownership of a weapon is a crime and is grounds for incarceration, if you get caught with it and do not have permission FRom the government to carry. That, of course, assumes you can get permission in the first place.

I don't believe in CCW, and refuse to accede to the government's demand that I register as a gun owner. It is none of their damn business whether I own weapons for my and my family's self-protection or not.

If I should misues one of my weapons, I must be prepared to bear the consequences of my actions. Just carrying a weapon does not, IMHO, constitute "misuse."

Consequently, I ignore the CCW laws.

[Taxman]

The Internet is the modern equivalent to the Federalist Papers, IMHO.

We Constitution loving conservatives will prevail, because in print, the LIEberal/Socialist/Marxist Bastard's arguments do not hold up to the intense scrutiny they get FRom well educated people who are truly concerned about America's future.

We must persist, because we can Take America Back!

[TxBec]

and for a real-life scenario, only one word is needed.

Luby's.

[Enemy Of The State]

"why weren't the assault rifle 2nd amendment patriots out there when DC was being shot up by snipers a few months ago?"

Um gee..could that be because they are banned? Duh!

[Coffee_drinker]

Vote here:

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/

[wku man]

Are you equally impressed by the number of folks who did vote for him in 2000, but will not in 2004 because of this, CFR, the "Patriot" Act, increased growth of the national government, etc.?

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[MatthewViti]

Amen!

[Enemy Of The State]

[CHICAGOFARMER]

we have not heard from that Knither fellow or woman or crossdresser??


Where did he go, where did he go, I mean where did she go??

[TigersEye]

I bet he's out working up his next shoot-from-the-lip broad brush psycoanalysis of 80 million people he's never met based on his cousins husband.