Bush in Tight Spot With N.R.A. Over Gun Legislation

The New York Times ^ | 05/08/03 | ERIC LICHTBLAU

[Pokey78]

WASHINGTON, May 7 — President Bush and the National Rifle Association, long regarded as staunch allies, find themselves unlikely adversaries over one of the most significant pieces of gun-control legislation in the last decade, a ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.

At issue is a measure to be introduced by Senate Democrats on Thursday to continue the ban. Groundbreaking 1994 legislation outlawing the sale and possession of such firearms will expire next year unless Congress extends it, and many gun-rights groups have made it their top priority to fight it. Even some advocates of gun control say the prohibition has been largely ineffective because of its loopholes.

Despite those concerns, the White House says Mr. Bush supports the extension of the current law — a position that has put him in opposition to the N.R.A. and left many gun owners angry and dumbfounded.

"This is a president who has been so good on the Second Amendment that it's just unbelievable to gun owners that he would really sign the ban," said Grover G. Norquist, a leading conservative and an N.R.A. board member who opposes the weapons ban. "I don't think it's sunk in for a lot of people yet."

Advocates on both sides of the issue say the White House appears to have made a bold political calculation: that the risk of alienating a core constituency is outweighed by appearing independent of the gun lobby, sticking to a campaign promise and supporting a measure that has broad popular appeal. The president has claimed the middle road — supporting an extension of the current ban but not endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw many "copycat" assault weapons. That position has forced Democrats in the Senate to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban.

Mr. Bush's position "cuts against the N.R.A.'s position," said Michael Franc, vice president of government relations at the conservative Heritage Foundation, "and it will put the president — for one of the first times since he signed the campaign finance reform bill — at odds with his own political base."

"He's built up enough positive political capital in other areas that it won't be fatal," Mr. Franc added, but the issue could hurt Mr. Bush in Middle America, considered critical to his re-election chances in 2004.

The assault-weapons issue puts the president in a precarious political spot. When Mr. Bush was campaigning for president in 2000, a top N.R.A. official boasted that the group's relationship with Mr. Bush was so "unbelievably friendly" that the N.R.A. could practically claim a seat at the White House. The N.R.A. has been a major donor to Mr. Bush, and the gun lobby and the Bush administration have been in lock step on most major gun issues, including the current push to limit lawsuits against gun manufacturers. The Justice Department under Attorney General John Ashcroft has been a particularly close ally of the gun lobby, pushing an expanded view of gun rights under the Second Amendment and initiating law enforcement changes sought by the N.R.A.

But White House officials said the assault-weapons ban was one case in which the president and the N.R.A. did not see eye to eye.

"There are times when we agree and there are times when we disagree," said Scott McClellan, a White House spokesman. "The president makes decisions based on what he believes is the right policy for Americans." Mr. McClellan added that the ban was put in place as a way of deterring crime and that Mr. Bush "felt it was reasonable."

The White House position has heartened gun-control advocates. Matt Bennett, a spokesman for Americans for Gun Safety, which supports an extension of the weapons ban, said, "I think Bush realizes that, number one, this is the right thing to do, number two, he promised to do this in the 2000 campaign, and number three, he knows that it's good politics and this is an extremely popular measure."

The N.R.A. has maintained a polite civility toward the White House over the issue, even though it insists the ban is a violation of the Second Amendment that deprives hunters and sportsmen of many high-powered rifles.

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that while the defeat of the assault-weapons ban would be one of the N.R.A's top priorities, the group's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it so that it never reaches Mr. Bush's desk. "Do we agree with the administration's position on this? No, we don't, but the real fight is going to be not at that level, but in Congress," he said.

A bill will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday by Senator Dianne Feinstein, Democrat of California, and Senator Charles Schumer, Democrat of New York, that would extend the ban for 10 years in much the same form it exists today. House Democrats expect to introduce a toughened version of the bill next week. That version, rejected by Senate Democrats as too politically risky, would significantly expand the class of banned weapons.

Mr. Schumer said he believed Mr. Bush's support could be critical in what he predicted would be a hard-fought campaign to renew the assault-weapons measure, which bans 19 types of firearms and others that meet certain criteria.

"We hope the president will not just say he supports the ban but will work to get it passed," Mr. Schumer said in an interview. "This will be a good measure of the compassion in his compassionate conservatism."

Senate Democrats ultimately decided that a stronger version of the ban would not pass muster with the White House and thus stood little chance of gaining passage, officials said. As a result, the Senate proposal will not specifically ban the Bushmaster rifle type that was used in last year's Washington-area sniper attacks. The House version would, because it includes a broader definition of an assault rifle, officials said.

"I would like to strengthen the bill" beyond what will be introduced in the Senate on Thursday, Senator Feinstein said today. "But I don't want to lose the bill, and important to that is the president's support."

Mr. Schumer said that even with the White House's public support, "I am worried that the anti-gun-control forces in the administration will conspire to kill this measure in the dead of night without a vote."

He noted that Mr. Ashcroft gave a noncommittal response two months ago when he was asked before the Senate several times whether he would support the reauthorization of the assault-weapons ban.

Mr. Ashcroft noted that Justice Department studies had found that the ban's impact on gun violence was "uncertain," and he said more study was needed.

The question of the gun ban's impact over the last nine years will be a crucial point of debate on the legislation.

A report due to be released in the next few days by the Violence Policy Center — a liberal Washington group that supports an expansion of the ban — examined the killings of 211 law enforcement officers from 1998 to 2001 and found that one in five were done with assault weapons, often copycat models that did not fall under the 1994 ban.

"Unfortunately, the firearms industry has been very successful at evading the ban," Kristen Rand, the group's legislative director, said. "Assault weapons remain a huge public safety problem."

Gun-rights groups insist that the assault-weapons ban has had little or no impact in fighting crime, and they maintain that their opponents are wrong to depict high-powered rifles as the weapon of choice for gangs and rampage killers.

"None of these weapons are used for crimes, and the Democrats know that," Mr. Norquist said.

For many gun owners, the issue is visceral, and Mr. Bush's stance has made the debate even more emotional.

"There are a lot of gun owners who worked hard to put President Bush in office, and there are a lot of gun owners who feel betrayed by him," said Angel Shamaya, an Arizona gun owner who runs a Web site called "keepandbeararms.com."

[BenR2]

Huh? Bush won despite Rove's idiocy. And I suspect this is more of Rove's lunacy. Look at all the money and time Bush squandered on California instead of locking up Florida and a few very very close states like New Mexico. Rove put Powell and Rice on the ticket and Bush tried to make an appeal for black votes and did even worse than Bob Dole did, getting only 8% of the black vote. And after this performance, Rove is supposed to be good at political calculations? Bush won despite Rove's blunders. Rove should be dismissed and replaced with a competent national campaign advisor.
/////
Well said! Wish I had written that. Rove is over-rated. That GWBush trusts all to his judgment calls into question GWB's political acumen, as well.

[BenR2]

This supposedly "moderate" Imam from the Detroit, Michigan-based Islamic Center of America (ICA) has some disturbing connections to radical Islamists that cannot be overlooked by a conservative President who has been entrusted by the American people to fight a war on global terrorism.

////////////
Bush KISSED this guy? Why no BARF alert?

[MJY1288]

My only fear is that this issue will be buried in the Tax Cut bill and slide through. I would fear this possibility more if Tom Daschle still had the last say before it went to conference.

Tom Delay is no push over and I'm very glad he is calling the shots in the House. The jellyfish that represent us in the Senate is another deal.

[justshe]

Ah......but you left out the one....coincidentally to you....in between.

---

To: tpaine

See my roadmap above. If anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears.

1,177 posted on 04/17/2003 4:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson

[justshe]

If the Republicans in the Senate use the 'nuclear' option re: judicial appointments/filibustering....no one will have to worry about this, or any legislation getting thru.

The Democrats have vowed to literally shut down the Senate and bottle up ALL legislation for the rest of the Congressional term.

[MJY1288]

We could debate all the possibilities till the cows come home. Ping me when there is a bill being debated in the house and the floor of the senate. until this happens, this is a non issue and not worth all this hand wringing

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

As a side note, I'm actually of the opinion that we, as Conservatives, have a good deal to be thankful to the Krinton administration for. For starters, Krinton energized the conservative electorate like nobody else in the last hundred years. The second biggest thing X42 did was to awaken masses of citizens to the peril that he and the Left posed to the Republic. In spite of despising the slimebag, I have opined from time to time that it might not have been such a bad thing to have a few more years in the pressure cooker for the populace to really see things clearly - if the Republic and our Constitution could survive Krinton II.

You wanna know what else the Rapist-in-Chief (William Jefferson Clinton, come on down... this IS your "Legacy"!) did? Get ready to have your mind blown.

• In terms of Government Spending, you know who was the most Economically Conservative President since Eisenhower? Ronald Reagan, of course. (This is an important statistical measure, because excessive Federal Spending actually kills real human beings. It represents the matter of "Government spending away Mommy's cancer-medication dollars faster than Daddy can earn it"). Despite the burden of almost single-handedly defeating the entire Soviet Empire by himself (with a little help from Maggie Thatcher and the Pope), the growth of Government Spending as a percentage of Gross National Product essentially halted under Reagan. In other words, under Reagan, Government DID NOT "spend away Mommy's cancer-medication dollars faster than Daddy could earn it". Even if our Conservatism is purely pragmatic, that's a noble accomplishment.

• But in terms of Government Spending, you know who was the second-most Economically Conservative President since Eisenhower? BILL CLINTON. If this be Heresy, let me remind you -- it is still Fact. And why is it a Fact? Is it because Bill Clinton himself was such a Fiscal Conservative? No, it isn't. It is because Conservative Democrats (such as Treasury Secretary Lloyd Bentsen, who KIBOSH-ed Clinton's "energy tax") and Conservative Republicans (like Majority Leader Gingrich, who was at least a Fiscal Conservative at the time) opposed Clinton at every turn, in spite of him.

When was the last time that "conservative" Republicans ever opposed Bush's new spending programs -- the largest since LBJ -- in spite of him??

There's a reason why Wall Street likes "gridlock" -- you can never trust Democrats to oppose the growth of Big Government, but you can trust Republicans to oppose the growth of Big Government -- when Democrats are in Power.

Of course, I'd love to be proved wrong. If Republicans will oppose the growth of Big Government while they are in Power, I'll eat my hat -- on a half-shell, with cocktail sauce.

But I don't expect to eat my hat any time soon. Matter of fact, if past performance is indicative of future results, I'm prepared to Bet on it.

[tpaine]

Ah......but you left out the ones....coincidentally of course ....that followed my suggestion about using the RLC :

To: tpaine
See my roadmap above. If anyone has a better idea, I'm all ears.

1,177 posted on 04/17/2003 4:04 PM PDT by Jim Robinson
_____________________________________


To: tpaine
Yes, that's fine. The Republican Liberty Caucus promotes electing Republicans and defeating Democrats. I'm in complete agreement.
1,187 posted on 04/17/2003 4:23 PM PDT by Jim Robinson


Yes, as you've said, you're in complete agreement with electing Republicans and defeating Democrats. But are you in basic agreement with the positions of the Republican Liberty Caucus?
1,205 posted on 04/17/2003 4:39 PM PDT by tpaine


To: tpaine
Of course.
1,209 -JR-

[MJY1288]

The AWB will sunset and the democrats will try and claim Bush failed to support the renewal of the AWB and he will say is

"if you RATS in the Senate would have not wasted so much time filibustering my judicial nominations and focused on the peoples business, we might have been able to see some legislation reach my desk. Now the American people can see what your obstructionism has done to undermine the economy as well as the security of this country with all your obstructionism"

[jt8d]

Yes, and least of all to the litany of liberal suck-ass give-a-ways: that State of the Union gem--AIDS Aid for African butt pirates, to the tune of 18 BILLION US TAXPAYER BUCKAROOS!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

So you despise Bush. What is your workable plan? Take the stage and enlighten us. The mic is yours. ~~ What is so complicated about his reversing himself (admitting a mistake) and coming out four-square against the AWB extension. Please don't make it all complicated. It isn't.

Admitting a Mistake and reversing himself would compromise the Master Plan.

See, Bush has a Master Plan. Honest. Just trust him, and get with the program, Citizen.

See, banning Assault Rifles (or as Travis McGee correctly terms them, "Homeland Security Rifles) is all part of the Master Plan to restore the Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. Really, it is. You just have to trust them.

And for that matter, "Conservatives" really are in favor of restoring the Second Amendment to the level of respect it enjoyed under America's Founder's -- when Private Businessmen could readily hire fully-armed battleships in defense of their foreign business interests. It's not just a "crazy Libertarian idea".

In point of fact, it is rather stupid to call it a "crazy Libertarian idea", given that as a matter of Historical Fact Washington and Adams and Jefferson absolutely supported the Right of Private Businessmen to readily hire fully-armed battleships in defense of their foreign business interests.

And "Conservatives" support this too, really they do!! They don't think it's a "crazy Libertarian idea" at all, really they don't; they truly affirm the Beliefs of the Founders, really they do!! They're NOT Traitors to the Constitution, they really do support the Right of the Citizen to keep and bear arms...

So when they advocate Banning "assault rifles", you just have to believe -- it's all part of the Master Plan to restore the Second Amendment Right to keep and bear arms. Really, it is.

You'll just have to trust them. Be a good sport, now, eh??

But how DARE you suggest that Bush should Admit a Mistake and reverse himself.

Why, that would compromise the Master Plan! Don't you see?

O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself.

He loved Big Brother.

[jt8d]

From the time of the Magna Carta (1215) until the first Constitutional republic (1789)required 574 years of suffering "trial and error"--mostly through bloody sacrifice. Since 1789, we have endured as a constitutional republic for 214 years. By the above cited list, IMHO, we would be required to "reinvent the wheel."

Five hundered and seventy-four years' passage were invested to bring about this so-called "perfect form of government" that liberals have all but destroyed in less than one lifetime. I am not so confident such a rebuilding-regeneration task is possible without suffering through all the same bloody turmoil, which we accrued over 788 years of hard-learned history.

[Sabertooth]

Ping me when there is a bill being debated in the house and the floor of the senate. until this happens, this is a non issue and not worth all this hand wringing

Are you saying you aren't above a little handwringing?

#17:
This is a touchy third rail issue that could be used against him with the soccer mom's. I'm sure Karl Rove is telling him to hint that he might sign it if it reaches his desk and make no effort to support it.

I will bet that it will never reach his desk. If it does... He better veto it or lose a large block of support

#227:
The art of getting anything accomplished in today political environment requires careful consideration of the political climate and the reality if you make a strong stand in this country, you are labeled an extremest by the mainstream media.

#249:
The less press this issue gets, is the best chance it will sunset. If President Bush is forced to take a real position on this because we all demand that he make it a front page issue, WE WILL LOSE.

#259:
The problem with that is John Q Public will side with whatever position the mainstream media takes.

Fear of the Democrats is the greatest obstacle we face. It's in our interests not to indulge in it.

[jt8d]

That's not half as bad as Pope John Paul II kissing Islamic clerics--and then, bowing before, and kissing the Qum-ran!

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Yes, as you've said, you're in complete agreement with electing Republicans and defeating Democrats. But are you in basic agreement with the positions of the Republican Liberty Caucus?

Aw, shucks, Tpaine... and here you get off and give me hell because I dare to (God Forbid!!) preach Religion, on the Religion threads. (Imagine that)

---

Is Objectivism compatible with religion?
Posted by tpaine to OrthodoxPresbyterian
On News/Activism 04/30/2003 9:46 AM PDT #241 of 270

"See what I mean?" -OP
Yep, I see utter vapidity in your belaboring of the obvious. - Tpaine

---

And here I had neither attempted to proselytize you nor impose myself upon you in any way. You just showed up on the thread, apparently annoyed with me for preaching Christian Ethics to "Roscoe".

(Here's a news flash, Tpaine -- "Roscoe" desperately needs to learn some "publicans and sinners sat also together with Jesus" Christian Ethics, so I'm gonna preach it -- whether you like Christianity or not).

Maybe most modern "christians" have forgotten to Origin of the Religion, but I haven't -- Christianity was founded as deliberate Treason against the State. Why do you think we were fed to the Lions?

This was the issue that lead to the slaughter of Christians for 300 years in the Roman Empire, because they refused to pay homage to Caesar. And they were told to just burn a little incense. You don’t even have to mean it. They said that they would not even give the indication that there is anyone above Christ. We will be loyal citizens. We will do what the law says. But we will not pay homage to another lord. Jesus is Lord. And for that they were sawn in two. They were cut up, they were stabbed, they were brutally mistreated. They were tarred and burned and they were fed to the lions for the simple, little confession that Jesus is Lord. It is the backbone of the Christian confession. It is the beginning of the Christian life and it will come to a test every now in then in church history. ~~ Rev. Steve Schlissel, "Messiah Rules The Nations"

So respectfully, neighbor, be advised:

• I shall always affirm the absolute Factual Truth of Christianity.
• And likewise, I shall always affirm that the Factual Truth of Christianity is, at the same time, the absolute Repudiation of the State.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." -- The Law of God, as quoted by the Lord of the Universe, Jesus Christ of Nazareth -- God Incarnate, Resurrected as a matter of Historical Fact in 33 AD.

No King but Jesus; and therefore, Caesar is NOT KING.

If you would personally prefer not to hear me preach Christianity, then perhaps when we converse you should stick to Republican Liberty Caucus matters -- on which we can both agree, given that the RLC's National Vice-President Murray Sabrin (an irreligious Jew, whose father led a Partisan brigade against the Nazis thanks in part to a few privately-stashed Firearms), is a personal friend of mine.

Best, OP

[Roscoe]

"Stay home" is your plan?

Not all of them have such limited plans. Some of them will stay home and smoke dope.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Not all of them have such limited plans. Some of them will stay home and smoke dope. 316 posted on 05/08/2003 12:49 AM PDT by Roscoe

Just out of curiosity, would the "dope-smokers" in question include the notorious former Drug-Addled Drug-Pusher commonly known on FreeRepublic as "Dane"? I ask only for clarification, mind you....

Ahh, but "Dane" is a devout Prohibitionist now. I suppose that Canon Law of Theology called the "Statute of Limitations" (a phrase found nowhere in the Bible) covers a multitude of Sins.

So, let us suppose it is not 2003 AD.
Let us suppose it is, instead, 1983 AD.

• Here we have "Dane", toking up the Hookah-Pipe as visions of White Rabbits and Pink Elephants float past his eyes, exclaiming: "Grooooovy, Man"....
• And here we have "Roscoe", resplendent in his fine uniform and polished jack-boots, breaking down "Dane's" door and shoving a handgun in his face, exclaiming: "You better not be Intoxicated -- unless, of course, it's Booze or Pharmaceuticals or other intoxicants of which I personally approve -- or I'm splatterin' your brains against the wall!!"

Do either of these behaviors correspond even remotely to the Teaching and Example of Jesus Christ?

No, of course not.

But of course, "the Teaching and Example of Jesus Christ"... that's so passe.

That's the beauty of the catch-all term "Christianity"... never mind the Teaching and Example of Jesus Christ, the term itself is so delightfully fungible.

[Roscoe]

Spewing hatred in the name of God. Typical.

[OrthodoxPresbyterian]

Spewing hatred in the name of God. Typical. 318 posted on 05/08/2003 1:16 AM PDT by Roscoe

"Hatred"? Just because I advocate not killing people on account of Private Vices which are, according to the entire Old and New Testaments, NOT BIBLICALLY ILLEGAL?

That's a rather strange definition of "hatred". I call it instead, the Law of Neighborly Love.

For this, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not bear false witness, Thou shalt not covet; and if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Love worketh no ill to his neighbour: therefore love is the fulfilling of the law.

It is the province of Satanists to define "Neighborly Love" as Hatred, and to define "breaking down your neighbor's door and killing him" as Virtue.

[Roscoe]

"Hatred"?

Hatred.