Posted on 05/07/2003 7:41:18 PM PDT by 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."
Yes, they were. But those who pointed it out were told to "vote for the lesser of two evils", or "don't worry, it will never get to his desk.... just vote for him and he'll take a strong pro-gun stance if elected".
So it's no surprise to most of us.
What is surprising is the number of so-called "conservatives" who either support the ban or defend Bush's support of it.
Great, puffy, swelling words; little content.
True, you could have trimmed your reply down to a concise "nuh-uh."
Still, I think your self-referential post was a nice touch.Really, what else can you do when you find yourself on the wrong side of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry? Just pretend it never happened, and most folks will probably forget all about it.
I just want to hear a practical, workable plan--something a tad bit smarter than biting one's lower lip and pouting in the corner on election day. What's the problem? Lack of intelligence? No imagination?
I don't want to hear great swooning and swooping bloviations. If I wanted to hear that, I would entice OWK from his cave. I want to hear a specific, workable, achieveable plan. Is that asking too much?
How does bitching back at them prove anything?
Keep Jefferson in mind when you call people whiny malcontents, and remember that the British called TJ a "traitor."
The British ministry have so long hired their gazetteers to repeat and model into every form lies about our being in anarchy, that the world has at length believed them, the English nation has believed them, the ministers themselves have come to believe them, & what is more wonderful, we have believed them ourselves. Yet where does this anarchy exist? Where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusetts? And can history produce an instance of rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. They were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. God forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. The people cannot be all, & always well informed. The part which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive. If they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty.
Thomas Jefferson ~ "Tree of Liberty" letterWhat Jefferson is saying here is that even insurrection based on a misinformed perception that the government is encroaching on our liberties is a lesser evil than silently abiding by it.
It's part of the political process to bitch, moan, and hyperventilate. Conflict and the unruly opinions of the masses are inevitable and essential to liberty. The Founders understood and embraced this. The government they designed depends upon it. Why is this so difficult for so many Freepers to apprehend?
If a politician knows that he can have your vote no matter what, then he knows that he can take you and your vote for granted. He can do whatever the wind and his wet finger tell him, because your vote is already in the bag.
In every election, on whom do the politicians devote the bulk of their energies?
They focus primarly on the undecided and swing voters. The votes that matter most are the ones on which they can't rely with certainty.
If you want to get the attention of a candidate for whom you've voted before, tell him why he's in danger of losing your vote.
How's this...everyone "whining" on this thread will tell 5 friends why they should call and fax their representative and the president to vote against/veto Feinswein's bill. Each of those 5 friends will tell five more and so on. Each caller/faxer will make it clear that, while the caller/faxer supported this representative/the president in the last election, a vote on the representative's/president's part for the bill will earn their political opponent a vote from the caller in the next election.
This type of lobbying campaign by single-issue voters worked in the Bush-Gore election and the interim elections during Bush and Clinton. Look what happened in WV and Tenn due to Gore being perceived as more anti-gun than Bush. Each of those representatives that are R's will be communicating the sheer volume of calls to the WH. You will see a shift in the WH public position and you will see a shift in the R's public position.
D's, wary of the 2000 and 2002 election results due to single-issue voters will also be communicating the volume of calls to the D leadership - who won't give a damn. But you can bet that D's who are up for re-election in 2004 will not vote for the ban.
And lo and behold, single-issue voters, with the help of lobbying groups, will cause Feinswein's bill to die a derserving death before Bush gets a chance to sign it...thus the single-issue voters will save Bush from himself...
How's that for a plan? Or would you rather see the bill get signed so you can continue to bitch about us single-issue voters?
And don't for one minute think that I'll vote for Bush again if he signs this bill. I've never voted D in a presidential election before, but you can bet you ass I will in '04 if Bush allows Brady to continue. Especially if there is a R majority in Congress.
"Hypocrisy"?? However do you mean? Personally, I have no moral objection whatsoever to Christians (myself included) casting our sarcastic aspersions upon the "joys" of Drug Use. Far from being "hypocritical", it certainly seems to me a rather more Christian policy than, say, shooting them in the gut.
But while we're on the subject of "Rank hypocrisy", why don't you protest a bit more loudly how terribly "un-neighborly" you find it that a Christian should cast sarcastic aspersions upon Drug Use... no indeed, you think that a bit of Sarcasm is far too harsh a weapon -- you'd much rather just smash down the door and blast away with guns blazing. A much more "Christian" example, indeed.
Yes, I'm sure you're oh-so-offended at a bit of Sarcasm being applied to Drug Users. Rank hypocrisy, thy name is Roscoe.
Eee-gads. You've been reduced to clutching at straws... attempting to shame me for my Sarcastic treatment of Drug Use (perish the thought!!), while you remain passionately in favor of the Anti-Christian Policy of killing thy neighbor.
Tsk, tsk... It simply won't do. News Flash -- There's a reason you always lose these little exchanges of ours, Roscoe. You're arguing from a FUNDAMENTALLY IMMORAL position. A fundamentally un-Jesus-like position.
As long as you argue from a FUNDAMENTALLY IMMORAL position, you're doomed to fail.
As a Calvinist, I might just say... it's predestined.
best, op
Pray tell, rabbi -- precisely what sphere of Caesar's Authority do you suppose is exempt from the Lordship of Jesus Christ, ethically speaking?
Do enlighten me, Kevin. Thrill me with your acumen.
best, op
Yes.
I have been accused, on rare and disparate occasions, of possessing something called a "sense of humor".
Whatever it is, it sounds entirely out-of-character for a dour Calvinist such as myself, and I shan't do it again.
;-)
Define and Explain, oh great Rabban.
Irony.
Not hunting?
Hey, I just dropped by to say thank you for recommending Baxter's Manifold: Time
I've been wallowing happily in science fiction this week, and that book was chock full of science, imaginative and real. Like many sci-fi writers he isn't good at creating characters, although I enjoyed Sheena a lot.
I'll be cracking Manifold: Space as soon as I get some chores done. Thanks again.
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.