Bush supports ban on assault arms

MSNBC.Com ^ | 5/8/2003 | By David Gregory

[Bobby777]

President at odds with NRA, a powerful ally

WASHINGTON, May 8 — The ban on assault weapons has put President Bush at odds with the National Rifle Association, a powerful lobby he counts among his staunchest supporters. The question is whether to extend the ban on the weapons, which expires next year. Bush says yes; the NRA says no.

[wardaddy]

Haven't you heard?

Most here still think he never said that.

[Fraulein]

I see nothing wrong with signing an unconstitutional bill if your intent is to kill it. That's what Bush did.

I guess it is okay to intentionally violate the oath of office, if the end justifies the means?

The court wrote nearly 1,700 pages, picking bits from here and there, to produce -- using a phrase taken from WSJ -- "an even greater hash of what was already a legal monstrosity."

[c-b 1]

I see nothing wrong with signing an unconstitutional bill if your intent is to kill it.

That's what Bush did.

Oh really

Call your County, Republican Central Committee Chairman, and ask him if Bush killed Campaign Finance Reform.

[yoe]

HEAR! HEAR!

[sinkspur]

The court wrote nearly 1,700 pages, picking bits from here and there, to produce -- using a phrase taken from WSJ -- "an even greater hash of what was already a legal monstrosity."

You said the law was rewritten, piecemeal.

Where was the law "rewritten"? It's been basically crippled: the hard money raised to $2,000 stays in place (benefitting Republicans), and soft money ban is overturned.

You're right, though, that the decision virtually guarantees that the Supreme Court will simply start over in its consideration and, with two new Bush nominees on board, will gut it completely.

[wardaddy]

He gets it...he'll sign it.

[BenR2]

I heard the same outrage when Bush signed campaign finance reform. Is anybody going to vote against Bush because he signed a law that's been basically gutted, and he knew it would be?

This is politics, not ideology.
////
Ahhh, for the likes of Henry Clay, who said: "I'd rather be right than President."

[GovernmentShrinker]

I think that's a big mistake. The reason we don't have any candidates openly supporting full adherence to the Constitution is that all parties know that such a candidate would be totally unelectable at this time (at least for President). The only way to change that is to vote for the electable candidates who support the most adherence to the Constitution, as compared to other candidates. When elected, they will push as best they can. This is the only way to gradually move public opinion to the point where a full-adherence-to-the-Constitution candidate could actually get elected.

[kitkat]

***What are they claiming the AWs are today? Most haven't the foggiest notion of what one is and mislabeled non-assault weapons as assault weapons - will someone please post and identify these guns - Thanks.***

Good question. I wonder if anyone here actually knows the answer. Hey, FRers, I'm throwing down the gauntlet.

[Jesse]

Nice try, but I don't buy it and neither do a lot of people.

Politics is like basic economics, except the currency is votes instead of money...

If you pay people to be poor, you get more poor people, not fewer.

If you vote for gun-grabbers, you get more gun grabbers, not fewer.

[bybybill]

You all remind me of my 18 month old grandson when he doesn`t get his way. While I don`t like the so called AWB, my grandson`s Dad is a USMC Captain, who is in Kwait. Our family has a couple of things on our plate that are a little more important the AWB.

[Joe Hadenuf]

For Bush, confronting the NRA sounds like a risky political move. The group has given more than $5 million to Republicans since Bush took office

What's the big deal?

The American people have been screaming for immigration reform and begging Bush to stop the never ending invasion of our borders, and this epic attack on our sovereignty, and he has basically told all to go to hell.

[Bob J]

Tonight, UNSPUN with AnnaZ!
6pm pdt/9pm edt

w/Special Guest Hostess Diotima! This week's guest: Dr. John Lott, Jr. Resident Scholar at The American Enterprise Institute. Plus as always CRBs & Bone-headed Lie-beral Quotes ...because you just can't make this stuff up. And... your calls!

Click HERE to LISTEN LIVE while you FReep!

Click HERE for the RadioFR Chat Room!

Miss a show? Click HERE for the RadioFR Archives!

[Sonny M]

Karl Rove, in a speech in New England basically joked that the bill is DOA in the house, the sarcastically told people, "The president will fight the good fight". Unfortunatley for him, and Bush, it got a mixed and confused reaction.

[Sonny M]

This Bill is dead, the house isn't going for it, and Karl Rove is mocking its chances (not to smart of him either). The one thing that does bother me, is this could be a stand on principle, instead, he's going to play politics, by taking a B.S. stand and killing it behind the scenes.

[The KG9 Kid]

"... They'd better, for his sake."

I concur. I wonder if the GOP congress and White House know how much energy this is generating?

[Jesse]

Not a secret. The assault weapons are functionally identical to "non assault" semi automatic weapons.

The term assault weapon is a misnomer. A true assault rifle is full automatic/semiautomatic capable. Also, the term has been misused to suggest that the weapon has an intent of its own. I own many assault weapons...none of which I have ever used to assault anything.

The AW ban criminalized certain features if they were placed on certain firearms after a certain date. It also criminalized the sale and possession of greater than 10 shot magazines manufactured after a certain date. The possession of the so called preban weapons and preban magazines is not yet affected.

The list of firearms is lengthly but really unimportant, since it was not the name which rendered a post ban semiautomatic firearm illegal to manufacture or possess, but the features.

In general, the features which are not allowed on post ban semiautomatic firearms are as follows.

1--Bayonet lug. Banning this is of no consequence except as a feel good measure.

2) Protruding pistol grip--pistol grip helps control the firearm, making it more accurate to fire

3) Threaded muzzle or flash suppressor.--I like to use silencers, which are by the way more easily available in some european countries than here. I have to pay a 200 dollar tax to use one, but it is illegal to put one on a post ban "assault " rifle because it is a flash suppressor. It makes gun easier to shoot, much quieter and more enjoyable, not as annoying to people.

4) Folding stock

5) for a pistol, unloaded weight over 50 oz.

Specific guns included, but widely available in a post ban configuration include AK-47, Tec 9, Galil, AR-70, AR-15, FN, Steyr, M10, M11, Uzi.

One can easily fall afoul of law by putting a folding stock on a post ban gun, which is perfectly legal on a preban gun. Silencer is another.

Although gun grabbers like to spout the line such guns are only good for committing crimes, in fact, the so called assault weapons are least likely to be used in crime. They are loud, bulky and not well suited to stealth and concealment as are handguns, which got smaller and more concealable as a direct result of the ban. Manufacturers, who were now limited to selling semiautomatic pistols with 10 round magazines, stopped using magazine capacity as a selling point and instead switched to smaller size guns.

I don't have a problem with that, but it sure frosted the gun grabbers.

But I digress. The fact is, if gun grabbers were consistent and really believed firearms design causes people to either commit crimes or not, they would insist that guns be mandated to have assault rifle features, since these guns are used far less often than other, non assault weapon style guns to commit crime.

[rwfromkansas]

Has Bush actually said something publicly?

The bill probably won't even get out of the House.

[MinorityRepublican]

The bill probably won't even get out of the House.

I agree. But if the President should sign the bill, I would still support him because I am extremely proud to have him as the President of the United States even though that he may have done a couple of things that I would not really approve.

We have come a long way since x-42 and his soiled administration.

[Fighting Irish]

President Bush, you're wrong on this one! I'll vote for you in 04 but, you are wrong!!!!!

Everything else you do is just peachy!