President Bush and the GOP Poised to Sell-out Gun Owners

Armed Females of America ^ | 19 May 2003 | Nicki Fellenzer

[45Auto]

Well, here we go again. Power-hungry cowards in Congress are once again seeking to ram gun control down our throats, and this time, our president – the man who was painted as a friend to the some 80 million-gun owners in this country by the National Republican Apologists (NRA) – says he will sign it if it reaches his desk.

But my goal today is not to take aim at the NRA for its obsequious and quite obvious silence on the G.W. Bush promise to sign the odious legislation to expand and make permanent the Clinton “Assault” weapons ban of 1994 into law – although God and Goddess know the NRA’s hypocrisy and ass kissing of the seat of power are glaring, to say the least. No, today I’m taking on the President himself…

· For playing political games with our freedoms;

· For maneuvering and dodging instead of taking a courageous stand;

· And for trying to appease the anti-freedom maggots in congress and at Handgun Control, Inc. (And no, I won’t call it the “Brady Center.” They are what they are, regardless of the name change.)

Consider this: George W. Bush is a man who ran on the premise that he was a friend of the Second Amendment. In the 2000 elections, the NRA drooled at the prospect of having Bush in office. An excerpt from a story on Boston.com tells the story quite well: “On the NRA tape, [Kayne] Robinson calls Gore an ‘antigun fanatic’ and said electing him would be a ‘horror story.’ But with Bush, the likely Republican nominee, they will have ‘unbelievably friendly relations.’”

In October, 2000, then-NRA President Charlton Heston stomped around the country urging gun owners to vote for George W. Bush, describing the presidential campaign as "a holy war" for the constitutional rights of gun owners.

And now, the President to whom a large number of gun owners gave their vote – a sacred trust to protect their rights and the US Constitution – is underhandedly voicing his tacit support for the permanent ban of certain types of firearms. No, he’s not proud of his support. He’s keeping a low profile, letting his lackeys do the talking, while keeping conspicuously silent himself. If the ban never sees his desk, his spin-doctors can twist the sad facts into a positive development for the Bush Presidency: An odious Clintonesque gun control bill was killed during our brave leader’s reign!

If Congress passes H.R. 2038, and Bush signs it into law, you can expect a very large number of gun owners and patriots to turn away from Bush and from the Republican party. There’s no excuse for this heinous, unconstitutional legislation to see the light of day – not when we have a Republican majority in Congress and a Republican White House. Republicans are supposed to be gun owners’ friends, right?

Apparently, they aren’t. Apparently Republicans are just as willing to play politics with our rights as the Democrats. According to Newsday.com, “[House] Speaker Dennis Hastert opened the door Thursday to a vote on extending an assault weapons ban that expires next year, and the leader of House Democrats prodded President Bush to urge the Republican leadership to bring the bill to the floor.” It sure doesn’t sound like the Republicans are any better friends to gun owners than the Democrats. They’ll violate your rights just to appear “moderate” just as quickly as the Democrats, hoping their tepid reluctance will earn them brownie points.

Well, time has come to say it: Mr. President, you and your Republican cohorts are cowards and hypocrites, and gun owners know it!

Yes, I’m saying it loud and clear, so that you and your lackeys can read and revel in this fact. You have no courage. You have no integrity. You bend to the political convenience of the moment, because it’s the quickest road to re-election, and you think that little red, white and blue elephant on your lapel, your patriotic pictures on the USS Abraham Lincoln and your war on terrorism will erase or obscure this fact and that your membership in the Republican party will shield you from the wrath of those you have betrayed.

You feel complacent because you feel gun owners will support you regardless, because you happen to be the lesser of the two evils. You feel secure, shrouded in the Republican banner, because gun owners have consistently and loyally voted Republican. Well, I suggest you stop feeling secure, sir. Because gun owners don’t appreciate cowards and hypocrites. We don’t appreciate compromising twits, who will do anything to appear “moderate” while trading away our rights for a few votes. We appreciate truth, integrity and courage.

If you had any gonads at all, you would stand up and say, “I want to ban all the so-called ‘assault’ weapons and I will support any legislation which accomplishes this goal,” and then allow law-abiding and freedom-loving citizens of this country to turn away from you, as you know they will.

But no, you won’t do that, Mr. Bush, because politics are apparently much more important to you than principles. You want reelection so bad, you can taste it, and it appears you’ll do anything – even sell law-abiding gun owners to the socialist wolves – to get it.

The legislation you are too afraid to state your support for is a pernicious piece of garbage that will do nothing more than place further limits on our freedoms.

H.R. 2038 – the “Assault” weapons ban will do nothing to stop crime. Prior to the Clinton ban, a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey reported that in 1991, about 8 percent of state inmates had possessed a so-called “assault” weapon. Care to guess how many carried said weapon in the commission of a crime? LESS THAN ONE PERCENT.

A Virginia inmate survey conducted prior to the 1994 ban showed that while about 10 percent of incarcerated criminals ever owned an “assault” weapon, none had carried it at the scene of a crime.

Meanwhile, in 1997 – four years after the Clinton ban was passed – 1.5 percent of state inmates and 1.7 percent of federal inmates admitted to having used a weapon made illegal by the Clinton ban.

Both numbers are insignificant, but some are more insignificant than others. More criminals used the banned “assault” weapons during the commission of their crimes after the ban than before. Even now, the number of criminals who use “assault” weapons is pathetically small.

So what is the purpose of this ban?

Is it to reduce crime? Apparently not, since said weapons are rarely used to commit offenses.

It bans, among other things, pistol grips, folding telescopic stocks, threaded barrels, forward grips and barrel shrouds – none of which make a gun any more or less “dangerous” and none of which pose any threat to law enforcement. And yet, the legislation carries the deceptive name, Assault Weapons Ban and Law Enforcement Protection Act of 2003, even though it has no hope of “protecting” the already protected elite – the police, who are, of course, exempt from the bill’s provisions.

What you are tacitly supporting, Mr. Bush is nothing less than an attempt to ram yet more gun control down the throats of the American public. It’s not about crime, it’s not about protection, it’s about control, and if you are not part of the solution, then you are part of the problem –

- a problem we, gun owners, plan to battle and win.

If you are not to be a part of it, so be it. But at least have the courage to stand up and admit it, instead of hiding from the truth.

Admit that you would support an ineffective and unconstitutional ban on firearms for a political purpose.

Admit that you are too cowardly to stand up to Schumer, McCarthy, Feinstein and their weak-minded socialist brethren, because you’re afraid you’ll lose votes.

Don’t sit in the White House and have your lackeys proclaim what a great, courageous independent minded leader you are, because you’re willing to part with the NRA on this issue. What you’re doing is not courageous; it’s stupid, ineffectual and manipulative.

Our rights are not yours to maneuver for your political gain.

Our Constitution is not up for debate.

Our freedoms are not your bargaining chips, Mr. President.

Stand up, be a man and admit your support for this unconstitutional monster that aims to take firearms out of the hands of the law-abiding. Or if you don’t support this bill, have the courage to say so and face the mealy-mouthed, hand wringing wrath of Brady, Nosanchuk, Diaz and their socialist ilk.

You won’t get a pass on this, Mr. President. Your political games with our freedoms paint you as a coward, a manipulator and a traitor. It’s time for you to do the right thing. State your position, and face the consequences like a man.

[sandydipper]

I don't know if I can believe Bush has said he'd sign. The man clearly lead me to believe he was a 2nd Amendment supporter.

I'll vote my discontent.

[sandydipper]

I don't know if I can believe Bush has said he'd sign. The man clearly lead me to believe he was a 2nd Amendment supporter.

I'll vote my discontent.

[meenie]

How about substituting discontent and outraged for malcontent and hysterical? Then you would come close to the difference between the RINO's and "conservatives" that actually believe there is a Second Amendment.

[coloradan]

I don't support the AW, handgun, .50 cal sniper rifle, pump action gun, scoped rifle, revolver .22 long rifle cal. firearm ban, I don't care.

Obviously some disagree with me, I'll put you on their side.

Thanks.

What about those "Tommy guns", shouldn't you be fighting for that too?

I oppose that law as well, but at this time the priority is wiping the AWB off the books. It took them nearly 100 years to get as far as they have gotten, it might take nearly 100 years to recover the lost freedoms. Allowing the AWB to remain does not help any cause for freedom.

[Mister Baredog]

He took the same stance with campaign finance, and let the courts kill most of it as unconstitutional, rather than take the political hit. I think he believes this type of thing shouldn't reach his desk.

I agree with you overall but remember there is one part of the campaign finance law that made signing it worthwhile, the "hard money" limit was raised. Great for the GOP. To me the whole thing was a show by the DEMS, they just got caught up in their own BS, not unusual, they don't really like it either.

[Centurion2000]

If this bill passes and the President signs it I'll not be voting Republican in 2004. It's that simple.

[Centurion2000]

The AWB is a meaningless "bone" for the gun control nuts, let it be. Has anyone found it so bad.

Actually yes it is that bad. One, it's a restraint on my God given freedom that I hate. Two, it effectively doubled the price for a decent assault rifle.

[Zack Nguyen]

I'd be shocked if this bill ever reached Bush's desk. Tom DeLay said it won't, and he typically knows what he's talking about.

It is a cynical game Bush is playing here, and I confess that I don't like it. He is taking the politically smart position, betting that the mushy middle will applaud him and gun owners won't leave him. Meanwhile he knows the bill will never reach him, and Congress can take whatever blame there is on it. Oh well. That is politics.

[votelife]

I think on the right we need pragmatists and idealists. Without the hard core idealists, the right would become Democrat light. Without the pragmatists, the idealists would lose elections and not get ANY of their legislation passed. So much of FR is spent basically arguing btw these two factions. I hope that the idealists work hard to pressure their elected officials and Bush to do what they want.

[Mister Baredog]

It took them nearly 100 years to get as far as they have gotten, it might take nearly 100 years to recover the lost freedoms.

Big Brother is always with us. It's the nature of lawmakers to make laws, after a couple of hundred years we should have a BIG FLUSH and start over. To me LAWYERS are as dangerous to freedom as these terrorists.

[newgeezer]

If this bill passes and the President signs it I'll not be voting Republican in 2004. It's that simple.

I'm sure he's well aware of that.

[Mister Baredog]

idealists would lose elections and not get ANY of their legislation passed

for example: the Green Party(Go Ralph!)

[berserker]

If this bill passes and the President signs it I'll not be voting Republican in 2004. It's that simple.

Rove is betting that you will. If GW does sign this, its because the political calculation is that it will help get moderate votes, and 2nd Amendment single-issue people will still have to vote for him anyway because the alternative would not be attractive.

[newgeezer]

What's sad is the fact that we're now playing politics with the Constitution. That's a statement on the country as a whole.

Amen. So, what's it going to take to make things better? After two or three generations of playing politics with the Constitution, what if the President came out tomorrow and said he's a born-again Constitutional Fundamentalist ... The Constitution Says What It Means And Means What It Says ... The Era Of Big Government Is Really, Truly Over ... All unconstitutional government agencies, handouts and programs will be eliminated before the '04 election ... He'd lose. America wouldn't stand for it. The government teat is feeding too many suckling pigs. Young and old, rich and poor, black and white, urban and rural, ... its benevolence knows no boundaries.

Oh, no doubt about it, I'd vote for him 10 times if I could. Walter Williams would vote for him. Maybe you and a million or two others would vote for him. But, we'd end up with President Hillary or Gephardt or Kerry or worse. All because of ignorance, complacence, laziness, and whatever else happens when a prosperous nation allows itself to get fat, dumb and blissful.

If this bill does end up on his desk -- and I really don't think it will -- he'll have to decide whether to (1) make you and me and most of our Second Amendment fundamentalist brethren happy AND hand an issue to his polished opponents so they can incite the dim-witted mushy middle with charges of putting guns on the streets and sentencing thousands of children to death, or (2) "hand a bone" to the gun grabbers while maintaining the status quo AND alienate a number of us Second Amendment fundamentalists such that we'll stay home or vote third party. (He knows we won't vote Democrap.)

I'd love for this bill to die. It's hard to stomach the fact that it's even remotely constitutionally viable. But, if it makes it all the way to the President's desk and he vetoes it, how much chance is there that it would be the defining issue that leads to Democrap control of Congress and the White House? In that case, they'll pass something much worse, stack the SCOTUS for the next generation, and.... Ugh. Don't go there.

[RJayneJ]

...the "hard money" limit was raised.

Here is where we part company, because I consider donations as free speech and the government should not limit my free speech. CFR is incumbent protection and eventually they will get what they are really after and that is taxpayer financed races. It appears to me that we have a representative republic for a reason. I have interpreted that to mean that if I can't go to Washington D.C. myself, I need someone there that reflects my views.

When I select that person I have an obligation to reach in my pocket and support that person. And that is what I do and that is what I expect others to do in the form of PACs. PACs debating PACs is what the race consists of.and the candidate that gets the most support wins! Fancy that. The government (which is us) has no business telling anyone who they can support and how much they can donate. I prefer full disclosure and no spending limits to my free speech. If I have it all wrong, I'm sure I will hear about it. But that is the way I see it.

[Eaker]

Why don't you two actually READ what is in the existing ban and then read what is being thrown into the new ban.

If you don't see a problem then you are not supporters of the Bill of Rights.

[FreedomCalls]

90% of the American people believe that the "Assault Weapons Ban" bans fully automatic weapons and leaves all semi-automatics untouched.

[coloradan]

Big Brother is always with us. It's the nature of lawmakers to make laws, after a couple of hundred years we should have a BIG FLUSH and start over. To me LAWYERS are as dangerous to freedom as these terrorists.

I could be misreading you but it sounds like you're rooting for a revolution, the "big flush." I would frankly rather let the AWB sunset and go for other freedoms a chip at a time than have a revolution. But your position on the AWB is that it is "phony" and not worth worrying about, even though you oppose it. Seems contradictory or even self-defeating to me.

[Centurion2000]

Rove is betting that you will. If GW does sign this, its because the political calculation is that it will help get moderate votes, and 2nd Amendment single-issue people will still have to vote for him anyway because the alternative would not be attractive.

Rove is making a critical error that will cost Bush an election. No gun owner is going to countenance being betrayed by the Bush family twice.