The Assault Weapons Ban May Be Bush's Undoing

TooGood Reports ^ | 13 November 2003 | Lee R Shelton IV

[45Auto]

George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisers have decided that their best strategy for the 2004 campaign is to focus on the "doctrine of preemption." The obvious goal is to portray the president as a hero in the war on terror, conveying the notion that he is the one who is able to keep America safe. Unfortunately for Bush, his position on the assault weapons ban may cause his reelection plans to unravel.

Many conservatives currently feel comfortable backing Bush for a second term. For one thing, he cut taxes, and the economy is on the rebound. He has shown courage by taking on global terrorism. He appointed as Attorney General a man who believes that the Second Amendment supports an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Bush is every conservative's dream, right? Think again.

During his 2000 campaign, candidate Bush voiced his support of the assault weapons ban that was passed during the Clinton administration. The federal law is scheduled to expire on Sept. 13, 2004, and Bush, speaking as president, has already stated that he supports its reauthorization.

Some have tried to excuse the president's position by arguing that he is merely telling people what they want to hear, stating publicly that the ban is a good thing while remaining confident that renewal of the ban will never even make it through the House of Representatives. That may offer some comfort to disgruntled conservatives, but it is important to remember that 38 Republicans voted for the ban in 1994 and 42 voted against its repeal in 1996. That doesn't bode well for freedom-loving Americans.

Don't be surprised in the coming months to see the Bush administration pushing for a renewal of the assault weapons ban by promoting it as an effective tool in our fight against terrorism. After all, such a ban would make it easier for law enforcement officers to break up terrorist organizations here in the United States. In 1993, for example, a raid on a Muslim commune in central Colorado turned up bombs, automatic weapons, ammunition and plans for terrorist attacks.

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft, testifying before Congress, revealed an al-Qaida training manual that had been discovered in Afghanistan. The manual, he claimed, told terrorists "how to use America's freedom as a weapon against us." The fear was that terrorists in the U.S. would exploit loopholes in our gun laws in an effort to arm themselves – and with radical groups like Muslims of America already purchasing guns, we can't be too careful.

Like most federal laws, the assault weapons ban was originally passed with the assumption that Americans are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety. This, of course, has been historically a safe assumption on the part of our elected officials in Washington. But Bush's position on the assault weapons ban may very well come back to haunt him when he seeks to reconnect with his conservative base in 2004.

The hypocrisy of the president has already been revealed. He spoke out in favor of the government's prerogative to trample on the Second Amendment – under the guise of "reasonable" gun legislation – at the same time he was sending troops armed with fully automatic weapons to Iraq. This may seem like a stupid question, but if soldiers are allowed to carry assault weapons in order to provide for the common defense, why can't that same right be extended to civilians who want nothing more than to defend their homes and families?

John Ashcroft once said during his confirmation hearing, "I don't believe the Second Amendment to be one that forbids any regulation of guns." Far be it from me to contradict the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the country, but the Constitution forbids exactly that. The federal government is barred from passing any law that may infringe upon the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Period. It can't be explained in simpler terms than that.

President Bush would be wise to reconsider his position on the assault weapons ban. If he isn't careful, he and other members of his administration may end up alienating the few true conservatives left in the Republican Party – and that would be a mistake this close to election time.

[toothless]

Exactly.

[spunkets]

"Arms are not ARTILLARY now are they.

Arms is an inclusive term, the founders intent was that it include artillery as well as any other defensive weapon useful against the armies of a tyrant.

"Ben Franklin was in France to obtain financial aid and a military alliance with the French."

Secondary after his primary task was accomplished.

"Cannons were not owned by individuals during the Revolution what concoction of crap did you get that gem from?"

Who owned them, the ACME leasing co? Were they communal property on loan from the king? They were private property.

"The right to bear arms is just that."

Folks should focus on that thought, because Freedom depends on maintaining that right absolutely. FMCDH, if you dare.

[Joe Hadenuf]

All the terrorists we have been attacked by have arrived nice and legally.

Boy that must make you feel safe huh?

Oh, and most of the terrorists that killed thousands in NY were in this country illegally......As with the sniper that mass murdered a bunch of people in DC recently and held much of the east coast in a panic for *two weeks*....And never mind about the police officers that are murdered rountinely by illegal aliens, and the massive nationwide fraud that is being created, jobs taken, hospitals shut down, jammed classrooms, jails full of illegals, tax increases, and other insanity being created by this federally approved invasion of our country....

[RedBloodedAmerican]

The best bet to do away with this abomination is in Congress, not GWB

But it's a whole lot funner to jump on the hate-Bush bandwagon. It's the latest craze. Forget the facts, I want some bootie!

[RedBloodedAmerican]

You just gotta love these single-issue voters, eh?

[jmc813]

Also we need to talk about as a nation a way for those who have transgressed the law to have their rights restored if they have proven that they can live clean.

Agreed 100%. I've always been of the school of thought which says that if someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, they should not be released from prison in the first place.

[spunkets]

"But it's a whole lot funner to jump on the hate-Bush bandwagon"

This isn't a hate Bush thread and there's no invite for a wagon ride.

"You just gotta love these single-issue voters, eh?"

Yea, too bad more people don't stand for Freedom.

[ColdSteelTalon]

Agreed 100%. I've always been of the school of thought which says that if someone is so dangerous that they cannot be trusted with a firearm, they should not be released from prison in the first place.

Bingo, also what incentive do people convicted of a crime really have if they have no hope of ever earning redemption. Thats why the re-offense rate in the United States is much higher than other industrialized nations. Once your marked you can't get a job at 7 eleven because of your record that follows you around for the rest of your life. We as as society have to deal with aftermath of not being willing to give someone a second chance.

I am proud to say that I worship a God of second chances. The lord Jesus Christ

[RedBloodedAmerican]

If you read thru threads like this, you'll read comments by people who say "if GW [does this or does that]...I won't vote for him", and typically it is over a single issue, not over the candidate as a whole.

I think we ought to look at the big picture.

We have roughly 290 million Americans in this Country. If every single American wanted a candidate that they agreed with 100%, and that agreed with them 100%, then there would be 290 million candidates.

Who would want to watch that debate?

[Travis McGee]

Our nation and its liberties existed for almost 150 yrs before "Assault" weapons were even invented. Such things were never even imagined by our founders.

The words of a fool. Muskets and flintlock rifles were the "assault rifles" of their day. Any wound usually resulted in a screaming death from sepsis, or an amputation that didn't kill you from gangrene if you were lucky. Today, a far higher % of gunshot victims survive and return to full activity than they ever did in 1780.

As far as the "rapid fire" feature of semi-autos, even in 1780 any lunatic could take a 1" bore goose gun, load it with rusty nails, and unleash it on a picnic or church. If anything, the results would be more horrific than an attack today with modern weapons, given modern medical advances.

Anyway, the entire point of the 2A, in the words of the founders, was to permit the citizens to be as strong as any standing army, in order to prevent the rise of unchecked tyranny.

I shudder to think that you don't grasp this.

[arjay]

Great idea. Let's ditch the whole Republican party over one issue. It is much better to put in Democrats who will ban everything, destroy our economy, extend the corrupt government even more into our lives and make us into a third rate country.

That is really a smart thing to do!!!

[Badray]

What Bush has done by saying that he would sign it was to keep me from doing anything to help him next year until I see what he does with the bill. He has done some very good things, but I won't give my support now because this 'promise to sign' is too big to ignore.

[Mr. Mojo]

I saw Fred Barnes on the Special Report panel a couple weeks ago briefly mention the (so-called) AWB, and he seemed to think it was a "fringe" issue that would have absolutely no brearing on the upcoming election.

[Badray]

Yeah, it's a single issue. It's called LIBERTY.

[Mr. Mojo]

Great idea. Let's ditch the whole Republican party over one issue.

I'm very ticked of about Bush's position on this issue, but I'm still going to vote for him .....as are most GOPers. But I'd be careful before downplaying the importance of a single issue. What if that issue, rather than this (so-called) AWB, was instead the ban of all handguns or rifles (of any and all varieties)? Would that be enough for you to tell him where to stick it? It would for me. (Actually, far less than that would be enough for me).

[45Auto]

Those who turn away from him are neither conservatives nor patriots rather they are such as one would not want as an ally because they will cut and run at the least excuse.

I think this is an unfair characterization of those of us who fight on the front lines every day in one way or the other to try and make sure that the Constitution and the Republic (what's left of them) remain as a viable option in a world over-run by the PC crowd, by tyrants, dictators, socialists, communists, assorted riff-raff and vermin in and out of government bent upon subverting if not outright destroying the fabric of the greatest experiment in freedom the world has ever been a party to. I see no difference between the overt RAT-bastards in the US Senate who blatantly are trying to turn the Republic into a socialist nightmare nor the 9+ 1 idiots who are "pretenders to the throne" running for the RAT nomination, and a Republican Party, the so-called Party of Freedom, that will compromise on basic issues of liberty as layed out in the Bill of Rights. The choice we then have is one of hard-core socialism or a "soft" version of socialism. The end result is the same - liberty takes a back seat to political expediency. I am under no illusions that we are as free as the good citizens were in America in 1810; no, we are living in post-Constitutional America - a place where there is no real separation of powers, where the media (as you put it) and the political establishment are in bed, where there is no real difference between the two main parties, except to blind loyalists who can "see no evil" in a slow, incremental compromising away of basic freedom and principles.

I support the President in much of what he wants to (and has) accomplish(ed); I really would like to vote for him (and send along what money I can) and help assure that the Repubos might gain a larger majority in Congress. I am willing to compromise on certain issues, like taxation, abortion, campaign finance, education - but I am NOT willing to give up one more inch of ground in the fight for the RKBA. As goes the 2nd, so goes the Republic. We are at an historical cross-roads in the history of the US; we can either work to stop the advance of socialism, or we can compromise our way to it. The choice is ours.

[Travis McGee]

Some things are worth fighting for. I am one frog who is getting pretty damn tired of thanking the Republican chefs for "only" turning the water in the pot up a "few degrees" this year.

[spunkets]

"I think we ought to look at the big picture."

I certainly look at the candidate as a whole. The issue is Freedom. It so happens all those little single issue voters you imagine are looking for something of monetary value for their vote. They want something handed to them in return for their support. That is wrong

It's the govm'ts job to protect rights, not get involved in redistribution and grand planning schemes. Those schemes are what the single issue voter on this thread are looking at. They aren't going to march forth with a smile and toss a vote for a man that piddles away Freedom and their rights as the rats intend. It so happens they have no intention of being disarmed, or supporting anyone that desires it.

[NMC EXP]

True conservatives understand there is no chance of electing a more conservative president than Bush

True conservatives? No, you mean mere republicans.

...they understand that the AW ban is essentially irrelevent to anything.

Again, by "they" you mean republicans, not conservatives. If a true conservative stands for anything it is the Constitution. People like you are proof this country needs a Constitutional literacy test as a prerequisite for voting.

Regards

J.R.

[RedBloodedAmerican]

Is that you? I always imagined your hair being a little longer in the back ;o)