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.

[45Auto]

Those who would like 'hard core' RKBA advocates to simply shut up and punch the right button in the voting booth regardless of Constitutional insult, would do well to examine their own principles.

[tomakaze]

bump

[WOSG]

The assault weapons ban is history as of next year.

It wont be re-authorized.

[45Auto]

..."a raid on a Muslim commune in central Colorado turned up bombs, automatic weapons, ammunition and plans for terrorist attacks.'

Execpt that the federal AW ban has nothing to do with fully automatic weapons, those being banned (or taxed) since 1934.

[stevio]

If he pushes it, that will be the final kick in the teeth for me.

[Dan from Michigan]

If he signs a reupping of the AW ban or appoints gun grabbing judges(like Reinhardt), he'll lose my vote. If not, I'll hold my nose one more time.

[Dan from Michigan]

You know what they say about assumptions.

[cryptical]

***BANG***

[ArrogantBustard]

I hope you are right. I will oppose any politician who votes for its renewal or expansion. I will oppose any president who signs it.

That's a non-negotiable bottom line, Messrs. Bush, Wolf, Allen, Warner.

[RiflemanSharpe]

The best bet to do away with this abomination is in Congress, not GWB. We need to all hold our elected reps feet tot the fire.

[T Wayne]

If Bush supports/allows reauthorization of the AWB, he has lost my vote.

If that crap is extended in any way other than in an overide of a veto, Bush will lose in '04.

JMTCW

[yarddog]

To read later.

[MindBender26]

Complete and total idiots!

This is how Clintonites get elected. Then all the guns will gone.

Dems are not so stupid.

[bassmaner]

Well, because many RKBA advocates refuse to vote for candidates from the only party that consistently supports the 2nd Amendment, then what other choices do they have? Howard Dean, big government nanny-state lefty from granola-eating Vermont? You know, the guy who wanted to appeal to pickup-truck drivers with the Confederate flag in the window, then backed off and apologized to Al "Tawana Brawley" Sharpton for his trouble? Or maybe one of the other 9 dwarves?

You decide ...

[MindBender26]

"he'll lose my vote"

Then we'll have a Clinton or Clintonlike candidate who'll take away all guns.

Smart.... very smart..... not!

[ZULU]

If Bush is hoping that the ban will never reach his desk - as he probably did with campaign finance reform, I hope he knows something that is that is not apparent to all of us here.

Chances are the ban will be passed by the Congress and will wind up on his desk, and he will sign it. The result will be the loss of enough pro-gun conservative votes to lose him the election, even though an assault gun ban may be preferable to another Democrat in the White House, one who may oppose handgun ownership or support a host of other issues.

Somebody should set up a petition on line to send Bush urging him and the Republican House and Senate leadership to bloack this bill. It can only Bush - one way or the other.

[Rocky Mountain High]

Ok. I'm with you. Let me preface that first.

However, what if President Bush renews it? Would you vote democrat?

[CIB-173RDABN]

Yeah, we should all vote for Democrats, they really support the second ammendment. /not

Vote any way you want, if you think NOT supporting President Bush will get you what you want you are wrong.

[MindBender26]

"That's a non-negotiable bottom line,"

Stop a moment and think how much the Dems will "negotiate" with you when they pass laws taking away all firearms!

[justshutupandtakeit]

Those who would cut off their noses to spit their faces better do some re-examining of their own.

Not that any of the Lovers of Losers who would vote against Bush over this issue would have voted for him in any case.

Just another RATmedia manipulation of the brainless knee-jerkers who pretend they are conservatives, nothing to see here.