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.

[jmc813]

Yes, and after the firearms, they'll repeal the tax cuts, raise taxes, undo the partial birth abortion ban, raise taxes, defund the military again, raise taxes, undermine home schooling and vouchers, raise taxes, appoint socialist judges and justices, raise taxes, give licenses and voting rights to illegals, raise taxes, fund NPR, attack religion, raise taxes, create new government agencies instead of consolidating them, raise taxes,......but they love you.

If they end up banning firearms, they're gonna have a hell of a lot more important things to worry about than your examples, if you catch my drift...

[Badray]

"It would cost the President few, if any, votes."

538 votes just might be enough to cost him reelection.

[spunkets]

"Only his personality was able to overcome the phobia against conservatives so pervalent in America."

There's no phobia against conservatives. The voters want economic tidbits, real, or imagined tossed their way. Bush gave them some.

"Dems did not lose in '94 because of an AW ban but because of the Hillary care scam and the generally sleaziness of the Clinton administration."

Both were significant factors.

"blustering nutcases threatening to vote against Bush and empower these fools is so dangerous."

It appears that the House will not reauthorize it on their own. It's in your interest and President Bush's interest to make sure that law dies.

[Dan from Michigan]

Given the state of the RATmedia influence on the American electorate today election of a more conservative man than Bush is impossible. You are fantasizing if you believe otherwise.

You are overestimating the media, and I think you're giving the sucker moms way too much power. They are overrated.

I'm not fantasizing anything. Look up the demographics of the areas. If Bush gets an anti-gun rep, he can kiss Michigan, West Virginia, and Pennsylvania goodbye just like that. He may win the sucker moms...at the cost of the "union independents" as well as his base.

Only his personality was able to overcome the phobia against conservatives so pervalent in America.

He's a moderate, but had a arch-conservative REPUTATION. His personality was hit and miss as well. Some loved it, others hated it. My rep(Mike Rogers) was much more conservative than Bush, but ran 5% ahead of him because of his personality. Rogers won by 88 votes, and was given a better district by redistricting.

I doubt even one RAT lost his seat because of that ban.

Jack Brooks. Eric Fingerhut. Frank McCloskey. Harris Wolford. Wyche Fowler. Jim Sassar. That's off the top of my head.

BTW - Republicans need to get about 63% in my county to win statewide. A good solid conservative will get 63% with a good campaign. A liberal Republican(pro-abortion) gets 53%. Bush got 60% in 2000.

[Consort]

If they end up banning firearms, they're gonna have a hell of a lot more important things to worry about than your examples, if you catch my drift...

It appears that they are doing just that as we speak....little by little, law by law, state by state, day by day. And they will milk the process by collecting gun fees from licenses, permits, etc.

[Badray]

I really don't care how you took Bush's statement. He said it and no matter what spin you put on it, he still said it.

If you want the GOP to be true believers that gun control is a losing issue, then what you need to do if Bush signs an extension or renewal is to VOTE HIM OUT OF OFFICE. That will prove the point.

The only thing that keeps politicians in line is the fear of losing their precious jobs. Hold that over their head and you have a better chance of getting what you want. Promising to vote for someone regardless of what he does to you, is simply stupid.

They are not our masters. They are elected representives. Our employees, if you will. Don't treat them like the kings that want to be.

We survived the first clinton. It was ugly, but we survived. If we accept an AWB from a pubbie, then we get what we deserve.

[The_Eaglet]

So do I.

[T Wayne]

Yes, I voted for him. If I had heard that signing an ext. of the AWB was on his aggenda, I would not have voted for him.

[T Wayne]

I think the Instant Check system is a good thing.

It sure does a good job of keeping criminals from getting guns, doesn't it? < /sarcasm >

[T Wayne]

Should traitors infiltrate the American government...

They're already there!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Travis McGee]

I can't speak for Chicago, but here in California and Arizona, police most certainly ARE killed by routinely, if monthly is enough to be called routine.

[Travis McGee]

Killed by illegal aliens, I meant.

[The_Eaglet]

We can elect someone much more conservative if he sells the package correctly. Bush is PERCEIVED as much more conservative than he really is.

Those of us who would agree with such a candidate need to sell his package correctly, too. The liberal mass media may misrepresent (or not present) his package, so that leaves supporters to create and use other channels to identify his campaign (or potential campaign).

[Travis McGee]

Tell you what I'll take an assault rifle and you take the blunderbuss w. nails at 100 feet and we will see who survives.

I'll take that bet if I get modern medical care, and you get to die in screaming agony from sepsis after a few days.

[whd23]

[spunkets]

Excellent.

[ArneFufkin]

Lets see, according to your profile you left the Democrat Party ten years ago over RKBA. Now, you're going to leave the GOP over the same issue.

Who the hell needs, or wants, you?

[IGOTMINE]

Then let that day come. (And yes, I mean what you think I mean by that statement.)

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not likely while you would be dead almost immediately it would be unlikely I would even be hit.

[DBrow]

"Militas now are limited to "well-regulated" militias which "

If you go back and look at the phrase "well regulated", you will see that in the late 1700's, clocks, cannon, rifles, and archers were referred to as "well regulated". It meant accurate, not as complying with lots of regulations.

It meant that the militias were trained in marksmanship.