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.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There are only a few police officers killed by criminals across the entire nation in a year. I would be surprised if it were much more than a hundred. During the mid 80s there were less than 200 per yr. and I am sure that number has dropped since then. It is not routine either by criminal illegals or criminal citizens.

But don't let that stop you from making up the meanings of words to suit you.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Militias were to be trained and officered by State appointed officers. Regulation of them was training by federal standards. The President is the Commander-in-Chief of militias when called into service of the United States. Article I, Section 8 paragraph 16 explains what militias are. They are not composed of a bunch of self-appointed clowns but Officered by state appointed officers and disciplined as Congress required.

Marksmenship was only one aspect of regulation not even the most important. Where did you come up with that?

[Consort]

....Bush signs an extension or renewal is to VOTE HIM OUT OF OFFICE.

1992 all over again....shoot youself and stab the rest of us in the back to prove your point. Find a better way. Don't get weird on us.

[MindBender26]

Unfortunately, you would die bravely, and quickly.

The problem is not guns, laws, rights, etc. The problem is that pro-2d Ammendment people have done a horible job of building support for their issue.

To quote Mr. Lincoln,

"With public support,
anything is possible

Without public support,
nothing is."

The reality is, we (I'm NRA life member) are losing the battle for the preservaton 2d Ammendment, and unless we change our tactics and build PUBLIC support, it's over in 20-30 years.

All it takes is ONE USSC decision, by a Dem packed court, changing the defination of "Well Regualted Militia, and we are toast. BTW, the problem is not with the the definition of "Militia." It would much easier for anti-gun lawyers to attack through the "Well-Regualted" phrase. What's "Well-Regualted" about some drunk wife-beater using a gun to shoot his kids? If we fall, we'll fall on the argument of "Well-Regualted Militia" only applying to the National Guards.

Don't get me wrong. I think it describes each of us, but it's not what I, or you think that counts. It's the USSC's decision.

We are one of very few countries left with firearms freedoms, and we will lose them unless we start working to develop PUBLIC support, rather than posture ourselves as one issue people protected by law, a law which some court could re-interpret at any time.

Remember, a President appoints the judges. Now do you see the foolishness of those who would stay home on election day? They are effectively giving half a vote to a candidate who would appoint judges to take away all fireamrs!

[Geritol]

I am not talking about aesthetics. I am talking about direction of travel. This is not a beauty contest.

If you are treading water in the ocean and 2 people offer to help you, one by tossing you a 5 pound weight and the other a 1 pound weight, which one helped you more? Neither. The each decreased your chances of survival.

Both the republicans and the democrats have increased gun restrictions, increased taxes, increased the size of government. Most Republicans have gone in this direction more slowly than the democrats. Some of the republicans have pushed the other way, but very few.

Like I said, if the choice is winding up with no rights in 10 years versus 50 years, I would prefer 50, but I will vote for never. Bush did reduce taxes some. He did sign the PBA. He has said he does not want the AWB, but would sign it if presented to him. This is a mixed message but overall the direction is not really changed, just slowed down a bit.

So, the emergency room doctor says, we can improve your condition concerning the knife that is stuck in you. We can limit additional penetration to a quarter inch today, and hopefully we can limit it to another quarter inch tomorrow, and if we build up enough momentum we might be able to back it out an eighth next fall.

No. Get it out now. Reverse the direction the weight of government oppression is moving now. If everyone would stop voting for the best they think they can hope for and vote for what they actually believe in we would all be much better off. Or at the very least we would have some integrity left to us.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am opposed to that ban since there is really no such thing as an "assault" weapon and even those claimed to be such are rarely used in criminal activity.

I am more opposed to those carrying RAT water to remove Bush under this pretense, however.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Shooter you may not want it but I agree with you on this point 100%.

[MindBender26]

"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."

Cute argument, but O.J's lawyers had arguments that he was not guilty, too.

Also, the the Constitutio describes militia itself as "well-regulated" not the firearm, so that argument goes out the window.

[AnnaZ]

We must remember that unlike liberal voters, many conservative voters put principles and issues over party affiliation and political expediency. They simply won't vote for a public official who undermines their ideals, and beating them up about it won't will only alienate them further.

Thank you. That one really deserved repeating.

 

The insults that McClintock supporters had to endure during the recall race were beyond the pale and illustrated a portion of the Pubbie party that no one could ever mistake for "compassionate" (a term apparently attached to "conservative" to deny the existence of such a power-at-all-costs-even-the-Constitution wing). Prior to that race I thought such types were solely the slanderous creation of the Left, but I was wrong. They exist.

 

Lest we forget, America's greatness is predicated on the power of her people at the expense of power in government.

 

I have truly come to like President Bush as a person. Signing a renewal of this silly yet potentially dangerous ban will not lead me to support him as a politician.

[DBrow]

I looked in old books and asked people at historical museums what "regulated" meant, and was shown examples.

A guy at a clock museum showed me the use as related to clocks.

Some reenactors showed me old manuals discussing "regulation of rifles".

A museum in Concord, Mass. had more examples of the use of the phrase.

I made no comment about the organization of militias, only the meaning of the phrase "well regulated" as having a different meaning than is commonly used today. When comparing historical periods you have to take meaning shifts into account. I did not mention "self-appointed clowns" at all, do not put words in my mouth please, I will not shut up and take that.

Like "slut" used to mean "lazy housewife", rather than the more skeevy definition of today.

[T Wayne]

My take on the SECOND,

FWIW

"A well-regulated
well trained, equipped and functioning in a proper manner
Militia
Title 10, Sec. 311(a) U. S. Code- "The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age...."
being necessary to the security of a free State,
A Free State is secure if it is able to defend itself against foreign invasion and the tyranny of its own government.
the right
as opposed to government granted privileges!
of the people
"the People" - not a "group" of people, the States, nor the Militia.
to keep and bear
keep (to own or possess) and bear (to carry)
Arms,
weapons, including but not limited to firearms.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.“
infringed -- violated or encroached upon

[DBrow]

"Also, the the Constitutio describes militia itself as "well-regulated" not the firearm, so that argument goes out the window. "

Nice try at defenestration, but the shooter has the accuracy requirement not the piece- the rifle hits nothing all by itself and the most accurate cannon must have a crew that can use the accuracy.

Go look up lexicographical sources to see.

[epow]

So, if GWB doesn`t get your toys back, you are going to help elect a Rat that will take my guns away. GREAT THINKING

Your way of thinking is what got us where we are now. If the 60 million gun owners had taken a no-vote-for-compromisers policy when this anti-gun crap began in the early 1960s the pols would be competing with one another to see who could be the most pro-2nd amendment. We should have learned from Chamberlin, compromising with the devil only leads only to a slower ride to the gas chamber.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Keep your fantasies to a minimum. Cannons were not owned by tavern owners and groups of craftsmen except within your imagination. They were very expensive and only affordable by State militias or the Continental Army. Nor were they easily obtainable since few foundries within the Colonies were capable of making them. Where did you get THAT idea anyway?

The Founders intended that militias be available for use in putting down Indian raids, insurrections, execute the Laws of the Nation and repelling invasions. Thus, they made sure men could have arms at the ready. Cannons do not fit that requirement only firearms and sidearms were referenced within the Second. Cannons, artillery, powder were all kept within a magazine NOT in private homes. Cannons were so immobile that small groups had no use for them in any case AND they were confined to specialized units. Officers of these units had to pass tests in mathematics before being commissioned.

[AnnaZ]

Americans don't care about this enough to vote in people to do anything about it.

Not to be cruel or rude, but at least there's a consistency to your delusions.

 

Every time the public is given an opportunity to express their opinion in regards to the current situation, on average 70% of respondents to polls and ballots vote against the status quo.

 

This is why they don't vote 'em in. The topic is rarely allowed to be brought up.

[ArneFufkin]

NOTHING on Free Republic caused your guy McClintock to garner only 13% of the vote.

Luxuriate in your 13%. Don't blame others if you are feeling politically powerless.

[IGOTMINE]

Two morons with a crappy car and a semi-decent rifle shut down the DC area for three weeks last year. If they'd have had half a brain they'd still be running free.

[spunkets]

The public support you speak of doesn't apply strictly to guns and never will. It applies to to the character traits and principles of the electorate. There will always be a solid 30+ % of folks that value Freedom and another ~30% that values a combo of nanny state and socialism. The remaining 40% is wishy washy and lies in the middle somewhere. The principle character traits of the unprincipled middle is that they basically would rather have things done for them and not have any responsibility.

Most of them are to lazy to think and fearful. It doesn't take much to scare them. Since it is not in them to act on their own initiative, they will never find value in having their own tools and determining their own destiny. The 2nd Amendment is one of those rights that only the principled value. The protection of rights is a consideration that caused the formation of a Republic with a Bill of Rights, rather htan a democracy of mob rule. As DeToqueville noted, once the voter learned to raid the treasury, the country would falter and Freedom would be lost.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is nothing confusing about this eminating from ME. There is a bunch of falsehoods, fantasies and outright gibberish coming from those arguing against what I have said.

Opposing Bush because of this issue is the height of stupidity. Particularly when it means the objective support of forces DEVOTED to removing all guns from the hands of Americans. Bush is the rational gunowners' best friend among major politicians. But those gunowners are not arguing with me merely the irrelevant, foolish, irrational or demented. Which are you?

Of course, I don't consider Clowns as major politicians so most of your favorites would be eliminated.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nope. He will have a much bigger margin than that. Even the blustering blowhards will eventually see they are defeating themselves by making this a crucial determinant of their vote. If not they can play with themselves in the corner muttering imprecations under their breath.