Posted on 11/13/2003 12:45:22 PM PST by 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.
Some my aquaintances own the originals. They were never state property. They've been in private hands since then. Some were used in the civil war. They saw service on both sides. You seem to think the govm't ran cannon factories.
" Cannons, artillery, powder were all kept within a magazine NOT in private homes.
Nonsense. What was the 1st task Franklin was given by the First Continental Congress?
"Cannons were so immobile that small groups had no use for them in any case AND they were confined to specialized units."
Nonsense. The barrel was mounted on a wheeled carriage and horse drawn. The guns were operated by a team of ~3-4 and a sarg, or equivalent was in charge of aiming it. You don't think they sat down and calculated each shot do you. Also back in those days the sarg in charge could do the math.
You must be referring to wealthy hobbyists and those who feel blessed by the good natured permissions extended down from the govm't.
and swimming pools killed hundreds, and knives killed thousands, and cars killed tens of thousands. Just because something is abused, that does not make is reasonable, logical, sensible, or Constitutional to ban it.
And by the way, in case you didn't know, killing 18 people is already illegal. Exactly why would or should they care about breaking the AWB law? What good could such a law possibly do, other than to make some nitwits feel good?
I'm saving up my money on the outside chance that it isn't re-authorized. I plan to take advantage of the opportunity to stock up on high-capacity magazines again.
"The meaning of the phrase "well-regulated" in the 2nd amendment
From: Brian T. Halonen
The following are taken from the Oxford English Dictionary, and bracket in time the writing of the 2nd amendment:
1709: "If a liberal Education has formed in us well-regulated Appetites and worthy Inclinations."
1714: "The practice of all well-regulated courts of justice in the world."
1812: "The equation of time ... is the adjustment of the difference of time as shown by a well-regulated clock and a true sun dial."
1848: "A remissness for which I am sure every well-regulated person will blame the Mayor."
1862: "It appeared to her well-regulated mind, like a clandestine proceeding."
1894: "The newspaper, a never wanting adjunct to every well-regulated American embryo city."
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter.
It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected.
Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it."
http://yarchive.net/gun/politics/regulate.html
This link takes the meaning as "properly functioning" and not as operating under "regulations"; it mentions clocks and the accuracy of double-barrel shotguns.
The Compact Edition of Oxford English Dictionary
Oxford University Press (c)1971
First pub 1971
Twenty-Third Printing in the U.S., January 1984
defines "regulated" when referring to troops as "well disiplined" and stated that the term is obsolete, no loger used to refer to troops.
http://www.frii.com/~gosplow/liberty.html
"For many in our time, it is inconceivable to think of anything being well-regulated without a law mandating the regulation and a bureaucracy to conduct the regulation. In the 18th century, the word regulation did not at all require government involvement. The actions of the American colonists make it plain that a well-regulated militia was well-rehearsed and well-drilled without the control of the government. Indeed, the colonial well-regulated militias shot at the King's policemen (the King's soldiers were acting in the capacity we now consider a police function, but there were no police departments then)."
><><><><><><><
The use of the phrase "well regulated" in the 2nd amend. does not mean "regulated by the government". You are both correct in pointing out to me that the phrase does not strictly refer to "accuracy" or "marksmanship", but you must see that this is one use of the phrase from period sources. Other period sources also use the phrase to mean "working correctly" or perhaps even "well drilled".
The meaning of the term has shifted over the years- in the 17- and 1800's there were not as many "regulations" as there are now. Today, we automatically think of "government regulations" since our government seems to regulate everything, "well" or not.
When the 2nd was written, though, it did not mean "government regulation" at all.
You are mistaken.
" Illinoisians downstate we were told would never vote Blagoavitch because he is a MAJOR league gungrabber."
Very few firearm owners that shoot regularly continue to live in IL. The rest that care didn't vote. The only reason bagitch won was, because he went down there and the only other choice was the scoundrel Ryan. Neither one is a friend of Freedom.
Therein lies your whole problem. You care more for political success than critically important foundational Constitutional Rights. Just like the GOP leadership. Sorry, but for some of us, there are far higher priorities... like the lives of our unborn great-grandchildren, the future of our nation as a free Republic, and the Rights of millions of Americans and billions around the globe who look to the US for guidance on how to protect and cherish freedom.
The single issue bozos are best excised from the GOP anyway.
I'm okay with the status quo. My Second Amendment rights are currently protected to my satisfaction - I own firearms and can carry them concealed on my person should I choose. I can't own a automatic chain gun. I'll take that tradeoff. I won't engage in an all-or-nothing scorched earth campaign, because I could never risk having NOTHING.
Making a recission of the AWB the seminal wedge issue is a guaranteed political loser for any party that engages in such a platform. But, losing politically is what a lot of our most vocal fellow Freepers do best.
It's not a minor point. It has to do with Freedom as I outlined to Mindbender above.
From #243...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. Any efforts on the part of Administration to undermine the 2nd Amendment will be duly noted and taken into consideration during the campaign and at the polling place. It is very simple.
Excellent slave mentality. Let's do a re-write...
I'm okay with the status quo. My basic needs (food, clothing, shelter) are currently provided to my satisfaction - I eat sleep, work, and sometimes even play. I just can't leave the plantation. I'll take that tradeoff. I won't engage in an all-or-nothing scorched earth campaign, because I could never risk having NOTHING, and that's what I'd have without the massa!
The single issue bozos are best excised from the GOP anyway.
Then why are the party loyalists whining about us leaving on threads like this, hmm?
So it's institutional purity you prefer. What a beautiful thought.
Without political office and the leverage and empowerment it provides, all your vaunted principles are just farts in the wind.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.