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.
Then how come I saw a ton of UAW jackets at the NRA rallies. Exit polls had 61% of union members going for Gore. Gunowning union members had over 50% voting for BUSH. I was a Keyes voter at the beginning, but I did vote for Bush at the end, and it was because of Gore on guns.
Bush was the most conservative governor in the nation prior to the election
I highly doubt that. John Engler was to the right of Bush, especially in his first two terms.
Like Illinois Michigan is NOT a conservative state. At best they are moderate states.
Illinois is different since they don't have a strong Dutch Protestant community(West Michigan), yoopers(and northern lower Michigan - Populists), and Chicago has more people than Detroit. The suburbs here are generally blue collar as well outside of Oakland County.
No moderates have won here statewide since 1978. Unless you count GHWB who ran as a conservative and Spence Abraham who ran as a conservative. A moderate COULD win here if he was an economic populist and a SOCIAL conservative.
If Bush signs that ban, Macomb, St Clair, the UP, North Michigan, Shiawasse, Eaton, and Monroe are all going rat, and he'll lose about 4-5% in my county. Count on it.
The dems thought that in 94. They thought that with the gun shows when Paddy Kennedy and Carolyn McCarthy was chanting "6 seats" after Dingell and DeLay killed it in the house. Same with CCW is a ton of states. Out here, not one person that backed CCW lost re-election in 2000 or 98(although three anti's lost, one Repub, two dems).
There's also three groups that get off their butts and work election time. The pro-lifers. The gunners. The Chamber of Commerce officials(all of which often work together). That's the life blood of the party. Those are the three I always see on the ground.
DeLay wants to kill this. He'll do his best there, and did it once before with gun shows with Dingell's help. I hope he can come through. That'll make things a lot easier for Bush.
You are forgetting the govm't was King George and the boys. After the war Congress established arsenals... ect to scale with their new condition. THey did not replace private sources, or eliminate private holdings. Not until FDR did the US start to disarm their citizens. Until that time all manner of arms were available.
"artillery not stored in private homes nor owned by private individuals or groups."
No one stores cannons in their home. They go in the workshop. The gun owners shop.
"Artillery was extremely unwieldy and hard to move especially if the weather had any wetness...
Yea, mud. I'm well aware of moving and shooting cannons. I've done it under the same conditions. With imaginary opponents of course.
"Hamilton"
Officers train juniors, that train sgts, that train crews. Once in the field it's the sgts gun and the shooting is directed by the officer in charge, but done by the sgts and their crews.
A popular type of mantel clock in the early 19th century was called "The Regulator". I saw one in a preserved historical home somewhere, it might have been at Daniel Boone's home in MO but I'm not sure of that.
Right-on Poohbah!
So the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America is a "minor and subsidiary" issue? Where did you ever get the idea that you were a "conservative" anyway?
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.