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.
;>)
;>)
Not to burst your bubble, but Allen suppports the AWB. He stated so late in his campaign, and his stance hasn't changed since then.
BTW you're in my election district. Are you in Loudoun County?
Check out http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/921393/posts for a way to put pressure on them from within the GOP.
When did you stop beating your wife?
I suspect you are right about that if your test is based on your opinions rather than the truth.
For example the phrase "shall not be infringed" apparently only applies to flintlock muzzleloaders in your world.
Regards
J.R.
While battle rifles are fun, this is not their primary purpose. The purpose of my battle rifle is disable those who would use violence to destroy my life, liberty or my property.
Using one to stop an assault or a crime becomes a crime itself about the time the first unnecessary round is fired. You can shoot someone in most cases once but more than that is not allowed. Not even if the shot guy needed shooting.
Many criminal home invasions involve multiple aggressors. Unless you live in a condo or have other overpenetration concerns, a battle rifle is the best tool for the job. It was also the best tool for the Korean shopowners in LA or anyone else in an area where urban unrest is likely.
You are correct in believing Bush to be the only electable candidate but if he extends or continues this ban he will making criminals out of thousands of otherwise law abiding citizens. Not 1 in 10 battle rifle owners understands the current law.
Off topic...I've been brushing up on my revolutionary history....You are right!! Jefferson was a duplicitious prick.
No! To teach them (Bush and every other pol who wants to disarm us) that there is a price to be paid for their treachery.
If you reward your so-called friends who violate your rights, how can you condemn your opponents when they do the same thing?
Rights are non-negotiable or didn't you know that?
If I want to steal all of your money and you didn't want me to take any of it, would you compromise with me by letting me steal half of it?
Not that the popular vote counts nationally, but he did have 500,000 less votes than algore. And that was WITH the support of principled gunowners. He won't be able to count on them this time if he signs the AWB.
How do you teach them a lesson without screwing things up for everybody? If Bush is not reelected, then who gets to be President and what will that person do for you? In '92 Bush 41 was not reelected because you wanted to "teach him a lesson"...and look what happened.
You mean besides educating my friends, neighbors, and business associates?
You mean besides writing to my Congresswoman to make sure that she is on board with me (she is)?
You mean besides working with my gun group to educate the other Congressman in my state?
You mean besides working gun shows to educate gun owners of the importance of getting involved?
You mean besides working to elect good, no compromise candidates at all level?
You mean besides donating money to the NRA, Firearm Owners Against Crime (FOAC), RKBA.com, JPFO, and GOA?
Is that what you mean?
Besides that, nothing.
How do they learn a lesson if they are allowed to get away with being gun grabbers?
"If Bush is not reelected, then who gets to be President. . ."
I don't know who the dem candidate is yet, so I can't answer accurately, but I would assume that it will be the dem candidate.
"and what will that person do for you?"
Nothing, but if Congress is paying attention to the early demise of GWB, then perhaps they will fight a little harder for what's right.
"In '92 Bush 41 was not reelected because you wanted to "teach him a lesson"...and look what happened."
I held my nose and voted for Bush Sr. even though I didn't like him. I still don't, but I wasn't trying to teach a lesson though I'm sure that many did resent his broken promise on taxes.
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.
Good analogy. Bush's stated support of the AWB shows that regarding the Second Amendment he infringes on the right to bear arms just a little less than the Democrats. He's still moving in the opposite direction of "shall not be infringed."
The Constitution Party also consistently supports the 2nd Amendment.
Then we'll have a Clinton or Clintonlike candidate who'll take away all guns.
Howard Dean is poised to win the Democrat nomination. His position on guns seems little different from Bush's -- they'll enforce existing laws but don't want any more -- so I think your concern is excessive. In fact, as Republicans seem to defend many of our rights better when in opposition than when in power, it's possible that gun rights would be better protected under Howard Dean as president with a Republican Congress.
There's a further consideration: As the assault weapons ban is due to expire, "extending" or "renewing" is, in actuality, passage of a new gun control law. That's because without action the law would not exist at the end of the term. So if the ban is reconstituted, a fair comparison of candidates Bush and Dean could easily suggest the latter is more worthy of the second amendment vote.
Fortunately, it's not too late for Bush to do the right thing, so let's encourage him to do so.
Mine as well.
If that crap is extended in any way other than in an overide of a veto, Bush will lose in '04.
You're absolutely correct. I just hope Bush doesn't have to learn this the hard way, like Clinton.
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.