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.
Surely a conservative has to have some principles he won't compromise on? At least one? right?
Wrong analogy. I have little doubt that a candidate who favored all those things, and was Republican, would have your complete support. There is one group on this thread that evaluates principles, and there is your group that evaluates only party.
Your claim is that Bush is as conservative a president as has ever been elected in US history?
I suspect the person you're asking believes the only necessary principle is allegiance to party.
Aced the math SAT, 1480 SAT overall, top 25% on LSAT, and Indiana required testing for the license... but interesting that you go for the personal attack. It says much about the validity of your position.
Without political office and the leverage and empowerment it provides, all your vaunted principles are just farts in the wind.
Like the political leverage and empowerment the Founders had with the King? Yes, their principles, espousing a devotion to basic God-given human rights, were mere farts in the wind as well, weren't they? Boy, political parties are SO important to achieveing those ends, aren't they? Yep, there's some good historical analysis! /s>
You can sit and whistle that tune in the dark all you want, but you and "W" will do it at his peril. Gun rights and gun owners made the difference in that election and any honest observer will admit it. I was happy to help your beloved NRA at two rallies in Pittsburgh.
Now if we can only get the NRA to honestly rate the congress critters, people might actually be able to vote for true pro gun candidates.
This country didn't survive the Clintons. The Clintons are like a lethal poison, it is just taking longer than we thought for this country to feel the full effects and damage from their poison, but this country is dying.
For large artillery pieces, that may be true. However, it is documented that private individuals had and used smaller cannons. For example:
The American Kennel Club recognized the Chesapeake Bay retriever as an individual retriever breed in 1878. But its history is older and deeply enmeshed with that of the Bay region during the 19th century. James Michener's Chesapeake describes a period when there were so many migratory birds surrounding the Bay that they were often shot using small cannon mounted on boats; literally scores would fall from the sky at a time. Hunters required dogs that would first retrieve the wounded and then return to for the dead. The Chesapeake Bay retriever unerringly recalled where each bird fell and usually retrieved them all efficiently.
We didn't survive? Are we still not here? This should be in breaking news.
Yes, we took some nasty hits. Yes, it was damaging. Yes, it was embarassing. But we are still here.
However, if we keep drifting to the left, we won't be for long. And if we accept from a Republican Congress and a Republican President that which we would get from a Democrat controlled Congress and White House, where else will the dems go, but further to the left? And if we reward a Republican president with reelection after he signs a ban on guns, why would we expect the GOP to ever care about our issue again or take us seriously?
The Clintons are like those types of poisons.
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.