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.
LOL, now I leap to the other side of the argument... the comeback:
"Renewing an already existing gun ban won't kill us, since the previous 10 years didn't."
But you say, "Ah! This WILL cost lives in the future, just look at every other gun-banning example".
And their retort to our sunset-the-ban-or-let-GWB-lose stand, of course, is "Ah! But that WILL cost lives in the future, just look at every other nation that drove Left over time."
What a great Hobson's Choice we have. Pick your poison, folks! It's one heck of an indicator of how successful the Left has been for decades, and what an uphill battle we face.
I suspect most folks on this thread have a scale of sorts. Let me elaborate on mine:
GOOD: Foreign policy, tax cut, PBA ban, overall decorum
BAD: CFR, Prescription Drug Bill, higher government spending
Every time an item is added to one of those lists it impacts my view of this administration. So in theory one issue could tip the balance in either direction.
This bogeyman folks like yourself continue to trot out (electing a liberal) simply doesn't fly with the more principled conservatives. I refuse to be complicit in policy that hurts my family. Period. I will only vote for candidates that have a net benefit. Now, to date I think Bush has exerted a positive force on our nation. But he hasn't accrued so much goodwill that it cannot be undone by a few foolish policy decisions of the sort proposed here.
Don't the Pubbies remember what happened to the rats when they passed this abomination of a law in 1994? Pretty da*n short on memory if you ask me.
Maybe W ought to talk to his dad about what happened to him in 1992 when he abandoned his principles on taxation.
No! I *will* not just shut up and take it!
I will not vote for a person who I believe will govern to a net loss for the country. No amount of scare tactics will convince me otherwise. Until politicians realize there are consequences for their actions, they will continue to take the vote of folks like yourself for granted. I'm not about to join in enabling bad behavior in DC.
If a politician doesn't really believe in our constitution, we can at least make them aware that it is to their best interest to act like they do.
Bush Sr. pulled one of the dirtiest tricks I can ever remember. He stabbed gun owners right in the back at the exact time when it would hurt the most. I am not a particularly vendictive person but that one I won't forget. I was willing to give his Son the benefit of the doubt but he is certainly not sending the right signals.
So we have a choice of driving over a cliff at 60 miles an hour in the Democrat, or driving over a cliff at 20 miles an hour in the Republican car.
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.