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.
Your example argument does not take the same form as the one in which you attempt to claim that jsuati supports the AW ban, therefore it is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Nice.
Step one in creating a totalitarian state is stifling all disenting opinions.
If he gains even 200,000 soccer moms in Long Island, will it really matter in New York where he lost by about a million.
And losing 20,000 each in Michigan, Penn, Wisconsin, West VA, and Ohio each can cost 5 states.
John Engler won by 17,000 and Mike Cox by 5500 statewide here.
You still have not provided evidence that that is the correct meaning the founders intended as opposed to "well functioning."
Well, I like tpaine. The crusty old sunovabitch. :o)
But it was important for me to deconstruct what was a clear logical fallacy. Of course, I'll let the lurkers and other freepers decide for themselves.
Off to work. See you around, you arrogant pompous know-it-all gotta-have-it-your-way absolutist intolerant piece of s**t. ;^)
What's to stop another "Columbine" from happening at a very convenient time (and being hyped to high heaven by the 'Rat dominated media)? The Ugly Gun ban? Bwahahahahaha!!! ;'}
Why is this your make-or-break issue?
Good question.
Short answer: Because there's absolutely no excuse for its renewal to even be voted on by a subcommittee much less actually be passed by a Republican controlled congress.
Slightly longer answer: I have been a hard-core RKBA activist (off and on) for nigh unto twenty years. There is a plethora of blatantly unconstitutional anti-gun laws, dating to the late 1800s. I have seen that plethora grow in spite of my efforts to reverse it; the only real improvement has been the wave of "shall issue" concealed carry laws passed by many states. During this time, I have heard endless excuses from Republican Party apologists as to why we can't get anything repealed or reversed. The Republican Congress, they say, can't get anythign done with a Democrat President. The Republican President, they say, can't get anything done with a Democrat Congress. How this explains Bush41's ban-by-executive-fiat (BATF reinterpretation of GCA '68) of imported Ugly Guns eludes me.
Well, now, it's the Year of Our Lord Two Thousand Three. By the Grace of God (so they tell me) we have a Republican President, a Republican controlled House of Representatives, and even a Republican controlled Senate. That Republican President, while still a candidate, promised to sign a renewal of the 1994 Ugly Gun ban. He was, so they tell me, triangulating; trying to win the votes of the whining leftists but also telling the Republican controlled Congress not to put an UG ban on his desk in the first place. If that's the case, that Republican controlled Congress had bloody well better not pass an UG ban. Here's the kicker: we're not asking the Congress to actually repeal anything. If the Congress does precisely nothing, in September 2004 the Ugly Gun ban ends. Poof. Gone. In 1994, the Congress put a 10 year poison pill in the Ugly Gun ban, and even so it just barely passed a Democrat controlled House. Asking the Congress to do nothing is not asking them to display any particular courage. So if the Congress passes an extension of the Ugly Gun ban, and the President signs it into law, I will know that they have deliberately, willfully, and with malice aforethought, stabbed me in the back. Any attempt by the Republican Party apologists to minimize or explain away such betrayal will, along with their previous two decades of excuses, be revealed as of no more value than the gibbering of baboons. So that's why it's a make or break issue for me. I don't vote to reelect traitors and back-stabbers.
That wasn't the hypothetical bet. We both start at 100 feet (30 paces) from one another: perfect blunderbuss range.
My first shot launches 100+ rusty nails at you with a spread pattern ten feet wide.
You are wearing a Colonial shirt and three corner hat, I am wearing a kevlar vest, helmet and ceramic ballistic plate.
I have a helicopter standing by to take me to a trauma center, you get dirty bandages, a rusty saw and a bullet to bite for medical care.
This balances 1780 vs 2003 firepower, protection and medicine. I'd take that bet.
The point is that weapons were plenty deadly in 1780, at least as deadly if not more so when you consider the total equation including medical care for wounds etc.
I think that a lot of folks view this as the ultimate slippery-slope legislation -- law that bans a whole range of firearms purely on some arbitrary appearance issue. If it is renewed or strengthened, it is a precedent for banning more and more firearms on ever broader and vaguer criteria. Case in point was the CA "assault weapons" ban that ended up making a whole class of high-end .22 target pistols illegal because of the location of the magazine.
So while the law itself has had little impact beyond the very real impossibility imposed in obtaining standard cap magazines for any post-ban firearm designs (and the increased cost of buying legal standard cap mags for those that accept pre-ban designs), it's really the precedent the ban sets that rankles folks.
Whether the issue is in and of itself enought to warrant voting against Bush over, that's for each person to decide for himself, but the issue itself is a genuine one with great potential impact.
Nice.
The second step to a totalitarian government is to re-write history.
You do realize that this statement is utterly incorrect, don't you? If you don't, you need to do a little research. Private individuals in the 1700's owned whatever they could afford - up to and including warships.
I'll say this for H&K, they sure know how to ugly-up a perfectly good design. The SL-8 reminds me of the hideous camoflage that the auto manufacturers apply to their new vehicles when they put them on the road for real-world testing.
If the H&K design is picked up as a new U.S. military rifle, we may yet see an attractive semi-auto version of the G-36 - and it'll be manufactured here.
If that does not come to pass, the sunset of the Assault Weapons Ban may not clear the way for new German semi-autos. IIRC, many high-dollar products from the likes of H&K, Sig and FN were effectively banned during the Bush (41) presidency.
Some attribute that action to an Executive Order, but I've never seen any such EO. It's more likely that BATF was allowed to block the import of certain firearms; the authority for which extends from the 1968 Gun Control Act. I might be mistaken, but that's the way I remember the 1990-92 period. If anyone else can add details, please jump in.
BTW, it *is* possible to legally modify an SL-8 to look amazingly like its military cousin. HKPro has some threads on the subject, but it ain't an inexpensive project. Someone even figured out how to chemically change the color of the plastic from pale grey to charcoal black.
You are right. It is silly. Therefore I will post your logical fallacy again in it's entirity:
tpaine: Thus, you support a man who says he will sign a bill prohibiting such weapons. -- You support signing the bill..You subsequently offered this as a argument backing your original (paraphrased):
You are committing a retroductive fallacy of soundness (somewhat taking the form of the Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy). To wit:
Allow me to demonstrate by example where this fails:
- Jsuati supports George W. Bush.
- George W. Bush supports the AW ban.
- Therefore, Jsuati supports the AW ban.
- Roosters crow in the morning.
- In the morning the sun comes up.
- Therefore, roosters make the sun come up.
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.