The Assault Weapons Ban May Be Bush's Undoing

TooGood Reports ^ | 13 November 2003 | Lee R Shelton IV

[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.

[Abundy]

Up on the discussion...I think I've pegged you pretty well in the posts to you. I notice you haven't addressed my points - and I didn't expect you to.

BTW - It is perfectly legal now to own a cannon, but why should a pesky thing like reality hamper your attempts to defend your positions?

Have you figure out yet that true conservatives won't justshutupandtakeit, Mr. Clinton?

[justshutupandtakeit]

In order for a militia to function well it must have discipline. Thus, the Constitution specifies that it must be officered by state appointed officers and trained as Congress specified.

Your meaning is only one aspect of militia training. It could be made up of crack shots and great tacticians but,
if not under control of its officers and integrated into a command structure, it is essentially useless for many purposes.

That was the main problem Washington had with them. Militias were prone to break and run as soon as things did not go their way so the Commander of the Revolutionary forces tried to avoid them at all costs. That is why he had to train a Continental Army.

[Abundy]

I should clarify - you have pretty much established that not only do you not understand the Second Amendment, you have serious issues with the First as well.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Hey, I don't mind someone calling me a liar, statist, libertarian, communist or nazi and that often happens on the same thread. Just figure I am doing my job.

[justshutupandtakeit]

My pseudonym is ironic itself and intended to provoke comment. It almost always works as you can see from the length of this thread.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Not that you know anything about totalitarianism but perhaps you should have paid more attention to the phrase "the choice is yours." Not very totalitarian now is it?

[Abundy]

The length of this thread has little to do with your screen name and everything to do with the assinine positions taken, and similarly assinine assertions made, by you and others who think any politician should get a pass on their AWB vote.

I noted your screen name simply because it fits with your arrogant and dangerous "with Bush or with the RATmedia" comment. Dangerous becuase such an attitude amongs our elected officials breeds totalitarian control. Dangerous also because such an attitude amongst the advisors to Bush and the R's will breed Democrat victorys.

For you to ascribe the length of this thread to your screen name reinforces my opinion (based upon both your screen name and the content of your posts) that you are simply an arrogant psuedo-intellectual. You might need to spend some introspective time on your personality.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently you are under the false impression I either said cannons were illegal or should be. In actuality I merely said they are not covered under the 2d which clearly specifies "arms" not artillery. That is what started the whole cannon controversy in which my point has not been refuted.

Any point you have made has been addressed.

[MileHi]

In order for a militia to function well it must have discipline. Thus, the Constitution specifies that it must be officered by state appointed officers and trained as Congress specified.

You are describing the organized militia. Ths Constitution alse defines the unorganized militia. The 2nd does not draw a distinction between the two insofar as whose guns are protected.

Still you fail utterly to explain why your insistance that the "burdened by government rules" definition is the one the founders had in mind. While Schumer and Feinstein would love for you to provide conclusive evidence of this, I find comfort in the knowledge that "because jsuati says so" evidence is not too convincing past the confines of your keyboard.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Totalitarian control will come when too many turn away from good leadership in a vain quest for perfect leadership. Those willing to give the RATmedia free reign are the nation's deadliest enemies NOT me. I have been fighting against totalitarians for decades and actually have a clue as to what it is. This is in contrast to the hysterical pseudo-patriots hyperventilating over the latest act they don't like.

Since such people can't even get straight what is said on a simple discussion thread, I can't take them too seriously.

Bush's advisors will not breed RAT victories that could only come from short-sighted and politically immature voters which you seem to encourage.

[Abundy]

Apparently you are under the false impression I either said cannons were illegal or should be. In actuality I merely said they are not covered under the 2d which clearly specifies "arms" not artillery. That is what started the whole cannon controversy in which my point has not been refuted.

Apparently you can't remember what you wrote.

In #118 you attempted to convey that cannons were not covered by the Second Amendment. In support of this assertion you offered evidence by stating that "Cannons were not owned by individuals during the Revolution what concoction of crap did you get that gem from?"

I merely called you on your absolute lack of knowledge of history. However, since those earlier posts I checked your page and note you claim a minor in history. Fiven this pedigree that you allege, your proffered "proof" could be simply a material misrepresentation on your part instead of arising from total ignorance of history.

I also am enjoying your attempt to evade the issue of the Constitutionality of Welfare around about #220. All that after telling NMC that he couldn't pass your constitutional test...

Maybe he could pass it because you wouldn't recognize the correct answers?

I'm afraid to keep reading through this thread - I might die from laughter.

[ArneFufkin]

Dan, my point throughout this thread is that those who wage "all or nothing" single-agenda political campaigns ALWAYS end up with nothing. Always.

[justshutupandtakeit]

There is only one militia referenced within the Constitution. However, some State constitutions and other laws make it clear that EVERY able bodied male is a part of the militia. Chuckie, Feinstein and the Witch will get no help from my position on gun control or the meaning of the Second amendment.

How did you come up with the idea that I claimed or believe there is some distinction about which group of people's guns were protected under the 2d? I didn't and don't believe any such thing. It clearly says "the right of the PEOPLE...." NOT some groups of people.

I am not the one threatening to desert the the gungrabbers' greatest enemy over a squabble over AW bans. Those are the people who will play into their hands, not I.

[Abundy]

Lets see, according to your profile you left the Democrat Party ten years ago over RKBA. Now, you're going to leave the GOP over the same issue. Who the hell needs, or wants, you?

Bush does if 537 more voters follow 45Auto's lead.

That means you need him and want him; you ought to be a little nicer to him, don'tcha think?

[Little Ray]

If President Bush re-authorizes the AW ban, he might as well BE a Democrat. Hell, he might as well be a Clinton (he sure as heck won't be a Zell Miller!). He's had enough breaks like the idiot Education Act with Teddy "the Swimmer" Kennedy, steel tarrifs and drug benefits for wizened citizens (the richest segment of the population!).
I'm hopin' that he's leaning on Republican Congresscritters to keep that bill away from his desk, while makin' cooin' noises to the soccer moms... That way he gets to have his cake and eat it, too.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Nah, I'm sure your constitution can take it.

I clarified that comment by acknowledging the fact that privately owned ships were armed with cannons. It is still true that individuals rarely, if ever, owned cannons for use on land. Those were almost entirely the possession of militias and armies and are not "arms" as specified in the Second amendment. ARMS were carried. Cannons cannot be carried unless you are Paul Bunyan.

I didn't evade anything about Welfare merely mentioned the Court rulings wrt the 14th amendment preventing States from restricting its dispersal. For a lawyer you seem to have a singular inability to separate a comment from a desire. Just because I say something happened or was the case does not mean that I am glad it was so or wished it would be so.

Any information about the private ownership of cannons during the Revolutionary period (other than on ships) will be welcomed.

[Badray]

" Good point."

Thanks, though it escapes the understanding of many here.

[Badray]

"Actually that point is agreeing with you."

That's the way I took it, though I may not have expressed it well. We usually do agree.

[MileHi]

How did you come up with the idea that I claimed or believe there is some distinction about which group of people's guns were protected under the 2d?

Because you said "In order for a militia to function well it must have discipline. Thus, the Constitution specifies that it must be officered by state appointed officers and trained as Congress specified. That implies that the militia consists solely of members of some formal militay organization, the Shumer/Feinstein/9th Circus/the-national-guard-is-the-militia view. Your "burdened by govornment rules" definition of "regulated" would fit this view.

[ArneFufkin]

Bush's position on the AWR ban was clear before the 2000 election. Most didn't vote for him, if their principles are pristine, in the first place. There's nothing to lose.

If the bill to re-authorize the ban arrives at Bush's desk, he's going to sign it. Why screw around with these threats, just announce he doesn't have your vote?

So ... what is the plausible alternative? Democrats? Third Party? Sitting out the elections? The first isn't likely, the second option needs a severe jumpstart with the election in less than twelve months, and the third option warrants no respect or admiration.

The energy should be to thwart the initiative in Congress, before it lands on the President's desk. Throwing Bush overboard for an action he has signalled he WILL take is silly. Don't board his ship in the first place. But, don't delude yourselves that you will have any positive influence attaining other Conserviative priorities that only George W. Bush and a GOP majority Congress can codify into law.