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.

[tpaine]

Have at it, kid.

[JudgemAll]

I think the order of battle is to try to slow the tide of weapon bans and reverse it ultimately. It cannot be done by issuing virtualy illicit three way vote duels - where it becomes 2 against one, nor can it be done by protesting and letting Dems win, hastening the tide itself.

Nevertheless Bush and Ashkroft are erring indeed. They confuse the use of freedom by the enemy to do evil things, which cannot be done, with the use of anarchy by the enemy -in light of the lack of enforcement of current laws (borders, gun etc.) - in order to do evil things.

Freedom means insulation of man's sin from another man's sins, so interference in their respective endeavors with conflict of interest - even if dangerous accademic behaviors for the self - may not occur, so long as those behaviors do not affect the neighbor's life. Such protection of such insulation through the gun is non-negociable.

Automatic weapons should never have been banned in the first place either, because while AlCapone was "disarmed", so was, say, WalMart... and now AlCapone cares less about laws but WalMart cannot afford the expensive AW taxes... and the WTC could not afford AAA guns either.

Violent muslim proselytism will not be opposed by banning weapons in the US and intimidating the US public from using those in case such violent proselytism against muslims desiring apostasy is used... and continues to be used.

[yarddog]

I wish you two would quit.

After reading your posts, my head hurts.

[MileHi]

It is both formal (officered appointed, trained under Congressional provisions) and informal (every able bodied man was subject to be called into militia duty.)

How do you see any informal militia when you say that all militia is subject to being "well regulated", and you describe that as "burdened by govornment rules" and requiring membership in a formal group?

No that is a false description of my belief.

No, it isn't. Your idea of the militia jells very well with the collective rights crowd of the left.

The only thing that needs to be "well regulated" is that the men should be proficient with their arms, and my take is that congress is remiss in not providing ranges, ammo and battle rifles at cost, and an instructor to provide training to volunteers in squad tactics.

Burdensome statutes don't fit the equasion.

BTW, you still have failed totally to support your take on "well regulated" with any historical perspective. I stand by my assertion that your definition mirrors the gun-grabbers take more than it does the pro-self defense side. Your protest notwithstanding, of course.

[tpaine]

Laz obviously thinks he has ~something~ to prove.
You'll have to ask him what it is.

[CarryaBigStick]

Excuse me, but the regular army is made up of recruits that come from the militia (that's you and me and every other able bodied citizen), and I think it's wise to practice with the same tools I would be required to use when called up to fight with the regular forces. This is very relevent to the discussion when placed in this context.

Do you think the NRA should shut down this segment of our marksmanship program? Because if these tools are outlawed or severely restricted that's exactly what you'd be doing.

[CarryaBigStick]

At 100 feet his butt would be in peril whether you were armed or not. But I do prefer a tactical advantage under these circumstances; so you can keep your blunderbuss filled with rusty nails.

[Travis McGee]

You argue like a moron. "In 1770 Armies just marched past each other, and hurled insults until one side cried and went home. Their weapons fired harmless lentils and beans and wads of paper. Geese and deer felt sorry for the colonists, so they just laid down to offer themselves for dinner." Yeah right! Are you sure your name is not Michael Belisles?

I guess you have never seen the very large bore (several inches bore) goose guns that would kill a dozen large Canada geese in one shot, at 100 yards and more! They were commonly used from boats in days of vast migrating flocks, they could just have easily been used against people. With no anesthesia, antibiotics or sterile surgery they could have caused massive casualties over the several days the victims would have taken to die in screaming agony of sepsis. But their were no recorded colonial Colombines, and no moves to outlaw them until this century, and only then for reasons of game conservation.

So yes, I would be very willing to stand 100 feet from you with such a colonial era weapon, and you with a modern rifle, while I wear modern ballistic body armor and have a modern trauma center standing by, and you get the pleasure of dying in screaming pain of a dozen or so rusty nail wounds, with nothing but a bullet to bite on.

IOW, your theory that colonial firearms were harmless gentle things is pathetic. (It might be enough to gull the morons on DU, but you have a more intelligent crowd here.) Given the comparative state of colonial medicine, their weapons were quite deadly, even if death was commonly a matter of days and not minutes.

Your knowledge of colonial era weaponry is pathetic, much like the rest of your lame arguements.

[Travis McGee]

This guy is not aiming, he's just firing a test shot, and it's not even a very big blunderbuss.

"This small arm is called a "Blunderbuss". They were used aboard ships to repel boarders and mutineers, on mail coaches, and of course, by artillerymen."

(But some on this board would say there were no firearms in the colonial era to compare in deadliness with the modern assault weapon, even given the lack of medical treatment, antibiotics etc in those time. I guess they were firing nerf balls. I guess that mutineers and boarding parties just ran away when they heard the loud but harmless boom.)

[Travis McGee]

Don't worry, weapons were quite harmless until modern "assault rifles" were invented.

Besides, medical care in 1780 was just as good as it is today.

And the pound of rusty nails fired by these colonial era weapons only tickled.

[MindBender26]

What is your process for deciding who gets your vote? I'd love to see how you arrive at your decisions.

It's very simple. Which of the electable candidates will do the better job of following my desires, hopes, values, wishes and expectations as he runs the country.

No candidate will ever score 100% on expectations, meet 100% of my dreams, have 100% of my values. I don't expect him to. To demand that would be foolish, and very salf-agrandizing.

[Badray]

"...desires, hopes, values, wishes and expectations..."

You have values listed. That's good. I guess it implies some principles. But the rest of your checklist sounds like liberal feel good gobbledygook. I don't rely on government or the president for my wishes, hopes, desires, and expectations.

What about the honesty and integrity of the man? What about adherence to the Constitution? Are those things important to you at all?

[CarryaBigStick]

Thanks for the ping Travis. I've been kind of busy with work and PT; haven't been able to keep an eye on things around here enough lately.

[Abundy]

Ok, so I have to admit my curiousity is killing me...who the hell is this Snead dude?

[Abundy]

Still fighting for truth, justice and the American way I trust!

I feel like that little dude with his finger in the dike.

No offense intended to any residents of Massachusetts.

Otherwise the family is good...how are you and yours?

[MindBender26]

"...desires, hopes, values, wishes and expectations..."

You have values listed. That's good. I guess it implies some principles. But the rest of your checklist sounds like liberal feel good gobbledygook. I don't rely on government or the president for my wishes, hopes, desires, and expectations.

What about the honesty and integrity of the man? What about adherence to the Constitution? Are those things important to you at all?

Yes, those things are critically important, not just to me, but to all of us.

Understand my message here. Voters need to evaluate the ENTIRE candidate, not just his or her stand on one issue.

Next November, we will elect the next President. Decide, for yourself, which of the two electable candidates approaches the closest to your ideal. Do not expect perfection. Get as close as you can, after evaluating his or her ENTIRE set of beliefs.

It's like marriage. Is your spouse or current main squeeze perfect? Does she or he meet your expectations in EVERYTHING they do? Is the cooking, cleaning, sex, conversation, driving etc. PERFECT every time? More importantrly, Did you not in fact know, going into the relationship that parts of the relationship would not be perfect? Married her anyway, didn't you.

Sit home on election day because you may not like one of a candidates position is to help elect the guy who's positions on a whole range of issues are repugnant.

Think about it this way. By most counts, Mr. Bush won Florida by about 517 votes. If 518 Floridians had followed the foolis "sit-home" theory, Gore would be President, and Osama would probably be getting US Foreign Aid to help him buy airplanes to knock down more buildings.

[MileHi]

It has been a busy, bizarre year, but we are doing well.

FReegards, Abundy

[MindBender26]

Laz, Don't waste time on tpaine. He is professional PIA, sinmply here to disrupt the progression of thought, logic and truth.

He fancies himself as a bit of an intelectual, but the so-called logic is simply anti-conservative to it's core. Not liberal, but anti-conservative.

Sort of a luded out Michael.

"Waste not your time, troubles ot talent on him. Rather cast him upon the trach heap of anti-social imbicilic idea shouters who refresh our committment to the fight for liberty with their braying."

Wish I remembered who said that.

Be well

[The_Eaglet]

The length of this thread has little to do with your screen name and everything to do with the assinine positions taken

Finally I found something from you that I can disagree with. The length of this thread is also due to others advocating and explaining commendable positions (such as yours) long after the thread was created. :)

[Lazamataz]

Ok, so I have to admit my curiousity is killing me...who the hell is this Snead dude?

If you don't know Phil Snead of Crawford, Texas by now, there's really no point in explaining it.

We'll just put you in the Sneadless catagory.