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.
Is he another SEAL?
;^)
This _should_ be a rhetorical yes for all concerned citizens pro-actively involved in government.
It seems like many treat money or looks as more important than adherence to Constitution.
;^)
Come on, explain it...
Since he has not vetored any legislation thsfar, I can then conclude that he has supported every bill that has hit his desk?
Granted, and I do do that. But that doesn't mean that someone gets a pass from me just because the opponent is far less perfect.
Look, what politicians want most is to be elected and reelected, right? If we continue to reelect them without holding them to account for what they have done, they will continue to ignore us and our issues. When they get fired, or see another politician fired for what they did wrong, they pay attention.
It's sad that it has got to this point, but if the pubbies want to continue to hold power, they better pay attention to the segment of the party that holds gun rights sacred. We may not be the majority of the party, but a significant minority that can influence elections. It wasn't us that asked for the "Big Tent" party, but since we're here, we will voice our concerns and we will be ignored at the peril of the party.
What you must understand is that we aren't asking for anyone to give us anything. We don't want something that doesn't belong to us. We aren't seeking special programs that someone else must pay for. We are not the typical 'special interest' or 'single issue' group.
Our issue is THE single issue. It's FREEDOM. If the pols don't trust us (the American people) with guns, why should we trust them? Free men own guns, slaves do not. When we lose our single issue, America is no longer the grand experiment that started so long ago.
That's why we are so adamant. And if both major parties are intent on disarming us, then so be it. Let's find out now while we are still all as well armed as we are. We can't wait until the only legal firearm is a single shot .22 that is registered with the government and stored in their storage facilities until we check it out to shoot on government approved ranges.
Does that help you to understand us 'single issue' voters a little bit better?
If not, may your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity not know that you are our brethren.
I think you mean that it should be an automatic yes, and not just rhetorical. I agree if that's what you mean. I just had a phone conversation with a friend and he was complaining about how everyone "feels" today and doesn't think. Even men. He's right. The 'thinkers' are an endangered species.
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.