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.

[Badray]

"The last thing that I would want to see is a President Dean or Hillary."

I agree.

"I would never let single issue arrogance get in the way of the greater good of the country."

Please see my post at #637 so that I don't have to repeat myself.

Your post tells me that you are likely a decent sort, but you also seem quite concerned that America is not strong enough to endure another democrat. We can and we will. We can't survive our GOP friends ignoring our concerns and our rights. If the GOP gives us the same as the Dems (gun grabbing, in this instance), does it really matter that the GOP is supposed to be your friend?

I will not vote for a Democrat. But don't hand me any crap about a vote for someone else or no one else is a vote for a Democrat. Tell that to Bush and the GOP for ignoring our rights. If they steal my rights, they can't earn my vote.

[MileHi]

Informal militia is not well-defined thus, it is hard to say exactly what might be meant by that today but it is not likely to have anything to do with firearms at all. Maybe cleaning up after floods, fires etc. or filling sandbags to prevent flooding.

Wow! And all this time I thought the Militia was guard against govornment tyranny. Now I learn it merely a public works group.

It is not referenced AT ALL in the Constitution as you initially tried to claim.

The militia is all able bodied men. Not just those who are part of some formal organized units as you keep insisting. In fact by your reasoning, the militia is either:

1) the National Guard or

2) nonexistant.

I note you have provided nothing which is applicable believing for some wierd reason that the militia was a type of clock.

LOL! So a person or a group of people cannot be "well functioning"? Only "burdened by government rules"? Um, Ok...

[MindBender26]

Actually, you say for agree, then try to justify the foolishness of single issue voting.

It's very simple. Support the candidate who supports the vast majority of things you and I agree with, or support the candidate with whom we have little or no agreement.

This is the real world. The Republican or Democrat wil be elected. Who will you help, with the complete understanding that if you sit hone and fail to vote for the Republican/more conservative candidate, you help the Gun Grabbing Dem!

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote:

I do not support the AW ban.

You hypocritically support the man who will sign the ban.

Bush will violate no oath by signing one however.

He has sworn to protect & defend our RKBA's. The 'ban' infringes on that right.

You, -- and he, -- show no respect for that constitutional right. -- Parse it as you will, that is a fact.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Your opinion does not make ME a hypocrite nor does YOUR view of constitutionality make Bush a violator of his oath. Sorry to puncture your delusions of grandeur.

[Badray]

You apparently didn't read my complete reply or my post at #637 if this is your considered response. Either that or you need help with reading comprehension or you you are just being difficult.

The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Do you have a problem understanding that? If a supposed friend of the 2nd signs an unconstitutional ban, he forfeits my vote as does any enemy of the 2nd when he does the same thing. Why should I treat him any better? He is not entitled to my vote. He has to earn it. Allowing him to disregard my rights is not an option.

If neither party wants to respect our rights, let's get it on now. We, the people, are the repository of power. The government employees are just temporary stewards. You seem willing to let them be all powerful and all deciding.

[justshutupandtakeit]

No, the Militias were NEVER a guard against "govornment" tyranny or even government tyranny. Initially they were bodies organized by communities to defend them against Indian attacks. Then they were organized by Colonies' governments to fight in the Revolution or with the British against the French (see the life of George Washington, a colonel in the Virginia militia) or Indians. Then they were organized by State governments. True militias were organized and recognized by Governments. Why don't you study a little history this is not a secret or a mystery?

At one period they were even organized ethnicly. For example, Chicago had large German militias during the late 1800s which armed and drilled. These were generally socialist and alarmed the State government so much they were banned and gun control laws first imposed against them. For fear they would lead a socialist revolution.

In modern times they have disappeared although the state constitution still defines the militia as being made up of all able bodied males. But their military use has disappeared. They were never designed to fight governmental armies except in your fantasies.

[MindBender26]

I read this and your prior posts very well. Please stop with the reading comprehention cracks. Personal abuse is not acceptable here.

Here is my issues. I value the 2d ammendment. There are other things that I value more or equally, however.

FOr example, I place a great deal of importance to a committment to a strong national defense. If we leave ourselves open to foreign millitary or terror attack, all the writing in the Constitution won't do us any good.

I also value the 1st ammendment very highly. A few years ago, there was an attempt to force stations running Rush and other stations to put on other, "more balanced" viewpoints. If government had required an anti-Rush, we would all have been in trouble.

I am very strong on anti-crime issues. I want a canaidate who will lock up the crooks and keep them there. No mollycodling, no M'Naighton, just hard jail time in a bad-ass jail.

I also want a President who is strong on REAL equal rights for everyone. Not equal outcomes, not quotas or set-asides, but real equal opportunity.

I want a president who will oppose "Slavery Reperations" in the stronest manner possible.

I want the toxic torts stopped. These rediculous class actions suits are killing commerce. I was recently part of class that received a 85 cent credit the next time I stay in a Starwood hotel because I wasn't informed of their long distance phone charges. (I call on my cell phone) I got 85 cents credit, the lawyers got 2.2 million cash.

I want a President who will work hard to get the welfare loafers off their duffs and to work anr/or school.

I want a President who will work to stop the epidemic of single parents families in the Black communities.

Is the 2d Ammaendment important to me, yes, extremely so. Am I willing to give up everything else to get it? No.

PS, do I accept that the government, in the interest of its citizerns can put reasonable restriction on firearms ownership? Sorry, but yes. I do not want a convicted sex abuser to be able to legally have a gun if he tries to force my daughter into a car with him.

That's is why I would never decide my vote for any office on the results of just one issue, no matter how important that issue is.

[MileHi]

No, the Militias were NEVER a guard against "govornment" tyranny or even government tyranny....

They were never designed to fight governmental armies except in your fantasies.

"As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms." -Tench Coxe, Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution, under the pseudonym "A Pennsylvanian" in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1989 at col. 1.

"Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States." -Noah Webster, An Examination into the Leading Principles of the federal Constitution (1787) in Pamphlets to the Constitution of the United States (P. Ford, 1888).

Seems a few others have shared my "fantasies". But, hey, you got me on a typo, big guy.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Militias were formed by governmental entities: states, villages, cities, townships, counties. THAT is a fact. An armed people was useful in that regard. They were formed to fight Indians, then the French, then the British. They were never designed to fight the government nor do the quotations you quote say that they were. AND they never did!

In fact, the militia was used to suppress the PEOPLE during
Shay's Rebellion and the Whiskey Rebellion.

Militias were always considered the armed auxillaries of the Armies. They were creatures of the State not its enemies.

Militia - 1) a) A citizen army, as distinct from a body of professional soldiers. b)The armed citizenry, as distinct from the regular army. 2) The able-bodied male citizens in a state who are not members of regular armed forces, but who are called to military service in cases of emergency. 3) The whole body of physically fit male civilians eligible by law for military service. [Original sense, "military organization." from Latin militia, warfare. from miles- soldier]

There is no militia without State involvement it is NOT a bunch of gunmen, vigilantes, marauders or a gang.

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote:

I do not support the AW ban.

You hypocritically support the man who will sign the ban.

Bush will violate no oath by signing one however.

He has sworn to protect & defend our RKBA's. The 'ban' infringes on that right. You, -- and he, -- show no respect for that constitutional right. -- Parse it as you will, that is a fact.

Your opinion does not make ME a hypocrite nor does YOUR view of constitutionality make Bush a violator of his oath.

No 'opinion' is offered. What you have written on this thread is a matter of fact.

The 'ban' infringes on our rights. You, -- and he, -- show no respect for that constitutional RKBA's.

[tpaine]

MindBender26 wrote:
I read this and your prior posts very well. Please stop with the reading comprehention cracks. Personal abuse is not acceptable here.

---

At 6am this morning, MindBender26 wrote an unprovoked personal attack:

"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."

[Badray]

"I read this and your prior posts very well. Please stop with the reading comprehention cracks. Personal abuse is not acceptable here."

I made the last remark after you responded as though you ignored everything that I wrote or didn't understand it. I took the 'single issue' concept step by step in explaining it's importance and you neglected to reply or just ignored it.

"Here is my issues. I value the 2d ammendment. There are other things that I value more or equally, however."

Without the 2nd Amendment, the others are mere words on worthless paper.

"FOr example, I place a great deal of importance to a committment to a strong national defense. If we leave ourselves open to foreign millitary or terror attack, all the writing in the Constitution won't do us any good."

Defense is the key word. Too often we are on Meals on Wheels missions and being involved where we don't belong. The extraordinary circumstances of 9/11 justify our current fight in Irag, but we need to be more mindful of Washington's admonition.

"I also value the 1st ammendment very highly. A few years ago, there was an attempt to force stations running Rush and other stations to put on other, "more balanced" viewpoints. If government had required an anti-Rush, we would all have been in trouble."

I agree that that program would have been terrible. But if the 1st is so important to you, do you recall the damage that GWB has done to it with that abomination called Campaign Finance Reform? The very speech that the 1st was written to protect is now illegal in order to protect incumbent panderers.

"I am very strong on anti-crime issues. I want a canaidate who will lock up the crooks and keep them there. No mollycodling, no M'Naighton, just hard jail time in a bad-ass jail."

What in the world does the President have to do with crime and punishment? That is a state and local issue, or at least is supposed to be.

"I also want a President who is strong on REAL equal rights for everyone. Not equal outcomes, not quotas or set-asides, but real equal opportunity."

You mean a President who won't pander to get votes. Seems as though GWB is guilty there as well. Why else is he pushing a prescription drug bill? The largest ever education spending bill? An 'Assualt Weapons' Ban?

"I want a president who will oppose "Slavery Reperations" in the stronest manner possible."

I would expect no less.

"I want the toxic torts stopped. These rediculous class actions suits are killing commerce. I was recently part of class that received a 85 cent credit the next time I stay in a Starwood hotel because I wasn't informed of their long distance phone charges. (I call on my cell phone) I got 85 cents credit, the lawyers got 2.2 million cash."

Again, I agree, but think about this - - You were party to a suit. WHY? Were you looking for a big payout? By joining these suits, you perpetuate them.

"I want a President who will work hard to get the welfare loafers off their duffs and to work anr/or school." "I want a President who will work to stop the epidemic of single parents families in the Black communities."

These go hand in hand and are more appropriately the province of congress, although the president can use the bully pulpit to end this mess, if he isn't so busy pandering to these people for their votes.

"Is the 2d Ammaendment important to me, yes, extremely so. Am I willing to give up everything else to get it? No."

We go back to the first comment. The 2nd guarantees that all of the others are protected.

"PS, do I accept that the government, in the interest of its citizerns can put reasonable restriction on firearms ownership? Sorry, but yes. I do not want a convicted sex abuser to be able to legally have a gun if he tries to force my daughter into a car with him."

You are buying into the falsehood that gun control laws actually control criminals and stop them from getting guns. It's already illegal for them to have guns, but they always seem to have them, don't they? All these laws do is keep law abiding citizens from being able to protect themselves. If you believe otherwise, you are living in a dream world worthy of the Million Moron Moms.

"That's is why I would never decide my vote for any office on the results of just one issue, no matter how important that issue is."

All of my replies above is why you should rethink your priorities.

[Badray]

LOL Good catch.

[NMC EXP]

Now do you get it or do I have to repeat it again and again?

No I don't get it.

Repeat for me the explanation why un-Constitutional gun laws signed by Bush are better than un-Constitutional gun laws signed by a democrat?

While you're at it explain to me why I should not be more disappointed and angry at a "conservative" republican gun grabber than at a democrat gun grabber.

I expect gun grabbing from democrats, liberals, socialists, statists and other known enemies of liberty.

I do not expect that from a conservative republican nor will I grab my ankles and shout "Thank you sir may I have another?" after Bush signs it.

But if you like it, go ahead and bend over. I'm confident Bush and the GOP will be happy to give it to you again.

One of the few things in life you can count on is that you will get more of any behavior that you reward.

Works with dogs.

Works with horses.

Works with prostitutes.

Works especially well with lower life forms such as politicans.

Regards

J.R.

[MindBender26]

tpaine,

Dear Miz Paine

Thanks for the bump.

MB26

[tpaine]

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.
618 -MB26-

---

Bender, your post 618 is really sad. -
I thought you had recovered from the worse of the mental problems you exhibited in our last exchange a couple years ago, when you made death threats.. -- Remember your words about being a trained killer in Nam?
-- I do, and they scared me almost as much as your threats of legal action by the attorney you imagine keeping on retainer.
627 -tpaine-

---

MindBender26 wrote:
tpaine, Dear Miz Paine Thanks for the bump.

---

Always glad to show others here how deranged you are, my boy..

Carry on..

[justshutupandtakeit]

Still can't get the picture even after repeated chances. I have not indicated ANY support for ANY gun laws in ANY of my posts. ALL of which seem to not register within your grey matter.

You can be as "disappointed and angry" as you wish, I would join you in that reaction BUT that is not sufficient reason to help a RAT into the White HOuse. If your house is on fire I suppose you throw more gasoline on it.

This is all hysteria without foundation but don't let that stop you from running about, holding your head in your hands shouting "the sky is falling."

[justshutupandtakeit]

There are often things a president does which are not to my liking. No president has EVER been completely to my liking.
However making the situation worse by electing far worse presidents is just stupid even if excused as principled.

Bush's actions don't become unconstitutional because of YOUR opinion. Last time I checked YOUR opinion has had no impact upon American constitutional law.

While opposed to the extension of the AW ban it has little or no impact upon my rights no matter what YOUR opinion is about it. It merely joins the list of laws I am opposed to maybe it is number 1,101,111 on the list.

[tpaine]

You hypocritically support the man who will sign the AW ban.

Bush will violate no oath by signing one however.

He has sworn to protect & defend our RKBA's. The 'ban' infringes on that right. You, -- and he, -- show no respect for such law. -- Parse it as you will, that is a fact.

Your opinion does not make ME a hypocrite nor does YOUR view of constitutionality make Bush a violator of his oath.

No 'opinion' is offered. What you have written on this thread is a matter of fact.
The 'ban' infringes on our rights. You, -- and he, -- show no respect for that constitutional RKBA's.

Bush's actions don't become unconstitutional because of YOUR opinion. Last time I checked YOUR opinion has had no impact upon American constitutional law.

Signing a new AW bill would unquestionably infringe on our RKBA's. Thats a fact.

While opposed to the extension of the AW ban it has little or no impact upon my rights no matter what YOUR opinion is about it. It merely joins the list of laws I am opposed to maybe it is number 1,101,111 on the list.

Your priority for our RKBA's shows your lack of respect for our constitution. -- Keep digging.