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.

[justshutupandtakeit]

All those OPINIONS are nice but have no bearing on anyone but you.

Your OPINIONS don't affect how I view Bush in the slightest nor do they affect how I view the constitution or laws passed.

Just because YOU (or I or Harvard Law School) have the OPINION that something is/isn't unconstitutional does not make it so. Only a ruling from the US Supreme Court can make it so even though I know that infuriates you to no end.

But don't let that change your megalomanic rantings, they are so enjoyable.

[oldfart]

"Just because YOU (or I or Harvard Law School) have the OPINION that something is/isn't unconstitutional does not make it so. Only a ruling from the US Supreme Court can make it so even though I know that infuriates you to no end."

Sorry--- I just GOTTA get in here! EVERYONE has to interpret the constitution. The Supreme Court once ruled that black people could be constitutionally deprived of any and all civil rights. Did that decision make it right and proper?

You, I, Tpaine and every other citizen of this country has to be prepared to decide on the legality of any law congress or state legislators might pass. Rosa Parks decided that the law which pushed her to the back of the bus wasn't legal or proper, and she was right! She took a bit of flak for her actions but she won in the end. We will probably have to do something similar to get some of the unconstitutional gun laws repealed.

But it is we, not a group of pampered, carefully protected, over-aged lawyers who will make the ultimate decision.

[RKBAbang]

Thanks jmc813,

I found the site through my weblogs when someone posted my oval RKBA picture to this thread.

--Eric
http://RKBAbang.com/

[tpaine]

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.

Just because YOU (or I or Harvard Law School) have the OPINION that something is/isn't unconstitutional does not make it so. Only a ruling from the US Supreme Court can make it so even though I know that infuriates you to no end.

Backwards. The clear words of our constitution speak to every man. A USSC decision, if repugnant to constitutional principles, is void.
IE, the USSC cannot make a prohibition of 'assault weapons' constitutional. Their opinion would be flawed by the logic of the 2nd amendment.
We the people have the right, ~and the duty~, to fight such infringments.

Why ~you~ would ignore such infringements is best addressed by your mental health specialist.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have the utmost respect for the Constitution and your OPINION of me has no impact on anything. Those who show no respect for the USSC are the ones with no respect for the Constitution not I.

No USSC decision is void until another opinion of the Court renders it so or a constitutional amendment changes the basis of the ruling. Your OPINION of that opinion has no impact on anything.

Your OPINION of my mental state has no impact on anything.

Throwing out gun owners' best friend in decades from the White House is hardly a way to protect the RKBA or fight infringements. In fact, it is the way to pave the path for its deadly enemies and far MORE infringements. It is guaranteed to do so in fact.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Since the Constitution protected slavery the Dred Scott ruling was not unconstitutional. Its rightness or morality is not the issue. In order to protect ex-slaves and get rid of slavery the Constitution had to be changed as it was.

Rosa Parks was challenging a local law not a federal one. It was not changed by any federal action but by massive protests led by Dr. King.

EVERYONE can interprete the Constitution if they wish but those interpretations mean NOTHING legally. Most people have no basis for interpreting it anyway as it is far beyond understanding without close study. Constitutionality is not a matter of majority opinion.

Civil disobedience is always an option that Americans have to protest and even change LAWS they are not in accord with but that only goes so far. If I don't like the laws against pot and consider them unconstitution does that mean I should go and light up a joint at Police Headquarters and say to the arresting officer "Officer, I am protesting the unconstitutional drug laws?" Does not sound very smart to me.

[The_Eaglet]

For once, he should strap his domestic balls on and actually veto something that he disagrees with or believes to be unconstitutional.

Let me know if this ever happens, please.

[The_Eaglet]

Automatic yes, definitely (and especially in this context).

[NMC EXP]

I would join you in that reaction BUT that is not sufficient reason to help a RAT into the White HOuse

Well, justshutupandtakeit certainly is an appropriate screen name for someone who cheerfully accepts being screwed over and advocates rewarding the ones doing the screwing.

Regards

J.R.

[Badray]

" Let me know if this ever happens, please."

LOL

If that ever happens, I'm sure that we'll see it in "Breaking News".

[justshutupandtakeit]

Apparently you are unfamiliar with the concept of "ironic."
Any decent dictionary should be able to give you a clue.

I advocate rewarding those who are Patriots rather than poseurs. Something else you are unfamiliar with apparently.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Perhaps you could tell us how the brilliant members of the American electorate (35% certifiable RATidiots and proud of it) become capable of interpreting the Constitution. Far too many can't pour p!ss from a boot with directions written on the heel much less understand something as complicated as the Constitution.

A USSC decision is NEVER "null and void" until another USSC decision says so. What IS "null and void" is your opinion of a Court decision.

[tpaine]

The clear words of our constitution speak to every man.

A USSC decision, if repugnant to constitutional principles, is void.


IE, the USSC cannot make a prohibition of 'assault weapons' constitutional. Their opinion would be flawed by the logic of the 2nd amendment.
We the people have the right, ~and the duty~, to fight such infringments.

Why ~you~ would ignore such infringements is best addressed by your mental health specialist.
664 -tpaine-

---

justshutupandtakeit wrote:
A USSC decision is NEVER "null and void" until another USSC decision says so. What IS "null and void" is your opinion of a Court decision.

---

--Read the below, and weep for your obstinate ignorance:


"Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the constitution is void; and that courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument.
The rule must be discharged."

Source: 1 Cranch 137 (1803

Justice Marshall

Marbury v. Madison (1803)
Address:http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/9.htm Changed:9:33 AM on Monday, November 24, 2003

[justshutupandtakeit]

You probably are quoting about the only opinion of Marshall's which you can agree with. Most of those opposed to Bush, modernity and national progress hate him, too.

Generally the claim is that Marshall's Court was "aristocratic" or "sappers" or other equally absurd quotes from Jeffersonians.

[tpaine]

You know nothing of what I 'probably' agree with.
But in any case, so what? -- Your ignorance of our constitution is obvious. Be ashamed.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Yeah, right.

I have seen your posts which give a good indication of your beliefs since I don't believe you are putting anyone on.

[tpaine]

Again, -- so what?

-- What do my beliefs have to do with your demonstrated ignorance of our constitution?

[bandleader]

They are NOT "Assault Weapons"anyhow!!!An "Assault Weapon"(by definition),has to have FULL-AUTO capability!!!!I have an H-Bar.It's a nice weapon but it only LOOKS like an"Assault Weapon"!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bandleader]

Dear RiflemanSharpe,EXACTLY RIGHT!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[bandleader]

Right On!Shooting myself in the foot is NOT one of my options!!!!!!!