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]

It is precisely your OPINION that I have demonstrated ignorance of the Constitution. Generally my opponents in debate concede my knowledge and put down disagreements as my willful perversity or dishonesty. Of course, your other red herring is my "mental state."

I won't get into the process of "projection" which appears to be in action here.

[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

[justshutupandtakeit]

And it is ONLY the USSC which can make that decision just as it did in this case. Marshall was the Chief Justice of the USSC not some clown wandering down the street.

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote:


- it is ONLY the USSC which can make that decision --

---

Not true.
It is a ~principle~ that 'a law repugnant to the constitution is void; --- all courts are bound by that principle, thus they can't make a 'decision' to ignore or modify it.

They can only decide if it is violated.
The assault weapons ban unquestionably violates the 2nd.

Why do you support the man that supports the ban?

[justshutupandtakeit]

Final determination of "unconstitutionality" rests with the USSC. Court rulings up until then are provisional. No court has ruled this law unconstitutional therefore it is NOT no matter what YOU think.

Bush is the ONLY conservative with ANY chance of being elected in today's America as opposed to the Land of Delusions those lambasting him seem to live in.

[tpaine]

The assault weapons ban unquestionably violates the 2nd.

Why do you support the man that supports the ban?
684 tpaine

---

"-- No court has ruled this law unconstitutional -- "
685 -jsuati-

---

Case made.
You think the AWB is constitutional.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Until the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional it is constitutional.

[Jim Cane]

Final determination of "unconstitutionality" rests with the USSC.

Nope. The ultimate determinant is the cartridge box. The legistlature can pass laws in secrecy all they want, and the courts can rule 'till they're blue, but eventually they will come up against the "cold dead fingers" provision of the Constitutional Republic.

[Little Ray]

If Bush signs the AW ban, this I either won't vote for a Presidential candiate, or I'll vote for the Libertine, uh, Libertarian candidate. Ain't no point in votin' for a Republican if acts like a Democrat. I've been a good little Bush supporter, but he has allowed Congress to swell the Federal budget with idiocies like the farm bill, the education bill and the drugs-for-old-farts bill. Tax cuts are not going to mean very much at the rate Congresscritters are spendin'.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The USSC is one of the major elements of said Constitutional Republic, perhaps you never noticed. The rest of your silly raving is not worth comment.

[tpaine]

justshutupandtakeit wrote: Until the Supreme Court rules a law unconstitutional it is constitutional.

---

Not true.
It is a ~principle~ that 'a law repugnant to the constitution is void;
--- all courts are bound by that principle, thus they can't make a 'decision' to ignore or modify it.
They can only decide if it is violated.

The assault weapons ban unquestionably violates the 2nd.

Why do you support the man that supports the ban?

[Jim Cane]

The rest of your silly raving is not worth comment.

Apparently it was, twinkie pie.

[justshutupandtakeit]

It is dangerous to indulge in Fantasy History though it might make you feel good temporarily. Threatening the Court is a violation of this Forum's policies as well.

[Jim Cane]

[The legistlature can pass laws in secrecy all they want, and the courts can rule 'till they're blue, but eventually they will come up against the "cold dead fingers" provision of the Constitutional Republic.]

It is dangerous to indulge in Fantasy History though it might make you feel good temporarily. Threatening the Court is a violation of this Forum's policies as well.

You seem to lack the ability to differentiate between drawing a line in the sand and making a "threat". You are also unfamiliar with the 2nd Amendment and the reason[s] for it's place of prominence in the BOR.

I feel sorry for you - fearing freedom and hushing the story of how it became a reality as a dangerous fantasy.

Better not post back, the folks in black helicoptors are reading your words (and thoughts), and if you say the wrong thing, or it becomes known that you're conversing with a right winger like me, why...you'll be taken away in the night.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I am very familiar with the Constitution and its origin. None of that history demonstrates that the representative democracy it set up was or is a "tyrant." The Founders distrusted power but they established a nation designed to avoid tyranny since it was to be responsive to the citizens and could be changed through the amendment process.

It has worked admirably for over two hundred yrs. One of the reasons it has worked so well is the USSC.

Apparently you have a problem understanding the plain words of the 2d amendment which clearly states that the right to keep and bear arms is to allow the people to be armed and available for militia duty since "A well regulated militia, [is necessary] to the security of a Free STATE." This is clearly inconvenient to the arguments of those believing the 2d was designed to be used AGAINST the US government. It never was intended that way.

Militias were of use against the Indians but not much else as a short review of American military history would show you. Militias were to be REGULATED by the states; they weren't a bunch of kooks playing war games in the woods with the boys.

I have NO fear of freedom only of the shortsighted and ignorant who want to ignore parts of the constitution which don't suit them while claiming to be patriots. THEY are indeed dangerous to true freedom.

Rather than making vague and absurd accusations why don't you tell everyone where I have EVER "hushed" ANY fact of American history or any fact whatsoever.

[Jim Cane]

Rather than making vague and absurd accusations why don't you tell everyone where I have EVER "hushed" ANY fact of American history or any fact whatsoever.

You accused me of violating this forum's rules (which I didn't) as far as making threats is concerned. I did violate them in regard to personal attacks - calling you a twinkie pie (which you are). You hoped to silence me, via admin moderator, and now misrepresent the clear meaning of the second amendment - highlighting [state] yet clearly oblivious to it's qualifier [FREE].

According to the Constitution, the federal government's powers are enumerated and few. The rights of the states and the people themselves are expansive.

Falling under the umbrella of the 9th and 10th amendments are those God given rights outlined in a document equal to the USC.

[When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed, -- That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new guards for their future security -- ]

The right of armed rebellion against tyranny is spelled out for you right there.

What do you think an armed citizenry is going to do if and when statist nutjobs like yourself decide that the rest of us can't be trusted with our God given rights?

Actually, I don't care what you think. This is the line. Here and no farther.

[justshutupandtakeit]

I have never brought the moderator into ANY discussion I have been involved in and care not that you called me a name. While it is inaccurate I don't care about that. As for your assumption that I was attempting to silence you that is merely false. Reminding you of something is not the same thing. You can make all the implied threats you wish and I will never call them to the moderator's attention. They do make FR look like a looney's gathering place but such is the price of freedom.

There was certainly no "misrepresentation" of the 2d's meaning by pointing to the actual words within it. It clearly states that the reason for a militia and an armed population is to bring security to a free state not for any other purpose. But accuracy and truth mean nothing to ideologues.

There is certainly nothing in the 9th and 10th amendment which "equals" the USSC. Since the Court can determine what those amendments apply to they are subordinate to it.

Nor is there any doubt that the Constitution gives the federal government extensive powers. None of the founders doubted that there were implied powers as well (not even Jefferson.) If you really care about this point read Hamilton's essay on the constitutionality of the National Bank. Though I am sure you don't and won't.

A quote from the Declaration is not going to change the powers of the Court. Nor does it demonstrate any "despotism" to revolt against. Unless you believe the people should revolt against themselves since they are the creators of the free state discussed in the 2d.

Whackos are not going to change anything about this government and have little impact on anything except themselves.

[votelife]

bttt

[Dan from Michigan]

Most people have no basis for interpreting it anyway as it is far beyond understanding without close study.

I just saw this in the archives. That's just WRONG there.

The federalist papers(upon which most of the constitution was based) was written so that the citizenry can understand. "with Plain, ordinary understanding" I think was the term used.

[Dan from Michigan]

And Federalist 46 addresses that.