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.

[Little Ray]

Gee, I thought we had a Republican Congress to stop abominations like this. Since they won't, and since El Presidente will sign it, we might as well have demonrats in the Whitehouse. At least the Pubbies might put up a fight.

[Little Ray]

Nope. Won't vote for a President at all. Or I'll vote Losertarian. But not for Bush II.

[flashbunny]

Here's an unvague accusation: You don't know jack diddly squat about the intention of the founding fathers with regards to the 2nd amdnement. Thomas jefferson himself fully expected armed rebellion against the US government. Here's a picture of it in his own hand and here's an excerpt from the transcription:

yet where does this anarchy exist? where did it ever exist, except in the single instance of Massachusets? and can history produce an instance of a rebellion so honourably conducted? I say nothing of it's motives. they were founded in ignorance, not wickedness. god forbid we should ever be 20 years without such a rebellion. the people cannot be all, & always, well informed. the past which is wrong will be discontented in proportion to the importance of the facts they misconceive; if they remain quiet under such misconceptions it is a lethargy, the forerunner of death to the public liberty. we have had 13. states independant 11. years. there has been one rebellion. that comes to one rebellion in a century & a half for each state. what country before ever existed a century & half without a rebellion? & what country can preserve it's liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? let them take arms.

I don't know why people who know nothing about the intentions and opinions of the founding fathers claim to be able to speak for the meaning of the bill of rights. If you continue to doubt, there's volumes of information out there if you choose to educate yourself instead of remaining ingorant. BTW, you can also look at one of the offical seals of the united states, proposed by both Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin:



In case you can't read the writing on the seal, it says "Rebellion To Tyrants Is Obedience To God".

[MindBender26]

Most Conservatives are mature enough to realize that their favorite issue is far from the only things important in the Country.

My standard answer to "one issue" voters; "Even though I may agree with your position, if your support for this Country, not a candidate or political party, but this Country by helping decide who will defend her against ALL enemies, foreign and domestic, then you were never much of a supporter anyway."

[Little Ray]

This isn't a "one issue" problem, this more like a "straw that breaks the camel's back" issue. Don't forget that there's a slew of other stuff he's signed.
'Bout had it with him, and if these issues (immigration reform or AWB make it up) he's a Democrat as far as I'm concerned.

[BOOTSTICK]

There is no present ban on assault weapons, just go to my local gun dealer and look at the dozens of assault weapons on his wall. This issue is total nonsense.

[MindBender26]

President Bush: he's a Democrat as far as I'm concerned.

Please call me when you get back from the Flat Earth Society convention.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Jefferson's views in that regard are a disgrace and show why he was not a good president (even if he did blunder into the Louisiana Purchase.) He was a horrible military leader and left the nation's military in terrible shape.

God forbid we should go 20 yrs without a rebellion based in ignorance? Oh, yeah that is brilliant, just brilliant.

Other than tyrannical Slavers there were no "tyrants" in America after our independence one has to be a moron to think so. Jefferson wasn't even in this country when the Shay's rebellion occurred.

Nice seals but, of course, utterly irrelevent to any discussion I have been involved in.

[justshutupandtakeit]

The Federalist was not the basis for the Constitution it was the other way around. Nevertheless the actual electorate at the time was tiny compared to today and even though composed of the more educated classes still had a small proportion which could understand the constitution.

Like the Bible it has had thousands of books written attempting to explain it. Parts are still in controversy with distinguished jurists and scholars often taking opposite sides of an issue.

Though Hamilton is routinely and alsely accused of being anti-democratic, he was the most widely read author of his era writing hundreds if not thousands of newspaper articles specifically to reach the "masses." His "democratic" opponents, Madison and Jefferson, wrote almost nothing in comparison which was directed at the common people.

[justshutupandtakeit]

"alsely" should have been "falsely." LoL.

[flashbunny]

Nice revisionist history and dismissal of a man who was instrumental in the founding of our country. I guess if the facts don't fit the story, just change the story.

[justshutupandtakeit]

Any fact I state fits the story. Jefferson was an outstanding rhetoritician, lousy governor and poor president. My opinion of him has dropped as I have learned more about him. It is important to pay more attention to what he actually DID rather than what he SAID.

but I am sure you prefer the mythological Jefferson rather than the flesh and blood man.

[Who is John Galt?]

"Any fact I state?" Actually, you don't bother to 'state facts.'

;>)

[BOBWADE]

I relly hate it that I will have to hold my nose and vote for him again. I am very displeased with his fence-riding. he is going to have trouble getting his base motivated with crap like this. I am a true conservative and am having concerns about our candidate. He seems to be a bigger lib than his father.

[flashbunny]

Well, I'm sure you prefer a constitution that can be suited to your current whim than what the founding fathers actually intended it to be. Founding fathers that fought against a tyrant that ruled over them, yet you seem to think they would only think a 'free state' needs to be protected from a foreign enemy, instead of that they learned from experience it is also necessary to protect themselves from a corrupt government. Or maybe Benjamin franklin answered 'A republic, if you can keep it', only because we had to be vigilant against foreign enemies.

Anyway, don't bother responding, because I've looked through your previous 'debates' on this thread and it proves any attempt to use logic on you is useless. 'Facts' only matter when they can be twisted to suit your viewpoint, and any facts presented by someone who doesn't agree with you are unimportant or to be disregarded. In short, I'm going to cut my lossses now, because I waste any more time on a lost cause. But enjoy making things up and imagining the founding fathers didn't mean what they said or wrote. But just be aware people who know the truth can easily see through you. You're not as clever as you think.

[justshutupandtakeit]

All your posturing does not change the FACT that there were no domestic "tyrants" to repeal against when the Jacobin-supporter, Jefferson, yammered on about them. What a blow-hard.

[justshutupandtakeit]

How would you know?

[Who is John Galt?]

WIJG: Actually, you don't bother to 'state facts.'

queenhillaryscourtjester: How would you know?

‘How would I know?’ I simply read your posts – they’re ‘chock-full’ of unsubstantiated opinion & factual errors (like your claim that Thomas Jefferson was “scum,” and your suggestion that a D@mocrat Congress could “constitutionally” appoint Hillary ‘Queen of the United States’ ;>).

But let's look at a few of your wild claims on this thread:

Dems did not lose in '94 because of an AW ban but because of the Hillary care scam and the generally sleaziness of the Clinton administration. I doubt even one RAT lost his seat because of that ban.
237 posted on 11/14/2003 8:18:34 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit

Now that's funny! In actuality, 26% of all voters in that election were “gun owners,” and 71% of those gun owners voted Republican (Voter News Service exit poll conducted November 8, 1994 – margin of error +/- 1%). Guess what, sport? That means approximately one out of every five voters was a gun owner voting Republican. But you would have us believe that 71% of gun owners voted Republican - because they were concerned about nationalized health care! How nice! And you express “doubt [that] even one RAT lost his seat because of that ban.” (Not even “one?” Typical of your asinine assumptions… ;>) Why do you think Tom Foley started running ads just before the election, showing the Speaker shooting a single-shot rifle at a firing range? Was the televised ‘range time’ supposed to emphasize Foley’s position on “the Hillary care scam and the generally sleaziness of the Clinton administration?” Hmm? As I said, “you don't bother to 'state facts.'”

;>)

The Founders intended that militias be available for use in putting down Indian raids, insurrections, execute the Laws of the Nation and repelling invasions.
274 posted on 11/14/2003 10:02:52 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit

Actually, you omitted (as usual ;>) one of the most critical points: “the Founders intended that [State] militias be available” to oppose unconstitutional actions by the federal government. As Mr. Madison observed in Federalist No. 46:

”Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by [State] governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops… Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached… forms a barrier against the enterprises of [federal] ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of.”

As I said, “you don't bother to 'state facts:'” you prefer your idiotic opinions.

;>)

Quite the contrary I am speaking of those who understand that turning on Bush on minor and subsidiary issues is stupid, irrational, pointless and guaranteed to cause more trouble (for gun owners) than sticking with him.
286 posted on 11/14/2003 10:29:13 AM PST by justshutupandtakeit

Teacher317 replied:

Therein lies your whole problem. You care more for political success than critically important foundational Constitutional Rights.

Teacher317 got it right – you did not. The Constitution is not a ‘minor and subsidiary issue.’ The President swore an oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution – not the Republican Party. But as I said, “you don't bother to 'state facts,'” do you?

;>)

[Don Joe]

That Republican President, while still a candidate, promised to sign a renewal of the 1994 Ugly Gun ban. He was, so they tell me, triangulating; trying to win the votes of the whining leftists but also telling the Republican controlled Congress not to put an UG ban on his desk in the first place. If that's the case, that Republican controlled Congress had bloody well better not pass an UG ban. Here's the kicker: we're not asking the Congress to actually repeal anything. If the Congress does precisely nothing, in September 2004 the Ugly Gun ban ends. Poof. Gone. In 1994, the Congress put a 10 year poison pill in the Ugly Gun ban, and even so it just barely passed a Democrat controlled House. Asking the Congress to do nothing is not asking them to display any particular courage.

Maybe this has been addressed already (I confess to not having read this entire thread, having just found it a few minutes ago), but I have a question.

Does anyone seriously believe that even if the AWB "sunsets", it will not be "resurrected" within a few months, perhaps shortly after the election is behind us?

They could reinstate it anew, or, simply declare it "renewed", and I have no doubt that they'd have the chutzpah to go so far as to make it retroactive to the date it "expired", so that any "violators" could be handily prosecuted, should it become expedient to do so.

If there's one thing I've learned, it's that politicians can be remarkably creative when it comes to doing what they want. And if there's another thing I've learned :) it's that politicians do not like letting go of something once they've got their mitts on it.

I think the last time I succombed to the cry to "Call, now,, and make your voice heard!" was when they passed the AWB. I called Dole's office. I was told that the calls were coming in hot and heavy, pretty much all against passage. Dole himself said that the calls and letters came in at a staggering rate, and were running something like two thousand to one -- against passage.

Yet, he voted for it.

There's a lesson in that for anyone who really thinks that these guys give a rat's ass about what the constituency wants. At least, that's my opinion.

It's also my opinion that the consensus among these guys is that the AWB is a good piece of legislation -- a modest piece of legislation -- and no one but a bona fide nutcase could possibly disagree. So, they may stall -- for a while -- and they may humor the "nutcases", but ultimately, NWIH will they give up a "hard fought-for piece of basic common-sense legislation."

And for those few who might even consider bucking "the will of the Congress", there's two immutable laws of nature to keep them in line, namely, Karl Rove, and "The 900 FBI Files". In other words, they're boxed in on both sides.

And if all else fails (not that I think it will), there's something genuinely ugly waiting in the wings.

Stop for a moment, and consider that there are currently three Constitutional amendments proposed by mainstream legislators. I don't think this has ever happened before. Besides the homosexual "marriage" amendment, there's another one to allow Granholm and Schwarznegger to run for President (hey, you don't think they just came up with the idea for no reason at all, do you?), and another to allow the government to select replacements for our elected representatives in an "emergency".

My point in mentioning this?

I think there's a good chance we're in the lead-up to a "bipartisan" call for a Constitutional Convention. We may see a few more "urgently needed" amendments proposed, and then, we'll be informed that there is no possible way to see them passed in time unless done so via a con-con.

Of course, once they go that route, all bets are off. The Constitution is gone. *poof* That's it, it had a nice run, let's keep it in the history books, but as far as any "Constitutional protections", it is history.

So when looking at this stuff being thrown at us now, let's not get so preoccupied that we don't notice that there may be bigger fish to fry. Far bigger.

I will be surprised if there isn't a call for a con-con -- soon -- from "mainstream leaders", with, "broad bipartisan support", pitched as little more than a way to get these "vitally needed amendments" implemented "in a reasonable timeframe." There'll likely be an amendment bandied about for pretty much every significant faction of the populace, with perhaps a couple of "national security" measures tossed in for good measure.

So don't expect very many of "the voters" to be very up in arms about the idea. In fact, don't expect them to be up in arms about it at all. And don't expect the media to report on it as if it were anything to get bent out of shape over. "In other news, both houses of Congress agreed to hold a 'Constitutional Convention' next month to iron out the details of a few items that would otherwise take years to handle. The Dow was up 25 points, and the Celtics are expected to win their next game. Stay tuned for an important in-depth report on Brittany Spears latest love interest."

Me, cynical?

Time will tell, I guess.

[Don Joe]

The American people, overwhelmingly, support the AWB. That's the political reality.

Nope. It may be the political "reality", but it's not the actual reality.

Lord Dole Himself reported that the calls were running two thousand to one against passage, yet, he voted for it anyway.

The politicians wanted that law, not "the people."

That's a fact, Jack.