Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban

Washington Post ^ | April 12, 2003 | Unknown

[Mini-14]

The Bush administration is bucking the National Rifle Association and supporting a renewal of the assault weapons ban, set to expire just before the presidential election. "The president supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law," White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight Ridder.

Tossing out the ban on semiautomatic weapons is a top priority of the NRA. Bush said during his presidential campaign that he supported the ban, but it was less clear whether he would support an extension.

[ought-six]

"I don't worry much about the assault weapons ban; it is when they get into other things that I get concerned."

Then you better get concerned. Because they are all over the page with a definition of "assault weapon," and they are trying mightily to classify ALL semi-automatic firearms as "assault weapons." True assault weapons have been banned since the 1930s, because true assault weapons have the capacity to fire an full automatic (like a machine gun: rounds fire as long as the trigger is depressed). Here is Illinois, King Richard II is behind a bill that is now before the Illinois Gernal Assembly to ban ALL sem-automatic firearms (and pump-action rifles and shotguns) of whatever caliber, make or model. Thus, pipsqueak .25 pistols and Marlin 60 .22 rifles would be banned along with Mini 14s, Remington 7400s, AR15s, etc. The King Richard bill would also ban anything of .50 caliber or greater, again of whatever make or model, thus knocking making illegal virtually all shotguns, even single shot smoothbores.

[Freedom_Is_Not_Free]

You've got to be kidding, baby Bush is UN to the core. Follow the money. The entire Iraq operation is about money for his friends and Daddy's friends. When UN support makes money for his friends and Daddy's friends, he will make monkey love to the UN. If you think baby Bush is really against the UN, then I have a bridge in Basra I'm offering for sale, cheap. Have your girl call my girl.

[The Coopster]

There won't be a viable challenger. We need to quit whining and get on the phone to the White House. If we don't ALL make calls/our voices heard to the people who matter, than it's not their fault - it's ours. It's exactly like not being able to bitch if you didn't vote.

I mean c'mon - what's more productive - pissing and moaning here, and voting for someone else, or informing the guy with experience (who's already there) how his constituents really think and feel? Bottom line - if a person thinks that acting a certain way will increase his chances to keep his job, he'll do it. I don't care if you are the President, or a Operations Manager.

[Teacher317]

(and PBA is looking like a slam-dunk, so that leaves 3)

[heckler]

Post 126

Contructionist. ie (What did they mean when they said "The People")

Judges who look to the original context and intent of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

To my knowledge (somewhat limited) most of his picks so far have fit the bill. Why do you think the DEMons are filibustering most of his judicial picks. They understand the importance of the judiciary. Its how they've gotten most of their long term agenda items enforced in society.(The Constitution should be a living, breathing thing that addapts to changes in society)

[The Coopster]

And don't forget to be polite/well-thought. Knee-jerk rudeness never has credibility.

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

...OK, Eeyore. Have fun over at DU...

[The Coopster]

Put down the bong, and step away.....

If I hadn't seen your signup date, I'd have sworn sneakypete was back.....

(P.S. DU is in your other browser window. I think you posted here by mistake)

[Teacher317]

True, but this is where the Shakespearean dilemmas come in... his principles prevent him from waffling on an issue. He won't change because he can't change, without a serious change in his personality and taking a very public hit for not adhering to his principles (applicable only to GOP office-holders, of course). It's just as unlikely as beating him in the primaries!

[The Coopster]

Touche....

;-)

[VRWC_minion]

He destroys the UN and Iraq instead of taking the easier path of lifting sanctions and getting his "oil buddies" lucrative contracts. Can your girl send me what your smoking ?

[heckler]

I understand how you feel.But I'm looking at the Assault Weapons Ban as a battle (one that we can win without the President) I want to win the WAR, and for that we need the right judges on the right benches.If G.W. loses in 2004 we will lose much bigger battles.

[ought-six]

My main concern with the "assault weapon" ban is that the definition of "assault weapon" is very flexible and very much open to interpretation. Thus, Bush may be in support of restricting one type of firearm but ends up banning countless others that by any objective reasoning could not be even remotely construed as an "assault weapon." He should come out publicly and say he will support a ban on automatic fire weapons (which have been illegal since the 1930s), since by original definition only firearms that were capable of firing in automatic mode were defined as assault weapons. He will likely lose my vote if he does not make that clear. I would not vote for the Dem, but I have in the past lodged my "protest" votes by pulling the lever for libertarians and constitutionalists, if they are on the ballot, or writing in a candidate (I always vote).

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

It doesn't say, "Shall not be infringed, except you can ban assault weapons."

[Leatherneck_MT]

Everyone who is defending Bush by saying "He said he would do this" Let me remind you of something else he said, alot later in history.

"I George W. Bush do solemnly swear to Uphold and Defend the Constitution of the United States against all Enemies Foreign and Domestic."

Now, for arguments sake, anything said in a campaign is up for grabs in most circles.

The OATH of Office is a sworn Promise to do your duty.

Semper Fi

[The Coopster]

Well, I certainly won't ever fault him for having strong principles....and that alone should make up some ground on this thread. It all goes back to being as productive as possible to better this country, and choosing your battles wisely.

[ought-six]

Sic semper tyrannis! Bush is not a tyrant, but one could easily follow him in the not-too distant future if we allow the Constitution to be whittled away into meaningless shavings.

[Billy_bob_bob]

"The second amendment is NOT about crime prevention!

It is about preventing, deterring, and fighting government tyranny. Bush is perfectly following the tyrant line on this one."

I have to disagree somewhat. The way I see it, the second amendment is the one that clearly codifies the idea that citizens of the United States are legally defined as free men, who are allowed to own weapons, and to use those weapons to protect their lives, their loved ones and their property.

One of the biggest lessons I have learned from history is that there have been two kinds of citizens in all countries in all of history. Those two kinds are "free men" and "slaves" or "subjects". The biggest difference between free men and slaves is that free men are allowed to own and use weapons in their own defense, while slaves are not allowed to own weapons, and are not allowed to strike out at anyone, even in self defense.

IMHO gun laws are slave laws. They are not designed for our safety, they are designed to demonstrate that we are no longer free men, but subjects of the nanny state. I support politicians who oppose gun laws, and I oppose politicians who support gun laws.

Even the Democrats figured out that more gun laws was a losing issue for them. If they hadn't been so pegged as being the "gun grabbing party" they would own the White House right now. Do the Republicans want to go down that same path?

[eskimo]

No, but basing all of your voting desicion on a single issue is just plain stupid.

If that issue is an Amendment in the Bill of Rights, how is that stupid?

Stupid, in my opinion, are the political groupies who become careless with the liberties of others in their insane rush to maintain the political viability of their gang.

Stupid, in my opinion, is succumbing to "gang mentality" to the point you are willing to forfeit your individual God-given rights.

[philetus]

I believe we are still being force marched towards world government.
The war on terror and the war in Iraq have not changed that.