Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Bush AWOL on Assault Weapons
Tribune Media from Rainbowpush's web site. ^ | 4/20/2004 Tribune Media Services | By Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr.

Posted on 04/21/2004 3:41:45 AM PDT by raybbr

This week, the Bush White House had the chance to send a clear message about how September 11 had transformed our politics. Instead it ducked, preferring pandering to principle. Vice President Dick Cheney, armed with muscular rhetoric, was dispatched to woo the zealots of the National Rifle Association. Cheney looked them in the eye and ducked completely on the issue of the day – whether the White House will renew the ban on the sale of assault weapons. Bush has gone AWOL once more.

The assault weapons ban is supported by police chiefs and police officers across the country. It has nothing to do with hunters or the right to own a gun. It simply bans military-style assault weapons from America's streets. The police want the ban renewed because these weapons are cop killers. And in an age of terror, the last thing anyone should want is for Al Qaeda zealots to be able to purchase military weapons over the counter in America. A group armed with these in a football stadium or a shopping mall could slaughter hundreds in the space of a few moments.

As Cheney spoke, Tom Mauser, whose son was killed by an assault weapon at Columbine High School, tried to get into the NRA convention to appeal to Cheney to support renewal of the ban, which will otherwise expire. "These are the weapons of gangs, drug lords and sick people," said Mauser, "weapons of war, and we don't want this war on our streets." But Mauser was turned away, with NRA zealots screaming at him, with no sense of irony, "to get a life." As Mauser says, the NRA has a "Field and Stream membership, but a Soldier of Fortune leadership."

It was to that leadership that Cheney pandered. He lied about John Kerry's position on guns – just as the administration has lied about his position on taxes, on terrorism and on the war in Iraq. The Bush campaign clearly believes the truth hurts, so it peddles falsehoods, counting on its $200 million war chest and its right-wing message machine to drown out the truth.

The reality is that John Kerry is a hunter and a sportsman. Unlike Cheney and Bush, however, he served in the military on the field of battle. Kerry has seen what assault weapons can do. He joins police chiefs across the country in seeking to renew the ban on their sale in the US. Kerry also joins John McCain is seeking to close the loophole that would allow terrorists or criminals to purchase weapons at a gun show without any background check. All of this is simply common sense. But that didn't keep Cheney, who ducked fighting in the Vietnam War saying he had "other priorities," from lying about Kerry's record, impugning his patriotism and suggesting that he was weak on terrorism.

Yet, in the same speech, Cheney said nothing about the assault weapons ban. Admittedly, it would take some courage to speak candidly to the NRA leadership about the need for this ban. But when it comes to politics, this White House chooses pander to principle every time. The president has promised to sign the bill renewing the assault weapons ban if Congress passes it and places it on his desk. He makes that promise with a characteristic smirk, no doubt confident that the right-wing House majority leader Tom DeLay will keep the renewal from ever coming to a vote.

It would take one phone call from the president to DeLay to get the assault weapons bill on the floor. If it came to the floor, it would pass overwhelmingly. But Bush has not made that phone call. He wants the support of the extremists at the top of the NRA, who will spend millions libeling Kerry in the campaign. But he doesn't want to offend the vast majority of Americans who can't imagine that the White House wouldn't push to renew the ban. So the president goes AWOL, and refuses to make the phone call.

This is an ugly and dangerous pander to extremism. Assault weapons aren't about hunting; they are about war. We're fighting a war on terror, with threats here at home. It is simply deplorable that the President doesn't have the courage to pick up the phone and call DeLay and demand that the assault weapons renewal come to a vote. Bush's campaign theme is that he is a strong leader, but on this basic issue, he ducks and covers.

# # #


TOPICS: Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: assaultrifles; awb; bang; banglist; bush; jessejackson
My brother sent me this. It came to him either from e-mail or he goes to that site. I am embarrassed for him but I still love him.

You are what you eat: Jesse Jackson has eaten too much tripe in his life:

1 posted on 04/21/2004 3:41:45 AM PDT by raybbr
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: raybbr
the zealots of the National Rifle Association
That's all you need to know, even if you didn't read the byline of the article. That line by itself tells you that the writer knows that he is objective. See tagline . . ..

2 posted on 04/21/2004 3:45:56 AM PDT by conservatism_IS_compassion (To believe in your own objectivity is to be wise in your own conceit.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
"Cheney looked them in the eye and ducked completely on the issue of the day – whether the White House will renew the ban on the sale of assault weapons. Bush has gone AWOL once more. "

On the contrary, 9-11 demonstrated quite well the significance of the Second Amendment and the necessity for a armed citizenry to protect itself against lunatic terrorists.
3 posted on 04/21/2004 3:47:49 AM PDT by ZULU
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
I love the question "why would anyone need and assault weapon?" Because they are made to kill people. And if some scumbag breaks in my house and may bring harm to my family...I want to kill him. I would not be deer hunting in this instance ;)
4 posted on 04/21/2004 3:55:15 AM PDT by kissmyconservativebutt (That's right Kerry, kiss it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: conservatism_IS_compassion
The demcRats and their feel good legislation inventing new names for rifle's and the appeasement from the alleged conservatives gags me.
5 posted on 04/21/2004 3:57:59 AM PDT by boomop1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Assault weapons aren't about hunting; they are about war. We're fighting a war on terror, with threats here at home.

He just defeated his agrument for renewing the ban.

6 posted on 04/21/2004 4:00:38 AM PDT by Flyer ( http://talesfromtherail.com/ . . . .The disaster in Houston known as MetroRail)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
I have more concern for the "Reverend's" politics of FEAR, DIVISION, and HATRED than I do for assault weapons!
7 posted on 04/21/2004 4:02:24 AM PDT by leprechaun9
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
"Assault weapons aren't about hunting.."

I got a clue for you Jesse, the Second Amendment ain't about hunting either.

8 posted on 04/21/2004 4:02:28 AM PDT by Jaxter ("Guys like John Kerry spit on guys like me…I've been waiting 33 years to spit back.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jaxter
bttt
9 posted on 04/21/2004 4:05:06 AM PDT by kcvl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
The assault weapons ban is supported by police chiefs and police officers across the country.

Only the liberal ones. It is not supported by the people that count most, the real Americans. The ones that truly love this country and it's constitution.

10 posted on 04/21/2004 4:14:25 AM PDT by chainsaw (http://www.hanoijohnkerry.org.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
For the millionth time....assault weapons (if you care to know what the term really means) are FULLY AUTOMATIC.

This entire topic is all fluff and politics. Give it rest already....

11 posted on 04/21/2004 4:43:47 AM PDT by Fighting Irish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw
Assault weapons are the imagination versus the reality. Fully automatic machine guns have been banned for quite some time except for special permits or plugged barrels for collector purposes. Assault weapons are in the eyes of the beholder. If they are semi-auto and used for assault against others they are assault weapons. If they are for hunting and/or personal defense, they are not assault weapons

In a critical time when we are exposed to the possibility of terror attacks, it does not make sense from a practical standpoint to eliminate defensive weapons. The enemy has enough tools at his disposal without making the entire nation a gun-free killing zone. From a Constitutional standpoint, it is not in the American interest to disarm for a takeover by a despot. The German experience shows the danger of allowing only officials of the government to hold a monopoly on firearms.

12 posted on 04/21/2004 4:46:39 AM PDT by meenie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: raybbr

13 posted on 04/21/2004 4:47:22 AM PDT by RippleFire ("It was just a scratch")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Terrorists will get assault weapons.........I want equal or better weaponry for shooting back at them.



14 posted on 04/21/2004 4:51:15 AM PDT by Gringo1 (El Riesgo Siempre Vive!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: kissmyconservativebutt
I love the question "why would anyone need and assault weapon?"

Me, too. The 2A has nothing to do with NEED. When you think about it....we don't NEED cars, etc etc etc.

I can safely say that we don't NEED Jesse Jerkson.

15 posted on 04/21/2004 5:00:27 AM PDT by Puppage (You may disagree with what I have to say, but I shall defend to your death my right to say it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: chainsaw; Jaxter; raybbr
The police want the ban renewed because these weapons are cop killers.

Cops are killed with there own side arm more often than with any other weapon. Perhaps we should have Police Side Arm Ban instead.

And in an age of terror, the last thing anyone should want is for Al Qaeda zealots to be able to purchase military weapons over the counter in America.

Al Qaeda as with any other criminal is more likely to purchase their weapon of choice on the black market. Also Al Qaeda has displayed a definite preference for other types of weapons such as car bombs, and airliners (and maybe shoulder fired missiles). These types of weapons wound not be banned by the assault weapons ban.

A group armed with these in a football stadium or a shopping mall could slaughter hundreds in the space of a few moments.

Only if the intended targets milled around like sheep being led to the slaughter and did nothing to defend themselves or subdue the attacker. But of course that is what the less than Reverend Jesse L. Jackson, Sr. desires for the American public, that we be the defenseless sheeple of his dreams.

16 posted on 04/21/2004 5:24:28 AM PDT by Pontiac (Ignorance of the law is no excuse, ignorance of your rights can be fatal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Pontiac
Wonder who actually wrote this for the Rev? In his speaking,
his grammar is as bad as his diction.

17 posted on 04/21/2004 5:40:18 AM PDT by G-Bear (Everything I need to know, I learned from "Lonesome Dove.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
"You are what you eat: Jesse Jackson has eaten too much tripe in his life:"

Jesse Jack-off is only capable of producing horse manure, so he must be eating something brown and sticky, that smells really bad.
18 posted on 04/21/2004 5:40:29 AM PDT by punster (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bang_list
"Keepin' 'em down on the Big Liberal Plantation" ping.

Jesse must have gotten a fax from Massa Terry...

19 posted on 04/21/2004 5:44:31 AM PDT by an amused spectator (Kristen Breitweiser didn't want to learn how to land the 9/11 Commission; she only wanted to steer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
It has nothing to do with hunters or the right to own a gun. It simply bans military-style assault weapons from America's streets.

Ahhhhh, yes, it doesn't have anything to do with rights to own a gun, it just bans the gun. Excellent. Looks like someone went to the 1984 school of writing! Hey everyone, is ignorance still strength? Freedom still slavery? MMM-kay, just checking.

20 posted on 04/21/2004 6:29:47 AM PDT by FooBarBaz (A coward judges all he sees by what he is.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Music to my ears to hear this wailing from the left.
21 posted on 04/21/2004 6:33:06 AM PDT by Monty22
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: *bang_list
Bang
22 posted on 04/21/2004 7:00:05 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Puppage
The 2A has nothing to do with NEED.


To be fair, it does state: "...being necessary for the security of a free state..."

And the RKBA is needed to secure such freedom.
23 posted on 04/21/2004 7:02:30 AM PDT by Atlas Sneezed (Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: leprechaun9
"I have more concern for the "Reverend's" politics of FEAR, DIVISION, and HATRED than I do for assault weapons!"

Jesse Jack-off engages in race-baiting, to the point of attempting to instigate a race-based civil war. Why? If he can frighten African-Americans enough, he can use them for furthering his own power and he can milk them for funds to enrich himself. He is scum.
24 posted on 04/21/2004 8:42:41 PM PDT by punster (q)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Mauser, "weapons of war, and we don't want this war on our streets."

Chances are, the Islamakazies aren't going to give us any choice in the matter. If I'm right, I want' ever peaceable American armed to the teeth. Short barreled shotguns would be best, requiring the least training and while quite deadly at short range, don't require quite the attention to what is beyond your target, since the energy of the pellets decreases rapidly with range. But thank to FDR, those are heavily regulated, so I'll have to settle for everyone with a semi-auto version of either an assault rifle or a battle rifle. A good scoped hunting rifle would also be good for those with the skill to use one properly.

25 posted on 04/21/2004 10:39:24 PM PDT by El Gato (Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: raybbr
Gun grabbers like Jesse Jackass are increasingly trying to separate the right to keep and bear arms from its constitutional underpinnings. To everyone but liberals and gun grabbers the word militia implies a body organized for military use. The Supreme Court Miller decision of 1939 held that the militia was 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

To begin with, only the national government was represented at the trial. With nobody arguing to the contrary, the court followed standard court procedure and assumed that the law was constitutional until proven otherwise. If both sides were present, the outcome may have been much different.

However, since only one party showed up, the case will stand in the court records as is. As to the militia, Mr. Justice McReynolds related the beliefs of the Founding Fathers when commenting historically about the Second Amendment. He stated that, ". . .The common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense.

It is clear that the firearms that are most suited for modern-day militia use are those semi automatic military pattern weapons that the yellow press calls "assault weapons". Since nations such as the Swiss trust their citizenry with true selective fire assault rifles, it seems to me that this country ought to be at least able to trust its law-abiding citizenry with the semi automatic version.

Self-defense is a vital corollary benefit of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But its primary constitutional reason for being is for service in the well-regulated militia which is necessary to the security of a free state. Don't let the gun grabbers and their politician allies separate us from the constitutional reason for the right to keep and bear arms. Miltary pattern weapons are precisly the weapons that should be MOST constitutionally protected. Even defenders of the right often neglect the constitutional aspect of it, and concentrate on their near non-existent use in crime.

PostScript: In the vernacular of the founders well-regulated meant well drilled and organized.
26 posted on 04/22/2004 6:58:13 PM PDT by DMZFrank (Colorado Springs, Co)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson