Gonzales backs assault weapons ban

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer ^ | January 18, 2005 | JESSE J. HOLLAND

[E. Pluribus Unum]

But it wasn't repealed. If the sunset provision weren't included, we'd still be paying $100 for G20 15 round mags.

I said EFFECTIVELY repealed.

The MSM and DemoncRAT Party wanted it extended and it didn't happen.

Do you understand the meaning of the word E-F-F-E-C-T-I-V-E-L-Y ????

[notigar]

I understand that, but telling someone "what they want to hear" under oath if it isn't the truth isn't a great way to start off a job at the DOJ.

[Ben Ficklin]

I didn't hear or read how the question was phrased but I can assure you he responded correctly.

[rdb3]

AP is only trying to cause discord in the Conservative ranks, and it looks like they may have had some success.

---

They always do.

Real men don't whine.

[GOP_1900AD]

And the reason for having a candy a#@ liberal as AG is? .....

[GOP_1900AD]

Waaaaallll ... it depends on how you define the meanin' of anti gun .... LOL ...

[GOP_1900AD]

Take back the GOP.

[notigar]

Gotcha

[GOP_1900AD]

I'll wager that as a leftist and a La Raza member, he is doing what comes naturally. Being a liberal.

[GOP_1900AD]

They are liberals. They want to (continue to) move the GOP to the left.

[Ben Ficklin]

How much have you had to drink?

[GOP_1900AD]

Yep, winning is everything, even if it means becoming a liberal, eh? But in this case, that's not even valid. Majority in both houses and a reelected war time president. WE HAVE THE BULLY PULPIT! Why such fear of going to the Right?

[COEXERJ145]

Checkmate.

Most on this forum don't seem to get it. Bush is playing good cop, bad cop. He knows that Congress will never renew the AWB but he can remove the issue from the Democrats, gun grabbers, and the media by saying "I'll sign it if Congress passes it" but knowing full well that it will never happen.

[snowsislander]

Honestly, what'd you expect him to say? He's out to win a popularity contest and get voted in, not to agree with what you or I say. Plenty of people use the safety of police officers to justify their views on gun control (never mind the fact that the criminals aren't going to abide by this or that ban and are going to use whatever they have access to, whether it's legal or not).

Unless he has the problems of a Mr. Kerik, and there is no indication of such problems, he has no need to cede any ground to the gungrabbers. We won. We have the votes in Congress to pass good legislation. In my opinion, even on the Judiciary committee we have the votes to confirm appointees.

As the NRA has it:

Of the 251 candidates endorsed by NRA for the U.S. House of Representatives, 241 candidates won. 14 of the 18 NRA-endorsed U.S. Senate candidates won their races.

I say there is no need for us to stand around hat in hand like we didn't win. We have to remove this mindset that most people are against gun ownership -- that's the reverse of the facts here in these United States:

Guns, Gun Ownership, & RTC at All-Time Highs, Less "Gun Control," and Violent Crime at 27-Year Low

Guns. The number of privately owned guns in the U.S. is at an all-time high. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (BATFE) estimates that there were about 215 million guns in 1999,1 when the number of new guns was averaging about 4.5 million (about 2%) annually.2 A report for the National Academy of Sciences put the 1999 figure at 258 million.3 According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, there were 30.7 million approved (new and used) NICS firearm transactions between 2000 2003.4

Gun Owners. The number of gun owners is also at an all-time high. The U.S. population is at an all-time high (about 294 million), and rises about 1% annually.5 Numerous surveys over the last 40+ years have indicated that just under half of all households have at least one gun owner.6 Some surveys since the late 1990s have indicated a smaller incidence of gun ownership,7 probably because of some respondents` concerns about "gun control," due perhaps to the policies of the Clinton Administration.

Right-to-Carry. The number of RTC states is at an all-time high, up from 10 in 1987 to 38 today.8 In 2003, states with RTC laws, compared to other states, had lower violent crime rates on average. Total violent crime was lower by 27%, murder by 32%, robbery by 45%, and aggravated assault by 20%.9

"Less Gun Control." As violent crime has declined, many "gun control" laws have been eliminated or made less restrictive. Many states have eliminated prohibitory or restrictive carry laws, in favor of RTC laws. The federal Brady Act`s waiting period on handgun sales ended in 1998, in favor of the NRA-supported National Instant Check, and some states thereafter eliminated waiting periods, purchase permit requirements, or other laws delaying gun sales. The federal "assault weapon" ban expired. All states now have hunter protection laws, 46 have range protection laws, 45 prohibit local jurisdictions from imposing gun laws more restrictive than state law, 44 protect the right to arms in their constitutions, and 33 prohibit frivolous lawsuits against the firearm industry.10

Studies by and for Congress, the Congressional Research Service, the Library of Congress, the National Institute of Justice, the National Academy of Sciences, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and researchers who support "gun control," have found no evidence that "gun control" reduces crime.11

Crime. The FBI reports that the nation`s total violent crime rate declined every year between 1991 200312 and in the first six months of 2004.13 In 2003, the violent crime rate fell to a 27-year low, lower than any time since 1976. Murder rates, while fluctuating slightly, have been lower in recent years than at any time since 1965. The 2003 robbery and aggravated assault rates were lower than any time since 1968 and 1984, respectively. Since 1991, total violent crime has decreased 37%; murder and non-negligent manslaughter, 43%; rape, 24%; robbery, 48%; and aggravated assault, 32%.14

I believe that he would be confirmed if he had said "I believe that the 2nd Amendment is an individual right" in answer to questions about the AWB, and he could have cited the recent DOJ report. Instead, he uttered CPHV propaganda about police officers fearing armed citizens: "I worry about his safety and the types of weapons he will confront on the street."

Sure, Senator Kennedy would do the same thing that he did at Attorney General Ashcroft's confirmation (and remember, Attorney General Ashcroft had a good pro-gun record and was confirmed), but Senator Kennedy has acted that way for umpteen years and few but his loyal voters in Massachusetts pay any attention to his booze-fueled fulminations. Senator Schumer will say something nutty and Senator Feinstein will do some lefty-loony-tunes for the CPVH types, but that's all par for that course.

We won in the election and we should advance, not retreat or hang our heads, or try to play sly word games. When we are ahead, we should press our advantage, not hang around playing prevent defense.

[El Gato]

Why is this surprising. Bush is for it. Gonzales works for Bush. I'd be surprised if he said anything else

But many here have been arguing that Bush wasn't really for it, but was using his supposed "support" to defuse the issue for both the 2000 and 2004 elections. Elections are no longer an issue for Bush.

[Joe Hadenuf]

AP is only trying to cause discord in the Conservative ranks, and it looks like they may have had some success.

Hogwash.

There has been discord in the *real* conservative ranks for a long time now. Attempting to blame this on the AP or any other MSM is weak.

[SteveH]

Gonzales backs assault weapons ban 1)Then Gonzales is an idiot, and 2)Bush is a jerk for pushing him.

Seconded.

[jonestown]

COEXERJ145 wrote:

Most on this forum don't seem to get it.

Bush is playing good cop, bad cop. He knows that Congress will never renew the AWB but he can remove the issue from the Democrats, gun grabbers, and the media by saying "I'll sign it if Congress passes it" but knowing full well that it will never happen.

---

On the contrary, most here on this thread seem to 'get it' just fine.

We recently had a good report from the Department of Justice about:

WHETHER THE SECOND AMENDMENT SECURES AN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT
Address:http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm

- Now the incoming head contradicts the very work from his new department.

We can only surmise that Bush & Gonzales discussed the AW controversy,--
-- and agreed that what Gonzales was to say today was still the Administrations position. -
- Despite the new report.

The Bush administration is playing a dangerous political game, imo.
A game where they think they can prohibit so-called assault weapons, without technically infringing on our basic rights.

It's not nice, or constitutional, to play such games.

[El Gato]

Were he to say that he was opposed to the ban, it would be something the dems would use against him, possibly deny him confirmation.

The dems are the minority in the Senate. More so now than before the last election.

[joesnuffy]

No surprise ..he is also pro abortion and pro "Patriot" Act...at least he finally came clean on his
'feelings' about the US Constitution..the right to kill the pre-born and the individual right to keep and bear arms..

Oppose him and get a real liberal...again..the choices offered are simply vote for us because we arent as bad as the other guys...

the two party cabal


imo