As I Predicted, George W. Bush Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban

Toogood Reports ^ | April 15, 2003 | By Chuck Baldwin

[Uncle Bill]

As I Predicted, George W. Bush
Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban

TooGood Reports
By Chuck Baldwin
Chuck Baldwin Website
April 15, 2003

In this column dated December 17, 2002, I predicted that President G.W. Bush would support the so-called assault weapons ban first promoted by former President Bill Clinton and Sen. Diane Feinstein back in 1994. Interestingly enough, the gun ban became law on the strength of a tie-breaking vote by then Vice President Al Gore. The ban is scheduled to sunset next year, but Bush is joining Clinton and Gore in supporting an extension.

Presidential spokesman Scott McClellan said, "The president supports the current law (the Clinton gun ban), and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

This must come as quite a blow to people such as the leaders of the National Rifle Association who campaigned heavily for Bush touting him as a "pro-gun" candidate. Since his election, the NRA and others have repeatedly reaffirmed their support for Bush, because he is "pro-gun." Well, now the mask is off!

I have tried to warn my readers that Bush is not a true conservative. He is not pro-life; he is not pro-family; he is not pro-Constitution. And now we know he is not pro-gun.

Instead of reversing the miserable policies of Clinton/Gore, Bush is helping to harden the cement around those policies. The gun issue is no exception.

The so-called assault weapons ban was the benchmark piece of legislation reflecting the anti-gun policies of people such as Clinton, Gore, Feinstein, and New York Senator Charles Schumer. It was also the number one target of the NRA. In fact, the NRA all but promised their supporters that a Bush presidency would help reverse this Draconian gun ban. Instead, Bush is pushing Congress to extend the ban.

A bill to reauthorize the gun ban will be introduced by Senator Feinstein in the coming weeks. It must pass both chambers of Congress to reach the President's desk. The best chance of stopping it will be in the House of Representatives. However, in order to defeat this bill, it must resist the power and influence of the White House. This will be no small task.

Not only is Bush betraying the pro-gun voters who helped elect him, he is breathing new life into a nearly dead anti-gun movement. Most political analysts credit Bush's pro-gun image as the chief reason he defeated Al Gore in the 2000 election. They also credit the pro-gun image of the Republican Party for helping them to achieve impressive wins in the 2002 congressional elections.

Now, Bush is giving new credibility to anti-gun zealots such as Schumer and Feinstein and is helping to reinvigorate the anti-gun momentum that had all but been put on ice.

However, the real question will be, "Will pro-gun conservatives continue to support Bush?" Bush is every bit the "Teflon President" that Clinton was. Conservatives seem willing to overlook anything he does, no matter how liberal or unconstitutional it may be. Will they overlook this, also?

If you truly believe in the Second Amendment and are willing to do something about it, I suggest you go to the Gun Owners of America website. They have a quick link set up which allows people an opportunity to conveniently send email to the White House about this issue. Go to the gun ban "alert" button. From there you can voice your disapproval with the President's decision to betray his constituents by supporting this new round of gun control.

Once again, the ball of freedom and constitutional government is in the court of the American people. Will they keep the ball and do something with it, or will they hand it off to the neo-conservatives at the White House? We'll see.

---

PLEASE Don't Sit out 2004, EVEN IF Bush signs the AW ban extention

Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban

---

"That’s why I’m for instant background checks at gun shows. I’m for trigger locks."
George W. Bush - Source: St. Louis debate Oct 17,2000.

MORE INJUSTICE ON THE WAY - Bush GUN CONTROL
"Gene Healy, a Cato Institute scholar, recently provided a thorough exploration of the unintended consequences of one law, the new Bush-Ashcroft plan to federalize gun crimes, known as the Project Safe Neighborhoods program. The unintended consequences of this law are frightening."
NOTE: Same Article in Washington Times.

There Goes the Neighborhood: The Bush-Ashcroft Plan to "Help" Localities Fight Gun Crime, by Gene Healy

"W. Wimps Out on Guns"
The Bush package includes several pet causes of the gun-control lobby, including $75 million for gun locks; $15.3 million for 113 new federal attorneys to serve as full-time gun prosecutors; and $19.1 million to expand a program by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms aimed at preventing youths from obtaining guns. Although Bush stressed that he simply wants to "enforce existing laws," the fine print of Project Safe echoes the gun-grabbing Left's call to ban the importation of high-capacity ammunition clips."

Project Safe Neighborhoods, A Closer Look

LAURA BUSH:
"During her San Diego speech, for instance, she said nothing about the school shooting that occurred 20 miles away in El Cajon the day before, although in a television interview she condemned it, adding that she thinks more gun control laws are needed.

"I think that's very important," she said when asked by CNN whether stronger gun laws are needed."
Source.

EMERSON & THE SECOND AMENDMENT

A Gutless Supreme Court Decision - Gun Control

Republican Leadership Help Push Gun Control

Bush's Assault On Second Amendment

NEA Resource Text Guide In Regards To The Extreme Right - Where Do Your Kids Go To School?
"The radical right says it is pro-life but it bitterly opposes gun control legislation"

or

A Problem With Guns?

Thanks for that Patriot Act George

[DBrow]

"Would you
allow a machine gun to be purchased by anyone?"

Anyone who really wants a machine gun in the USA can get one, unless the person is otherwise restricted from owning guns, like a felony conviction or Lautenberg Amendment problem.

But the asaault Weapons Ban has nothing to do with machine guns- even states this in the law, you should read it sometime. It only deals with semiautomatic guns, even some pricey target pistols in .22 caliber.

Stick to the subject. The AWB does not cover machineguns, howitzers, nukes, or bioweapons so don't bring them up please.

[m1911]

The ban in question has NOTHING to do with automatic weapons. It has to do with SOME semi-automatic weapons that are in most cases LESS deadly than a hunting rifle.

I know it's hard to get through the BS, but you need to know what the ban actually says, not what VPC and Brady are claiming.

[Ford Fairlane]

I did vote libertarian in the Illinois midterm election - a liberal moderate running as a republican vs a liberal running as a democrat, what did I have to lose

[redangus]

First C4 is not an arm, as in right to bear arms, it is an explosive. Second, where do some of you draw the line? It makes no difference what liberal position Bush supports it's all right with you because he isn't Hillary. Well if he supports everything that Hillary supports and denies Americans the same rights that Hillary would deny us then what difference does it make who is the WH.

[poet]

"it is pretty clear to me that someone on the left is starting to spill these 'traditionally conservative issues' to once again divide the GWB base."

Believe me when I say I am Not on the left. If anyone has damaged Pres Bush's so-called base it his embracing the liberal agenda. Of course, he has thrown us a couple of nuggets, but, by and large, this man is a liberal and a RINO.

FReegards

[Jesse]

For instance, we may have the right to free speech, but we don't have the right to yell, "Fire" in a public theater, when there is none.


Yep. I agree.

But guess what? You are allowed to have the equipment to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, and as long as you do not misuse that equipment you can keep the equipment. The trouble is, gun control laws are "thoughtcrime" laws. Your assumption is that if you own a certain firearm, then you are a criminal, even if you have not done anything wrong, or that the gun possesses some intrinsic will of its own which it can impose on your psyche and cause you to commit crimes. Therefore, certain guns should not be allowed because these inanimate objects "cause" crime.

In other words, if speech were controlled like most guns are, you would have your tongue cut out and only be allowed to write. Right?

Then you couldn't yell fire in a crowded theater. You couldn't call someone a racial epithet. You couldn't go into a bank and say "Stick em up".

Possession of a functional tongue, in your world, would be a crime and you would be subject to confiscation of the tongue and imprisonment because of the potential for harm that your tongue could commit. By banning tongues, you could save lives and prevent crime. Do you really need a tongue?

Kapish?

[cruiserman]

Say you have a religion that requires you to commit a human sacrifice? If we criminalize that, isn't that an infringement of your right to religion?

These are competing rights, and the right to life trumps my free exercise of religion in this case. Simple possession of a firearm should not be a crime.

[Ford Fairlane]

peripheral issue my lily white ass!!

[DBrow]

"are portable machine/tommy guns really that different from assault rifles?"

yes.

[Cultural Jihad]

Where does one draw the line? A better question you need to ask is whether a line should be allowed or not.

[Trailerpark Badass]

We should do everything possible to keep them off the streets.

Gun laws haven't made anyone safer. There is no published data which suggests they do.

[hove]

Bush lovers have to understand that Bush and Clinton are two peas in a pod. They only differ on style points to keep the sheeple amused. Just stop and think about it. Bush and his bunch have covered for Clinton from the get go! Just name the Clinton scandal....and think about how this administration has dealt with it. The fact that Bush's true colors on the second amendment are now showing are not surprise to anyone willing to honestly look at our President. No surprise at all. If you think Bush is a conservative....think again!

[Ford Fairlane]

If he vetoes the AWB I will vote Bush. If he makes repeal of the income tax a major issue I will vote Bush.

I'm with you

[m1911]

You are exactly right. So go to the police station and let them duct tape over your mouth so that you don't yell "Fire" in a theatre, and let them cut off your arms so you don't sacrifice anyone. Thank you.

[Fred Mertz]

Don't worry about it. Those of us that have what we have will be dead within 30-50 years.

It's the new generation that will be disarmed by the gummint.

[diamond6]

I'm confused. Who wrote the italicized portion on #101? Did you or someone else? You seem to be changing your position.

[rintense]

Naturally, I will disagree with you about GWB being a liberal. But, it seems to me that if he has embraced the liberal agenda, he lost your vote (and others) long ago. So his alleged position on this bill isn't going to make any difference with you, will it?

As stated before, I want to hear the man himself state his position. I know there are those who would believe a White House spokesperson, but I'll believe it when I hear it. Until then, I'll send emails stating my position about letting this bill die- which I think will happen anyway.

[diamond6]

I thought you said our rights were unlimited.

[omegatoo]

Things that GWB has done:
1.killed the Kyoto treaty on global warming
2.pulled the US our of the CCCP-US ABM treaty
3.backed and got our national missile defense program funded
4.killed the international criminal court
5. repealed Clinton's CO2 rules that were choking off electricity production in California and causing electricity rates to spike
6.repealed OSHA's new ergonomic regulations that were about to put every home based busines in America out of commission
7.appointed Ashcroft and Ted Olsen, who just wrote to the Supreme Court that the second Amendment is an individual right, not the "collective right" that liberals have maintained for decades.
8. signed the bill into law that gives pilots the right to arm themselves with firearms, a pleasant pro-gun victory on a national level (currently being obstructed by a DOT bureaucrat).
9.killed the left wing ABA's role in vetting federal judges for congress
10. instituted th first top down review of our military in years, which concluded (prior to 9/11) that asymmetric attacks were our biggest future threat.
11. killed the $11 billion crusader artillery boondoggle.
12. killed federal fundng of foreign "family planing" activities
13. ordered the justice department to finally enforce the SCOTUS Beck decision, giving union workers the right to recover any of their union dues that are used for political purposes with which they disagree
14. implemented steel tariffs in order to encourage European nationalism via trade wars.
15. not bombing pharmaceutical factories\
16. not bald faced lying to the country
17. not disgracing the White House with his sex escapades.
18. not allowing China to walk off with the kitchen sink.
19. kicked butt in Afghanistan
20. threats against Iraq are real
21. backs Taiwan
22. shifting US military thinking away from Europe and toward Asia and against China
23. cut taxes twice--once for individuals and another for businesses
183 posted on 06/19/2002 11:44 PM CDT by olliemb

This list is almost a year old. I think he's done one or two more slightly conservative things since then.

O2

[Byron_the_Aussie]

..not only is Bush betraying the pro-gun voters who helped elect him, he is breathing new life into a nearly dead anti-gun movement....

Yes. Why give them the oxygen of a win, without even a fight? If Bush refused to renew the extension, we could have the dream 2004 scenario where the Dems make antigun promises the centrepiece of their campaign. What better way could there be, to energise our side's footsoldiers?