Posted on 04/16/2003 10:44:51 PM PDT by Uncle Bill
Edited on 04/17/2003 1:23:31 AM PDT by Admin Moderator. [history]
BUSH WRONG ON FIREARMS
Worldnetdaily
By Joseph Farah
April 17, 2003
President Bush has announced through a spokesman that he supports a federal ban on firearms labeled "assault weapons" – a law set to expire before the next presidential election.
The administration was somewhat mysterious as to whether that support would extend to promoting an extension of the legislation.
The president is wrong – plain and simple.
In a time when Americans are told they are at war with people who want to hurt them right here in the homeland, when we are creating new federal bureaucracies to defend them from foreign invaders and when we are spending billions on these new programs, the president should be encouraging law-abiding citizens to arm themselves against the threat.
First of all, let me speak plainly: There is no such thing as an "assault weapon." The guns included in this ban, and previous misguided legislation passed by federal and state governments, are not automatics. They are not machine-guns. They fire one round at a time, like hundreds of other rifles that people use to hunt deer, shoot skeet or simply to protect themselves and their families from those who would take their lives, their liberty or their property.
I have challenged my colleagues in the press – time and time again – to define the term "assault weapon." They can't do it. There is no definition. They are firearms defined not by what they do, but by how they look – scary. Nevertheless, the press continues this subterfuge. It is disinformation and propaganda that is leading to the erosion of our inherent rights as Americans and our ability to preserve those rights.
Now it's time to challenge the Congress – where this issue will ultimately be resolved.
Tell us: What is an "assault weapon?"
I can define it for you: It's any weapon that looks mean. It's any weapon government officials want to take away from you. Taking them is the first step toward disarming all U.S. citizens in direct defiance of the U.S. Constitution.
Let's be clear on something: The Founding Fathers didn't write the Second Amendment to protect deer hunters or skeet shooters.
Deer hunting was not on the minds of the framers of our Constitution. They understood that without arms the people would be no match for the kind of powerful government we have in Washington, D.C., today.
So often, the gun grabbers portray themselves as crime fighters. Nothing could be further from the truth. Even in a representative republic, when civil order breaks down, as it inevitably does, law-abiding citizens are not safe without adequate firepower. The image of Korean store owners perched on top of their businesses during the L.A. riots is indelible proof of that simple fact.
Just a generation ago, nearly every politician in America understood the purpose of the Second Amendment and defended it vigorously.
The late Hubert H. Humphrey, a man who defined liberal Democratic politics in the mid-1960s had this to say on the subject: "Certainly one of the chief guarantees of freedom under any government, no matter how popular and respected, is the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms. This is not to say that firearms should not be carefully used and that definite safety rules of precaution should not be taught and enforced. But the right of the citizens to bear arms is just one guarantee against a tyranny which now appears remote in America, but which historically has proved to be always possible."
The gun grabbers understand they can't win the debate today by revealing their true intentions – taking all firearms away from law-abiding citizens as they have in some cities in America. So they wage their war on guns incrementally – banning classifications of weapons, dividing and conquering the opposition and softening up the people on the idea that the government has a legitimate power to ban guns.
Humphrey was right. So were the Founding Fathers. Tyranny is always possible. In fact, without a vigilant, armed civilian populace, it is inevitable.
There's only one ultimate defense against the imposition of tyranny here – 250 million well-armed Americans.
As I Predicted, George W. Bush Is Backing Bill Clinton's Gun Ban
Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban
Let's hope Bush is just holding his finger to the wind with this. I'm not willing to crucify him just yet.
Why? Do they want to lose their seats? If Bush overturns the law, he wins in a landslide.
---------------------------
Conservatives let themselves be conned.
Bush originally endorsed the ban in order to get the support of wealthy "moderate" Republicans in the primaries against John McCain. Now, he doesn't want to make an issue out of it when he's trying to concentrate on getting his tax cuts passed. If he loses on this vote, the economy could go south and screw up his reelection chances. Nevertheless, his ultimate gain comes from opposing the ban, not renewing it.
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.