UPSET GUN OWNERS SET TO DUMP BUSH

Worldnetdaily ^ | April 17, 2003 | By Jon Dougherty

[Uncle Bill]

Upset Gun Owners Set To Dump Bush

Shooters angered with White House support for firearm ban

Worldnetdaily
By Jon Dougherty
April 17, 2003

Unhappy with President Bush's decision to support continuation of a controversial gun ban passed during the Clinton administration, many gun owners say they'll dump Bush in 2004 and vote for someone else if he signs new legislation extending the prohibition.

Angel Shamaya, founder and executive director of the KeepAndBearArms.com website, said in a single day some 4,300 people responded to a poll on the site asking if respondents would continue to support Bush if he renewed a ban on so-called "assault weapons," initially passed in 1994.

According to polling results by midday yesterday, that figure had climbed to near 4,900 people, with most – more than 93 percent – responding "no" to this question: "If Congress votes to re-authorize the 1994 Clinton/Feinstein federal so-called 'Assault Weapons' ban, gives the bill to President Bush and he signs it into law, would you still vote for him in his bid for re-election to the presidency in 2004?"

Less than 7 percent said they'd still support Bush if he aids in reauthorizing the legislation.

The 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, among other things, banned the manufacture and importation of certain military-style semi-automatic rifles, dubbed "assault weapons" by bill supporters, while limiting magazine capacity to just 10 rounds. It is considered a crowning achievement for anti-gun groups, but to get more support, the bill's sponsors inserted a 10-year sunset provision, which takes effect in September 2004 – weeks before the general election.

Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association were hoping the GOP-controlled Congress would allow the law to expire. The current Congress and administration are considered the most gun-rights friendly in a more than a decade, but Bush's comments last week threw that presumption into doubt. White House spokesman Scott McClellan told Knight-Ridder newspapers that the president "supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law."

"There is no such thing as gun control, only incremental gun prohibition," said Brian Puckett, co-founder of national gun-rights organization Citizens of America, of the ban itself. "Gun owners must grasp another political reality, which is: Allowing the government to get away with dictating the features of some guns sets the judicial, legislative and psychological precedent for allowing them to dictate the features of all guns."

"Our gun-rights organization, along with many others, took a stand for Bush in and after the 2000 election," Shamaya told WorldNetDaily. "From urging even Libertarians and third-party voters to support him to helping account for 'lost' military votes in case it came down to that, we fought to turn the Texas governor into a president. If supporting a semi-automatic rifle ban – the Feinstein/Clinton gun ban, no less – is how he intends to repay us, he's lost his marbles."

While the results of the KABA poll are non-scientific, they do provide a glimpse into the angst of gun owners. As WorldNetDaily reported, some lawmakers and gun-rights advocates are also upset with Bush's stance.

"I was surprised and disappointed to learn of the report of the president's support for continuing the ban on homeland-security rifles, aka semi-auto rifles," said Larry Pratt, executive director of Virginia-based Gun Owners of America, a group with 300,000 members nationwide.

"I am also puzzled. Why would George Bush want to help Democrats? The issue, when it was opposed by most Republicans, cost Democrats the House in 1994 and the White House in 2000," Pratt said. "Banning the homeland-security rifle is pure Washington, but anti-Constitution and anti-homeland security."

Rep. Ron Paul, R-Texas, also decried the current ban and does not support the president's position to renew it.

Gun-rights supporters voiced their opinions to WorldNetDaily regarding Bush's decision.

"I will not vote for [Bush] if this ban is in place by Election Day," one WND reader said. "I am a Republican who will vote for a Democrat if I have to, if they fight against this bill. All of my conservative, gun-owning friends are exactly the same as me."

"Recently we saw on TV our soldiers handing out AK-47s to Iraqi volunteer cops," said another reader. "Our government handing out AK-47s to people they do not know, folks that have not passed an FBI background check … Yet our government would fall over backwards before even suggesting that Americans arm themselves. Quite hypocritical, I think."

"I've said long ago that 'we'd see' about Bush on guns when this opportunity finally came about," said another. "What a non-surprise. One could wrap a dill pickle in a Godiva Chocolate box and bow, but the contents remain the same. …"

Not all gun owners have criticized Bush's decision.

"He stated during the campaign he supported the law. I am pro-guns and pro-NRA, but I agree that Bush should support this assault-weapons ban," said one reader. "When in Washington you have to pick your fights carefully and this is not one worth expending political capital on."

Gun-rights activists were also upset by the president's stance because it comes at a time when a new series of lawsuits against gun makers is being launched by the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and others.

One retailer/activist, Concealed Carry Inc., of Oak Brook, Ill., has even begun a campaign to "cooperate with the NAACP" and is refusing to sell firearms to blacks.

"I am going to use the broad authority granted me as a federally licensed gun dealer to prevent straw purchases by denying sales to African-Americans. To insure fairness, there will be no exceptions," said John Birch, president of Concealed Carry Inc. He said he'll continue to ban sales to African-Americans "until the NAACP asks us to, at which point we will be pleased to resume sales."

"We must let Bush and the Republican party know that if they don't support our rights we will either refuse to go to the polls or we will vote for a third party," Puckett said. "If you give them your vote even when they sell you out, they'll keep selling you out."

"President Bush created the so-called Homeland Security Department, yet he wants to continue a ban on homeland-security rifles and has done nothing to protect the sieve laughably called a border," Shamaya added. "Bush's support for a ban on semi-automatic rifles is a vote to leave patriots in this great nation with inferior defensive capabilities."

---

BUSH WRONG ON FIREARMS

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

[wku man]

"Like it or not there are times to pursue issues of personal freedom and times that are not so appropriate."

When, pray tell, is it not an approprite to stand up for the oath you took to support and defend the Constitution of the United States? When an election hangs in the balance?

"...but there are other outstanding issues relating to personal freedoms out there. The fight to set the Second Ammendment in stone is not the only one."

But it's the only one which guarantees we have the means to fight off the tyrants who would strip us of the rest of our rights.

"There is that disgraceful McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law."

I agree 100%. CFR is the reason I'm not voting for Bush again. His position on the AWB just reaffirms my decision.

"At some point you have focus your energies on what is attainable."

And some times you have to stand your ground, draw a line, dare your opponents to cross it, then fight tooth and nail, because if you don't you're gonna lose another big chunk of your freedom. This is one of them. In the last ten years, the Pubbie Party has been one cave-in debacle after another. We can't afford to cave yet again when it comes to our constitutional rights. The RINOs have already caved (or actively participated) when it comes to the First and Fourth Amendments, but in a worst case scenario, we can survive these infringements. Why? Because of the Second Amendment. As long as we are armed, we are not a slave state, but a state filled with free citizens. But to whittle away at the RKBA, a little here and a little there, is to ensure the day will come when we have nothing but double-barrelled shotguns and .22 target pistols with which to fight back tyranny. All the "attainable" stuff that you think we should focus our energies on won't mean a thing then, because we will be tryly powerless.

"Doing away with the Assault Weapon's Ban can best be done after Bush gets a second term."

No it can't. The AWB was given a ten-year lifespan. If it's renewed, it will get at least another ten years, if it's not made permanent, IMHO. It sunsets in September of '04, which means it has to be dealt with before the election. The time is now for the president to state emphatically that he will veto any extension, thereby bolstering any wavering Pubbies in the House and Senate, and encouraging them to stay the course. If he were to do so, I believe there might actually be a chance for the AWB to die in Congress. But Bush has to grow a spine and be ready to fight the media and the Rats if he chooses to do the right thing. He can't just "go along to get along", and his New Tone may be jeopardized. He may have to get dirt under his fingernails, and actually fight for something. And with the exception of the war, fighting's something he apparently isn't too fond of.

Sorry about the lack of civility in my previous post.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[wku man]

"...tryly powerless."

Yeah, and truly powerless, too. Man, sometimes I just slay myself.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[bybybill]

Governments in this country have always had the right to limit ownership and use of firearms and that`s not a completely bad idea. I don`t want convicted felons to be armed, you don`t need a 155 howitizer, and guns are only trouble makers in a soloon. I have no problem with hunter safety programs and sawed off shotguns are a no no. So, calm down, use your firearms responsibily, never vote for anybody that is supported by the Bradys, and pay your NRA dues on time.

[CWOJackson]

"...use your firearms responsibily..."

My father, who had been an NRA member since the late 1920's, dropped his membership and support of the NRA when it shifted it's emphasis from firearms training and responsible ownership and started pursuing a more activist agenda.

The NRA's defense of "cop killer" bullets was the last straw for him. He no longer saw the NRA as representative of the mainstream firearms owner (hunters and collectors) but more of a political platform for an emerging enthusiast of a more militant nature.

[Charles Martel]

My father, who had been an NRA member since the late 1920's, dropped his membership and support of the NRA when it shifted it's emphasis from firearms training and responsible ownership and started pursuing a more activist agenda.

The NRA's defense of "cop killer" bullets was the last straw for him. He no longer saw the NRA as representative of the mainstream firearms owner (hunters and collectors) but more of a political platform for an emerging enthusiast of a more militant nature.

The NRA was merely reacting to the changing political reality; a more activist agenda was needed in order to preserve all the rest of the NRA's activities. Had there been no "gun lobby" to speak of through the latter half of the 20th century, the 2nd Amendment would be little more than a memory. Yes, it is unfortunate that the NRA had to change with the times. However, only a few short years ago I heard Bill Clinton call on the NRA to abandon their activism and return to their older, "traditional" activities. That pretty much confirmed that the NRA had done the right thing; if Clinton didn't like it, it must've been the right call.

Your dad is only one of many who thought the NRA was wrong on the "cop killer bullet" issue; but the "Anti-cop-killer bullet" legislation that was proposed was written very loosely and would have resulted in the banning of all high-power rifle bullets.

BTW, that is the same issue that earned Dick Cheney the undying hatred of Sarah Brady and company. Cheney voted against the "cop killer bullet" ban because he knew it was a bad piece of legislation that would've reached far beyond specialized pistol bullets designed to pierce Kevlar. I do hope that Cheney is advising the President on the AW ban; certainly he knows it's an ill-conceived law.

[miloklancy]

Since you responded directly to my remarks, I want to have a change to address your responses. Also I appreciate the civility of your last post.

My first remark you addressed:
"...but there are other outstanding issues relating to personal freedoms out there. The fight to set the Second Ammendment in stone is not the only one."

Your response:
But it's the only one which guarantees we have the means to fight off the tyrants who would strip us of the rest of our rights

My reaction:
In theory you are absolutely right. However in practice this doesn't happen. With or without the Assault Weapons Ban, if you do not pay taxes men with guns come to your house and demand it of you.

My second remark you addressed:
"There is that disgraceful McCain-Feingold Campaign Finance Law."

Your response:
I agree 100%. CFR is the reason I'm not voting for Bush again. His position on the AWB just reaffirms my decision.

My reaction:
The reason Bush handled CFR the way he did is because he wanted the law to be challenged in the courts. By doing so you can have brilliant thinkers like Ken Starr make a case and win a legal precedent to keep McCain and Feingold from digging up this garbage later. If Bush intervened, everyone in the media would scream bloody murder that Bush is against any kind of CFR, which is not true. Bush has particularly been critical of organized labor using worker's dues to pay for candidates they don't endorse. Also Bush by no means said McCain-Feingold was perfect and did allude to some issues pertaining to the bill being settled by the courts.

My third remark you addressed:
"Doing away with the Assault Weapon's Ban can best be done after Bush gets a second term."

Your response: No it can't. The AWB was given a ten-year lifespan. If it's renewed, it will get at least another ten years, if it's not made permanent, IMHO. It sunsets in September of '04, which means it has to be dealt with before the election. The time is now for the president to state emphatically that he will veto any extension, thereby bolstering any wavering Pubbies in the House and Senate, and encouraging them to stay the course. If he were to do so, I believe there might actually be a chance for the AWB to die in Congress. But Bush has to grow a spine and be ready to fight the media and the Rats if he chooses to do the right thing. He can't just "go along to get along", and his New Tone may be jeopardized. He may have to get dirt under his fingernails, and actually fight for something. And with the exception of the war, fighting's something he apparently isn't too fond of.

My response: Irregardless of the life-span of the AWB, Bush can at any time use and executive order to rescind it. Granted Congress at this point would probably freak if that happened and it would be unprecedented. What we need to do is build up a larger majority in the Congress and settle the issue there and if need be Bush can step in after 2004 and use an executive order if need be. Whether the AWB stays in law is not Bush's problem alone. Congress has to do there part too. Too many Congressional Republicans want to wait for Bush to give them a direction. The man simply has too many irons in the fire at this point to hold Congress's hands through everything. And to say Bush is not a fighter is a pretty narrow view of things. I encourage you to contact your representatives in D.C. They have a job to do too.

[wku man]

"The reason Bush handled CFR the way he did is because he wanted the law to be challenged in the courts."

But why even have it become law in the first place? Why not explain to the American people what's wrong with the bill, then with no pomp and circumstance, veto that sucker so fast John McCommie's head would still be spining a year after it happened?

Bush had a list of six features that, if included in a CFR bill, would cause him to whip out the veto pen. McCommie called his bluff, if memory serves me correctly, and left two of those features in his bill. Bush signed it. Sheesh...he not only backed down from what he said he'd do, but he also signed an unconstitutional bill into law to where it now has to go to the courts (and what if the SCOTUS doesn't strike it down, hmmm?), and finally, he gave John McCommie a victory!!!!

"Irregardless of the life-span of the AWB, Bush can at any time use and executive order to rescind it."

I don't believe that's true, bro. After a bill has become law, the only way to overturn it is to have the SCOTUS declare it unconstitutional. After all, for a bill to become law, the president has to place his signature on it, and it wouldn't make any sense at all for a president to give it his blessing, then turn around and strike it down with an EO.

If that was all a president had to do in order to rescind a law, Klinton would have had a field day. If that was the case, President Reagan would've issued an EO striking down Roe vs. Wade. No, I'm pretty sure it's a balance of powers thing, the purpose of which is to give Americans one more recourse (the Judicial Branch) against an "unreasonable" new law. That's one of the reasons so many conservatives let out a nationwide howl when Paul "The Forehead" Begala said, of Klinton's EOs, "stroke of the pen, law of the land...kinda cool." No, it's not kinda cool. It's not our way, and not our system. Bush and the RINOs will have to deal with the AWB before the election, and I don't think there's enough backbone in DC to do the right thing and let it sunset.

In fact, if memory again serves me correctly, if an EO is already entered into the Congressional Record, a president can't even overturn it with his own EO without Congress approving it. This was the hurdle Bush encountered when he first took office, and was looking at overturning some of Klinton's EOs. For some reason (no backbone? the New Tone?), he decided it would be too much of a hassle to get the Pubbies in Congress on his side, so he just gave up, leaving Klinton's EOs in place. Truly inspiring leadership...

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[miloklancy]

"If that was all a president had to do in order to rescind a law, Klinton would have had a field day. If that was the case, President Reagan would've issued an EO striking down Roe vs. Wade"

Roe vs. Wade is legal precedent which cannot be overturned unless it is by another legal precedent. You are forgetting the responsibility of Congress and the Judiciary here. I believe a Congressional bill that is not backed by legal precedent can be over-turned by Executive Order, I may be wrong, but I'm pretty sure that is the case. In fact I believe this is exactly why FDR wanted to stack the Supreme Court, because he knew his Raw Deal legislation was illegal on the basis of precedent. The fact is the Assault Weapons Ban is not something that lives and dies by the President. It has to have a legal precedent backing it up or be an ammendment to the Consitution. I'm not aware of legal precedent either endorsing or striking down the Assault Weapons Ban.

[wku man]

Well, I don't want to come off as uncivil, but I believe you are wrong on this matter, bro. Once a law has been ratified by both houses of Congress, and signed by the President, regardless of legal precedent, it takes the SCOTUS declaring it unconstitutional to overturn it.

Now, we're now getting into the vagaries of the Constitution, because if I remember correctly, judicial review is a power that the SCOTUS just assumed it had in Marbury vs. Madison (I hope I'm right, else my old Constitutional Law prof, Dr. Droddy, will find me and kick my a**!). So if there are any legal eagle FReepers who could help me/us out here, I'd sho' nuff appreciate it.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[Deb]

They're "fake" in that they didn't come with the articles posted, and you know it.

They're old pictures you stuck on these articles to give the appearance of a Bush/Clinton conspiracy, because you can't scare people into turning on Bush without lying...visually or literally.

You've been doing the same thing here for years and sometimes we like to let the new people here know what and who you are.

[miloklancy]

I'm with you there. Constitutional law is not my forte. So if anyone knows more I would appreciate them piping in. However in cases of federal jurisdication, I believe federal district courts can establish precedent without cases ever going to the high court. Again this is not my forte.

[No Dems 2004]

I think the President is doing the right thing to support the extension of the ban. The NRA and gun conservatives need to know where to draw the line. I believe this helps do that.

I'm a firm supporter of the 2nd Amendment, but this, I believe, goes too far. President Bush is doing the right thing. I don't at all believe he'll lose for it, either. In fact, I think he'll be re-elected quite handsomely.

For those who think that voting for a Democrat will be better, forget it. If you want to lose your guns, vote for Democrats.

[xm177e2]

The assault weapons ban is not really my issue, because I live in Kalifornia, and there are a number of other reasons why gun ownership isn't right for me at this time (it's a pain to get to the range, my parents don't particularly want me to have any, I can't keep ammo in my house, I can't keep weapons with me at college, I don't have a lot of money to blow, etc.)

I would be very disappointed if Bush signed an AWB into law, it might be enough to get me to sit out the election... or maybe not. If Bush does something awesome, like taking out Mugabe, or just gets Iraq running smoothly, I think I would still vote for him. If he turns a blind eye to Palestinian terror, and pretends the Palestinian leadership is complying with his roadmap when they are clearly not, that would make me angry enough not to vote for him.

In fact, I might even vote for someone like Lieberman. Think about it: if my sitting out the election costs Bush 1 vote, my voting for a Democrat has twice as much of an effect on him.

Or not. California is almost certain to go to the Democratic, and in the off chance Bush wins California, he's certain to win the presidency anyway.

If Bush pisses me off, I won't go to the polls for him, I'll probably just sit at home and let the local Republican candidates suffer. If Bush is doing good things, I'll get off my butt and vote for him, and local GOPers.

If Bush signs the AWB, he will be the one taking the heat in the next election, and Democrat candidates across the country will benefit as local Republican candidates suffer, even if Bush wins reelection. The Republicans who care about the AWB are disproportionately members of the activist base--without them, there's no lawn signs, no bumper stickers, etc. It would be extremely foolish for Bush to sign the thing, I don't think he will go through with it, it would just have too high a cost.

[ATOMIC_PUNK]

I just wanted to be the 1134th post

[MeekOneGOP]

I'm honestly not familiar with this issue at all.

But what kind of game does one hunt with one of these ? Are they useful and practical to keep under one's bed for use in case an intruder arrives?:

Senate Bill 23 Assault Weapon Characteristics

Effective January 1, 2000, Senate Bill 23, Statutes of 1999, establishes new criteria for defining assault weapons based on generic characteristics. This bill allows and requires persons who own/possess firearms that fall under the new "assault weapon" definition to register those firearms with the Department of Justice during the one-year period between January 1, 2000 and December 31, 2000. Effective January 1, 2000, this bill adds Penal Code Section 12276.1 to the Penal Code as follows.

12276.1 (a) Notwithstanding Section 12276, "assault weapon" shall also mean any of the following:

(1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

(B) A thumbhole stock.

(C) A folding or telescoping stock.

(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

(E) A flash suppressor.

(F) A forward pistol grip.

(2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

(4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.

(B) A second handgrip.

(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.

(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

(5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

(6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

(A) A folding or telescoping stock.

(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

(7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.

(8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

(b) "Assault weapon" does not include any antique firearm.

(c) The following definitions shall apply under this section:

(1) "Magazine" shall mean any ammunition feeding device.

(2) "Capacity to accept more than 10 rounds" shall mean capable of accommodating more than 10 rounds, but shall not be construed to include a feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than 10 rounds.

(3) "Antique firearm" means any firearm manufactured prior to January 1, 1899.

(d) This section shall become operative January 1, 2000.

[MeekOneGOP]

The only guns I've ever owned are the usual BB gun as a kid, a 22 rifle I used to own and hunted small game with, and currently own a Winchester semi-automatic 12 gauge shotgun I've owned for about 30 years for bird hunting, etc. I am not much of a hunter anymore and haven't used a gun in years. I've never owned a handgun, but that's NOT to say I never would. In fact, I wouldn't mind having one in the house 'just in case', ya know ??

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks for the ping !

[xm177e2]

I'll be honest: The "assault weapons" are for killing people, not deer. That's why they're protected by the Constitution.

[MeekOneGOP]

Thanks.

[MarcoPolo]

That's the same mentality that keeps the vast majority of blacks in slavery to the Democratic Party. The Dems know that no matter what they do the black population will vote for them, so they trample on them at every available opportunity. It's the same with the gun lobby (or conservatives in general) and the GOP. They know that you'll vote for them no matter what they do so (because after all who else will you turn to?) and they trample on your gun and other rights on a regular basis. This assault weapons ban is a case en pointe. You've got Repubs like Bush voting for it too because he knows you'll vote for him anyway.