UPSET GUN OWNERS SET TO DUMP BUSH

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. …"

"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."

This tells you why this article is BS:

passed during the Clinton administration
38 posted on 04/17/2003 2:12 AM PDT by The Wizard

The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban
"On September 13th 1994, HR4296, the so-called Assault Weapon's Ban, was signed into law. ...'the federal assault weapons ban, was passed as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. President Clinton signed it into law on September 13, 1994.' [1] It is also known as " The 1994 Public Safety and recreational Firearms Use Protection Act" (though it has little or nothing to do with protecting any firearms use) or simply as "The Crime Bill". [2]
[1] "The Assault Weapons Ban," Brady Campaign to Prevent
Gun Violence, Aug. 2002
http://www.bradycampaign.org/facts/gunlaws/awb.asp

[2] 2 Adams, Les The Second Amendment Primer, Birmingham: Palladium Press, 1996: 142

Ok Bill who is your ideal candidate. Come on be honest. After you name him/her, then we can debate the real world political machinations of his/her chances.

Oh that's right you were asked that question on another thread and you refused to answer it. Looks like you would rather wallow in incessant malcontentism.

This is NOT GOOD. It may sound like a petty issue to some folks but many people hold this as almost a sacred right. For a Republic President to engage in support of any issue which would infringe upon the RTBA is potentially disasterous. And yes, it doesn't matter a bit in 18 months what he did with this war, all he needs to do is ask his father.

"I George Walker Bush, do solemnly swear, that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States. And will to the best of my abilities, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States. So help me God."

Yep it is not good that those who vote on pure emotion, do not learn from history, the eight years of Clinton.

This is like the 15th thread on this same subject in the last two days. Keyword searches are our friends....

Oh come on Coopster, there is an incessant malcontnet rant to be had, also Uncle Bill get's to show off all his pretty html.

The real issue that comes into play is the borderline voters. Some Dems and Moderates are gun owners, too. Many of them have swayed conservative since 2000, but this might be enough of an issue for them to not vote for Bush. Remember, even Al Gore conceeded that the NRA and Guns owners played a major role in his defeat, overcoming all of the voter fraud the Dems had worked so carefully to orchestrate.

I am fearful simply because rats are rats and they'll do it again.

As a resident of Palm Beach County, I look back on how narrow a margin it was that defeated all of the rat voter fraud to get GW into the White House. It's not large enough to play around with high profile issues, and this is definately a high profile issue for many undecided voters. These are the people who really don't care about anything other than one or two issues. We'd like to think that 9/11 and the Iraq War would make a difference, but then again, similar things didn't help Gw's father.

This ain't good.

Not only that, His approval rating is about 20 points below where his father was after the war. I think W. is about 71%. Poppa about 91%. Something like that.

Actually to put everything in perspective, before Gulf War I, less than 50% wanted to liberate Kuwait. Before the Iraq incursion, W's rating held steady at 60%. Also Bush 41 didn't have to deal with the massive leftist push against the war as W. did.

All in all, W. has done well, but that doesn't matter to you. You never consider the history and machinations of the situations. You have an incessant rant to go on to help Hillary and the dems.

Not only that, he posted an identical thread with a different title, not 30 minutes later (it's over to the right.)

Look, Uncle Bill, I feel your pain. But did you ever stop to think that maybe the media is trying to divide and conquer again? Hint: they do it all the time, and every time a single-issue voter gets fired up and shouts "traitorous Bush!", they win.

Actually Gore should have won by a landslide. It should have never been that close for Gore.

Alos this is a high profile issue for a one issue crowd. Bush's position with the aw ban has been known since 2000 campaign, this is no surprise. But what the hey if you and others want to toss out the lessons of history(the Clinton years), then so be it.

Also people are freaking out about something that hasn't happened yet. It is my contention that this will never pass the house, with many rural demo's breaking away from Pelosi.

Republicans in the House can say they are not lock step with Bush and Bush can say he is not lock step with a one issue interest group. A win-win situation for both parties.

I take offense to your "one or two issues" comment. The reason gun activists often rank 2A as top priority is that it is the foundation, the teeth if you will, of the Constitution. Without the Second Amendment, the People can't enforce any of the rest of it. The whole thing hinges on the Second Amendment.

We're not talking about something petty (but galling, admittedly) like Social Security--we're talking about freedom.

It's ok to make it a top priority. But it is foolish to say things like "I don't care whether a Dem wins, at least I know where they stand." (Actual quote from one of the dozen or so threads over the last few days on this same topic).

As backhoe said earlier - It's more productive to get on the phone/fax/email/whatever and let those in power know how you feel about it than it is to sit around here and make black helicopter statements. No matter what the job, it's better to keep the experienced guy in place, provided he can do the job.

Yep, that's the bottom line. With Bush we have the hope of him repenting for his mistakes and changing things for the better, with others, the mistakes are not mistakes. It still puts us in a strange position as to how to convey to Bush that this is a mistake, yet allow him to keep in power nontheless. One thing possible is vote into congress right wingers that have not his support but our support, while keeping him in power. I think this should be the strategy instead of the shrieks that play in liberal's hands. After all this whole issue was brought up by the Washington Post in the first place... now why would that be..

People should focus on procedure over results.

As backhoe said earlier - It's more productive to get on the phone/fax/email/whatever and let those in power know how you feel about it than it is to sit around here and make black helicopter statements. No matter what the job, it's better to keep the experienced guy in place, provided he can do the job

Also the 2nd amendment is a very local issue. A person's stance on firearms can determine local congressional races. That is why it is my contnention that this will never make it in the house.

Bush has a position that cannot be attacked from the dems and the leftist press, while the issue is fought out in the forum where it matters most, local congressional races.

A similar situation happened in 99 after Columbine, when the Senate passed a Schumer/Feinstein guncontrol bill and it died in the House with the help of 45 rural democrats.

Here's what President Bush should do:
First, eliminate all firearms restrictions and re-instate the second amendment. Second, Issue the word nationwide that a felon is a felon and as such, felons aren't allowed certain rights to begin with -such as the right to keep and bear arms. Third, call for the national promotion for firearms safety courses in all schools. Perhaps even shooting clubs for afterschool.

If this gets done (don't worry, I'm not holding my breath) his vote situation will be:
Voters that agree with his policies will be encouraged to re-elect him in '04. Pro-gun voters who were nervous about his stance on firearms will give him their votes. And, voters who are anti-gun -and are usually anti-Bush- won't change their minds one bit.

So, Bush gains millions in votes,
and loses none.

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.