[2dogs]

GWB and the assault weapons ban have been discussed here, but this guy makes a few good points (unfortunately) re the reality of the situation.


http://toogoodreports.com/column/general/shelton/20031113.htm

The Assault Weapons
Ban May Be Bush's Undoing


By
Lee R. Shelton IV

George W. Bush and his neoconservative advisers have decided that their best strategy for the 2004 campaign is to focus on the "doctrine of preemption." The obvious goal is to portray the president as a hero in the war on terror, conveying the notion that he is the one who is able to keep America safe. Unfortunately for Bush, his position on the assault weapons ban may cause his reelection plans to unravel.

Many conservatives currently feel comfortable backing Bush for a second term. For one thing, he cut taxes, and the economy is on the rebound. He has shown courage by taking on global terrorism. He appointed as Attorney General a man who believes that the Second Amendment supports an individual's right to keep and bear arms. Bush is every conservative's dream, right? Think again.

During his 2000 campaign, candidate Bush voiced his support of the assault weapons ban that was passed during the Clinton administration. The federal law is scheduled to expire on Sept. 13, 2004, and Bush, speaking as president, has already stated that he supports its reauthorization.

Some have tried to excuse the president's position by arguing that he is merely telling people what they want to hear, stating publicly that the ban is a good thing while remaining confident that renewal of the ban will never even make it through the House of Representatives. That may offer some comfort to disgruntled conservatives, but it is important to remember that 38 Republicans voted for the ban in 1994 and 42 voted against its repeal in 1996. That doesn't bode well for freedom-loving Americans.

Don't be surprised in the coming months to see the Bush administration pushing for a renewal of the assault weapons ban by promoting it as an effective tool in our fight against terrorism. After all, such a ban would make it easier for law enforcement officers to break up terrorist organizations here in the United States. In 1993, for example, a raid on a Muslim commune in central Colorado turned up bombs, automatic weapons, ammunition and plans for terrorist attacks.

On Dec. 6, 2001, Attorney General John Ashcroft, testifying before Congress, revealed an al-Qaida training manual that had been discovered in Afghanistan. The manual, he claimed, told terrorists "how to use America's freedom as a weapon against us." The fear was that terrorists in the U.S. would exploit loopholes in our gun laws in an effort to arm themselves – and with radical groups like Muslims of America already purchasing guns, we can't be too careful.

Like most federal laws, the assault weapons ban was originally passed with the assumption that Americans are willing to sacrifice liberty for safety. This, of course, has been historically a safe assumption on the part of our elected officials in Washington. But Bush's position on the assault weapons ban may very well come back to haunt him when he seeks to reconnect with his conservative base in 2004.

The hypocrisy of the president has already been revealed. He spoke out in favor of the government's prerogative to trample on the Second Amendment – under the guise of "reasonable" gun legislation – at the same time he was sending troops armed with fully automatic weapons to Iraq. This may seem like a stupid question, but if soldiers are allowed to carry assault weapons in order to provide for the common defense, why can't that same right be extended to civilians who want nothing more than to defend their homes and families?

John Ashcroft once said during his confirmation hearing, "I don't believe the Second Amendment to be one that forbids any regulation of guns." Far be it from me to contradict the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in the country, but the Constitution forbids exactly that. The federal government is barred from passing any law that may infringe upon the right of Americans to keep and bear arms. Period. It can't be explained in simpler terms than that.

President Bush would be wise to reconsider his position on the assault weapons ban. If he isn't careful, he and other members of his administration may end up alienating the few true conservatives left in the Republican Party – and that would be a mistake this close to election time.

[Lone_Gunman]

See, if we had all voted for Gore, we wouldn't have to worry about whether the ban would be renewed or not.

You know, if we had voted for whoever the Libertarian candidate was (anyone remember his name?), we wouldn't have had to worry about it either, because Gore would be in office.

[lapidator]

It doesn't matter.

The lesson form 2000 was that being anti-gun can cost you the election and more importantly, that supporting gun-control will not win you the election.

Bush will not say a word on the AWB. The battle is not with the White House, but with the House. We must focus on the pro-gunners in the House and not allow them to trade the AWB for something else. (The Senate would vote for or against it -- it doesn't care.)

Lapidator

[Mark Tyson]

Let's flood the white house with letters to keep Bush's mouth shut . . .

. . . so we can flood the streets with "assault weapons" in 2004! LOL

Are you listening, Sarah Brady?

[Smoke]

Lone Gunman is dead on.

[Jeff White]

If the administration is stupid enough to come out and call for the assault weapons ban to be renewed, I will do everything in my power to elect anyone but Bush. The AWB is my litmus test.

I would rather have someone in office who I know is against my position then someone who I worry about stabbing me in the back.

Jeff

[Brett Bellmore]

Please, you DO know that Bush is against your position, he's made that quite clear, and never made any retraction. The only real question is whether he thinks he can get away with doing anything, and thankfully his ratings have dropped back into the sane range, meaning he has to be cautious about pissing off his base.

If he stabs us, let nobody claim it wasn't in the front.

[Jeff White]

Brett,
I am well aware that Bush is against my position. The stab in the back comment was aimed at those who insist that he's really for us, but it's not politically expediant for him to say so. If Bush wants a second term he better make sure that no bill extending the ban reaches his desk.

He's ceded domestic policy to the Democrats now. If this issue gets by him it proves that we have two presidents, Daschle is the domestic president and Bush is the foreign policy president. The article is dead on about alienating the conservative base.

Jeff

[Sergeant Bob]

The only real question is whether he thinks he can get away with doing anything, and thankfully his ratings have dropped back into the sane range, meaning he has to be cautious about pissing off his base.
I don't think he's too worried about the AWB. He can just let it sunset without saying a word. The Dem's up for election will make a few anti noises, and some of the Rep's up for election might make a few pro noises.
The AWB sunsets on Sept 14, right? The elections are what, Nov 2? He keeps his mouth shut for three more weeks and he's got it in the bag.
Once the election is over, and they all feel secure, they can drop the hammer if they want to and figure most will forget about in time for the next election.

Call me cynical, I guess.

[Mark Tyson]

I don't think they've forgotten about the beating they took in 2000, even with Gore trying to dodge the issue in the debates he still came across as anti and he got spanked for it. Write so many letters that they get deluged.

As the saying goes: let them hate us, as long as they fear us.

Alternatively, we can deluge them with letters about unrelated issues to keep them occupied.

[longeyes]

The AWB is a non-issue to everyone except the people on this board.
Bush's election is not going to turn on that. It's going to turn
on Iraq, the economy, and, maybe, illegal immigration. Bush will
go with the votes and in the end he is not going to buck the soccer
moms, the illegal aliens, or the globalist corporations. If you want
a staunch 2A man Bush is not the guy.

[rick_reno]

Longeyes is correct - the AWB and whether it comes back or stays away is a fringe issue. The only way it could make a difference is in a tight election - like the last one where supposedly NRA money took Tenn. and W. Va. away from Al Whore with what was a very effective ad campaign. If the Democrats run Dean, who is looking more and more like he'll be the chosen one - the election won't be close and Bush will coast to victory. Luckily for Bush the left wing screwballs have control of the Democratic party.

[Mark Tyson]

Luckily for Bush the left wing screwballs have control of the Democratic party.

Maybe lucky in the short term for the election, but it would be better for everyone if the aforementioned screwballs were to be replaced by decent people. Where do you think the new and improved AWB is coming from?

[moa]

Perhaps a good start is to change the imagery. Instead of calling it the Assault Weapons Ban, maybe we should start calling it the Ban on Bogus Assault Firearms or Ban on Technically Incorrect Assault Firearms. Can substitute "Technically Incorrect" for "Politically Incorrect".

Sound goofy?

[Don Galt]

Gunowners faith in the republican party, despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, is amazing.

What will you people be doing a year from now when the AWB has been extended and no longer has a sunset provision?

I know, you'll be telling us that "with that recent terrorist attack, it was the best the GOP could do! The democrats would have banned all guns!"

When you engage in such moral relativism, you're only going to earn yourself tyranny.

Republicans are supposed to oppose moral relativism, but whenever Bush's anti-gun stance comes up they chime in with "but what about Gore".

And the really sad thing is, Bush wouldn't BE anti-gun if he didn't know he could get away with it.

Cause you'll support him anyway, as long as he *claims* to support the second ammendment.

Just look what happens when one points out the extenstions to the AWB Bush has already enacted-- deny, pretend, deny, blame it on Clinton.

:scrutiny:

[Sergeant Bob]

Gunowners faith in the republican party, despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, is amazing.

What will you people be doing a year from now when the AWB has been extended and no longer has a sunset provision?
I don't recall anyone in this thread singing the praises of the Republican party or President Bush. More of talking about political realities.
Heck, I agree with most of your stated principles, but beating the Libertarian drum in response to people whose beliefs mostly differ only in degree to yours is not going to win alot of converts.
I'm not trying to stifle your ideals, but some people are not quite as passionate about them as you are.

I'm not trying to be confrontational here (although I often sound that way without meaning to), but trying to show that most of us are on the same side.

[Lone_Gunman]

Just look what happens when one points out the extenstions to the AWB Bush has already enacted

With a dumb-founded look on my face, I must ask what this means, spelling error not withstanding.

[Thumper]

When you engage in such moral relativism, you're only going to earn yourself tyranny.

At the risk of pointing out the obvious, decrying relativism when discussing a choice borders on absurd.

I hope I don't have to explain.

[Standing Wolf]

Would someone please explain how to tell the difference between the Republicrats and Democans?

[w4rma]

Bush Supports New Extension Of Assault-Weapons Ban
http://www.sltrib.com/2003/Apr/04122003/nation_w/47311.asp
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891827/posts

Bush Backs Renewing Assault Weapons Ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A11013-2003Apr11.html
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/891697/posts

[NY Patriot]

Mark Tyson...

Let's flood the white house with letters to keep Bush's mouth shut . . .

. . . so we can flood the streets with "assault weapons" in 2004! LOL

Right you are friend! Ready made political activism is just a mouse click away...

The Essential "End the AW Ban" Contact List & Sample Letter Thread (www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39429)

[Don Galt]

Moral Relativism is choosing to compromise your moral principles because it gets you a short term gain.

Supporting Bush, even though he violates our moral principles, would be engaging in such an act of moral reletavism. The moral principle I'm talking about is the right of self ownership, also known as the right of self defense.

When the fact that Bush does not support this objective moral principle is pointed out, the response is not to agree with the moral principle, but to say that selling it out is justified because of the potential short term damage that could happen if we didn't sell out our principles (eg: We'd get Gore who is no better on guns.)

I am not claiming that people are doing this in this thred, only that republicans tend to do it in general. Particularly, though, people have taken the moral reletavism position in the "Shrubs new gun bans" thread. And in other threads in this forum.

I am not saying that you guys should be voting libertarian. I'm saying that you should be demanding that George Bush actually take action in defense of the second ammendment. You should be holding him accountable, is what I'm saying.

Not saying "it doesn't matter what he does, he'll get my vote anyway, cause I have no choice". (Which is obviously not a direct quote of anybody, but a paraphrase of an attitude.)

Don

[Obiwan]

How about this then....

I demand President Bush take positive action regarding the Second Amendment....AND I will vote for him because the other options ar far far worse and too scary to contemplate.

I don't see huge differences between the two parties, but you only have to look at the voting on major firearms legislation to see that, in general, the Republican party is more supportive of the 2A.

And based on the record of the current Dems in congress and how well they are handling being the minority party...a Democrat President is the LAST thing we need (IMHO)

And as far as self defense....Bush...as governor of Texas...did pass a Concealed Carry Bill.....so he is a political realist

[Jim March]

Here's what I *hope* is happening:

Bush doesn't want to see the AWB renewal pass, but mildly talks it up as part of his long-term "appear moderate on guns" strategy that got him past Gore. At the same time, he very quietly tells House Republicans to NEVER ever let that turkey anywhere near his desk, or there's gonna be hell to pay.

That's what I hope is going on. I think the odds are better than 50/50 that this is what's up.

IF it plays out that way, Bush could get my vote. I care more about performance than words.

BUT: if somebody like Dean does a turnaround on guns AND tells us who his choice for AG will be and said choice is sane (unlike the last two!) AND he promises to junk that "Patriot" crap plus mebbe bring the DMCA under control, well...ya, I'd go for that. 'Cuz I've had just about enough of Ashcroft. And believe it or not, the absolute number one problem I have is over something I've had zero connection with: drugs. Specifically busting Tommy Chong :scrutiny: and using the "RAVE act" to shut down anti-drug-war POLITICAL RALLIES :cuss:. Oh, and the medical pot raids in California :fire:. Utterly intolerable. Give me HALF an excuse, give me a Dem who isn't as wacked out as Gore, and ya, Bush can go home just as soon as he wraps a straightjacket around that maniac Ashcroft. Or shoots him for making sure one-terming remains a family tradition.

NOTE: this is ME talkin', not CCRKBA. OK? I'm sayin' I've personally had just about enough.

[BeLikeTrey]

I'm just wondering out loud. I understand the "voting republican because there's no other choice, and the Libertarians don't have a chance of winning" idea. I have been a subscriber to this idea for awhile. I think I am about to change my view. Please anyone feel free to give me insight or correct me if my train of thought is flawed.
I think that I may start voting with Libertarian or a party not so mainstream who supports 2nd amendment. I don't do this to help them win, that would take alot. I do this in hopes that if enough people removed themselves from the support base of the republican party, (believe me, they notice these numbers) and went to another party ,a forced reorganization will commence. Much like Clinton's "New Dem's" as they were labeled.
I think it would cost us an election of course, but when you lose, you wanna know why and fix it. If you keep winning or doing well are you gonna change anything? No! If you lose .....

Input you guys?:confused:

[45auto]

I agree you should vote for the person and ideals you believe in, that's how it's supposed to work.

But, in reality splitting the republican vote and helping a democrat into office will only increase the chances of further gun control. With the more "left wing" type democrats we have now, you can bet the AWB will be at least as strong as it is now.

This is a "loser" issue for Bush IMO. I suspect most Americans would be in favor of the law, but he has a strong support base from the NRA. This is a tough one for anyone except a libertarian, who cannot win so it doesn't matter and many democrats who believe guns should be removed from our society.

If it does sunset, the fight is/will be state to state anyway.

[Jim March]

OK.

Let's talk voting tactics.

When you vote, you can do one of two things:

1) Actually advance the cause of freedom (tilt the actual .gov at least slightly "freedomwards"). God help us, we actually succeeded in doing this when Bush beat Gore. Gore was just...horrendous and I have no guilt in having voted for Bush. Mind you, I'm highly disappointed in him of late, but then again 9/11 warped things a lot.

2) When that's NOT possible, such as when Davis first ran for office against a truly terrible (literally Fascist tendencies, and I'm not just throwing the term around lightly) "Republican" name of Lungren, your "plan B" is to prove to both jerks (and their parties) that a real pro-freedom vote exists. You do that by voting Libertarian or similar.

Ya follow? Accomplish mission one where possible, settle for mission two where it ain't.

That's what I do.

[oldfart]

"But, in reality splitting the republican vote and helping a democrat into office will only increase the chances of further gun control.

I voted for Bush. I didn't neccesarily believe he was going to be a particularly good President, but I knew he'd be better than Gore. Even before the election, I pointed out that while he and Gore were both going to lead us down the primrose path to socialism, he'd do it more slowly. I'm sorry to say it, but it looks like I was right.

As far as gun control goes, both parties want it and, eventually, they'll get it. We're too willing to concede a part of our rights when threatened with the possible loss of all of them. How long would it take for a dog to catch a rabbit if he reduced the distance between them by half at each leap? Mathmatically, he'd never catch it, but practically, that rabbit would be a warm meal within a short time. That's what's happening to our gun rights and we're helping by supporting "the 800 lb. gorilla." Notice, I said "we?" I do it too but I don't sprain my back by blowing smoke up my own butt. I know I'm throwing the kids to the alligators so I can last awhile longer.

Bush will sell us down the river just like Gore would have, or like Dean or Kerry or Hillary will. He'll just lie better than they and we'll believe him too.

And as for the much heralded Texas CCW that he signed; has anybody else noticed that Texas (and all the other states with similar laws) now has de facto gun registration?

[Mark Tyson]

Incrementalism works both ways. If we could start electing progressively more pro-gun people, and make a lot of noise doing so, we can win this thing. That means the next official you elect may not be in line 100% with your view, but he's better than the last one, and the next one after him is a little better than his predacessor, etc.