Bush Administration Affirms Stance on "Assault Weapon" Ban Extension

[Mike Ellis]

I found this on the tx. guns newsgroup, posted by Sam Kersh. Looks like the President is going to stand firm on this. Also looks very likely to lose him the election in 2004.



So it goes.



**********************************************



http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030508-12.html



Q Let me ask you something about the assault weapons ban. I realize the

President was for the reauthorization back in 2000. Why does he support

that?



MR. FLEISCHER: Well, the President thought, and said so at the time in

2000, that the assault weapon ban was a reasonable step. The assault

weapon ban was crafted with the thought that it would deter crime. There

are still studies underway of its crime deterring abilities, but the

President thought that was reasonable, and that's why he supported it.

And that's why he supports the reauthorization of the current ban.



Q Does it work?



MR. FLEISCHER: There are, indeed, studies underway that will determine

that. And we'll await those studies to make any final conclusions. But

that's exactly what the President said in 2000.



Q But he's willing to disappoint a pretty big supporter here, the NRA,

based on some ongoing studies, or does he have a more fundamental belief

that these kinds of weapons should not --



MR. FLEISCHER: He believed it in 2000, before studies were completed; he

continues to believe it now. We'll see if the studies provide any

additional information. But the President focuses on this issue like he

does on all -- he focuses it on the merits. He makes his determinations.

Often the President will agree, of course, with the National Rifle

Association. On this issue he does not.



Q One more point on this. Forgive me for wading into the politics of

issues like this, but he doesn't think that there's -- is he concerned

about taking steps that put him at odds with his Republican base, or

does he feel like really he's built himself up so much it's not an

issue?



MR. FLEISCHER: No, I think when you look across-the-board at the

positions the President takes, the President evaluates the issues that

come before him based on the facts, based on the merits. He makes the

determinations, and then others are free to say whether they agree or

disagree with the President. I think his view to whether it's an issue

that's important to one party or another party, or to many people in the

middle, his view is, do what's right, and let people interpret it from

there. In this instance, you know what he said, as you pointed out, in

2000. He continues to believe it today.



Q Ari, on that, last night Karl Rove was in New Hampshire, and he spoke

with one of the leading gun activists in the state, who says on his

website today that Karl Rove said Congress isn't going to pass this

extension anyway, and so gun owners don't have to worry, the President

is going to be for the extension, but Congress isn't going to pass it

anyway. Is that the President's attitude, that this bill isn't really

coming his way?



MR. FLEISCHER: Well, I think you can talk to any number of handicappers

about any number of issues that are pending before the Congress and

probably get an equal number of opinions. So this is a matter that the

Congress will be taking up, and they will be taking it up now, knowing

what the President's position is on it. And I can't make any predictions

about what Congress ultimately will do. It's a business that outsiders

engage in and insiders engage in; we'll see who's right.



Q According to this gentleman, Karl Rove was engaging in that. Given the

fact that Republicans do control the Congress and that getting this

passed, getting it onto the agenda will require Republican leadership,

is the President willing to fight for this, to fight for the extension

of the assault weapons ban?



MR. FLEISCHER: The President has made his position known. And during the

course of the debate, I imagine that people will refer to the

President's position and cite it, and I will continue to repeat it. The

President, you will watch his actions and judge for yourself over time.



Q So no plan to make any calls on this, to spend political capital to

get this done?



MR. FLEISCHER: No, as I indicated, I think you'll be able to judge the

President's actions by observing them yourselves.

 

[RustyJC]

Mike,



I have a question. Although I'm a gun owner, I recognize that the right to bear arms is not an unlimited right. For example, I'm not and as far as I know have never been authorized to own nuclear or biological weapons. Given that there have always (at least in the modern era) been restrictions to our Second Amendment rights, why do you feel that assault weapons should not be subject to these restrictions on private ownership? Do you really need an AK-47 to go hunt Bambi?



Just trying to understand the NRA position on this issue (and I'm not alone, I promise you!)



Rusty

 

[The patriot]

Originally posted by RustyJC

Mike,



Do you really need an AK-47 to go hunt Bambi?







Rusty

If you know WHY the Constitution was written, you'll know that your right isnt there for the sole purpose to "hunt Bambi".

If you start regulating rights, are they really rights then?

Eric

 

[Morphious]

I'll answer my point of view on the subject. The basis for the ban is bogus to start with. I can kill more people with ordinary house hold chemicals than you can with a 30 round clip. Nobody is going to ban pinesol. They are going after a scape goat to solve the problem rather than dealing with the problem and using the existing rules of law that exist to protect law abiding citizens. I own an assault riffle, bought it several years ago and take it to the range and shoot round through it for fun. I can buy surplus rounds for it a hell of a lot cheaper than my hunting riffles, and it has been the first gun that my boys have shot, due to the short stock/length and weight. I believe that one of the values of this country is that you are innocent UNTIL proven guilty. Bans like on the assault weapons says that the law abiding people can't be trusted to make good decisions, therefore they are guilty and we must remove them from their ability to purchase.



In order to have freedom, you must let the people free choice, when you ban this, restrict that, to the point of totalitism(sp?), you are no longer a free country, but a communist where government is dictator of wrong and right.





Anyway, this is my point of view, and I will weigh my vote for president based on their actions and what "I" deem as important items. If you don't like my point of view, so be it, I probably won't like yours either.



Morph.

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by RustyJC

Do you really need an AK-47 to go hunt Bambi?

I understand full well why the Second Amendment was written. I'm just posing the philosophical question that probably 80% or more of the United States populace asks when this subject comes up. I'm not saying that I'm for or against the ban... . I'm just saying that the NRA and its supporters has/have NOT been very successful IN TERMS OF GENERAL PUBLIC PERCEPTION in making a case in favor of assault weapons. So, give it your best shot... . how about making a rational, unemotional case in favor of having these kinds of weapons legally in the hands of any non-felon in our society.



Guys, you can personalize this by taking it out on me if you like, but I'm trying to point out that, at least as of this five minutes, the NRA position on this issue is a MINORITY position that is perceived by most of the populace at large as extremist. If you're going to sell this position to the majority of America, you'd better get rid of the "red mist" of emotion and present a logical, well thought out case. Until you do, it will be like I heard a commentator say this morning, "It really doesn't matter what Bush's position is since Congress isn't about to put a bill repealing the assault weapon ban on his desk. "



Rusty

 

[The patriot]

Originally posted by RustyJC

. So, give it your best shot... . how about making a rational, unemotional case in favor of having these kinds of weapons legally in the hands of any non-felon in our society.



Rusty

OK. Because it's my God given right?

Eric

 

[The patriot]

Sorry if I was a little harsh in my first post.

By using the "Bambi" example, it says that you've been listening and swollowing the anti gunners pablum... . IMO

Eric

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by The patriot

Sorry if I was a little harsh in my first post.

By using the "Bambi" example, it says that you've been listening and swollowing the anti gunners pablum... . IMO

Eric

No, Eric, it says that (as I stated above) I am illustrating what the majority of the American public thinks when this subject comes up. My challenge is for you to show me how the NRA side can effectively refute that mindset.



Rusty

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by The patriot

OK. Because it's my God given right?

Eric

Do you really think the majority of the American populace believes that? The cold, hard facts are that a ban is in place today, and until public opinion (and, therefore, Congress) swings to your position, nothing's going to change. My point is that the NRA has a selling job to do, and it hasn't done it.



Rusty

 

[Mike Ellis]

RustyJC,



In general, "arms" as reflected in the 2nd Amendment refers to the type of weaponry used by an individual for self-protection or for prosecution of warfare. Things like rifles, pistols, knives, swords, spears, machine guns, grenades - these might all be interpreted as the sort of "arms" a citizen soldier could be expected to use. There are already many laws regulating the use of "destructive devices", into which category nuclear weapons and large-scale explosives (beyond the size of 4th of July fireworks) fall.



The areas covered are rather gray, and the types of arms that a person may own are quite varied. For instance, there is no law preventing a person from owning a blackpowder cannon. Quite a few re-enactors have them and fire them regularly. People legally make and use "punkin chunkers" and various siege engines (catapults etc) which are capable of dealing out large-scale damage if improperly used. Biological weapons? There are people at most large universities diddling around with the "genie in a bottle" at this very moment, and few (if any) of them are "official" government types - most are regular US citizens.



More pertinently to your question, "assault weapons" have in fact been regulated quite thoroughly since 1934 under the National Firearms Act, since an "assault weapon" is by definition a fully automatic firearm. The "assault weapons" covered by the ban President Bush supports are in fact semi-automatic sporting weapons sold for shooting enthusiasts and not used by actual military forces. They are banned simply because they are "ugly". The principle of semi-automatic fire has been around for more than ONE HUNDRED YEARS. Even double-action revolvers provide one shot per each pull of the trigger.



I see no objective reason for these weapons to be banned. They differ in no particular from many other weapons on the market, which have been sold to and used by American citizens, sportsmen, and hunters for decades. Many of these rifles are in fact used quite successfully for hunting, however that is not even a factor that we should consider in the debate. Why? Because hunting is not the issue in the 2nd Amendment - it is our right to keep and bear arms for self-protection, and if necessary, to effect change in our governmental system or overthrow tyrants - both hard to do when unarmed.



Why is the ban an issue for me, when other firearms with "less ugly" features are still available? Quite simply, because today's acceptable firearm is tomorrow's "ugly banned one. " I choose to stand in opposition now, before the camel gets himself any further into the tent. He's had his nose, head, and neck in for a long time now so it's about time we stop him.

 

[JPope]

Assault Rifle Ban

Just some thoughts:

Who defines what an assault weapon is?

Did removing the bayonet lug from the AR-15, make it less an assault weapon?

How does one establish a definition, by listening to the NEWS, who seems to have a problem with automatic versus non-automatic, pistol versus revolver, or defines a criminal/murderer who shoots people at 80-100 yds. as a sniper ??



Does one listen to the political types, all levels, local, state, federal, who may say anything, and often change the statement, to whatever group they are courting, to get their vote?



What is a "Saturday Night Special"? One of the previous terms of choice of weapons to be banned. Thought it was interesting that banning Saturday Night Specials deprived one group of people, based upon socio-economic status, the right to defend themselves, while people with more disposable income had more choices, including paid bodyguards!!!



What is more effective, a person with an weapon with a large clip, folding stock, handgripped, and little or no experience or a determined ,well - trained, very experienced person, with single shot match grade weapon?



Definitions are a dime a dozen, to be made or applied as the need arises. How does one person, who would not defend, assist, help in situation, no matter what, define to someone who will go the extra effort to defend, assist, help, no matter the situation, what is wrong with defending, assisting, or helping??



Some people "know best" and nothing another says or does will change their minds, aplies toboth sides of the discussion.



I believe that if you give up any rights that we have, you open the door for giving up all rights, but again what is the definiton of "rights". When this country was founded, our fore-fathers knew that the "rights" they had under British rule were not what they envisioned as "rights", so the definitions got in the way!!!!!



At least here (USA) we get to debate!!!!!!!!

 

[Rman]

I never really understood the opposition to firearms, i guess its just the way i was raised. A person can kill just as easily with a pistol, a knife, a damn spoon, his thumb, or a grenade, or a fully automatic "assualt" rifle. Why not attack the problem more sensibly, fix the person not the object of which he commits the crime?



This is one thing i just cannot fathom peoples thinking on. How can taking away just a VERY SMALL portion of weapons from the general public going to stop shootings? ALlow this gun but not that one... . well ok then, the criminal will just use the one easiest to get anyways... so why take the gun away from the person who obeys the law anyways?



Here in UT we're very lucky. I can carry my gun right on my side just about anywhere i want whenever i want. Its pretty nice to be "Free" I don't carry that often, but i can if i want to..... get that... if i wanted to i can. thats freedom friends. Having some politician who barely could cycle a round through a gun much less shoot it tell me that i can't have a gun really aggravates me.



No i don't hunt with my semi auto rifles, i use my bolt actions for that. But why do they want to take away my sporting weapons? I shoot for fun, maybe they should try it, its pretty cool to just go out and plink rounds for a while. Yeah expensive, but what hobby isn't? I wish these uppity lawmakers could actually see what real life is and how real people live their lives and see what they take away.

 

[The patriot]

Originally posted by RustyJC

No, Eric, it says that (as I stated above) I am illustrating what the majority of the American public thinks when this subject comes up. My challenge is for you to show me how the NRA side can effectively refute that mindset.



Rusty

Nobody and nothing can refute millions of crazed mommies in minivans opinions. Didnt you ever hear the saying"Dont underestimate dumb people in large numbers"?

They arent educated on the subject, but neither is the majority of the media, which BTW we count on for the "facts".

Just the term "assault weapon"..... what does it really mean?

Ask the person being shot at by an attacker with an H&R topper single shot if it was an "assault weapon". They were being assaulted with it... . werent they?

If they just keep chipping away, and we dont do anything about it, we have no one to blame but ourselves.

I have no idea what the NRA plans to do about this, or their strategy. Probably like most lobby types, shmoozing and money.

Theyve already stated that theyre not going to let this happen.

Eric

 

[Ram4Sam]

Better think real hard....

"Looks like the President is going to stand firm on this. Also looks very likely to lose him the election in 2004. "



I really hope that this doesn't come true. If you guys were to not vote for Bush just because of his decision on this, that would put a democrat back in the White House.



Is that what you really want?





Sam

 

[The patriot]

Re: Better think real hard....

Originally posted by Ram4Sam





Is that what you really want?





Sam

Absolutely not, but on the other hand, do you like being stabbed in the back?

Eric

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by The patriot

Nobody and nothing can refute millions of crazed mommies in minivans opinions.

Yes, but politicians make laws, and votes elect politicians, and these minivan-driving mommies vote, and there are more of them than there are of you. That's why a repeal of the assault weapons ban will never make it out of Congress. Until a majority of voters are convinced that a ban on assault weapons is wrong, nothing's gonna change.



Rusty

 

[Mike Ellis]

As for the "selling aspect", if I had the bucks or some NRA clout I would put out a 30 second TV spot that went something like this:





1. Camera shows a detachment of Redcoats marching in lockstep, bayonets fixed, across the Village Green. Cries of "The British are coming!" echo loudly. Three American fathers and their families are shown in their homes preparing for the battle...

#1 looks around in panic for a weapon, grabs a frying pan and races out the door to confront the Redcoats

#2 looks frightened, tells his wife and children, "Don't worry, it'll be all right, surely they won't hurt us. "

#3 grabs his rifle and powder horn from above the mantle and heads out for battle, while announcer says: "The right to keep and bear arms is your ultimate defense against tyranny. Where would HE be without it?" Show American flag waving in the breeze.



2. Fade to a drab European rail yard. Camera shows a detachment of Nazi SS troopers stuffing limp, shocked victims into cars labeled "Auschwitz". Three Jewish families, wearing their yellow Star of David, are shown in their homes as the storm troopers kick their doors down. .

#1 panics and attacks the soldiers bare-handed, dying for his trouble

#2 looks frightened, tells his wife and children, "Don't worry, it'll be all right, surely they won't hurt us. "

#3 sends wife and kids fleeing and trains a submachine gun on the door, ready to fight and die, while announcer says, "The right to keep and bear arms is your ultimate defense against religious persecution and genocide. Where did THEY go, without it?" Show a solitary smokestack.



3. Fade to a dark room, with a burglar armed with knife trying to break through a window. Three American fathers are shown waking from their slumber to screaming wives and imminent danger. .

#1 panics, tries to call 911 but drops the phone and is butchered for his trouble

#2 looks frightened, tells his wife, "Don't worry, just give him what he wants, surely he won't hurt us"

#3 tells wife to get out of the room and grabs a shotgun with flashlight attached and trains it on the intruder at the window, racking the slide with chilling sound. Announcer says, "The right to keep and bear arms is your ultimate defense when you face the gravest extreme. Where would HE be without it?" Show a pair of crumpled bodies as the police finally arrive.



4. And the last... Camera shows a group of dejected, tired-looking kids marching in chains to forced labor, under the direction of whip and rifle wielding guards, through a concentration camp gateway proudly labeled, "Rebuilding America - Work Will Make You Free". A group of parents, being herded toward a nearby railcar, watches their children being led away but can do nothing but weep. The announcer says, "The right to keep and bear arms is your only true guarantee of freedom. If you give it away today, where will your children's children be without it?" Show an American flag thrown on a trashpile, while a modernized Hammer / Sickle flag waves proudly in the breeze overhead.



Seem farfetched? Hmmmm, the first 3 have already happened... . but no way that #4 can happen in America, nope, sure, no way, no how. Yeah, right.

 

[The patriot]

I hope youre wrong Rusty.

I like them Mike.

Eric

 

[RustyJC]

Originally posted by The patriot

I hope you're wrong, Rusty.

Eric,



Facts are facts. That's what us pragmatists deal with (right, Mike? ). Nothing's going to change unless someone does something (like Mike's ad campaign) to cause change.



Rusty

 

[The patriot]

Maybe politicians do what their constituency wants where you live, but here they do wantever the he(( they want for the most part.

Something like this, NJ will go for though... ... I believe Lousyberg is an author of the bill.

I write him regularly, he knows how I feel on this.

Eric