8028 Ritchie Highway Suite # 303 Pasadena, MD 21122 (877) MAP-2004
Bush Support For Clinton Gun Ban Shows President Does NOT Believe In Second Amendment
September 13, 2004
Dear Friends of the Constitutional Republic,
The important thing to remember about Bill Clinton's 1994 ban on so-called "assault weapons" that expires today is that President Bush supports this ban. Mr. Bush was for and favored the extension of this un-Constitutional, ineffective law which, had I been President, would have been vetoed had it come to my desk.
On September 10, 2004, Mr. Bush, at a rally in Chillicothe, Ohio, got applause when he said: "We stand for the Second Amendment, which gives every American the individual right to bear arms." He said the same thing, and again got applause, this same day at another rally in Huntington, West Virginia.
On September 6, 2004, Vice President Dick Cheney got applause when he told a rally: "We stand strongly for the Second Amendment, and we will defend the individual right of every American to bear arms."
But, if the Bush/Cheney team are for this Second Amendment right, as they have said repeatedly all across our country, why were they for Clinton's un-Constitutional ban on "assault weapons?" -- particularly since there is no solid evidence that it worked.
On August 17, 2004, the Washington Times reported on a (surprise!) unreleased independent study commissioned by the National Institute of Justice which says: "We cannot clearly credit the [assault weapons] ban with any of the nation's recent drop in gun violence... Should it be renewed, the ban's effects on gun violence are likely to be small at best and perhaps too small for reliable measurement." The reported added that "assault weapons" were "rarely used in gun crimes even before the ban."
But, whether ban worked or not is irrelevant. It is un-Constitutional and should never have become law!
Some of the arguments for this un-Constitutional ban were embarrassingly stupid. The Brady Campaign To Stop Gun Violence -- an absurdly-named group that wants us to believe guns by themselves commit violence -- ran a full-page ad in the Washington Post supporting the ban. Featuring a huge photo of Osama bin Laden holding a rifle, the headline above him read: "TERRORISTS OF 9-11 CAN HARDLY WAIT FOR 9-13."
Get it? The anti-Second Amendment, anti-self-defense Brady Bunch want us to believe that when it's OK to legally buy "assault weapons" then terrorists will start doing this. But, of course, the murderous acts of terrorism committed on 9/11/2001 were accomplished by terrorists using box-cutters, not "assault weapons," to hijack airplanes!
But, suppose the terrorists did use "assault weapons" on 9/11 to hijack those airplanes? Does anyone think the "assault weapons" ban would have stopped them from using such weapons? Does anyone think that terrorists about to commit mass murder with hijacked airplanes would really care about violating a gun-control law?
Earth to the Brady Bunch: Terrorists are Law-Breakers! They do not care about our laws!
If I had been President, there would have been no "assault weapons" ban. If Congress passed it, I would have vetoed it. And if I am elected President, I will immediately ask for:
-Repeal of the unconstitutional Instantcheck system, requiring law-abiding Americans to get the government's permission to exercise their Constitutional rights (and which does nothing to lower crime);
-Repeal of laws which deny Constitutional rights to persons who have committed no crime -- or who have committed a "crime" as minor as a parent spanking a child for misbehavior;
-Repeal of the "safety-free" zones surrounding America's public schools, where only criminals are allowed to have guns;
-Repeal of the un-Constitutional draconian gun bans implemented by the District of Columbia, over which Congress is given exclusive legislative authority under Article I, Section 8, of the Constitution;
-Repeal of the ban on full automatics -- ownership of which requires some of the most draconian screening procedures on the Federal books;
-Repeal of legislation which somehow treats ammunition as the hazard, rather than the criminal himself -- and which has repeatedly been used as a stepping stone in efforts to ban all ammunition;
-Repeal of regulations which restrict importation of Constitutionally protected firearms -- and which treat sportsmen like criminals by restricting the use of "federal" (i.e., taxpayer-owned) lands; and
-Repeal of statutes and regulations which un-Constitutionally forbid Second Amendment groups from telling voters about the anti-gun records of officeholders.
For God, Family, & the Republic,
Michael A. Peroutka
Peroutka for President in 2004 www.peroutka2004.com