In a Press Conference in Washington D.C. on October 4, 2005, President Bush was asked the question, "are you still a conservative?" Bush replied, "Am I what?" The question was returned, "Still a conservative?" Bush replied, "Am I still a conservative? Proudly so. Proudly so." Really, Mr. President? Perhaps one needs to define the term "conservative," because if policies and ideology reflect one's political association, Bush is anything but a "conservative"-that is assuming a "conservative" is one that supports conserving traditional American principles. There are certain principles that America was founded upon based on hundreds of years of lessons learned not only from our Founders but also from Englishmen in years past. Of these principles, some stand out as fundamental and essential to the preservation of American principles and freedom: namely, the right to bear arms and freedom from the intrusion of big-government, just to name a couple. Any self-proclaiming conservative would agree with these concepts. However, when one looks at Bush's position on just these issues, one must question Bush's self-proclamation of being a "conservative."

Patrick Henry stated, "The great objective is that every man be armed. . . . Everyone who is able may have a gun." Founding Father, George Masons stated, "To disarm the people [is] the best and most effectual way to enslave them." Would Bush disagree with this? Unfortunately, most Americans do not seem to understand the importance of this Constitutional and American principle: the right to bear arms. This right is more than merely the right to enjoy going hunting and even the right to protect one's self against a home-intruder (though you will not hear a politician deem the Second Amendment to mean more than this). When taken in context, the Second Amendment is to ensure that the people have a right to defend themselves against the government. Phyllis Schlafly puts it this way, "The principal purpose of the Second Amendment was to maintain our freedom from government. It is an insult to our heritage to imply that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment just to protect deer hunters." Phyllis Schlafly - The Schlafly Report, June, 2000.

Bush claims to support the "right to bear arms (though not in context of its original intent). Bush said in a Presidential Debate in Los Angeles on March 2, 2000, "Law-abiding citizens should be allowed to protect themselves and their families, I believe;" and on September 26, 1999, he says, "I believe they [law abiding citizens] should be able to hunt and protect themselves" (notice the limited purpose of the gun). Sounds good, right. When discussing the concern of those who have guns illegally, Bush responds to Bob Doyle's suggestion that all guns have internal locks on the guns-which must be locked at all times (what good is a gun locked?). Bush does not disagree with such an idea in theory: rather he agrees. However, Bush disagrees with the practicability of enforcing such a law. He says, "I don't mind trigger locks being sold, Doyle, but the question is how do we enforce it? Are we going to have trigger lock police knock on people's doors saying show me your lock? I have no problem -- 80 percent of the guns sold today have trigger locks with them, and I think that's fine." So, what then is the solution of finding out who has guns "illegally" and confiscating such guns and criminals, according to Bush?

First, according to Bush, we should have "instant background checks where guns are sold." Secondly, Bush believes that anyone who sells guns should be a licensed dealer: "I believe we ought to use the licensing process as a way to make sure that guns that are sold and purchased at gun shows have access to the instant background checks. The only people now who are allowed to... be a licensed dealer, are people who have a storefront. And I believe we ought to change the law to make them apply to gun shows as well." Bush feels that every gun sold should go through the "licensing process" and that one's ability to freely trade or sell guns privately, say at a gun show or elsewhere, should not be allowed. Notice how Bush wants to limit the sell of guns to "people who have storefront" only. What, then, happens to those who sell guns privately without a license from the government? Criminal punishment, perhaps?

While these ideas are not uncommon in America today, unfortunately, (supported even by "conservatives"), Bush goes on to support a much more radical, intrusive and government-controlling way to control who has guns. In the same Presidential Debate in Los Angeles on March 2, 2000, Bush proposed what he thought was the way to keep guns out of the hands of "criminals." Bush said, "I think the ultimate solution is for guns-smart guns to be manufactured that require a certain hand print in order for the gun to be used. I think that's hopefully where society is headed." What!? Assuming for a moment manufacturers and consumers could even afford this type of gun, Bush promotes the idea that laws be passed to require a gun to have hand print recognition for the gun to be able to be used. This implies that each person who purchases a gun must register not only his gun, but also his handprint. I am having a hard time even imagining a more intrusive and controlling way for the government to control who can use a gun.

Compare Bush's proposal to the idea that all cars must have a hand print recognition devise or eye-scan device (see Bush's "tamper proof identification," an identification based upon one's eye scan or fingerprint) in place for a person to be able to drive. After all, how many grand theft autos are committed each year, and what better way to keep stolen cars out of the hands of criminals? Seem ridiculous? Not with Bush in office. No matter what "social good" is advocated by such a policy, the means of gun control proposed by Bush slaps in the face of self-government and limited government. This is just one of the very many freedom-threatening, big-government, intrusive policies advocated by Bush. But I guess as long as Bush calls himself a conservative, conservatives all across the country will support him and "proudly so."