Jacob Sullum

 When John F. Kerry declared that George W. Bush's middle initial "stands for 'wrong,'" the most commonly heard rejoinder was that the senator's middle initial must stand for "flip-flopper." This familiar anti-Kerry epithet certainly seems apt, especially on the subject of the war in Iraq.

 The other day, Kerry called the U.S. invasion of Iraq "the wrong war in the wrong place at the wrong time." I happen to agree with that assessment, but Kerry apparently does not; he almost immediately reverted to his earlier position, that the war was justified but was not carried out properly.

 Kerry has gone through this bait and switch so many times that I've lost count. His admirers, I suppose, see his ability to hold inconsistent positions as a sign of his subtlety, in contrast to Bush's simplistic, black-and-white view of the world. But it's clear that Kerry is playing to anti-war Democrats while trying not to alienate pro-war voters.

 The Bush campaign has emphasized the insincerity, opportunism and lack of principle suggested by this sort of maneuvering. Yet the president also is guilty of trying to have it both ways. Consider the federal "assault weapon" ban, which will expire Sept. 13 because Bush did not push for its renewal, although he claimed to support it.

 Unlike the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which took out full-page newspaper ads excoriating Bush for his inaction, I'm happy to see this law fade away. It was a fraud from the beginning, based on a strategy of deliberately misleading the public about the weapons covered by the ban.

 Contrary to the Brady Campaign's ads, so-called assault weapons, which are distinguished mainly by their scary looks, do not fire any faster than other semi-automatics, and they are not especially suited for killing cops or committing mass murder. Not surprisingly, the latest evaluation from the National Institute of Justice, as described last month by The Washington Times, concludes that the decade-old ban has had no discernible impact on gun violence.

 The honest response to the "assault weapon" ban would have been to oppose it as an empty, feel-good measure that accomplished nothing except to prepare the way for more ambitious restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms. Instead, Bush played to the majority that supported the ban by promising to sign a renewal bill but placated the highly motivated (and better-informed) minority that opposed the ban by making sure the bill never reached his desk.


Jacob Sullum

Jacob Sullum is a senior editor at Reason magazine and a contributing columnist on Townhall.com.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Be the first to read Jacob Sullum's column. Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
 
©Creators Syndicate