Here I am

Bush Administration Affirms Stance on "Assault Weapon" Ban Extension

Attention: TDR Forum Junkies
To the point: Click this link and check out the Front Page News story(ies) where we are tracking the introduction of the 2025 Ram HD trucks.

Thanks, TDR Staff

Happy Birthday 98rammer

Remote Control Nitro Monster Trucks.....

It's all about emotion

The anti-gunners do not have a leg to stand on when it comes to facts. The problem is, too many Americans are not interested in facts. What's on TV tonight and where to find the cheapest beer in town are by far and away more important topics.



How many Americans can name their Senator or Congressman? And we expect them to understand the importance of the 2nd Amendment? If they don't care enough to be even a little bit informed, how can the NRA reach them? (Even if the networks would give them the time. )



The Assault Rifle ban is pure emotion and that works well on a populace geared to "feel" rather than "think. "



Bush is going to do what is politically expedient and survive. No, it's not right. It's not leadership. The AR ban is outright political suicide to oppose though.



However, he's still a damn sight better than any of those empty headed Dems. I don't think any of their presidential candidates are gun friendly, are they?



Like 'em or not, the RNC is our last best hope for gun ownership in this country. Yes, they continue to drift leftwards (almost as fast as the DNC), but apparently that's what Ma and Pa America want... a free lunch and who can deliver it quickest.



Maybe it's time to split the country down the middle. One side for the "gimmes" and the other for those who believe in Constitutional government.



Tim
 
Re: It's all about emotion

Originally posted by NETim



Maybe it's time to split the country down the middle. One side for the "gimmes" and the other for those who believe in Constitutional government.



Tim



We tried that once in the 1860's.

The bad guys won. :(
 
More gun lovin' Democrats

Got this off of the NRA site Most Sweeping Gun Ban Ever Hits Congress:



Clinton Ban "Re-enactment" Targets Millions More Guns!!! As we predicted, the anti-gunners have begun the push to further expand the Clinton gun ban of 1994. Not content with merely re-authorizing the ban, Reps. John Conyers <B>(D-Mich. ) </B>and Carolyn McCarthy <B>(D-N. Y. )</B> have drafted legislation that bans millions more guns! It's a giant step closer to the goal stated by Clinton ban sponsor Sen. Dianne Feinstein <B>(D-Calif. )</B>, who said on CBS's 60 Minutes: "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them, Mr. and Mrs. America, turn them all in, I would have done it. " Toward that goal, Conyers/McCarthy would:



Ban every gun made to lawfully comply with the Clinton ban. The Clinton ban arbitrarily dictated the kinds of grips, stocks and attachments that new guns could have. Manufacturers complied. New guns were made to conform to the Clinton restrictions. Now prohibitionists want to ban the new guns, too.



Ban guns the Clinton legislation expressly exempted from prohibition. This includes Ruger Mini-14s, Ranch Rifles, and . 30 Caliber Carbines, and entire classes of guns, including fixed magazine rifles, as well as shotguns that hold under five rounds.



Ban guns widely used for target shooting. It bans the three center-fire rifles most commonly used for marksmanship competitions: the Colt AR-15, the Springfield M1A, and the M1 "Garand. "



Ban all semi-automatic shotguns: Remingtons, Winchesters, Benellis, Berettas, etc. , widely used for hunting, trap, skeet, and sporting clays, by banning their receivers (main component).



Ban guns for defense. Bans any semi-automatic rifle or shotgun any U. S. Attorney General one day claims is not "sporting," even though self-defense is a fundamental right and the federal constitution, the constitutions of 44 states, and the laws of all 50 states recognize the right to use guns for defense.



Ban 68 named guns (Clinton ban named 19 guns); Ban parts used to repair or refurbish guns, including frames or receivers; Ban importation of ammunition magazines exempt under Clinton ban; Ban private sales of millions of guns, their frames and receivers, and their parts; Ban semi-automatic rifles under 30" long (useful for home defense); Ban all semi-automatic rifles that can hold more than 10 rounds.



Ban guns rarely used in crime. State and local law enforcement agency reports have always shown that guns on the Clinton and Conyers/McCarthy ban lists have never been used in more than a small percentage of violent crime. The Congressionally-mandated study of the Clinton law concluded that guns it banned "were never used in more than a fraction of all gun murders. " But even if they were, are the rights and liberties of law-abiding citizens to be dictated by the acts of criminals?



Begin "backdoor" registration. Requires manufacturers of banned guns, frames, receivers, and parts to report the names of their dealers, and requires dealers to report any of those parts they have in stock. The next step is obvious-demanding the names of gun owners who buy those parts.



Please contact your U. S. Representative at (202) 224-3121 or by using the "Write Your Representatives" feature and urge them to oppose any attempt to keep alive the Clinton gun ban.



Posted: 5/10/2003 8:34:12 AM



Yep, the DNC is our friend.



Tim
 
Naawww, no need to worry, after all we have Republicans in power in Congress and the White House. President Bush wouldn't support a ban if it reached his desk, he has never signalled support for a ban after all... . uh..... hmmm.



Well, the Republicans wouldn't let it reach his desk, after all look how hard they fought the ban back in 1994... . uh... . hmmmm.



Well, the Dems won't get anywhere with this because now that we have conservatives in the White House and Congress they finally have the power to stand up in the face of popular sentiment and do what's right. After all, look how hard they have fought for us in repealing all those gun laws from previous administrations..... uh... . hmmmmm.



Yes, the above paragraphs are facetious, they are just intended to point out that our supposed allies could end up pushing a proposal like that into law out of political pragmatism. As far as repeals, the ugly truth is that politicians gain power through legislation and laws, and they are VERY RELUCTANT to give it up unless forced to do so. If the Repubs think this new Dem proposal polls well to the majority, they will send it to President Bush's desk in a heartbeat, chanting "if it saves one life... . " the whole time. The only way they will oppose it is if they fear it will endanger their job or party control due to disgruntled voters turning elsewhere.



Since the voters have nowhere else to turn, they have little to fear it seems. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
 
Re: Re: Better think real hard....

Originally posted by The patriot

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

Eric:)



He's on the record as saying he was for it all the way back to 2000. I still don't like it but it's not a new opinion. We all know banning stuff works don't we? Let's ban murders, oh wait... ...



Glenn
 
Where's Teddy when ya need him?

********************************************************* By Jim VandeHei Washington Post Staff Writer Wednesday, May 14, 2003



The Republican-controlled House will not renew the federal ban on Uzis and other semiautomatic weapons, a key leader said yesterday, dealing a significant blow to the campaign to clamp down on gun sales nationwide.



House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex. ) said most House members are willing to let the ban expire next year. "The votes in the House are not there" to continue the ban, he told reporters.



His spokesman, Stuart Roy, said, "We have no intention of bringing it up" for a vote.



As majority leader, DeLay decides which bills are voted on in the House. Because the 1994 assault weapons ban expires next year, the House and Senate must pass legislation to renew it by Sept. 13, 2004. If Congress does not act, the AK-47 and 18 other types of semiautomatic weapons that were outlawed a decade ago by President Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress would be legal again, handing a major victory to the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups.



Past votes and an NRA survey of lawmakers before the 2002 elections suggest that a majority of House members oppose renewing the ban, GOP officials said. But several Republicans, who requested anonymity, said some pro-gun GOP leaders worry that if members are forced to into a roll call vote, they might switch under pressure from gun control advocates.



President Bush, whose support of the assault weapons ban dates to his 2000 campaign, has drawn rebukes from NRA members and some GOP lawmakers. But several Republicans close to the White House said Bush has no plans to lobby lawmakers aggressively to extend the ban. That would allow him to officially oppose the NRA without completely turning against the powerful gun lobby by fighting to maintain a ban on semiautomatic weapons.



"The White House seems to think that the bill will never reach the President's desk," said a recent alert sent to members of the Gun Owners of America, a gun rights group with close ties to Republicans. "At least that is what top officials are counting on. In pursuing this strategy, they are trying to please both sides and are playing a very dangerous game. "



Congressional Republicans said Congress will renew the ban only if Bush publicly and firmly insists. "If the president demands we pass it, that would change the dynamics considerably," a House GOP leadership aide said. "The White House does not want us" to vote.



In a letter to Bush, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex. ) said: "It is now time for us to stand up against the unconstitutional gun-grabbing and help our nation in this time of great need by allowing law-abiding citizens to use the weapon of their choice. "



It is unclear how much pressure Bush and congressional Republicans will be under to bring up the volatile gun issue, especially in the 2004 election year. While many leading Senate and House Democrats are pushing legislation to renew the ban, the issue is not sharply partisan.



Many rural and southern Democrats, including a few who voted for the ban in 1994, oppose its renewal and reflect a notable shift in the politics of guns over the past decade. An aide to a Senate Democrat who voted for the ban in 1994 and faces reelection next year said many Democrats "hope it never comes up. "



The reason for the turnabout is rooted, in part, in the fallout of the 1994 vote and Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign loss.



In 1994, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate narrowly passed the ban on the sale and possession of 19 semiautomatic rapid-fire guns and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. Proponents of the ban said those weapons and copycat versions that do not fall under the ban are frequently used in violent crimes, including the deaths of scores of law enforcement officials. Opponents said the ban violates the constitutional right to bear arms.



In May 1994, the Democratic-controlled House passed the Clinton-backed gun ban by two votes. A few months later, House Speaker Thomas Foley (Wash. ), Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks (Tex. ) and several other Democrats who supported the ban were voted out of office after the NRA and other gun activists targeted them in a political campaign.



The NRA's power ebbed and flowed throughout the rest of the 1990s, hitting a high-water mark after Gore's narrow loss in 2000. Gore lost gun rights bastions such as Arkansas, West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee, in part, some Democratic analysts believe, because he was seen as hostile to gun owners. In this year's first debate among Democratic presidential hopefuls, only Al Sharpton vigorously endorsed the registration and licensing of handguns.



Most congressional Democratic leaders and presidential candidates strongly support the assault weapons ban and appear ready to wage a public fight over an issue they believe may pack a political punch with independents and women, in particular. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif. ) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N. Y. ) recently introduced legislation that would extend the Clinton gun ban with only minor modifications. If the House rejects the renewal, however, Senate action will not matter.



In the House, Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich. ) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N. Y. ) introduced a tougher bill last week that would ban a larger number of guns. "I don't want to put my members in any trouble. But if we actually face this, the American people [will support] keeping assault weapons from going back on the street," McCarthy said.





Tim
 
Sounds like we still have some Republicans of character in Congress, we must keep the letters and phone calls going to ensure that the balance doesn't tilt.



I am still disappointed in President Bush's stand on this, hopefully he will come around and not sell us out to the rabid antis like Sen. Feinstein.
 
Originally posted by Mike Ellis

Sounds like we still have some Republicans of character in Congress, we must keep the letters and phone calls going to ensure that the balance doesn't tilt.



I am still disappointed in President Bush's stand on this, hopefully he will come around and not sell us out to the rabid antis like Sen. Feinstein.



He will probably see the light just before the next presidential race. :rolleyes:

Eric
 
Back
Top