DeLay: "Zero chance" for (Assault Weapons Ban) renewal passing in House

AWBanSunset.com ^ | 5/9/03 | Stuart Roy

[E. Pluribus Unum]

House Majority leader Tom DeLay, through a spokesman, says the recently introduced AW Ban renewal bills (the Senate version, or the significantly more restrictive House version) will not pass in the House of Representatives.

[green team 1999]

bravo!

[tpaine]

Your link doesnt work, but in any case, Bush qualified that release with his support of current law, & reiterated that the feds can 'reasonably regulate' weapons. -- In effect we are giving away our rights to bear military type arms.

THe fox is in the henhouse, and imo, gun contol won't stop till we are regulated to aprox. Canadian/British standards.

[ez]

Wiring your children's jaws shut would make it that much harder for them to become obese.

[Dr Warmoose]

That having been said, I wonder if letting the assault weapons ban die is such a good idea

Having large safes filled with never fired green tag (pre-ban) firearms, I stand to lose a lot of investment value with the sunsetting of the "assault" weapons ban. Nevertheless, my financial loss is my brother's gain in freedom and personal safety. A small price to pay for freedom.

The rest of your post reflects the 0.2% rule. The idea that because of a negligable possibility of something bad happening, then the entire activity must be banned for everyone without distinction. That is a nanny-state mentality that for some perverse reason trusts a corrupt and inept government with benevolant morality that surpasses even your values. It seems pretty simple thinking that in a highly policed and regulated area like a maximum security prison, drugs and weapons can be found all over the place, that these terrorists can easily accumulate scarey weapons -law or no law. All the law effectively accomplishes is keeping defensive tools out of the hands of honest, law abiding citizens, and by making it even more attractive for the bad guys to accumulate these tools for themselves.

Given that, the magazine capacity laws made the wonder 9 an inefficient defense tool because the advantages of double capacity firearms outweighed the punch of the lower capacity 10mm and .45ACP pistols. With the magazine restrictions, the law of unintended consequences took effect and smart people went to the heavier calibers because they wanted their ten rounds to really count. Now we can gun down people several rooms away with a good FMJ 10mm round rather than having that 9mm projectile get stuck in the insulation.

Come to think of it, my inventory of rare non-"LEO Only" hicap magazines for the Glocks will drop in value too as manufacturers from around the globe will go on a 24/7 production cycle of hi-caps for a hungry population who now have inventories of Glock 20s,21s,and 22s.

Ahhhh, [As I broadly smile]

[Fraulein]

It appears that many 'conservatives' think that being a RINO is an excellent piece of political strategy. However, where does that really leave us?

The two-party system ensures that politicans do not have to really represent their constituency any more. Why? Because they know that republicans will always end up voting GOP, and if only by default, simply in order to keep the dems from getting elected. So they often just take our votes for granted. The contemporary manifestation of the two-party system serves only those who are in power.

Everything becomes a matter of making it appear that there are fundamental differences between the parties, when in actuality there are fewer and fewer of them to be found. But certainly there are smokescreens everywhere. For example, republicans will often let the GOP get away with things that they would never let the dems get away with, and vice versa. Democrats -- who used to care about human rights, and who never opposed any of Clinton's military adventures -- opposed not the Iraqi war, per se, so much as they simply opposed Bush. But why? Well, that's what happens when one deserts principle for politics, as many here also advocate, but in relation to other things. Anyone else is deemed 'a purist.'

We said that the dems opposed the war out of hypocrisy. However, the dems contradicted themselves -- and made fools of themselves -- out of desperation: anything to keep themselves from having to see that there are very few differences between the parties. It becomes a matter of opposition simply for the sake of opposition, even if there really isn't any real difference.

That's also why Republicans will often contradict themselves, make fools of themselves, and sell out on everything that they say they believe in too...anything to defeat the dems and to keep the illusion of a dichotomy alive. ("It's better than the dems!") We therefore also use empty opposition in order to excuse the unjustifiable. The irony is that we necessarily become only more like the dems as a result; and then we turn around and laud this move as being an excellent strategic move. So, again, where does that really leave us?

[Stopislamnow]

Tom Delay ROCKS.

[skinkinthegrass]

Sorry...DIFI

[Dr Warmoose]

No man or woman is truly free who does not own and operate effectively a rocket propelled grenade launcher or shoulder mounted, laser guided anti-aircraft missile.

Just like Vince Foster would be alive today if he had a handgun, the Branch Davidians would be alive today if they owned and effectively operated a rocket propelled grenade launcher and shoulder mounted, laser guided anti-aircraft missiles.

Could you imagine Ruby Ridge if Randy Weaver had mined his property with remote detonation Claymore's?

[El Gato]

Assault RIFLES are submachine guns.

Not quite. Submachine guns fire pistol catridges, battle rifles fire full power catridges and assault rifles fire intermediate power catridges, such as the 5.56X45, 5.45x39 and 7.62x39 (and the old 7.92Kurtz that the Original Assault Rifle fired) The M-2 Carbine is something of a special case, since it's catridge is less powerfull than some pistol catridges, and slightly more than others, but is not a pistol catridge per se, although derived from one. Whatever an M-2 is, it's a hoot to shoot.

[El Gato]

This means Hi-Cap mags will be back in circulation by Christmas!

That would be nice, but even if the renewal bill never sees the light of day, let alone become law, the ban will not expire until midnight September 13, 2004, not 2003.

[El Gato]

Does this mean that new guns will be sold with high cap mags now?

sure, it the ban expires we'll have all the goodies back...well except in those states that have similar, or more restrictive laws on the books. If you live in CA or MA you'll still be SOL. Unless the Supreme Court saves your a$$.

[Dan from Michigan]

Damn. Now I'm really confused.

[El Gato]

I'll say. No man or woman is truly free who does not own and operate effectively a rocket propelled grenade launcher or shoulder mounted, laser guided anti-aircraft missile.

You jest, but I'll bet Jefferson, Washington and Madison, not to mention Franklin, would have aggreed whole heartedly with that statement had such items existed in their day. They had no problem with individuals owning cannon or privateers, ships with many cannons, so why would a little RPG and SAM bother them?

[Lx]

What's an assault weapon?

A Mini 14 with a flash suppressor is to feared as one of the dreaded assault rifles, while the one without the flash suppressor is Ok for children of all ages.

A ten round clip is ok, an 11 round clip will kill children, raise the deficit, increase global warming and get Scott Peterson off on a technicality.

Do you know how ridiculous it is to have to have 10-5 round clips for a Mini 14 since the knock off 10 round ones are junk? (Unless someone knows a good supplier.)

The bottom line is that only law abiding citizens such as myself are restricted by these laws. The terrorists and criminals have their own supply of weapons.

Let this bad useless law die. I don't know if it's death will do us Californians any good but it's a start.

[El Gato]

He's the one that took the oath of office of President, not Delay.

Actually Delay, like all Congress critters, judges and military officers as well as many uncivil servants, all take an oath to support and defend the Constitution of the US. The Constitution requires it, and it includes state legislators, judges and executives and other "officers" of the states to do likewise.

[vannrox]

.


Please, please be true. I am so sick of limp wrist republicans (LWR) playing "Kissy Kissy" all over the place to play nice with Democrats who have taken an oath of Allegance to a Marxist Takeover of this Country.

I am so tired of all the let downs, and I am so used to all the LWR Republicans actions that I am really afraid to get my hopes up. Republicans should be able to stand tall and proud and to be able to proclaim that they stand

BY the Constitution,

For the Constitution,

and With the Constitution!

They need to shout it from the Rooftops and really act as MEN instead of feminizeed wimp limp wrist kissy kissy Republicans (FWLWKKR)'s.

[Constitutional Patriot]

"If terrorists wanted to use automatic weapons, they would get the regardless of the law."

If terrorists want to terrorize,why are they going to putz around trying to modify firearms when all they have to do to inflict terror is detonate a bomb on a bus or in some other crowded area? The whole terrorism angle in this debate is a red herring. A bomb is easy to make and use and more effective than a firearm in inflicting indescriminent harm.

[E. Pluribus Unum]

To bad Bush didn't do his and say he "wouldn't" sign any unconstitutional laws and would have those already on the books thrown out.

He's the one that took the oath of office of President, not Delay.

You shouldn't be allowed to vote. You don't have the brains God gave one of Tom Harkin's dung heaps.

Bush is playing good cop. Delay is playing bad cop.

The objective in politics is to WIN, not say things YOU want to hear.

You don't win by stomping around like Joe McCarthy (who was right about the Commies but made being anti-Communist a joke) giving everybody an easy target to shoot at.

Which would you rather have, genius:

(1) Bush says "WE NO GONNA RENEW AWB" and lose to Hillary, who implements it anyway when she becomes President? or

(2) Bush says "I will sign AWB if it hits my desk," Delay never lets it out of committe so it can't be signed, and Bush gets reelected?

Do you have enough brain cells to comprehend which is the more desirable situation?

[thepitts]

FYI.... guess if DeLay is correct the 'I want vote for him ever again' crowd will have to move onto another topic...

Oh, you must mean topics like CFR or the patriot act or sending 15 BILLION dollars to Africa for abortions or....

[Guillermo]

The law is still in place...how is not renewing it going to contribute to the types of incidents that occured today?