Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban

senate.gov ^ | April 16, 2003 | Democrats Feinstein and Schumer

[TLBSHOW]

ping

[philman_36]

Things that make you go Hmmmmm...

[cynicom]

Sometimes one has to wonder if Bush wants to be like his father. Kill a few votes here, a few there and next thing you know, you lose. The Lott affair, open borders, gun affairs, Islam is peace and on and on.

Bush cannot contgrol his own party members for a tax cut but the dems welcome him with open arms for gun control. Way to go, just watch that cliff ahead of you in 04.

[FreePaul]

Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban

The whole Democrat party should welcome Bush's support. It could get a Democrat President for them in 2004. This, along with the open border policy, could easily get Bush unelected. I want a Republican president, not just one elected as a Republican.

[TLBSHOW]

chuckie has it at his web site too...

http://schumer.senate.gov/SchumerWebsite/pressroom/press_releases/PR01632.html

[philman_36]

I'm surprised it isn't tattooed across their "collective" backsides.

[Keeper of the Turf]

Don't vote for Bush then. A democrat will get elected which will give us the AW ban plus a whole lot more.

[TLBSHOW]

Who said don't vote for Bush instead what must be done is convince the President to reverse his stand on this issue and do not advance the liberal democrats and Bill Clintons agenda.......

[annyokie]

Is it the preceived incrimentalism toward complete gun control that has people here upset? I'm not trying to be a wiseguy or ignorant, I am just puzzled.

We own a LOT of guns, but no assualt rifles. Someone give me the arguement please. FRmail me if it is way long or you wish to remain anonymous.

[Keeper of the Turf]

I've read many post saying, "Bush will not get my vote"..."I will stay home on election day"...yada yada yada. What if he doesn't reverse his stand? Are we going to let a democrat get elected - which will be far worse than Bush?

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

Shall not be infringed.

Simple as that. No other enumerated right says "Shall not be infringed."

Any restriction at all, no matter how "reasonable" is more than infringed.

Did they write the Constitution as a joke?

[annyokie]

Okay. I can go along with that. But it begs the question of the interpretation of the rest of the Constitution and the Amendments to.

And no, I don't subscribe to that "living document" nonsense. But is a static interpretation of all after more than 200 years reasonable? I am torn.

[btcusn]

Things that make you go PUKE!!
Jack

[TLBSHOW]

What if he doesn't reverse his stand? Are we going to let a democrat get elected - which will be far worse than Bush?

Feinstein and Schumer Welcome President Bush's Support of Assault Weapons Ban

.......liberal democrats are the enemy and must never be voted in...........

[the gillman@blacklagoon.com]

When the second amendment was written, they must have had a picture of Schumer, Kennedy, Hillarious and Fineswine right in front of them.

The founding fathers knew what to do.

[ThirstyMan]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with your sarcasm.
I'm not seeing the Democratic platform as a viable option just because a few citizens have their thirst for assault weaponry trimmed back.
There are ideologues on the conservative side and there are ideologues on the liberal side.
Issues such as the assault weapons ban brings out all our ideologues. They see this as only the first step toward disarmament of the populace -- a Constitutional violation.
Partial birth abortion otoh, brings out the liberal's ideologues who see restrictions on that heinous act of murder to be a first step in a march to eliminate abortions altogether.
It's not the ideologues who will decide the next election!

[wku man]

It's not "perceived " incrementalism at all, ma'am...it is happening. This is how England, Australia, Canada, and New Zealand have managed to almost completely disarm their citizenry. Demonize, then criminalize one class of guns, then when that ban "doesn't do anything to stop gun violence", take it another step farther. If there's too much resistance at the time to criminalize a class of firearms, go after "evil" ammo. Or create a new tax for ammo or firearms. It's real, it's happening, and folks on both sides of the aisle are to blame.

Scouts Out! Cavalry Ho!

[dinodino]

Yes. Anything other than a direct reading is indefensible. The Second Amendment enumerates the right that gives the People the means to preserve all their other rights.

[Hacksaw]

You know, a good strategy for the judiciary committee would be to hold the committee vote on the ban to be contigent upon full floor votes for Piclering, Estrada, and Owen.

Schumer has been such a prick that they should vote it down anyway.