Gun-control supporters split over strategy to extend assault weapons ban

[conservativefromGa]

Gun-control supporters split over strategy to extend assault weapons ban

(05-07) 15:37 PDT WASHINGTON (AP) --

People who want to keep assault weapons off the streets are divided over the best way to extend the ban on those guns, which is set to expire two months before the 2004 elections.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., on Thursday will introduce an extension of the assault weapons ban that she helped enact in 1994. The Bush administration has announced its support for continuing the prohibition on military-style assault weapons.

The issue promises to become mixed up with election-year politics, just as the original ban -- passed by a Democratic Congress and signed by President Clinton -- helped fuel the Republican takeover of Congress in 1994.

Many gun-control advocates who are normally allied with Feinstein are backing a more sweeping measure that Democrats in the House also will introduce Thursday.

The bill by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is modeled on California law, which supporters of gun control point to as much more effective than the federal law on assault weapons in combating gun makers' efforts to evade the ban.

The difference is in the definition of an assault weapon. The current law and Feinstein's bill cast a narrower net than does the House Democrats' proposal.

Gun-rights groups said they will try to defeat both bills. "Empirical evidence shows this gun ban has had zero effect on reducing crime," said Andrew Arulanandam, spokesman for the National Rifle Association.

[TLBSHOW]

GOP sees reason to blur party lines on gun debate

http://www.boston.com/news/politics/campaign2000/news/GOP_sees_reason_to_blur_party_lines_on_gun_debate.shtml

[Lael]

I say that if Bush signs it, then he is either STUPID, or wants to throw the election

Whether he has to sign is UNIMPORTANT!

What is important is that the ban has a 10 year SUNSET clause.

The Powers That Be want extensions to the PATRIOT act, set to SUNSET in 2005.

In view of the SHAMEFUL attempt by the Administration to nullify the AWB Sunset, in my view, the FEDGOV cannot be trusted with ANY more "powers".

Thus, I will oppose the Patriot act in all of its extensions, and INSIST on strict enforcement, against said FEDGOV, of the Bill of Rights!

Enough is ENOUGH!!!

[TLBSHOW]

The Powers That Be want extensions to the PATRIOT act, set to SUNSET in 2005.

Patriot Act To Be Made Permanent? By Report by J.J. Johnson

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/888978/posts

[Gritty]

The bill by Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., and Rep. John Conyers, D-Mich., is modeled on California law

Does this mean we all get to contribute $.10 a bullet so the proceeds can go towards emergency room care for the illegals children?

[rudypoot]

Anyone who votes solely on one issue is really full of themselves. It's like a senator using a litmus test to vote on judical nominees.

I don't like the ban either. But congress still has to authorize it's extention. If the bill doesn't get to his desk, it's a win-win situation for Bush: He won't get to sign it and he won't shed a tear over it either.

If a congress controlled by the republican party votes to extend the ban than that speaks volumes of the whole party, and not just Bush.

[Jack Black]

I guess it depends on whether you believe everything political is just an "issue to be exploited by the GOP" or whether you think some things, like the Bill of Rights, are worth defending based no principle. Bush has huge political capital, much of it avilable to him due to the work of pro-second ammendment citizens. Strangely, some of us would like to see him return the favor, even if there is some cost associated.

[Jack Black]

"based no principle" should be "based on .."

[Doc #1]

"Strangely, some of us would like to see him return the favor, even if there is some cost associated."

And if that "cost" includes loss of the Presidency in 2004 will I, as a gun owner, NRA member, and concealed carry permit holder be better off with a Democratic President because your personal sense of justice has been satisfied?

I suggest you and others of like mind read the following:

“The president has claimed the middle road — supporting an extension of the current ban but not endorsing the stronger measures that gun-control supporters say would outlaw many "copycat" assault weapons. That position has forced Democrats in the Senate to reject plans for a more ambitious weapons ban…

Chris W. Cox, the N.R.A's chief lobbyist, said in an interview that while the defeat of the assault-weapons ban would be one of the N.R.A's top priorities, the group's focus would be on convincing members of Congress to vote against it so that it never reaches Mr. Bush's desk. "Do we agree with the administration's position on this? No, we don't, but the real fight is going to be not at that level, but in Congress," he said…”

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/08/politics/08GUNS.html

[demosthenes the elder]

wakey-wakey!

[Joe Brower]

"wakey-wakey!"

Yeah, I wish I could wake up. Work today has been a nightmare.

[Joe Brower]

[TLBSHOW]

ABC NEWS Radio @ PM reporting this now with Chuckie on..

They expect the President to back them.

[TLBSHOW]

ABC NEWS Radio @ 2 PM reporting this now with Chuckie on..

They expect the President to back them.

[oldfart]

What we do in the privacy of a voting booth is one thing, but what we do and say in public should be another. Who I vote for is my business, but why should I broadcast, for the world to see, my intention to vote for GWB regardless of what he does between now and the election? His people read these messages too, and if they see a sizeable group who will forgive him any sin and still vote for him... Then why not go ahead and commit the sin?

Hillary isn't going to be a serious contender for the next presidency... she's having trouble keeping her job in New York. None of the candidates presently running for the Demos even want to talk about guns. They remember what happened last election.

Vote for whomever you want for whatever reason you want. But that's eighteen months from now. In the meantime, don't give a RINO any encouragement. Tell 'em loudly and publicly that you'll vote for Ossama Bin Laden rather than anyone who'd stab his constituency in the back. What you do in the voting booth is your business.

[Joe Brower]

"Come over to the dark side, Mr. President!"

[Tauzero]

"The Bush team has neutralized a potential Democratic campaign issue."

I don't think so.

Suppose congress doesn't pass it.

Well, the congress happens to be held by Republicans.

Since he's the leader of his party, Democrats can criticize Bush for not working hard enough to bring congress into line and pass the bill. By not actively working for what he claims to support, he will be cast as either impotent or feigning impotence, of being disingenuous.

Either way, a Democratic candidate can claim to be a better alternative.

Being disingenuous appears to be the core of the "strategery" advocated by some here. I don't think most Americans will be fooled by this tactic.

I also don't think Bush is being disingenuous, actually. My hunch is that the ban will be renewed, Bush supports it like his spokesmen say he does, and he is merely aligning himself to get out in front of that event. Late support, too, would be cast as disingenuous.

[RogueIsland]

My hunch is that the ban will be renewed

Moreover, there will be plenty of people who will call it a "victory" for gun rights because it was not as bad as the more restrictive alternative.

[gtech]

Anyone who votes solely on one issue is really full of themselves. It's like a senator using a litmus test to vote on judical nominees.

And anyone who votes for a candidate just because he has the correct letter next to his name is equally really full of themselves (sic).

[vollmond]

No vote on judicial nominees = no vote on the extension. Make the extension vote the last vote before the election. It's the law now, but will expire just before then. Are the Dems willing to play chicken?

[PhilDragoo]

Bush and all of them passed the "campaign finance reform" ban on freedom of speech which the First Amendment said shall not be infringed.

I am not in any mood for restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms.

His signature on this extension means he wants to spend more time with his family.