Posted on 05/14/2003 2:32:06 PM PDT by Godebert
By JIM ABRAMS
ASSOCIATED PRESS
WASHINGTON (AP) -
President Bush should take the lead in overcoming resistance within his own party to extending an assault weapons ban due to expire next year, Democrats said Wednesday.
"If the bill dies we will lay it at the president's doorstep," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said a day after House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told reporters that the 1994 law banning the manufacture of 19 types of common military-style assault weapons would not be renewed.
Schumer said the gun bill would be an issue in the 2004 election, a development that could pose problems for Democrats who represent districts with strong gun rights sentiment. The assault ban vote was also a campaign topic in 1994, the year Republicans recaptured the House after spending 40 years in the minority.
Bush, taking a position at odds with the National Rifle Association, has voiced support for extending the ban, and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer on Wednesday said that support would carry weight in Congress.
"This is a matter that the House has to work out, of course, by listening to the will of its members, but the president's position is clear on it," Fleischer said. "When the president states his position like that, it helps get the message to the Congress."
Fleischer would not say whether Bush would pressure DeLay to bring such a bill up for a vote. DeLay, R-Texas, on Tuesday indicated that there would be no effort to renew the current law before it expires on Sept. 13, 2004. "The votes in the House are not there to reauthorize it," he said.
"The real question is will the president weigh in and ask the leaders to schedule a vote," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., who as a senior adviser to President Clinton played a key role in guiding the 1994 legislation through Congress.
(Excerpt) Read more at lasvegassun.com ...
HAHAHAHA.......wrong once again!
In "my post above,"
To: ApesForEvolution
Your interpretation of my post makes you think that.
I don't see anywhere you can say I said I wasn't for the 2nd amendment; I'm just against assault weapons, which seems to bother you to such an extent that you try to smear me with a years old comment I made about my sister who died of ovarian cancer getting help at the National Institute of Health.
Even though I'm sure you're offended by my not agreeing with what weapons you might own, I'm sure you'd have no trouble at all deciding who can live and who can die so you won't have to fork over your hard earned dough.
I take it when you or somebody in your family gets sick, you'll just let them die, rather than avail yourself of anything the government might be involved in.
After all, that's not mentioned in the Constitution.
346 posted on 04/13/2003 3:29 AM EDT by Howlin (It's a great day to be an American -- or an Iraqi!)
Ah, not to put too fine a point on it, but WHERE does it say that I "desire to ban A/W's and determine who can possess what firearms?
Not to be too picky.
You are the expert about that stuff. You spew the same old malcontent crap from your mouth all the time.
It is not a game. It is our lives. There was once honor in congress. Now there is not. There was once a Constitutional ethic in congress. Now there is not.
It seems I understand, doesn't it?
Unless they commit "death by repulsive personality" as the Libertarian party is doing.
Not on that issue. I'm watching for a return to Constitutional rule. The ground is fertile. I'm fairly easy to please, but I have no forgiveness for the erosion of Constitutional principles. It appears that the current crop of congresscritters never read that document.
Congress needs to actively protect the entire Bill of Rights, rolling back years of violations.
I'm also watching for meaningful protection of our borders, both legal and illegal penetration.
http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/votes_index.html#state
And found that Michigan has voted for the Democrat Presidential Candidate in 3 of the last 4 elections. Based on that alone, I'm not convinced that enflaming the passions of gun owners (at least in MI) is all that risky.
The gun voters in Michigan could not have really believed that Clinton and Gore were their best 2A protectors. There must have been other issues involved, and I'm betting they were and remain Union issues. I know here in NY, that is very much the case.
A few years back I worked for Xerox in their Model Shop, and all of the modelmakers/machinists were as dyed in the wool conservatives as you'd ever want to meet, and almost all gun afficionados. But they rarely voted Republican because of a perceived antipathy to Unions and their workers. They couldn't believe I voted Republican, because they considered me a working stiff just like them.
I have never owned a gun, and probably never will (though I have contributed to the NRA twice). Although I'm in the process of buying a house and since I live alone, I'm thinking it might be a good idea to get one now. But applying for a permit in NYS is a genuine pain in the ass.
In addition, I'm just so uneducated as far as guns are concerned, I don't know where to begin to learn. No one in my family has ever owned a gun, so it's quite foreign to me. And I'm under the impression that it would take a ton of practice to get any good at being able to handle it, and put it to good use should I need to.
LOL.......you're too generous.
Now about sticking it to that Republican Party by voting for "someone else"......that'll show 'em. You go for it.
If enough of you morons actually did what you always talk about, ad nauseum, you would undoubtedly be instrumental in electing a liberal Democrat.
Yup......that's showin' 'em. You could pat yourself on the back for a long time over that one.
Why stop at taking your support elsewhere? If that's showin' 'em who's boss, imagine the impact of voting for a Chuckie Schumer type. Boy, those Repubicans would be sorry then, heh?
I mean....never mind that you've cut off your nose to spite your face. Noses aren't really what they're cracked up to be anyway, right?
You just don't get it, do you? The only result of political games and compromise with the socialists is the incremental loss of our freedom. I don't mean this in a theoretical sense, history bears this out.
No one wants it, but government comes ever closer to the 'line in the sand' every day, and the momentum towards that day is gathering steam. I would rather get the enevitable fight over with so that the younger members of my family can once again enjoy the freedoms I had as a child.
Conservatives of 60 years ago would be calling the current govt a police state. You're just used to it, or you're young enough that you never knew the difference.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.