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 ...
And just for my edification, did you also make the same comments when Bush Said he had some constitutional conserns regarding CFR bill and then turned around and signed it?
Ditto for me!!!!!!!
In major statewide races, it went GOP for Gov(defeating incumbent) in 90, gov and Sec of State(defeating 40 year incumbent) in 94 and 98, and Sec of state and Att General(both open seats) in 02.
It went dem for Sec of state and AG in 90(incumbents), pres in 92, ag in 94(incumbent), pres in 96, AG in 98(open), Pres in 2000, Gov in 2002(open).
The GOP has controlled the state senate since 1984, and the state legislautre since 1998. The last gov race was 3% 4% for the last presidential race.If we convince about 80,000 people to switch from dem to GOP, we'll take MI in 2004. If we get those people that voted for Granholm, but also Mike Cox, we'll win. If we get the people that voted for Posthumus but not Bush(Macomb, Monroe, etc) and people that voted Bush the first time, but not Posthumus(Yoopers, State Workers, Eaton County), we can win.
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.
It does, and I highly recommend training, especially with a pistol. One factor you also need to consider is recoil. The first day I shot my 12 gauge shotgun, my shoulder was extremely sore. I then used better technique by shooting it more often, and now I hardly notice the recoil.
If you are going to own a firearm, I'd ask someone in your union shop that has one where a good shop/range is to fire a few rounds from different firearms before spending big money buying one. Make sure you get the best firearm that is for you.
YOU just don't get it, do you? The only result of voting for a third party is splitting the conservative vote and election of liberal Democrats, history bears this out. Think 1992, and Perot.
They know that, and they don't care - and that makes them just as dangerous as the left, in my opinion.
I'm an ancient computer geek. I know what BS you speak. Politics is not a game, as it affects the welfare of this Nation. Those who treat it as a game are contemptable.
If the Republicans can't manage to vote a Constitutional conscience when they are the majority in Congress, then there isn't a significant difference in the two parties. It makes little difference if the Bill of Rights is destroyed by Dems or Pubs. If the congresscitters want my vote they must make it worth my while. If they don't listen to me on key issues, they fail to represent me. If they fail to represent me, I won't vote for them anymore. If Pubs vote the Dem line, then let the Dems have full control. The Pubs wouldn't deserve to be on the hill.
SOME Republicans don't deserve it, but the party gives us more hope than your tantrum votes.
You end up being part of the problem rather than part of the solution. The all or nothing philosophy might make you feel good, but you end up with nothing and in stagnation.
As someone mentioned earlier, look what the Perot vote did. I guess we can thank your type for Bill Clinton and the mess he left. Yeah......thanks a lot.
Your huffy I-must -have-it-all attitude helped promote your beliefs wonderfully, didn't it?
The Perot vote came out that way because Mr. "read my lips" Bush lied to those who put him in office.
If the Pubs want my vote they must represent me. On matters as important as the one we are discussing, there will be no quarter. I've voted "straight party" in the past, and got screwed by the "game playing". Now the congresscritters have to listen to thier constituants. That is supposedly what they are paid to do. They hold a majority. They should use it. Look what the Dems can do when they are the minority. The Dems do plan ahead and work together. The Pubs cower in corner and trade away Constitutional institutions for pork.
I won't look the other way any more. Either my elected officials are with me, or they are against me.
Sorry you like to bargan away your rights. You won't bargan mine away.
Some just can't see, as their political party poms poms are obstructing their vision.....
It's becoming more clear that the differences between the two party cartel in DC are inconsequential.
You continue this tact, clearly underestimating myself and those like me. This is the smug elitest air that gives a great stink to Capital Hill. You might just be one of those congresscritters.
I guess you overlooked the possibility that I, too, am playing a game. I was just explaining the rules: If the Pubs continue to participate in squandering our Constitutional Rights for any reason, I'll redirect my vote. If the Pubs don't set about reversing damages inflicted in the past, I'll redirect my vote.
I'm a player now. My moniker was carefully chosen. I have announced the rules. That is the way I will play. Now the Pubs should reflect upon their own future, and what it might bring if they fail to represent those who put them in office. As they say, "The gloves are off".
Oh, I love the sting of the game!
That is an accurate summation. It seems to be a reoccuring theme these days. It sure makes me wonder about the NWO, "men behind the curtain" idea. I do wish the Pubs would show some guts and maybe a touch of planning. Throw in a little respect for the Constitution.
But I sing to the choir.
Are conservative goals some how less important than personal ambition?
My above statement has nothing to do with Newt's "personal ambition" and everything to do with Newt's conservative goals.
Ask your retorical question to somebody who deserves such.
The two parties gravitate their voting positions torward the center of the voting public. If you don't like this, then change the center position of the voting public.
Switching parties would be inconsequential.
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.