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 ...
Look at your own posts! Yours are full of "I think". The reason is simple: Politics is not an exact science. Most of what you preach is based on guesswork, and little results. How can we conduct politics without voicing our personal opinion? Oh, we can voice them as long as we agree 100% with the party line? Is that how the refinement process works?
Apparently you make no allowance for anything other than your beliefs and fail to realize that there are millions of Americans who either don't share your opinions or worse..
I have noticed for some time that most Americans don't give a crap about the Founding Principles, assuming they know about the Constitution and the debate upon which it was based. Again, my discourse and even dissent is part of the refinement process. Would you suppress the voice that disagrees with you?
George Bush has made America better for everyone by restoring honor to the White House (I agree.), aggressively confronting terrorism (I agree.), cutting taxes (You are dreaming.), nominating conservative judges (Can't play the game to get them confirmed), openly demonstrating his deep faith and reliance on prayer (Big deal. Accomplishes nothing.), encouraged respect for all life (PBA ban) (Accomplished nothing.), and so much more.(Like airport security and controls on illegal immigration?)
While others have brought buckets of water to put out the fire...
What has been your role? Cheerleader?
Is the world a little safer? Your joking right?
Look no further than what happened in Saudi Arabia just the other day.
Do you ever read the news, or watch TV?
Forget the *world* just for a minute, and ask yourself if *our* country is any safer.
President Bush has absolutely refused to address the wide open borders and immigration policies. They are a national disgrace and a national security nightmare.
Want real glaring proof?
Look no further than the commercial truck that was hauling the 40 foot trailer that was packed with human cargo, just the other day in Texas, with dead bodies all over the place.
I understand you love President Bush, however getting beyond that, has it occurred to you and others that this commercial trailer in Texas, that entered unabated from Mexico could have easily been packed with brutal bio weapons, bombs or bomb materials that could have contaminated Dallas Texas for 150 years, killing hundreds of thousands. It could have been packed with highly trained terrorist, all carrying bio weapons or other nasty weapons of mass destruction?
Has this occurred to any of you? I don't think it has.
Do you have any idea how many tractor trailers enter the United States from Mexico, completely unabated with unknown cargos? Hundreds, every single day! Any idea how many people enter illegally every day from that border?
So to answer your question about being safer, I would say no, we are not safer. Remember, we have just killed a whole bunch of people in the Mid East, and probably pissed off many more fanatics, and friends of the dead.
Do you really think these millions of nutjobs and fanatics are now going to become our friends?
Don't be fooled into thinking President Bush has all of a sudden made the world a little safer. If anything, we have more enemies than *ever* before.
Once somebody actually represents me, they will get my support. Ignore me,
I am trying to save the Nation
Perhaps what I have to offer
He could lean me back in his favor
You see, I am just trying to help with some very sound advice.
Not surprising that you can't see the difference. It is indicative of your whole attitude. As I said.....impossible to reason with.
BTW, could you spell them out here? Surely you must have some amazing strategies in mind that will blow us all away. Care to share?
What kind of response is this to #842?
BTW, could you spell them out here? Surely you must have some amazing strategies in mind that will blow us all away. Care to share?
I don't have a clue what this means. And why are you getting nasty with me. I just posted that facts in #842. I didn't mean to scare you with the truth.
It isn't hard to comprehend. It appears from your statement here that you believe others are fooled, but not I-know-everything Joe. So, what is your proposed solution? It's a very relevant question.
You make a statement about Bush making the world safer and your only response to #842 is to ask me??? I am not your elected official. I'am just another brick in the wall pal.
Why are you looking towards me for answers? Your the one that made the statement about Bush making the world safer, not me. Why don't you ask him to respond to #842 instead of looking for answers from me?
You said that we have more enemies now than ever. How do you know this? Or is this just your opinion?
You may not think the dismantling of Al Qaeda and the destruction of Saddam Hussein's regime makes the world somewhat safer, but most people would differ with you.
Last time I checked, George Bush was Commander in Chief while these SUCCESSFUL battles against terrorism have occurred. THAT is what he has done to make the world safer.
I, nor anyone else, has claimed the job is complete.
You, OTOH, look only for what has not been fixed. I suppose your hunt will go on for the rest of your life because no matter how much is achieved, there are always things left to do. But to concentrate only on that is a recipe for unending misery, which some people (and you may be one) thrive on.
How ironic, that's exactly what I was thinking about you on your first response to me. LOL! Of course I didn't bite on your distraction and diversion.
You gots to love it.
LOL! Who turned things around regarding 842? Hehehe....
Look at your unsolicited post #842 to me and others........
And now look at your words after you are responded to:
And why are you getting nasty with me. I just posted that facts in #842. I didn't mean to scare you with the truth.
You are either intentionally deceitful or you don't realize that it was YOU who came out of the blue and had the oh-you-foolish-ninnies attitude.
How can anyone take such a confused person seriously?
I don't know, just a wild guess...
Where and how did this exchange begin? You really are confused, aren't you?
My unsolicited post?
Sorry, next time I will first seek permission to communicate with you.
How do you KNOW we have more enemies than ever? Can you cite some proof? You have proclaimed it based on what?
I don't claim unproven assumptions to be "facts" as you do, but I am "guessing" that a few would-be antagonists have had second thoughts after what happened to Saddam.
That's okay. If anyone wants to follow it, they can see it for themselves and apply his or her own take on it.
Disappointment is a reasoned and justified opinion.
What isn't logical is the chant in support of running to the third party candidate du jour because of it.
That reaction by some here is sheer lunacy.
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.