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 ...
Oh yeah.......now I'm hysterical. LOL !!!! Talk about predictable. How obvious is this kind of response, huh Joe?
I guess you know you can't answer so you reach for the ridiculous. What will your next post be, " Take your meds"? That's always a debate winner. ROFLOL !!!!
So, I guess we'll just let it stand as you saying we have more enemies than ever with no substantiation whatsoever. Works for me.
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.
Where is your explanation for the statement that we have "more enemies today than ever"? Unless I've missed a post, all I have seen you do is dodge the point with some babble about your post #842. That is exactly the source of my question. So let's see if you can address it.
So out of my entire post, you found something to grab a hold of. How weak of you. LOL!
Yes it's my opinion that after killing a lot of people in the Mid East recently, the fanatics, lunatics and terrorist that already hated us probably hate us more, and the friends and buddies of the ones we killed probably would *not* be considered good friends now. LOL!
See what happened in Saudi yesterday? Hehehe.....
Your a funny guy, but if you keep doing the chicken, it's going to affect your blood pressure.....
2. Your are the only one avoiding an answer.
3. I'm not the one posting in a frantic frenzy.
Phew.....you really are in a confused turmoil, heh Joey?
Uh, well I am glad to know that all the ruthless terrorist, that aren't afraid to blow themselves to pieces are all "gobsmacked".
So I guess we are all just fine with the fact that the hundreds of trucks coming across our borders daily, unabated, with unknown cargos, (like the one in Texas the other day that entered our country, found packed with dead bodies all over the place) is all just fine and peachy.
Roger that. Thanks for your insight.
I don't think I commented on the Mexican border situation, so I don't know how you can infer what my position on it is. Do you have a crystal ball there?
I'm not quite sure what the Mexican border has to do with the assault weapons ban, which was the original subject of this thread, or the Saudi terrorist attack, which was the subject of my post. I think there might be some significance to the fact that the most recent terrorist attack took place on Saudi soil, not American soil.
At least we know that if there were any terrorists in that truck full of illegal immigrants, they are most likely either dead or captured, yes?
Explain how what I request or state is not reasonable.
Asking that elected “representatives” represent me is reasonable. (Get it, "representative"?)
Asking that congresscritters adhere to Constitutional values is perfectly reasonable.
Stating that a return to Constitutional values is prudent and proper is reasonable. Stating that this is helpful guidance is reasonable.
But, because I don't kiss up to the Party, you imagine me to be unreasonable. You are the problem.
Disaggrement with you views.
Every part of my discourse has also been a matter of expression. To think otherwise is pretty unreasonable on your part, Mr "Narrow-minded Voice of Reason".
I hear what you're saying, but don't you think most people believe that we should comply with the Constitution? When in our history do you think we most closely conformed with Constitutional principles?
You advocate withholding your vote or giving it to a 3rd part candidate. You believe that is helpful to our nation and have no problem if that ends up ushering in someone worse than Bill Clinton.
I'm sorry that your need to be elite is more important to you than common sense. I don't speak your language. It's pure folly and is, in essence, all about you and your soap box.
If your goals were truly unselfish, you would work with what you have and keep working harder for more.
But I'm sure you have signed a lifetime contract as a bona fide unappeasable and must therefore remain as such.
Sorry. I see nothing in any of your posts that would hint at gender. The masculine is also the neutral form.
You advocate withholding your vote or giving it to a 3rd part candidate.
I advocate giving my vote to whomever will do the most to ensure this Nation's survival. I have been trying to pry an agenda out of the Pubs for nearly forty years now. They tend to "wing it". After being a registered, participating, and financially supporting Pub for that length of time, one would think I could get a statement of Party intent. I only get requests for more money, never a reply to questions or requests for information. I need to know that I am voting for the right people. When the Pubs' action in Congress becomes indistinguishable from the Dems', I think it is appropriate to take my current tact. The whole idea of representation is representation. I honestly don't see that happening. One might assume that they take their constituents for granted. By all means, present evidence to the contrary.
I'm sorry that your need to be elite...
Peculiar, indeed. I have no herding instinct. If that is a prerequisite for participation in the affairs of State, then I'll have to keep bludgeoning my way along. I'm not a social animal; and, have no need whatsoever to lead the pack. On the other hand, I have no need to follow lemmings. If you think reading the Founding documents betrays a need to be elite, then I know I'm courting the wrong Party. If you think that I would be misguided to hold Constitutional knowledge as a prerequisite for becoming a congresscritter, then the Nation is in serious trouble. (Chalk that up to government schools.)
If your goals were truly unselfish, you would work...
That is precisely what I hope I am doing. My ideals are based on my understanding of the Founding documents. I have watched this Nation change quite a lot since the 1960's; and, only a few changes have been healthy. If I can convince one congresscritter that his continued stay in office at my expense is contingent upon doing the right thing instead of "playing the game", progress has been made. My vote is all I can use to affect needed change. If I say this yet remain unwilling to make good on the threat, then what is the point of beating the drum? If the congresscritters get the idea that there might be a large number of people unhappy with the way things now work, I expect that changes might begin to happen. Perot's erosion of the vote sent a clear message: There can be a protest vote. Now they know people aren't giving them free reign on our behalf. I don't view cheerleading or cheering as meaningful work.
I have a vote to cast. It is the congresscriter's job to convince me that my vote is well-placed beside his name. I'd like to suggest that more effort be expended to address that responsibility rather than having a cow because I prefer to exercise my vote in a responsible manner. If you are under the impression that my vote must be cast because of the color of the Party banner, then I must tell you that you are using your vote in a very irresponsible fashion.
But I'm sure you have signed a lifetime contract as a bona fide unappeasable..
I've spent a lifetime supporting the Pubs, then watching them heal for the Dems. I prefer to hang out with people with backbone. I'd rather stand on the deck of a sinking ship knowing that I never compromised my ideals.
If the Pubs are "so much on track", how come there seems to be no statement of purpose? Why are there laws that violate every entry in the Bill of Rights, yet not one Pub will state that he will fight to reverse that condition? All I am looking for is an indication that I'm expending my vote on the solution rather than the problem.
If the Pubs are so damn smart, why doesn't someone take a crack at this rather than berating me because I'm taking a firm stand?
You have yet to answer any of my questions. Neither has any of your tribe. Try these on for size:
1. Do you believe that the Constitution is the basis for the law of the land?
2. Do you believe that the Constitution is a "living document", to be interpreted for the moment?
3. Do you believe that there are laws that seriously violate the Constitution?
4. Assuming that you believe #3 to be true, do you know of any Pub congresscritter who has taken a stand to reverse this trend? (I'm covering Ron Paul ... you have to mention others.)
Imagine my confusion when I come here looking for reasons to continue voting the Pub ticket only to find myself being berated as I directly exercise the intent of the First Amendment. If you imagine yourself to be helping "the cause", I beg you to reconsider. That goes for the rest of your "attack tribe".
That sure does explain those bombs going off here and there, doen't it?
NO. How would this issue (2nd Ammendment) be such an issue if this were true? How would there be forfiture laws? Warrantless searches? Secret trials? Secret incarceration without representation? The list is enourmous. The preponderance of the evidence suggests that a "living Constitution" is a norm, and it is subject to interpretation by those who obviously haven't done much reading.
When in our history do you think we most closely conformed with Constitutional principles?
I watched those Principles errode rather rapidly since the 1960s. In the 1990s the errosion was even faster. The current Administration is far from innocent: Patriot Acts I & II, for example.
I suspect congresscritters' understanding of Constitutional ideals began its most serious decay during this recent period. It coincides with the "Dumbing Down of America" in the public schools. PC correctness, and all that crap. Were there infractions before that period? You bet! Racism interfered in a powerfully negative manner since the beginning of the Republic. But now, all citizens seem to be "second rate".
Perhaps you didn't read the first 2 paragraphs of my post?
This says it all and nothing else needs to be said. No one who is unelectable can do anything to ensure this nation's survival. So your vote for that person that will never hold a position of influence is nothing more than patting yourself on the back.
I don't know every congress member's votes or philosphies, but I do know that your idol, Ron Paul, is as flawed as anyone else. But that isn't even the point.
We are at about square one in this process. How long has it been that the Republicans have had the House, Senate and White House?
While I wish for more spine and could certainly do without some of the liberal Republicans, it is still a team effort and some of the team members need training. I don't expect overnight miracles and never demand absolute perfection.
But people like you do nothing that provides an opportunity for transformation. You just slam down that foot and say, "I want everything and I want it yesterday."
Then you strut around smugly as if to say, " I told them." Well, you may have told them, but you have probably scared away potential converts and hurt your cause because your ego was bigger than your skill for persuasion.
I believe it all comes down to the maturity of patience and an understanding of human nature versus tantrums and demands that everyone see it your way because you said so.
Why do you suppose that after quite a few attempts, you have failed to increase your numbers significantly? Is everyone else just not as pure as you are? Is that it?
The minds of people in America have been poisoned and liberalized for several decades and it could very well take several more to make them see the light.
When you and your small band of self-proclaimed "real" conservatives are preaching, a lot of apolitical or liberal folks run for cover. You need to understand the premise from which many begin.
You have no finesse; no method to bring these people along. Thus, you are far worse than the not-so-conservative people you want to harm in the election because you are willing to wipe out good potential for the sake of being the most conservative game on the block. But when the dust settles, you have actually taken the conservative movement backwards.
If your snit allows for the election of a very liberal president who has a cooperative congress, he/she could ruin the SCOTUS for a very long and painful time. That alone should bring you to your senses, but I'm sure that a seat at the Grumpies table is more important to you than some silly Supreme Court Justice.
You and your ilk are as much a part of the problem as any enemy of conservatism because you are flame throwers and too many people don't want to get too close to that kind of heat.
Tell that to the guys on "The wall", or to those in Arlington, or resting at Normandy. Everybody matters. You better catch on to this before "your boy" loses the next election.
You just slam down that foot and say, "I want everything and I want it yesterday."
You don't seem to be reading my posts. I haven't slammed any doors. My vote isn't free ... it must be earned. Why are you having trouble with this? Governing this Nation is not a social event. It is a responsibility. I have repeatedly asked for evidence that we are "on square one". I have stated quite clearly that I am looking evidence of congruance. You have never answered any of my questions. You are commanding loyalty, not presenting a foundation for earning it. Your reply doesn't have any indication that you even read my last post. If your stance is "vote for the Pubs without question" because they did perhaps one thing right, bear in mind that the Dems have also done a few things right as well. (Its that million monkeys with typewriters thing.)
You guys aren't going to win my vote by calling me names or failing to directly to address the issues. I would hope you would know by now that name calling is a liberal's tactic.
I don't follow crouds, I follow principle. Prove to me the Pubs know what to do and how to go about doing it. Is that difficult for you? Then something just might be wrong. If you can't convince "one of yours", how can you convince an "outsider" to go with the flow?
...your idol, Ron Paul...
Not my idol, by any streach of the immagination. I distinctly asked you if you knew anyone else who has taken a stand for Constitutional Principles. I can only assume from your answer that you know of no others. (FYI: It tend to prefer Tommy Franks, George Patton, or even Fred Thompson. Draft Fred.
...opportunity for transformation...
Fourty years?
You once accused me of being unreasonable. I have offered you ample opportunity to converse with me on the issues, yet you are still attacking me at a personnal level. How Democratic of you! Speak to the issues. Use reason, facts. Don't "kill the messignger", rather debate in counterpoint to the points I raise. I don't think you have the knowledge. That is the crux of the alledged Pub agenda. Nobody knows what the objectives might be.
I ventured a trust with you on my last post by explaining very carefully the reasoning behind my stance. I had hoped that you would, at long last, respond through a formal set of reasoned retorts. You stayed in the attack mode. Is that the totality of the Pub Club?
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.