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 ...
You know, there does exist an alternative explanation for your current displeasure. Perhaps you should just briefly entertain the possibility that most people in this country, including your President, do support the Constitution, but that there exists legitimate differences of opinion concerning exactly what does and does not constitute compliance with its terms. And, BTW, we do have constitutional mechanisms that we can use to resolve such differences of opinion as they may arise. How effectively do you make use of those mechanisms?
You claim that you have "watched those Principles errode rather rapidly since the 1960s." Well, I can assure you that there were some important constitutional disputes in this country long before 1960. In fact, since it is obvious that civil liberties are important to you (as they are to me), I suggest that you Google up the Sedition Act that was enacted by the U.S. Congress less than ten years after our Constitution was ratified. If you read the terms of that statute, you will find that it threatened criminal penalties against anyone who as much as publicly criticized the President of the United States. In short, from your posts on this thread, it seems obvious to me that you feel more free today than Americans did under John Adams, our second president.
So, please understand that preserving civil liberties in this country has been one long, continuous struggle. There was nothing particularly special about the 1960's or the time that has passed between then and now. Whenever our national security is threatened (as most people think it is now), the struggle to preserve civil liberties just gets a little harder.
Thanks again Howlin'...for finding this quote of yours for me. It really is a classic example of the liberal mindset. I intend to use it frequently whenever I see you on any of the gun-grabber threads.
Have you nothing better to do than to follow Howlin from thread to thread and lie about her? What's that all about?
You know what your are saying is an absolute lie, but you keep pounding away.
Just like other good causes, you maniacal gun people ruin it for more sane, but avid 2A supporters.
Thank the Lord they are not ALL like you or we would probably lose all gun rights.
You're scary when I imagine you wielding a weapon. Very unbalanced fella !!!!
Well, now that you've acknowledged it "is the right place for her", what does that say about you?
Fair enough. From now on when I quote you I'll do it like so:
"It (the Constitution) doesn't say that some jerkwad living next door to me can own lethal weapons."
Does that meet with your approval??
Absolutely!! They set up a Republic, not a Democracy. You can find mountains of specific discussion on this very topic! The comparison, "A democracy is two wolves and one sheep discussing what they will have for dinner" is the jist of their arguments. You have demonstrated profound ignorance of the Principles on which this Nation was founded. You have proved the point I was trying to make. You haven't even the slightest clue about what made this Nation become what it is today. Go read. Hurry!
And, BTW, we do have constitutional mechanisms that we can use to resolve such differences of opinion as they may arise. How effectively do you make use of those mechanisms?
I vote in every election. I write and call congresscritters quite frequently. Excercising my First Ammendment Rights, I even discuss the issues with folks that don't have a clue how this Nation was formed or how it works.
Well, I can assure you that there were some important constitutional disputes in this country long before 1960.
Had you been reading my posts with some care, you would have noticed that I already admitted that I know this. On the other hand, I have watched significant erosion of the Bill of Rights in my own lifetime. It is getting worse now that there are so many like you who don't have a clue.
So, please understand that preserving civil liberties in this country has been one long, continuous struggle.
For someone who hasn't read the Founding documents, you sure are ready to be the history teacher. Go read them. You'd be surprised how pumped up you can become. Your jaw would drop over the remarkable wisdom of those old farts.
Whenever our national security is threatened (as most people think it is now)...
So, why does everyone tolerate such lame security measures, measures that do very little to secure the Nation but much to erode Liberty? What of substance has been done to secure this Nation? Taking the Medal of Honor from a retired four star general? Making old ladies disrobe while the "stereotypes" board the planes without notice? This seem like security to you? I can only chuckle and shake my head in wonder at yet another member of "The Thundering Herd".
Exactly what I've been fussing about. They have to play games. If they told the truth, nobody would vote for any of them. Both parties seem to be reading from the same script. Perhaps they just phase the issues differntly to make people belive there is a difference between the two parties.
In light of the increased "religion of peace" bombings around the world in the past few days, it appears that your guess was wrong.
It did have impact ... the Clinton years! I think it would be good tactics on the part of you Pubs to foster better relations with those of us who will vote Principles just to prove a point. If you want "your boy" to win, at least encourage your folks and congresscritters to attempt to take our views under consideration. We will vote our Priciples once again, just to get your attention. It doesn't really matter if the Dems take a turn; for, the Pubs look very similar in most respects. Just about evey promise Al Gore made has been fulfilled. What was the point, again, regarding voting for the Pubs?
First of all, I said a few and never even hinted that all terrorism would end.
Secondly, it changes nothing about what Bush has done and is doing. We are still enjoying victories against terrorists.
I suppose you know a great would-be president out there that would do better, huh? Pretty pathetic, Gingass.
Tell me, what exactly would you do in answer to 9/11? No doubt you have a superior game plan. What is it?
Is a lethal weapon something like an ugly witch? You know, it's from the department of redundancy department.
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.