Posted on 05/19/2003 5:45:32 AM PDT by SJackson
Edited on 04/22/2004 11:48:55 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It's no surprise that Republicans in Congress aren't eager to renew the ban on certain semiautomatic firearms due to expire next year. What's more interesting is why Democrats aren't raising much of a fuss about it.
Our suspicion is that the left has learned the hard way that gun control is a political loser. The first signs came in 1994, after Bill Clinton successfully urged the Democrat-controlled House and Senate to pass legislation outlawing 19 types of "assault" weapons. In November of that year, several Democrats who had supported the ban, including then-House Speaker Tom Foley of Washington, were voted out of office in the Republican sweep. Mr. Clinton later said crossing gun owners cost his party more than 20 seats. In 1995, the House voted to repeal the ban, which wouldn't even have passed without a sunset provision, but the effort died in the Senate.
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
What kind of judicial system would we have if all judges were appointed by democrats?
They're not? Chuckie Schumer, and Dianne Feinstein are sure raising some hell about renewing the ban.
It may not be "necessary" but it would be nice. It would certainly raise my morale several notches.
All Congress has to do is ignore it, and they can easily do that if it stays off the radar screen.
But Lizzard Face, Fineswine and pretty much every talking head in the country aren't going to let it stay off the radar screen. Several convenient bloodletting may also help keep it "on screen".
He doesn't even need to do that. The law allows for pilots to be armed. What the President should do is kick his Homeland Security Chief in the kiester, who whould then kick the head of the Transportation Security Adminstration in the same delicate spot, and have them revise the currently overly restrictive rules for arming pilots and specifying how they may transport their firearms. Most especially the requirement for pilots to be "federal flight deck officers", I guess under the notion that only government agents should have guns. Those rules are not in the law, they are bureacratic rules, so they can be changed with a "stroke of the pen".
Will that work?
Then there is the minor matter of the Constitution, which all the members of Congress, the federal judges, the federal officeholders and the President have sworn to uphold. Character counts, as we learned only too well in the 1993-2000 period. What are we to think of people who take that oath casually, or appear to do so at any rate? If politics be a form of war, in war there are some rules, and the first rule in this case is the Constitution.
For the Senate bill S.1034 : Mrs. FEINSTEIN (for herself, Mr. SCHUMER, Mr. CHAFEE, Mr. JEFFORDS, Mr. KENNEDY, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. LAUTENBERG, Mrs. BOXER, and Mr. REED)
for the House version HR 2038 (which I think is mostly distraction designed to take our eyes off the "milder" Senate version) Mrs. MCCARTHY of New York (for herself, Mr. SHAYS, Mr. CONYERS, Mr. SMITH of New Jersey, Mr. NADLER, Ms. LOFGREN, Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas, Ms. WATERS, Mr. MEEHAN, Mr. DELAHUNT, Mr. WEXLER, Mr. WEINER, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. EMANUEL, Mr. CASE, Mrs. MALONEY, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island, Mr. RANGEL, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. ACKERMAN, Ms. SCHAKOWSKY, Mr. HONDA, Mr. STARK, Ms. SOLIS, Ms. LEE, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Mr. WAXMAN, Mr. TOWNS, Ms. ROYBAL-ALLARD, Mr. GRIJALVA, Ms. CARSON of Indiana, Ms. NORTON, Mr. LIPINSKI, Mr. RUSH, Ms. WATSON, Mr. DAVIS of Illinois, Mr. LEWIS of Georgia, Mr. JACKSON of Illinois, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. OWENS, Mr. BLUMENAUER, Mr. CUMMINGS, Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas, Mr. FARR, Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. HOLT, Mr. PAYNE, Mr. MCGOVERN, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts, Mrs. TAUSCHER, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. ENGEL, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. HOEFFEL, Mrs. LOWEY, Mr. MENENDEZ, Ms. VELAZQUEZ, Mr. TIERNEY, Mr. BRADY of Pennsylvania, Mr. ROTHMAN, Mr. FATTAH, Ms. HARMAN, Mr. BISHOP of New York, and Mr. LANGEVIN)
Just as some here bashed Bush for not coming out and putting it on the radar screen. Some even called him a Rino gun-confiscator. But then the Libertarians are so anti-Republican .....
Why does a judge have the final say?
Uh... pardon me, but you are aware that THOUSANDS of bills are submitted each session, and that only a small percentage ever see the light of day, much less get passed, aren't you?
Ignoring the AWB renewal is very much an option.
Which is more important to you?
A. Sunsetting the AWB.
B. Having your morale raised several notches.
You can only choose one.
You can't have both.
That's the way things go in real life.
Who says we can't have both? You? The choice depends, if the Sunset is just going to be followed by something worse in a year or two, I'd rather my morale, and that of others, be raised for the fight against the next encroachment.
I just don't see your logic that the President speaking out against some bill, any bill, increases its chance of passage, especially when the President in question has historically high support. Nor does his "support", even if only in statements that he thinks it "reasonable" and that he would sign it if it comes to his desk, increase the chances of it passing, by giving "cover" to certain members of the President's own party that are no friends of the RKBA.
If he used that support, and tied the killing of the AWB into incrased security at home, the bill would really be DOA, IMHO of course.
Especially if you want to see it passed in another post midnight session as part of some horse trade for votes on some other issue.
The option to ignore the AWB renewal does not rest with RKBA supporters alone, as you seem to think, nor does it rest only with Republicans or the President. That is the point I was making, that there are folks on the other side who want to pass the renewal. They have powerfull allies in the media, allies who will lie and distort the facts when required. They don't absolutely need to use the issue to bash the President with, and in fact they are exploiting his support for renewal, no matter how weak or even how real that support might be. If his support was/is a political strategy to put the issue out of the public eye, it's doomed to failure and in fact it has already failed.
Like the October 1996 Lautenberg Abomination (which IIRC passed with veto-proof margins in both House and Senate)?
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.