Replies

It's already hit the media's screen... And nothing has come of it, has it Bozo?

It's early in the process the thing doesn't expire until the fall (almost) of next year. The House and Senate bills are only about a month old. The real danger will come in summer, probably late summer of next year. The Senate will attach the renewal to some bill, perhaps the Justice Department appropriations bill, as Neal Knox predicts in his latest released 18 May. The Republicans in the Senate, those nominally pro RKBA that is, don't have the cojones to filibuster, even without the President's nominal and weak "support" for the bill, let alone against something the President's spokesmen say he is for. Then the only chance is that the House will strip the provision from the bill. That's more or less how we got the thing in the first place,IIRC

Well, all I can say is that Neal is a long observor of the Congressional and DC scene. He's usually pretty good at reading the tea leaves on this sort of thing. Not 100%, but pretty good. See what he has to say about your vaunted "take away their issue" strategy here: But this is the gist of it:

Bush and his Political Strategist Karl Rove are wrong if they think it's "smart politics" to say he supports the law -- theoretically pleasing suburban "soccer moms" -- while giving lip service to passing it, and counting on Congress to kill it.

Rove is a protege of the late Lee Atwater, Chairman of the Republican National Committee when Presidential Papa George H.W. Bush lost his second term, and who infamously said "Where else do gun owners have to go."

As I've said before, in 1992 they either went for Ross Perot or back to the party that their unions had always supported.

At the very least, Bush 43, will have diminished the ardor of those he will need to get elected in 2004.

As NRA Director, Americans for Tax Reform President and Bush confidant Grover Norquist said last month, White House support for the gun ban reenactment is "Lousy politics."

And nothing has come of it, has it Bozo?

The strength of your arguements is reflected in your need to call people names. I'm a former military officer, I'm currently a senior researh engineer and do not appreciate being called 'paranoid', 'disease'd, or a "Bozo", and I'm sure others feel the same.

Next time you post, notice the guidlines right below the "post" button. In particular "NO personal attacks". You sir are over the line, or at least getting very close. If you have a point to make or an argument to expand on or refute, do so, but please leave the name calling back in the schoolyard where it's the norm.

Thanks

But what radar screen are you talking about?
And nothing has come of it, has it Bozo?

Please answer the question. I see that the media is turning up the gain on their radar. This in McPaper: Anti-terrorism efforts ignore lax U.S. gun laws

At least it's on the editorial page, although it states lots of questional things as facts with no evidence or referances. The headline, but not quite the editorial itself, ignores the fact that the two worst terrorist acts in US history, OKC and 9-11, did not involve the use of guns.