Posted on 08/01/2004 7:48:27 AM PDT by Stew Padasso
Democrats may use assault weapons ban against Bush, GOP
BY FRANK JAMES
Chicago Tribune
WASHINGTON - (KRT) - When former President Bill Clinton sought to frame differences between Democrats and Republicans in his prime-time convention speech Monday, he made a point of citing the soon-to-expire federal ban on semiautomatic assault weapons.
"Our policy was to put more police on the street and to take assault weapons off the street - and it gave you eight years of declining crime and eight years of declining violence," Clinton said to Democratic cheers. "Their policy is the reverse."
The ex-president's charges demonstrated how some Democrats hope to use the assault weapons issue against President Bush and members of Congress in the campaign.
Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry supports extending the ban, which is due to expire Sept. 13 unless Congress renews it. Such an extension appears to have public support. An NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll in November found that 78 percent of respondents favored keeping the ban.
But while many Democrats would like to cast the issue in good-versus-evil terms, it's more complicated than it appears to be, like many matters of public policy.
For one thing, Bush also has expressed support for extending the assault weapons ban since at least the 2000 campaign, putting him on the same side as his Democratic foes, at least rhetorically. Still, critics say Bush is doing nothing to promote an extension of the ban, enabling him to reap the political benefits of his position without upsetting his gun-rights allies.
"The president supports extending the ban but believes fundamentally that we should be supporting the gun laws that are on the books," said Terry Holt, a Bush campaign spokesman. To that end, the president has budgeted money for additional prosecutors to crack down on gun violators, Holt said.
One aspect of the assault weapons ban troubles pro-gun and gun-control advocates alike: The law, they say, defines prohibited weapons based on superficial, cosmetic characteristics such as collapsible stocks - not on the actual capabilities of the weapons.
That has led to one weapon being considered legal while another, with the same power and accuracy, falls into the illegal category because it has a feature such as a bayonet mount or pistol grip.
"Gun owners were like, `That's ridiculous,'" said Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association. "It's like taking a parking lot that's full of cars, all with the same engine under the hood, and saying, `We're going to ban the cars that have more than one hood ornament on them.' I mean, the engines are all the same."
LaPierre added: "It's done nothing to reduce crime. It was all bogus cosmetics to begin with."
Some gun-control advocates agree with the NRA that the law has been essentially feckless, and they join the pro-gun-rights group in opposing extension of the ban, although for different reasons.
"Our position on the current law is that it has been ineffective because the industry immediately found ways around the ban," said Kristin Rand, legislative director for the Violence Policy Center, a Washington-based gun-control advocacy group.
"We don't support a simple renewal of the ban, because what has happened in the assault-weapon marketplace is that virtually every gun banned in the '94 law has come back in the market in so-called post-ban configuration," she said.
Manufacturers removed the military-style features listed by the ban to make their weapons legal. Instead of a renewal, her group wants a major expansion of the law.
The gun issue has burned Democrats in the recent past, and many in the party believe it contributed to their loss of control of the House in 1994 and to former Vice President Al Gore's defeat on traditionally Democratic turf such as West Virginia in the 2000 presidential race.
That has led Democrats to tread especially carefully on gun control this year. While Kerry and the Democratic Party's platform favor an extension of the assault-weapons ban, neither is calling for a wider ban.
In an effort to underscore the point that their candidate is not anti-gun, the Kerry campaign has publicized his ownership of guns, and he has been photographed while skeet shooting. His campaign ads also have used archival footage of him toting an M-16 in as a young naval officer in a Vietnam jungle.
Yet important groups, including police officers and suburban voters, support limited gun control. The Democrats' strategy of de-emphasizing gun control while supporting the assault weapons ban may be an attempt to signal that the party does not want to seize the guns of law-abiding owners but favors limited restrictions.
The law covers certain semiautomatic weapons that resemble military models. Semiautomatics require a shooter to pull the trigger each time he or she wants to fire a round.
They are distinct from the weapons that combat soldiers use, such as M-16s and Kalashnikovs, that can operate as machine guns, allowing a shooter to spray large volumes of bullets at targets with just one trigger pull. Machine guns were largely banned from sale or private ownership by a 1934 law and later legislation.
Clinton signed the assault weapons ban into law as part of the Federal Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. It met such resistance at the time that the only way sponsors could garner enough votes was to agree to a provision that would let the law die, or "sunset," after 10 years.
With less than 10 legislative days left before Congress' scheduled end and with little desire in the Republican-led House to extend the ban, chances for the law's survival are slim to none.
The resistance is partly due to some lawmakers' belief in the Second Amendment right to bear arms and partly to fear of the political power of the NRA and its gun-owner members.
"We're watching it, we're working it, we're committed to see it sunset," said LaPierre of the ban.
Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, D-N.Y., expressed frustration at how little attention the issue is getting.
"I've basically seeing even with my own (Democratic) leadership where they want to keep this quiet," McCarthy said in an interview. "They're petrified of the gun issue. Many members on both sides of the aisle are petrified of the gun issue. If this didn't come up, it would be OK with them."
Still, McCarthy said she hopes the ban may yet be saved because she believes it has helped save lives.
"It's my job to get the American people to realize that the assault weapons ban is expiring and they need to start rallying around it," she said.
McCarthy, who spoke on behalf of the ban at the Democratic convention, was elected to Congress in 1996, three years after her husband was killed and her son wounded by a gunman on a New York commuter train.
Some Democrats, including McCarthy, accuse Bush of claiming to support the ban but doing little to urge Congress to renew it.
"We all know that when he makes a phone call, whatever he wants done gets through the House," McCarthy said. "I want to make sure this gets through. He has to feel the pressure."
Bush said he would sign the AWB renewal if it got to his desk? Goodness, I'm trembling. After all, a noted gun-hater like Tom DeLay will do everything he can to hustle that bill through the House.
That didn't really need a sarcasm tag, did it?
that's the problem (or a part of it):
our elected reps are almost all career politicians.
very few of them are Statesmen.
I'm afraid not even that could render McCarthy credible. I've seen her speak on C-SPAN on a number of occasions; she is truly a testament to the stupidity of the electorate.
I can see how she got elected the first time.....but her continuing success is mindboggling, but typical of the mindlessness of the left. Particularly in NY
Never happen. Not even close to enough willpower among the vast majority of gun owners to NOT vote for him even if he signs a renewal.
And he know it, too, which is why he has said all along that he WILL sign a renewal if it gets to his desk.
They're afraid. Good. I like my Democrats fearful and cowed. Let's make sure we keep our boots on their throats.
I really hope they make an issue of this. I'll bet my last case of ammo the anti's couldn't tell the difference between an AR15 in an assault rifle configuration or a sporting rifle configuration, even if the two were laid side-by-side.
We are at war
Whoa, not so fast there...
They're trying to MAKE it THE issue -- but very deviously.
And I would NOT be surprised if GWB slips right into the trap, given his... well, let's just say I am braced for disappointment.
The past couple of days the rats have been building to a crescendo, demanding that Bush call Congress in to special session, to implement the stuff he said he'd implement from the recent 9/11 hearings -- the NEW new new anti-terror tsar -- the one to tsar it up over the existing anti-terror tsar (that'd be Tom Ridge, of course), as called for by "the commission".)
The Johns, of course, are lapping it all up. Bush says "I'll do that!" to try to -- once again (argh!) show how compliant Republicans are, and how willing the GOP is to compromise at the drop of a hat.
After all, The Johns said that Bush should do it, so, he's gonna do it. He'll show them, by golly!
But oops, the Johns are laughing their arsen off, and replying, "Too little, too late! He should have done it sooner! We would have, if we had been in office! Har har har etc."
So, they now demand that Bush recall Congress for an emergency session, to get his "too little, too late" Anti-terror-tsar-tsar annointed double-plus-unslow, like NOW, daddy!
Ah, the beauty of their trap. ("Beauty" from their perspective, natch.)
Think about it.
Bushie is in a very poor position to refuse their kind suggestion, given 1) the recent hubbub about terror alerts and so forth, and 2) his sudden call for quickly installing the new new new anti-terror tsar-tsar.
So, I will NOT be surprised if he "decides on his own" (koff koff) to call Congress into special session "to get this ONE task taken care of, NOW NOW NOW!"
So WHAT THE HELL DOES THIS HAVE TO DO WITH THE AWB, you ask me?
I'm glad you asked.
What it has to do with the AWB is called "everything" -- because if GWB lets them maneuver him into calling a "special session of congress", it will have NOTHING to do with "terror" or a "terror tsar-tsar". Nothing at all.
And, it will have everything to do with renewing the AWB.
IF he calls Congress back into session, you can bet your bottom dollar that an AWB extention amendment will be hastily nailed onto the backside of the NEW NEW anti-terror tsar-tsar annoitment appointment bill.
And Bushie will sign it. Period.
He won't dare NOT sign it.
Look at what he'll be facing if he even thinks of NOT signing it:
1. The humiliation of being taunted for having his FIRST VETO EVER being a veto of the NEW NEW anti-terror tsar-tsar annointment that he so desperately needs that he called a special session of Congress to appoint!
2. The "well-earned" title of "Liar!", after he backs down on his promise to "sign the AWB extention if it comes to my desk."
3. The pressure from all the "conservatives" who are currently whoring themselves on the yakathon shows, saying how even though they "support the second amendment", of COURSE they don't want to see "assault weapons on the street", and "no one NEEDS these to go hunting" blah blah blah. I wish I'd hit the [RECORD] button for the grease-combed Mitt Romney the other day as he waxed nauseant with precisely those (#3) points, as what's his name cornered him on the Hannity show (in Colmbs place).
Nice work, Mittsie. First, you let your blackrobes emasculate your exectutive branch (as they emasculate the concept of "marriage" and "family"), and then next thing ya know, there you are on the tube, eviscerating the Second Amendment.
Golly, where would we be without such stanuch conservatives in office?
But, I digress.
My point is, the AWB renewal is far from dead.
The rats are working HARD on getting it renewed. They are pushing it like mad with every soundbite they can grab, they've got pretty much every "conservative" (with tube-time, at least) agreeing with them on the "NEED" for renewal, and, they're angling for a special session of congress -- and frankly, I think Dubya is just... um, susceptible enough to their wiles to get snookered on it.
Let's hold off on the celebration for just a l'il while yet, OK?
If there's one thing that's worse than losing, it's having your victory celebration interrupted to find out that you lost.
end_rant
Don't be silly.
They'll answer it in the twinkling of an eye.
It'll go something like this:
Those are BOTH assault weapons! And if by some LOOPHOLE, the evil manufacturer has managed to get ONE of them to market, we need to FIX the loophole, NOW!"
The anti-gunners need to face facts.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1185394/posts?page=7
Let the AWB sunset.
Republicans may use assault weapons ban against Kerry, DNC
And Bushie will sign it. Period.
He won't dare NOT sign it...
That's a pretty good analysis of what the Dems might do at the last minute to renew the AWB. I certainly hope it doesn't happen that way. I believe it would cost George W Bush the election.
Let's hold off on the celebration for just a l'il while yet, OK?
If there's one thing that's worse than losing, it's having your victory celebration interrupted to find out that you lost.
Thanks for pointing out the need to be vigilant right up to where the AWB does indeed finally pass into the sunset.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/1185394/posts?page=7
Let the AWB sunset.
Oh, I agree, it should -- and plenty of other nonsense should be rolled back too. But, as a former "broken glass Republican", I've got that "elephant never forgets" thing going for me ;)
So, I still remember Bob Dole's sticking it to us, and it helping cost him the election. As I recall, he said his office was getting something like 2000 phone calls a day, the vast majority of which were urging him to vote against the travesty.
He voted for it.
That was the last time I wasted MY time and money calling a legislimer.
I have grown quite cynical in my half-century+ on this ball o' mud.
The way I see it, the RAT party is the party of PUSH, PUSH, PUSH, and the "G"OP is the party of COMPROMISE, COMPROMISE, COMPROMISE.
The thing is, when one side is always pushing, and the other side is always compromising, well... if you adjust the imagery a tad (think "pull" instead of "push") and picture a tug o' war, there's gonna be one side ending up in the mud -- and that WON'T be the side that applies constant pressure. It'll be the side that's constantly compromising.
What we have now are the results of decades of constant compromise.
Frankly, I'm not interested in any politician who promises me MORE compromise.
I want a politician with some GUTS.
I want a politician who will PUSH.
But, I'm screwed.
It seems that the only politicians who will stick to their guns (har har har, funny, eh?), and PUSH, PUSH, PUSH, and refuse to COMPROMISE... the ONLY politicans with the guts -- with the balls to the wall nerve -- are pushing in the wrong direction!
This is very disconcerting!
So, yeah, as your link shows, politicians who stab their constituents in the back end up looking for a new job.
But, that doesn't seem to stop them from stabbing their constituents in the back. Nor does it -- as a rule -- stop their replacements from stabbing us in the back either.
It's very disconcerting!
It's like we keep saying "they're really gonna get taught a lesson on election day if they screw with us" -- so, they screw with us -- and they get taught the lesson on election day -- and then "here comes the new boss, same as the old boss" -- and we get screwed again.
I know that we're looking at something like, what is it, five "legislative days" left in this session, with "no time available for scheduling" this abortion of a bill?
Well, that is no comfort to me.
I know that politicians can move heaven and earth (or, some substitute for heaven, as the case may be;) when they want to get something done on short notice.
Look at the "Patriot Act". THEY didn't!
It got dropped in front of them, the call went out to VOTE -- without reading it -- so, they voted for it.
They spend more time debating what color to paint the new carpet than they spent discussing the Patriot Act.
It's amazing -- and disgusting. And it makes "how sausage is made" into something that looks really appetizing, by way of comparison.
Will the AWB sunset?
Maybe. I certainly HOPE so. And, if it does sunset, I hope it STAYS sunset, and doesn't do a Count Dracula on us come first thing next session.
But frankly, given the history, the thing that gives me the least assurance at this stage is the "only five legislative days left" situation.
These bozos specialize in pulling rabbits out of their hats. Ask any farmer who just planted a cornfield.
(A little agriculture-lagomorph-argh! humor this fine morning...)
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.