Will the Republicans throw it all away again in 2004?
Opinions?
If the past is any indicator, yes.
You will not write a letter to your Congressman and to your Senators; whereas the soccer moms will.
The law will be renewed in 2004.
The President will sign it.
You will vote for the Republican candidate anyway.
Unintended consequences.
Looking at the crime figures, it would apear that almost no one except the law abiding own, or ever have owned, 'assault weapons'.
The signals of whether the GOP will fumble this issue are mixed. I'll comment on a few of them.
The sad fact is that President Bush campaigned as someone who would rarely do anything that would make Katie Couric put on her little frowny face. Personally, I think the more often the little wench is upset, the more often America is moving in the right direction. Unfortunately, we have a president who wants people like her to say that he is "reasonable." I like President Bush in many ways, but I've thought for a long time that he was being far too accommodating of our enemies on gun control. (See This is Julie for my first writing criticizing him on this issue.) If the media puts pressure on him to reenact the ban and make it permanent, he will likely pressure the GOP Congress to pass the ban again.
The danger in supporting the ban for him is that he wouldn't be president today without the votes of many gun owners who thought he was better than Algore even if he didn't seem the staunchest of allies. He'll have much more support in 2004 from people who vote for the incumbents without thinking, but he probably won't be so secure that he can lose one of his key constituencies. If he signs the ban just before the election, he will demoralize many people who had supported him. If he demoralizes these people just before the election, he could still lose just as his father did.
For Congressional Republicans, the issue is trickier. They don't have the momentum and widespread unthinking support that a president will have. They will be facing many more voters back home who pay attention to things. If they support a ban, they will demoralize many of their supporters and will almost certainly lose.
For Congressional Democrats, the issue might even be trickier. There are many Democrats who represent relatively conservative, rural areas. Some of them originally supported the ban in '94 and almost lost that year because of that support. Some of them have recently won elections against Republicans who beat a Democrat in '94 because that Democrat supported the ban. They may be caught between voters to whom they promised respect for the Second Amendment and a party that is demanding their support of a permanent ban. They could be in trouble either way.
If there were any issue that could lead to the formation of a successful third party in 2006, this could be the one. If the GOP passes the ban, it will lose much of its support. Some people will quit voting for GOP candidates. Others might still vote for them but will not volunteer or contribute. Democrats who kept their promise to voters and voted against the ban may find themselves without good committee assignments or party support as the party takes revenge. Those who voted for the ban will have a hard time keeping the votes that kept them in office.
With both parties facing that vulnerability, a third party could make some progress. It would need to oppose gun control without seeming to advocate that everyone should carry M-16's down the street. It would need to oppose taxes but in a moderate way. It would need to be open to people from both sides of the abortion issue but generally lean pro-life. I think it would need to be strong against illegal immigration without appearing isolationist.
Without a doubt. The gop congress will pass the ban extension easily, and Bush will proudly sign it.
After all they're not conservatives, they're just republicans.
And what will you do about it....vote democrat?
Regards
J.R.
The Senate was controlled by Republicans in 1996, but not by enough votes to override a Clinton veto.
Not if Free Republic has something to do about it.
Let us have destiny in our control. We need to start to put pressure on Congress NOW!!!!
That way, Republicans will know that we are serious and that if they chose to do the wrong thing in 2004, they will lose the majority status that they worked so long and hard to attain it.
Then, Republicans would know that we are a serious force to reckon with and that they would do what we want them to do.
No more ban on Assault Weapons!
The Republicans are politicans, they want to stay in power more than anything else.
Be sure to show this again before the election of 2004.
I have a magazine extension that adds a one round extra capacity to a glock magazine. If I put this on my ten round magazine that makes the capacity eleven rounds, I have just committed a felony. It is a felony to modify a firearm magazine to hold merely one more round than a ten round magazine! What exactly makes the 11th round so evil that I could go to prison for it?! Answer: FEDERAL REGULATIONS of the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994. Of course the police can have magazines that hold eleven rounds or more because we know that no cop is a bad cop.
You can bet I will be writing Senators and George Bush about this one. I will not vote for George Bush or anyone who votes to renew this totalitarian ban on firearms.