GOP Will Let Assault Weapon Ban Expire...(multiple threads)


PDA






cuchulainn
May 13, 2003, 07:07 PM
from the Washington Post

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50358-2003May13.htmlDelay: House Will Not Extend Assault Weapons Ban
AK-47s and 18 Other Semiautomatic Weapons Would Be Legalized

By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 13, 2003; 6:00 PM

The Republican-controlled House will not renew the federal ban on Uzis and other semiautomatic weapons, a key leader said today, dealing a significant blow to the campaign to clamp down on gun sales nationwide.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) said most House members are willing to let the ban expire next year. "The votes in the House are not there" to continue the ban, DeLay told reporters.

His spokesman, Stuart Roy, said, "We have no intention of bringing it up" for a vote.

As majority leader, DeLay decides which bills get voted on in the House. Because the 1994 assault weapons ban expires next year, the House and Senate must pass legislation renewing it by Sept. 13, 2004. If Congress fails to act, the AK-47 and 18 other types of semiautomatic weapons that were outlawed by Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress a decade ago would be legal again, handing a major victory to the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups.

Past votes and an NRA survey of lawmakers before the 2002 elections suggest that a majority of House members oppose the ban's renewal, GOP officials said. But several Republicans, who requested anonymity, said some pro-gun GOP leaders worry that if members are forced into a rollcall vote, they might switch under pressure from gun control advocates.

President Bush, whose support of the assault weapons ban dates to his 2000 campaign, has drawn rebukes from NRA members and some GOP lawmakers on the issue. But several Republicans close to the White House said Bush has no plans to lobby lawmakers aggressively to extend the ban. That would allow him to officially oppose the NRA without completely turning against the powerful gun lobby by fighting hard to maintain a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

"The White House seems to think that the bill will never reach the President's desk," said a recent alert sent to members of the Gun Owners of America, a pro-gun group with close ties to Republicans. "At least that is what top officials are counting on. In pursuing this strategy, they are trying to please both sides and are playing a very dangerous game."

Congressional Republicans said Congress will renew the ban only if Bush publicly and firmly insists. "If the president demands we pass it, that would change the dynamics considerably," said a House GOP leadership aide. "The White House does not want us" to vote.

In a letter to Bush, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) said: "It is now time for us to stand up against the unconstitutional gun-grabbing and help our nation in this time of great need by allowing law-abiding citizens to use the weapon of their choice."

It's unclear how much pressure Bush and congressional Republicans will be under to bring up the volatile gun issue, especially in the 2004 election year. While many leading Senate and House Democrats are pushing legislation to renew the ban, the issue is not sharply partisan.

Many rural and southern Democrats, including a few who voted for the ban in 1994, oppose its renewal, reflecting a notable shift in the politics of guns during the past decade. An aide to a Senate Democrat who voted for the ban in 1994 and faces reelection next year said many Democrats "hope it never comes up."

The reason for the turnabout is rooted, in part, in the fallout of the 1994 vote and vice president Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign loss.

In 1994, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate narrowly passed the ban on the sale and possession of 19 semiautomatic, rapid-fire guns and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. Proponents of the ban said those weapons -- and copycat versions that don't fall under the ban -- are frequently used in violent crimes, including the deaths of scores of law enforcement officials. Opponents said the ban violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

The Democratic-controlled House passed the Clinton-backed gun ban by two votes in May 1994. A few months later, House Speaker Thomas Foley (D-Wash.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks (D-Texas) and several other Democrats who supported the ban were voted out of office after the NRA and other gun activists targeted them with a relentless political campaign.

The NRA's power ebbed and flowed throughout the rest of the 1990s, hitting a highwater mark following Gore's narrow loss in 2000. Gore lost pro-gun bastions such as Arkansas, West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee, in part, some Democratic analysts believe, because he was seen as hostile to gun owners. In this year's first debate among Democratic presidential hopefuls, only Al Sharpton vigorously endorsed the registration and licensing of handguns.

Most congressional Democratic leaders and presidential candidates strongly support the assault weapons ban and appear ready to wage a public fight over an issue they believe may pack a political punch with independents and women, in particular. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently introduced legislation that would extend the Clinton gun ban with only minor modifications. If the House rejects the renewal, however, Senate action won't matter.

In the House, Reps. John Conyers (D-Mich.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) last week introduced a tougher bill that would ban a larger number of guns. "I don't want to put my members in any trouble. But if we actually face this, the American people [will support] keeping assault weapons from going back on the street," said McCarthy.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company

If you enjoyed reading about "GOP Will Let Assault Weapon Ban Expire...(multiple threads)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
Standing Wolf
May 13, 2003, 07:21 PM
"The votes in the House are not there" to continue the ban, DeLay told reporters.

He'd @#$%^&! well better be right!

El Tejon
May 13, 2003, 07:38 PM
Man, I just love Ron Paul. He's alright, for a Libertarian.:D

Blackcloud6
May 13, 2003, 07:47 PM
Ugh, the AK-47 is a full auto weapon.

Waitone
May 13, 2003, 09:24 PM
I lost my rose colored glasses a while back.

--Republicans want gun manufacturer liability limitation.

--Republicans do not want AWB extended

--Democrats do not want liability limitations

--Democrats do want the AWB extended.

--Today democrats announce they will filibuster the liability limitation legislation.

Since we know how effectives the republicans are in battling a filibuster, I see the threat here as a way for democrats to exert pressure on republicans to get something out of the anti-gun agenda.

I smell a deal whereby democrats do not filibuster liability limitation if republicans vote to extend the AWB.

tyme
May 13, 2003, 11:33 PM
Thoughts on strategy...

What about pushing the left to complain about bush's weak stance in calling for congressional support of the issue? Would it backfire? My impression is that if the heat were turned up enough, Bush would realize he has more to lose by supporting it and would rescind his promise not to veto it. That would just kill the bills.

Too risky?

Shooter 2.5
May 14, 2003, 12:00 AM
Too risky.

We can't continue to have a us vs. them situation. Hopefully the dems will do what they always do but the assault weapons bill will sunset.

At the next election which is two months after the sunset, the dems will lose even more seats and maybe they'll finally wake up to the fact that gun control is a loser. That's when the Republicans should keep pushing for gun rights. The more the dems fight for gun control, the more they should lose.

Of course, the whole scenario depends on all of us working together.

Fat chance that happening.

KarlG
May 14, 2003, 12:33 AM
handing a major victory to the National Rifle Association and other gun-rights groups.

This would be a major victory for freedom and would establish that our democratic republic is functioning to protect the intent of our constitution. The author gets too interested in the politics and forgets the practical. It seems to be prevailent where people overlook the bigger picture to chalk up a win for their team. I see this sort of thing a lot in American business where individuals worry about "their budet" and don't look at the bigger picture of their corporation's financial situation.

Shaggy
May 14, 2003, 12:47 AM
Since we know how effectives the republicans are in battling a filibuster, I see the threat here as a way for democrats to exert pressure on republicans to get something out of the anti-gun agenda.

I smell a deal whereby democrats do not filibuster liability limitation if republicans vote to extend the AWB.

Well, that might work if it were just up to the Senate. But since the house has a say, the Senate can make all the deals they want. The bill still won't pass the house according to Delay.

We need to keep writting and faxing folks. The pressure must be kept on. Write early and write often as it were.

We need to write on this other thing about suing gun makers to. That's a crock.

Billll
May 14, 2003, 01:23 AM
----------------------
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently introduced legislation that would extend the Clinton gun ban with only minor modifications.:what:
----------------------

It depends on your definition of the word "minor".

WonderNine
May 14, 2003, 01:45 AM
I smell a deal whereby democrats do not filibuster liability limitation if republicans vote to extend the AWB.

I hope you're wrong :uhoh: , but that's an excellent analysis....

WilderBill
May 14, 2003, 03:54 AM
I think that DeLay is correct (and right ;) ).
The best possible outcome would be for it to never leave commitee.
Still we need to keep up the pressure.
Even those that will be for us could use some pressure. If they sense enough voter concern, it will be time for us to go on the offensive and get some positive changes made.
Can't happen?
Pols usually go with the flow to get votes. If they see a major shift, they won't want to be left out!

fallingblock
May 14, 2003, 06:53 AM
We need to phone, fax, write and even email everyone of the congresscritters...as often as it takes to let them know there is serious support for a sunset.

If I can manage the above from the middle of Australia...well, let's just try hard on this one, O.K.?:D

echo3mike
May 14, 2003, 09:41 AM
GOP Will Let Gun Ban Expire
House Won't Act on Assault Weapons
advertisement



Majority Leader Tom DeLay: "The votes in the House are not there." (Ray Lustig -- The Washington Post)


By Jim VandeHei
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 14, 2003; Page A01


The Republican-controlled House will not renew the federal ban on Uzis and other semiautomatic weapons, a key leader said yesterday, dealing a significant blow to the campaign to clamp down on gun sales nationwide.

House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) said most House members are willing to let the ban expire next year. "The votes in the House are not there" to continue the ban, he told reporters.

His spokesman, Stuart Roy, said, "We have no intention of bringing it up" for a vote.

As majority leader, DeLay decides which bills are voted on in the House. Because the 1994 assault weapons ban expires next year, the House and Senate must pass legislation to renew it by Sept. 13, 2004. If Congress does not act, the AK-47 and 18 other types of semiautomatic weapons that were outlawed a decade ago by President Clinton and a Democratic-controlled Congress would be legal again, handing a major victory to the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups.

Past votes and an NRA survey of lawmakers before the 2002 elections suggest that a majority of House members oppose renewing the ban, GOP officials said. But several Republicans, who requested anonymity, said some pro-gun GOP leaders worry that if members are forced to into a roll call vote, they might switch under pressure from gun control advocates.

President Bush, whose support of the assault weapons ban dates to his 2000 campaign, has drawn rebukes from NRA members and some GOP lawmakers. But several Republicans close to the White House said Bush has no plans to lobby lawmakers aggressively to extend the ban. That would allow him to officially oppose the NRA without completely turning against the powerful gun lobby by fighting to maintain a ban on semiautomatic weapons.

"The White House seems to think that the bill will never reach the President's desk," said a recent alert sent to members of the Gun Owners of America, a gun rights group with close ties to Republicans. "At least that is what top officials are counting on. In pursuing this strategy, they are trying to please both sides and are playing a very dangerous game."

Congressional Republicans said Congress will renew the ban only if Bush publicly and firmly insists. "If the president demands we pass it, that would change the dynamics considerably," a House GOP leadership aide said. "The White House does not want us" to vote.

In a letter to Bush, Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex.) said: "It is now time for us to stand up against the unconstitutional gun-grabbing and help our nation in this time of great need by allowing law-abiding citizens to use the weapon of their choice."

It is unclear how much pressure Bush and congressional Republicans will be under to bring up the volatile gun issue, especially in the 2004 election year. While many leading Senate and House Democrats are pushing legislation to renew the ban, the issue is not sharply partisan.

Many rural and southern Democrats, including a few who voted for the ban in 1994, oppose its renewal and reflect a notable shift in the politics of guns over the past decade. An aide to a Senate Democrat who voted for the ban in 1994 and faces reelection next year said many Democrats "hope it never comes up."

The reason for the turnabout is rooted, in part, in the fallout of the 1994 vote and Vice President Al Gore's 2000 presidential campaign loss.

In 1994, the Democratic-controlled House and Senate narrowly passed the ban on the sale and possession of 19 semiautomatic rapid-fire guns and ammunition clips holding more than 10 rounds. Proponents of the ban said those weapons and copycat versions that do not fall under the ban are frequently used in violent crimes, including the deaths of scores of law enforcement officials. Opponents said the ban violates the constitutional right to bear arms.

In May 1994, the Democratic-controlled House passed the Clinton-backed gun ban by two votes. A few months later, House Speaker Thomas Foley (Wash.), Judiciary Committee Chairman Jack Brooks (Tex.) and several other Democrats who supported the ban were voted out of office after the NRA and other gun activists targeted them in a political campaign.

The NRA's power ebbed and flowed throughout the rest of the 1990s, hitting a high-water mark after Gore's narrow loss in 2000. Gore lost gun rights bastions such as Arkansas, West Virginia and his home state of Tennessee, in part, some Democratic analysts believe, because he was seen as hostile to gun owners. In this year's first debate among Democratic presidential hopefuls, only Al Sharpton vigorously endorsed the registration and licensing of handguns.

Most congressional Democratic leaders and presidential candidates strongly support the assault weapons ban and appear ready to wage a public fight over an issue they believe may pack a political punch with independents and women, in particular. Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently introduced legislation that would extend the Clinton gun ban with only minor modifications. If the House rejects the renewal, however, Senate action will not matter.

In the House, Reps. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) and Carolyn McCarthy (D-N.Y.) introduced a tougher bill last week that would ban a larger number of guns. "I don't want to put my members in any trouble. But if we actually face this, the American people [will support] keeping assault weapons from going back on the street," McCarthy said.


© 2003 The Washington Post Company

Chris Rhines
May 14, 2003, 09:44 AM
Good news from the House, but I still don't trust them. I'd hold off on the celebration until the first flash-suppressor-equipped AR-15 is in your hands...

Read all about it: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51740-2003May13.html

- Chris

Chris Rhines
May 14, 2003, 09:45 AM
Ack...there's already a thread in progress. Mods, please delete or merge this one.

- Chris

Bartholomew Roberts
May 14, 2003, 10:16 AM
Well, it is a good sign; but this fight is far from over. The WaPo loves the AW ban and is just trying to rally the grabbers because we have been a lot more active on this issue lately.

Strange how those sorry SOBs can find a dozen quotes from GOA or NRA or KABA to explain how the Republicans are never going to pass this and Bush doesn't really support it; but they can't ever seem to find one clear explanation of what a semi-automatic weapon is for the readers or explain what a real Uzi and AK47 is.

Also strange that they neglected to mention how McCarthy's bill bans duck guns and all kinds of weapons that aren't even vaguely "assault weapons".

srschick
May 14, 2003, 10:17 AM
also, check out This write-up on CNN.com (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/congress.guns.reut/index.html)

Yanus
May 14, 2003, 11:28 AM
See, I told you so...........:D
Tom DeLay is a good guy and he runs the show in the House. There really isn't a lot of pressure that can be brought to bear against him because he is in a very safe district in Houston. The grabbers can pi$$ and moan, but that is about all they can do.

Be of good cheer..........

Yanus

TarpleyG
May 14, 2003, 11:33 AM
Proponents of the ban said those weapons and copycat versions that do not fall under the ban are frequently used in violent crimes, including the deaths of scores of law enforcement officials.
SHOW ME! I don't believe it.

Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) recently introduced legislation that would extend the Clinton gun ban with only minor modifications :what:
From what I read the modifications were very significant!

GT

David Roberson
May 14, 2003, 11:37 AM
Boy, I sure hope that this is right. I agree with Bartholomew Roberts that the Post is reporting this in an effort to rouse the forces of evil, but perhaps it will also help encourage those who see that this loathsome bit of legislation could possibly go away.

While I'm writing my congressfolk, I may drop a line to Delay as well.

Russ
May 14, 2003, 11:41 AM
Most of the House seats are pretty safe for the incumbents. The House voted to repeal this dog in the 96 already but it went nowhere. I think the House is just as conservative now as it was in 96. Alot of Dems are afraid of this one too.

The AWB would pass in the Senate with all the stinking RINOS. Actually, one of the lead people behind getting the House to vote against it was Sonny Bono. His wife has held his seat since his death and she is almost as conservative as he was.

4v50 Gary
May 14, 2003, 12:08 PM
As well it should.:)

Waitone
May 14, 2003, 12:08 PM
Bbrring, bbrring.

"Hello, Danny Hasert here"

"Hey, Danny! Dubya here. How's it goin'?"

"What can I do for you, Dubya?"

"I got a problem on my hands here and I need you help. Fact is you are the only one that can help me."

"Me? I'm the only one? You must really be in a crack. What's you prob?"

"Look Danny. Here's the sit rep. Democrats are threatening to filibuster in the senate the gun manufacturers liability limitiation bill that I want and most of the congress wants. Why with that one bill we can shut down a lot of the harassing lawsuits. Problem is the democrats have refined this filibuster thingy to an art form. Combine that with the senate's inability to engage in political fighting and I've got a problem. Danny, I want that legislation."

"So Dubya, how can I fix a problem with the senate. I'm a whup in the house."

"Lookie here Danny. All I need is for you guys to roll over on the pesky AWB sunset think. Look I know its worthless legislation. I know it is designed to harass everyone but the criminals. I know all that stuff. Good news is democrats believe it all and they want it really bad."

"Dubya, you want republicans in the house to roll over and let the senate win?"

"Danny, you guys are experienced in being shagged by the senate. Remember Clinton's impeachment fiasco? Looik, just consider my request to be a political maneuver designed to achieve a larger objective. Besides, those that oppose the AWB are few and far between; noisey but small in number. So I think we can stick it to 'em with little loss in votes. Besides, who they gonna vote for, Hillary? Not likely."

'OK Dubya. I set the fix. I'm not gonna explain this to the gun nuts. You figure a way to do it. I'll rig it so the AWB can be extended with a midnight vote with little if any coverage. You figure out a way to make sure the democrats don't slip us the weenie. You get them to vote for liability limitation and get it passed before we vote on AWB. We have plenty of time to hold up our end of a bargain. "

"Danny, you're a gentleman and a scholar. I owe you, bub."

2dogs
May 14, 2003, 12:35 PM
The Republican-controlled House will not renew the federal ban on Uzis

"There will be carnage in the streets as roving bands of soulless evil doers, armed with UZIS and bayonet lugged semi -AUTOMATIC weapons sweep the streets of the living, your children and mine, leaving behind bloody masses of broken flesh."

And when they report this on CBSNBCABCCNN I want to see Tom Delay explain his position on how we must protect the right of citizens to have these weapons.

It's all about PR and we will (unfortunately) lose. Somehow. Like arming pilots. Get it?

Soap
May 14, 2003, 12:38 PM
SHOW ME! I don't believe it.

Most Leftists never put ALL the facts together. They will take a small quote by someone and try to build a philosophy on it. They will take an isolated incident and make it a plague. They sleep through history class yet they think they are experts. So it wouldn't surprise me if the Left's position on this is structured by Hollywood.

George Hill
May 14, 2003, 01:01 PM
They will throw out the Bank of America robbery as evidence. "This is happening" when it only happened once in a huge freak event that never happened before and will probably never happen again.

Hmmm maybe Bonnie and Clyde pulled some similar crap, but still... it was a freak occurance.

GnL
May 14, 2003, 01:02 PM
We should not let up on this issue. Keep writing/calling your congress people. This law must die, but if we let up, the politics of the situation will be too much for the RINOs to bear, and they will cave.

Today I mailed letters to all 3 congressmen, the President, and Bill Frist and Tom DeLay on this issue. You should too. Forget about e-mails--they are worthless. Mail or call.

Braz
May 14, 2003, 01:14 PM
Well, well, well.

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/congress.guns.reut/index.html

Is it possible the RTKBA is returning to America? Not that it would help us behind the sushi curtain, but I would be happy for the rest of the country. Good luck ladies and gentlemen.

Mark Tyson
May 14, 2003, 01:21 PM
Why on Earth did the president support reauthorization anyway? Doesn't he know that Midwest gunowners(many of whom are slightly left leaning union members) played a major role in winning him the White House? What is he thinking? Does he really believe that that stupid law prevents crime?

Master Blaster
May 14, 2003, 01:22 PM
You should too. Forget about e-mails--they are worthless. Mail or call.

My emails get me a detailed letter in reply on congressional stationary, when I call the person on the other end types it into an E-mail as I am speaking.

Snail mail is seldom opened anymore due to the anthrax scare.

Call and E-mail.

Sheslinger
May 14, 2003, 01:26 PM
It's just politics. I believe he said if it gets to him (wink-wink), he would sign it.

Erich
May 14, 2003, 01:28 PM
Well, this is nice to see.

MrAcheson
May 14, 2003, 01:43 PM
The president's stance has always been (since April 2000) that he will not personnally promote the legislation in order to get it to his desk, but once there he will sign it.

Frankly its a little late to be mad, since he is just following through with his previous campaign promises. Those midwesterners voted for him on those terms in 2000.

GlocksRock
May 14, 2003, 01:51 PM
This helps brighten my day. I guess I should start saving right now to go out and buy me some normal capacity mags for my Glock 19 when the ban expires. I might even be inclined to get a new gun, just so I will have one that holds more than 10 rounds, hmmm... a new SIG Sauer, or Beretta sounds good.

Mark Tyson
May 14, 2003, 01:59 PM
Yeah, too late to be mad I suppose. But I am mad. I feel betrayed.
I wanted to like him, and I think he's basically a decent guy, but
if he signs a reauthorization I will go fishing on election day. I don't care if he saves the world. I don't care if he runs against Hillary herself. His first duty is to protect our freedom here at home.

mec
May 14, 2003, 02:28 PM
citing an article in the Washington Post, the GOP has decided to let the assault weapons bill expire. They will probably stick by this unless we have another episode of idiot mass murder such as happened last year. Maybe even then as the useless pos'es could have done their dirty work with a single shot.

Mikul
May 14, 2003, 02:39 PM
If this ban sunsets, I'm likely to become a very poor man.

Hello? Bushmaster? How much is that folding stock AR with 100 round drum magazine?

AmericanFreeBird
May 14, 2003, 02:51 PM
A bit of good news in an otherwise anti-gun world. http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/05/13/congress.guns.reut/

My fear is that once the ban sunsets all the grassroots activists will go out, get drunk, celebrate, buy a few high cap magazines and then go home.

This wave of activism must continue, we have a lot more laws to repeal that don't have a sunset clause in them!

valnar
May 14, 2003, 02:52 PM
Sorry for what many will consider a dumb question.

Is this ban is lifted, does that mean high-cap magazines for pistols will be legal again (and cheaper!)??

Robert

.45Ruger
May 14, 2003, 02:55 PM
Tom Delay is the man who makes things happen, or not happen in the House. If he says he sees an end I am inclined to believe it.

Ian
May 14, 2003, 02:56 PM
Yup, valnar, they will be. Same for rifle mags. And shotgun box mags (the few that exist).

George Hill
May 14, 2003, 02:56 PM
Yes.

El Tejon
May 14, 2003, 02:56 PM
val, no, mags will be more expensive initially (pent up demand, concurrent with increased firearm purchases). However, new ones will again be made.

Buy your mags now, and work like the devil to kill this horrid thing.

AmericanFreeBird
May 14, 2003, 04:47 PM
478 Days left until the AWB sunsets! :D

Bainx
May 14, 2003, 04:51 PM
GnL is right, we need to keep after it.
DeLay is merely one babbling fool talking to himself.

Watch my hand!!!

TimH
May 14, 2003, 05:07 PM
Now lets not go fishin' on election day! God knows the second amendment will be in serious trouble if the likes of Hitlery gets into the White House.

shooten
May 14, 2003, 05:10 PM
I sincerely hope that the AWB sunsets. However, living in the PRK, I don't think it will make much difference. We still have a mirror to that law hanging over our heads:fire:.

Scott

Russ
May 14, 2003, 05:38 PM
I saw Wayne LaPierre on Fox the other night and he said the bill would never reach Bush's desk. I'm guessing he got a heads up from Delay because he was more confident sounding than I have heard him in a long time.

Keep on writting. Keep the pressure on the Congress and President. E mail and Call often. September is a long way off in political terms. Then pray the DemocRATS don't retake the House in 04. If they do this POS will be back with a vengeance. It will look like the California bill which is much stronger than the current federal bill.

shermacman
May 14, 2003, 05:52 PM
Good Lord people! Even if W. signs the continuation of the AWB you have to still vote for him! If al-Gore ended up as President then we would be limited to buy .22 shorts in packages of 10 rounds once a month. No matter what we must get W. re-elected. Let's live to fight another day!

TechBrute
May 14, 2003, 05:58 PM
I think it's crap that we are forced to vote for the lesser of the two evils. Maybe if Hitlery gets voted in they will try to take all our guns. Then we'll see what happens.

GnL
May 14, 2003, 08:18 PM
Snail mail is seldom opened anymore due to the anthrax scare.

Do you think they just throw away all the mail addressed to Congress? Of course they don't. They screen it at remote sites, just like they did during the anthrax incidents. I have been writing my congressmen and getting replies so I know it gets there.

Maybe you have been lucky--but I've been told and have read that many e-mails are simply ignored because they are too often bogus (false e-mail addresses and use of e-mail blasters) and are hidden among so much spam. Maybe that's wrong.

Brett Bellmore
May 14, 2003, 08:42 PM
I certainly hope the House kills it, but it's in our best interest that it at least come to a vote. Nothing quite like an up/down vote to expose false friends, after all, and get the troops fired up just before an election.

Glock Glockler
May 14, 2003, 08:46 PM
Ladies and Gentlemen,

The momentum is going in our direction right now, which means that we have to push harder then ever. Take someone shooting and let them have a good time, plant some seeds with some fense sitters, whatever, but just do whatever you can to build our numbers.

LawDog
May 14, 2003, 09:38 PM
Duplicate threads merged.

LawDog

If you enjoyed reading about "GOP Will Let Assault Weapon Ban Expire...(multiple threads)" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!