DeLay: "Zero chance" for (Assault Weapons Ban) renewal passing in House

AWBanSunset.com ^ | 5/9/03 | Stuart Roy

[Long Cut]

We're not talking about machine guns. Those are covered by a separate law.

Terrs, BTW, would have little problem obtaining weapons regardless of what laws were in place. Italy, for example, has stringent gun control, which did nothing to stop two airports there from being shot up and an American 13-year-old killed, back in the '80s. It DID, however, ensure that the targets would be helpless to defend themselves.

Oh, and the jackals of 9-11 used no guns at all, and slew 3,000+ Americans.

[Godebert]

"That having been said, I wonder if letting the assault weapons ban die is such a good idea. The difference between then and now is 9-11. If we have this type of weapon readily available for sale within the United States, it seems to me that it would make it that much easier for a terrorist group to infiltrate the country unarmed, and then acquire the necessary tools to carry out an attack. "

"Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ......Benjamin Franklin

[GunRunner]

Does this mean that new guns will be sold with high cap mags now?

[sinkspur]

How does that mitigate his promise to betray us?

The very way you phrase the question indicates that it's a good thing you're in teaching and not in politics.

[1stFreedom]

It's so easy to take an AR-15 and make it fully auto (it just takes a flat piece of steel with a few holes).

If terrorists wanted to use automatic weapons, they would get the regardless of the law.

[sinkspur]

If Bush knew that it was not going to ever cross his desk, then why say anything at all about his willingness to sign it?

Bush playing good-cop to Delay's bad cop.

Making sausage is a pretty ugly process, but the end product tastes pretty good.

[Godebert]

Preserving the assault weapons ban makes it just that much harder for terrorists to obtain tools of the trade.

This Constitution shall never be construed....to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms........Samuel Adams (1722-1803)

[TexanToTheCore]

"If Bush knew that it was not going to ever cross his desk, then why say anything at all about his willingness to sign it?"

Because it removed the issue from the debate, which is a W/Rove gambit that has been played many times. The first time I saw it was early in the campaign for election when ALGore brought up global warming and started in on W. W's reply was " I agree that there is global warming", and the issue never came up again in the contest for the Presidency. It was a brilliant strategy and they continue to use it as we see here.

[BlazingArizona]

Preserving the assault weapons ban makes it just that much harder for terrorists to obtain tools of the trade.

No, it just makes it harder for the rest of us to defend ourselves.

Please stop this before you give us Apple users a bad name.

[TexanToTheCore]

That is simply untrue. I would much rather be shot with an assault weapon than, say, a 30-06. The assault weapon is designed to wound, the hunting rifle is designed to kill on the first shot. The difference is amazing.

[Campion]

Think of the attack at El Al counter in LA...now have a dozen guys there instead of one...and arm them with machine guns.

Machine guns have been effectively illegal in civilian hands since 1934. The "assault weapons ban" has nothing to do with them.

It does, however, say that, while my 9mm pistol was designed for a 15-round clip, and takes a 15-round clip, the only kind of clip that can legally be manufactured or imported for it is a crippled 10-round clip. Clearly, I can be trusted with two (2) 10-round clips, or even thirty (30) 10-round clips, but not with one (1) 15-round clip. 10-round clip "good", 15-round clip "bad".

If you can explain that kind of idiocy, then maybe you can convince me that the AWB is a good law.

[SSN558]

"Preserving the assault weapons ban makes it just that much harder for terrorists to obtain tools of the trade."

The Maryland snipers used an assault weapon, however they made all the kills with single shots. As much or more damage could have been done with a single shot bolt action hunting rifle. The assault rifle ban has nothing to do with terrorist control except in the perception of rabid anti gun grabbers. The prefered tool of terrorists is the suicide bomb.

[On the Road to Serfdom]

That having been said, I wonder if letting the assault weapons ban die is such a good idea. The difference between then and now is 9-11.

Just because people joked a while back that some would use 9-11 to promote gun control rather than box cutter control, that does not mean you should take their idea and run with it.

9-11 had nothing to do with guns, other than too much gun control prevented the good guys from having them when they needed them. And when you need a gun, you REALLY need it.

[ChuckMartelRox]

You're arguing for better border security.

Your logic is that people who enter America wishing to do us harm might take advantage of the fact that this is a free country. The answer is to better control those who enter, rather than eliminate the free country.

[elbucko]

Does that make you feel better?

Yes it does. Politics is more important than sex.

[The FRugitive]

I will be thrilled if this turns out to be the case.

HOWEVER, while I won't hold it against Bush at the polls, I do hold it against him personally for takeing that stand, even if he was just "playing politics".

[elbucko]

Preserving the assault weapons ban makes it just that much harder for terrorists to obtain tools of the trade.

Respectfully, but your whole post is full of Bravo Sierra.

[The FRugitive]

But what about the nervous nellies who fret about family and gay issues etc.?

Frankly those are not as important issues...the right to arms is a cornerstone of a free society.

America is lost without it.

[Beenliedto]

President Bush knew this but it was a good sound bite for the 'take the guns away' bunch.

So much for principals.

You just gotta love these guys.

[Dan from Michigan]

Under normal circumstances, I support the positions the NRA takes and don't care for restrictions politicians try to place on the 2nd amendment.

That's good.

If we have this type of weapon readily available for sale within the United States, it seems to me that it would make it that much easier for a terrorist group to infiltrate the country unarmed, and then acquire the necessary tools to carry out an attack.

If I'm a terrorist and want to use a gun attack, I'd be buying up pump action shotguns and 30-06 deer rifles. Those are much more powerful than so called assault weapons, which usually use .223 bullets.

Think of the attack at El Al counter in LA...now have a dozen guys there instead of one...and arm them with machine guns.
Machine Guns(or submachine guns) are not covered at all by so called assault weapons ban. Assault RIFLES are submachine guns. Those are different than 'assault weapons'. Machine guns are legal with a class III. If you have one, you can get an MP5. These so called assault weapons have nothing to do with machine guns at all.

Preserving the assault weapons ban makes it just that much harder for terrorists to obtain tools of the trade

No it doesn't.