[ThirstyMan]

I have to agree wholeheartedly with your sarcasm.
I'm not seeing the Democratic platform as a viable option just because a few citizens have their thirst for assault weaponry trimmed back.
There are ideologues on the conservative side and there are ideologues on the liberal side.
Issues such as the assault weapons ban brings out all our ideologues. They see this as only the first step toward disarmament of the populace -- a Constitutional violation.
Partial birth abortion otoh, brings out the liberal's ideologues who see restrictions on that heinous act of murder to be a first step in a march to eliminate abortions altogether.
It's not the ideologues who will decide the next election!

[verity]

I fully appreciate your realistic views. It is a refreshing departure from the traditional knee jerk responses of the tunnel-vision crowd.

[Dane]

Partial birth abortion otoh, brings out the liberal's ideologues who see restrictions on that heinous act of murder to be a first step in a march to eliminate abortions altogether. It's not the ideologues who will decide the next election!

I was listening to 1100 WTAM, Clevland this morning and the host was talking about the Laci Petersen muder and a caller came on and stated that that Scott Petersen should only be charged with one murder, since it is legal to get a partial birth abortion.

I was dumbfounded.

[Jarhead_22]

Issues such as the assault weapons ban brings out all our ideologues. They see this as only the first step toward disarmament of the populace -- a Constitutional violation.

This isn't even close to the "first step" toward eventual total disarmament. It's only the latest in long series of steps. If you don't believe that total civilian disarmament is the goal, you haven't been paying attention.

Partial birth abortion otoh, brings out the liberal's ideologues who see restrictions on that heinous act of murder to be a first step in a march to eliminate abortions altogether.

Please quote for me, if you will, the portion of the US Constitution that protects "the right of the people to shred and murder babies" from infringement.

Is the difference between a Constitutional right and a practice clear to you yet?

[Dan from Michigan]

It's not the ideologues who will decide the next election!

Actually, you are wrong for two reasons.

1. If the ideologues stay home, the other guy wins.
2. In my state, most of the middle owns a gun, carries a union card, and lives in places like Macomb or Monroe County. If they see Bush turn anti-gun or raise taxes, they will vote for the union label.

[PuNcH]

I'm not seeing the Democratic platform as a viable option just because a few citizens have their thirst for assault weaponry trimmed back. There are ideologues on the conservative side

*SIGH*

The assault ban does not actually deal with assault weaponry. We are not talking about machineguns. The fact that this is a constant problem in talking about this proves that the assault ban piece of propaganda has got to go. The propaganda is successful because it has everyone talking about semi-auto rifles as if they were machineguns.

[IGOTMINE]

I beg to differ...in a country as politically divided as ours, it IS the idealogues that that shape the debate and bring in the votes. In 2000, I drained my 401K and donated every penny I could to the Bush campaign and pro-gun Republicans with an eye toward getting this heinous legislation sunset in 04. I knew in 1994 that Feinstein would be back for even more...this law has to go. I am tired of slowly being legislated into felon status.