[E. Pluribus Unum]

"The first signs came in 1994, after Bill Clinton successfully urged the Democrat-controlled House and Senate to pass legislation outlawing 19 types of "assault" weapons. In November of that year, several Democrats who had supported the ban, including then-House Speaker Tom Foley of Washington, were voted out of office in the Republican sweep."

The AWB renewal is dead.

It is not necessary for Dubya to expound upon the Constiution, the Second Amendment and Patrick Henry the way some knee-jerk "conservatives" demand.

All Congress has to do is ignore it, and they can easily do that if it stays off the radar screen.

[Oberon]

The AWB renewal is dead.

It would be nice if Dennis Hastert would say so, however.

[Chemist_Geek]

It is not necessary for Dubya to expound upon the Constiution, the Second Amendment and Patrick Henry the way some knee-jerk "conservatives" demand.

All Congress has to do is ignore it, and they can easily do that if it stays off the radar screen.

Right, but if that comes to pass, then the mouthbreathers will be shouting that Bush wasn't strong enough, that he didn't use his office to push for a repeal of the 1934 NFA, they're not going to make the mistake of voting for a gun grabber like Bush ever again, etc.

One thing I do admire about the Democrats and liberals is that they will take their victories however they get them - legislation, through the courts, through Hollywood, however. We need to be the same way - Bush doesn't have to pount the podium and shout the "Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you!" quote for us to win this battle.

But, some gun owners would rather be a persecuted minority, for that feeds their martyr complex...

[caltrop]

You're right that Bush doesn't have to expound on the 2nd Amendment. It would, however, be nice if he'd take the opportunity to move on gun friendly initiatives when he has the political cover to. So far, 44 pilots have been permitted to arm themselves. If even Barbara Boxer wants them armed, why can't Bush simply require that pilots be armed whenever they carry US Mail? That, as I recall, was the policy until some time in the late '70s.

From where I'm sitting, it looks like Bush does the absolute minimum in defense of the 2nd Amendment. Unfortunately, he's a real chip off the old block.

[Badray]

" It is not necessary for Dubya to expound upon the Constiution, the Second Amendment and Patrick Henry the way some knee-jerk "conservatives" demand."

Do you really believe that we "knee jerk conservatives" should just roll over like a "lewinsky democrat" when we believe that we are about to be, uh, screwed?

The rants, the table pounding, and the threats were all necessary and appropriate. Apparently the message is getting through to ALL of these political whores.

[El Gato]

It is not necessary for Dubya to expound upon the Constiution, the Second Amendment and Patrick Henry the way some knee-jerk "conservatives" demand.

It may not be "necessary" but it would be nice. It would certainly raise my morale several notches.

All Congress has to do is ignore it, and they can easily do that if it stays off the radar screen.

But Lizzard Face, Fineswine and pretty much every talking head in the country aren't going to let it stay off the radar screen. Several convenient bloodletting may also help keep it "on screen".