Will House take up renewal of gun ban?

World Net Daily ^ | May 19, 2003 | Jon Dougherty

[Shooter 2.5]

The second-highest ranking Republican in the House believes renewal of a decade-old ban on so-called "assault weapons" is in doubt, primarily because he doesn't think the votes are there to extend it.

[Shooter 2.5]

There is a comment half way down the article where someone from the dem party is trying to distance themselves from the Assault Weapons ban by implicating some of the Republicans.

[Shooter 2.5]

bump

[Paleo Conservative]

I doubt it.

[Joe Brower]

I am compiling a list of FreeRepublic folks who are interested in RKBA topics. If you want off my ping-list, just let me know.

Conversely, FReepmail me if you want to be added.

And my apologies for any redundant pings.

[Shooter 2.5]

"Some Democrats not only want to renew the ban, they want to expand it to include other look-alike weapons. But Roy said a new ban wouldn't be dependent on Democrats, many of whom, he explained, opposed the 1994 ban anyway.

No, I take that back. It's Stuart Roy who said it's not dependent of the dems to push the bill.

[Sender]

The Dems of course will say that unless GWB is on TV actively begging and pleading for a new assault weapon law from now until next year, that puts all the blame on him when the law sunsets. Of course the Constitution and the will of an angry American populace has nothing to do with it, it's all GWB's fault. Just like the economy and terrorism.

[Shooter 2.5]

You're right. See my correction on #5.

[Ravenstar]

Where are the Republicans on this. The house leadership doesn't want to bring it up so it expires but W the leader of the Party says he will sign it???? What part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand!

Ravenstar

[toddst]

What part of "shall not be infringed" does he (George W.) not understand!

He understands just fine. This is a politically strategic decision to sweep the moderate liberals into his camp without alienating the pro-gun folks (like me.) I think most gun people understand exactly what he's doing and it's ok. Of course, then there's the hard-core no compromise crowd he'll just have to ignore. Reality time, gang.

[Ravenstar]

He has alienated me. You stand for the Constitution or you don't. Did you ever think that if he signed it he would be violating his oath of office. I know, I know Clintoon already did but we missed removing him because Spent Lott wouldn't do his duty, instead he played politics.

Ravenstar

[drZ]

NPR has a story today that a majority of women Representatives voted for the AW ban:
http://discover.npr.org/rundowns/segment.jhtml?wfId=1268211

[caltrop]

Yes, he's certainly pro-gun. The way he's armed airline pilots has been very impressive. Just the other day I read that 44 were authorized to carry firearms in their cockpits. If even Barbara Boxer gets it, what excuse dose Bush have for not getting it? The answer, at least to me, is pretty clear - he'll support the 2nd Amendment as long as it works politically - he's strictly a fair weather friend of gun rights. None of his political capital is ever going to be spent on behalf of the 2nd Amendment.

[Ravenstar]

They also have obviously failed to read the Constitution or they just don't care and their oath of office means nothing.

Ravenstar

[eskimo]

He understands just fine. This is a politically strategic decision to sweep the moderate liberals into his camp without alienating the pro-gun folks (like me.)

Sure he understands. He understands the establishment political monopoly will offer you no better choice to protect your interests.

I think most gun people understand exactly what he's doing and it's ok. Of course, then there's the hard-core no compromise crowd he'll just have to ignore.

I have heard there are those who think it is "OK" for their political idols to compromise the 'unalienable rights' of others, I, personally, do not know any though.

Reality time, gang.

It certainly is.

[Ravenstar]

Boy have you got it! All exmilitary pilots should have been armed September 12, 2001, this is war after all! Then there should have been a program that would have armed the rest within 2 months. It is creeping up on two years and only 44 pilots armed, but he did create the biggest Gestapo in American History with the Patriot Act. The TSA is your new Gestapo. If you don't believe it just look at the fact that they cannot be held civilly or criminally liable for any violation of your Constitutional Rights!

Ravenstar

[familyofman]

"What part of "shall not be infringed" does he not understand!" Please don't forget the qualifier - A well regulated militia being required.
Either way - there should be a vote (roll call ) so that the voters know where their rep stands on the issue. These wimps need to get some backbone.

[Shooter 2.5]

Keep sending in those letters and emails.
Washington, DC. Office
Office of Dennis Hastert
235 Cannon HOB
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-2976
Fax: (202) 225-0697


Batavia, IL Office
Office of Dennis Hastert
27 N. River Street
Batavia, IL 60510
Phone: (630) 406-1114
Fax: (630) 406-1808


Dixon, IL Office
Office of Dennis Hastert
119 W. First St.
Dixon, IL 61021
Phone: (815) 288-0680
Fax: (815) 288-0743

We have a lot of work to do and it's possible we don't have a lot of time to do it in. The libs have already started their PR war and we can't sit still.

Make sure this thing dies from lack of attention before it gets to Congress.

And don't do a thing that will put the libs back into power.

[Ravenstar]

You should both go and completely read the article there at WND. You might want to follow the America First Link and do some reading.

Ravenstar

[Ravenstar]

"A well regulated milia being required" means that we the people must be familiar with the use and accurate operation of all forms of weapons available. No one in the Federal Government was to infringe on the arming of the citizenry aka the militia.

Ravenstar

[Ravenstar]

oops should be "militia". Pardon my typo please.

Ravenstar