Half a Million Urge Bush, Congressional Leaders to Renew Assault ...

Weapons Ban

Saturday September 11, 2004

Washington, D.C. /PRNewswire/ -Over 500,000 petitions are being delivered later today to President George W. Bush, Speaker of the House J. Dennis Hastert and Majority Leader Bill Frist asking them to stop blocking renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. <snip>

On Friday morning, the White House officially refused to meet with law enforcement leaders about saving the assault weapons ban. The International Association of Chiefs of Police had requested a meeting, offering to send police chiefs to meet with the President on any date that the White House chose. The White House response said the President would not meet with the police due to a "scheduling conflict." (Again, the IACP had not requested any specific date or time for the meeting.) <snip>

http://www.infozine.com/news/stories/op/storiesView/sid/3408/

100% of the time, but he has an october surprise to prepare, and there's those pesky debates, so he has to keep taking his pills, and they make him groggy and slurry, so naturally, he has a scheduling conflict for doing any of the nation's work.

Anyone in the know?

http://www.grandlodgefop.org/press/pr040910.html

September 10, 2004

"Fraternal Order of Police Endorses Bush!!!
President Bush has "full support" of the nation's largest police labor organization

Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, today announced the organization's endorsement of President George W. Bush in his reelection effort."

*snip/more*

http://www.grandlodgefop.org/press/pr040910.html

"Fraternal Order of Police Endorses Bush!!!
President Bush has "full support" of the nation's largest police labor organization

Chuck Canterbury, National President of the Fraternal Order of Police, today announced the organization's endorsement of President George W. Bush in his reelection effort.

"For the past four years, President George W. Bush has proved himself to be one of the very best friends that rank-and-file law enforcement officers have ever had," Canterbury said from Albuquerque, New Mexico, where the group's National Board is meeting this weekend. "We are fortunate to have this man in the White House and we are proud to give him our endorsement today."

For a candidate to receive the endorsement of the Fraternal Order of Police, he must receive a two-third majority of the National Board, which comprises one Trustee from each of the organization's State Lodges. President Bush received the unanimous endorsement of the National Board.

"Our National Board, and the more than 318,000 members of the F.O.P., are very well acquainted with the President's record with respect to law enforcement because he has made the F.O.P. a partner in crafting national law enforcement policy," Canterbury said. "He has always been there for the rank-and-file officer, and we are eager to be there for him in November."

No mention of the AWB, but even when the FOP threw their support behind it, it was luke warm at best.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?r108:48:./temp/~r10880Shaf:e44904:

From the Congressional Record.

"Not only does President Bush support this legislation--law enforcement does as well. The men and women of law enforcement know that this legislation makes communities safer. In a letter dated February 18, 2004, the Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police writes, ``It is the position of the Grand Lodge that we will support the reauthorization of current law, but we will not support any expansion of the ban.'' This endorsement comes in addition to the endorsement of just about every other major law enforcement organization, and in addition to the endorsements of chiefs of police all across Virginia".

I suspect part of the reason was that unlike the previous ban, the expanded ban makes no mention of an exception for active duty or retired LEOs to retain their assault weapons and/or magazines.

The FOP was also looking to get national concealed carry for active duty and retired LEOs (which they overwhelmingly got). By endorsing straight reauthorization of the 94 ban, they probably forestalled any serious opposition for the CCW bill.

to deliver the petitions was probably a bad idea.

If all those people are so concerned about the expiration of the ban, why haven't they done anything about it until now?

They've had 10 full years. Delivering petitions after Congress' last working session prior to the sunset defines a new level of pointlessness.

Today I'm going to clean up a pre-ban AR-15 upper receiver assembly I've been saving in mothballs (actually rust preventive grease) for this occasion. I also plan to order a "pre-ban" type golf ball firing attachment, which fits on the threaded muzzle.

I was reading the articles while on vacation. Apparently, it takes the looming deadline to get attention. It got yours.

Did you actually DO anything to try to get the ban extended or renewed?

How important is this issue to you?

Apparently, it takes the looming deadline to get attention. It got yours.

I've been aware of it the whole 10 years. I have to stay aware of gun laws because they potentially affect the value and legality of my gun collection.

democrats have been diligently trying to get the ban extended and have been thwarted by republicans--and not that democrats have waited until two days prior to the expiration.

Why pretend there isn't opposition to the expiration?

Why blame the powerless for the actions of the empowered?

Why pretend like it was different ten days, ten years or ten months ago?

to get the ban extended in the last few years. What is funny are these sudden cries from people about it sunsetting when there is no chance of doing anything about it. There have been about a dozen threads on this in LBN and the GDs in the last week or so. That's almost more gun threads total up here since I joined DU. If the issue was so important, where were all these AWB supporters when we were discussing the AWB in the dungeon a month ago, or two months ago, or on Super Tuesday when the Senate voted on it, or even before that?



Why pretend like it was different ten days, ten years or ten months ago?

Because it was different. While the AWB has always had its clueless supporters, it's only in the last week or so that people seem to have gotten really worried that it's going to sunset.

because the republicans wouldn't allow it. They didn't and wouldn't have allowed it ten days, ten months, or ten years ago.

The only way to get it extended is to get the republicans out of office. That means that it is an election issue to be tossed about in an election season--right now. Right now, so it is an issue in voting.

And yet, bringing it up right now seems to be the only thing you can criticize. I can't figure out who you are trying to put down or why, but I can tell it isn't the republicans who have blocked an extension, or the president who pretends to favor it but won't make a phone call for it.

:eyes:


The only way to get it extended is to get the republicans out of office. That means that it is an election issue to be tossed about in an election season--right now. Right now, so it is an issue in voting.

I don't know about that. Given the history of gun control, at least in the last 25 or 30 years, if you really want more gun control passed, you should consider getting more Republicans into office.


And yet, bringing it up right now seems to be the only thing you can criticize. I can't figure out who you are trying to put down or why, but I can tell it isn't the republicans who have blocked an extension, or the president who pretends to favor it but won't make a phone call for it.

I'm not trying to put anyone down. Well, maybe AWB supporters, a little. I just think it's funny that there's suddenly this panic about the AWB sunsetting when it is literally impossible to renew it in the amount of time there is left.

Do you actually think only Republicans voted against extending it and only Democrats voted for it?

All politicians want to have it both ways. All of them. Do you think Bush is any different? Do you think he wants to end up like his gun grabbing father?

>>I just think it's funny that there's suddenly this panic about the AWB sunsetting when it is literally impossible to renew it in the amount of time there is left.<<

Its neither sudden, nor impossible. The ban has been stymied by republicans for months. But if the leadership wanted to allow a vote in the House, it could be had Monday--what is making it impossible is not the amount of time (ten years) but the amount of opposition--from republicans, including the president, although he hasn't either the honesty or the balls to say so. By the way, what is YOUR position on the ban? Or are you taking the presidential route on this one?


>>Do you actually think only Republicans voted against extending it and only Democrats voted for it?<<

Actually, NOBODY voted on it at all--because the republican leadership prevents it from coming to a vote in the House. Funny, you never really seem to say whether you are for the ban or against it. How come?

Its neither sudden, nor impossible. The ban has been stymied by republicans for months. But if the leadership wanted to allow a vote in the House, it could be had Monday

Even if they voted on it in the House Monday, the Senate would still have to vote on it at some point and then the president would have to sign it. In the meantime, the ban would sunset turning the millions of post-ban weapons into the pre-bans of a future ban. Any renewal would have had to been signed before this one sunsets to prevent that.


what is making it impossible is not the amount of time (ten years) but the amount of opposition--from republicans, including the president, although he hasn't either the honesty or the balls to say so.

Right it's all those pro-gun Republicans stopping the ban from being renewed.


Actually, NOBODY voted on it at all--because the republican leadership prevents it from coming to a vote in the House.

It's been voted on. It failed to pass in the Senate on Super Tuesday.


Funny, you never really seem to say whether you are for the ban or against it. How come?

Gee if you really wanted to know, maybe you should have asked instead of trying to make it look like I'm trying to hide something. I'm against the AWB. I'm against all gun control.

all you can do is imply bad motives or incompetence on the part of backers of the AWB ban, by pretending that there hasn't been an effort to get it extended and that effort hasn't been simply stymied by the republicans.

Why not address the issue on the merits? Why not admit that the repugs are refusing to allow a vote, that Bush is lying when he says he wants the ban, and say that you are all for it? Why pretend it is too late? Why make all these excuses as to why nobody should care about the idiot pubbie policies?

>>It's been voted on. It failed to pass in the Senate on Super Tuesday.<<

Wrong again. Its never been presented in a clean bill. You think it wouldn't pass the Senate? Is that why Frist refuses to bring it to a vote now?

>>Right it's all those pro-gun Republicans stopping the ban from being renewed.<<

Right. And you are FOR just that. Don't forget that part.

>>Even if they voted on it in the House Monday, the Senate would still have to vote on it at some point and then the president would have to sign it. <<

All of which COULD be done--if they wanted the law. But the repugs, including the president, don't. It isn't because there isn't enought time. Its because the president is a liar and the house republican caucus doesn't want the ban. They didn't want it months ago and still don't want it. The only thing to do is remove them from power. Period.

"all you can do is imply bad motives or incompetence on the part of backers of the AWB ban, by pretending that there hasn't been an effort to get it extended and that effort hasn't been simply stymied by the republicans.


In fact, I said otherwise in my first post in this subthread: No one is claiming that there haven't been attempts to get the ban extended in the last few years.

What I am saying is that all of these threads here at DU about "Oh my God the AWB is going to sunset in a couple days!" are hilarious. Where were all of you folks when we were discussing this in January?



Why not address the issue on the merits?

OK. The AWB is the sorriest excuse for a gun control law ever passed at the federal level. The only way it passed in the first place was because they stuck a 10 year sunset provision on it. I'm glad the gun grabbers have wasted the last 15 years and large piles of money to get the AWB and try to keep it. If they had worked for some real gun control instead of wasting their time and money, who knows what they could have gotten passed in the meantime.


Why not admit that the repugs are refusing to allow a vote, that Bush is lying when he says he wants the ban, and say that you are all for it?

So what if the Republicans are refusing to allow a vote or if Bush is lying when he says he wants the ban? I think Bush doesn't want to sign any gun control in his first term because he's afraid he'll end up a one term wonder like his father.

I like how you tried to paint me into the Republican camp with the last part of your question. It was a nice touch. You should come down and post in the dungeon.


Why pretend it is too late?

It is too late. The ban sunsets in 2 hours. Even assuming they hurried and passed a new one this week and Bush signed it, which isn't likely, all of those millions of weapons that have been sold since the last ban went into effect would become the pre-bans of the next ban.


Why make all these excuses as to why nobody should care about the idiot pubbie policies?"

I'm not sure what excuses you're talking about or what Republican policies you're referring to. We are discussing the AWB, after all. Signed with a sunset provision by a Democratic President.



Wrong again. Its never been presented in a clean bill. You think it wouldn't pass the Senate? Is that why Frist refuses to bring it to a vote now?

I don't know or care if it would pass the Senate and I couldn't possibly care less about what Frist is thinking. I'm certainly happy to see a bad law disappear, though.


>>Right it's all those pro-gun Republicans stopping the ban from being renewed.<<

Right. And you are FOR just that. Don't forget that part.

Yeah. All the Republicans want the ban to sunset and all the Democrats want to renew it. :eyes: Again, very nice touch trying to put me in the Republican corner. You should really come down to the dungeon.


All of which COULD be done--if they wanted the law. But the repugs, including the president, don't. It isn't because there isn't enought time. Its because the president is a liar and the house republican caucus doesn't want the ban. They didn't want it months ago and still don't want it. The only thing to do is remove them from power. Period.

Maybe. You've still created millions of new pre-ban weapons and turned the AWB into an even bigger joke than it already is.

>>OK. The AWB is the sorriest excuse for a gun control law ever passed at the federal level. <<

And your reasoning for that is---well, never mind. After all, there's only one type of gun law you despise more than one that doesn't work well, and that's one that does.

>>It is too late. The ban sunsets in 2 hours. <<

Yeah, its amazing how a false assertion about it being "too late" can become true after teh repugs refuse to bring the matter to a vote for a year or two.

>>I don't know or care if it would pass the Senate and I couldn't possibly care less about what Frist is thinking. <<

Because you don't want to acknowledge the idiots that control this government. As shown by the next comment:

>>Maybe. You've still created millions of new pre-ban weapons and turned the AWB into an even bigger joke than it already is.<<

Duh. Dude, I didn't make them. Repugs made them by letting the ban expire. Repugs are the failures, Repugs are the problem. Oh, and put your name on the list of those responsible for the next cop killed with the weapons you and your repug allies have made legal, and the terrorists who will come here to arm themselves. Don't be a wimp like George. Have teh balls to take responsibility for the deaths.

"Another wimp unable to take responsibility. Another George like wimp."

Uh huh.


And your reasoning for that is---well, never mind. After all, there's only one type of gun law you despise more than one that doesn't work well, and that's one that does.

Well I don't know if I despise one or the other more. Let's just leave it at my disliking both equally.



Yeah, its amazing how a false assertion about it being "too late" can become true after teh repugs refuse to bring the matter to a vote for a year or two.

Boo hoo, it's all the Republicans' fault. You know the Democrats were in charge when it passed, including the sunset provision, right? It's way to late now, by the way. The AWB died twenty hours ago.


Because you don't want to acknowledge the idiots that control this government.

I'm perfectly happy to acknowledge that idiots control the government.


Duh. Dude, I didn't make them. Repugs made them by letting the ban expire. Repugs are the failures, Repugs are the problem. Oh, and put your name on the list of those responsible for the next cop killed with the weapons you and your repug allies have made legal, and the terrorists who will come here to arm themselves. Don't be a wimp like George. Have teh balls to take responsibility for the deaths.

Wow. That was truly impressive. You should really come post down to the dungeon. You're a natural. My "repug allies," blaming me for arming terrorists, and killing cops. Then of course the ever classic blatant personal attacks. You seem to have all the standard pro-gun control arguments down pat.

>>Boo hoo, it's all the Republicans' fault.<<

Yeah, it is. For all your pretending that it is somebody else's, its the republicans fault, and yours, and people like you who want the ban to expire. Not those who want it to continue. Those who want it to expire. All your faux cable style "analysis" can't change that.

>>My "repug allies," blaming me for arming terrorists, and killing cops.<<

They are. On this issue, they certainly are your allies. Not only do you favor what they did, you even try to pretend it wasn't their intent in order to protect them from the electoral backlash. Couldn't be more of a toady than that.

And yeah, I do blame you and your allies for letting terrorists get arms and making it easier for the inevitable dead cops. Why you would want a law to expire that kept our cops safer is beyond me. Of course, the militia types like to keep their options open on firing upon agents of the federal, state or local government. You one of those?

I mean I'm not sorry to see the ban go, but I didn't really do anything to get rid of it. Maybe I convinced a couple of people that it had nothing to do with machine guns, but beyond that I'd have to say I'm pretty blameless.


Yeah, it is. For all your pretending that it is somebody else's, its the republicans fault, and yours, and people like you who want the ban to expire. Not those who want it to continue. Those who want it to expire. All your faux cable style "analysis" can't change that.

I think the blame lies solely with the people who passed the ban and its supporters. The only way to get the ban passed in the first place, when the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress and the Presidency, mind you, was to stick the sunset provision on it. You can blame the current Congress and President as much as you want, but this has been coming for ten years.


They are. On this issue, they certainly are your allies.

Hardly. They sat around and did nothing. The ban should have been repealed or, better yet, never passed.


"Not only do you favor what they did, you even try to pretend it wasn't their intent in order to protect them from the electoral backlash. "

Electoral backlash. lol. So basically you wanted the Republicans to pass a law that you admit would hurt them in the coming elections and you're upset that they didn't do it. At least you can admit gun control is a losing issue.


"Couldn't be more of a toady than that."

Toady, that's good. You should really post in the dungeon. You're the classic gun control supporter and the gun control supporters down there could certainly use all the support they can get.


And yeah, I do blame you and your allies for letting terrorists get arms and making it easier for the inevitable dead cops. Why you would want a law to expire that kept our cops safer is beyond me. Of course, the militia types like to keep their options open on firing upon agents of the federal, state or local government. You one of those?

Hey that's pretty good. I mean I get the accusations of being Republican or in the NRA all the time, but accused of being a militia type, I think this might be the first time. You really are good at this. You could give lessons to the regulars down in the dungeon.

It's kind of sad that you think the AWB kept cops or anybody safer, then again, it's hardly surprising to find an AWB supporter who never bothered to read the law.

>>You can blame the current Congress and President as much as you want,<<

Wow. What a concept. Holding the current congress and president responsible for the state of the law and yet another idiot failure to take a clearly indicated step. And an election right around the corner!


>>Electoral backlash. lol. So basically you wanted the Republicans to pass a law that you admit would hurt them in the coming elections and you're upset that they didn't do it. At least you can admit gun control is a losing issue.<<

At least you could admit that the ban wasn't "gun control". That's why two thirds of the public back extending the ban--so many that even Bush has to pretend to back it. Bush honors the power of the issue by lying about it. Its pretty clear by the posters pretending to be democrats and insisting the dems should back off that the issue has some legs.


>>Toady, that's good. You should really post in the dungeon. You're the classic gun control supporter and the gun control supporters down there could certainly use all the support they can get.<<

Whatever.

>>And yeah, I do blame you and your allies for letting terrorists get arms and making it easier for the inevitable dead cops. Why you would want a law to expire that kept our cops safer is beyond me. Of course, the militia types like to keep their options open on firing upon agents of the federal, state or local government. You one of those?

Hey that's pretty good. I mean I get the accusations of being Republican or in the NRA all the time, but accused of being a militia type<<

Just asking. Because you don't seem to mind the militia types getting these previously banned weapons. And the fact that the alqaeda handbook suggests coming to the US for weaponry. I don't know if you are one of them, but then again, I don't see any evidence of you working against their interests on this issue.

>> I think this might be the first time. You really are good at this. You could give lessons to the regulars down in the dungeon.<<

Let us know.

>>It's kind of sad that you think the AWB kept cops or anybody safer<<

Funny, cops thought so. Even Bush pretends to support it. But maybe you know better because.....

>>You can blame the current Congress and President as much as you want,<<

Wow. What a concept. Holding the current congress and president responsible for the state of the law and yet another idiot failure to take a clearly indicated step. And an election right around the corner!


>>Electoral backlash. lol. So basically you wanted the Republicans to pass a law that you admit would hurt them in the coming elections and you're upset that they didn't do it. At least you can admit gun control is a losing issue.<<

At least you could admit that the ban wasn't "gun control". That's why two thirds of the public back extending the ban--so many that even Bush has to pretend to back it. Bush honors the power of the issue by lying about it. Its pretty clear by the posters pretending to be democrats and insisting the dems should back off that the issue has some legs.


>>Toady, that's good. You should really post in the dungeon. You're the classic gun control supporter and the gun control supporters down there could certainly use all the support they can get.<<

Whatever.

>>And yeah, I do blame you and your allies for letting terrorists get arms and making it easier for the inevitable dead cops. Why you would want a law to expire that kept our cops safer is beyond me. Of course, the militia types like to keep their options open on firing upon agents of the federal, state or local government. You one of those?

Hey that's pretty good. I mean I get the accusations of being Republican or in the NRA all the time, but accused of being a militia type<<

Just asking. Because you don't seem to mind the militia types getting these previously banned weapons. And the fact that the alqaeda handbook suggests coming to the US for weaponry. I don't know if you are one of them, but then again, I don't see any evidence of you working against their interests on this issue.

>> I think this might be the first time. You really are good at this. You could give lessons to the regulars down in the dungeon.<<

Let us know.

>>It's kind of sad that you think the AWB kept cops or anybody safer<<

Funny, cops thought so. Even Bush pretends to support it. But maybe you know better because.....

>>You can blame the current Congress and President as much as you want,<<

Wow. What a concept. Holding the current congress and president responsible for the state of the law and yet another idiot failure to take a clearly indicated step. And an election right around the corner!


>>Electoral backlash. lol. So basically you wanted the Republicans to pass a law that you admit would hurt them in the coming elections and you're upset that they didn't do it. At least you can admit gun control is a losing issue.<<

At least you could admit that the ban wasn't "gun control". That's why two thirds of the public back extending the ban--so many that even Bush has to pretend to back it. Bush honors the power of the issue by lying about it. Its pretty clear by the posters pretending to be democrats and insisting the dems should back off that the issue has some legs.


>>Toady, that's good. You should really post in the dungeon. You're the classic gun control supporter and the gun control supporters down there could certainly use all the support they can get.<<

Whatever.

>>And yeah, I do blame you and your allies for letting terrorists get arms and making it easier for the inevitable dead cops. Why you would want a law to expire that kept our cops safer is beyond me. Of course, the militia types like to keep their options open on firing upon agents of the federal, state or local government. You one of those?

Hey that's pretty good. I mean I get the accusations of being Republican or in the NRA all the time, but accused of being a militia type<<

Just asking. Because you don't seem to mind the militia types getting these previously banned weapons. And the fact that the alqaeda handbook suggests coming to the US for weaponry. I don't know if you are one of them, but then again, I don't see any evidence of you working against their interests on this issue.

>> I think this might be the first time. You really are good at this. You could give lessons to the regulars down in the dungeon.<<

Let us know.

>>It's kind of sad that you think the AWB kept cops or anybody safer<<

Funny, cops thought so. Even Bush pretends to support it. But maybe you know better because.....

Apparently I'm also responsible for the actions of terrorists. Are they not responsible for their own positions?


Wow. What a concept. Holding the current congress and president responsible for the state of the law and yet another idiot failure to take a clearly indicated step. And an election right around the corner!

An election right around the corner and Bush doesn't want to alienate his supposedly pro-gun base by extending the ban. Imagine that. I know you probably want to see Bush lose the election and all, but I don't think even Bush is stupid enough to take a position that will help him lose, no matter how much it would please you. Maybe you should write him a letter and ask him to pretty please support some gun control before the election because you'd like to see him lose like his gun-grabby father.


At least you could admit that the ban wasn't "gun control". That's why two thirds of the public back extending the ban--so many that even Bush has to pretend to back it. Bush honors the power of the issue by lying about it. Its pretty clear by the posters pretending to be democrats and insisting the dems should back off that the issue has some legs.

The ban wasn't gun control? Of course the ban was gun control. It was pathetic gun control, but it was certainly gun control.

Only two-thirds supported extending the ban today? Why, I've heard everything from sixty to ninety percent. I wish you folks could make up your minds. I guess we'll see what happens come November. If the ban was supported like you seem to think it was, I expect all these pro-gun Republicans will be voted out of office.

I feel sorry for you. It must be a difficult thing pretending that all Democrats supported the AWB, or whatever other gun control you personally support, despite the mountains of evidence you can't help but see.

Whatever.

No, I really mean it. Some of those gun control supporters down in the dungeon are so clumsy with their attempts at guilt by association. It's almost like they do it because it's expected of them. It just has this half-assed feeling to it. They could really use your help.


Just asking. Because you don't seem to mind the militia types getting these previously banned weapons. And the fact that the alqaeda handbook suggests coming to the US for weaponry. I don't know if you are one of them, but then again, I don't see any evidence of you working against their interests on this issue.

Well, that's because I actually read the AWB before it sunset and hold no misconceptions about its regulating machine guns or other assorted crap that regularly flows from the mouths of its supporters. I don't see the difference between a militia member, or anyone else for that matter, owning a post-ban weapon or a pre-ban weapon. Could you explain to me how bayonet lugs make a rifle more dangerous in the hands of a militia member?

As for this Al-Qaeda manual garbage that so often surfaces in AWB discussions, I can't say I've ever read the Al-Qaeda manual so I can't comment on whether or not it actually tells Al-Qaeda members to buy assault weapons in the US. If the manual is legitimate and actually contains these instructions or advice, well, I must say it makes me worry less about Al-Qaeda. If terrorists are stupid enough to come to the United States to attempt to legally buy semi-automatic weapons for ten times the cost, or more, of fully-automatic weapons on the world market then I must say it makes me question whether or not they were actually involved in the 9/11 attacks.


Let us know.

Let you know what?



Funny, cops thought so. Even Bush pretends to support it. But maybe you know better because.....

I know better because I've read the law. Clearly anyone who is claiming it kept cops safer either didn't read the law or is lying to support their own agenda.

>>Apparently I'm also responsible for the actions of terrorists. Are they not responsible for their own positions?<<

You are responsible for your own positions. Your position makes it relatively easier for terrorists, and your run of the mill criminals, to arm themselves against the rest of us. You can't avoid the blame for your position by saying the terrorist pulled the trigger of the gun you allowed him to have.


>>An election right around the corner and Bush doesn't want to alienate his supposedly pro-gun base by extending the ban. Imagine that.<<

And doesn't want to alienate the vast majority, so he lies and says he wants the ban extended. Imagine that. If I cared about Bush's personal ambitions, I would feel sorry that his dirtbag tactic isn't working. But I don't.

>>I know you probably want to see Bush lose the election and all<<

Yep. I guess that makes everything I say illegitimate, because wanting Bush to lose is so unimaginably evil, I must be in league with Satan hisself.

>>Maybe you should write him a letter and ask him to pretty please support some gun control before the election because you'd like to see him lose like his gun-grabby father.<<

I want him to support some gun control because its good for the country. But you know what Bush values, and its his election. That's why he toadies to his base, while lying to the normal people. He knows exactly what he is doing, and what he values, and it isn't your safety or the country's. So why should I write him? I'll just vote against him and anyone else who can't do what's right.

>>The ban wasn't gun control? Of course the ban was gun control. It was pathetic gun control, but it was certainly gun control.<<

And the one thing that gunnies hate more than pathetic gun control, its effective gun control. Whatever. Anyone who pretends like we have "gun control" when practically every gun is still allowed is just an extremist. If that's gun control, then wearing a rubber every hundredth time is birth control. Yet, its too much for you. The most sensible, limited, and clearly warranted limit is, for reasons nobody wants to tell us, too much.


>>Only two-thirds supported extending the ban today? Why, I've heard everything from sixty to ninety percent. I wish you folks could make up your minds. I guess we'll see what happens come November. If the ban was supported like you seem to think it was, I expect all these pro-gun Republicans will be voted out of office.<<

Me, I say if Bush bothers to lie about his position, its a good one for dems. I know you want dems to back off by pretending to give friendly advice, and so do you. Can't you gunnies just address the issues?


>>I don't see the difference between a militia member, or anyone else for that matter, owning a post-ban weapon or a pre-ban weapon. Could you explain to me how bayonet lugs make a rifle more dangerous in the hands of a militia member?<<

Can you tell me why you want bayonet lugs? Poor gunnies. You can't figure out what the banned aspects are good for EXCEPT to make the weapon more deadly, then deny that it makes the holder of the weapon more dangerous. Me, I would want to give the cops the benefit of the doubt when the militias arm themselves, and you would rather allow the militia to keep its options open to arm themselve--and the reason the militias arm themselves is to defend themselves not from terror or foreign invaders but the USG. Why is it so important to you that the militias arm themselves as they please? Just how do you feel about them?


>>As for this Al-Qaeda manual garbage that so often surfaces in AWB discussions, I can't say I've ever read the Al-Qaeda manual so I can't comment on whether or not it actually tells Al-Qaeda members to buy assault weapons in the US.<<

It instructs to buy weapons from the US.

>> If the manual is legitimate and actually contains these instructions or advice, well, I must say it makes me worry less about Al-Qaeda. If terrorists are stupid enough to come to the United States to attempt to legally buy semi-automatic weapons for ten times the cost, or more, of fully-automatic weapons on the world market then I must say it makes me question whether or not they were actually involved in the 9/11 attacks.<<

Me, I think that cops and alqaeda are people who have worked in their fields and have developed some expertise. But I guess you know the terrorist world just like you know the law enforcement world. Your opinions will come as a surprise to both law enforcment and terrorists, since we know that have shoped for guns in the US for years.

http://www.pepeace.org/current_reprints/08/The_Guns_Of_Opa-Locka.htm
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/49274_helen05.shtml

And it turns out, the terrorists and the militia have the same reasons for arming--to compete with US government forces. Oh, and the terrorists like shooting civilians, too.


>>I know better because I've read the law. Clearly anyone who is claiming it kept cops safer either didn't read the law or is lying to support their own agenda.<<

Like the cops? Wrong again. Cops lie, militias you have nothing bad to say, terrorists you think are incompetent as they kill us daily--just whose side are you on?

The story is an Urban Legend.

See http://www.usdoj.gov/ag/trainingmanual.htm

and http://cryptome.org/alq-terr-man.htm#7

A member of alqaeda was convicted on September 10, 2001 of trying to buy weapons in the US! You people are so funny. You make it easy to obtain weaponry and you pretend that nobody but white hats are going to take advantage.

You just can't stand to take responsibility for making it easier for criminals and terrorists and militia groups to have these weapons. In fact, I haven't heard you say a bad thing about the militia groups at all. These are people who want weapons to defend against our government, just like the terrorists and run of the mill criminals. How do you feel about the militias.

Gee whiz Inland, a foreigner made an ILLEGAL attempt to buy weapons and got CAUGHT because law enforcement officers did their jobs.

But the claim about the AQ terrorist training manual is still bogus.

You just can't stand to take responsibility for making it easier for criminals and terrorists and militia groups to have these weapons.

It's illegal for convicted felons to have weapons. Unless "militia groups" have done something illegal they have a right to have weapons just as you and I do.

In fact, I haven't heard you say a bad thing about the militia groups at all.

I think "militia groups" are a non-issue, but just to make you happy here is my statement: Militia groups suck ass.

You are responsible for your own positions. Your position makes it relatively easier for terrorists, and your run of the mill criminals, to arm themselves against the rest of us.

My positions do no such thing. My positions advocate making it as easy for people who follow the law to arm themselves as it is for terrorists and run of the mill criminals. Of course, my simply holding those positions doesn't automatically make that happen.


You can't avoid the blame for your position by saying the terrorist pulled the trigger of the gun you allowed him to have.

The hell I can't. Criminals and terrorists make their own choices and are responsible for their own actions.


And doesn't want to alienate the vast majority, so he lies and says he wants the ban extended. Imagine that. If I cared about Bush's personal ambitions, I would feel sorry that his dirtbag tactic isn't working. But I don't.

Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If the vast majority of people want the ban extended, why should Bush avoid extending it? He's rich, he can personally afford pre-ban weapons no matter how expensive they might get.



Yep. I guess that makes everything I say illegitimate, because wanting Bush to lose is so unimaginably evil, I must be in league with Satan hisself.

It'd be nice if you could avoid putting words into my mouth.



I want him to support some gun control because its good for the country. But you know what Bush values, and its his election. That's why he toadies to his base, while lying to the normal people. He knows exactly what he is doing, and what he values, and it isn't your safety or the country's. So why should I write him? I'll just vote against him and anyone else who can't do what's right.

I do know what Bush values. Bush values getting reelected. How passing legislation that his base opposes is supposed to get him reelected, whether or not you think it is good for the country, is quite beyond me, I'm afraid.


And the one thing that gunnies hate more than pathetic gun control, its effective gun control. Whatever. Anyone who pretends like we have "gun control" when practically every gun is still allowed is just an extremist. If that's gun control, then wearing a rubber every hundredth time is birth control. Yet, its too much for you. The most sensible, limited, and clearly warranted limit is, for reasons nobody wants to tell us, too much.

It's always funny to see a gun control supporter try and pretend the AWB was the only federal gun law on the books.


Me, I say if Bush bothers to lie about his position, its a good one for dems. I know you want dems to back off by pretending to give friendly advice, and so do you. Can't you gunnies just address the issues?

Well there you go again pretending that all Democrats are pro-gun control. That's OK, keep thinking that if it makes you feel better. Personally I don't give half a shit if the pro-control Democrats back off or not. They've made their own choices at this point and they're going to have to live with them. None of them is going to back off enough to make themselves look pro-gun, so really, what's the point in backing off at all?

I've addressed the issues many times. I've explained my reasoning for supporting the repeal of all federal gun laws and I've explained to the gun grabbers how to get all the gun control they want. All they care about is the AWB, though, which is fine by me. As long as they're wasting time and money supporting the useless AWB, it's less likely we'll end up with laws worse than the AWB.


Can you tell me why you want bayonet lugs? Poor gunnies. You can't figure out what the banned aspects are good for EXCEPT to make the weapon more deadly, then deny that it makes the holder of the weapon more dangerous.

So you're claiming that bayonet lugs make a weapon more deadly? could you explain how?


Me, I would want to give the cops the benefit of the doubt when the militias arm themselves, and you would rather allow the militia to keep its options open to arm themselve--and the reason the militias arm themselves is to defend themselves not from terror or foreign invaders but the USG. Why is it so important to you that the militias arm themselves as they please? Just how do you feel about them?

Here you go again with the militias as if they have anything to do with anything. Yes I'm sure all those militia members are just about to overthrow the government now that they can legally get those deadly bayonet lugs again.


"It instructs to buy weapons from the US. "

Sure it does.


Me, I think that cops and alqaeda are people who have worked in their fields and have developed some expertise. But I guess you know the terrorist world just like you know the law enforcement world. Your opinions will come as a surprise to both law enforcment and terrorists, since we know that have shoped for guns in the US for years.

I must say, you are making me feel a lot better about terrorists. I was kind of worried they were going to buy some machine guns illegally here or smuggle them in from overseas and cause some mayhem. Apparently they're just going to buy some overpriced semi-auto rifles here. Since they're obviously incompetent, I'm not too worried about them anymore.



And it turns out, the terrorists and the militia have the same reasons for arming--to compete with US government forces. Oh, and the terrorists like shooting civilians, too.

I'm not sure what that has to do with the AWB since the government arms its forces with machine guns and the AWB only regulated semi-auto weapons.



Like the cops? Wrong again. Cops lie, militias you have nothing bad to say, terrorists you think are incompetent as they kill us daily--just whose side are you on?

Terrorists kill us daily? When was the last terrorist attack in the US? Now when was the last terrorist attack in the US with an assault weapon as formerly defined by the Assault Weapons Ban?

>>The hell I can't. Criminals and terrorists make their own choices and are responsible for their own actions.<<

You are just responsible for allowing them the firepower to make sure their actions are as deadly as possible. But you don't commit murder and mayhem yourself. You are working against the defense of the citizenry, but expect congrats for not doing the actual act? Take responsibility for your own actions in taking the side of criminals and terrorists.


>>Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If the vast majority of people want the ban extended, why should Bush avoid extending it?<<

Because Bush, through his favorite tactic of talking normal while quietly toadying to extremists, is trying to have it both ways and get votes of both. If the ban weren't popular, he wouldn't bother to say he supports it, would he? His bothering to lie is enough acknowledgement of political reality for me.


>>He's rich, he can personally afford pre-ban weapons no matter how expensive they might get.<<

Bush is thinking of buying? You see, Bush is rich enough so that he doesn't have to knock over banks and can hire people to do is killing for him. He isn't buying these weapons.


>>It'd be nice if you could avoid putting words into my mouth.<<

You brought up my opposition to Bush as a reason to ignore my arguments. Typical Bushite tactic.


>>I do know what Bush values. Bush values getting reelected. How passing legislation that his base opposes is supposed to get him reelected, whether or not you think it is good for the country, is quite beyond me, I'm afraid. <<


Here's a first---someone who thinkis its a good thing that the candidate only cares about himself and not the country. What's beyond you is the fact that the president should value his country, not just himself, and we shouldn't vote for a person whose sole goal is personal advancement. Is any of this familiar to you?

But I guess that it goes hand in hand---gunnies aren't patriots and don't care about their country. we never get around to exactly who the gunnies expect to turn their weapons against, but its pretty clear from the militia movement that gunnies maintain the option of shoot fellow Americans. And the carnage caused by highpowered weapons outside a gunnies' personal enclaves aren't their concern, as long as thier ammo holds out.

>>It's always funny to see a gun control supporter try and pretend the AWB was the only federal gun law on the books.<<

Uh, yeah, that damn law prohibiting machine guns. You are against that one, too, I suppose.

>>Well there you go again pretending that all Democrats are pro-gun control. That's OK, keep thinking that if it makes you feel better. Personally I don't give half a shit if the pro-control Democrats back off or not. They've made their own choices at this point and they're going to have to live with them. None of them is going to back off enough to make themselves look pro-gun, so really, what's the point in backing off at all?<<

You gunnies are so funny---in your own little world, anyone who takes any position that so much as looks sideways at owning ANY type of weapon is "anti-gun". People in the real world don't live in the NRA fantasy that every regulation is on the slippery slope to remove all guns. People in the real world don't know why you want assault rifles, one because you are careful not to tell us the options the militia types are maintaning to shoot fed agents, two because they can't imagine a legitimate purpose.


>>I've addressed the issues many times. I've explained my reasoning for supporting the repeal of all federal gun laws and I've explained to the gun grabbers how to get all the gun control they want.<<

Illustrating the gunnie, one restriction is too much paranoia discusssed above.


>>All they care about is the AWB, though, which is fine by me. As long as they're wasting time and money supporting the useless AWB, it's less likely we'll end up with laws worse than the AWB.<<

That's discussing the issues? LOL!


>>So you're claiming that bayonet lugs make a weapon more deadly? could you explain how?<<

No, you were going to explain why you want bayonet lugs. Feel free to address the issues. You poor gunnies. You want to pretend like these features are meaningless and still argue that your personal liberty demands your guns sport them. Stop dodging by asking questions.


>>Here you go again with the militias as if they have anything to do with anything.<<

The people who end up with assault weapons have something to do with it. The militias are the supposed Americans who are arming themselve for a conflict with the American government---and are fully supportive of your positions. You tell me what they have to do with you. But I can see that they, the criminals, the terrorists, and every other anti American element are against all restrictions on weaponry. You seem comfortable having the militia as your bedfellows. You one of them?


>>I must say, you are making me feel a lot better about terrorists. I was kind of worried they were going to buy some machine guns illegally here or smuggle them in from overseas and cause some mayhem. Apparently they're just going to buy some overpriced semi-auto rifles here. Since they're obviously incompetent, I'm not too worried about them anymore.<<

Yeah, Oklahoma City, the WTC, Madrid, Bali, Ossetia--those terrorists don't know a damn thing. You really haven't a clue. You don't make it easier for terrorists, domestic or foreign.


>>I'm not sure what that has to do with the AWB since the government arms its forces with machine guns and the AWB only regulated semi-auto weapons.<<

Uhh....I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Are you saying that all you want is a fair fight between terrorists/militia/criminals and the military, so its okay that the former have semiautomatic? You want to make it closer? And civilians--well, we know what gunnies think about civilians. It is their fault for letting the terrorist get the drop on them, right?


>>Terrorists kill us daily?<<

Remember? Iraq? Americans getting killed?

>>When was the last terrorist attack in the US?<<

2001.

>> Now when was the last terrorist attack in the US with an assault weapon as formerly defined by the Assault Weapons Ban?<<

Never. So? You want to wait until it happens? You need another Waco, another school, another workplace? We have our men die every day in Iraq to guard against dangers a lot less likely. But you want your bayonet lugs. Whose side are you on?

You are just responsible for allowing them the firepower to make sure their actions are as deadly as possible. But you don't commit murder and mayhem yourself. You are working against the defense of the citizenry, but expect congrats for not doing the actual act? Take responsibility for your own actions in taking the side of criminals and terrorists.

I am responsible for my own actions. Regardless of what you seem to think responsibility means, it certainly doesn't include me arming terrorists.


Because Bush, through his favorite tactic of talking normal while quietly toadying to extremists, is trying to have it both ways and get votes of both. If the ban weren't popular, he wouldn't bother to say he supports it, would he? His bothering to lie is enough acknowledgement of political reality for me.

Well Bush is an idiot if he thinks that AWB supporters were ever going to vote for him.


Bush is thinking of buying? You see, Bush is rich enough so that he doesn't have to knock over banks and can hire people to do is killing for him. He isn't buying these weapons.

OK.



You brought up my opposition to Bush as a reason to ignore my arguments. Typical Bushite tactic.

If you had arguments to ignore I certainly wouldn't need Bush to do it. Nice "Bushite tactic" thing by the way. I really wish you'd post in the dungeon.


Here's a first---someone who thinkis its a good thing that the candidate only cares about himself and not the country. What's beyond you is the fact that the president should value his country, not just himself, and we shouldn't vote for a person whose sole goal is personal advancement. Is any of this familiar to you?

Good thing? I don't know where I said that. You have a very sweet view of how you'd like the presidency and elections to work. Sadly, it has nothing to do with reality.


But I guess that it goes hand in hand---gunnies aren't patriots and don't care about their country. we never get around to exactly who the gunnies expect to turn their weapons against, but its pretty clear from the militia movement that gunnies maintain the option of shoot fellow Americans. And the carnage caused by highpowered weapons outside a gunnies' personal enclaves aren't their concern, as long as thier ammo holds out.

You just love those militias. It'd be nice if they had something to do with the AWB.


"Uh, yeah, that damn law prohibiting machine guns. You are against that one, too, I suppose."

There's no federal law prohibiting machine guns.


You gunnies are so funny---in your own little world, anyone who takes any position that so much as looks sideways at owning ANY type of weapon is "anti-gun". People in the real world don't live in the NRA fantasy that every regulation is on the slippery slope to remove all guns. People in the real world don't know why you want assault rifles, one because you are careful not to tell us the options the militia types are maintaning to shoot fed agents, two because they can't imagine a legitimate purpose.

OK. You just keep pretending that every Democrat thinks exactly what you think. It must be hard to do considering the mountains of evidence to the contrary.



Illustrating the gunnie, one restriction is too much paranoia discusssed above.

Illustrating the gun control supporter, ignoring half the sentence he's responding to.



That's discussing the issues? LOL!

No it's making fun of the incompetent gun control lobby and their continued support for the most pathetic gun control law ever.


No, you were going to explain why you want bayonet lugs. Feel free to address the issues. You poor gunnies. You want to pretend like these features are meaningless and still argue that your personal liberty demands your guns sport them. Stop dodging by asking questions.

I don't personally want a bayonet lug. Speaking of "us poor gunnies" refusing to discuss the issues, how exactly does a bayonet lug make a gun more deadly?


The people who end up with assault weapons have something to do with it. The militias are the supposed Americans who are arming themselve for a conflict with the American government---and are fully supportive of your positions. You tell me what they have to do with you. But I can see that they, the criminals, the terrorists, and every other anti American element are against all restrictions on weaponry.


Militias again. Yes I'm sure you right. Only militias are buying assault weapons and only militias are against the AWB. It's so obvious, how could I have not seen it before.


You seem comfortable having the militia as your bedfellows. You one of them?


HAHAH. Please come post down in the dungeon.



Yeah, Oklahoma City, the WTC, Madrid, Bali, Ossetia--those terrorists don't know a damn thing. You really haven't a clue. You don't make it easier for terrorists, domestic or foreign.

What do any of those have to do with assault weapons? I see a few bombs, some box cutters, some machine guns. Hmm, no assault weapons.



Uhh....I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Are you saying that all you want is a fair fight between terrorists/militia/criminals and the military, so its okay that the former have semiautomatic? You want to make it closer? And civilians--well, we know what gunnies think about civilians. It is their fault for letting the terrorist get the drop on them, right?

You said terrorists and criminals want assault weapons to "compete with government forces." The government has machine guns. Clearly assault weapons aren't competing with machine guns.

By the way, I really like the "you don't care about civilians" bit. It could be a classic.


Remember? Iraq? Americans getting killed?

Not sure what a attempting to drive out a foreign invader through guerrilla war has to do with terrorists killing us daily. Not sure what it has to do with assault weapons either, since there's probably not an assault weapon to be had in Iraq. Machine guns are cheap over there.


>>When was the last terrorist attack in the US?<<
2001.

No assault weapons involved.



Never. So? You want to wait until it happens? You need another Waco, another school, another workplace? We have our men die every day in Iraq to guard against dangers a lot less likely. But you want your bayonet lugs. Whose side are you on?

So you're saying the AWB was useless since it didn't stop all the workplace and school shootings we had while it took place. Why do you support it again?

>>The hell I can't. Criminals and terrorists make their own choices and are responsible for their own actions.<<

You are just responsible for allowing them the firepower to make sure their actions are as deadly as possible. But you don't commit murder and mayhem yourself. You are working against the defense of the citizenry, but expect congrats for not doing the actual act? Take responsibility for your own actions in taking the side of criminals and terrorists.


>>Your position makes no sense whatsoever. If the vast majority of people want the ban extended, why should Bush avoid extending it?<<

Because Bush, through his favorite tactic of talking normal while quietly toadying to extremists, is trying to have it both ways and get votes of both. If the ban weren't popular, he wouldn't bother to say he supports it, would he? His bothering to lie is enough acknowledgement of political reality for me.


>>He's rich, he can personally afford pre-ban weapons no matter how expensive they might get.<<

Bush is thinking of buying? You see, Bush is rich enough so that he doesn't have to knock over banks and can hire people to do is killing for him. He isn't buying these weapons.


>>It'd be nice if you could avoid putting words into my mouth.<<

You brought up my opposition to Bush as a reason to ignore my arguments. Typical Bushite tactic.


>>I do know what Bush values. Bush values getting reelected. How passing legislation that his base opposes is supposed to get him reelected, whether or not you think it is good for the country, is quite beyond me, I'm afraid. <<


Here's a first---someone who thinkis its a good thing that the candidate only cares about himself and not the country. What's beyond you is the fact that the president should value his country, not just himself, and we shouldn't vote for a person whose sole goal is personal advancement. Is any of this familiar to you?

But I guess that it goes hand in hand---gunnies aren't patriots and don't care about their country. we never get around to exactly who the gunnies expect to turn their weapons against, but its pretty clear from the militia movement that gunnies maintain the option of shoot fellow Americans. And the carnage caused by highpowered weapons outside a gunnies' personal enclaves aren't their concern, as long as thier ammo holds out.

>>It's always funny to see a gun control supporter try and pretend the AWB was the only federal gun law on the books.<<

Uh, yeah, that damn law prohibiting machine guns. You are against that one, too, I suppose.

>>Well there you go again pretending that all Democrats are pro-gun control. That's OK, keep thinking that if it makes you feel better. Personally I don't give half a shit if the pro-control Democrats back off or not. They've made their own choices at this point and they're going to have to live with them. None of them is going to back off enough to make themselves look pro-gun, so really, what's the point in backing off at all?<<

You gunnies are so funny---in your own little world, anyone who takes any position that so much as looks sideways at owning ANY type of weapon is "anti-gun". People in the real world don't live in the NRA fantasy that every regulation is on the slippery slope to remove all guns. People in the real world don't know why you want assault rifles, one because you are careful not to tell us the options the militia types are maintaning to shoot fed agents, two because they can't imagine a legitimate purpose.


>>I've addressed the issues many times. I've explained my reasoning for supporting the repeal of all federal gun laws and I've explained to the gun grabbers how to get all the gun control they want.<<

Illustrating the gunnie, one restriction is too much paranoia discusssed above.


>>All they care about is the AWB, though, which is fine by me. As long as they're wasting time and money supporting the useless AWB, it's less likely we'll end up with laws worse than the AWB.<<

That's discussing the issues? LOL!


>>So you're claiming that bayonet lugs make a weapon more deadly? could you explain how?<<

No, you were going to explain why you want bayonet lugs. Feel free to address the issues. You poor gunnies. You want to pretend like these features are meaningless and still argue that your personal liberty demands your guns sport them. Stop dodging by asking questions.


>>Here you go again with the militias as if they have anything to do with anything.<<

The people who end up with assault weapons have something to do with it. The militias are the supposed Americans who are arming themselve for a conflict with the American government---and are fully supportive of your positions. You tell me what they have to do with you. But I can see that they, the criminals, the terrorists, and every other anti American element are against all restrictions on weaponry. You seem comfortable having the militia as your bedfellows. You one of them?


>>I must say, you are making me feel a lot better about terrorists. I was kind of worried they were going to buy some machine guns illegally here or smuggle them in from overseas and cause some mayhem. Apparently they're just going to buy some overpriced semi-auto rifles here. Since they're obviously incompetent, I'm not too worried about them anymore.<<

Yeah, Oklahoma City, the WTC, Madrid, Bali, Ossetia--those terrorists don't know a damn thing. You really haven't a clue. You don't make it easier for terrorists, domestic or foreign.


>>I'm not sure what that has to do with the AWB since the government arms its forces with machine guns and the AWB only regulated semi-auto weapons.<<

Uhh....I am not sure what that has to do with anything. Are you saying that all you want is a fair fight between terrorists/militia/criminals and the military, so its okay that the former have semiautomatic? You want to make it closer? And civilians--well, we know what gunnies think about civilians. It is their fault for letting the terrorist get the drop on them, right?


>>Terrorists kill us daily?<<

Remember? Iraq? Americans getting killed?

>>When was the last terrorist attack in the US?<<

2001.

>> Now when was the last terrorist attack in the US with an assault weapon as formerly defined by the Assault Weapons Ban?<<

Never. So? You want to wait until it happens? You need another Waco, another school, another workplace? We have our men die every day in Iraq to guard against dangers a lot less likely. But you want your bayonet lugs. Whose side are you on?

The present ban does not exclude additional gun control along the same lines. Supporters of the ban have had ten full years to get a stricter ban enacted.

Where have you people been for the last 10 years?

is a perfect way to ENSURE that Republicans stay in office.

Gun control is popular in parts of the Northeast and California. It's the kiss of death in the rest of the country.

Why pretend there isn't opposition to the expiration?

Please show where I have denied that opposition to the expiration exists.

Why blame the powerless for the actions of the empowered?

Claiming powerlessness is a great excuse for apathy and laziness, but I don't buy it as the reason the ban is about to expire.

Why pretend like it was different ten days, ten years or ten months ago?

Ten days ago there was plenty of vocal opposition to the expiration.

Ten months ago there was barely a whisper. Please provide cites if you disagree.

Ten years ago nobody was talking about the expiration.

>>Why blame the powerless for the actions of the empowered?

Claiming powerlessness is a great excuse for apathy and laziness, but I don't buy it as the reason the ban is about to expire.<<

Nonsense. Utter and foolish nonsense. The fact is that the ban expires because the party in power until the next election wants it to. It isn't a claim of powerlessness. It is the reality that in this country, an idiot congress and idiot president pass bad laws and take bad actions, and the only remedy is to remove them from office AFTER THE FACT and try to fix the mess they made.

But you don't think its a mess at all. You like the action. Why not try to support your opposition to the AWB rather than pretend its someone else's fault it will expire?

No, I don't think expiration of the AWB creates a mess at all. I've been actively lobbying for its expiration for 10 years.

The fact is that the ban expires because the party in power until the next election wants it to.

Partly true. It also expired because it contained a built-in sunset clause that was added as a compromise in order to get it passed in 1994 when the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress.

I think it's bad policy for Democrats to support gun bans.

>>Partly true. It also expired because it contained a built-in sunset clause that was added as a compromise in order to get it passed in 1994 when the Democratic Party controlled both houses of Congress.<<

So? Now that the ban is certainly a success by any measure, why wouldn't we extend it--or for that matter, allow a debate on it?


>>I think it's bad policy for Democrats to support gun bans.<<

Save your crococdile tears. You think the ban was bad policy--why, you never really seem to get around to--to your assertion that if the dems were "smart" they would cave on this issue also rings false.

Can you provide ANY evidence that links the AW ban to a reduction in gun-related crime?

...why wouldn't we extend it--or for that matter, allow a debate on it?

Because "we" have screwed up by allowing Republicans to take control of all three branches of the federal government.

You think the ban was bad policy--why, you never really seem to get around to...

It was bad policy because it restricted individual liberty without an offsetting return in public safety or security.

>>Can you provide ANY evidence that links the AW ban to a reduction in gun-related crime?<<

"Gun related crime"? That's a pretty high hurdle for a law that only banned one segment of weapon with no conceivable purpose.

Go ask the cops how they feel about the ban. Go ask the ATF. ANd if you want to find someone against the ban, go ask Alqaeda and the IRA and the militias in Africa, who came to the US in order to get these types of weapons.


>>Because "we" have screwed up by allowing Republicans to take control of all three branches of the federal government.<<

So that means--what, the republicans are right in eveything they do? Two thirds of the US wants the ban to stay in place. What's wrong with being right?


>>You think the ban was bad policy--why, you never really seem to get around to...

It was bad policy because it restricted individual liberty without an offsetting return in public safety or security.<<

Besides the liberty to own the weapon itself, it had no restrictions on liberty at all. Ho hum. For that sort of restriction, you shouldn't have to show much benefit at all. Speed limits and zoning codes have a greater restriction and are passed on much less than the common sense premise that some sorts of firepower have no use except bad ones.

Cops want the ban. Alqaeda doesn't. And the american militia movement wants to keep its options open on shooting federal agents. Good enough for me. Why not for you?

"Gun related crime"? That's a pretty high hurdle for a law that only banned one segment of weapon with no conceivable purpose.

I feel that you are wrong about that. I use an AR-15 for target shooting, as do millions of other people - See http://www.odcmp.org/0904/default.asp

Besides the liberty to own the weapon itself, it had no restrictions on liberty at all....

Are you paying any attention to what you are writing here? The liberty to own the weapon is the most important part.

Speed limits and zoning codes have a greater restriction and are passed on much less than the common sense premise that some sorts of firepower have no use except bad ones.

You're blowing smoke. Speed limits are based on objective criteria and actual driver behavior. Zoning laws are based on environmental and economic considerations. And your common sense is not worth any more than my common sense.

Cops want the ban....

Bullshit. I haven't yet met one who wanted it. You've swallowed the propaganda hook, line, and sinker.

Alqaeda doesn't. And the american militia movement wants to keep its options open on shooting federal agents. Good enough for me. Why not for you?

Because I think for myself and make up my own mind about political matters rather than letting other people decide for me. I've always done it that way and it's served me well for 46 years. You should try it some time.

>>Gun related crime"? That's a pretty high hurdle for a law that only banned one segment of weapon with no conceivable purpose.

I feel that you are wrong about that. I use an AR-15 for target shooting<<

I see. Recreation, and it isn't even like you can't shoot at a target with something else, is it?

Frankly, that's so little benefit I could understand the congress banning them for being an ugly color.

>>Are you paying any attention to what you are writing here? The liberty to own the weapon is the most important part.<<

How so? What is it about owning that particular weapon that is important to liberty? Besides, of course, keeping the option open to shoot federal agents. You aren't one of those, are you?


>>You're blowing smoke. Speed limits are based on objective criteria and actual driver behavior. Zoning laws are based on environmental and economic considerations. And your common sense is not worth any more than my common sense.<<

Then let's vote on it. Republican common sense is that anyone should be able to buy any weapon anytime. You say that owning semiautomatics is an important element of liberty. Heck, even Bush pretends to agree with me, taking the trouble to lie in order to avoid the condemnation over it.

But the pubbies won't bring it to the floor. Out with them.


>>Cops want the ban....

Bullshit. I haven't yet met one who wanted it.<<

Then you don't get out much, aside from your NRA meetings. Try the cops cheering Kerry's blasting of Bush. Try finding the nearest city over 100,000 people near you and calling the chief.

>>qaeda doesn't. And the american militia movement wants to keep its options open on shooting federal agents. Good enough for me. Why not for you?

Because I think for myself and make up my own mind about political matters rather than letting other people decide for me. I've always done it that way and it's served me well for 46 years. You should try it some time.<<

You might make up your own mind, but the results are bad--maybe you should work a little harder. After all, you ain't president, so being stubbornly in error doesn't win you points. The fact you end up with the same side as Osama and the american militia movement, and oppose cops and side with those who keep their options open on shooting federal agents, should make you think again.

But it really isn't about you, since we are going to vote, and you are going to end up on the losing side.

Besides, of course, keeping the option open to shoot federal agents. You aren't one of those, are you?

No, I am not a federal agent. How about you?

But it really isn't about you, since we are going to vote, and you are going to end up on the losing side.

That would be bad for all of us. Use Search if you've got it. I've posted dozens of times I'm voting for Senator Kerry.

I can see there's no point in trying to have a dialogue with you. I've offered you civility and you've responded with ad hominem attacks. I'm a lifelong Democrat, not a federal agent, and I intend to vote for Kerry. I don't require a candidate to agree with me on every subject in order to get my vote.

and that's emphatically NOT a truism. Lots of Democrats in pro-gun areas of the country didn't want to have to vote for this again, since it cost us 20+ seats in congress back in '94.

The ban was ineffective. It's gone. It should be allowed to rest in peace.

More of, "because George says so" BS. Goes nicely with that comment about how his life would be so much easier if this were a dictatorship. Sheesh, what an arrogant ass!

Bush realized that this was a loser for him and called on Congress to renew it. Would the press point out that this is a "flip-flop" or will he be lauded as a "strong President who is responsive to the will of the people"?

just like his gun grabber father.

it's dead. All those "post ban LE only" magazines are now non-restricted.

and that's all that counts.

YEEEEEHAW.

What about the ban makes it possible for you to destroy more stuff before reloading?

there's nothing left to renew. Even if they did renew it, all the stuff from 1994 on that was restricted is now not restricted. You can't put the toothpaste back into the tube.

at www.msnbc.com

The results are currently 50/50.

... they could have gotten BushCo's immediate attention!

to do this, instead of on their own tells me that their is little hope left.

:mad: