Who thinks the ban will go away in 3 years?

[A.Rex]

Just curious to see what everyone thought of what is going to happen in 3 years. I used to think there might have been a chance of some second amendment freedoms coming back, but now that Jeffords traitored and left power with the Demoncrats, I don't have much hope for it. Who knows?

[4V50 Gary]

Bush is a moderate and to get reelected, he may very well sign a renewal of the ban. Such is the nature of politics and political survival. For this not to happen, the Republicans must control both houses of Congress (so it doesn't even arise as an issue) and the media has to shaddup! Much needs to be said on how gun bans are not favored by the American people and that it is largely an elitist issue.

[Kaylee]

Wouldn't a better question be, how do we MAKE the ban go away in three years?

Personally, I think this one's worth a (snail mail) letter every a week for 6 months to a year before the sunset date. And making sure to hit the midterm elections, perhaps with some inquiring calls to the candidates before the big day.

Any other ideas?

-K

[alan]

A.Rex:

Re your question, the following comes to, my mind.

1. Gun Owners must get off their asses, and at the very least, vote in defense of their own interests, which one would assume include defending The Second Amendment, AS WRITTEN.

2. Another poster said something about the necessity for Republican control of The Congress, which I'm not willing to accept the necessity of, for at least the following reason. Republicans who voted for the 1994 Crime Bill, which included the "assault weapons" ban and magazine capicity limits, and there were a bunch of them who so voted, are not our friends, while Democrats who support CIVIL RIGHTS would be. Henry Hyde is REPUBLICAN, but he never once, so far as I know, voted against "gun control". John Dingel, who is a DEMOCRAT, has pretty much been a strong supporter of gun rights. I offered just 2 examples, there are a lot more available, I suspect.

3. President Bush must be made to understand that his position on this business, the "sunset" of Brady, the assault weapons ban, and magazine capacity restrictions, will have a significant effect on his obtaining a second term, other circumstances notwithstanding. He must support the "death" of the above mentioned, and he must work to achieve that death also.

[Gary H]

Governments rarely regulate less with time. Chances are 1% that it will go away. It's politics and not right and wrong. It's politics and not what is constitutional.

[Jay Baker]

"Who thinks the ban will go away in three years?"

Not this child!!

J.B.

[Scott Conklin]

Not even the remotest prayer regardless of what is said or done. Simply enjoy the peace and reprieve we currently have, stock up on whatever you can and be ready for the End Game shortly after either the 2004 or 2008 elections.

And teach your children well.

[urban assault]

Why would the Imperial Federal Goverment give certain firearm rights regarding so-called "assault weapons" back to the people, when they are afraid of us owning ANY firearms? It wont happen anytime soon and I fear for liberty and freedom in this country. When you can afford it, buy and store ammunition....I think you are going to need it. :(

michael

[Monkeyleg]

Unless 80 million gun owners speak with one voice, it isn't going to happen. There's a better chance of me winning the Powerball jackpot, and I don't buy tickets.

[lonegunman]

No chance its gonna go away.

The Republicans will not support getting rid of the ban. Why would they? It'll just end up being bad PR for them.

Unfortunately, the Republican Party knows there isnt a viable party for gun owners to turn to.

[alan]

Gentlemen:

With respect to those who have opined to the effect that there is no possibility of the assault weapons ban, Brady and magazine capacity restrictions "sunsetting" in 2004, shortly BEFORE the next presidential elections, you might be right, I wonder as to the following.

Have you all completely given up, as it sounds like to me, on the defense of our/your rights? I might be plain thick headed, but if this system of ours cannot be made to work, even if that requires scaring our "elected things" half to death, then we are well and truly in the ****ter. Perhaps we are, though I hope not. Of course, only time will tell.

It is obvious however, that unless gun owners somehow manage to get it through their heads that if they don't defend their own interests, nobody else will, all is truly lost, it being merely a matter of time, as some have put it. On the other hand, The Prohibition Amendment was repealed, so why not the foolishness that is ther subject of this discussion too?

[CONFEDERATE]

well i would love to see it go away but there is a better chance of hell freezing over to steal an old expression. Like someone said in a post it's all politics.

[lonegunman]

I do not believe it will be repealed as I said earlier.

However, it is in the interests of the 2nd amendment for us to fight tooth and nail for its repeal. It will put the antis on the defensive for once, and focus their attention away from the rest of their agenda.

In the end, though, I expect we will lose and the ban will stand.

[bedlamite]

Guys, the best chance for the sunset is next the election next fall. Everyone who gives a rodents posterior should get involved in the campaign next year. All representatives and 1/3 of our senators are up for reelection. Find out who is running, what their views are, and volunteer your time and/or money. Stalling this in the house is our best chance of killing it. We also need to get every gun owner to vote. '02 will be an off year, so the election turnout will be lower, and we may have a chance, but not if we sit here whining about it. Keep that up and we've lost already.

[suvdrvr]

"Hey Gerorge, Do you think that tea tax will go away by its self"?
"I don't really think so Thomas, lets ask Ben".

[1 Patriot-of-many]

I must be the only optimist here on this issue....I believe it will in fact sunset.This of course is barring an avalanche of new anti-gun Dems in the House in 2002.
You guys must be forgetting or don't realize the House actually OVERWHELMINGLY (VETOPROOF)voted to repeal the AW ban in Clintons days....The only reason it did not go all the way was there was not enough votes in the Senate to override the sure veto to come from the devils henchman himself.

All it takes is ONE part to deny a new AW ban.
That part will be the House,again barring an avalanche of new Anti-gun Dems being elected and current progun House members being thrown out in 2002.

The evidence is overwhelmingly on our side as a gov't study was commissioned as part of the ban,to see what the effects are,and what part AW's play in crime.We all have seen even the FBI's own numbers and AW's involved in crime are miniscule.

Have some faith and write some letters regularly to your Congressmen and Senators as well as Bushlite,you might be pleasently surprised at the outcome.

Another thing to remember is Emerson should be out soon(hopefully...Geeez already) and there is a good chance it will be thrown up to the SCOTUS where we would probably prevail with the current court.This would immasculate any such reinstatement of the AW ban considering these kind of firearms are expressly what the 2nd is all about.
It will sunset IMO thanks to the House.

[Oleg Volk]

Perhaps the best argument would be "this will provide a needed boost for the US economy as millions would rush to buy magazines, rifles and ammunition to feed them".

[Dennis]

"Lesser evils" do not restore Liberty.
"Lesser evils" merely destroy freedom slower than greater evils.

[Monkeyleg]

Alan, there's no way I'm giving up. I'll call, write, and cajole. But, after dealing with gun owners on political issues for several years now, I've learned that they're reactive rather than proactive. They seem to be happier bitching about what they've lost than spending some time stopping the loss.

[Dan from MI]

I'll make this REAL CLEAR. If the ban is re-enacted, George W Bush will be a ONE TERMER.

I'll give these reasons why.

West Virginia
New Hampshire
Arkansas
Tennessee
Missouri
Arizona
Nevada
Florida
Ohio
Wisconsin
Michigan
Iowa
Minnesota

That's why. It's the electoral college gambit. Those states can swing any election. They also have a large bloc of pro-2a democrats.

If Bush abandons us, we'll all abandon him, and then we will have president John Edwards or Roy Barnes in 2004.

[labgrade]

We all must understand that the "80 million gunowners" represents a vast cross-section of our country - political, economic, social - all of it - & their/our mind-set varies. "They" are not & never will be a single-issue voting block. Get over & used to it.

Just because someonoe is a "gun owner" doesn't mean that they will "vote with their feet" on any specific issue.

Just doesn't work that way.

We, here at TFL - perhaps the most staunch RKBA supporters, couldn't agree 100% on any specific course of action - & nor probably should we. Each has their opinion & will darned-well stand by it. Good enough.

But, there are other groups that could lend support - the coalition-building aspects that the left does so well. So should we.

Politicians react to that one thing - they want another term/stay in office. If they believe an issue will allow them to be re-electetd, they will vote for (or against) that issue.

They would like nothing more than to stay all cozy within a very narrowly defined box. It's an inertia type of thing & they certainly don't want any waves whatsoever. Waves make for headlines & them having to "take a stand." They would like very much for nothing to be controversial so they may make their speeches & reap the bennies of their position. Action gets in the way of these perks.

You must pull the edges of that box your way. And, make them pay for it when they do not vote your way. Threaten them with unemployment (a loss at the next election) with enough umph to make them believe you can back it up & they will take notice & "come along li'l doggy."

The left has been very successful in this. Nothing intended by way of "gay bashing" - far from it, but merely as an example .... gay rights have been a forefront type of political activism. Gays are (your call, but for sake of argument) perhaps 1-10% of the population, but have "expanded" their issues so that these issues are kinda "front burners" in the political spectrum.

Didn't happen by any accident. It "happened" because these folk use the tactics that work.

Simple as that.

They draw "the edges of the box" towards their own leanings by threats of unemployment. Letters to the editor, visits to their local politicos, donations, ... whatever it takes.

They work the livin' hell outa their agenda & draw their edge of the box towards what they want.

Politicos respond to that.

If we do not take an active part in the "smarts aspect of governing by the people," & learn from lessons already presented & shown to work very well indeed, we will lose. Not necessarily now, but we will lose in the end run ....

A quick calculation of the "80 million" gun-owner folks, times a mere 1% & divided by the 435 House districts gives an approvimate 1,839 possible hard-core/activist voters.

You think any politician could withstand close to 2,000 yappers at his/her door regarding ANY issue?

Not likely & that is where our strength lies. Forget the 80 million anything firgure - just go do it yourself.

Better yet - start an "action group" & slam these politicos into "submission" - for your rights today & those of your children & theirs.

[orlando5]

What is the process of renewing the 1994 gun bill? Do Bush have to just sign it or do it need approval from the other two house (floor vote) first before it make it onto his desk?

[labgrade]

Far as I 'know" & could be way off here .... corrections hugely requested.

The AW ban sunsets & must be voted on again to reinstitute.

What that means is "they" have to go through the whole process all over again - the whole shebang ... new legislation to "make a new law" to continue the ban/s.

If the House doesn't buy it = it dies. If the Senate doesn't buy it = it dies. & if The Prez vetoes it = it dies. If nothing at all is done - it dies.

"Sunset" means that if they don't re-legislate it into law, it dies by the mere date stamp.

It would be in our best interest to "allow" them to again "do nothing" & allow this to die of its own slow death ....

[deanf]

"Sunset" means that if they don't re-legislate it into law, it dies by the mere date stamp.

I think this is where our real advantage lies. The congress hasn't been able to agree on any gun control in the past three years, despite the shreiking of the bliss-ninnies. What makes anyone think they will have a better chance of passing this one?

I guess all that worries me is that it will be buried in an appropriations bill or some other bill that representatives will have a hard time voting against, no matter their stance on the so-called AW ban.

[alan]

What it all boils down to is the absolute necessity for "us", that's the gun owners of this country, to keep pressuring our "elected things" on this sunset business.

If they get to fear the possibility of being "unelected", they will vote, or act "our way". We have to hammer them, and keep hammering them. Politics of whatever else you want to mention, there are only a couple of things that motivate office holders. One is MONEY, the other is FEAR.

[RHarris]

I see a few problems with all of this. First of all, "80 million" gunowners cannot be relied on at all. Far too many are the "duck hunter" types who could care less as long as only those evil guns are banned. They believe no one will ever take their high dollar over and unders or anything else that isn't scary looking to a liberal ninnie. When they finally realize they're "sporting" firearms will also be taken, they won't join the fight, they'll wine and blame all those "evil assault weapons", handguns, and supporters of the Second Ammendment (in it's true meaning) for screwing it up for them. Many others will simply be too passive and do nothing (the problem all along).

Project Exile will ultimately screw everyone too (actually, that is already happening). This enforce-the-laws-on-the-books crap needs to go. We need to GET RID of many of the laws on the books. Many Second Ammendment supporters have fallen for this because it sounds so good. They are trying to compromise and should not. Compromising in this manner is the equivalent of trying to make everyone happy on both sides of the "gun issue"(or anything else). In reality, it it does the opposite. When more restrictive laws are passed, will the NRA and others continue to push this Projet Exile? They contradict themselves. They repeat the "out of my cold dead hands" phrase but also insist to "enforce the laws on the books". When their guns are finally outlawed, which will it be?

I'm not intending to offend anyone who has supported (or should I say fallen for) the ideas of Project Exile. I'm simply saying pull your heads out of the sand. I'm sure some one will still be offended by this. Perhaps its not sand that some of those heads should be pulled out of.

If the "sunset" of the "AW" ban will require the legislature to make new legislation, could more restrictions be added? If so, things could be even worse, but if the some lawmakers have (more) some stupid ideas and add some really extreme elements to it, perhaps the whole thing could be killed. Am I correct on my thinking here? Or is than not how the whole sunset thing will work?