The NRA didn't do a lot of damage to the Dems back in 1994.
Sure...tell that to Marjorie Mezvinsky (sp?). She was an up and coming darling of the democrat party who cast one of the final votes in Congress for the 1994 AWB. She was kicked out of office by the voters of Pennsylvania two months later for her vote. Tell it to Bill Clinton, who has publicly blamed the 1994 republican turnover of Congress on the NRA and the backlash from the 1994 AWB vote. Tell it to Tom Foley - the democratic speaker of the house at the time who not only lost his job as speaker of the house, but lost his seat in congress in that same election.
They have passed anti-gun legislation in the past with the NRA holding their butts screaming NOOOOO!!!!!!!
See my answer above. The NRA can't physically restrain a member of Congress from voting against the interests of gun owners. All they can do is promise retaliation at the ballot box for legislators who cross them. Thats exactly what happened in November of 1994, and the dems know there's a very high risk of repeating that in 2008 if they try it again. 1994 was a test of the strength for the NRA and the NRA showed it was still a force to be reckoned with on the Hill.
but when the house/senate is primarily anit-guners and the president is anti-gun... it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see what happens next. (In 2008 its more-than-likely going to be this way)
Thanks for reiterating my earlier point for me. Let me say it again; nothing will happen with HR1022 because the dems want to own the house, senate and the presidency in 2009. Pushing gun control legislation now will more than likely only derail that goal. If they take the house, senate and the presidency in the '08 elections, obviously all bets are off. Regardless, what is the point of gearing up and getting hysterical over a bill with little to no chance of success? If you take an honest look at the political environment now, it looks more like HR1022 was introduced for the purpose of political posturing more than a true attempt to legislate. If you're talking about a bill which may be introduced in '09 its sort of pointless as that bill hasn't even been introduced yet and we don't know what the political landscape will look like at that time and who may be in office.
next year this bill is going to bite all us gun-toting weird-o's into a world-o-hurt
Not likely. Few in Congress are in a position to push too hard on such a politically risky issue in an election year; at least not one which has proven in the recent past it can motivate huge voter retaliation at the ballot box.
In 1994 the dems got burned badly for doing just that and they won't likely make that same mistake again. We may not like Pelosi, but don't underestimate her intelligence or political savvy. If they pass another AWB it will only be at the very beginning of a new term - thus allowing plenty of time for angry voters to cool down and forget before the next election cycle begins. They won't do it walking into an important election cycle - it would be political suicide for many members and they know it all too well from past experience. Additionally, keep in mind GWB has no reason not to veto it and the dems know that even if they had the votes to pass such a bill in the first place, they sure a heck don't have the votes to override a veto. IOW, there's no reason for them to push it now and burn political capital with almost no possible outcome but to inflame a highly cohesive and effective voting block at the outset of an election cycle. It would be a very stupid move and you don't need to be Karl Rove to figure that out.
I actually work within the government and have done so for the past 8 years. Before you think I’m stupid, or don’t know what is going on, actually think about things and you will see that Im not too far off kilter.
And what exactly do you do for the government? Doug, I don't think you're stupid, but I think you probably read the hysterical letters from the NRA too much without applying much in the way of your own meaningful analysis of the political situation. Don't get me wrong, I like the NRA and I'm a member. I donate and I think they do a pretty good job for gun owners. But any wacko in Congress can propose any kind of crazy hairbrained legislation they want and HR1022 is a perfect example. Just because legislation has been intruduced doesn't mean it has any real chance of success so you have to learn to focus your efforts on what is a real threat and not waste time and energy on what is done more for the photo op and public relations. Let me be clear, 1022 is there mostly for posturing purposes so people like Carolyn McCarthy can go to her constituents and say "Look! I did something - I sponsored a bill." I would hazzard a guess that even McCarthy knows her bill is a dead issue. She may truly want it passed, but Nancy Pelosi will probably keep it bottled up in committee as she knows there's far greater issues at risk...like winning the '08 elections. Moreover, many of the newly elected democrats are blue dogs and less beholden to the usual democrat anti-gun party line than we've seen in the past.
Here's a good example for you; do you remember Senator Daniel Patrick Moniyhan? Every session he introduced a bill in the senate that would have imposed a 1000% federal excise tax on handgun ammo. I'm sure Moniyhan knew it had no chance of going anywhere and few supporters but he put the bill on the table every session just to make a point - it was more of a symbolic act than a real attempt at legislation. Of course, the NRA would capitalize on Moniyhan's gesture for their own PR purposes in their solicitations for donations.
With all the attention on the GWOT and Iraq, Its not hard to realize that it would be easy to push something like this AWB thought most of the various hoops quietly now, so when the new Pres is in office, they can launch a massive offensive and hopefully blind-side everyone.
Do you understand that a bill is only good for that session of congress? If not passed, it has to be re-introduced the next time around, and start all over again in committee from square one? Its not as if they can quietly vote on it, and hold off on sending it to the president until after the inaguration. Perhaps I missed your point though; what "hoops" do you think they can push it through to give a new president any advantage?
If you analyze the political situation with calculating logic instead of just letting your emotions run wild, you'd see that absent some unforseen turn of events (and even VT didn't seem to be enough) HR1022 has little chance of passage right now. The closer we get to the '08 elections, the less likely the dems are to press a political hot button that carries a very high risk of derailing their plans for '08/'09. Again, all bets are off after the '08 elections.
Now please understand, I'm not saying we shouldn't join the NRA and write our legislators; we should. I'm not saying we can afford to get comfortable and ignore proposed legislation; we can't. But before getting all worked up it helps to look at the issue logically so you can understand how real a threat it poses. There is ALWAYS an antigun bill of some sort being kicked around in Congress. Always. If you never learn to separate what has a real chance of passing (and why) versus what is more for the sake of political posturing you'll go crazy chasing your tail, needlessly wasting time and effort.
