They couldn't give 2 cents about anyone but themselves.
The polls told Pelosi and Hillary that they would lose votes if they took up the issue. Votes are the most important thing to Pelosi and Hillary and Dems.
2007-04-17 01:31:23 · 14 answers · asked by duck 2 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
So, for all of you Dems who are going to sqwak about weapons, keep in mind that your party INTENTIONALLY stayed away from the issue over the past 4 years.
2007-04-17 01:32:19 · update #1
This is no surprise. They were too busy rallying their own agendas. Shame on them.
2007-04-17 01:37:46 · answer #1 · answered by Mele Kai 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Le'ts get this straight Congress let the the assault weapons ban expire September 13, 2004- who was in charge of Congress- REPUBLICANS!!! TWIT!!! Just looking for an excuse to blame the Dems for something. I'm surprised you haven't blamed the Dems for the nor'easter that just blew through.
In any event, if the act had been renewed (which was highly doubtful), President Bush would have probably used his veto pen twice instead of once. It would have fit the mold. He talks about preserving life, yet he vetoed the stem cell research funding bill which might help preserve life and he could have vetoed that bill which might have helped preserve life as well. In any event, the initial bill was a test bill to see IF there had been any real impact. It proved it DID NOT. There would have had to be changes to broaden the classification of the types of guns banned
In February 2007 a bill, HR1022, sponsored by Representative Carolyn McCarthy of New York that would have reinstituted and expand the ban on assault weapons. It would have reduced the number of requirements in order for a firearm to be classified as an assault weapon from two to one. The ban failed to be suggested by a Senate committee on March 16 2007. As of April 7th 2007, 33 cosponsors have signed on. It is currently stalled in the House Judiciary committee.
2007-04-17 01:35:06 · answer #2 · answered by thequeenreigns 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
How Quickly one forgets that it's only been in the last 4 months that the democrats have had control of the congress. IN as the party in control they still dont' have the votes needed to pass bills. The last 4 months it's been the Iraqi war and the middle east that's been at the forefront!!
One needs to have the two cents in order to give it.
2007-04-17 01:55:11 · answer #3 · answered by wondermom 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
those 2 nonetheless have faith in Hitler's propaganda: shop saying a lie until people start to think of this is authentic. Barack and Hillary are in simple terms 2 of the main seen, in a team that makes use of unverified recommendations, that fits their objective, and use it as fact. This "around prophesy" is self serving and by no ability ending. yet, because of the fact the snake that eats its very own tail, there will be the 2d they are going to be gnawing at their very own necks. weapons interior the palms of regulation abiding, experienced, non violent electorate weren't, are no longer and isn't any longer a concern. until you attempt to alter right into a ruler and choose obedient sheep you may herd. ecu minded socialist, elitist, monarchists, like those 2, like to apply any attainable ability to dissolve the rights of the persons residing interior the only loose u . s . interior the worldwide - u . s . a .!
2016-11-25 00:48:05 · answer #4 · answered by heitman 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well it deserved to expire anyway,big constitutional issues wrapped up in that useless piece of legislation. Not to mention it did nothing,and of course not to mention the fact that such an overwhelming majority of gun crime is committed with guns that are either stolen or illegally purchased the ban is supposed to do what? Gun control fanatics don't want facts though,they want the occassional huge event to make their point,like yesterday. Of course yesterday or Columbine are events that are an anomoly. The fact is the vast majority of gun crime is one guy shooting another guy in a drug crime,or in an argument in some dive bar,or some other criminal enterprise and 80% of the time it's with an illegally owned or stolen firearm by a guy who has a criminal record as long as my arm. So how do more gun laws keep guns out of the hands of criminals? Answer they don't,it hasn't even worked in countries with total gun bans.
AD
2007-04-17 01:42:19 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
So, I guess that means that you're for a gun ban? No wait, it looks like you're against a gun ban......
I bet you also got mad because Pelosi had a war protester arrested outside her office...... of course I'm sure this is right after you just finished saying that war protesters should be arrested.
What the hell is with you people???
...........
2007-04-17 01:37:48 · answer #6 · answered by ladykofnyc 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Well you realize that the reason the ban COULD expire was because they were testing it to see if it made any effect on crime. It made none, so they had no leg to stand on in trying to defend it. Ah is somebody going to cry because gun control failed to disarm law abiding citizens? Good. Cry.
2007-04-17 01:37:20 · answer #7 · answered by Lancaid 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Votes are the most important thing for all politicians.
2007-04-17 01:34:12 · answer #8 · answered by Cybeq 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Votes important to politicians, Brilliant!
2007-04-17 01:38:33 · answer #9 · answered by Carpe diem 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Well, since I'm not a democrat, and don't give a sht about Pelosi or Clinton, because to me, they are the same as Repubs,
why the hell should I care?
2007-04-17 01:34:29 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 3⤋