Are we safer today than four years ago?

I have heard at least 50 times the Bush Administration say that the world is safer with Sadam Hussein out of power. But the real question is, are we safer today than four years ago. There are four reasons that we are not safer today, the Bush Administration failed to focus on the true threat Al-Qeida and Osama Bin Laden, the Bush Administration withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Bush Administration refused to participate in the Kyoto Protocol, and the Bush Administration has failed to renew the Assault Weapons Ban.

Has Iraq really made us safer? I would argue that it has not. It has taken our attention away from the terrorists. The terrorists that attacked us on 9/11 were not the Iraqi Bathist Party, it was Al-Qeida. Our efforts should have been focused on rebuilding Afghanistan and to continue pursuing Osama Bin Laden and the rest of Al-Qeida. Are we safer with Osama Bin Laden still running free?

In December 2001 the Bush administration announced that it would withdraw from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (AMB) Treaty. This announcement was quite alarming to Russia, China, and many of our close allies. This treaty was paramount in preventing a new arms race. This has not made us safer.

In October 2001 the Bush administration refused to sign the Kyoto Treaty. This treaty was aimed at reducing greenhouse gas emissions. 165 other countries had no problem signing on to this treaty. Yet this administration is not concerned with air we breathe and the water we drink. Lakes and rivers have had the highest content of mercury ever recorded. Failing to work with other countries in improving our air and water quality has not made us healthier or safer.

On 09/13/04 the Assault Weapons Ban will sunset while Bush sits on his hands. This will allow gun companies to sell the once banned weapons to the general public. Increasing the number of automatic weapons in my community does not make me or you safer.

The Bush Administration has simply failed when it comes to America’s security. Approving an outrageous defense budget does not ensure America’s safety. Real security can be achieved via diplomacy and staying true to our words in international treaties. We are not safer than we were four years ago.

You throw up softballs.

I'm going to go backwards on your list of 4 since we've done 1 and 2 to death on this board.

There will not be increasing automatic weapons in your community, mine or any other. Autmatic weapons have been illegal since the 1920's and probably always will be. The 1994 bill targeted 19 types of weapons. Now the problem is there were already millions of these "types" on the street and were not made illegal. I can still legally purchase and own an UZI or Tec-9 that was in the country legaly prior to this law passing. I can legally resell these weapons as well. The only thing this law did was increase the price.

There are likely as many Kalashnikovs in the world than there are people in the western hemisphere. It's been estimated there are 800 million to one billion of them made in the USSR, Chzechoslovokia, China, North Korea, Cuba etc. You can buy them in any third world country for as little as $80. That said terrorists can get their hands on automatic weapons at will. So can criminals.

There is little to no difference mechanically between a 30/30 or 30 odd 6 semi-automatic hunting rifle and an AR-15 other than a detachable clip. You can buy many sporting guns that will let you put out an equal volume of fire compared to an "assault" weapon.

Next your Kyoto BS. Why should we sign a treaty, why should Bush endorse a treaty that Clinton left on the scrap heap? Why should it be up to this President to try and overcome a 95-0 senate vote? This treaty was put up for ratification years ago and not one Senator voted for it. Why should they or we adopt Kyoto when it places our economy at a bad disadvantage compared to China, Inda or the third world? Do you want to export every manufacturing job we have?

The other two I'm not even touching, I'm sick of debating those fool issues on this board.

Suffice to say with the ABM treaty? The USSR no longer exists. You can't have a treaty with an imaginary country.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']
There is little to no difference mechanically between a 30/30 or 30 odd 6 semi-automatic hunting rifle and an AR-15 other than a detachable clip. You can buy many sporting guns that will let you put out an equal volume of fire compared to an "assault" weapon.
[/quote]

And this is a valid argument for why Bush should let the assault weapons ban expire?

Well, you make a good point. I mean, there are unbanned weapons similar to some assault weapons. Better go ahead and let people have assault weapons too - just to be safe (just to be unsafe?). Besides, "assault" sounds so much cooler than "semi-automatic."

Bush said he'd sign a renewal of the ban.

The votes in the House for renewing it don't exist.

Personally I'm against it. It's a clear abridgement of the second ammendment. We've bastardized the second to death, we've ruined the intended purpose of the first ammendment with campaign finance reform and affirmative action has ruined the 14th ammendment for a generation and a half.

It's about time some of our freedoms are restored instead of taken away from us.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Bush said he'd sign a renewal of the ban.

The votes in the House for renewing it don't exist.

Personally I'm against it. It's a clear abridgement of the second ammendment. We've bastardized the second to death, we've ruined the intended purpose of the first ammendment with campaign finance reform and affirmative action has ruined the 14th ammendment for a generation and a half.

It's about time some of our freedoms are restored instead of taken away from us.[/quote]

we ruined the second ammendment, wow I guess all those people who own guns are doing it illegally. Why dont u and your militia stop whining, ohh wait its an out of date ammendment, u dont have a militia. I guess everyone should be allowed to have grenade launchers and hell, why not tanks, I mean its just a moveable gun.

The second amendment says that citizens have the right to bear arms - nothing else. Nothing about having the right to bear assault weapons. Granted, also nothing about not having the right to bear assault weapons. Then again, it also doesn't say anything about not having the right to bear nuclear weapons - but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.

That said, what could a responsible, law-abiding citizen possibly need an assault weapon for? Hunting? Is it common that hunters run across deer wearing light armor and bullet-proof vests?

Self-defense? Are people expecting to be attacked by armies of Shi'ite extremists? Well, news flash: it's not gonna happen.

Is there anything within legal limits an assault weapon can do that a currently-legal weapon is incapable of?

"It's about time some of our freedoms are restored instead of taken away from us."
So the assault weapons ban bothers you, yet the Patriot Act, I assume, is okay?

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Next your Kyoto BS. Why should we sign a treaty, why should Bush endorse a treaty that Clinton left on the scrap heap? Why should it be up to this President to try and overcome a 95-0 senate vote? This treaty was put up for ratification years ago and not one Senator voted for it. Why should they or we adopt Kyoto when it places our economy at a bad disadvantage compared to China, Inda or the third world? Do you want to export every manufacturing job we have?[/quote]

Although you're right about the BS (and also it's completely unrelated to this topic really...adopting the Kyoto Protocol makes us safer ), the treaty has never been submitted for ratification to the Senate. The Senate, while Kyoto was being negotiated by Al Gore, voted 95-0 to signal (they just passed a resolution, IIRC a "sense of the Senate" resolution to basically let people know the body's position) that they wouldn't approve any treaty that didn't apply to developing countries as well as developed countries. When that was put in the final version, neither president in power since has seen fit to waste any political capital on a clear loser.

Are we safer today than four years ago?

Absolutely. For the simple fact that we now realize what our enemies are truly capable of and have awoken out of our false sense of security.

[quote name='Scrubking']Are we safer today than four years ago?

Absolutely. For the simple fact that we now realize what our enemies are truly capable of and have awoken out of our false sense of security.[/quote]

You know what's funny? Plenty of very left-wing Democrats will make wild claims about America being less safe due to the war in Iraq stirring up terrorists or wrongly changing our focus, yet they scream bloody murder when Dick Cheney says that we'll be safer from terrorism if Bush is reelected. I just don't get it. Those are the same thing to me and they are perfectly legitimate campaign issues.

[quote name='elprincipe']You know what's funny? Plenty of very left-wing Democrats will make wild claims about America being less safe due to the war in Iraq stirring up terrorists or wrongly changing our focus, yet they scream bloody murder when Dick Cheney says that we'll be safer from terrorism if Bush is reelected. I just don't get it. Those are the same thing to me and they are perfectly legitimate campaign issues.[/quote]

Arguing that we are less safe today because Bush has created a power vacuum in Iraq and Afghanistan that is a breeding ground for terrorists is at least a debatable topic that challenges the foreign policy of the current administration.

Cheney saying that "if you don't vote for us, the terrorists will attack again" is a fear-mongering tactic by a desperate administration because they know in all likelihood there will at least be another terrorist attempt on the US regardless of who is in the White House.

See the difference?

Of course we aren't safer now. Terrorism is at an all-time high, based on the Bush Administration's own numbers.

U.S. raises figures for 2003 terrorist attacks
'Significant attacks' at 21-year high, revised data show
From Elise Labott
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. government restated its 2003 accounting of terrorist attacks Tuesday, reporting a sharp increase in the number of significant attacks and more than doubling its initial count of those killed.

The State Department's annual Patterns of Global Terrorism report now counts 208 terrorist attacks as having occurred in 2003, with 625 dead. When the report was released in April, it counted 307 deaths in a total of 190 terror attacks.

The number of people killed in terrorist attacks worldwide still declined in 2003 when compared with 2002, when 725 people were killed. But the decline was much less steep than originally reported, and the number of "significant attacks" -- those involving large numbers of casualties or property damage -- increased from 138 in 2002 to 175 in 2003, a 21-year-high.

"We have 18 more total events, five more significant events and 13 more nonsignificant events than originally reported," said Cofer Black, the State Department's counterterrorism coordinator. "These new figures are accompanied by a dramatic increase in the numbers of casualties originally calculated."

The number of attacks originally reported was the lowest total since 1969, but Secretary of State Colin Powell said earlier this month that the reported decline was incorrect.


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/22/powell.terror/

[quote name='SwiftyLeZar']The second amendment says that citizens have the right to bear arms - nothing else. Nothing about having the right to bear assault weapons. Granted, also nothing about not having the right to bear assault weapons. Then again, it also doesn't say anything about not having the right to bear nuclear weapons - but the line needs to be drawn somewhere.[/quote]

Yep, we all have the right to bear arms, it just isn't easy. After all, you try and wrestle a Grizzly bear to the ground and rip his arms off without getting horribly mutilated.

[quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Next your Kyoto BS. Why should we sign a treaty, why should Bush endorse a treaty that Clinton left on the scrap heap? Why should it be up to this President to try and overcome a 95-0 senate vote? This treaty was put up for ratification years ago and not one Senator voted for it. Why should they or we adopt Kyoto when it places our economy at a bad disadvantage compared to China, Inda or the third world? Do you want to export every manufacturing job we have?[/quote]

Although you're right about the BS (and also it's completely unrelated to this topic really...adopting the Kyoto Protocol makes us safer ), the treaty has never been submitted for ratification to the Senate. The Senate, while Kyoto was being negotiated by Al Gore, voted 95-0 to signal (they just passed a resolution, IIRC a "sense of the Senate" resolution to basically let people know the body's position) that they wouldn't approve any treaty that didn't apply to developing countries as well as developed countries. When that was put in the final version, neither president in power since has seen fit to waste any political capital on a clear loser.[/quote]

Wait until global warming starts running rampant and then see what happens to our national economy. Even the pentagon considers global warming a threat greater than terrorism. Until the politicians get serious about the issue, however, it will probably be too late.

[quote name='MrBadExample'][quote name='elprincipe']You know what's funny? Plenty of very left-wing Democrats will make wild claims about America being less safe due to the war in Iraq stirring up terrorists or wrongly changing our focus, yet they scream bloody murder when Dick Cheney says that we'll be safer from terrorism if Bush is reelected. I just don't get it. Those are the same thing to me and they are perfectly legitimate campaign issues.[/quote]

Arguing that we are less safe today because Bush has created a power vacuum in Iraq and Afghanistan that is a breeding ground for terrorists is at least a debatable topic that challenges the foreign policy of the current administration.

Cheney saying that "if you don't vote for us, the terrorists will attack again" is a fear-mongering tactic by a desperate administration because they know in all likelihood there will at least be another terrorist attempt on the US regardless of who is in the White House.

See the difference?[/quote]

Yes. One is more blunt than the other, but they are more or less saying the same thing.

[quote name='coffman'][quote name='elprincipe'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Next your Kyoto BS. Why should we sign a treaty, why should Bush endorse a treaty that Clinton left on the scrap heap? Why should it be up to this President to try and overcome a 95-0 senate vote? This treaty was put up for ratification years ago and not one Senator voted for it. Why should they or we adopt Kyoto when it places our economy at a bad disadvantage compared to China, Inda or the third world? Do you want to export every manufacturing job we have?[/quote]

Although you're right about the BS (and also it's completely unrelated to this topic really...adopting the Kyoto Protocol makes us safer ), the treaty has never been submitted for ratification to the Senate. The Senate, while Kyoto was being negotiated by Al Gore, voted 95-0 to signal (they just passed a resolution, IIRC a "sense of the Senate" resolution to basically let people know the body's position) that they wouldn't approve any treaty that didn't apply to developing countries as well as developed countries. When that was put in the final version, neither president in power since has seen fit to waste any political capital on a clear loser.[/quote]

Wait until global warming starts running rampant and then see what happens to our national economy. Even the pentagon considers global warming a threat greater than terrorism. Until the politicians get serious about the issue, however, it will probably be too late.[/quote]

I guess we'll see. Right now more study is the way to go before making such sweeping policy decisions, as climate trends are an extremely long-term thing and we just don't have the knowledge of Earth's climate to conclusively determine that the current rise in temperatures is caused by humans. I think the prudent thing to do is continue intense study of the phenomenon while also continuing to require the latest technology to prevent as much of the emissions given off as reasonably possible.

[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Bush said he'd sign a renewal of the ban.

The votes in the House for renewing it don't exist.

Personally I'm against it. It's a clear abridgement of the second ammendment. We've bastardized the second to death, we've ruined the intended purpose of the first ammendment with campaign finance reform and affirmative action has ruined the 14th ammendment for a generation and a half.

It's about time some of our freedoms are restored instead of taken away from us.[/quote]

This is a very disingenuous argument, PAD. You know that if Bush leaned on the Congress critters they would renew the ban. He just doesn't want to (a) invest the political capital necessary to having it pass or (b) tick off the gun manufacturers who give him those fat, juicy contributions.

Well I'm sure it won't be long until the Kerry Campaign makes the logial leap to this:

Bush fails to ban weapons; conspires with gun manufacturers to supply arms to Al-Queda.

[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Bush said he'd sign a renewal of the ban.

The votes in the House for renewing it don't exist.

Personally I'm against it. It's a clear abridgement of the second ammendment. We've bastardized the second to death, we've ruined the intended purpose of the first ammendment with campaign finance reform and affirmative action has ruined the 14th ammendment for a generation and a half.

It's about time some of our freedoms are restored instead of taken away from us.[/quote]

This is a very disingenuous argument, PAD. You know that if Bush leaned on the Congress critters they would renew the ban. He just doesn't want to (a) invest the political capital necessary to having it pass or (b) tick off the gun manufacturers who give him those fat, juicy contributions.[/quote]

That argument dioesn't make too much sense either, by saying he would sign it, it clearly showed some support to renew. Besides the president shouldn't have to "lean on" the Congress to make them do something, if he did it would defeat the purpose of having more than one branch of government. And if he didn't want to put off gun manufacturer or organization's he officially would not support or just not comment on it. Hell some people in the NRA are already mad that he said he'd sign it. Bottomline is you can't place all the blame on a president when Congress won't pass something. If you're that mad and highly concearned about not having an assault weapons ban I suggest you look towards the local Congressional canidates and their elections than the presidential race on this issue.

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Bush said he'd sign a renewal of the ban.

The votes in the House for renewing it don't exist.

Personally I'm against it. It's a clear abridgement of the second ammendment. We've bastardized the second to death, we've ruined the intended purpose of the first ammendment with campaign finance reform and affirmative action has ruined the 14th ammendment for a generation and a half.

It's about time some of our freedoms are restored instead of taken away from us.[/quote]

This is a very disingenuous argument, PAD. You know that if Bush leaned on the Congress critters they would renew the ban. He just doesn't want to (a) invest the political capital necessary to having it pass or (b) tick off the gun manufacturers who give him those fat, juicy contributions.[/quote]

That argument dioesn't make too much sense either, by saying he would sign it, it clearly showed some support to renew. Besides the president shouldn't have to "lean on" the Congress to make them do something, if he did it would defeat the purpose of having more than one branch of government. And if he didn't want to put off gun manufacturer or organization's he officially would not support or just not comment on it. Hell some people in the NRA are already mad that he said he'd sign it. Bottomline is you can't place all the blame on a president when Congress won't pass something. If you're that mad and highly concearned about not having an assault weapons ban I suggest you look towards the local Congressional canidates and their elections than the presidential race on this issue.[/quote]

There's a big difference between Bush saying he would sign it and him actually applying pressure. As you well know, Bush has a lot of say regarding what happens in the Republican-controlled Congress. Only a very few times have those folks gone against him when he applied muscle on an issue, and it would have been the same here.

Following your line of reasoning, I guess Bush is fibbing every time he takes credit for some initiative that comes out of Congress. After all, they passed it; all he's doing is applying his John Hancock to the bill.

[quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Bush said he'd sign a renewal of the ban.

The votes in the House for renewing it don't exist.

Personally I'm against it. It's a clear abridgement of the second ammendment. We've bastardized the second to death, we've ruined the intended purpose of the first ammendment with campaign finance reform and affirmative action has ruined the 14th ammendment for a generation and a half.

It's about time some of our freedoms are restored instead of taken away from us.[/quote]

This is a very disingenuous argument, PAD. You know that if Bush leaned on the Congress critters they would renew the ban. He just doesn't want to (a) invest the political capital necessary to having it pass or (b) tick off the gun manufacturers who give him those fat, juicy contributions.[/quote]

That argument dioesn't make too much sense either, by saying he would sign it, it clearly showed some support to renew. Besides the president shouldn't have to "lean on" the Congress to make them do something, if he did it would defeat the purpose of having more than one branch of government. And if he didn't want to put off gun manufacturer or organization's he officially would not support or just not comment on it. Hell some people in the NRA are already mad that he said he'd sign it. Bottomline is you can't place all the blame on a president when Congress won't pass something. If you're that mad and highly concearned about not having an assault weapons ban I suggest you look towards the local Congressional canidates and their elections than the presidential race on this issue.[/quote]

There's a big difference between Bush saying he would sign it and him actually applying pressure. As you well know, Bush has a lot of say regarding what happens in the Republican-controlled Congress. Only a very few times have those folks gone against him when he applied muscle on an issue, and it would have been the same here.

Following your line of reasoning, I guess Bush is fibbing every time he takes credit for some initiative that comes out of Congress. After all, they passed it; all he's doing is applying his John Hancock to the bill.[/quote]

Muscle?

Find me one spending bill Bush has vetoed.

I already know the answer: NONE.

Keep the illusion alive.

CTL

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell'][quote name='dennis_t'][quote name='PittsburghAfterDark']Bush said he'd sign a renewal of the ban.

The votes in the House for renewing it don't exist.

Personally I'm against it. It's a clear abridgement of the second ammendment. We've bastardized the second to death, we've ruined the intended purpose of the first ammendment with campaign finance reform and affirmative action has ruined the 14th ammendment for a generation and a half.

It's about time some of our freedoms are restored instead of taken away from us.[/quote]

This is a very disingenuous argument, PAD. You know that if Bush leaned on the Congress critters they would renew the ban. He just doesn't want to (a) invest the political capital necessary to having it pass or (b) tick off the gun manufacturers who give him those fat, juicy contributions.[/quote]

That argument dioesn't make too much sense either, by saying he would sign it, it clearly showed some support to renew. Besides the president shouldn't have to "lean on" the Congress to make them do something, if he did it would defeat the purpose of having more than one branch of government. And if he didn't want to put off gun manufacturer or organization's he officially would not support or just not comment on it. Hell some people in the NRA are already mad that he said he'd sign it. Bottomline is you can't place all the blame on a president when Congress won't pass something. If you're that mad and highly concearned about not having an assault weapons ban I suggest you look towards the local Congressional canidates and their elections than the presidential race on this issue.[/quote]

You're very naive if you don't think the president doesn't have a whole lot of influence with Congress. How do you think Bill Frist became majority leader of the Senate? He was Bush's pick, that's how.

Well of course he will have some influence over them. But to me picking someone you think will vote your way in the future is more of a strategy, appplying pressure, as it has been called, is really just bullying Congress. I won't say it never happens, but does that fact that it does happen make it a right or even good thing for a president to do?

If Kerry was in office right now would this ban have been extended? If we had the exact same Congress your answer is most likely no, you can't just blame the president for all of Congress's actions. Quit complaining about the president not doing something, when the first step is for Congress to something they haven't even done. So come Nov. 2nd vote for your local congress member that wants to extend the ban. Kerry supports the bill, Bush said he'll sign it too, so to me it seems like the only obstectle is Congress. Nobody can sign or apporve jack if it never gets to them.

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Well of course he will have some influence over them. But to me picking someone you think will vote your way in the future is more of a strategy, appplying pressure, as it has been called, is really just bullying Congress. I won't say it never happens, but does that fact that it does happen make it a right or even good thing for a president to do?[/quote]

Sure it's a good thing. If the president believes something is the best policy for the country, why shouldn't he be arguing for Congress to follow that path? I don't get why you think he should just keep quiet if he has an opinion. After all, he is, along with the vice president, the only nationally-elected official speaking out on issues...

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']If Kerry was in office right now would this ban have been extended? If we had the exact same Congress your answer is most likely no, you can't just blame the president for all of Congress's actions. Quit complaining about the president not doing something, when the first step is for Congress to something they haven't even done. So come Nov. 2nd vote for your local congress member that wants to extend the ban. Kerry supports the bill, Bush said he'll sign it too, so to me it seems like the only obstectle is Congress. Nobody can sign or apporve jack if it never gets to them.[/quote]

If Kerry was in office the ban probably would not be passed, you're right, because there is a Republican-controlled Congress. The complaint people are making is Bush, if he really did want the ban in place, could have at least brought some pressure/influence to bear on the issue. The fact is that he knew Congress would kill it so he said he would sign it to be on both sides of the issue. Kind of like how he says he's against abortion but you don't see him asking people in Congress to try to amend the Constitution to outlaw it.

Any president that would try to ban aboration knows they'd be committing policital suicide basically. And yeah it's a republican controlled congress, but you're still missing my point. Who controls who is elected to congress? We do...seeing as how most people for the ban continuing are democrats then vote for a democratic canidate in November.

Too many people try to stick everything to the president...So he didn't push it as hard as he could have, maybe he did want it killed, but at the heart of my point is it doesn't make a damn bit of difference if he wanted it killed or not. No president would go up against nearly his entire party right before an election in an issue that would likely cause him to lose. So like I've said before, vote for the right people in November, take away that republican congress, and you can have the ban again. Whether Bush or Kerry is elected has little bearing on this issue now IMO.

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']If Kerry was in office right now would this ban have been extended? If we had the exact same Congress your answer is most likely no, you can't just blame the president for all of Congress's actions. Quit complaining about the president not doing something, when the first step is for Congress to something they haven't even done. So come Nov. 2nd vote for your local congress member that wants to extend the ban. Kerry supports the bill, Bush said he'll sign it too, so to me it seems like the only obstectle is Congress. Nobody can sign or apporve jack if it never gets to them.[/quote]

I don't believe that for a minute. Bush was only saying that because he knew it wasn't going to come across his desk. His buddies in Congress protected him from any political fallout and allowed him to take both sides of the issue, while Bush was able to protect his buddies in the NRA, who in turn protect members of Congress and Bush himself in their re-election campaigns. With their failure to act, the Republicans are standing up for the powerful interests and their own asses, while the people who put their lives on the line, the people who protect our communities, are having to stand by and just put up with it. As for all those who say the assault weapons ban was "meaningless" - maybe instead of just relaying the NRA/GOP one-liners, you should listen to what the police officers across the country are saying about it. It's funny how the guy who supposedly is the only candidate with the "courage" to stand up to America's foreign enemies, cowers in fear and bows down in worship when a slimeball like Wayne LaPierre gives him some marching orders.

I'm disgusted by both parties in regards to the Assault Weapon ban. Republicans didn't want to embarrass Bush by sending it to his desk and Democrats are afraid of pushing it because they got their asses handed to them after voting for it in '94. When an overwhelming majority of people support the law, why is the NRA allowed to bully everyone?

Because they have a lot of money.

[quote name='MrBadExample']I'm disgusted by both parties in regards to the Assault Weapon ban. Republicans didn't want to embarrass Bush by sending it to his desk and Democrats are afraid of pushing it because they got their asses handed to them after voting for it in '94. When an overwhelming majority of people support the law, why is the NRA allowed to bully everyone?

Because they have a lot of money.[/quote]

Or possibly because every crazy militia member and hate group follower has an NRA membership AND every single last one of them owns AT LEAST one gun.

Charleston Heston cotrols the second larget army in the world (largest is China's army).

The suicide of going against the NRA would not just be political...

[quote name='Duo_Maxwell']Any president that would try to ban aboration knows they'd be committing policital suicide basically. And yeah it's a republican controlled congress, but you're still missing my point. Who controls who is elected to congress? We do...seeing as how most people for the ban continuing are democrats then vote for a democratic canidate in November. [/quote]

Committing political suicide? Not hardly. The country is about 50-50 divided on the issue. The only way to appeal to both sides is to do what most politicians, including Bush, are doing, which is to play both sides. Support things like partial-birth abortion bans and parental notification so that antiabortion folks are happy, while not pushing for an outright ban which would upset the abortion-on-demand crowd too much.

[quote name='MrBadExample']I'm disgusted by both parties in regards to the Assault Weapon ban. Republicans didn't want to embarrass Bush by sending it to his desk and Democrats are afraid of pushing it because they got their asses handed to them after voting for it in '94. When an overwhelming majority of people support the law, why is the NRA allowed to bully everyone?

Because they have a lot of money.[/quote]

I agree, but add influence to money (or sometimes they turn out to be the same thing).

I do think WE (meaning the people of the US) are safer. I think that is just because people take threats more seriously than in the past. The situation abroad just depends on what countries you travel to. I think the risk of travelling to places like UK, Japan, Australia, and China are not much different than before. I think Americans traveling to the Israel, other parts of the Middle East and Indonesia need to be aware of the risk to themselves. Anti-american sentiment is just higher there.