http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,131813,00.html 

WASHINGTON — Congress will not vote on an assault weapons ban due to expire Monday, Republican leaders said Wednesday, rejecting a last-ditch effort by supporters to renew it.

"I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire," Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (search), R-Tenn., told reporters.

The 10-year ban, signed by President Clinton (search) in 1994, outlawed 19 types of military-style assault weapons. A clause directed that the ban expire unless Congress specifically reauthorized it.

Some Democrats and several police leaders said President Bush should try to persuade Congress to renew the ban. Bush has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed it.

"If the president asked me, it'd still be no ... because we don't have the votes to pass an assault weapons ban and it will expire Monday and that's that," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Texas, told reporters later.

DeLay said the ban was "a feel-good piece of legislation" that does nothing to keep weapons out of the hands of criminals.

However, House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (search), R-Ill., said he would consider allowing the House to vote on legislation only if the Senate acted first.

Appearing at a news conference, chiefs of police from the District of Columbia, Los Angeles, Atlanta and Seattle predicted an increase in violent gun crimes if the bans does expire.

"Our streets, our homes, our citizens and our police officers will face great danger unless the federal ban on assault weapons is renewed," said Charles H. Ramsey, the police chief in the nation's capital.

In March, the Senate voted to add the ban to a bill that would have immunized gun manufacturers from liability suits stemming from violent gun crimes. But the Senate voted 90-8 against the final bill after the National Rifle Association urged its defeat.

NRA President Wayne LaPierre said in an interview with The Associated Press that his group is so confident that Congress won't renew the ban that it is not spending any more money on ads this year opposing it.

He said supporters of the ban could not muster the support needed to bring it to a vote in the House because several Democrats attribute losing their majority in the House in 1994 over votes then in favor of the ban.


Hog

I'm still keeping my fingers crossed on this (until it actually expires), but for now I can throw out a reserved YES!!!!

Guns don't kill people.

PEOPLE kill people.

Yeah, but we're still f*cked in California. CA will still enforce the ban. It really sucks.

I know the M-16 and M-4 series like the back of my hand. Never had a problem with the law, shot expert EVERY time on qual day, carried the damned thing for 4 1/2 years in the service and can't own the semi auto version of it because it's a so-called "assault rifle"?

Sorry CA legislators, an assault rifle is a selective fire weapon. That means full auto or burst capability. None of those in any CA gunshop I've ever been in.

And for you bleeding heart liberals out there crying about unsuitability for hunting, show me where the 2nd Amendment says "the right to keep and bear arms for hunting purposes only".

If thats, your case:
Hell, ban SUVs too. 99% of soccer moms never go off road and SUVs do WAY more damage than a Hyundai when they hit something. Where's the sporting use in that?

Ban high capacity magazines?
If thats, your case:
Hell, let's ban V-8's. More cylinders, more horsepower, more kinetic energy, more fatalities.

Ban autoloading firearms?
If thats, your case:
Hell, let's ban automatic transmissions. They're in cars, and people die in car wrecks every minute of every day.

Get real people!!! MACS(SW)is absolutely right - Guns don't kill people, PEOPLE kill people.

Endeth the sermon!
E4A

Just an FYI.

A poll released this week by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania found that 68 percent of Americans -- and 32 percent of NRA members -- support renewing the ban. The findings, derived from interviews with 4,959 adults, had a margin of sampling error of plus or minus one percentage point.

I don't know where I stand on this issue. I don't own a gun and never have. Nor have I ever fired one. But it is in the constitution that I can.

However, I would like to say that the "guns don't kill people, people kill people" is a pretty lame argument. I'm no expert and I'm not going to look up statistics but I'll wager that there are a number (maybe even a lot) of deaths from gunshot wounds that wouldn't have happened if the person didn't have a gun. Instance of road rage where a person shot someone, instances of kids and even adults with accidental shootings. Granted I don't know the number but don't insult our intelligence buy saying guns don't kill.

(besides if you want to be technical its really the bullets that kill...well except in the cases of pistol whipping).

I plan on celebrating by firing my weapons into the air!! Well, maybe not, but I am glad to see this BS come to a close.

We dont need any more gun laws on the books!!

As said countless times on these boards, these and other gun laws are ignored by the criminals. The laws only effect/hinder the law abiding citizens.

plabonte, please re-read what you wrote and then ask yourself again the argument of Guns don't kill people.. people kill people...

but first keep in mind "who is at fault" on each toipc you touched on...

Hog

I think there is a reason why there is a larger percentage the general public vs the NRA members who support extending the assault weapons ban. It comes down too not knowing what the ban covers.

If you ask a regular guy (non gun enthusiast) if the ban on assault weapons is a good thing, he will likely say yes. It sounds like a good thing. Nobody wants criminals to have access to have "those" weapons. The problem is: the ban, as written, is vague and misleading and doesn't cover a wide variety of semi-automatic weapons. The ban effectively does nothing except eliminate a few makes and models. But manufacturers can easily redesign their weapons to avoid the ban but still provide massive firepower.

I agree that no new laws need to be made and that this law should die. Enforcement of existing laws is all that is needed.

Hog - The point of my post is that if the gun wasn't there a death would not have occurred. Did a person pull the trigger yes.

But the argument is dumb. Its like saying WMD don't kill people, people kill people because they are the ones that launch the WMD. Therefore, any Country that wants WMD can have them.

Again I can see both sides of this issue. But I'm not so naive as to think that all cases of death or injury from gunfire would have still happened had the gun not been there.

In the grand scheme of things, my gun may not seem like it's all that
important to a legislator who is protected by armed bodyguards and lives
in a gated community, but to my little girl, it's daddy's way of making
sure she gets to go see grandma this weekend. ? Michael James

"But the argument is dumb. Its like saying WMD don't kill people, people kill people because they are the ones that launch the WMD. Therefore, any Country that wants WMD can have them. "

Excellent illustration of Hog's point. We, the US, have WMDs. We don't use them; they dont' kill people. Hussein had them; they killed people. You actually supported Hog, there. I agree with Hog and the others. Only criminals benefit from gun laws.

My point is that in the right hands they deter violence, not create it.

Plabonte, I see your argument (even though I don't agree with it). Since the beginning of time people have killed other human beings. The tool they might happen to use to make the job easier isn't the issue. The problem is that some people give no second thought to killing another person. THIS to me is the problem. The means are secondary to the will. People often forget this because it's easier to blame something other than people for their actions (in this case guns).

But let's not forget how guns (and any other weapon for that matter) work. They require people to activate them. Including WMD, as you tried to bring in above. Same thing, different scale.

Lets not lose sight of the fact that the founding fathers put the second amendment in place (many refused to sign until it was) to insure all the other rights guaranteed by the Constitution. If the people lack the realistic means to rise up and overthrow the government, how can they reasonably expect the government NOT to infringe freedom of Speech, Prees, Assembly, Religeon, or even the right to vote! If we allow the government to reduce us to single-shot break-open arms we will be effectively disarmed, and they can gather up the remainder at leisure! Remember, the first shots fired at Camden in the American Revolution were fired to prevent British troops from seizing the stockpile of weapons there, what stopped them was the minutemen, who each had a weapon of equal or greater firepower and accuracy as what the Redcoats had!

Plabonte wrote:
"I'm no expert and I'm not going to look up statistics but I'll wager that there are a number (maybe even a lot) of deaths from gunshot wounds that wouldn't have happened if the person didn't have a gun."

That's the same scenario for ANYTHING!

I'm no expert and I'm not going to look up statistics but I'll wager that there are a number (maybe even a lot) of deaths from (CAR ACCIDENTS, ELECTROCUTION, DROWNING, ETC) that wouldn't have happened if the person didn't have a (CAR, ELECTRICAL EQUIPMENT, POOL, ETC)."

Toughen up the laws for offenders that use guns in violent crimes! Don't ban guns, only the criminals will have them. The gun bans are silly if you really look at it from another point of view. For example:

What if from this point forward cars that exceed a certain gross weight and engine displacement were banned to lessen the amount of deaths from collisions? More weight, inertia and kinetic energy results in more damage right?

What if sportscars were banned because they look too much like race cars? Race cars are capable of speeds that way exceed safe driving limits on our roads.

Kinda the same thing that's happening with gun laws.

I'm going to guess that those of you that don't support gun bans do support our action in Iraq.

The whole reason for the war was that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Which were not legal (per say).

I'm confused how you can say in one breath (I should be allowed to have weapons because weapons don't kill) and in the other breath say (we have to take the weapons away from Iraq so we don't get killed). Aren't these positions total opposites?

I'm not opposed to the war in Iraq and as I said before I don't have a position on the gun law at this time. I'm not asking to be a jerk or anything. I'm genuinely curious so please try to explain it to me.

One word.... Justice.

Yeah that is true echo and a good point. The only problem is that none of the items you mention has the sole purpose of killing like a gun does.

Also, the law doesn't ban guns. Only certain kinds. So are you saying you can't defend your homes with a regular gun? Only with a Chicago Street Sweeper or an AK-47 or whatever other guns are included in the Assault Weapon category?

We went into Iraq because we thought Saddam still had WMD, AND HAD A HISTORY OF USING THEM. Convicted felons have lost their right to keep and bear arms, you have to answer a question about ever being convicted of a crime PUNISHABLE (whether you actually served time or not) by one year or more in prison. HOWEVER, the courts have decided that prosecuting someone for lying on this question constitutes a violation of ones Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. ERGO it's illegal to posses a firearm if you're a felon, but not to lie about it to obtain one! Instead of asking honest people questions criminals aren't required to answer honestly, why not lock up criminals? If, somehow, we removed all firearms from the equation, the bad guys would hold you up with a knife. The Second Amendment was a guarantee of our freedom from oppression by our OWN GOVERNMENT!