[CreepingDeth]

I saw this one across NewsMax.

Since 1980, when Ronald Reagan received the first presidential endorsement by the National Rifle Association, no Republican candidate has lost an election with the endorsement – and no Republican has won without it.

In the run-up to November 2004, however, the powerful gun lobby continues to hang-fire on putting its formal seal of approval on George W. Bush.

Insider Larry Pratt, executive director of Gun Owners of America, when asked by The Hill when an endorsement by the NRA might be forthcoming, said, "I think September 14 would make a good date."

The assault weapons ban renewal has become a litmus test issue for the NRA, the nation's largest gun rights organization.

But sources close to the NRA's leadership tell NewsMax that all is not rosy between the gun group and the Bush White House.

The main bone of resentment is over President Bush's signature on the McCain-Feingold law, which the NRA believes may have effectively neutered their political muscle for years to come.

If the president supports the assault gun ban renewal, it could be the straw that breaks the proverbial camel's back.

Unless Congress acts, the 10-year-old federal assault gun ban will expire Sept. 13.

Although a push from President Bush would get a renewal before lawmakers – a majority of whom would probably approve it – the president, who supports the renewal of the ban, has been thunderously silent.

And the clock is running down. Congress will return from its summer district work period on Sept. 7 and will be in session for only four workdays before the sunset date arrives.

In the meantime, if the president is being coy on the volatile issue, so is the NRA.

Chris Cox, the NRA’s chief lobbyist, told The Hill that the group usually does not endorse presidential candidates until the fall – and will not be changing its timetable this year.

"Clearly, there are some issues that are still on the table," Cox acknowledged in a tacit reference to the assault weapons ban renewal, but he steadfastly declined to indicate when the NRA will make an endorsement decision, saying, "I'm not going to broadcast our strategy months before the election."

Although NewsMax has asked for further comment on the if and when of the endorsement, none has been forthcoming as of this writing.

In the meantime, Bush remains uncomfortably wedged between the classic rock and a hard place.

A survey released last month by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center found that 71 percent of those surveyed and 64 percent of gun owners wanted Congress to extend the ban.

On the other hand, if Bush calls on the GOP-controlled Congress to act, it may cost him the endorsement of the NRA.

For his part, John Kerry certainly hasn't given Bush a pass on his inaction: "We all know Bush and Cheney have broken their promises on Iraq and the economy," he said recently, "but most voters don't know that they are standing against major police organizations and breaking their promise to renew the assault weapons ban – which helps keep military-style assault weapons out of the hands of criminals and terrorists."

Coyness aside, the NRA is a force to be reckoned with.

Recently on "The Charlie Rose Show," Bill Clinton explained why Al Gore lost in the former president's home state: "I'll tell you exactly what happened in Arkansas. ... The NRA beat him in Arkansas."

Guns played a major role in securing Bush victories not only in Arkansas but also in West Virginia, Tennessee, Florida and New Hampshire.

At last year's NRA convention, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush told members, "If it were not for your active involvement, it is safe to say that my brother would not have been elected president."

Good Vibes From LaPierre

In the August issue of the NRA magazine America's 1st Freedom, NRA executive vice president Wayne LaPierre had effusive praise for incumbent Bush, telling his readership that the president stood squarely in the shoes of Ronald Reagan, the AR-15 automatic rifle owner who on May 9, 1983, was named an Honorary Life Member, a title bestowed on just 19 individuals in the 133-year history of the NRA:

"The words I use to describe Mr. Reagan equally describe President Bush. ... In his famous 'Rendezvous with Destiny' speech of 40 years ago, Ronald Reagan said, 'I think it's time we ask ourselves if we still know the freedoms that are intended for us by the Founding Fathers.' Americans must know, because Reagan said, 'If we lost freedom here, there is no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.'"

LaPierre poignantly added, "NRA members know the truth of those words – so does President George W. Bush."

In May, LaPierre had fighting words for John Kerry: "It's not a stretch to say that the worst thing that could happen to the Second Amendment is for John Kerry to be elected president."

LaPierre's recent rhetoric is a good omen for President Bush, but any formal endorsement – to borrow the words of George Tenet – may not be a "slam dunk."

The NRA stood neutral in 1992 and 1996, not endorsing George H.W. Bush in his re-election bid and shunning Republican nominee Bob Dole's presidential bid because of his iffy posture on the assault weapons ban.

The NRA did, however, endorse George W. Bush in 2000. Perhaps more importantly, the NRA poured its formidable resources, including $16.8 million on federal campaigns into the election. Working in tandem were a phone-banking effort and a targeted ad campaign to hype the chilling message "Al Gore wants to take away your guns."

The Money Clock Ticking

But in the new age of McCain-Feingold, when campaign finance laws ban the use of corporate and labor union money for ads targeting a particular candidate within 30 days of an election, the potential clout of the NRA juggernaut on Election 2004 may be blunted severely.

Long recognizing the writing on the wall, in April the NRA launched an Internet-based news company. The $1 million investment will help get its message to voters without violating new federal campaign finance rules that limit soft money contributions to candidates close to Election Day.

In the offing: an "NRA news" company that will not only produce a daily talk show for the Internet but also buy a radio station and seek a television deal to spread its gun-rights message nationwide.

But even if the news company were already in full throat and passed whatever legal hurdles that will inevitable emerge, it seems too little and too late for Election 2004.

A visit to NRANews.com these days reveals the flagship Web site of NRA News as hardly a vociferous platform for George W. Bush. Links to pro-Bush articles are provided in a "breaking news" category.

As the stalemate continues, the NRA has been more or less contenting itself with its Bush-neutral campaign to educate the American electorate that there is no rational reason to restrict firearms as "assault weapons."

On its NRAILA.org Web site, for instance, the gun group argues: "State and local law enforcement agency reports have always shown that firearms arbitrarily defined as 'assault weapons' have never been used to commit more than a minute fraction of violent crimes. Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., the author of the federal 'assault weapons' law, admitted this fact before the law was passed, and a study mandated by Congress determined: 'At best, the assault weapons ban can have a limited effect on total gun murders, because the banned weapons were never involved in more than a modest fraction of all gun murders.'"

The other prong of the NRA attack: "[W]e must remain extremely vigilant against any attempt by the anti-gunners to reauthorize this legislation [assault weapon ban renewal]. Already, Representative Michael Castle, R-Del., and Senator Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., have introduced bills to do just that."

Feinstein recently claimed: "I really believe passionately in this. I'm not going to give up. It's only the sheer power of the gun lobby that stands in the way."

For the administration's part, the last obvious public opportunity to break the impasse one way or another occurred in April at the NRA national convention.

Vice President Dick Cheney spoke for about 25 minutes, after which he was dutifully hailed by a standing ovation punctuated by chants of "Four more years!"

But Cheney said not one word about the federal assault weapons ban.

Silence begets silence.

George, if you have any sense in you, make sure the ban is not signed. If you want to win, and NRA endorsement might do you some good. Many conservatives are not attracted to you because sometimes…well…you aren't really conservative. Veto.
I am against the ban. I believe you should be able to own one. The bigger problem is when you get legally insane, paranoid, schizophrenic, ex-cons, etc., owning a gun. No person who has been found guilty of a big felony (assult, rape, murder, etc.) should be able to own a gun. No insane people should be allowed to own a gun. Besides, not many people are going to flip it to rock n' roll. But since this a 2nd amendment hating board, I doubt many people even know someone who has used one, let alone own gun. It isn't easy to control.

In short, Bush better not pass that bill.

[BRussell]

Since 1980, when Ronald Reagan received the first presidential endorsement by the National Rifle Association, no Republican candidate has lost an election with the endorsement – and no Republican has won without it.

I think this is an important issue for the upcoming election that's not receiving that much attention yet. The NRA is very important for Republicans. But Bush has said that he supports the ban. So if he doesn't ask for the renewal he's a flip-flopper and will get painted as an extremist by Kerry. If he does renew it, he'll lose the NRA.

My guess is he'll let it die and hope it goes away and the NRA backs him. They seem to be in almost complete "get out your base" mode in this election.

[UNTeMac]

Why should people be able to own weapons designed specifically to kill large numbers of people at once? The second amendment says nothing about that. The militia clause alone calls it all into question but I won't deny anyone the right to hunt.

As for Bush, I'm glad to hear he supports it. Maybe it has something to do with the compassionate conservatism he started with when he ran four years ago. It's funny that 2 parts of Bush's base are at odds with eachother...Christian right likes life, the NRA likes death.

[Zimphire]

The NRA LIKES death?

Er ok...

That's quite a stretch.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
The NRA LIKES death?

Er ok...

That's quite a stretch.

Weapons of death perhaps?!? I think Bush should stick to his belief In the assault rifle ban and not succumb to the pig-headed NRA.

[CreepingDeth]

Pig-headed? Excuse me?

[demograph68]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Pig-headed? Excuse me?

I just don't understand why they are so offended by such a ban. The NRA stubbornly believes that their rights are being tampered with but they're not. (In regard to the the ban of assault rifles) My step-dad is a republican, voted for Bush, and hunts in his spare time. He could care less about the NRA and their political views.

[y0y0]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
I saw this one across NewsMax.
... But since this a 2nd amendment hating board, I doubt many people even know someone who has used one, let alone own gun.
..

I used to own a .357 Astra back in South Africa, have shot with numerous hanguns and shotguns (very short pistol grip Remmington pump being one that stands out) and numerous assault rifles, including an AK-47 and AR-15. But I totally support extremely strict control of all types of guns, and this for the simple fact that to my mind, less guns = less people dead.

[CreepingDeth]

Well that's not always true. If someone has a gun in public, and someone tries to rob, etc. Don't you think that would help?
There are many people who don't deserve guns. Criminals and insane people are two of them.

But death by normal people with firearms isn't the biggest problem. If you really want to get rid of guns because of murderers, get rid of hands, hammers, ropes, knives, etc.

Numbers:
86 million people own guns.
60 million are handguns.
30,000 were involved in deaths.
.15% of all in America

Many studies have proven that Americans use guns to protect themselves, often stopping crimes without a shot.
John R Lott did a study and found that "when state concealed handgun laws went into effect in a county, murders fell 8%, rapes and aggravates assaults dropped 5% and 7%. Gun control laws don't simply thwart criminals. A D.C. ban on handguns in 1976 saw homicide rates TRIPLE by 91'.

CDCP released a study that showed no link between gun control laws and lower crime. "…found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any firearms laws or combination of laws reviewed on violent outcomes."

Guns don't kill people, abortion clinics do.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Guns don't kill people, abortion clinics do.

Unless you're sniping abortion doctors, but that's another story.

[CreepingDeth]

Oh I hate abortions. I think it is immoral and a terrible thing to do. Only in rape cases and where the mother will die.
MY point was that millions have died because of irresponsible women, which is more than the number of people who have died by your average citizen with a .357.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
Oh I hate abortions. I think it is immoral and a terrible thing to do. Only in rape cases and where the mother will die.
MY point was that millions have died because of irresponsible women, which is more than the number of people who have died by your average citizen with a .357.

I disagree, though I didn't mention anything because I don't want this to go way of topic.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by demograph68:
Weapons of death perhaps?!? I think Bush should stick to his belief In the assault rifle ban and not succumb to the pig-headed NRA.

How about just the right to own weapons?

I have been told this week that Democrats are all about PERSONAL freedoms.. I guess they are as long as they follow their belief system.

It has nothing to do with Death.

I know people that own said weapons, and never use them. They collect them. Like works of art.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by demograph68:
Unless you're sniping abortion doctors, but that's another story.

How many times has that actually happened? Yes probably more than it should have I agree. But it's not THAT common.

[CreepingDeth]

*Also used for protection.

Like an insurance policy, most don't use it.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How about just the right to own weapons?

I wasn't being serious of course with the "death" comment. As for collecting guns, that would be alright. Though I think anything more than adequate for hunting should be sold as such, like at an auction. Or they should belong in a museum.

[Zimphire]

Originally posted by demograph68:
I wasn't being serious of course with the "death" comment.

Ah, ok then. No problem.

I am not a member of the NRA, nor do I own ANY guns. But I wouldn't want to take away that right.

I'm a big wuss when it comes to shooting furry animals.

[demograph68]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How many times has that actually happened? Yes probably more than it should have I agree. But it's not THAT common.

What's relevant to me is not the amount of occurrences, but the irony.

[TheMosco]

Some people use the argument that gay marriage should be banned because over 50 percent support the ban. Does that mean that because 70 percent of the people support this ban it should happen?

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally posted by Zimphire:
How about just the right to own weapons?

I have been told this week that Democrats are all about PERSONAL freedoms.. I guess they are as long as they follow their belief system.

It has nothing to do with Death.

I know people that own said weapons, and never use them. They collect them. Like works of art.

So, for your collector friends, do they have their weapons permanently disabled like most museums do that have weapons in their collection or on display? Thay way they can guarantee the weapon is forever safe while still being appreciated for it's artliness.

[Millennium]

The most brilliant way to go about this would be to time the bill so it gets to his deak on September 10.

No, this isn't a 9/11 tie-in. The President has seven days (not counting Sundays; an interesting quirk of the Constitution) to sign or veto any bill which hits his desk. If those seven days expire, then what happens next depends on whether or not Congress is in session: if it's in session then the bill becomes law, otherwise it dies. This latter scenario is called a "pocket veto", and isn't terribly common because of time-sensitivity. Either way, letting a bill go all seven days is generally considered a cop-out.

Regardless, if the bill hits his desk on September 10, then Bush has plenty of time to wait out the expiration date and get the endorsement, then do whatever he wants with the bill.

[tie]

Originally posted by CreepingDeath:
George, if you have any sense in you, make sure the ban is not signed. If you want to win, and NRA endorsement might do you some good. Many conservatives are not attracted to you because sometimes…well…you aren't really conservative.

You know, I think Bush should do what's right, not what is politically expedient. It's amazing that people can criticize Kerry for supposedly playing politics, then encourage Bush to do the same thing.

[Millennium]

Originally posted by tie:
You know, I think Bush should do what's right, not what is politically expedient. It's amazing that people can criticize Kerry for supposedly playing politics, then encourage Bush to do the same thing.

But who is to say what is right? Is such a ban really the right thing to do? For that matter, is allowing the ban to expire the right thing to do?

[Luca Rescigno]

And this is a very political game. I for one am a supporter of slightly stricter gun control, or at least of maintaining the status quo. However, I have done quite a lot of research on the subject (wrote a report about it a few months ago) and the assault weapons ban is really more of a political tool than anything else. Very few crimes are committed with assault weapons and the criteria for defining an assault weapon are so specific it's silly. I think the main danger is their ability to carry 30 or 50 rounds and being able to fire them in fairly quick succession without reloading.

The only bans that apply even less often are the very old machine gun ban (apparently there has been just one person killed in a crime involving a machine gun in decades) and the ban on armor-piercing bullets, which, although dubbed "cop killer" bullets, have never actually been used against police wearing armor. However, those two bans are in place kind of as a preventive measure - just because crimes involving machine guns are rare doesn't mean we should make them legal.

Most murders are done with handguns using normal ammunition, and they are the real danger. Firearm murders and total deaths both dropped after the introduction of the Brady Act, so I support measures like that which prevent guns from getting into the wrong hands.

[CreepingDeth]

Who should not be allowed to own a gun?

[CreepingDeth]

Didn't someone mow down a cop with an AK-47 awhile ago in CA? I believe. I don't think the DA went for the death penalty in that case. That's another peeve, when someone does kill someone, punishment is weak.