NY Times Article blames Democrats for not extending assault weapons ban in '04. The GOP held both...

[tenderfoot]

Last edited Fri Jun 10, 2022, 03:18 PM - Edit history (1)

the Senate and Congress at the time.

WASHINGTON — In late 1993, Democrats were on the cusp of a legislative triumph that seems inconceivable in today’s polarized debate over gun control: They were about to outlaw an entire class of firearms — semiautomatic assault rifles — as part of a big bipartisan crime bill.

But to win over moderates in both parties, they made a pair of concessions that to proponents seemed relatively modest, exempting more than 2,200 firearms from the list of prohibited weapons and requiring that the ban be renewed in 10 years.

The crime bill passed, with great fanfare, in 1994.

The assault weapons ban lapsed, with little fuss or fight, in 2004.

That the ban — a central policy goal of Democrats after a spate of mass shootings in recent weeks — was allowed to expire so quietly, without the party mounting a major effort to preserve its most consequential gun control achievement in decades, is increasingly a matter of puzzlement and outrage.

“Democrats’ unwillingness to invest real political capital years ago into translating popular support for the assault weapons ban into targeted political pressure has contributed to the crisis we currently face,” said Igor Volsky, a founder of Guns Down America, who supports renewing the ban.

“Republicans and the gun lobby have successfully transformed love for assault weapons into a central tenet of the conservative political identity and movement,” he added.

However, he knew that was unlikely to happen. Republicans, closely allied with the National Rifle Association, controlled both houses of Congress at the time and had no intention of bringing the bill to the floor for a vote. “I think the will of the American people is consistent with letting it expire, so it will expire,” Senator Bill Frist of Tennessee, the majority leader, said on the eve of its demise.

Wayne LaPierre, the N.R.A.’s chief executive, was more blunt, arguing that the ban affected only the cosmetic appearance of guns. “We felt from the very start it was bogus legislation,” he said after it lapsed.

But Democrats still had a fighting chance had they been able to reconstitute the coalition of moderate Republicans and law enforcement officials that backed the original ban. They could not.

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/09/us/politics/democrats-assault-weapons-ban.html

[MerryHolidays]

1. The Dems controlled both the House and Senate in 1994

They lost control of both in the November 1994 mid-term elections, effective January 1995.

I think you are referring to 2004, not 1994? That year, the Rs did indeed control both parts of Congress.

[jimfields33]

2. Democratic Party held both chambers until 1995

[Kingofalldems]

4. Yeah so?

How about 2004?

[MerryHolidays]

5. That's exactly the point...the OP's title is wrong. It should say 2004. nt

[jimfields33]

7. Read the thread.

[JohnSJ]

3. How about this NY Times article. When the assault weapon ban lapsed in 2004, whose fault was it for

not renewing it, and more important, whose fault is it now?

If Judy Miller from The NY Times had not headlined the false WMD narrative, how many lives would have been spared?

If The NY Times hadn’t pushed the false narrative that the e-mail “scandal” had been reopened, just think how that would have changed things


See, I can do it just like The NY Times, selectively choosing what ifs

[Kid Berwyn]

9. NYT Opposite World

Afflict the afflicted and comfort the comfortable.

[former9thward]

6. Congressional Democrats had no interest in extending the ban.

No one made any significant attempt to renew it. The party blamed the ban for loss of the House in 1994. In addition it was recognized the ban was completely ineffective. Gun companies just changed a few cosmetic features and kept selling the same guns.

Bush said he would sign legislation for a new ban if it reached his desk. No one took him up on his offer.

[karynnj]

8. Our 2004 nominee was for extending it

In addition, it WAS effective if - as Biden recently pointed out - you look at the numbers.

As to Congress, the Democrats did not control either house in 2004 - having lost the extremely narrow majority in the Senate in the election of 2002. How do you think they could have renewed it? As to Bush, he made that offer KNOWING it would not happen. There was no effort on his part to actually get the Republicans behind it.

[former9thward]

10. They did not speak up for its renewal in Congress.

Republicans are in the minority in Congress but it does not stop them from speaking up and advocating their positions. Especially in the Senate.

[karynnj]

11. People DID speak out about it -

Here is a speech given in the House from 2004 calling for acting to renew the ban -- https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2004-07-19/html/CREC-2004-07-19-pt1-PgH5951.htm

Here is what Senator Feinstein said in the Senate - STATEMENT OF SENATOR DIANNE FEINSTEIN (1933–, D-CA), CONGRESSIONAL RECORD, U.S. SENATE, IN SUPPORT OF RENEWING THE ASSAULT WEAPON BAN (EXCERPT), MARCH 1, 2004
The issue of assault weapons is near and dear to my heart. It is not about politics or polls or interest groups. In my view, it is about real people and real lives. It is about

the ability of working men and women and children to be safe from disgruntled employees or schoolmates who show up one day at a law firm or school or a place of business and fire away until the room becomes filled with dead and wounded colleagues.

Unfortunately, in this society, we are always going to have some people who are prone to grievance killing. It is my belief the assault weapon, the military-style semiautomatic assault weapon, has become the weapon of choice for grievance killers.

It is about the ability of children to learn, play, and grow without the fear that someone such as Dylan Klebold or Eric Harris would show up at Columbine High School with assault weapons and fire until the school is literally littered with bodies—a dozen students and a teacher murdered, more than two dozen others injured.

It is about making sure our law enforcement officers can safely go about their duties and return home to their families at the end of the day, instead of finding themselves confronted, such as Officer James Guelff found himself in 1994, with assailants wearing body armor and firing from an arsenal of 2,000 rounds of ammunition and a cache of assault weapons.

The officer was gunned down after 10 years of service, and it took 150 police officers to equal the firepower of a gunman clad in Kevlar carrying assault weapons.

I first raised this issue in 1993, when I was a new senator. I was determined to try to pass the assault weapons legislation as an amendment to the crime bill. Members told me: Forget it; the gun owners around here have too much authority. We would never be able to enact assault weapons legislation. I was told the NRA was simply too strong. Senator Biden, then-chair of the Judiciary Committee, said it would be a good learning experience for me, and, in fact, it was.

It was the will of the American people, it turns out, that was stronger than any lobbying organization, even the National Rifle Association. And today, 77 percent of the American people and 66 percent of gun owners believe this legislation should be
reauthorized.

Not to mention, as I said Senator Kerry spoke often and well about the need to extend it when running. In fact, the Bush statement you note was quite possibly a cynical Bush/Cheney ploy to neutralize that issue where the public supported keeping the ban.

[hack89]

12. The AWB had nothing to do with any decrease in mass shootings

for two reasons:

1. It did not ban ownership so not a single rifle was taken off the streets - there was no decline in assault weapon ownership.

2. The law was so easy to circumvent that ban compliant AR-15s were on the shelves the day the law took effect. AR-15 production actually peaked during the AWB. So at the end of the AWB, there were more AR-15s in circulation than when it started.

There had to be other reasons why mass shooting declined unless you want to argue that more rifles resulted in fewer deaths.