Not directly relevant to this particular topic, but this isn’t the best argument you could have come up with. A noisy special interest group can get a lot more attention in Washington than a majority of the populace, and that has been historically true of both sides of the gun debate. The passage (or failure to pass) of some particular piece of legislation doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with its popularity (or lack thereof) among the general population.

I think that’s not true. The House, IIRC, did in fact vote before 2004 (1996 maybe?) to actually repeal the ban well ahead of the sunset date. Didn’t get past the senate nor Clinton.

The Republican House leadership did not bring it for a vote in Sept 2004…and it didn’t even have the votes for renewal. Even some Democrats opposed its renewal like my TN 6th District, Bart Gordon. Otherwise, Bush hid in the tall grass trying to be both sides… pro-gun and anti-gun.

This is one of the issues that distinguishes between patriots and tyrants regardless of party.

Tips
To find reference information about the words used in this article, double-click on any word, phrase or name. A new window will open with a dictionary definition or encyclopedia entry.

Hrmmmm…. It does? Let’s see the results….

Double clicky the phrase “assault rifle”….

Dictionary

assault rifle
n.

Any of various automatic or semiautomatic rifles designed for individual use in combat.

(The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition Copyright © 2007)

WordNet

The noun assault rifle has one meaning:

Meaning #1: any of the automatic rifles with large magazines designed for military use

(WordNet 1.7.1 Copyright © 2001 by Princeton University.)

2001, there was one meaning and it was automatic rifles.

2007, a dictionary has sliped semiautomatic into the definition.

In a war of ideas, it seems that one of the tactics of the anti-rights side is to change the meanings of the words.

But when it came up for renewal in 2004, President Bush and Congress caved to the gun lobby and allowed the law to lapse. This was despite Mr. Bush’s campaign vow to renew the ban.

Not true at all.

The AWB (mercifully) sunsetted in September, 2004.

Bush unfortunately wanted to renew the AWB, but Congress (again, mercifully) failed to renew it.

Thus, Bush never got the chance to renew it.

Facts are pretty much meaningless to the NYT when it makes an issue its cause celebre.

Kind of like it did 4 or 5 years ago, when it unilaterally decided that Augusta National Country Club needed to admitt women members.

IIRC, the NYT ran 64 articles/editorials about the matter, causing IBM to withdraw its sponsorship of the Masters.

Such withdrawal of sponsorship was short-lived, however, when the boys at Augusta National to CBS and IBM that they were holding the tournament irrespective of who covered it or didn’t cover it.

CBS and IBM learned that it is difficult to threaten a person or institution which doesn’t need money or public prestige (Augusta National having more than CBS or IBM).

And the MSM wonders why its sphere of influence keeps getting smaller.

My chihuahuas put the print media to its highest and best use.

To pick a nit, nobody voted to repeal the ban; it had a sunset clause when it was passed and nobody voted to extend it.

Of the ones marked as homicide (only about 13,000), you cannot determine how many were considered justified. They’re just lumped in as “deaths”.

Again, it’s lying with statistics.