 |
Playing games with guns Susie with an Uzi?By Rick Horowitz
In times like these, you take whatever comfort you can find. Sometimes, of course, comfort is harder to find than other times; you have to dig and dig for it, and even then you're not sure you'll come up with anything worth the name. But then there are those other times -- some bit of news pops up out of nowhere to brighten your day and you just know from the get-go it's a winner, and your muscles relax and your pulse stops racing, and for a moment, at least, all's right with the world. Or maybe even far right. Which is why it was so thrilling to learn that AK-47s may soon be legal again here in the good ol' U.S.A. And not just AK-47s, but nearly 20 different types of military-style assault weapons. Once upon a time -- in 1994, to be exact -- Congress voted to ban the manufacture and distribution of these kinds of weapons. But the ban is set to expire -- in September of 2004, to be exact -- and the word from House Majority Leader Tom DeLay is that he won't lift a finger to extend it. Don't you feel better already? "The votes in the House are not there," DeLay recently explained to reporters, and when a headcounter of DeLay's caliber (after all, he used to kill pests for a living) says the votes aren't there, the votes aren't there. If DeLay was especially distressed by that fact, the various stories in the various newspapers neglected to mention it. And if DeLay was planning an all-out effort to turn things around, to get House members to extend the ban despite their current lack of enthusiasm, it must have slipped his mind. Probably not, though. DeLay's spokesman confirmed that "We have no intention of bringing it up" for a vote. What a relief. I was saying to myself just the other day, "You know what we need in this country? We need more assault weapons!" I even made a list of all the reasons it would be a really good thing for every Tom, Dick and Carrie in the Nifty Fifty to be armed to the bicuspids: 1) What if bin Laden's guys were suddenly coming down your street and the army couldn't get there in time to stop them? 2) Or other guys. I'm sure Tom DeLay has a list every bit as long as mine. In fact, since he's a high-ranking congressional leader, he might even have an extra item or two on his list. Something like: 3) The gun lobby. Seems the gun lobby has been pushing to put an end to the assault-weapons ban. So who cares if most Americans would rather have fewer, rather than more, assault weapons floating around out there? The folks who want to whack the ban are the ones who are the most energized, the most single-minded about it. And why should that be a surprise? The National Rifle Association will always be better focused than, say, the National Random Future Victims Association. Meanwhile, back at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue... "This is a matter that the House has to work out, of course, by listening to the will of its members." That's Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, trying to keep his boss out of the line of fire on this one. "But the president's position is clear on it. When the president states his position like that, it helps get the message to the Congress." The president's message, his supposedly clear position, being that he supports extending the weapons ban, which should win him some re-election points with worried soccer moms. But will he try to bring the House around to his position? Bite your tongue! That would cost him points with the gun gang. It's one thing to crisscross the country day after day pitching tax cuts for the wealthy. But fighting to renew a ban on certain deadly assault weapons -- that's something else again. Which is why, when it comes to deploying the vast persuasive powers of the Oval Office, this president will surely give the matter only slightly less importance than he would a bill creating Take an Otter to Lunch Month. Comforted yet? Posted 5/15/03. Get
award-winning commentary that's always on target from syndicated columnist
Rick Horowitz!
|
  |
Rick Horowitz
