National Rifle Association
The NRA site contains tons of information for the gun lover in everyone.

Department of Defense
DefenseLink provides information about the Pentagon and the Department of Defense.

American Firearms Industry
"Providing firearms industry info to the world." The whole family will want to check out the all new Glock Online.

With the summer campaign season approaching, Bill Clinton and Bob Dole are shaping up to candidates with many similarities. Both support some kind of welfare reform and decry the idea of "big government." They have agreed on the need to balance the budget, albeit by differing paths.

But Clinton and Dole -- and their respective parties generally -- remain miles apart on gun control and some key defense issues now rising to the top of the political agenda. Although the nature of the gun control and defense debates are quite different, both reveal some of the basic differences between the increasingly homogenized parties. Broadly stated, at the heart of that split are different views the parties hold about weapons. Democrats tend to abhor them, from unregulated guns in the hands of private citizens to expensive military gadgetry financed with taxpayer money that could be used for social spending. Republicans, on the other hand, preach a credo of personal responsibility which deplores government limits on a citizen's right to arm herself. And because of its hawkish loathing of Communism during the Cold War, the GOP has long favored erring on the side of military overspending.

With that admittedly generalized perspective, let's take a closer look at two specific issues before Congress that help define these differences.

STAR WARS: When Republicans stormed the gates of the Capitol in 1994, they arrived with heady talk of finishing the "Reagan Revolution." One of the unachieved tenets of the Great Communicator's dream, devised when the Soviet nuclear arsenal was still poised to strike, was to build a missile defense system capable of destroying incoming missiles targeted for American cities. That plan is commonly referred to as "Star Wars" because it would require space-based military satellites. Though billions have been spent on anti-missile programs since Reagan's reign, the idea was all but dead, until recently.

Now that Reagan's party controls Congress again, and with the threat of rogue nuclear powers and terrorists rising, the Republicans have resurrected the dream of building at least a limited shield to defend the U.S. from a missile attack. On Thursday Senator Dole and House Speaker Newt Gingrich introduced legislation (the Defend America Act, sponsored by Rep. Martin Hoke, R-OH), aimed at building a system to defend all 50 states by the year 2003. Some Republicans have estimated the project could cost $5 billion, a sum the Clinton administration calls unjustified because the threat to the U.S. is minimal (in response, Republicans point to reports that suggest North Korea may soon have the technology to lob missiles into Alaska and Hawaii). Such a defense could also vastly complicate efforts to reduce the world's nuclear stockpiles because it would violate a major Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) treaty between the U.S. and Russia. Clinton vetoed a defense spending bill last year because it provided for anti-missile programs, causing Republicans to concede all but some research funding. Last month Clinton reduced that funding from $5 billion to $2 billion over the next six years. He has said he will veto the new bill, currently under consideration by the House Appropriations Subcommittee on National Security.

Some $30 billion has been spent on "Star Wars" technology since the Reagan administration, with little or no progress toward a system that can be relied on to shoot down incoming missiles. In New Mexico this weekend the Republicans' preferred prototype rocket failed its second major test since December.

ASSAULT WEAPONS BAN: If defense is a river dividing Republicans and Democrats, gun control is an ocean. The debate is far more politically charged, and reflects more on the fundamental philosophical differences between Republican and Democrat. Particularly in the 1990s, Republicans are determined to curtail the influence of government wherever possible. Coupled with the corollary belief that citizens ought to do more to take care of themselves, Republicans have made gun control into an issue that defines their party.

In 1993 President Clinton signed a ban on 19 models of semi-automatic weapons and on ammo clips with high capacities. It won Clinton praise largely from those who already supported him, but mobilized powerful opponents of the Democratic party, including vehement supporters of gun ownership rights and the mighty National Rifle Association, whose $5.3 millions in campaign contributions to Republican candidates are considered a major factor in the party's 1994 triumph. After that election returned Republicans to power, Gingrich and Dole vowed to repeal the assault weapons ban.

But because of public opinion polls showing most Americans favor the gun ban, and heightened sensitivity about civilian weapons in the aftermath of last April's Oklahoma City bombing and the related publicity surrounding citizen "militia" groups, Congress retreated from its pledge to overturn the ban. With Dole preparing to court moderate voters after winning his party's nomination, and Congressional Republicans (especially the House Republican Freshmen) wrangling with an extremist image, most political observers thought the repeal effort dead.

The effort came to life unexpectedly on Friday, when the House passed the Gun Crime Enforcement and Second Amendment Restoration Act, 239-173 (the GOP leadership bypassed the House Judiciary Committee, which would normally consider such a bill, because the committee chairman Henry Hyde, R-IL, opposes the repeal). House Republicans have staked much of their credibility on their kept promises, and thus felt they had to vote on the repeal sooner or later, although they realize the bill certainly won't become law. Not only will Clinton veto it in a heartbeat, but Dole is not willing to face the potential political fallout to put it before the Senate, saying "I haven't considered it. It's not a priority." The White House, in fact, is said to be as delighted as Dole is dismayed that the issue has surfaced just as the campaign gets underway, because both realize the importance of a defining issue like this in the 1996 campaign.