Democrats....Bush Key on Assault Weapons

Associated Press - Las Vegas Sun.com ^ | May 14, 2003 | Jim Abrams

[Godebert]

By JIM ABRAMS

ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -

President Bush should take the lead in overcoming resistance within his own party to extending an assault weapons ban due to expire next year, Democrats said Wednesday.

"If the bill dies we will lay it at the president's doorstep," Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., said a day after House Majority Leader Tom DeLay told reporters that the 1994 law banning the manufacture of 19 types of common military-style assault weapons would not be renewed.

Schumer said the gun bill would be an issue in the 2004 election, a development that could pose problems for Democrats who represent districts with strong gun rights sentiment. The assault ban vote was also a campaign topic in 1994, the year Republicans recaptured the House after spending 40 years in the minority.

Bush, taking a position at odds with the National Rifle Association, has voiced support for extending the ban, and White House spokesman Ari Fleischer on Wednesday said that support would carry weight in Congress.

"This is a matter that the House has to work out, of course, by listening to the will of its members, but the president's position is clear on it," Fleischer said. "When the president states his position like that, it helps get the message to the Congress."

Fleischer would not say whether Bush would pressure DeLay to bring such a bill up for a vote. DeLay, R-Texas, on Tuesday indicated that there would be no effort to renew the current law before it expires on Sept. 13, 2004. "The votes in the House are not there to reauthorize it," he said.

"The real question is will the president weigh in and ask the leaders to schedule a vote," said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, D-Ill., who as a senior adviser to President Clinton played a key role in guiding the 1994 legislation through Congress.

[TLBSHOW]

You are not worth wasting time on.

[FSPress]

Really!!!

[CWOJackson]

As long as a single Twinkee remains out there, "You are not worth wasting time on."

[Amelia]

The thread is about assault weapons, but you seem far more interested it personal attacks!

You obviously only read one of my posts to this thread.

Now, if JimRob has appointed you thread nanny, and you think I need punishing, get on with it.

If he hasn't, either argue the topic, or go find someone else to harass.

Right now, YOU are the one who's getting the thread off topic. Why are you defending the troll, anyway?

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Why do you keep pestering Jim? What is the big problem here, besides you, Mr.-I'm-Going-To-Get-You-Guys-Trouble, and your bellyaching?

[Amelia]

The liberals know how to push an issue to their advantage. They have their moles at work around the clock.

Yep. Their FR mole has been very busy today, hasn't he? I bet they are proud.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

I think it might be "Be Kind To Trolls" week

TAGGIE THE TROLL

[marajade]

And where is the principle involved if Bush doesn't get a bill to sign?

Am I missing something here?

[FSPress]

I thought the topic of this thread was personal attacks and sounding tough. What is the topic of this thread?

[Howlin]

Oh, dear..... you cannot possibly mean that Godebert has made a false statement on this very thread!

Not after ALL the grief he's been giving ME about not being able to remember WHICH show I saw the new president of the NRA on, saying that this NRA isn't worried about this bill at ALL.

Your post MUST be a lie.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Hmmmmmm. Maybe it's hidden in that goofy tagline about the gift and the truth.

[marajade]

I can't believe it tonite... They are all over the place making false claims on tons of threads? Is there a full moon and I don't know about it?

[TLBSHOW]

Its called Bush Bots and liberals team up yet again.

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Funny, I thought we had switched to "Teacher, teacher.......Sally stuck her tongue out at Johnny."

[Southflanknorthpawsis]

Actually, I think it is a full moon. Seriously !!!

[Amelia]

Am I missing something here?

As best I can tell, the principle involved here is to find something, anything, to criticize the President about, so that one can complain he's a Democrat in an elephant suit, and claim that Libertarians and Constitution Party candidates would be better Presidents.

Never mind that they can't get elected, and voting for them only helps elect Democrats....if they COULD, they'd be great Presidents - not that Congress would pass the legislation they'd want...

[FreeReign]

Ronald Reagan accomplished a great deal while being honest about his views.

Newt Gringrich was driven out of politics for doing the same.

[Godebert]

"Oh, dear..... you cannot possibly mean that Godebert has made a false statement on this very thread! "

You'll also notice that I admitted my mistake when it was brought to my attention.

[Amelia]

Is there a full moon and I don't know about it?

It's 98% full...is that close enough? ;-)