Ashcroft Reverses Bush Administration Position on Renewing Federal Ban on Assault Weapons

PRNews ^

[Travis McGee]

It's all in the political arena, so who knows? It will be just one "card" in the president's deck when it comes up. It could be traded up or down with the 'rats depending on what "important" bills are pending.

[wardaddy]

Well...it would be nice...and a right step.

I'll be reading the latest chapter at my office in the AM....I look forward to reading about Mr Carson.

Night!

[Ruy Dias de Bivar]

Stockton was when Pat Purdy took an ak-47 and shot up the kids on the school ground.
The one you are thinking of with the machine gun armed bank robbers happened in Los Angeles.

[Deb]

Typically, the writer of this article is lying. I watched the exchange between DiFi and Ashcroft and her question was not about renewing, but about "strengthening" the law (whatever that means). Ashcroft responded that he and the President supported the law "as written" and wouldn't be looking to strengthen it if it gets reauthorized.

Notice how there is no direct Ashcroft quote making the writer's point. This is an article to enflame the gun-haters.

[Pan_Yans Wife]

Thanks for the clarification.

[dcwusmc]

Marvelous line, I, too, shall steal it!

[Boot Hill]

Deb says:   "Notice how there is no direct Ashcroft quote making the writer's point."

Nor did you provide one. Can you provide a link to the conversations you paraphrased?

--Boot Hill

[teeman8r]

i believe the training manual stated that in some areas of the united states, its people are allowed to carry weapons. i believe this was meant more as a warning to the terrorists not to try stuff in an area of armed resistance but the areas where gun ownership is prohibited... i do not recall the exact wording of the manual text, but as usual, the VPC only sees what they want to, terrorists at gun shows and shooting ranges.

jmt teeman

[apillar]

I think the best thing the Republicans in the house could do is make sure this thing gets bottled up in committee untill after the 2004 elections, which isn't that difficult to do.

My opinion, considering President Bush's record on guns in Texas, is that he opposes this, but is trying to appear on the fence for the sake of the "sucker-moms".

This coming up in September 2004, 2 months before the election, is really a no-win situation for the president. If it makes it to his desk and he signs it he knows he probably just wrote off his chances in states he carried last time such as West Virginia, Tennessee, and Arkansas where he won due to pro-gun democrat crossover votes. On the other hand if he vetos it, he will be painted by his democrat opponent and the media as a "gun extremist" who is furthur right than even the republican congress, which will hurt him in the "toss-up" states and with the "sucker-mom" voters.

The best situation is for the renewel to get bottled up in congress on some procedural motion until after the election. Then the congress can kill it, or the president can veto it without any repercussions.

The only problem with this scenario is that the congress is up for reelection too and many of the RINO's won't want the "blame" for holding this up on their shoulder.

But the fact is this legislation was approved by the thinnest majority in 1994, and the congress is more pro-gun and republican today so if I had to put odds on this thing being renewed, I would have to say 70-30 against. Of course a year and a half is a long time, anything could happen, another "columbine tragedy" anything...

[DugwayDuke]

Pistol grips the most deadly feature on a rifle? My sincere pardon, but every knowledgeable person knows that bayonent lugs are far more deadly. After all, cite one instance of a "drive by bayoneting" since this act was passed.

[dd5339]

Ping!

Semper Fi

[Joe Brower]

All the usual suspects. The latest fear-mongering tripe from the VPC.

Domestic enemies of Consititution, one and all.

[Nebr FAL owner]

That would lead to all kinds of trouble ie a dirty little war on our own soil .

[mercy]

Good point. We have not seen any instance of anyone being flash supressed so as to cause grevieous bodily harm lately either.

[PatrioticAmerican]

"Not a dimes worth of difference between the 'Rats and 'Publicans. "

If they seriously want to put their money where their mouth is, lets see Bush VETO any bill coming from Congress banning assault weapons.

[Jim Robinson]

Hey, you're complaining to the wrong man. Despite rumors to the contrary, I do not have a direct line to the Whitehouse. GW doesn't seem to listen to me at all.

[Travis McGee]

That's the plot of my novel in a nutshell. And some in the "counter terrorism industry" would welcome a dirty war on our soil, it would boost their fortunes in and out of government.

[SauronOfMordor]

Good. Maybe someone in the administration realized that they aren't going to get re-elected if they re-authorize this abominable, anti-constitutional piece of passed legislation pretending to be a law.

Bush realizes that re-election in 2004 will be iffy, and he will need every friend he can get. Pissing off the gun owners is NOT going to be a good idea.

[GnL]

Don't forget that deadly telescoping stock.

[tracer]

The exquisite pissing off of the Demolibs will only be frosting on the cake...