Democrats Back Down on Assault Weapons Ban!

Epicurus

Epicurus

Reasonable
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...n-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html


Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.
 
Epicurus said:
http://thehill.com/leading-the-news...n-reviving-assault-weapon-ban-2009-02-26.html


Pelosi throws cold water on weapons ban
Posted: 02/26/09 11:59 AM [ET]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tossed cold water on the prospect of reinstating the assault weapons ban, highlighting Democrats’ reluctance to take on gun issues.

Attorney General Eric Holder raised the prospect Wednesday that the administration would push to bring back the ban. But Pelosi (D-Calif.) indicated on Thursday that he never talked to her. The Speaker gave a flat “no” when asked if she had talked to administration officials about the ban.

“On that score, I think we need to enforce the laws we have right now,” Pelosi said at her weekly news conference. “I think it's clear the Bush administration didn’t do that.”

Outside of the dig at the recent Republican president, that phrase is the stock line of those who don’t want to pass new gun control laws, such as the National Rifle Association.

The White House declined to comment on Holder's remarks, referring reporters to the Department of Justice. The DoJ did not respond to The Hill's request for comment.
Click to expand...



Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that they have no interest in it rather than that they backed down?
 
Dungheap said:
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that they have no interest in it rather than that they backed down?
Click to expand...

If one wants to argue semantics couldn't an argument be made that Pelosi would have an interest if the politics of it were in her favor? All things being equal this would be a law she would like to see passed. The politics, or votes, are not on her side therefore she doesn't want to risk fighting for a losing cause. So I don't think its a matter of not having interest its a matter of not having votes. Thus it could be argued she's backing down from a losing fight. But this type of happening is an everyday occurance in politics. I would think the only people offended by a 'backing down' spin are the two party's P.R. people.
 
cawacko said:
If one wants to argue semantics couldn't an argument be made that Pelosi would have an interest if the politics of it were in her favor? All things being equal this would be a law she would like to see passed. The politics, or votes, are not on her side therefore she doesn't want to risk fighting for a losing cause. So I don't think its a matter of not having interest its a matter of not having votes. Thus it could be argued she's backing down from a losing fight. But this type of happening is an everyday occurance in politics. I would think the only people offended by a 'backing down' spin are the two party's P.R. people.
Click to expand...


I'm not arguing semantics. It doesn't matter to me either way. It just seems odd to say that the Democrats backed down on the assault weapons ban when they never stepped up to try to pass it. I'm not offended by it. It just struck me as an odd way to put it.

As for the rest of that stuff, when you have to game out a scenario with that many assumptions you are most likely full of shit. Or an economist. Or both.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm not arguing semantics. It doesn't matter to me either way. It just seems odd to say that the Democrats backed down on the assault weapons ban when they never stepped up to try to pass it. I'm not offended by it. It just struck me as an odd way to put it.

As for the rest of that stuff, when you have to game out a scenario with that many assumptions you are most likely full of shit. Or an economist. Or both.
Click to expand...

Fair enough though I believe my assumptions were not just throwing darts at a blank page. Pelosi and other Dems have made quite clear their positions on guns and specifically the assult rifle ban. Being that is she is my rep maybe I read about it more than you.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm not arguing semantics. It doesn't matter to me either way. It just seems odd to say that the Democrats backed down on the assault weapons ban when they never stepped up to try to pass it. I'm not offended by it. It just struck me as an odd way to put it.

As for the rest of that stuff, when you have to game out a scenario with that many assumptions you are most likely full of shit. Or an economist. Or both.
Click to expand...

If you want to talk about assumptions look at the first sentence in the article "highlighting Democrats reluctance to take on gun issues". Who's to say the Democrats are reluctant? Did Pelosi or any other leading Democrat publically state the Dems are reluctant to take on gun issues? The author is throwing in his opinion there and kind of takes away his credibility from reporting on the facts. It kind of puts the remainder of the article in question to.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm aware of all of that. I'm just not certain the relevance. Is Bobby Rush suddenly considered "Democrats?" How many co-sponsors have signed on to HR 45?
Click to expand...

I figure if desh or topspin can speak for all of one group for one reason or another, bobby rush can certainly speak for all democrats.
 
Dungheap said:
I'm aware of all of that. I'm just not certain the relevance. Is Bobby Rush suddenly considered "Democrats?" How many co-sponsors have signed on to HR 45?
Click to expand...
I don't know. I was hoping somebody could gather information that I, unfortunately, do not have time to research.

The supposed immediate demise earlier stated by Ds on this site apparently hasn't happened. I was hoping they had killed it by now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top