Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Madame Zolta predicts 10 years of grief for Tim...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Madame Zolta predicts 10 years of grief for Tim...

    ...sorry buddy.

    This is sure to break up the libertarian/liberal alliance that has been picking on Cheetah the last couple of days...

    If it makes you feel any happier Dan, I'm very much against Kerry (and Edwards) on this.
    Senate OKs Assault Weapons Ban Extension

    By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Writer

    WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Tuesday to extend for another decade a ban on military-style assault weapons and to require background checks on buyers at private gun shows, giving Democrats rare victories on gun legislation that would also deny crime victims the ability to sue gunmakers and dealers.

    Democratic presidential contenders John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina broke away from the Super Tuesday campaign trail to cast votes Ś their first of the year Ś with the 52-47 majority on the assault weapons ban and the 53-46 majority on the gun show bill.

    The White House had preferred both Democratic bills be kept off the legislation immunizing the gun industry from liability suits, the National Rifle Association's top priority this year.

    "The semiautomatic ban, the gun show loophole, a variety of other kinds of issues could simply drag this bill down and deny us substantial tort reform," said Republican Sen. Larry Craig of Idaho, the bill's main sponsor who voted against both measures.

    House leaders said last year that they did not intend to renew the ban on the manufacture and importation of at least 19 types of common military-style assault weapons. Senate GOP leaders also argued against the ban, saying it was ineffective and unnecessary and could cause the House to kill the gunmaker immunity bill.

    But with the help of a few Senate Republicans, including Senate Armed Services Chairman John Warner of Virginia, Democrats were able to get enough votes to approve the ban extension.

    A few Republicans also voted with the Democrats to close the "gun show loophole." Under current law, unlicensed gun dealers at private shows are not required to ask for government background checks before selling weapons. Democrats and a few Republicans argued that loopholes allows people who normally wouldn't be able to buy guns get dangerous weapons.

    "Criminals and terrorists are exploiting this obvious loophole in our gun safety laws," said Sen. John McCain, R-Arizona.

    McCain, along with fellow Republicans Warner, Richard Lugar of Indiana, George Voinovich of Ohio, Charles Hagel of Nebraska, Mike DeWine of Ohio, Peter Fitzgerald of Illinois and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island voted along with the Democrats. Democrats Max Baucus of Montana and Ben Nelson of Nebraska also crossed party lines to vote with the Republicans.

    The appearance of Kerry and Edwards in the Senate for their first votes of the year underscored the political overtones of the assault weapons issue. Most Democrats voted for the ban, which had been due to expire Sept. 13, while most Republicans voted against it.

    Ten Republicans broke party ranks on the assault weapons vote: Warner, Chafee, Fitzgerald, DeWine, Lugar, Voinovich, Susan Collins of Maine, Judd Gregg of New Hampshire, Gordon Smith of Oregon and Olympia Snowe of Maine.

    Six Democrats voted against extending the ban: Baucus, Nelson, Russ Feingold of Wisconsin, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Zell Miller of Georgia and Harry Reid of Nevada.

    "Once again we're in a political season, and once again we're debating gun ownership," Craig said.

    Democrats argued that law enforcement officers and regular citizens all would be safer if the assault weapons covered under the bill continued to be banned. "These are weapons of war. They are designed to kill a lot of people quickly," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., who authored the 1994 gun ban while in the House.

    Warner, who voted against the gun ban in 1994, said the testimony from law enforcement officials in his state convinced him to vote Tuesday for renewing it.

    "Law enforcement has shown that it has reduced the use of these weapons in crime, so my words pale in significance to the law officers of the four corners of the commonwealth of Virginia," Warner said.

    President Bush has staked out both sides of the issue, calling for the reauthorization of the assault weapons ban while arguing against the Senate's adding it to the gunmaker immunity bill.

    After other amendments, the Senate is expected to easily pass the gunmaker immunity bill. It would bar lawsuits against gun makers stemming from a crime in when a legally sold gun is used to commit the crime.

    After Senate action, the measure goes to a House-Senate negotiating committee that will hammer out differences with the version passed by the GOP-controlled House last year.
    I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

  • #2
    Well the house and the Senate versions are in disagreement. Conference is our last hope since I know Bush is spineless on the issue. He will sign the bill.
    Last edited by Tim McBride; 02 Mar 04, 13:46.
    "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

    Comment


    • #3
      Good thing I own several of the 'banned' weapons. Still trying to collect all '19'



      (As the man said: Always look on the bright side of life!)
      "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Tim McBride
        Good thing I own several of the 'banned' weapons. Still trying to collect all '19'



        (As the man said: Always look on the bright side of life!)
        Do you really think that is necessary to protect you? (guess most guys run away when you open fire with a .38 double action; well, an M16 is definately more impressing, but try to put that under your pillow)

        If it wouldn┤t be so hard in Germany I would also have a gun for selfdefense but I would not expect burglars I have to fight from my MG-42 emplacement if they can┤t buy one for themselves in every good arms shop and so I wouldn┤t need one for myself ...
        "A platoon of Chinese tanks viciously attacked a Soviet harvester,
        which was peacefully working a field near the Soviet-Chinese border.
        The harvester returned fire and upon destroying the enemy
        returned to its home base."

        Comment


        • #5
          Congress also tacked on this one:

          By a vote of 91 to 8, the Campbell amendment (S.Amdt. 2623 to S. 1805) to create national concealed carry -- but only for police officers -- has been tacked on as an amendment to the NRA's "top legislative priority" bill. This would give local and federal law enforcement officers exemptions from the concealed carry laws of all fifty states -- even for police officers who oppose citizen-carry in their own communities.
          "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by mr_clark
            Do you really think that is necessary to protect you? (guess most guys run away when you open fire with a .38 double action; well, an M16 is definately more impressing, but try to put that under your pillow)

            If it wouldn┤t be so hard in Germany I would also have a gun for selfdefense but I would not expect burglars I have to fight from my MG-42 emplacement if they can┤t buy one for themselves in every good arms shop and so I wouldn┤t need one for myself ...
            It has nothing to do with defending myself from everyday crooks(Although an AR-15 on the open desert areas I live, it is much more effective then a .38 special). I own such weapons becuase they are effective tools for the Citizen in defense of country from foreign and domestic thugs.
            "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

            Comment


            • #7
              Zolta is wrong for now.

              The senate killed the entire bill which I am fine with. I hated the bill before the amendments.
              "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

              Comment


              • #8
                Yep...but, we still have the problem of gun manufacturing companies continuing to have to fend off idiotic lawsuits when their products....work.
                I have no problem at all with being proved wrong. Especially when being proved wrong leaves the world a better place, than being proved right...

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by JAMiAM
                  Yep...but, we still have the problem of gun manufacturing companies continuing to have to fend off idiotic lawsuits when their products....work.
                  Well if Congress wants to pass tort reform I am fine with that; but not tort reform for just one group of people.
                  "Have you forgotten the face of your father?"

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Tim McBride
                    I own such weapons becuase they are effective tools for the Citizen in defense of country from foreign and domestic thugs.
                    Err, what country do you expect to invade Arizona? California? Nevada? Or the evil Mexicans?

                    Why do you think you know a person is a domestic thug if you are about too shot him at 250 meters? (Well, except for government officials.)
                    Do you shoot everyone with a turban or every black or everyˇne with a baseball cap or everyone that carries a assault rifle himself???
                    "A platoon of Chinese tanks viciously attacked a Soviet harvester,
                    which was peacefully working a field near the Soviet-Chinese border.
                    The harvester returned fire and upon destroying the enemy
                    returned to its home base."

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Foreign thugs are Canadians, domestic thugs are the FBI/ATF.
                      (Can anybody hear banjo music?)

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by mr_clark
                        Err, what country do you expect to invade Arizona? California? Nevada? Or the evil Mexicans?

                        Why do you think you know a person is a domestic thug if you are about too shot him at 250 meters? (Well, except for government officials.)
                        Do you shoot everyone with a turban or every black or everyˇne with a baseball cap or everyone that carries a assault rifle himself???
                        I don't care.

                        The Second Amendment doesn't need a lot of justifying, it's there to protect my right to bear arms, not justifying my need for arms.

                        The right to bear arms meant in the founding fathers' day the government would be kept honest. Even Thomas Jefferson said the people had a right to revolt against their own government if they felt it was being too powerful or failing to live up to the social contract agreed between them.

                        If a thug comes into my house, I want to have my right to blow him away with an assault rifle, and that is my preogative, I'll be damned if you try to take it away from me.

                        Look at your own government, you're not even aware of how much power your own government has over you. You can't even revolt against your own government if you thought it was going to be tyrannical. Voting out your own leaders isn't simple as it sounds, like what we just saw in Haiti and somewhere else.

                        The democratic process of removing leaders or presidents only works if they are willing to be removed gracefully or in disgrace. This is one of the most important fundamental democratic principle, it's all about willingness.

                        By bearing the arms, you at least retain the capability to take law into your own hands should a majority of people feel the US government is becoming too tyrannical and leaders unwilling to give up their power via democratic process.

                        How do you know when not to cross that line? Simple. For now, the democratic process is working very well. If Bush were to call martial law, then you know it's time to kick him out regardless of my conservative support. But if a Democratic president orders all weapons to be banned, and we send in letters or complaints to our representatives, they in turn demand the ban to be lifted, then you know the democratic process is working just fine and there's no need for revolts.

                        Whatever it is, the right to bear arms without background checks or anything like that should be respected completely. It doesn't need justifying, just as the right to be an American doesn't need to be justified.

                        Dan
                        Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                        "Aim small, miss small."

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by mr_clark
                          Err, what country do you expect to invade Arizona? California? Nevada? Or the evil Mexicans?

                          Why do you think you know a person is a domestic thug if you are about too shot him at 250 meters? (Well, except for government officials.)
                          Do you shoot everyone with a turban or every black or everyˇne with a baseball cap or everyone that carries a assault rifle himself???
                          The right to bear arms is part of America's check-n-balance system. When it was written, the power of the military and government did not exceed the power of the people. I don't see a ban of American citizens armed with a few assault weapons doing much good against the US Armed forces. Yet, this does not mitigate the importance of the 2nd Ammendment.

                          By allowing the government to restrict the rights of the people to bear arms, we remove an obstacle for those who might wish to obtain greater control. America is not immune to things like coups. Maybe not today, but in the future, a totalitarian might decide the entire Constitution makes it impossible for him to carry out his duty. Using the principle salus populi suprema lex (the welfare of the people is the supreme law) he could restrict rights such as the vote, free speech, etc.

                          It is this concern that leads me to conclude the right to bear arms is critical to ensuring the stability and longivity of our democratic system. Though I admit, the impact it might have on such an event is debatable. Then again, maybe Americans will ban together and fight.
                          "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy."-Christopher Dawson - The Judgement of Nations, 1942

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Deltapooh
                            I don't see a ban of American citizens armed with a few assault weapons doing much good against the US Armed forces.

                            Then again, maybe Americans will ban together and fight.
                            Deltapooh, are you drunk or what?

                            Dan
                            Major James Holden, Georgia Badgers Militia of Rainbow Regiment, American Civil War

                            "Aim small, miss small."

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Conversely the presence of a well armed group of extremists make an armed uprising against a democratically elected government more likely, not less likely. If a country has a sound political and independant judicial system the conditions will likely not arise that the majority will find themselves seeking the removal of an elected government by armed means. On the other hand if your government is run on very shaky principles then I can indeed see the need for well armed local militia's to defend the rights of the citizenry.

                              Then there is the completely separate issue of paranoid gun nuts .....
                              Last edited by Prester John; 03 Mar 04, 07:38.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X