In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
Im watching this crap and Im getting extremely angry. My stomach is getting twisted and im getting butterflies. I am not giving up my guns. Mark my words.
Go Army Beat Navy
IF you wanna have fun join the cavalry
Im a little unclear as to just witch guns will be outlawed under this bill.
Im with trooperchin, There not getting mine.
Are we looking at the possability of a war between gun owners and those that will try to take them?
Ill never understand why a women would dedicate her entire life to making one man miserable when she could make so many men happy
If you can stay awake until the end of this "debate", it will be interesting to see the actual votes. It appears that there are some Democrat friends and Republican enemies. With 50 co-sponsors, it should pass without a problem, even with a filibuster. Hopefully there will be no ammendments such as gunshow loop hole BS and AWB. But I am afraid that this will be the tactic.
625 -- Great idea for those who have sufficient PC power.
Basically, what it is is... [:D] ... they still don't even have a quorum, and people keep making mention of the fact that the bill has plenty of votes to pass. Craig keeps suggesting people move past the preliminary "Cloture" debate and start debating the bill itself so they can get through the votes on amendments, which do include, I gather, amendments to add the new Clinton Gun Ban, the bill to mess with gun shows, and a couple good amendments -- to ease the ban on guns in Washington D.C. and an amendment about CCWs. So it looks to me like the Democrats are dragging out the preliminary Cloture debate in hopes of getting sound bites on the 6 o'clock news. I don't see what else they have to gain, but of course they're not about to go down without a (delusional) fight.
Given the rate at which things are proceeding, my guess is they may not get into debating the bill itself, and the proposed amendments, until late tonight or tomorrow at the earliest.
Jack Reed just finished and Orrin Hatch is up. Reed made a lot of stupid points. For one he claims there's a memo from S&W saying they have enough reserves to settle lawsuits without going bankrupt, so therefore this bill is unnecessary. Even if that is true, what about Charter Arms/CharCo? What about every other smaller gun company? Can Reed speak confidently for them too? And even if S&W has profits set aside, should they spend them defending suits trumped up by the Brady bunch? Of course not. Then he comes up with an example of a drugged out employee who stole a gun from a manufacturer and used it in a crime. Who thinks that wouldn't be prosecutable under the new law if it had merit? Not me. I'm sure that some of the horror stories they cite are disconnected from the rest of their arguments -- their strategy seems to be, shock 'em with an anecdote, then pretend this bill has something to do with it. I'm cheered by the fact that everyone gives the impression that the votes are there, not only to pass this bill, but to dump any egregious amendments. Hot dang, folks!
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Senator Orrin Hatch, summarized: There are people who frankly don't believe in guns, don't believe in sportsmanship, don't believe in collecting of guns. I have people (from D.C.) calling me saying, "Thank God, somebody is looking out for us finally." We have people who would at least like to protect their homes. -- It's amazing to me we had 22 people this morning vote against Cloture. The fact of the matter is, the Cloture vote (for this bill) should have been 100 to zip. Gun manufacturers are not responsible for the misuse of their weapons, and when they are, this bill does not affect that.
All RIGHT, Senator Hatch!
Daschle is now up, proposing an amendment to weaken the bill. Quel surpris!
I just looked at the http://C-SPAN.ORG site and you can even watch CSPAN on the 'net if you have broadband. I'm not sure whether C-SPAN-2 is available also, but those brave souls may check it out and see. If you can't get it, you either need to download a media player, or you don't have a fast enough connection, or enough RAM, I guess. Here's a link to get started: http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspanradio.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CSR&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc= If it doesn't work, copy & paste it into your adress bar; make sure you have it all, without "carriage returns."
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Daschale is speaking now. I am SO glad he is trying to protect me through the passage of the amendments on this bill. Nice to know someone is looking out for me! [:(]
The Daschle amendment may or may not pass. Until they have a quorum they probably can't even vote on much. Luckily, Craig has proposed and Daschle (the Democrat Minority Leader) has agreed it may be time to move from Cloture debate to debate of the bill itself and amendments. I guess Cloture debate discusses whether to consider the bill at all. So now everything is quiet, at the moment. It's 4:00 and I may need another tape soon..... Luckily I've got about a million I can record over... I could put this all on digital and edit it later for the good parts, but I'd load up my HD. I long for a DVD recorder.... [8D]
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
They are doing a "quarum call" as we speak. LOL as I started typing this some classical music came on. What are the amendments that we need to watch out for again?
Go Army Beat Navy
IF you wanna have fun join the cavalry
Craig is talking again and hopes to have a quorum to vote to consider the bill and "one or two" amendments within an hour -- I wonder. In any case, I wonder if he can control the proposal of amendments to "one or two." Those we are against are the renewal of what the liberals now call the "semi-automatic assault weapons" ban, and the bill to "close the (so-called) gun show loophole." I think there should be a bill to ban the word loophole. It's just liberal code nowadays for "something we don't like." Anyway, Craig hopes to submit an amendment re the gun ban in D.C., which should be very interesting if it comes up. I can see it getting through given the way the votes are divided. We shall see.
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
It looks like they might get to dealing with one ammendment today and carry on tomorrow. We might see a vote by tomorrow or Friday if the amendments don't get too screwed up. With Daschle on board, I don't think that there will be much serious Democrat opposition. Of course there will be alot of noise and BS, but that is a part of the game.
A fool named Bingaman is now filling time talking about his pet project, hi-tech research. The Democrats only have 82 minutes left of discussion in the Cloture debate. I guess they're running out the clock. It seems they don't care how they look doing it.
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
I think Daschle, South Dakota is running again to be a Senator as there are ads on tv here for him, I haven't really been paying attention but it would appear he wants to make South Dakotan's happy.
Comments
Go Army Beat Navy
IF you wanna have fun join the cavalry
Hard work pays off in the future. Laziness pays off now.
"For those who fought for it, freedom has a flavor the protected will never know."
"USMC 2531, 8652, RVN Jun 66 - May 68"
Some of my pics
http://personal.swayzee.com/jayb/index.html
Im with trooperchin, There not getting mine.
Are we looking at the possability of a war between gun owners and those that will try to take them?
Ill never understand why a women would dedicate her entire life to making one man miserable when she could make so many men happy
Basically, what it is is... [:D] ... they still don't even have a quorum, and people keep making mention of the fact that the bill has plenty of votes to pass. Craig keeps suggesting people move past the preliminary "Cloture" debate and start debating the bill itself so they can get through the votes on amendments, which do include, I gather, amendments to add the new Clinton Gun Ban, the bill to mess with gun shows, and a couple good amendments -- to ease the ban on guns in Washington D.C. and an amendment about CCWs. So it looks to me like the Democrats are dragging out the preliminary Cloture debate in hopes of getting sound bites on the 6 o'clock news. I don't see what else they have to gain, but of course they're not about to go down without a (delusional) fight.
Given the rate at which things are proceeding, my guess is they may not get into debating the bill itself, and the proposed amendments, until late tonight or tomorrow at the earliest.
Jack Reed just finished and Orrin Hatch is up. Reed made a lot of stupid points. For one he claims there's a memo from S&W saying they have enough reserves to settle lawsuits without going bankrupt, so therefore this bill is unnecessary. Even if that is true, what about Charter Arms/CharCo? What about every other smaller gun company? Can Reed speak confidently for them too? And even if S&W has profits set aside, should they spend them defending suits trumped up by the Brady bunch? Of course not. Then he comes up with an example of a drugged out employee who stole a gun from a manufacturer and used it in a crime. Who thinks that wouldn't be prosecutable under the new law if it had merit? Not me. I'm sure that some of the horror stories they cite are disconnected from the rest of their arguments -- their strategy seems to be, shock 'em with an anecdote, then pretend this bill has something to do with it. I'm cheered by the fact that everyone gives the impression that the votes are there, not only to pass this bill, but to dump any egregious amendments. Hot dang, folks!
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
All RIGHT, Senator Hatch!
Daschle is now up, proposing an amendment to weaken the bill. Quel surpris!
I just looked at the http://C-SPAN.ORG site and you can even watch CSPAN on the 'net if you have broadband. I'm not sure whether C-SPAN-2 is available also, but those brave souls may check it out and see. If you can't get it, you either need to download a media player, or you don't have a fast enough connection, or enough RAM, I guess. Here's a link to get started: http://www.c-span.org/watch/cspanradio.asp?Cat=TV&Code=CSR&ShowVidDays=30&ShowVidDesc= If it doesn't work, copy & paste it into your adress bar; make sure you have it all, without "carriage returns."
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
Dang it Offeror, you beat me to it!
But what the heck is Daschle trying to do, tack on an amendment? That idiot!!!
Big Al
1 replace knowingly violated the law with should have known
2 widened the exceptions to the bill that would allow suits
3 allowed suits for specific gun defects of manufacture
4 dealers that allow straw purchasees could be sued
5 trade associations would be protected only if they are directly associated with manufacturers
Time for role call and maybe a vote. Or more harmful ammendments?
If you must burn our flag, please wrap yourself in it first.
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
If you must burn our flag, please wrap yourself in it first.
Go Army Beat Navy
IF you wanna have fun join the cavalry
Go Army Beat Navy
IF you wanna have fun join the cavalry
Ill never understand why a women would dedicate her entire life to making one man miserable when she could make so many men happy
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
T. Jefferson: "[When doing Constitutional interpretation], let us [go] back to the time when [it] was adopted. [Rather than] invent a meaning [let us] conform to the probable one in which it was passed."
What an idiot! [:(!][:(!]
Big Al
"I did not get where I am today by worring about what I did last night"
What part of "Lee Malvo STOLE the gun" don't you understand?!!!
Good Gawd, how stupid can you get?
Big Al
Thanks for the updates on what has been going on!