Brian Dale
Member
Those are the only ones strictly protected by the Second. That'll wake 'em up—Go, Frohickey!
CSPAN thread for Monday 03/01/04
- Thread starter bfieldburt
- Start date
- Status
TheOtherOne
Member
He said it was an American Arms 9mm. I had never heard of it and had to look it up, is it really an AW? http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=16188489#PIC
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Anyone notice Schumer asked anyone who heard him to call him and tell him what we think?
Dialing.....
Dialing.....
killermarmot
Member
R- Ohio - DeWine - talking about gun show loop hole being common sense, talks about it combatting gun trafickers etc. And talking about how the loophole works.
killermarmot
Member
i suppose it's an AW just because the mag is outside the pistol grip, silly
DeWine: I also support the gun show loophole closing act. An amendment that aims to keep guns out of the hands of ch children and criminals. We all believe strongly in the 2nd. I learned the best way to protect rights is to pass and enforce tough laws that punish criminals. I support measures that keep firearms from the wrong hands (GUESS WHAT. YOU HAVE THE WRONG HANDS). This amdt just applies the same standard to all gun sales. Gun shows are the 2nd leading source of illegal arms. This is terrifying and unacceptable. Someone can walk into a gun show, look around, and simply find an unlicensed dealer. Al Qaedea advises terrorists to purchase guns at gun shows in the USA. We need to protect citizens from this potential terrorists exploitation. You can walk out with a gun, totally unchecked. It's like having a metal detector at the front entrance, but leaving a backdoor wide open.
DeWine: Thus we spend millions on background checks. But the system misses those who with very little effort can evade it. It's a waste of the people's money, and a false sense of security. This amdt, McCain-Reed, closes the gun show loop-hole, while respecting the 2nd and citizens rights. Urges support.
Brian Dale
Member
Just called Senator Schumer's Washington number to offer the feedback he requested. I got a recording: " the party you called cannot be reached at this time."
Do you suppose that the switchboard is swamped, or was he just lying again?
Do you suppose that the switchboard is swamped, or was he just lying again?
kingfisher
Member
Happy Bob
"Do you suppose that the switchboard is swamped, or was he just lying again?"
Is that a rhetorical question?
"Do you suppose that the switchboard is swamped, or was he just lying again?"
Is that a rhetorical question?
Brian Dale
Member
Hawkeye,
With ya, bud. Keep up the good work.
With ya, bud. Keep up the good work.
Moparmike
Member
Ok, so is the debate over s1805 over now? There was some guy talking about religious matters or something when I just tuned in.
Harry Tuttle
Member
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,093
did anyone see any coverage of this bill on the Sunday Morning pundit TV shows?
the gay marriage issues seem to be consuming all the bandwidth
the gay marriage issues seem to be consuming all the bandwidth
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
Keeping it quiet might serve us...less agitated mommies to oppose the deal.
Ben Shepherd
Member
Hey guys,
Tom Reynolds personal secretary just called me. I'm the republican of the year for the state of Utah for the year 2003. I guess all the letters, calls, and dontations got somebody's attention.
And yes, while she was on the phone I explained our position and just how many of us across the country are watching every minute of this debate.
Please, stay on the phones, emails, and faxes all night!!!!
We've waited a long time for this!!!!!! Let's sock it to 'em!!!
Tom Reynolds personal secretary just called me. I'm the republican of the year for the state of Utah for the year 2003. I guess all the letters, calls, and dontations got somebody's attention.
And yes, while she was on the phone I explained our position and just how many of us across the country are watching every minute of this debate.
Please, stay on the phones, emails, and faxes all night!!!!
We've waited a long time for this!!!!!! Let's sock it to 'em!!!
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Every once in a while we must watch, listen and act to participate in this continuing experiment in freedom.
Today, as on Thursday and Friday, we saw the enemies of freedom on display. They are not after half-measures. They seek to make us unarmed slaves of the state. It takes alot to amaze me anymore but amazed I was at the magnitude of the lies presented by the enemies of freedom. And yet, the lies go relatively unchallenged on the Senate floor. We must be heard.
Today, as on Thursday and Friday, we saw the enemies of freedom on display. They are not after half-measures. They seek to make us unarmed slaves of the state. It takes alot to amaze me anymore but amazed I was at the magnitude of the lies presented by the enemies of freedom. And yet, the lies go relatively unchallenged on the Senate floor. We must be heard.
Cheney??
Given a tie vote, will Cheney follow the GWB (public) line and vote for an S. 1805 with an AWB extension tucked in, or will he vote nay?
I can see the Dems pulling out all stops to win and if not cleanly then tossing to a tie and forcing the Whitehouse to choose. Voting it down gets the wrath of (whomever) all through the summer and autumn - we'll not hear the end of it. Voting the ban extended for another ten years (with or without some of these weasel amendments to include more than exists now) puts Bush to the wall losing some thousands of votes of gun folks. If those lost votes count somewhere in the Electoral College world (remember Florida) he could be hurt and the Dem candidate could win.
Also, signing off on that bill with the AWB tied to it may give the Dems across the land the idea that they can blast some more on gun control issues state-wise and get some Dems elected to congress that otherwise wouldn't win - possibly shifting the control of congress... again.
I guess what I'm suggesting here is that we can NOT have a tie... for obvious reasons (at least "obvious" to me... sort of).
I'm beginning to think that any bill, AWB or otherwise, that has a sunset and gets extended should have one-year extensions... they should be reviewed every year for their true effectiveness of purpose (not cost) - or repealed.
Ideas?
My 2¢
-IB
Given a tie vote, will Cheney follow the GWB (public) line and vote for an S. 1805 with an AWB extension tucked in, or will he vote nay?
I can see the Dems pulling out all stops to win and if not cleanly then tossing to a tie and forcing the Whitehouse to choose. Voting it down gets the wrath of (whomever) all through the summer and autumn - we'll not hear the end of it. Voting the ban extended for another ten years (with or without some of these weasel amendments to include more than exists now) puts Bush to the wall losing some thousands of votes of gun folks. If those lost votes count somewhere in the Electoral College world (remember Florida) he could be hurt and the Dem candidate could win.
Also, signing off on that bill with the AWB tied to it may give the Dems across the land the idea that they can blast some more on gun control issues state-wise and get some Dems elected to congress that otherwise wouldn't win - possibly shifting the control of congress... again.
I guess what I'm suggesting here is that we can NOT have a tie... for obvious reasons (at least "obvious" to me... sort of).
I'm beginning to think that any bill, AWB or otherwise, that has a sunset and gets extended should have one-year extensions... they should be reviewed every year for their true effectiveness of purpose (not cost) - or repealed.
Ideas?
My 2¢
-IB
Someone in the thread mentioned that maybe the AWB would come up later if it is not attached to S1805.
No. It will not. This is the only shot they will get at it. If the AWB fails on Tuesday, it's toast. It's over.
It simply will not be brought to the floor on the House later.
Tuesday is for all the marbles.
(Except that some of it can be fixed in the conference committee.)
Tuesday is D-Day. I hope the V.P. is handy.
No. It will not. This is the only shot they will get at it. If the AWB fails on Tuesday, it's toast. It's over.
It simply will not be brought to the floor on the House later.
Tuesday is for all the marbles.
(Except that some of it can be fixed in the conference committee.)
Tuesday is D-Day. I hope the V.P. is handy.
TheOtherOne
Member
Strike "that has a sunset and gets extended" part and I completely agree. If every federal law that came out expired after 1 year if it wasn't specifically extended, then Washington would be so gridlocked that we would rarely have to worry about government intrusion.
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
Cheney will not vote for the AWB. GWB will not see the AWB renewal because the House will not allow it through conference committee. The House bill (the clean bill) must be reconciled with the Senate bill (the potentially unclean bill) in conference committee. Then both sides have to vote again.
Keep up the pressure and kill the AWB in the Senate. Let us get a relatively clean bill from the Senate, and get it through conference, and onto GWB's desk. The Mfg.s need this protection.
Keep up the pressure and kill the AWB in the Senate. Let us get a relatively clean bill from the Senate, and get it through conference, and onto GWB's desk. The Mfg.s need this protection.
TheOtherOne
Member
I know I don't really understand how congress works, but why couldn't someone introduce it as an amendment on some other bill later on?
7.62FullMetalJacket
Member
I have sent the following the Vice President Richard Cheney:
I have always had the utmost respect for you and your work. I know that you support gun owners, that you always have, and always will.
There is talk that the enemies of freedom will attempt to attach a renewal to the so-called "assault weapon ban" to the gun maufacturers liability protection bill currently being debated in the Senate. Word has it that the vote for approval will be close and that both Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards are being called in from the primary campaign for the vote in the Senate tomorrow. It is also being stated that you may be called to break any tie.
The so-called "assault weapons" that have been banned, and which the opposition is trying to continue to ban, are semi-automatic rifles. The banning criteria are cosmetic and abitrary and capricious. Bayonet lugs, flash hiders, and pistol grips do not improve the performance of a rifle, nor do they make the rifle any more of a threat. Magazines for semi-automatic pistols and rifles have also been limited to 10 rounds. These prohibitions has been in operation for 10 years. All of the studies that I have reviewed show no positive effect on crime. But this is not about crime. This is about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is about self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, and maintaining a well-armed citizenry. These gun control measures only affect law-abiding citizens and have no effect on criminals which, by definition, break laws anyway.
I also want to inform you of the activities in the Senate regarding the so-called "gun show loophole." The opposition was discussing "unlicensed dealers" selling firearms to felons with no background check. There are no unlicensed dealers. Gun shows are open to private citizens which do not meet the definition of a "dealer" (which would require the Federal Firearms License). They are private citizens selling a gun or two to other private citizens. Such transactions occur every day via classified advertisements, word of mouth, or just outside of a gun show. There is no loophole. Actually, I believe that no citizen should be required to undergo any "checks" to by a firearm since it results in prior restraint.
Gun control has been a failure and is unconstitutional. Please stay the course. and restore our freedoms
I have always had the utmost respect for you and your work. I know that you support gun owners, that you always have, and always will.
There is talk that the enemies of freedom will attempt to attach a renewal to the so-called "assault weapon ban" to the gun maufacturers liability protection bill currently being debated in the Senate. Word has it that the vote for approval will be close and that both Senator Kerry and Senator Edwards are being called in from the primary campaign for the vote in the Senate tomorrow. It is also being stated that you may be called to break any tie.
The so-called "assault weapons" that have been banned, and which the opposition is trying to continue to ban, are semi-automatic rifles. The banning criteria are cosmetic and abitrary and capricious. Bayonet lugs, flash hiders, and pistol grips do not improve the performance of a rifle, nor do they make the rifle any more of a threat. Magazines for semi-automatic pistols and rifles have also been limited to 10 rounds. These prohibitions has been in operation for 10 years. All of the studies that I have reviewed show no positive effect on crime. But this is not about crime. This is about the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is about self-defense, hunting, sport shooting, and maintaining a well-armed citizenry. These gun control measures only affect law-abiding citizens and have no effect on criminals which, by definition, break laws anyway.
I also want to inform you of the activities in the Senate regarding the so-called "gun show loophole." The opposition was discussing "unlicensed dealers" selling firearms to felons with no background check. There are no unlicensed dealers. Gun shows are open to private citizens which do not meet the definition of a "dealer" (which would require the Federal Firearms License). They are private citizens selling a gun or two to other private citizens. Such transactions occur every day via classified advertisements, word of mouth, or just outside of a gun show. There is no loophole. Actually, I believe that no citizen should be required to undergo any "checks" to by a firearm since it results in prior restraint.
Gun control has been a failure and is unconstitutional. Please stay the course. and restore our freedoms
ClonaKilty
Member
Mr. Gresham: glad to have you here -- love your show (even though I have to listen to the archived versions)
Why is this?
Why is this?
- Status
