Skip to comments.
C-Span Alert (Debate begins this morning @ 9:30am on S. 1805 & Assasult Weapons Ban Renewal)
Posted on 02/25/2004 4:47:28 AM PST by conservativefromGa
Senate debate on the gun manufactures liability bill will begin at 9:30 this morning on C-Span2. Expect Feinstein to attach her Assault Weapons Ban renewal rider on it. Also McCain may attach a rider closing the so called "gun show loophole". This is it folks.
TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Crime/Corruption; Culture/Society; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: awb; bang; banglist; sausage; senate; senatelive; sunset
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 861-880, 881-900, 901-920, 921-923 next last
To: Monitor
We are waiting for the amendment to be added to Thomas.loc.gov to see exactly what it DOES say. Did you miss this one then? You may be a gun owner, but you seem to see nothing wrong with allowing an arbitrary safety standard to be foisted off on otherwise legal gun dealers and manufacturers by gun control advocates whose stated goal is the incremental destruction of our remaining gun Rights.
Good going Ace. With friends like you, who needs Democrats?
901
posted on
02/27/2004 11:57:17 AM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: OXENinFLA
Thanks. At 10 buck a piece I will just get them both.
902
posted on
02/27/2004 11:58:05 AM PST
by
CougarGA7
(Ted Kennedy served as a submariner in the Massachusetts Navy based at Chappaquiddick Island.)
To: cc2k
Lawyers will go after your homeowners insurance for settlemnt purposes. I know I would.
Despite the intervening supervening criminal act, this is an effort ot push back proximate cause to a source of insurance. Would not surprise me if the plaintiff's bar wrote this.
Follow the money.
To: Beelzebubba
Just the Unemployment silliness?Glad you think it's silliness, what a moronic statement. Thanks to what you call "unemployment silliness", I who has worked for the last 30 years (and payed taxes for the welfare bunch who haven't worked a day in their lives), am not getting an extention on my unemployment benefits. I lost my job through no fault of my own, the telecommunications company I worked for downsized. I got my last check today.
I have spent the last 6 months applying for everything here in my small town in my field (clerical) with no success. I certainly could have used another 13 weeks to look for something in my field, but now I'll be lucky to be saying "would you like fries with that".
I am a conservative and a Republican, and have voted a straight ticket since I first cast a vote. My two Republican senators voted for the extension, but most Republicans didn't. That is sad. Ironically, Kerry, the scourge, and Edwards could been the two deciding votes, but they're too busy glad handing and kissing babies right now.
I will vote for President Bush, because I agree with how he stands on national security and morality issues. However, at this point, I'm just sick and tired of politics in general. The middle class working people of this country are getting the shaft on this one.
904
posted on
02/27/2004 2:23:17 PM PST
by
LisaMalia
(In Memory of Sgt. James W. Lunsford..KIA 11-29-69 Binh Dinh S. Vietnam)
To: LisaMalia
^
should have read in first paragraph....."I have worked"....... I'm so mad I can barely type.
905
posted on
02/27/2004 2:26:05 PM PST
by
LisaMalia
(In Memory of Sgt. James W. Lunsford..KIA 11-29-69 Binh Dinh S. Vietnam)
To: LisaMalia
Just the Unemployment silliness?
Glad you think it's silliness, what a moronic statement. Thanks to what you call "unemployment silliness", I who has worked for the last 30 years (and payed taxes for the welfare bunch who haven't worked a day in their lives), am not getting an extention on my unemployment benefits.
My apologies. The unemployment issue is a serious one, and I did not intend to comment on the issue. I was merely commenting that it is silly to bring it up as an amendment on an unrelated bill.
906
posted on
02/27/2004 2:26:48 PM PST
by
Atlas Sneezed
(Your Friendly Freeper Patent Attorney)
To: Beelzebubba
Actually that IS the original bill as I understand it. The Democrats are playing politics with it, by adding the gun issues. And it sucks.
(S.1805 To extend and expand the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002, and for other purposes.)
907
posted on
02/27/2004 2:31:10 PM PST
by
LisaMalia
(In Memory of Sgt. James W. Lunsford..KIA 11-29-69 Binh Dinh S. Vietnam)
To: LisaMalia
Nope. S.1805 PCS is the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act.
908
posted on
02/27/2004 2:43:02 PM PST
by
Dead Corpse
(For an Evil Super Genius, you aren't too bright are you?)
To: Dead Corpse
You're right, just trying to sort through the mess now on the Senate website. Anyone know how the the unemp. extension amend. got lumped up in this bill?
909
posted on
02/27/2004 2:50:17 PM PST
by
LisaMalia
(In Memory of Sgt. James W. Lunsford..KIA 11-29-69 Binh Dinh S. Vietnam)
To: LisaMalia
910
posted on
02/27/2004 3:17:01 PM PST
by
No.6
To: No.6
Cantwell (D-Wa) introduced it. Yeah, that much I've figured out. Maybe you, or someone can help me understand how this works.
The unemployment extension thing has been renewed (every 6 months), without a problem for a couple of years now. Your respective state pays for initial benefits, then the feds pick up the emergency extensions.
When it needed to be renewed in December, it got approved by congress without a hitch. And that's where I kinda lose track of it. I've been researching on the Senate website, and I'm not sure what happened.
I guess I need to take a refresher course in Government, I haven't had one since high school.
Can anyone help me understand how this amendment got tacked on with a gun bill, and why?
Thanks.
911
posted on
02/27/2004 3:45:28 PM PST
by
LisaMalia
(In Memory of Sgt. James W. Lunsford..KIA 11-29-69 Binh Dinh S. Vietnam)
To: LisaMalia
"Can anyone help me understand how this amendment got tacked on with a gun bill, and why?"
Why, because Cantwell most likely figured that S1805 will pass the Senate and House so she tacked it on hoping that the GOP will go along by being compassionate.
How, I can't remember for sure (been a long time since a Government class), but I believe that someone draws up an amendment just like a bill and then introduces it as a rider/attachment to a bill that is being debated/voted on. This allows something that may not pass by itself to pass while attached to another bill.
Sorry to hear about your unemployment, unfortunately I do not know anyone in Ohio that still has a business that I could refer you to. Good luck in your search.
912
posted on
02/28/2004 5:55:35 AM PST
by
looscnnn
(Tell me something, it's still "We the people", right? -- Megadeth (Peace Sells))
To: looscnnn
Thanks for your response.
Lisa
913
posted on
02/28/2004 9:45:04 AM PST
by
LisaMalia
(In Memory of Sgt. James W. Lunsford..KIA 11-29-69 Binh Dinh S. Vietnam)
To: LisaMalia
"Can anyone help me understand how this amendment got tacked on with a gun bill, and why?"
Anyone can amend any bill with anything. (E.g., Feinstein intends to try and attach an extension of the AWB to every bill the Senate touches).
Apparently Cantwell felt that either a) attaching the unemployment extension to the firearms liability bill would hinder its chances of passing, or b) knowing that the amendment would fail, she can run around now and say "See, the Republicans are against your unemployment in the Bush Recession(tm). I stood up for you but the eeeeevil Republicans shut us down." Or something else. Either way, political grandstanding.
914
posted on
02/28/2004 10:38:08 AM PST
by
No.6
To: No.6
Thanks for the info.
OK, I feel really ashamed of myself for not knowing this....(I need to get a Government for Dummies book...;)
HOWEVER, here is my question. You have a bill, with several amendments attached. Can some amendments pass and some not? Or do they vote on the entire bill at some point, and all amendments either pass or fail along with the bill.
And I agree, this is political grandstanding at it's best (WORST).
Thanks!
Lisa
915
posted on
02/28/2004 10:51:16 AM PST
by
LisaMalia
(In Memory of Sgt. James W. Lunsford..KIA 11-29-69 Binh Dinh S. Vietnam)
To: No.6; ValerieUSA
*IF* that's the only amendment, they need to pass it post haste. They can then go into the elections saying one of these two things:
- my Democretin opponent opposed the extension to the unemployment bill
- my Democretin colleagues voted heavily in favor of the bipartisan 1805, as did I
916
posted on
02/28/2004 1:36:39 PM PST
by
SunkenCiv
([singing] Foggy Bottom where the wind comes sweepin' down the street)
To: LisaMalia
LisaMalia wrote:
HOWEVER, here is my question. You have a bill, with several amendments attached. Can some amendments pass and some not? Or do they vote on the entire bill at some point, and all amendments either pass or fail along with the bill.
The "Senate in a nutshell" version works like this:
- A bill comes up for debate.
- As the bill is debated, amendments may be proposed. Each amendment to the bill is voted on. Amendments that pass modify (or add to) the bill. Amendments that are rejected are gone forever (or until a Senator proposes them again, usually on another bill).
- After all the debate, and all of the amendments have been voted on, there is a final vote on the bill as amended. That final vote will either pass or reject the amended bill
The goal for the Democrats is to get things attached to this bill that wouldn't pass on their own. Either that, or to defeat the bill by attaching a "poisonous" amendment, like making the Assault Weapons Ban permanent. If they get something so bad added that the bill will fail the final vote, then they defeat the entire bill. OTOH, if the final bill passes, anything they get added to it will pass with it.
917
posted on
02/28/2004 2:35:41 PM PST
by
cc2k
To: conservativefromGa
Larry Craig and bill being addressed on Gun Talk radio right now.
To: *bang_list
Btt
To: Dead Corpse
Page thorugh it enough and you get to the Frist/Craig AP ammo amendment. It IS performance based and would whipe out about half of the centerfire cartridges out there for hunting/target shooting. Did this one pass? Or did it get shot down? The Craig/First amendment does not provide for a performance based definition of AP ammo. It does provide for a study that most likely would lead to one. The Kennedy Amendment does provide for a performance standard. Neither amendment has been voted on as of Sunday Feb. 29th. They will vote on them either tomorrow or Tuesday the 2nd.
920
posted on
02/29/2004 5:21:17 PM PST
by
El Gato
(Federal Judges can twist the Constitution into anything.. Or so they think.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 861-880, 881-900, 901-920, 921-923 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson