Assault Weapon Ban extension PASSES (Senate amendment to gun industry protection bill)

C-Span ^ | 3-2-04 | Sen. Dianne Feinstein D-CA

[Atlas Sneezed]

The vote was:

52 -Aye in favor of extending the ban 47 -Nay opposed to the ban.

[OldCorps]

I notice Little Tommy Daschule did not vote (the only senator not to vote).

Hm, i guess this means he's up for reelection.

[WhiteGuy]

Listen,

I know you are a lot smarter than I am......................

and a lot smarter that almost everyone here.................

but would you please site from your list, what has been done to reduce the size and scope of our government's reign over US?

Many of us would appreciate it.

[section9]

It is this simple to me....If it makes it through the house and Bush signs it...he loses my vote....if it makes it through the house and Bush Vetos it...he gets my vote. If it dies in the house Bush gets my vote.

The entire bill, including the Feinstein AWB rider, was killed in the Senate just now, 90-8. The Dems were able to load it down with so many poison pills that no one could vote for this turkey.

Bush gets your vote.

Be Seeing You,

Chris

[Joe Brower]

QB-8 shells? Sorry, but I'm not familiar with those. Can you provide more info on these?

To my knowledge, no multiple-pellet shotgun rounds can defeat level 2 or above body armor. Slugs are a different matter, of course.

[Cold Heat]

The UN is also a part of it. Also, How is this a good thing?

Start another thread on that one.

[BigSkyFreeper]

Any Dem who voted for the sunsetting of the AWB is up for re-election or belongs to a state who has a large population of responsible gun owners. I see both my Montana Senators voted against the ban. One is a Dem, who likes to turn Conservative during an election year.

[Texas Federalist]

I'm very happy that this was killed. I'm sure GW is breathing a sigh that he didn't have to deal with this head on. However, I think this raises a red flag about the effectiveness of our Senate leadership that they could not keep their party in line on these amendments that ultimately killed a bill that the president was pushing hard for.

[Cold Heat]

what has been done to reduce the size and scope of our government's reign over US?

A issue that I am not happy about either, nor are any that I know who I corerespond with.

Supporters have issues too, my FRiend.

[Cboldt]

BTW, same thing about the Janet Jackson and Howard Stern controversies. If you are against CFR then you should be against the FCC trying to clean up TV and radio.

Puhleeze. Drawing lines is often complex, but in this case it is really easy.

Janet Jackson's activities are within the question of sexual decency. That sphere is regulated, see, e.g., XXX movies are not regualr fare on daytime teevee.

The CFR law relates to political speech.

I don't think for a minute that you are unable to make the distinction, and you ought to take time to craft more substantive arguments.

[Cold Heat]

The Dems were able to load it down with so many poison pills that no one could vote for this turkey.

As was anticipated Chris...........On to next year!

[Cold Heat]

US, not you, you were still getting your ass wiped when we did all the swet and tears.

I have been around for quite a while, supporting the RNC.

Like a big family, we have had our squabbles.

One of those led to Clinton.

I see pompous ass remarks all the time, that that was a good thing!

Ya can't prove that to me.......

[AreaMan]

I got the info from here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/12.htm

Although I couldn't find a picture of the shot. Although I remember seeing it online someplace. I am not certain it will defeat level 2 body armor. Although it is touted to be able to disable vehicles.

[harpseal]

You asked Glock Rocks to demonstrate how an AR 15 would be more useful than a scoped .30-06 and a 13 guage in the event of foreign invasion. Well I can not say it would be more useful for you but I can say that for many it would be a more useful rifle because of the light weight of 200 rounds as a carry load, the rapid rate of fire with the AR 15. The ability to generate some suppressive fire and the availablity of replensih ment from military stocks.

Similar considerations might apply to others. Within an Eastern urban or sububrab envirornment it is probably the ideal rifle for an infantry carry. The ranges are not long. The penetration is sufficient to deal with some body armor unlike the shotgun and it is accurate. If you prefer the .30-06 it is hardly reasonable to criticse that choice but others may have different needs.

[Dogbert41]

I have a mossberg loaded all the time, but find it painful to shoot alot when practicing, particularly the combat shells you want to use for defense - both double ought and slugs. Painful!

Now 9mm carbines are very accurate and reliable that can dump a mag into a head inside house range in a couple of seconds.

AR15s with 20 inch barrels are good and reliable shooters if they are of quality. Even a child can be taught to handle them safely and well. Little recoil.

There are a lot of inexpensive .308 FALs out there right now. As for firepower, they will cut down trees! Lots of cheap magazines available, and most are built from some really fine rifles cut down for import. Really sweet.

I also love the organization called CMP where one can still purchase for a reasonable amount the greatest battle rifle of WW2 and Korea- the M1 Garand. It can really reach out and touch things:) With the ammo they want to ban, it can take out vehicles really easy too.

[KurzeHaare]

Take 2...

Historical accuracy is n/a as Gibson takes a very jumbled and selective approach to it. I can list the inaccuracies if you like, but I'm sure you've already gleaned them from TLC. Historical inaccuracy is beside the point, however. The viewer shouldn't have to have prerequisite knowledge of *facts* to be moved via an artistic medium. Astute student of history or not, we can all understand manifestations of basic human motivation...the likes of which could have been crisply and unobtrusively illustrated. Mel did a poor job of that in many cases. I'll tell you a good case though...the role of Peter was very well done during his denial of Jesus. This is what I'm talking about. Another bad case...Barabbas. Probably the biggest cliché in the movie. A frothing, filthy, rude, degenerate imbecile devoid of any vestige of humanity. That's what Mel believes it takes to tell the audience that he's "bad"...since we're idiots. He uses a sledge hammer to drive penny nails.

What we're left with (the only possible thing) is an interpretation...unless the Bible itself has a screen-play somewhere in the back.

I've been more choked-up by local easter plays.

You'd think I'm insulting Jesus himself because I think Mel Gibson is a hack. Gimme a break.

[KurzeHaare]

Woops! Sorry about that. wrong...well...obviously...thread.

[harpseal]

See my #633

[Uncle Jaque]

I like the way you write, Mate;

You am GOOOD!! };^{D~

UJ in ME

[Imal]

(Regarding my "Welcome to the Libertarian Party" wisecrack)

To be fair, I posted that tongue-in-cheek. Being a registered Libertarian myself, I am used to the levity surrounding my political identity and the endless ribbing -- both good-natured and otherwise -- I can expect from my fellow FReepers.

Even us disaffected, tax-evading, dope-smoking, gun-waving, Ayn-Rand-quoting Libertarians are entitled to a sense of humor.

While I am no stranger to pragmatism (yes even Libertarians can be pragmatic), I do encourage you to choose your political path based on principle, not just expediency. It is not an easy choice, but it is the right one.

It is, after all, the prostitution of principles that has given us the corrupt and treacherous "two-party system" in the first place.

Having said all that, sometimes the best path is to work to fix what is wrong with your party, rather than just abandoning it. It does my heart good to see that there are still some lovers of liberty in the two majority parties, and I wish them well in their efforts.

I suggest you not rule out being one of them.

[Dane]

I don't think for a minute that you are unable to make the distinction, and you ought to take time to craft more substantive arguments

I wasn't talking about me. I was talking about the average Joe or Jane who doesn't like the Janet Jackson antics and also doesn't like negative political ads, thus sees no harm of banning them within 30 days of an election.