Replies

I knew that there would be some politica swaggering to be done with this that both sides could and will exploit...

I think J "efin" Kerry did what he was told...

I hope that during the debates he'll be reminded of this...But I doubt it...

I for one (and I expect to burn in hell for it...) have only a slight concern abotu these gun industry lawsuits...Yes...I do see that costs do mount up...But for the most part I see a lot of them get thrown out...

My suggestion would be to wait until after September 13th, and on the morning of the 14th submit the original bill (S. 1805 wording) and let the feathers fly again...It will be harder to attach an amendment of such ramifications as the AWB to that at that time...

The AWB and Gun Manufacturers Lawsuit Protection Act (whatever you want to call it) will have to stand on their own, and should not be paired together on the same piece of paper...

I may have a chance real soon (new job/company orientation) to get up to DC there...And am entertaining the idea of going to a few "coffee's" with my elected officials...

Thats going to be Kay B. Hutchison, John Cornyn and I'll drop in on Tom DeLay if I have time...

Thanks for the perspective...It validates a tremendous amount of thoughts that I have had today...

Later,
Steve

I have a BIG problem with this:

Ammunition Restriction Study This amendment, offered by Senators Bill Frist (R-TN) and Larry Craig (R-ID), passed the Senate 85-12. Among other things, the language of this provision would commission the Attorney General to determine whether the ban on so-called "cop killer" ammunition should include superior performance bullets in popular hunting calibers such as the 30-06.

This as bad as the AWB as it could leave us with a bunch of guns that we don't "need" because of a total lack of ammo.

I for one (and I expect to burn in hell for it...) have only a slight concern abotu these gun industry lawsuits...Yes...I do see that costs do mount up...But for the most part I see a lot of them get thrown out...

How many times does this have to be said? The goal of the antis is to bankrupt the industry with legal fees even if they never win a single lawsuit. The antis know that practically all their suits will either lose or be rejected by the courts, but they plan to accomplish their goal in the long run anyway. The object is to kill the industry, not win big bucks in court. Every suit has to be defended no matter how frivolous it may be, and the legal battles and expenses begin even before a judge either allows it to proceed or tosses it out. And the antis, with funding from taxpayer's money and anti-gun billionaires like Soros and McKelvey, have much deeper pockets than the already struggling industry. Many people here seem to think the gun manufacturers are as big and rich as Ford or GE, but in fact all the makers combined barely make a drop in the proverbial bucket compared to corporations like those.

Also, it's almost certain that sooner or later the plaintiffs will win a suit in some liberal state and a vindictive mind-numbed jury will award more money to the plaintiffs than all the industry combined is worth. The gun maker or makers will of course appeal to a higher court, but what are the chances of, oh let's say the NJ Supreme Court, overturning an award against the evil gun makers? My guess is about the same as a snowball's chance in hell.