Democrats bite their own noses to spite their faces

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Okay, this one has me kinda laughing.
The idiot democrats in the Senate took a sensible, necessary bill that would have protected the legitimate firearm industry from baseless, frivolous, predatory lawsuits and packed it with anti-gun abominations in the form of amendments to extend the so-called "assault weapons ban" and to close the non-existent "gun show loophole." So what happened?

The very addition of those amendments (whose spirit is diametrically opposed to the underlying root bill) is what sank the support for the bill, and now the bill is history.

What is the result of that?

The gun companies don't get the federal anti-lawsuit protection that they have in 38 states (lawsuits in the remaining states keep failing anyway), and the democrats get to watch as their precious bullshit assault-weapons ban expires on September 23 of this year!

Their ban is so weak, so useless, so arbitrary and flawed that it cannot possibly stand on its own merits, and that is why they don't simply have a vote to renew it as its own legislation. It has to ride on the coattails of another bill that people actually DO want passed. This was the last chance for it to do so this year -- according to Chuck Schumer. Now, come September, it will again be legal to buy magazines with 10+ capacity, and rifles with collapsible stocks AND pistol grips, etc. So big deal, the lawsuit protection didn't work this year. The best part of all this is that we have already seen how little support there is for the AW ban, and that it's gonna die an ignominious death as it should.

I'm gonna start putting money in a kitty so that come September, I can buy a bunch of Glock 22 full-cap mags for my G27, plus a bunch of those 30-rounders!

Congratulations to the democrat schmucks in the Senate who fucked themselves over because they are so goddamned shortsighted, misguided, and ignorant. You won the battle and lost the war! We've wanted THIS far more than we wanted or needed the lawsuit shield! BWAHAHAHAHAA!

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[tunaplanet 0]

Repetition is great, huh?

Forty-two

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Repetition is great, huh?

Yep. I can see from the use of the word "enemy" in your sig that you agree.

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[benny 0]

Funny, I seem to remember something about the addition of an ammendment taking something like a majority vote.... Hmm, now who holds the majority in both houses of Congress... Could it be, Satan? Well, j/k, I know it's the Republicans. So what you're really saying is that the Republicans couldn't keep their own party together to protect the gun industry (as if they need protection) from the big bad evil liberal lawyers. Waaaa! I'm shedding a tear right now, it's so sad that the victims of gun violence will still be able to (unsuccessfully) seek financial damages from gun manufacturers.

Never go to a DZ strip show.

[Gravitymaster 0]

The Libs are willing to have kids die as long as they can have this as a political issue in the upcoming campaign.

[turtlespeed 212]

Quote

The Libs are willing to have kids die as long as they can have this as a political issue in the upcoming campaign.

Shhhh - that info is not supposed to be released. NO FAIR - I CALL FOUL!

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[marcandalysse 0]

Quote

I'm gonna start putting money in a kitty so that come September, I can buy a bunch of Glock 22 full-cap mags for my G27, plus a bunch of those 30-rounders!

please explain:
1) why would you need that kind of firepower?
2)your logon name is 'peaceful' jeffrey ??? Peace through firepower???

mp

[Rainbo 0]

The law has nothing to do withpower. It is a glossy feel good peice of legislation that Democrats think make them look good. It does nothing to limit the power of a weapon. It does nothing to actually limit the capacity of a weapon as magazines are extremely abundant from the pre-ban era. Yes it is difficult to get magazines for new weapons but they are available for those who want to expend the effort.

A folding stock does not make a weapon more powerful, a bayonet lug does not make a weapon more powerful. It is insane to even argue that this legislation protects anyone or makes society safer.

Rainbo

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

I'm gonna start putting money in a kitty so that come September, I can buy a bunch of Glock 22 full-cap mags for my G27, plus a bunch of those 30-rounders!

please explain:
1) why would you need that kind of firepower?
2)your logon name is 'peaceful' jeffrey ??? Peace through firepower???

mp

For the same reason I have a car that can do over 120 mph when the speed limit is 75 mph.

I don't recall anywhere in the Constitution where it states the maximum number of rounds a weapon can fire per minute nor any restrictions on the caliber.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Here they come. Quick, somebody hide the Constitution before they start walking all over it.

[turtlespeed 212]

Can I have a 100 caliber please - the last deer i shot didn't explode all the way.

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[Rainbo 0]

I think the clean spot on my wall here it hung would tip them off

Rainbo

Rainbo
TheSpeedTriple - Speed is everything
"Blessed are those who can give without remembering, and take without forgetting."

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Can I have a 100 caliber please - the last deer i shot didn't explode all the way.

I don't quit know where this myth that the only purpose for owning a weapon is for personal protection or hunting. The Bill of Rights makes it clear the reason is to protect the security of the country.

[Kennedy 0]

(1) A Glock 17 holds (if I'm not mistaken) a magazine capable of holding 17 9mm rounds. This law said no magazine could hold more than 10. What was the rational for 10? Is there some magic number than 10 rounds will fail in a crime but 11 or more will create a slaughter?

Will 11 rounds turn ordinary gun owners (some of the most law abiding people in the cournty if you go by CCW records) into boiling cauldrons of homicidal rage?

(2) I haven't met him, but I bet if you came across him in person you would think he was pretty chill.

(1b) The law also banned a lot of semiautomatic rifles* because they looked like machine guns. Not for their rate of fire. Not for their ability to shoot. But for cosmetic features, a pistol grip, a collapsible stock, etc.

* - semiautomatic means pull the trigger once and one round fires. machine guns are fullautomatic, meaning as long as you hold the trigger, it will continue to fire.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[skydivexxl 0]

Isn't it "cut off your nose in spite of your face?"

Damn libs... blah blah blah...

Blog Clicky

[Kennedy 0]

Common misconception. He had it right.

witty subliminal message
Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards.
1*

[newsstand 0]

Just some quotes from an article.

Quote

President Bush complicated the debate by supporting the extra provisions, but asked the Senate not to add them so that a bill could be approved swiftly. Two Democratic presidential candidates, Sens. John Kerry of Massachusetts and John Edwards of North Carolina, took a break on the biggest primary day of the year to support the amendments and oppose the liability bill.

Sen. John Warner, R-Va., who opposed the assault weapons ban when Congress approved it 10 years ago but supported the amendment Tuesday because of the subsequent reduction in crime, suggested the issue will become part of the presidential contest this year.

Extending the assault weapons ban was the most important issue for gun control groups because the 1994 ban is set to expire Sept. 13. Supporters of the ban cite federal statistics showing crimes involving assault weapons have declined by two-thirds in the past decade.

The amendment was approved on a 52-47 vote, which even supporters were uncertain of winning. The primary sponsor, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., personally called Snowe on Monday night to ask for her support.

The gun show provision, which was approved 53-46, would have required sellers to check the criminal backgrounds of their customers, as is already required of licensed dealers at stores.

What I know of this bill I support. Background checks, assault weapon ban AND protection of firearms manufacturers from lawsuits. Now a store KNOWINGLY selling to a felon is a different issue. Assuming the proper databases are in place I don't think checks put an undue burden on anyone and it is a very rare occurence when you need a gun today and can't wait three days.

"Truth is tough. It will not break, like a bubble, at a touch; nay, you may kick it about all day like a football, and it will be round and full at evening."
-- Oliver Wendell Holmes

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

Quote

I'm gonna start putting money in a kitty so that come September, I can buy a bunch of Glock 22 full-cap mags for my G27, plus a bunch of those 30-rounders!

please explain:
1) why would you need that kind of firepower?
2)your logon name is 'peaceful' jeffrey ??? Peace through firepower???

mp

The reason I would need the 11th round in a magazine would be when I pull the trigger the 10th time and the threat isn't neutralized.

Thankfully, there is a "loophole" around the 10 round magazine limit - carry more magazines and practice reloading. Magazine switches should be doable in 3 seconds.

Personally, I was pissed that the 10-round limit required the 10th round to be a bitch to put in, because the law requires magazines to be designed in such a way that they couldn't possibly hold 11 rounds.

And in reply to your question about peaceful's nickname, I ask this: why are peace officers allowed to use all the "bad" guns with "excessive firepower" that regular people aren't?

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[FrogNog 1]

Quote

I'm gonna start putting money in a kitty so that come September, I can buy a bunch of Glock 22 full-cap mags for my G27, plus a bunch of those 30-rounders!

When I was last paying attention, it looked like retail for Glock factory new magazines in regular sizes was $25. That got "normal people" up to 10 rounds, regardless of the magazine height, and it got LEO the "original designed" number of rounds.

So if the size ban expires, I would expect Glock to machine off the "LEO" portion of the magazine dies and start pumping out what you want at very attractive prices.

-=-=-=-=-
Pull.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

assault weapon ban

Please tell us what you think that means? What is the definition of an assault weapon as described in the bill?

[skydivexxl 0]

Quote

The reason I would need the 11th round in a magazine would be when I pull the trigger the 10th time and the threat isn't neutralized.

Are you that bad of a shot? Schoolkids run too fast?

Blog Clicky

[ryoder 1,384]

Quote

Quote

assault weapon ban

Please tell us what you think that means? What is the definition of an assault weapon as described in the bill?

Term: Assault Weapon
Definition: A gun whose physical appearance scares liberals.

Term: Neo-Conservative
Definition: A liberal who just got mugged.

Term: Neo-Liberal
Definition: A conservative who just got arrested.

Term: Democrat
Definition: Someone who can't learn from the past.

Term: Republican
Definition: Someone who can't stop living in the past.

"There are only three things of value: younger women, faster airplanes, and bigger crocodiles" - Arthur Jones.

[billvon 2,400]

>The Libs are willing to have kids die as long as they can have this as
>a political issue in the upcoming campaign.

And the conservatives want to let the criminals who kill kids keep their guns.

See? Anyone can come up with a nonsensical sound bite!

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

it's so sad that the victims of gun violence will still be able to (unsuccessfully) seek financial damages from gun manufacturers.

The Bill would not have banned lawsuits for defective products or illegal sales. It would simply have made the gun-makers immune from lawsuits filed by victims of criminal violence. The gun manufacturer is not responsible for the criminal misuse of their legal products.

Since you favor this type of action, should we also presume that you are in favor of victims of drunk drivers suing auto manufacturers? Victims of prescription drug overdoses suing prescription drug manufacturers? Victims of arson suing the gasoline manufacturer?

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

The reason I would need the 11th round in a magazine would be when I pull the trigger the 10th time and the threat isn't neutralized.

Are you that bad of a shot? Schoolkids run too fast?

In my opinion, you are "over the line" with that comment. Just because someone wants a pistol magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, does not mean that they are out to shoot schoolchildren. Making such vile comments only hurts your own reputation.