Ron 7 #1 September 30, 2004 QuoteBill Number: S 1805 Issue: Gun Issues Date: 03/02/2004 Sponsor: Bill Rejected Roll Call Number: 0030 Bill Rejected Full Member List Senator John Forbes Kerry voted NO. Vote to pass a bill that would prohibit certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition pertaining to acts of criminal or unlawful misuse of firearms. The bill would dismiss all pending actions excluding lawsuits which involve: negligence of gun sellers, violations of existing state or federal law referring to the sale or marketing of firearms and the violation was the probable cause of harm; breach of contract or warranty linked to the purchase of the firearm; or defects in the firearm or ammunition. So he is for suing gun the gun industry...But against suing the medical industry for the same thing? Quote The bill would provide for a 10-year extension to the assault weapons ban and would require criminal background checks on all firearms transactions at gun shows where at least 75 firearms are displayed for sale excluding private residence or events funded and maintained by nonprofit hunting organizations. He voted NO to extending the assault weapons ban? And NO on backgroung checks? Quote It would also increase penalties for criminals using armor-piercing ammunition and exempt qualified current and former law enforcement officers from state laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed handguns. He voted NO on higher penalties from criminals? And he will not let officers concealed carry?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #2 September 30, 2004 He was for it before he voted against it. We've heard that one before. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #3 September 30, 2004 Well, unfortunately we can't look at what Bush is for or against since he's never held a position that required him to carefully weigh ALL the ramifications of a bill. Of course he does have the power to veto bills that he doesn't agree with, and that's an important part of the process and our checks and balances. I find it amazing that he is the first president since Garfield that hasn't vetoed a single bill submitted by congress. Something to think about when you guys repeat your call that "the president didn't do it, it was congress". Well, the president hasn't taken a single stand against anything congress has done in almost 4 years. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #4 September 30, 2004 QuoteWell, unfortunately we can't look at what Bush is for or against since he's never held a position that required him to carefully weigh ALL the ramifications of a bill. No, he was to busy being GOV of Texas and PRESIDENT. QuoteOf course he does have the power to veto bills that he doesn't agree with, and that's an important part of the process and our checks and balances. I find it amazing that he is the first president since Garfield that hasn't vetoed a single bill submitted by congress. Something to think about when you guys repeat your call that "the president didn't do it, it was congress". Well, the president hasn't taken a single stand against anything congress has done in almost 4 years. Maybe he AGREES with Congress? Oh the horror! You only veto things you don't like."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #5 September 30, 2004 Is it just me or is PK tryign to change the subject again??? Seems like the dicussion jumped from Kerry to Bush... Hmmm amazing how that always seems to happen when PK is around...weird! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
peregrinerose 0 #6 September 30, 2004 Although I don't like Kerry, this kind of thing can be really misleading. Bills aren't as simple as one topic, one statement, one policy. Each bill starts out simple, but then a bazillion add-ons are introduced which complicates things. You can be for a bill and adamantly against an add-on, which way do you vote? If you vote against the bill, it looks like you are against the main gist of it, even though it was the add-on you had a problem with. If you vote for the bill, then it looks like you also voted for the add-on even though you were against it. So this who voted for what when thing I tend to tune out since it is so easily misconstrued and twisted around. Do or do not, there is no try -Yoda Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #7 September 30, 2004 QuoteAlthough I don't like Kerry, this kind of thing can be really misleading. Bills aren't as simple as one topic, one statement, one policy. Each bill starts out simple, but then a bazillion add-ons are introduced which complicates things. You can be for a bill and adamantly against an add-on, which way do you vote? If you vote against the bill, it looks like you are against the main gist of it, even though it was the add-on you had a problem with. If you vote for the bill, then it looks like you also voted for the add-on even though you were against it. So this who voted for what when thing I tend to tune out since it is so easily misconstrued and twisted around. I put the whole bill recap on there. He voted No on it. No to allowing Gun companies the same protection as he is saying he wants to give Dr's and Hospitals. No to putting the Assault weapons ban back in for 10 years. No to hitting criminals who use armor rounds harder. No to allowing off duty cops to carry weapons. So in this case you can say that he would rather allow gun companies to get sued than outlaw assault weapons, punish criminals more, and allow police to carry off duty. It is along the lines of his famous "I voted for the 87 billion...Before I voted against it." thing. Where it was more important for him to vote against tax cuts that to protect our troops. The really interesting thing is what will cause a Senator to vote against a bill that has all kinds of good things in it. In the 87 Billion case it was he hated tax cuts so much that he would rather our troops go without body armor... On this one he wants Gun companies to be unable to file banckruptcy without paying suits, than ban assault weapons for 10 years, punich criminals more, and allow off duty police to carry. That says TONS to me."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #8 September 30, 2004 QuoteIt is along the lines of his famous "I voted for the 87 billion...Before I voted against it." thing. Where it was more important for him to vote against tax cuts that to protect our troops. Or he actually understands how the system works in that when a bill is defeated because of a particular aspect of it, the supporters of the rest of it draw up a new bill and leave that part out. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #9 September 30, 2004 Yes, very unusual to compare the two candidates when discussing politics. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #10 September 30, 2004 QuoteOr he actually understands how the system works in that when a bill is defeated because of a particular aspect of it, the supporters of the rest of it draw up a new bill and leave that part out. In the mean time screwing the troops...Good choice. No coments on the original bill I posted?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
KevinMcGuire 0 #11 September 30, 2004 It would seem that PK's topic change has worked. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #12 September 30, 2004 QuoteQuoteOr he actually understands how the system works in that when a bill is defeated because of a particular aspect of it, the supporters of the rest of it draw up a new bill and leave that part out. In the mean time screwing the troops...Good choice. No coments on the original bill I posted? Sure, my comment about your oriiginal post is that it is a ridiculous and typical twisting of the facts popularized by the current campaign. 91 out of 100 senators voted NO on that bill. http://www.vote-smart.org/issue_keyvote_member.php?vote_id=3371 Are you claiming that they ALL wanted to jeopardize the troops, or are you just going to attribute that to Kerry? Oh, and by the way, the bill was originally PASSED by the Senate, but it was then ammendment and BUSH REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS. That's why it was finally defeated. So in essence, Bush killed the bill. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #13 September 30, 2004 You just can't admit that Kerry says one thing and votes another based on small things You just cant accept the simple fact that Kerry would rather kill tax cuts than support the military. You can't accept the fact that Kerry would rather not extend the AWB, not punish criminals more for using certain types of bullets and would rather police not be allowed to carry, just so he an sue gun companies out of business. Really stupid choices, and the people are starting to see that."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
headoverheels 292 #14 September 30, 2004 Quote In the mean time screwing the troops...Good choice. The Congressmen that altered the proposed bill to keep the tax cuts were the ones screwing the troops, and their constituents as well. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #15 September 30, 2004 KEv, what the hell did S 1805 have to do with the troops? Voting one way or the other didn't affect troops. Let's keep the bill separate. The 87 billion had nothing to do with S 1805. QuoteOh, and by the way, the bill was originally PASSED by the Senate, but it was then ammendment and BUSH REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENTS. That's why it was finally defeated. So in essence, Bush killed the bill. Where did you get that? The bill was brought up for consideration. It had the votes to pass as it was, but democrats wouldn't allow it to the floor without bringing amendments to it. They brought amendments to it, including the extension of the AWB and other anti-gun measures. After successfully altering a lawsuit refrom bill to include their anti gun agenda, they then voted agaisnt the bill's final passage. As I recall, Kerry voted to add the AWB renewal to the bill, it was added, then he voted against the bill. The bill died in the Senate. It never went to Bush, so he didn't have a chance to sign it or veto it. One more case of Kerry being for something before he was agaisnt it?witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #16 September 30, 2004 QuoteKEv, what the hell did S 1805 have to do with the troops? Ask Ron, he's the one saying that it screwed the troops. As to your other points... http://www.triggerfinger.org/weblog/entry/4959.jsp In other words, typical politics and what goes into the construction of bills in congress. The point is that Ron and others like him try to distort the reality of how the legislature works. I would assume you would vote against this bill because it renewed the AWB. So would I. Ron would then say.... Kennedy (you...not Ted) voted NO on allowing LEO to concealed carry in other states. Kennedy voted NO on stopping frivolous lawsuits against gun manufacturers. Kennedy voted NO against higher penalties for criminals. ________________ You know how I stand on this issue and that bill. What I'm pointing out is that Ron is using the same tactics as the entire Republican Campaign. Distory the truth, tell half-truths, make assumptions that ignore the facts, and use any tactic necessary to try and show Kerry voting different ways on different issues when in fact he votes different ways on different bills that incoporate many different issues some of which he supports and some of which he doesn't. This whole strategy of the RNC is either deliberately deceptive or none of them have any idea how government works. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #17 October 1, 2004 QuoteAsk Ron, he's the one saying that it screwed the troops. Kerry voting against the 87 hurt the troops. The gun bill is a seperate issue. Kerry prefered that criminals not get punished for using certain types of bullets, and prefered not to let off duty cops carry, than protect gun shops from being sued out of business. QuoteThe point is that Ron and others like him try to distort the reality of how the legislature works. Right the facts are right there. QuoteRon would then say.... Hey stud, how about you not attempt to put words into my mouth huh? You don't know me that well, and I don't want some liberal trying to guess what I would say. Ya got that? QuoteYou know how I stand on this issue and that bill. What I'm pointing out is that Ron is using the same tactics as the entire Republican Campaign. Distory the truth, tell half-truths, make assumptions that ignore the facts, and use any tactic necessary to try and show Kerry voting different ways on different issues when in fact he votes different ways on different bills that incoporate many different issues some of which he supports and some of which he doesn't. Could it be cause its true? Your side uses the same type of tactics...Need I mention your side claims there were no WMD's...But voted to use force, and at one time said there WERE WMD's?"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #18 October 1, 2004 QuoteYour side uses the same type of tactics...Need I mention your side claims there were no WMD's...But voted to use force, and at one time said there WERE WMD's? That's an outright lie. No one voted to use force, ever. Show me when they did. They voted to AUTHORIZE the use of force SHOULD IT BECOME NECESSARY. It wasn't necessary. The choice to actually use force was made by Bush and Bush alone and it was a mistake. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #19 October 1, 2004 Yes they voted to autorize the use of force> Kerry's own words said it was the same in 91 when he voted against the Gulf war, because that vote was escentially a vote to go to war... Can't have it both ways!!!! ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #20 October 1, 2004 QuoteCan't have it both ways!!!! Two completely different circumstances. You can't have it both ways when talking about two different events a decade apart? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Ron 7 #21 October 1, 2004 QuoteThat's an outright lie. No one voted to use force, ever. Show me when they did. They voted to AUTHORIZE the use of force SHOULD IT BECOME NECESSARY. It wasn't necessary. The choice to actually use force was made by Bush and Bush alone and it was a mistake. Wow, you sound like Clinton asking what the defination of "IS" is. Bush would have never been able to use force if Kerry and others had not voted to let him. Your canidate can't stay on one side of the topic, and neither can you."No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #22 October 1, 2004 I beg to differ... though the circumstances may have been different, the vote was for the same thing. The vote in the first Gulf war to give the Pres the authority to use force if necessary in Iraq. Kerry Voted no because as he said, the vote to authorize force is a vote for war. In 2002 Kerry voted for the Authorization to use force in Iraq if Necessary. Now he says it was not the same as a vote for war. It was the same vote at a different time. With the same potential outcome.... ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #23 October 1, 2004 QuoteI beg to differ... though the circumstances may have been different, the vote was for the same thing. The vote in the first Gulf war to give the Pres the authority to use force if necessary in Iraq. Kerry Voted no because as he said, the vote to authorize force is a vote for war. In 2002 Kerry voted for the Authorization to use force in Iraq if Necessary. Now he says it was not the same as a vote for war. It was the same vote at a different time. With the same potential outcome.... And under 2 different circumstances. In the first Gulf War, the vote was to authorize the use of force against Iraq because they invaded Kuwait. In the second it was to authorize the use of force against Iraq because they supposedly had WMD and were planning to use them against us. There's a world of difference there. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
