Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunslinger on July 29, 2005, 07:13:26 PM
-
I Saw this in the news today and was very elated. It passed on the senate 65-31 so Teddy Kennedy can blame republicans all he wants but this IS a good bill. The fact that somone wants to sue Gun Makers/dealers out of existence to enforce gun control is complete idiocy if you ask me. The CRIMINAL should be punished not the company that legally makes a legal product.
no one advocates protection for wrongfull usage from the criminal NORE from dealers that break the law in unlawfull sales.
here's the scoop:
Senate votes to shield gun makers from lawsuits
Criminals, not manufacturers, will face being sued for gun-related damages
The Associated Press
Updated: 5:58 p.m. ET July 29, 2005
WASHINGTON - The Senate voted Friday to shield firearms manufacturers, dealers and importers from lawsuits brought by victims of gun crimes, a measure opponents said had been ordered up by the gun lobby.
The 65-31 vote passed a bill that supporters said protects the industry from financial disaster and bankruptcy caused by damage lawsuits.
"This bill says go after the criminal, don't go after the law-abiding gun manufacturer or the law-abiding gun seller," said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.
But Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., and other opponents said the gun industry needs no such special protection. "This bill has one motivation — payback by the Bush administration and the Republican leadership of the Congress to the powerful special interest of the National Rifle Association," he said.
POSTER NOTE: Typical out of touch Teddy
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn., yanked similar legislation from debate last year when Democrats successfully attached an extension of the ban on assault-style weapons and the NRA dropped its support.
Republicans picked up four more Senate seats in last November's election, emboldening gun rights supporters to try again.
The House passed a similar bill last year but has taken no action on it this year.
Democrats won inclusion this year of a new requirement that each handgun be sold with a separate child safety or locking device, unless purchased by government officials or police officers. Any violation could be punished by the suspension of a dealer's license, a $10,000 fine, or both.
Gunmakers still face product liability
Craig said the bill does not block gunmakers and dealers from facing product liability, negligence or breach of contract suits.
Its opponents, however, say the bill effectively exempts gun manufacturers from liability. They also say dealers sometimes let weapons get into the hands of people the law says shouldn't have them.
Democrats tried and lost attempts to insert special provisions in the legislation that would let children and police retain the right to sue, along with another amendment that would have let individuals but not municipalities retain the right to sue.
"Should those whose actions lead to the death or injury of a child get a free pass?" asked Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J., who sponsored one amendment.
Supporters of the liability bill said the changes would have gutted the bill.
The Senate also brushed aside a Kennedy amendment that would have banned hollow-tipped, so-called "cop killer" bullets.
The gun industry gave 88 percent of its campaign contributions, or $1.2 million, to Republicans in the 2004 election cycle. Gun control advocates, meanwhile, gave 98 percent of their contributions, or $93,700, to Democrats during that election, according to the Center for Responsive Politics.
© 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
© 2005 MSNBC.com
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8759152/
-
"This bill says go after the criminal, don't go after the law-abiding gun manufacturer or the law-abiding gun seller," said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.
Such true words you will RARELY hear a Democratic speak.
Karaya
-
yep... before the election.. on this BB... the kerrie women all shrilled out to me about how I was being paranoid and that the democrats weren't "after your guns"..
look how this shakes out guys... the democrats tried in every way and still do try to destroy gun rights for for hundreds of millions of people in this country while they themselves live in guarded, gated houses and armored limmos with machine pistol toting body guards.
Seem that they are more important than the average little guy..
When we have democrats in power we lose our gun rights and our rights as men to decide what is dangerous or not... It is like moving back in with your mom when you vote democrat..
seatbelts, gun control, no school vouchers, no Hot Rods, helmets, mandatory life jackets in the rivers and lakes, no smoking laws... it goes on and on.... these are the things that democrats do to you. Grow a pair and throw the ladies out of office..
and get rid of that soused out murderous broke down molester ted kennedy while your at it.... sheesh... what an embarassment.
my guns have killed less people than ted kennedys car.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
my guns have killed less people than ted kennedys car.
lazs
Now THAT is sig material if I've ever heard it. Truer words have never been spoken Laz :aok
-
Originally posted by Masherbrum
"This bill says go after the criminal, don't go after the law-abiding gun manufacturer or the law-abiding gun seller," said bill sponsor Sen. Larry Craig, R-Idaho.
Such true words you will RARELY hear a Democratic speak.
Karaya
Or a Republican for that matter. Gun legislation shouldn't be a partisan issue.
Henh..
How about a bumper sticker:
(http://www.stickergiant.com/Merchant2/imgs/250/zbs215.gif)
-
We never would have had to worry about stuff like this if women had never been give the right to vote.
-
Originally posted by ygsmilo
We never would have had to worry about stuff like this if women had never been give the right to vote.
really, It's comments like yours that make people reguard those that fight for the 2nd amendment as "Gun Nuts".
T
-
Deleted.
6- Members are asked to not act as "back seat moderators". Issues with any breach of rules should be brought to HTC's attention via email at support@hitechcreations.com.
-
Originally posted by Gunslinger
really, It's comments like yours that make people reguard those that fight for the 2nd amendment as "Gun Nuts".
T
Well, I thought it was funny.
dago
-
well... you spend most of your growing up years looking to get out from under the feminine rule of your mom and then...
some of you, inexplicably, allow women to vote and vote for democrats.
Hang..It is indeed a partisan issue... You can easily see how the forces for and against 2nd ammendment rights are alligned... you have the rabid anti gun democrats and their ball less cronies on one side of the fence and the republicans on the other... if the right to own firearms or the right to live with risk is what you vote on then you have to make the black and white deciscion..
You either vote with the women or vote with the men.
Not all women are nannies and not all men are.... men... but we generalize and it is 90% accurate... just as we generalize about brits even tho seagoon and cueball are so different.. that doesn't mean I want to take a chance and open up the floodgates and let a bunch of socialists in.
lazs
-
So laz, what do you make of the fact that the four on Mount Rushmore never won the soccer mom vote?
-
What do you make of it? It seems obvious to me.
Back to this law tho.. this is extremely good news..
the fact that it was becoming possible to sue the gun industry out of existence with nonsense frivolous lawsuits was soros and handgun control inc and the brady bunchs best shot at taking away our rights... if we don't have any to buy then that is a good start in their mind.
they took a cue from the destruction of the private plane industry and how it was ruined by frivolous lawsuits...
Even tho some claim this protection for the gun industry is a first.... "unprecidented" it is not... the private plane industry was decimated by frivolous lawsuits and only a bill that protected them from such lawsuits has gotten them back off their knees and back into the marketplace.
So... where do you stand you gotta ask? with the men or...
with the womanly socialists and democrats and lawyers and the foreigner billionares like george soros and the UN and the shrill harpies of the brady bunch who don't know which end of a gun is the dangerous one and don't want anyone else to either.
we need more laws to protect people from frivolous lawsuits... not more nannies and more bloodsucking lawyers.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Hang..It is indeed a partisan issue... lazs
Yeah. But shouldn't be.
rat bastards on both sides of the asile... and yup, democrats seem to have a lotta varmit features.
Gun Control, followed by Total Control
-
I find it rather amusing that as anti-gun as Feinstein is. As much finger wagging as she does. That she didn't even VOTE! on this bill. A person would think that this would have been important to her.
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=1&vote=00219
-
I salute the 14 Democrats that voted "yes" for this bill.
-
I vote Ted Kennedy for life guard:rofl
-
Originally posted by ygsmilo
We never would have had to worry about stuff like this if women had never been give the right to vote.
YG, while I dislike anecdotal arguments, I feel compelled to note that my wife is an excellent shot who beats me at trap and skeet all the time, researches the candidates and then votes for solidly conservative politicians (and on one occasion this has involved voting for a conservative Democrat over a liberal Republican).
On the other hand, both her brothers are pro-gun control types with definite socialist leanings. This is not an X or Y chromosome issue, it is a worldview issue.
To give another example, while the media doesn't trumpet this statistic, more males than females are pro-abortion, with the most staunchly pro-abortion demographic being unmarried males ages 18-30 and the most staunchly anti-abortion demo being married females.
The largest women's political group in the USA (CWA) is also conservative not liberal.
I bring this up merely to note that Conservative and Liberal is seldom merely a result of gender. It has far more to do with factors like culture, life experience, religion and above all, providence*.
There is no "set political preference" for the fair sex, no matter what the demagogues would like us to believe.
- SEAGOON
* For instance, in conversation over dinner last night (she took me out for my birthday) we noted that both she and I were "programmed" to be liberals, but ended up becoming conservative anyway. Our old friends, teachers, professors, neighbors, and most of our relatives are 180 degrees removed from our worldview.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
.. we noted that both she and I were "programmed" to be liberals, but ended up becoming conservative anyway. Our old friends, teachers, professors, neighbors, and most of our relatives are 180 degrees removed from our worldview.
By 'providence' you are refering to religious influence? I ask because what you seem to suggest is that there's more than a passing correlation between 'conservative right' and 'religious right'?
If not that, then a 'liberal/unsaved' connection?
enh.. still not getting it right. Umm... is it possible there's no religious liberals?
Ruff concepts to get a handle on... interesting food for thought tho.
-
seagoon... I admit to the oddidties in both men and women but in general... women seek security and know nothing of crime or violence.. their are exceptions but the prisons aren't overflowing with violent women criminals... You can indeed generalize and say we would be better off if women didn't have the vote.
I would vote for a democrat if he believed all or most of the things I do and.... this is the impossible one... And, I could be sure that he would not cave in like a cheap card table under a fat lady every time his fellow democrats needed his vote to ban something new or add new restrictions on my life.
I also aplaud the few democrats that voted with the people on this one but still don't trust em..
This episode tends to underline the rift in my opinion... it points out that you can't justify voting for democrats because this is what they want for you as a group... total control nanny socialism.. No private property except for decedant royals like kennedys or kerries.
The second point is.....
If you want to have someone on your side in this stuff you better join the friggin NRA... they are one of the few organizations fighting the good fight on this that is effective.
Add 10 million new NRA members and you might even get democrat candidates that are worth voting for... if they are NRA sponsored they might even vote like those few democrats that voted for the people on this one..
Vote democrats in power next time and watch em work to undo all this good work.
It is that simple.
lazs
-
While my initial response was s psudo troll (spank me moderator) if you look at when the federal government became more involved with issues that were states rights was around the turn of the century when sufferage act took place.
The example I like to use is hurricanes, before the federal govenment felt like it had to get involved ie Congressmen from those states seeking that oh so wonderful government check and or insurance companies who are willing to write insurance on property that is in a coastal flood zone that will lose their bellybutton casue the good ol US gov will now write subsidiesed insurance those areas,
before then the States took care of things, if there was a hurricane the local folks took care of themselves thus a long segway from the right of women to vote.
My wife really is proud of me when I use the argument also.
-
this and the one that protected private aircraft industry are just good starts..
We need an all encompassing law that protects the rights of all manufacturers from frivolous lawsuits.
lazs
-
A good day for all gun owners!
-
Originally posted by Panman
I vote Ted Kennedy for life guard:rofl
How about a cell at Leavenworth.
He can share it with that traitor Kerry:aok
-
Although this is a good bill that needed to be passed you have to wonder how many of those republicans have a little fatter wallet today.
-
Do you wonder the same when some protectionist teachers union (or any union) bill is passed with 90% of the democrats lockstep in line?
lazs
-
actually yeah, it seems anymore that any bill passed in congress is either "of the moment" or some lobbyist threw enough money towards the right congressman
I try not to pick sides as both the republicans and democrats are corrupt. Very few of them are actually there for you and me in my opinion, except maybe for their first term.
-
Originally posted by lazs2
my guns have killed less people than ted kennedys car.
lazs
I love that. :aok
-
Originally posted by lazs2
Do you wonder the same when some protectionist teachers union (or any union) bill is passed with 90% of the democrats lockstep in line?
lazs
maybe because Unions contribute MILLIONS of $$$$$$ to the democrats. This is what caused the huge rift recently between several large organized labor unions. Rather than use money for recruiting they contribute Union dues to those that members may or may not support and that have done very little for.
-
parker... I agree that it seems odd that lobbyists have so much power at first glance but in a way it is "representitive government"
I pay the NRA to support my gun views. I am voting with my cash and being represented on a national level. The teachers, and all unions do the same... with one tiny and very important difference...
the NRA is not mandatory and lets me vote every year on what I want them to lobby for... they thrive by catering to the wishes of their members.
The unions extort money from a huge percentage of unwilling members and then use the money to support candidates that those members would wish to not support. they thrive by extorting their members who they feel are too stupid to know what is good for them or how to spend their own money.
A good start at lobbyist reform would be I think that, if a union is mandatory then a member would have a right to withold the portion that went to political contributions.
Another good reform would be a cap on the amount that each regestered member of a lobby group could contribute.
lazs
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Or a Republican for that matter. Gun legislation shouldn't be a partisan issue.
But sadly, it is.
Karaya
-
So long as it is...
I will vote libertarian or Republican and give my money to the NRA and fight to have the Unions not extort money from us.
Oh... the quote "my guns have killed less people than ted kennedys car" is an old one and to be more accurate it should be.... Me and my guns have murdered less people than ted kennedy and his cars have.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
So long as it is...
I will vote libertarian or Republican and give my money to the NRA and fight to have the Unions not extort money from us.
Oh... the quote "my guns have killed less people than ted kennedys car" is an old one and to be more accurate it should be.... Me and my guns have murdered less people than ted kennedy and his cars have.
lazs
That would be a cool bumper sticker.
The people of Mass must be on crack or something to keep that **** in office.
-
Nope a significant number of them are actually filled with embalming fluid and only come out on election day.........:rolleyes: :p :lol
-
Hi Hang,
Originally posted by Hangtime
By 'providence' you are refering to religious influence? I ask because what you seem to suggest is that there's more than a passing correlation between 'conservative right' and 'religious right'?
If not that, then a 'liberal/unsaved' connection?
enh.. still not getting it right. Umm... is it possible there's no religious liberals?
Ruff concepts to get a handle on... interesting food for thought tho.
When I use the word providence, I use it in the Christian theistic sense to mean "God's preserving and governing all his creatures, and all their actions." i.e. that the affairs of this world are not random or arbitrary and that what happens to us and the way we turn out is part of a grand design. So while the materialist says "chance" and the stoic "fate," I say "providence."
In this case I meant to point out that were people simply the product of environment, education, and upbringing alone, then all of those factors should have conspired to create two liberals, and yet we both turned out quite conservative.
Now on the other point you made, Christianity presupposes a correlation between sincere conversion and a change of worldview, ethics, and behavior. For instance Ezekiel 36:26-27 which speaks of the process of regeneration (i.e. being "born again" via the work of the Holy Spirit) states: "I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will take the heart of stone out of your flesh and give you a heart of flesh. "I will put My Spirit within you and cause you to walk in My statutes, and you will keep My judgments and do them." What this means is that the bible presupposes that men who formerly did "what was right in their own eyes" will, after being converted, (however imperfectly) begin to believe the Word of God and act according to His Will. You see this reflected in the fact that the first Christians were called "those in the way" (i.e. those walking (acting) according to the "way of eternal life"). The bible assumes that prior to regeneration, one could not walk according to the commandments of the Lord and would have no desire to do so, but that afterwards the genuine convert now has the will, desire, and ability to do so.
So one may, and indeed probably will, dismiss all of this as "supernatural bunk" but experientially, I've lived it out. The things in keeping with God's commands I formerly hated, I now love, and the rebellious things I once loved, I now hate. This change inevitably has worldview, behavioral, and political ramifications. For instance, prior to conversion, charity was very low (alright, non-existent) on my priorities list and putting others ahead of myself was just not going to happen. After conversion they both became things I desired to do, not because I wanted others to think well of me, but in simply living out a new nature and as a way of loving and obeying God. So too, there are certain things considered societally acceptable that I simply cannot embrace or endorse, abortion and euthanasia being two easy examples, but both being issues where my attitudes were once diametrically different.
Now as to your question are there no religious liberals? Obviously there are, and I have many brothers and sisters in Christ who are considerably to the left of me politically. Here it will be helpful to distinguish between commands and matters of indifference. For instance, there is nothing in the Word of God that states private citizens must own guns, and indeed if Caesar commands that I hand over my guns, I will regretfully do so. I know of British evangelicals who are also ardent supporters of banning private ownership of guns for instance, so there are many places where sincere Christians can honestly differ on political matters - these are "matters of indifference" from a biblical point of view. However, when we are talking about the commands of God there should be no difference in the response of Christians. Here our worldview and politics should be uniform. For instance, homosexual marriage is contrary to the commands of God, if I claim therefore to be living out the Christian faith by supporting it, then I am either painfully uniformed as to what the Word actually teaches or simply disobeying that word. What I am actually doing is acting contrary to the faith.
Most of those, however, who identify themselves as religious liberals tend to be anti-supernaturalists as well, therefore they either do not accept the authority of the bible or only accept the portions of the word they themselves happen to agree with. Many these days, are actually political liberals or conservatives first and foremost and drag Christianity along in the train rather than having the faith be the leader. So, for instance, there are many who use the faith as a cover-all for the promotion of other ideologies. Liberation theologians who use Christianity to promote Marxism, "Christian Identity" members who use Christianity to promote racism, and so on. Both of these ideologies are actually contrary to the teachings of the Bible and genuine Christianity, but that is unimportant given that the ideology is actually their priority and Christianity is only the vehicle for promoting it.
- SEAGOON
-
Mave, you say that like the enbalmed voting caucus is only localized to Massachussets.
-
Laser,
You're right they aren't all there, just the majority of them. They support kennedy as a kindred "spirit" since he's pickeled as well.
-
seagoon... it has been my experiance that most devout christians are a strange mix of liberal and conservative and for the most part they seem to take the worst views of both.. The control issues of both. I mostly nod my head so as not to stir em up and then politely move away and pray to my god that they never get in power or, more to the point... have any power over me.
I find your views a little different than most christians or religious types tho.
but.. we digress... we won't really know how good this legeslation is untill raider checks in and tells us how Bush (the great satan) flipped everyone the bird when it passed.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
seagoon... it has been my experiance that most devout christians are a strange mix of liberal and conservative and for the most part they seem to take the worst views of both.. The control issues of both. I mostly nod my head so as not to stir em up and then politely move away and pray to my god that they never get in power or, more to the point... have any power over me.
I find your views a little different than most christians or religious types tho.
Hi Laz,
I felt bad spinning off the main topic, but then again the whole male/female issue was a spin-off as well, and I thought Hang asked a valid question, but as you said enough digression, if anyone wants to continue talking about links between background and politics we should probably do it another thread. So I'll make this my last post on this topic in this one...
Regarding your comment, I'm really not that singular a Christian (you just need to hang out with more of us ;) ), I know of plenty of pastors and laymen in my denomination and similar denoms who share the majority of my worldview. In fact in the last church I served in as a ruling elder the session was entirely made up of ex-bad boys like myself with uncannily similar backgrounds. Although, I have to admit to being in a worldview minority compared to the majority of US Christians. Admittedly, for most, Christianity is just a facet of their lives in orbit around them. It has some impact, but is hardly what one would describe as central or foundational.
My views really aren't that different from what used to be common amongst Reformed Christians in places like the USA, Britain, Holland, and Switzerland, so for instance politically I'm not too far off from the views of men like Madison, Mason, and Witherspoon, whose worldview directly informed their politics. So for instance, I'm happy with the U.S. Constitution as it was originally written, because it was informed by a worldview very similar to my own. For a good discussion of this pick up this book this book (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0875522971/qid=1123081628/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-7675247-1517729?v=glance&s=books) which is cheapest here (http://www.cvbbs.com/inventory.php?target=indiv&search_back=keywords%3DKelly%26searchstyle%3Dall%26page%3D1%26session%3D8900d4f5216350c02f0a2a8bd59bb64f%26title_keyword%3D%26isbn_keyword%3D%26publisher_keyword%3D%26author_keyword%3D%26sort_by%3D&bookid=738).
It's scholarly but by no means overwhelming to those unfamiliar with the theological roots of the Western democracies.
- SEAGOON
-
Ok... because you are who you are..
I bought the book. When it comes I will read it.
I have no problem with christians who are strict constitutionalists.
lazs