Barbara Boxer on new gun legislation.

[Cleita]

I just received a long letter from Barbara Boxer in which she itemizes all the "nightmares" as she calls them from the right. Number eight on her list was this.

Day after day, we see the power of the National Rifle Association, which is so strong that the Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist took the DEFENSE bill off the Senate floor, in order to pass the sweeping, unprecedented liability waiver for the gun industry to shield manufacturers from most lawsuits. So guns are now one of the only American-made products I know of that have no safety standards and almost no accountability when things go wrong.

There it is, right wing corporatism all wrapped up in a lethal Christmas package with a pretty bow on it. I wonder if anyone is going to keep track of the deaths that this little item is going to cause.

[napi21]

1. I haven't read the bill, but I suspect they will still be liable for

product malfunction. Why in the world would you want to kold a gun manufacturer liable for damages a purchaser caused? That's just as foolish as holding McDonalds liable for making you fat!

Why are so many duers upset about this bill? I don't understand!

[elehhhhna]

2. not a strong analogy.

Nobody shoves McDonalds down your throat in the comission of a theft, rape, etc.

[napi21]

4. But the mfg. didn't do that! The criminal did!

If you don't like the McDonald's analogy, then how about a car. Unless there is a mfg. defect, the driver DOES litterally shove it down your throat...and every other body part! Do you want the mfg. of cars to be held responsible for some idiot driver?

[elehhhhna]

11. No. But I DO want them held responsible for knowingly hiding

safety defects.

[Cleita]

3. Because Bill Frist moved it ahead of the Defense bill, which

was far more important. Also, I get the impression that manufacturers won't be held that liable for malfunction. Maybe a slap on the wrist. My Senator is not known for spreading disinformation. She is one of the few honest politicians out there, who knows her place is as servant of the people, not the other way around.

So almost anyone will be able to buy a gun without much of a background check and nothing to track the gun once it leaves the hands of the original purchaser. Way to go NRA. The terrorists don't need to kill us. They can sit back and watch us kill ourselves.

[newswolf56]

8. Boxer, with whom I otherwise agree, is an anti-gun fanatic:

She believes the private ownership of firearms should be outlawed entirely. If Boxer had her way, the only people in America allowed guns would be cops, soldiers, intelligence agents and secret police (not to mention criminals who by definition don't obey laws anyway).

With her "Women Against Guns" organization, which dates back to when she was a congresswoman (1980s into the '90s), Boxer was one of the leaders who helped merge the anti-gun movement with the feminist movement, thereby transforming the gun-prohibitionists -- until then never more than a tiny band of fringe lunatics -- into one of the most powerful forces in the United States. Boxer is also therefore one of the reasons George Bush is in the White House: study after study has shown the main reason the Democrats lost the 2000 and 2004 presidential elections (and congressional elections starting in 2004) is the Party's opposition to the personal ownership of firearms -- this and its associated pacifist opposition to the principle of individual armed self-defense.

In fairness -- apart from Boxer's rabid hostility toward firearms and firearms owners -- she is what I would consider politically near- perfect: note her votes against NAFTA, CAFTA, the re-imposition of indentured servitude disguised as bankruptcy "reform," genocide by neglect under the guise of "welfare reform," etc. But she seems to forget the principle -- demonstrated by both the American Revolution and the later success of the labor movement against corporate death-squads -- that "political power grows from the barrel of a gun." Or that "Real Leftists Own Guns."

[billbuckhead]

9. What study after study?

What's fanatical about having regulations in line with the rest of advanced nations? USA is number 1 year after year in homicide, gun deaths and incarceration. Switching to the successful strategies the rest of advanced nations enjoy isn't fanatical, it's progressive, moderate and pro freedom. it's hard to be free when your dead or terrorized by guns. Compare the USA to the rest of the civilized world and weep for our warlike losses, year after year, our billions of dollars in damages, year after year.
<http://www.nationmaster.com/graph-T/cri_mur_wit_fir_cap>

[newswolf56]

12. To ask "what study after study?" is to display a breathtaking ignorance...

that I know is NOT yours -- which I say respectfully despite our obviously total disagreement on the firearms issue. (And my apology for returning to this debate so tardily -- I was away from my desk most of the day.)

But for those who truly are innocent of the overwhelming data (the combined product of pre-election, exit and post-election polls), Google as follows: "why gore lost", "why kerry lost", "gun owners voted for bush", "gun owners voted", "gun owners against kerry", "gun owners against gore", "gun owner vote" -- and any other variant on those terms you can think of.

Then here for starters are a couple of reliably Left links:

http://athensnews.com/issue/article.php3?story_id=17971

http://spot.dailykos.com/story/2004/11/12/154846/49

As to your eloquently hyperbolic claim we should "weep for our warlike losses, year after year, our billions of dollars in damages," we both know that phrase should rightfully (and by all measures of justice whether humanistic, economic or environmental) be applied not to firearms and the firearms industry but rather to the internal combustion engine, the motor vehicle, the Oil Barons and the Automotive Oligarchs -- whose depredations in 2004 alone included 42,636 directly attributable deaths and 2,788,000 injuries plus untold other deaths, sicknesses and economic afflictions resulting from the associated pollution and worst-in-the-industrial-world lack of adequate public transport -- all this horror in comparison to a 2002 accidental firearms death total of 762 persons. (2002 is the last full year for which I can find available numbers as the BATF website no longer lists such statistics.)

Sources:

National Highway Transportation Safety Administration --

http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pdf/nrd-30/NCSA/PPT/2004AnnualAssessment.pdf

National Safety Council (scroll down to "Firearms Discharge") --

http://www.nsc.org/lrs/statinfo/odds.htm

In other words, the claim of anti-gun, anti-gun-owner partisans to moral superiority on humanitarian, environmental or political grounds is utter nonsense: whatever the motives of you and your colleagues, the associated statistics demonstrate beyond all doubt it is none of these.

As I say -- and for reasons that go far beyond my agreement with the Founders, whose pro-gun values were (ironically) never better expressed than by the Mao ZeDong aphorism that "political power grows from the barrel of a gun": Real Leftists Own Guns.

[billbuckhead]

16. Guns killed 2/3's as many people as cars and you brag about it?

This why there can be no debate with RBKAer's. No perspective. Almost all people from teenagers to the elderly drive cars almost every day and you think that guns are safer?

Howard Dean ran as an NRA Dem and didn't win single primary outside his home county sized rural state.

Jesus was a real leftist and he didn't carry a weapon. It's dishonest to portray Mao as a leftist.

[newswolf56]

50. Thank you for clarifying your positions -- especially your belief...

in a truly astounding system of mathematics wherein 762 approximates "2/3's" (sic) of 42,636.

That said, I will not debate further with someone who not only maliciously slanders me by the false misrepresentation I celebrate ("brag") firearms deaths, but also calls me a liar -- and demonstrates a breathtaking ignorance of history as well: "It's dishonest to portray Mao as a Leftist" and "Jesus was a real leftist..."

But for the historically uninformed, I will provide two vital references as intellectual starting points:

China, by Felix Greene (later renamed A curtain of ignorance: how the American public has been misinformed about China; Doubleday, Garden City, N.Y.: c1964. The revised title is self-explanatory; though Greene's work was written before the pivotal changes of the later '60s and beyond, it nevertheless provides a useful glimpse of the original intentions of the Chinese Revolution.

King Jesus, by Robert Graves; Farrar, Straus and Giroux, New York: 1981, (reprint of a text first published in 1946). The salient feature here -- a manuscript based on Graves' detailed knowledge of then-unpublished gospel fragments suppressed until very recently by the various Christian authorities -- is Jesus' own assertion that his ultimate purpose is "to destroy the power of the Female." (Thus Graves' oft-banned work, probably the most controversial fact-based historical novel ever written, absolutely confirms the common thread of misogynistic intent -- evident throughout Bible and Qur'an -- that is the philosophical basis of Feminist and more generally Leftist opposition not only to Christianity but to all Yehvehistic or "Abrahamic" religions.)

[billbuckhead]

52. 30,000 deaths from guns vs 45,000 dead from car accidents=2/3's

Mao was a neoCON by any definition just like the NRA crowd.

[Cleita]

10. I agree with her.

I don't believe any civilians should keep guns in an urban area unless they are police or other authorities who need them to fight the unlicensed criminals carrying guns.

I do believe rural Americans are entitled to own guns as long as they are licensed to own guns and the guns are licensed. City gun owners like hunters should keep their guns and ammo in lockers, like banks, that are out in the rural parts of their county.

This would be a useful service the NRA could provide for, like locker rentals instead of trying to destroy any and all laws for responsible gun ownership. Not everyone should have a gun and there is no reason to own one in the city.

I lived in Los Angeles for thirty years, and yes, I got burglarized and I got robbed during those years, but I never felt a gun or any other weapon was a solution to my problem. What we really needed was effective security and a well-trained, well paid police department, not amateur gun militias.

[Fescue4u]

14. You never called the cops?

"but I never felt a gun or any other weapon was a solution to my problem."

If you were robbed and burglarized, I would have thought that you would have called a cop so that he can come with his gun to save you.

But thats ok. American is about freedom and while I strongly believe in the right of self defense, I certainly don't require that others believe as I do.

Sadly, some misguided politicans prefer to force their beliefs on everyone else, and the bill of rights bedamned

[Cleita]

18. Yeah, I called the cops. They took a report and that

was the end of it. Part of living in the city. Unless you are dead, they aren't that interested.

[Fescue4u]

22. If thats makes you feel safe

Then I won't argue.

[Cleita]

26. Okay, say I had a gun, the burglar would only have taken

the gun as part of his loot. I wasn't home you see. As for the robbery there was no way I could have reached for a gun after having one pointed at me when I wasn't expecting it. So being armed would have been useless if not even more dangerous.

As far as the police, this was about the time huge budget cuts were done to the police department because of the passage of the Jarvis ammendment. The police who used to patrol a lot more before, patroled less and had less manpower. No I didn't feel that safe, but what can you do if selfish voters only care about reducing their taxes.

[Fescue4u]

29. far be it for me to put a gun in your hand

If you don't want one. I'm absolutly serious about that.

Owning and carrying a gun while is a huge responsibility and for most of the population, that task is best outsourced to the local police.

But please, extend me the same courtesy and please don't try take mine away.

YOu have good points about reaching for a gun while one is pointed at you, etc. There are entire books written about such things and neither of us could justice to that subject in a few posts back and forth.

For some, owning a gun makes one safer. For others who dont take it seriously, it proably does erode their safety.

But freedom is about making those choices. Just as I won't demand that you carry a gun, I ask that you not demand that I give up mine.

[Cleita]

31. If you aren't a criminal, you would have a choice.

If you are to be licensed as a gun owner, which is what I would like to see, then have your guns, but keep them locked up when you aren't using them. You have to get a license to drive a car, but you don't need one for a lethal weapon? Something isn't right here. However, the NRA has blocked any discussion of this.

I've lived in the wilds and I know there is a need for guns out there, not to wage war with your neighbor, or kill things, but sometimes it's the only way for farmers to deal with wild animals and livestock, when there is no other way.

I mean I have seen a deer mortally hurt by a car on the road and rather than leave it to die a painful death, sometimes all you can to is shoot it, especially when there is little chance of getting any vet help from the wildlife folks.

But you guys are giving gun manufacturers and the NRA carte blanche or practically no regulation whatsoever because they have you convinced that they are going to take your guns away! It's propaganda.

[Fescue4u]

33. By and large we don't license ownership

But we do license carrying of them.

Whether its a hunting license or ccw.

There are only 2 states where one can carry a handgun concealed without a license. A couple more where one can carry openly without a license.

The vast majority require a license of some sort in order to carry. 4 states ban carrying outright with no license procedure available. Finally one State, Hawaii does have a carry license procedure, but the *only* civilian to get one was the Police Chiefs sister.

I disagree on your statement about no regulation whatsoever.

There are TENS of thousands of laws on owning and carrying guns. If you are curious, go to www.packing.org

On that site it goes into great detail on each states requirements. Virtually no two states are the same.

Guns and the carrying of them is one of the most regulated things that one can do.

This law, simply exempts manufacturers from being sued for defective users (i.e. criminals). Can you sue if you are injured by a defective gun? Absolutely.

[Cleita]

35. About the tens of thousands regulations, I have heard all of that

before from stubborn gun owners, but the problem may be to just get rid of those regulations, which really have to be useless if there are that many, and replace them with just a few effective ones that make everyone happy except the criminals.

[Fescue4u]

40. I might be persuaded to go along with that

I don't have a problem with reasonable regulation (although my definition of reasonable would proably differ from yours).

But truly the gun laws in the country are a tangled mess and if one travels at all with a firearm, you have to be REALLY careful to make sure that you don't run afoul of local laws.

Quick example.
In Texas its a crime to openly carry a weapon (you must have concealed carry license and conceal it).

In Ohio, you MUST openly carry your weapon in a car, and to do so, you must have a concealed carry license. To do so otherwise is a crime...Unless you are in toledo, in which case its illegal to openly carry a weapon even in your car...In toledo you must carry in a case in the car. The case must be plainly visible...and you must have a concealed a carry license. Mess up on any of that, and its a felony(no im not exageratting at all)

[billbuckhead]

20. Only guns can save people

I always have found it illuminating that heros like John Kerry, Wes Clark, John McCain and Charlie Rangle are for gun regulations and that these bottom feeding chickenhawks like Cheney, DeLay, Norquist and AssKKKrack are big gun "rights" proponents.

[Fescue4u]

24. Really? I've never heard anyone but you say that

Being prepared saves people imo

[billbuckhead]

54. "called a cop so that he can come with his gun to save you."

I guess you didn't say this?

[Fescue4u]

55. I said that. But I didnt say what you said I said

getting a little desperate to make a point?

[billbuckhead]

57. You said it, but you didn't say it?

:wtf: "If you were robbed and burglarized, I would have thought that you would have called a cop so that he can come with his gun to save you."

[Fescue4u]

59. SO you don't call the cops when you are crime victim?

I do

[billbuckhead]

60. So you call them to "save you with their guns"?

I'm judicious about calling the cops. Sometimes one can needlessly make enemies. Getting the law involved is irreversible.

[Fescue4u]

62. You live in Britain?

Here in the US cops carry guns.

(but I agree thats you should call them judciously)

[billbuckhead]

63. It's the cop's authority more than guns that is important

You're allusion to the Brit bobbies actually makes my point. Society as a group gives them the authority to enforce the law in a sensible manner.

[Fescue4u]

64. Yea thats true.

But cops carry guns because not all recognize that authority, and some seek to challenge it. We call those people criminals.

And if they don't respect the authority of the police, they certainly won't respect the authority of a family in their home, or the authority of a women who says no to rape. Many of those criminals only recognize force. A even smaller number recognize nothing but their own ill will....and thats when the right of self defense comes in.

Im curious, do you and your peers seek to disarm the police to?

[billbuckhead]

65. I think guns will be mostly obsolete for police work in a generation

In the next few years, government will find other less lethal methods to control the bad guys and those who veer off the edge.

[Fescue4u]

66. I hope your right

Im all for using effective less lethal means of self defense.

While there are less lethal weapons available now, they fit a narrow set of circumstances and sometimes are lethal anyway.

If a method of defending oneself is found that works in a wide variety of situations and isnt lethal (except for maybe freak circumstances), Im for it.

[newswolf56]

51. Thank you for the honest response. Obviously I disagree with your...

position -- not just in principle but from the common experience of so many gun owners that the mere presence of a firearm prevents crime -- but I cannot possibly quibble with your presentation of your stance. Thanks again.

[Fescue4u]

13. huh?

///So almost anyone will be able to buy a gun without much of a background check//

When did you dream that up?

This Bill has no effect on background checks.

The Brady bill is still in full force nationwide.

[Cleita]

19. Really?

Then how come my neighbor could buy a gun at a swap meet with no paperwork changing hands. Hmmmm?

[AngryAmish]

23. I could get a gun in my hand in 8 hours were I a mind to dot it

I have no FOIA (needed to own a gun in IL. I am solidly middle class and I live in a very safe neighborhood. However, I could get a gun very quickly if I felt I needed it. It would be illegal but I suspect that the criminally minded don't care about such niceties.

[billbuckhead]

61. That's 8 hours delay in getting a gun and instantly branding as criminal

both the buyer and the seller thus making them both exposed to arrest before a dangerous crime is committed. I would think some career criminals would think about consequences.

[Fescue4u]

25. Has nothing to do with this bill

Nothing.

Feel free to prove me wrong. Post the language in the bill that removes background checks

[Cleita]

27. There are no laws that trace a gun effectively from manufacture

to eventually the junkyard. This law does nothing to improve on that. My big problem though is with the yahoos that can get guns. I never understood why any responsible gun owner objects to being licensed just like getting a car license. Yet this is the one thing the NRA has fought against to the point of mania. Being able to trace a gun through licensed owners would have fewer firearms available to criminal factions and it would be much easier to arrest them and bring them to trial.

Anyway this post was really about how the NRA could get their agenda put ahead of our national defense. That's what the post was about if you had read it.

[Fescue4u]

30. "This law does nothing to improve on that"

It doesnt do anything to address global warming either, but I notice you failed to mention that as another reason why the law is a bad idea.

Face it, you try to imply that this law eroded background checks, when we both know that it does nothing of the sort.

btw, I'll give you a quick answer as to why gun owners oppose registration....Because registration is Step #1 towards Confiscation.

EVERY confiscation effort has been preceeded by a registration effort.

Registration frequently become defacto bans. i.e. Require registration, then a few years later stop registering. See DC, Chicago and Federal NFA weapons for examples of this.

In fact the citizens of San Francisco are fighting a handgun confiscation effort being proposed right now...made all the easier by their registration laws already on the books.

Thats why gun owners oppose registration. No upside (registered guns are just as deadly, and stolen just as often), huge downside potential.

[Cleita]

34. Registration leads to confiscation?

Well, I think there should be a weapons ban for all civilians within city limits myself. I don't mean that city people can't own guns but they should store them outside of the city area. There is no reason you need a gun in the city. None. It would be much easier to confiscate guns from criminals just for having them if there was such a ban.

The way the law is now, is if you aren't pointing it at anyone or shooting it, it's okay for some reason or the other to have them lying around in full view. If a policeman is suspicious a weapon might be used in a crime because he knows the criminal, there's nothing he can do about it because of our lack of reasonable laws.

This is why the possessor of the gun license like a car license would be better. If you abuse your responsibility in using your gun, just like with your car you will be fined or maybe eventually have your license taken away from you if you turn out to be a criminal. It makes sense to me. But if you are a good, responsible gun owner, the gun seller should be more than happy to do business with you and your community law enforcement happy to know that you aren't a problem.

[Fescue4u]

42. Maybe

(I have to run, so please forgive me if I don't address all of your message).

I wont state that registration always leads to confiscation. Thats not true.

However, confiscation almost ALWAYS is preceeded by registration. Its practically a logistical requirement.

One of the few confiscations that has happened, WITHOUT registration was confiscation that happened in New Orleans recently.

There, police pulled out residents, handcuffed them, searched them home and seized their weapons....then released them.

Confiscation without registration literally requires a house to house search, and that is something that should concern everyone.

[nadinbrzezinski]

44. Remember those were Feds under a REPUBLICAN

admninistration, the mask fell off of what they truly desire

[Silverhair]

69. Sorry, but we Democrats got the blame for that.

Unfortunately, it wasn't the Feds that were doing the gun taking. It was ordered by the New Orleans police chief.

[nadinbrzezinski]

41. You realize in NOLA the FEDS confiscated legally owned

guns, and nobody said a thing

Here is my take on this the NRA has screamed for years that dems are after your guns, truth be told it is the GOPeers who are after them and will do it in a minute if they can get away with it

[Silverhair]

68. The NRA filed suit in Federal court and got an injunction

against the city and the judge required that the confiscated guns be returned.

[Silverhair]

67. This time Barbara Boxer is LYING.

For years, the antigun crowd has been trying to sue the gun makers out of business. The objective has not been to win the suits, but to hurl so many suits, each of which had to be defended against, that the legal costs would drive the gun industry bankrupt. Some of the smaller gun companies did go out of business.

A gun COMPANY can still be sued if they make a defective gun, or is they do something illegal.

You probably don't believe me about the suits. But it is a FACT that most of the suits were from city gov'ts that had plenty of taxpayer money to push the suits. The NAACP sued ALL the gun companies claiming that guns injured blacks disproportionately. Washington DC sued numerous gun makers over guns that were used in crimes in DC that were sold LEGALLY in another state. Some cities sued the gun makers claiming that guns were a general nuisance.

On this issue, BOXER LIED.

[napi21]

5. Let me restate my argument for this bill, then read the bill.

Excludes from such prohibition actions: (1) brought by a directly harmed party against a person who transfers a firearm knowing that it will be used to commit a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime; (2) brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se; (3) in which a manufacturer or seller of a firearm knowingly violated a state or federal statute applicable to the sale or marketing of the firearm and the violation was a proximate cause of the harm for which relief is sought; (4) for breach of contract or warranty in connection with the purchase of the firearm; (5) for death, physical injuries, or property damage resulting directly from a defect in design or manufacture of the firearm when used as intended or in a reasonably foreseeable manner, except that where the discharge was caused by a volitional act that constituted a criminal offense, such act shall be considered the sole proximate cause of any resulting death, personal injuries, or property damage; or (6) commenced by the Attorney General to enforce firearms provisions under the federal criminal code or the Internal Revenue Code. Permits a person under age 17 to recover damages authorized under federal or state law in a civil action that meets specified requirements.

http://www.congress.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SN00397:@@@D&summ2=m&

I don't see any reason to hold a mfg. liable for a misuse of their product! As I suspected, it excludes, and does hold the mfg. liable for defects in design, or manufacture of the fireare when used as intended.

I honestly the Dems freak any time they see the letters NRA on something, and instantly believe it's a bad thing!

In that sense, we're falling into the bad habits of the Pubs, and that's not good!

[Cleita]

6. Well, since it's mostly the Repubs who will be buying the weapons

to "protect their families", maybe a sort of social Darwinism will level things out.

[nadinbrzezinski]

39. Cleita we own guns in this household

I hate cleaning my sig after going to the range

The legislation has problems, not the they should not be held responsible for what a criminal does, but they should be held responsible for manufacturing defects... which they are not.

I will give you an analogy that works, what if Ford was not held accountable for the Pinto? Granted they should not be held accountable for the Pinto used in a robbery, but the rear ended pinto, yes absolutely.

the other problem once you dissect this, is that it will make it easier for terrarists to buy their guns too, from less than reputable distributors. I foresee a whole new market for automatic kits now...

That is the problem

So the bill has problems and the NRA is pushing increasingly for zero liability and full distribution of anting. Their logic, the logic they use... I should be able to own a pocket nuke.

;-)

[Cleita]

46. You put it very well into words what I was thinking.

Yes, I like the pocket nuke analogy because the way the gun laws are in this country now, this is true.

[nadinbrzezinski]

47. It is NOT quite there yet

but that is what they want....

When you buy a gun in this state, unless you are a police officer, you still have to wait for a back ground check and the guns are registered.

You don't own any do you?

If you are cop the waiting period (the background check) is waived... and as a cop you can also get some ammo that as a civie you theoretically cannot

For the record the NRA was not like this even 30 years ago. they ran gun safety courses for people who owned guns. They were the lobby for responsble gun ownership and something happened to them... they were radicalized by some who took over the organization. Someday, when we have more distance, a PhD history candidate will have fun with that thesis

[Cleita]

48. I once owned a 22 rifle. I enjoyed doing target practice

with it, but I finally gave it to my son-in-law. I really don't want to have any firearms around me anymore. As far as the NRA, they could actually act as an association that has the best interests of all citizens, not just gun owners, and they could perform a real service, but they should really stay out of the extreme politics they have been into the last 30 years.

[nadinbrzezinski]

49. The point is they were at one point

Me we own them guns due to professional needs.

This mean that me, the medic, has had to learn how to safely use them, for obvious reasons.

I am far from an expert but I have also seen what they can do (kill) so I respect them for what they are, very lethal tools... and when my nephew is around, them guns are high... and when he is old enough, both of them, we wilt have to teach them they are not toys, and they can kill... if my sis allows it, we will have to take them to the range. If they know what to do, they will be safer.

But this is responsible ownership, which at times you no longer see.. heck a kid at the range managed to load the gun wrong.

[Silverhair]

70. All organization will always act in the best interest of it's MEMBERS...

as those members perceive their own best interest. The NRA is composed of a voluntary membership of about 4 million people. Those 4M WANT the NRA to protect their gun rights. That's what they pay dues for and they vote on the officers of NRA. So that is what the organization does.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

7. Gotta get the Billy Bob vote.

Yee-haw!!

We had a congresswoman, an alleged liberal Democrat, who sold her sorry butt to the NRA. The liberals sat out her reelection campaign. Bye-bye.

If you want to clean up politics vote issues, not party.

[Fescue4u]

15. If we had the Billy Bob vote. Al Gore would be president

Because he would have carried his home state of Tennesee and florida would be a footnote.

[billbuckhead]

17. That's why Bush said he would sign the AWB.

Many people think(Donna Brazile for one) that Tennessee was stolen just as much as Florida. I don't see the NRA out there fighting for fair voting or against BBV.

[Fescue4u]

21. I hadnt heard that about Tennesee (it being stolen)

So I'll take you at your word, although Im skeptical.

I agree, I don't see the NRA on the BBV issue, but then again I don't see them out their trying to save the whales either.

Its just not in their charter.

FOr that matter, I don't see Sarah Brady and her minions out leading the charge against bbv. Its not their charter either.

[billbuckhead]

58. We don't have Tom DeLay in our pocket like the NRA

or is it vice a versa?

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

28. So we should cater to the rednecks?

Perhaps we should go "pro-life" (aka pro-preggers) to insure that we get the billy-bobs.

[Fescue4u]

32. How can we? We are not in power

Once we get a Dem in Office, we can decide then.

(although its damn hard to win when we alienate 40% of the country with bigoted labels like Redneck, "billy bobs" and loser issues like gun contorl)

[Cleita]

37. Well, I heard a new one tonight.

Non-whites being called mud people. Ooooh, reminds you of dirty slime doesn't it? We have to get rid of our racist labels altogether if we are going to survive as a country. I don't mean losing your individual culture and America has many cultures, but just let's stop the mudslinging. Ooops, there's that mud word again.

[Fescue4u]

45. That is a nasty one

Seems like there is no limit to the slurs is there?

Cleita, I enjoyed chatting with you on this subject (gun control). Its frequently difficult to have this conversation without it getting out of hand. So its refreshing to have one that is somewhat restrained.

peace (and good night)

[Silverhair]

72. He would have won Florida by a comfortable margin.

The gungrabbers have been the Repubs best friends.

[nadinbrzezinski]

36. the national association of police will

they have a veted interest in this crap legislation

[Cleita]

38. I hear the police are for more gun regulation than less.

Kind of makes you wonder if a group of people who love their guns also see the need for good gun regulation.

[nadinbrzezinski]

43. Lets just put it this way

they are for clear regulation to keep certain things out of the streets that may put their lives on the line at stake.

As to a group of people who love guns... no, not quite, guns are tools, and part of the tool set for a police officer. I know cops in my life... and I have yet to hear them speak of love for their tools.

[July]

53. So, no matter what problems the GOP has,

they continue to get their agenda passed. Anyone reporting this? Any Democrats making a fuss before the fact?

[Cleita]

56. Only Barbara Boxer that I know of. She's getting swiftboated too.

This is what they are calling her in Republican circles in Washington. In her newsletter she states:

The right wing movement and their henchmen in the media have called me "learning disabled," "an Airhead," "ridiculous," "an embarrassment," "the biggest doofus ever," "un-American," "unfit," "a nut," "reckless," and "the dumbest member of the United States Senate." One even said that I am "Frau Doctor Mengele of the U. S. Senate" because of my leadership on choice.

This last one has to be especially hurtful because Barbara had family who died in the Nazi Holocaust.

[Redneck Socialist]

71. Well, the bill didn't do that

and we'd be far better served if high profile Dems would just drop the gun issue.

If a gun manufacturer makes a defective product you can still sue them. The bill didn't change that. What it did do is, say, if Smith and Wesson sells a gun to a distributer, the distributer sells it to a retailer, I buy it and shoot you with it, you can't sue Smith and Wesson for my criminal actions.

That's all it does.

Now please Barbara, find something else to attack the pukes on. Jeebus knows there are plenty of targets of opportunity out there.