Slow Day

Its been a pretty slow day ... I think I'm gonna head out of here. I'll blog lightly this weekend.

Look for the next edition of our gun porn to pop up Sunday - Highlighting the Gun Orgy the Bro and I are having Saturday PM. Y'all are invited to join us at the NRA HQ Range.

Also, late Sunday I'll post the Monday Song Lyric. It'llbe a goody this time.

Back to the debate on Monday (and if they start up again this afternoon, I'll let you know).

Just found out I will be out of the office on Tuesday so sadly I am gonna miss blogging on the most important and exciting day yet. Oh well, I might be able to blackberry into the blog. Im gonna test the technology out this weekend.

John McCain just took the floor

McCain is on the floor and has been talking with Former Gov. Hamilton (??) and Keen (R-NJ) and Sen. Lieberman to discuss 9/11 Commission - they are going to agree to an additional 30 days on top of the additional 60 days they already have to wrap up their report.

Any time I see McCain I shudder in fear. Is he going to rant on about the Climate Change Hoax again? Or the Gun Show hoax? Or maybe his efforts to destroy the first amendment??

McCain used to be a fairly straight shooter - but his fame has gotten to him and now he just cares about getting on the news.


Leiberman just came on the floor to follow up and discuss the commission.

Voting Rights

Frist is talking it up about the Voting Rights Act again and how important it is to extend it permanently.

Oh, and for those of you keeping score . . . . .

Al Gore Voted Against The Voting Rights Act!!!!!!!!!!!!
Don't forget it. Don't let the Dem's forget their history of unfettered racisms, violence, and intolerance.

Asbestos

Frist now wants to talk about Asbestos litigation.

Is he trying to kill this bill???????????

Macedonia

Frist just came to the floor to announce that the President of Macedonia died in a place crash. Said he was a great friend of the United States.

Indicated there is still some negotiating going on and it will be some time before they take to the floor again.

Not Much Missed

Well, after checking in with the The GeekWithA.45 it looks like I didn't miss much. Just random mornign biz blathering on Haiti and stuff.

Ugh

I'm Back

I'm back from lunch and there is a quorum call. Not sure what its about. But let me catch up, and I'll catch you all up.

Brady Shenanigans

Oh, we are sooo scared. Seriously, this is so sophmoric. The Commie Mommies are complaining that Craig is advocating for a position that helps the NRA Puhleeeeesee

Thanks to the Geek for the link.

Brady Campaign Files Senate Ethics Complaint Against NRA Board Member Who is Chief Sponsor of Bill to Give NRA Civil Immunity; Craig's Sponsorship, Efforts on Gun Industry Immunity Bill 'In Clear Violation of the Senate Ethics Rules' Complaint Charges

2/27/04 12:36:00 PM


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

To: National Desk

Contact: Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March, 202-289-5792

WASHINGTON, Feb. 27 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence this morning delivered a complaint to the Senate Ethics Committee, arguing that Senator Larry Craig has "impermissibly acted in his capacity as a Senator to further the interests, including the financial interests, of an organization for which he serves as a member of the Board of Directors."

Senator Craig (R-ID) is the Sponsor and Senate Floor Manager of the bill before the Senate that would provide broad immunity from civil litigation to gun manufacturers, gun dealers and trade associations in the gun industry. As a trade association under the definition of the bill, the National Rifle Association (NRA) would benefit from the legislation. Senator Craig serves on the Board of Directors of the NRA. "Because of this conflict of interest, Senator Craig should immediately recuse himself from any further action on this bill, including any votes," said Michael Barnes, president of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence united with the Million Mom March.

The complaint states "nothing could present a more obvious and glaring conflict than that presented here, where an agent or representative of the NRA (Senator Craig) is attempting to carve out unique and unprecedented immunity from the civil justice system for the NRA, some of its members, and the rest of the gun industry. What makes the conflict here particularly extraordinary is that Senator Craig is using his legislative position to carve out a narrow, special exemption to the law that only applies to his organization and its gun industry members and allies, in order to further their financial interests." It is signed by Barnes.

The full text of the complaint letter follows.

Feb. 27, 2004

The Honorable George V. Voinovich, chairman

The Honorable Harry Reid, ranking member

Committee on Ethics, United States Senate, Hart 220, Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Chairman Voinovich and Ranking Member Reid:

The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, by this letter, brings an ethics complaint against Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) for violating the Senate Ethics Rules. Senator Craig has impermissibly acted in his capacity as a Senator to further the interests, including the financial interests, of an organization for which he serves as a member of the Board of Directors. Specifically, Senator Craig is the sponsor of, and floor leader for, pending legislation that would provide legal immunity to the National Rifle Association ("NRA"). He also serves as a member of the NRA's Board of Directors. Senator Craig is serving two masters, in clear violation of the Senate Ethics Rules, particularly Senate Ethics Rule 37(2).

-- The Facts --

Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) is a member of the Board of Directors of the National Rifle Association. He is also the sponsor of S. 659 and its alternative, S. 1805.

The National Rifle Association ("NRA") is a "trade association" under S. 659 and S. 1805. Under S. 1805, "trade association" is an "association or organization" with three elements: 1) it is "not operated for profit;" 2) two or more members are manufacturers or sellers of firearms; and 3) it is involved in promoting the business interests of its members. Under S. 659, only the first two elements need be met.

The NRA meets all three criteria, thus qualifying it as a trade association under both bills. It is an association or organization that: 1) is not operated for profit; 2) has two or more members who are manufacturers or sellers of firearms; and 3) is involved in promoting the business interests of its members. Indeed, the NRA has called the passage of Senator Craig's gun industry immunity bill its "top legislative priority."

As a "trade association," the NRA, Senator Craig's organization, receives immunity from many civil liability actions under S. 659 and S. 1805, including negligence suits. Any manufacturer and seller members of the NRA also receive this immunity. The immunity received by the NRA, its manufacturer and seller members, and other firearms trade associations and companies under these bills is not enjoyed by any other industry.

-- The Law --

Senate Ethics Rule 37(2) states: "No Member, officer, or employee shall engage in any outside business or professional activity or employment for compensation which is inconsistent or in conflict with the conscientious performance of official duties." The Senate Ethics Manual states:

The legislative history of this provision states that it "should be read to prohibit any outside activities which could represent a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest." The Committee has interpreted this paragraph to prohibit compensated employment or uncompensated positions on boards, commission, or advisory councils where such service could create a conflict with an individual's Senate duties due to appropriation, oversight, authorization, or legislative jurisdiction as a result of Senate duties.

Senate Ethics Manual at 66-67 (emphasis in original) (note 1). See also Nelson Committee Report, which accompanied the Senate Code of Official Conduct, S. Rept. 49, 95th Cong. 1st Sess. 41 (1977) (provision "should be read to prohibit any outside activities which could represent a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest").

Therefore, the Senate Ethics Rules bar Senator Craig from serving on the NRA's Board where that service conflicts with his Senate duties. Nothing could present a more obvious and glaring conflict than that presented here, where an agent or representative of the NRA (Senator Craig) is attempting to carve out unique and unprecedented immunity from the civil justice system for the NRA, some of its members, and the rest of the gun industry. What makes the conflict here particularly extraordinary is that Senator Craig is using his legislative position to carve out a narrow, special exemption to the law that only applies to his organization and its gun industry members and allies, in order to further their financial interests.

The facts here present a grave conflict of interest - and unquestionably an appearance of a conflict. Either violates Rule 37(2). This is not a case where a Senator's organization falls within a broad class of citizens affected by legislation. Here, the lobbyist and the lobbied are the same (the NRA); and the class of beneficiaries of the legislation is very narrow: the gun industry. Nor is this a case where a Senator merely shares beliefs or policy views with an organization. Here the NRA and some of its members are financial beneficiaries of the proposed legislation.

The relationship between Senator Craig and the NRA suggests possible answers to questions regarding why the Senator has chosen to create such unique, unprecedented, and extraordinary protections for this industry and no other. If Senator Craig is concerned that manufacturers and sellers of dangerous products should not be liable when their products are misused, why does his bill not bar liability in all such cases, rather than immunizing only the NRA and other gun industry associations and companies? Senator Craig's relationship with the NRA suggests an answer to that and many other troubling questions. Such a conflict defines "appearance of impropriety."

America is faced with many dangers today, from without and within. One of those dangers is a growing cynicism among many Americans that their government caters to special interests at the expense of the average citizen. Indeed, all Americans should be troubled to watch the NRA, acting though its agent in the Senate, seek unprecedented, special immunity for itself and its fellows, while depriving victims of gun violence of their rights to seek justice in the courts. We hope this matter will be given the serious attention it deserves.

Sincerely,

Michael D. Barnes

President

(Note 1) Where there is no conflict of interest, Rule 37(6)(a) permits uncompensated service as a board member of a tax-exempt organization under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Senate Ethics Manual at 74.


http://www.usnewswire.com/

Byrd is done

Byrd is off and Kent Conrad (D-ND) is onthe floor talking about the wisdom of Robert Byrd. Byrd just interupted him and thanks him for his words and for his wisdom and courage and insight and constructive contributions.

Conrad is going to continue talking about Budget Deficits. This is really going to be a problem for Bush as we go forward towards November.

I'm getting tired of this. I'm off to grab some lunch.

Back in a few

FDR

Now talking about how FDR - a crippled president - save the day and brought relief for everyone. The first Social Security checks came to his house - to his foster father (not his father or step father) and his mom did too (she was his aunt - his mom died in 1918 in the great influenza)

They drew social security checks His young life sounds absolutly horid.

Like I said earlier, no one in the Senate represents their constituents as well as Byrd - his partisanship aside.

He just brings home the money money money

Byrd =$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Old Time Stories

Byrd is talking about the god people of west virginia working in the coal fields when he was young, and without social security. When he was a kid 55, 60 was an old old man.

No social security. When they became old, couldnt get work and could only go to children hoping they could take them in. Many went to the county poor farm.

good people (all people who owned guns, btw - to try to keep it relevant - that is my comment, Byrd doesn't mention it)

Byrd

Robert Byrd is on the floor now talking about spending under Bush and the growth of the Gross National Debt.


Go to WV - See what a good politician does - forget abortion poltics and other special interests - Byrd has only one interest - bringing home the bacon and he does it like no one else

Another Lautenberg Amendment

Wants to protect children not the NRA and gun manufacturers

Give me a F'ing break

Funny Interchange

It is sort of telling about the whole mindset of the gun grabbers - There was some discussion about the orders of amendments to be offered on the floor, and Frank Lautenberg (D-NJ) says

"Of Course, Mr. Chairman, we have to put the 1st Amendment to the side in order to get to the Second"

So fitting so fitting.

First they enact the Campaign Finance Reform Act to put the 1st Amendment to the side and prevent the NRA from criticizing them.

Now, they get to attack the Second Amendment at will without fear of election day retribution.

Terrorist

Lautenburg is going on about Terrorists. And now he is upset about the "50 caliber ASSAULT WEAPON" that can take down a helicopter, penetrate 6 inches of steel, have an incendiary head (AN EXPLOSIVE DEVICES!!!) and are accurate up to a mile away.

Oh, give me a F'ingbreak

The dangers of terrorist access to guns.

Ugh. Wants to prevent people on terrorist watch list from purchasing guns. Uh,, except they haven't been convicted of anything.


Equating your placement on watch list with being a terrorist. What happened to innocent until proven guilty?

Lautenberg

Ugh - Lautenberg proposes a new amendment. Ugh!!!

So glad I escaped the people republic.

My brother is coming down from their today with his modest arsenal. We are going to have a great shoot em up feast tomorrow - NRA HQ range and Bull Run Sporting Clays course.

But first a trip to the NEW AIR AND SPACE MUSEUM (my 4th trip - look for a video report on it soon).

Feel free to look for us at any of the places. I'll have my NRA-ILA shirt on

The Second Amendment,
America's Original Department of Homeland Security
Feel free to join us - I

Levin and gross negligence

Now he is quoting a law professor - the most liberal law professor at Georgetown University - saying this is the most reckless and wholesale change of the common law tort system ever.


Uhm . . . I don't know about that. I could think of a few other items that are a bit worse. Ill post them later

I think he is finsihing up though

Levin's Back

Leahy's off, and Levins back talking about the gross negligence of gun dealers in making sales to criminals.

The problem is that everything he is discussing here - if the violations of the law really happened, then the suits would still be able to go forward.

He is upset that someone spent cash to buy a gun. That is sufficient evidence to go to a jury.

Robert Byrd

Robert Byrd wants to get on the floor - he has interupted and now Harry Reid, (D-NV) is explaining that they might not have time for him. They are telling him to come back later today.

Leahy Continues

Still not sure what happened on the floor. I've sent some emails out, but havn'theard back yet. Hopefully I will soon (Blackberry's Rule!!!)

Leahy is attacking the Bush administration now for refusing to join land mine treaties and for the land mine policy of the Administration

Important Message from the NRA

On Wednesday morning, the U.S. Senate began to debate S. 1805—the "Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act" (formerly referenced as S. 659/S. 1806.) A bi-partisan 75-22 vote allowed debate to proceed, lifting the threat of a filibuster.

The debate continued late into the evening with no substantive movement on the bill and no additional votes were taken. Senators did, however, reach a "Unanimous Consent Agreement" spelling out specific amendments that would be permitted to be offered during the debate in anticipation of a final vote on the underlying measure next Tuesday.

On Thursday, the Senate reconvened and first considered was an amendment by anti-gun Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) that would require all handguns be sold with a mechanical safety device approved by the Consumer Product Safety Commission(CPSC). This amendment was then replaced with a "second degree" amendment by Sen. Herb Kohl (D-WI). The Kohl amendment is much less restrictive and also provides liability protection for gun owners. The revised amendment passed 70-27.

The Senate next debated an amendment by Sen. Ben Nighthorse Campbell (R-CO) which would permit current and retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms off duty in other states. Arguing hysterically against the amendment, anti-gun Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-MA) revealed his deep distrust of gun carrying even by sworn police officers. A vote on the Campbell amendment was deferred until Tuesday.

Sen. Kennedy then introduced an amendment to ban the manufacture and sale of "armor-piercing" ammunition. Kennedy, who actually condemned the .30-30 Winchester cartridge during debate, wants to institute a "performance-based" standard that would grant any future Attorney General sweeping authority to ban any center-fire ammunition, including most common-place rifle hunting ammunition. The standard proposed by Sen. Kennedy was rejected in the 1980s as overly broad and unnecessary to meet any threat posed to law enforcement officers` safety. A vote on this NRA-opposed amendment will take place Tuesday.

The Senate next debated and voted upon two amendments seeking to gut S. 1805. The first related to the D.C. sniper case, but the proposal by Sen. Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) was defeated, 56-40. A "law enforcement" exemption offered by Sen. John Corzine (D-NJ) was soundly defeated, 56 to 38.

NRA strongly opposed both amendments. One of the strengths of S. 1805 is that it adopts the same rules for all plaintiffs, no matter how sympathetic or unsympathetic, and no matter how notorious or mundane their victimization. Plaintiffs` rights should depend on settled principles of law, not on emotion or sympathy.

NRA-ILA stands totally committed to enacting S. 1805 without anti-gun amendments, and will continue to vigorously oppose any reauthorization of the 1994 Clinton gun ban and any attempt to ban gun shows.

Please continue to contact your U.S. Senators at (202) 224-3121 and urge them to support S. 1805 without any anti-gun amendments. Call ILA`s Grassroots staff at (800) 392-8683, or visit http://www.nraila.org/stoprecklesslawsuits.aspx for additional information and to utilize the "Write Your Representatives" feature to contact your U.S. Senators.

Decorum

As annoying as some people are and as heated as the disagreements are, one thing I really do like about our system over other parlimentary systems (england, for example) if that our representatives maintain a certain amount of respect and decorum while on the floor and are always calling each other friends and respectable. At the end of the day, these guys really are chummy. Its a small club and whatever their disagrements and whatever tricks they are up to behind the scenes, most of them genuinly respect each other.

Whenever I see it occur, I retain hope for the future.


Leahy, is talking about a helicopter trip to jungles in the mountains of Nicaragua and discussing a kid who lost his leg to a landmine and the kid didnt know whether it was planted by a Sandanista or Contra. All the kid knew was that he lost his leg. Its actually a rather touching story. Leahy is a good orator.


Someone just completly interupted, didnt see what happened, but there was a bit of a disturbance. Leahy is a little ticked off.

Levin Yields

Levin just stopped his drivel on the illegal use of guns and they are back to discussing scheduling and parlimentary procedures

Leahy is asking to proceed for 10 minutes in place of Levin. Leahy wants to talk about Land Mines and reserve the right for Levin to come back up.

Craig is reserving the right to object, but has no problem with the switch. Leahy is begining the land mine discussion.

Mrs. Palzgraf

The lawyers out there will appreciate Levins concern over proximate cause. I just remind everyone of poorMrs. Palzgraf

Well, Color Me Wrong

Just as I posted about Warner, he finished. Now Levin is up talking about Bulls Eye and how neither Muhamad or Malvo could legally purchase the gun and stole it.

So tell me, why have they sued Bushmaster????????

He is saying bullseye operated its business in such a gross manner and that bushmaster continued to supply dealer evern after years of audits showed how bad an apple bulls eye was.

SO wait - is Bushmaster good or bad????? Levin is suggesting they are grossly negligent. Aaaah, I dont think so, and thats why I dont like his amendment

Warner

Still talking about medical malpractice ... according to our medical care person here this debate might last a bit today.

Warner Levin Amendment

They just pushed Levin's Amendment through in order to allow John Warner to introduce an amendment.

He's my senator (also married to Liz Taylor at one point). He says it is a heartfelt personal amanemdnets. He is going on about his father - and devouting his life to medical establishment. WWI as a doctor

Amendment states that if certain protections are addorded to guns then they should also be afforded to medical profession - I agree, but the problem is this is a poison pill - Ds can never go for it and will force them to vote against entire bill. This amendment is going to fail because of that.

But Listen, ifyou ca, to warner, or read teh transcript tonite. He is saying important things about medical profession.

now is talkingabout his gun collection - he got his first when he was 9 and has a modest collection

He thinks if Senate moves forward, the medical profession also get protection from needless lawsuits.

I Beat Drudge

DRUDGE's headline right now is that Kerry was ranked most liberal.

For what its worth, I beat his scoop by 15 minutes

To see the top 10 and bottom 10 senators, you need to scroll all the way down. I don't know why the tables are coming out this way.

Levin Amendment

2631 - Gross Negligence or Reckless Conduct

They are reading the language of the amendment. It sounds like it covers gross negligence. I need to check it out. Might be reasonable, but I expect there is some trick in the amendment.

They are having a quorum call to enable review of the amendment (stops the clerk from reading it)

Warner

John Warner (R-VA) Just said he will support Levin's amendment. His response to me when I called AND wrote concering debate was completly unacceptable. I'll post it tonite (its at home) but it was a complete non answer saying he wont be swayed by the evil forces at NRA.

Carl Levin

Wants to offer an amendment, but he and craig are bickering over the introduction of his amendment and whether or not there will be a vote on it today. Craig doesnt know and referred him to leadership and their debate schedule.

Levin doesnt want to vote today (he wants to vote on Wedensday) he just wants to introduce his amendment today.

When their done bickering Ill try to summarize better whats going on

Reed on bad dealers

Reed just called Bushmaster a good company!!! Then why are they being SUED???????

He is listing all sorts of bad dealers and points out one is owned (or at least the land it is located on) by a reputed mobster - Is he an Anti Italian Racist? Heck, we ought to ban new york city generally, since most of the land is probably associated with a reputed mobster or his business interests

Style and Punctuation

Please excuse any typos and other flaws I've made the last couple of days as I furious blog away and provide shot by shot details. Fast fingers equal sloppy work

Things will return to their usual detail after the debate

Savage and other Mfgs

well, reeds now questioning whether they are being pushed into bankruptcy - he called Savage an honorable company - and now points out that they went into Bankruptcy in 1988 because - according to the CEO - they had too many employees and too many products - they streamlined products and fired 400 employees and since that time they have done well and are doing well - Is this true? I don't know, but thats what Reed is stating.


He is also talking about FN, H&K and Browning and how they are all foreign firms. He thinks its ok to rely on overseas copanies -a nd says we go overseas now to get superior weapons (BUT ISNT THAT THE POINT _ WE AREN"T MAKING THEM HERE ANYMORE????)

Jack Reed (D-RI) Blah Blah Blah

Reed is on and rambling about Bulls eye and the standards of care they employeed.

A lot of this so far today is just a rehtorical waste of time - nothing new being said - so I am going to limit my reports until the action heats up.

It Has Happened before

Craig rebuts their lies, protectiosn have happened before -

with General Aviation liability limits
with Homeland Security bill - small mfgs and sellers of anti terrorist activities

There is a significant list of these examples where Congress has protected a specific sector from burdensome and unfair litigation.

He is stepping down right now, to make room for Reed and Sen. Levin who is going to offer an amendment.

"We are not going to suggest to law abiding citizens that you ought to bear the cost of law breakers" "putting misusers of firearms behind bars is what we should be doing"

"Because the anti gun community hasnt succedded in legislating, they now run to the courts and activists judges"

Craig Again

Its a second amendment right they are trying to take away!!!

Thank You Sen. Craig

Sen. Craig just called the Banners out for what they are.

He is railing on about how ridiculous their claims are - that swiss army should be sued for stabbings, that Lousiville slugger should be sued for beatings, etc etc that ford is responsible for drunk dirvers

He is also talking about how the lawsuits are only about raising the cost of firearms and running the mfg's out of business.

QUoting Savage Arms union steward - only have 158 employees, down from over 500 because of the cost of fighting lawsuits.

Again questioning where themilitary and cops go for guns if the firearms mfg,s close doors.

Go Larry Go!!

John Kerry and Gun Control

Yesterday, the more conservative senator from Taxachussets proposed an armor piercing buller amendment that would have banned, amongst other rounds, all .30-30, .30-06, .308, 273 win, and .300 Win Mag.

I just wonder what John"Sportsman My Ass" Kerry would think about this amendment?

Back On

I'm Back, Larry Craig is repeating - once again - what the bill doesn't do and exposing the gun grabbers lies for what they are

NRA ALert

GeekWithA.45 just posted a communication he recieved from the NRA. As he states at the end

Obviously, there are pieces of the Legislative puzzle missing, and if we knew what they were, assessment would probably be a snap. Since we're operating in an environment of incomplete information, the uncertaintly level is never going to be comfortable.

Yes, this is true. What the NRA is talking about and what many of the less savy (but by no means less honorable) gun control groups don't understand with regad to this bill, is that what we see on the senate floor right now is irrelevant. Whatever the senate passes then heads to a conference between the Senate and the House. At conference, the differences between both bills will be worked out and a final bill, to be voted on by both houses will emerge. It is the final bill, post conference, that goes to the President. Since R's control both houses of Congress, they get to pick who sits at the conference table. I explained this somewhat in discussing Boxer's trigger lock amendment.

As the NRA points out, the House won't let these amendments pass. They are outside themainstream and represent the liberal fringes of the party. Some of them (the armor piercing bullet amendment) are so looney I don't even think Kerry would vote for them. At the end of the day, this means that ALL these amendments will be stripped out of the final bill (yes, even the DC gun ban thing if they suspect that will prevent final passage) before it is voted on again. At that stage, there is no more oportunity for amendments and the president will get a nice clean bill to sign. The underlying bill passed the senate overwhelmingly. No one is going to go back and vote against it now, especially if it doesnt conain amenemdnts.

We have almost nothing to fear, but our own UNINFORMED advocates.

Please people, I know many have concerns with the NRA, but they are really the 900 pound gorilla in Washington. They got that way by being SMART!. The Gun Grabbers are smart, its time Gun Owners smartened up. Don't oppose these efforts. The process will work itself out. There won't be an assault weapons ban extension. They wont get to close down gun shows. They won't get to ban .30-30 ammo. They wont force new safety technology on handguns. Nothing, nada, zero bad is going to happen if we play the game - and remember it is a game. The ruels are set, they are often confusing for those not in Washington, but we can work the system, and we will work the system.

Victory is in site. Keep the calls to your Senators going. Keep your hopes up. Lets not fall into VPC's trap!

Kerry Video

Was wondering if anyone can direct me to a video source of the Demovcratic Parties South Carolina Debates.

I've tried the MSNBC site, but their video is encoded in a special format that requires a window's PC to use (and which I can't subsequently cut up and use in my own video)

So, if anyone has a copy (or better yet, can send me to a quick time or DV streamed copy), please email me - countertop -AT- verizon.net

I'll make it worth your while.
Thanks

Edwards and Kerry - Liberals All The Same

National Journal just released(subscription req'd) its Senate Composites, rating each member of the Senate from most liberal to most conservative, based upon their voting record in 2003.

Anyone who believes that Edwards is a more mainstream alternative to Kerry ought to look at these numbers.

I've posted the 11 most liberal (to include the Chapaquidick Killer) and the 10 most conservative.

Most Liberal To Most Conservative

Senator	More Liberal Than _% Of The Senate	More Conservative Than _% Of The Senate
John Kerry, D-Mass.	97	4
Paul Sarbanes, D-Md.	95	5
Jack Reed, D-R.I.	95	5
John Edwards, D-N.C.	95	6
Barbara Boxer, D-Calif.	91	9
Russell Feingold, D-Wis.	90	11
Tom Harkin, D-Iowa	89	11
Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.	89	11
Carl Levin, D-Mich.	89	11
Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y.	89	11
Edward Kennedy, D-Mass.	88	12
Mitch McConnell, R-Ky.	14	87
Jim Bunning, R-Ky.	14	87
Thad Cochran, R-Miss.	14	87
Conrad Burns, R-Mont.	14	87
Rick Santorum, R-Pa.	14	87
Bill Frist, R-Tenn.	14	87
John Cornyn, R-Texas	14	87
Orrin Hatch, R-Utah	14	87
George Allen, R-Va.	14	87
Craig Thomas, R-Wyo.	14	87

Publishing Help

Hey, I need some HTML/blogger help

Can someone check out my source codes and tell me why the tables I am posting appear so messed up? Appreciate it. You can email me at countertop - AT- verizon.net

Thanks

Debate outlook

Being a Friday, I don't expect the debate to produce too much news today. Traffic was exceptionally light coming into town (my usual 45 minute commute was only 15) and most people seem to have left for the beautiful weekend already. Things might get lively on the floor, but I don't see any of the important items coming up today - ie: assualt weapons ban (which might be attached if Kerry and Edwards show up on Tuesday) and the gun show portion.

If we do have anything occur today and/or monday - I would look for final votes on the concealed carry amendment as well as Hatch's bill to overturn the DC Gun Ban (if that passes - I stand a strong chance of leaving the burbs and moving into the city - quality of the schools would be the only thing keeping me away).

Baby's Are People Too

The House passed, by a 254-163 vote, legislation (HR 1997) on Friday which established a seperate offense for federal crimes against pregnant women that harm fetuses. Most importantly, the legislation defines an "unborn child" as a "member of the species homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb."

I offer no further commentary on this subject - except to say free will gives us all the choice to do whats right and wrong each and every day. Some choose one path, some choose another.

Debate

The Senate is set to convene and resume consideration of S. 1805, and all the various amendments, at 9:30 a.m. As I stated before going to sleep last night, I've got a meeting from 10-11, so things will be quite here for the first hour.

Feel Free To Browse

To everyone here for the blow by blow on the gun debate . . . . feel free to bookmark me (or better yet, blogroll me) and browse the site. I highly recommend the John Kerry reading . . .

Once the firearms debate's over, I'll be back to my normal slightly offkilter left of liberal right wing ramblings.

I've got a mornign meeting from 10 - 11, so the blogging might not start until afterwards.

see you then



Time remaining until AW Ban expiration:

Feel Free To Browse

To everyone here for the blow by blow on the gun debate . . . . feel free to bookmark me (or better yet, blogroll me) and browse the site. I highly recommend the John Kerry reading . . .

Once the firearms debate's over, I'll be back to my normal slightly offkilter left of liberal right wing ramblings.

I've got a mornign meeting from 10 - 11, so the blogging might not start until afterwards.

see you then



Time remaining until AW Ban expiration:

Corzine Amendment - Law enforcement Law suits

John Corzine (A billionaire Senator - former head of Goldman Sachs investments so he is probably culpable in Enron, Worldcom, or some other fraud - from New Jersey) offered an amendment that none of the bill's provisions would prohibit an officer or employee of any federal, state or local law enforcement agency from recovering damages authorized under federal or state law in a civil action. This would have gutted the bill and given any big city police chief or mayor the right to do what they are doing now and again abuse the process.

Corzine Amdt. 2629
Rejected by a vote of 38-56

YEAs ---38
Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Daschle (D-SD)	Dayton (D-MN) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ)	Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Warner (R-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---56
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Dole (R-NC) Dorgan (D-ND)	Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY)	Miller (D-GA) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Voinovich (R-OH)

Not Voting - 6
Campbell (R-CO) Domenici (R-NM)	Edwards (D-NC) Kennedy (D-MA)	Kerry (D-MA) Murkowski (R-AK)

Frist Amendment - Law Enforcement Lawsuits

Senator Frist (R-TN) propsoed an amendment that clarified that an officer or employee of any federal, state or local law enforcement agency could recover damages authorized under federal or state law in a civil action as long as the lawsuit qualifies for an exemption under the provisions of the underlying bill.

Frist Amdt. No. 2630
Adopted by a vote of 60-34:

YEAs ---60
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Conrad (D-ND) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD)	Dayton (D-MN) Dole (R-NC) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ)	McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Voinovich (R-OH)

NAYs ---34
Akaka (D-HI) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Corzine (D-NJ) DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT)	Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT)	Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Warner (R-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 6
Campbell (R-CO) Domenici (R-NM)	Edwards (D-NC) Kennedy (D-MA)	Kerry (D-MA) Murkowski (R-AK)

Sniper Lawsuit Amendment - Mikulski Version

Barbara Mikulski (D-MD) proposed an amendment that created a specific exemption in the underlying bill to permit lawsuits involving a shooting victim of the October 2002 sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C. area.

Mikulski Amdt. No. 2627
Rejected by a vote of 40-56

YEAs ---40
Akaka (D-HI) Bayh (D-IN) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Daschle (D-SD) Dayton (D-MN)	DeWine (R-OH) Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ) Leahy (D-VT)	Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Nelson (D-FL) Reed (D-RI) Rockefeller (D-WV) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Warner (R-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---56
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Dole (R-NC) Domenici (R-NM)	Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ)	McConnell (R-KY) Miller (D-GA) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Voinovich (R-OH)

Not Voting - 4
Campbell (R-CO) Edwards (D-NC)	Kerry (D-MA) Murkowski (R-AK)

Frist Amendment - Sniper Victims

Sen. Frist (R-TN) introduced an amendment that would allow lawsuits involving a shooting victim of the October 2002 sniper attacks in the Washington, D.C. area to proceed as long as the lawsuit qualifies for an exemption under the provisions of the underlying bill. This is great. The political junkie in me loves this one. A real F.U. to those we don't like

Note:If you don't see whats so funny, email me, I'll explain it.

Frist Amdt. No. 2628
Adopted by a vote of 59-37:

YEAs ---59
Alexander (R-TN) Allard (R-CO) Allen (R-VA) Baucus (D-MT) Bayh (D-IN) Bennett (R-UT) Bond (R-MO) Breaux (D-LA) Brownback (R-KS) Bunning (R-KY) Burns (R-MT) Chambliss (R-GA) Cochran (R-MS) Coleman (R-MN) Collins (R-ME) Cornyn (R-TX) Craig (R-ID) Crapo (R-ID) Daschle (D-SD) Dole (R-NC)	Domenici (R-NM) Dorgan (D-ND) Ensign (R-NV) Enzi (R-WY) Frist (R-TN) Graham (R-SC) Grassley (R-IA) Gregg (R-NH) Hagel (R-NE) Hatch (R-UT) Hutchison (R-TX) Inhofe (R-OK) Johnson (D-SD) Kyl (R-AZ) Landrieu (D-LA) Lincoln (D-AR) Lott (R-MS) Lugar (R-IN) McCain (R-AZ) McConnell (R-KY)	Miller (D-GA) Nelson (D-FL) Nelson (D-NE) Nickles (R-OK) Pryor (D-AR) Reid (D-NV) Roberts (R-KS) Rockefeller (D-WV) Santorum (R-PA) Sessions (R-AL) Shelby (R-AL) Smith (R-OR) Snowe (R-ME) Specter (R-PA) Stevens (R-AK) Sununu (R-NH) Talent (R-MO) Thomas (R-WY) Voinovich (R-OH)

NAYs ---37
Akaka (D-HI) Biden (D-DE) Bingaman (D-NM) Boxer (D-CA) Byrd (D-WV) Cantwell (D-WA) Carper (D-DE) Chafee (R-RI) Clinton (D-NY) Conrad (D-ND) Corzine (D-NJ) Dayton (D-MN) DeWine (R-OH)	Dodd (D-CT) Durbin (D-IL) Feingold (D-WI) Feinstein (D-CA) Fitzgerald (R-IL) Graham (D-FL) Harkin (D-IA) Hollings (D-SC) Inouye (D-HI) Jeffords (I-VT) Kennedy (D-MA) Kohl (D-WI) Lautenberg (D-NJ)	Leahy (D-VT) Levin (D-MI) Lieberman (D-CT) Mikulski (D-MD) Murray (D-WA) Reed (D-RI) Sarbanes (D-MD) Schumer (D-NY) Stabenow (D-MI) Warner (R-VA) Wyden (D-OR)

Not Voting - 4
Campbell (R-CO) Edwards (D-NC)	Kerry (D-MA) Murkowski (R-AK)

Those Pesky Amendments

OK, sorry I missed the evenings debate but I do have a family to attend to.
I am going to start posting the results of todays amendments, because I don't think any other blogger has them up yet. The formating isn't going to be the best, so please forgive me, and just be thankful I can bring you the rolls.

I already dealt with Boxer's trigger lock amendment. The next up is the Unemployment Compensation amendment.

This one was defeated 58-39. The defeat was actually closer than this vote indicates. Since it involved a waiver of the budget act it needed a 2/3 majority to pass - or 60 votes. It fell 2 votes short. I've already posted my thoughts on the extension of unemployment rights.


YEAS (58)

REPUBLICANS (12)

Bond (MO) 
Dole (NC) 
Snowe (ME) 

Chafee (RI) 
McCain (AZ) 
Specter (PA) 

Collins, S. (ME) 
Murkowski, L. (AK) 
Talent (MO) 

DeWine (OH) 
Smith, G. (OR) 
Voinovich (OH) 

DEMOCRATS (45)

Akaka (HI) 
Dodd (CT) 
Levin, C. (MI) 

Baucus, M. (MT) 
Dorgan (ND) 
Lieberman (CT) 

Bayh (IN) 
Durbin (IL) 
Lincoln (AR) 

Biden (DE) 
Feingold (WI) 
Mikulski (MD) 

Bingaman (NM) 
Feinstein (CA) 
Murray (WA) 

Boxer (CA) 
Graham, B. (FL) 
Nelson, Ben (NE) 

Breaux (LA) 
Harkin (IA) 
Nelson, Bill (FL) 

Byrd (WV) 
Hollings (SC) 
Pryor (AR) 

Cantwell (WA) 
Inouye (HI) 
Reed, J. (RI) 

Carper (DE) 
Johnson, Tim (SD) 
Reid, H. (NV) 

Clinton (NY) 
Kennedy, E. (MA) 
Rockefeller (WV) 

Conrad (ND) 
Kohl (WI) 
Sarbanes (MD) 

Corzine (NJ) 
Landrieu (LA) 
Schumer (NY) 

Daschle (SD) 
Lautenberg (NJ) 
Stabenow (MI) 

Dayton (MN) 
Leahy (VT) 
Wyden (OR) 

INDEPENDENTS (1)

Jeffords (VT) 
 
 

NAYS (39)

REPUBLICANS (38)

Alexander, L. (TN) 
Domenici (NM) 
Lott (MS) 

Allard (CO) 
Ensign (NV) 
Lugar (IN) 

Allen, G. (VA) 
Enzi (WY) 
McConnell (KY) 

Bennett (UT) 
Fitzgerald (IL) 
Nickles (OK) 

Brownback (KS) 
Frist (TN) 
Roberts (KS) 

Bunning (KY) 
Graham, L. (SC) 
Santorum (PA) 

Burns, C. (MT) 
Grassley (IA) 
Sessions, J. (AL) 

Chambliss (GA) 
Gregg (NH) 
Shelby (AL) 

Cochran (MS) 
Hagel (NE) 
Stevens (AK) 

Coleman (MN) 
Hatch (UT) 
Sununu (NH) 

Cornyn (TX) 
Hutchison, K. (TX) 
Thomas, C. (WY) 

Craig (ID) 
Inhofe (OK) 
Warner (VA) 

Crapo (ID) 
Kyl (AZ) 
 

DEMOCRATS (1)

Miller, Z. (GA) 
 
 

INDEPENDENTS (0)

 

NOT VOTING (3)

REPUBLICANS (1)

Campbell (CO)  ?
 
 

DEMOCRATS (2)

Edwards, J. (NC)  ?
Kerry, J. (MA)  ?
 

INDEPENDENTS (0)

C-SPAN: Watch LIVE

I've got to head home soon. I'll try to continue bloggin gfrom there - and will be back in the morning and throughout the debate.Check out C-SPAN if you've got a high speed connection.

Its been fun. Till later

Go Craig Go!!!!

Craig Strikes Back

He clearly points out how the bill still allows litigation if you violate the law. The facts as described by the Ds are wrong. Craig is ticked off at Bull's Eye, but points out that Lee Malvo admits to stealing the gun.

Interesting question - if someone steals your car and goes drinking and then drives and kills someone, should you be responsible? Thats what the opponents of this legislation are arguing.

Craig is doing a great job on rebuttal.

Jack Reed

He's complaining that you can't bring negligence and negligence per se litigation and is questioning what other cases are being thrown out. He's also concerned about the effect the legislation would have had on the abortion sniper cases from a few years ago.

Jack Reed

Jack Reed is on the floor now complaining. He used to be my congressman (when I lived in Rhode Island). He hasn't improved any since then.

Raul Julia

The House just passed an amendment (422-0) honoring Raul Julia for his contributions to the performing arts.

She Has No Idea What She's Talking About

Mikuski is now complaining that the snipers where able to buy a one shot one kill Bull's Eye shooter (is that the Bushmaster - or as Kennedy referred to it, the Buck Master????) rifle and cause all this terror.

Come on, if you know your going to be on TV and speaking in front of the whole nation, at least get the basic names right.

Why should I trust anything she says if she doesn't even has a firm grasp on the most basic facts

She just yielded the floor to Dick Durbin of Illinois. Ugh! Good grief. He's talking about how his family was scared during the sniper incident.

Complaining about the gun dealer losing guns and how irresponsible and reckless he was.

More liberal rantings

Barbara Mikulski is complaining about the bill now. She thinks it gives the gun manufacturers a free ride by prohibiting them from seeking redress. Well, the problem is they shouldn't have the right to sue someone for nothing.

She is offering an amendment to ensure that the sniper victims have a right to sue. It protects current and future victims of sniper victims to sue. It creates an exemption only in cases involving John Allen Muhamed and Lee Boyd Malvo.

Uh, it sounds good, but I don't like it. Basically, Bushmaster did nothing wrong. Bull's eye did (maybe) and they (or at least the FFL holder) can still sue if they can prove Bull's Eye's FFL holder violated the law. Otherwise, what did they do thats wrong?

Assault Weapons Ban

Time remaining until AW Ban expiration:

Roll Call

Their calling the roll on the two non gun amendments

Gen. Coryn is on the floor

Sen.. Cornyn is on the floor. He's the former Attorney General of Texas. Missed what he was talking about, but I think it is the voting rights act. They are getting ready to vote on the two amendments. Unemployment and voting rights.

Hi-Vel Inc.

This is the web page Kennedy was talking about. Looks like lots of fun!!

I did think some of this was illegal, but Im not sure. I guess not.

In addition to marketing Armor Piercing Ammo, they also have Devastator Ammo that delivers all energy into the wound. Not sure how it works.

Actually, after looking around, its apparant that they sell different types of ammo in various calibers. Kennedy, of course, just wants to ban the caliber, not the type.

Chris Dodd

Dodd (D-CT) Doesn't want to deal with the right to vote amendment. Thinks it deserves much more time at a later date and that it will exclude millions of people. He is concnered that a million Hatians and latinos will be excluded.

He's just admitted that he's the only one in the chamber right now. Oh well. Glad he wants to end debate on the amendments. I say lets do it. Just vote on the Tort Reform Bill!!!! End the lawsuits. End the debate!!!

Columbine Killers and Police Had 15 Contacts, Official Says

The New York Times is reporting that the Columbine Killers and Police Had 15 Contacts.

So, the police knew these bastards were troublemakers all along. Then why didn't they do something earlier???

Are guns the problem?? Nope. Turns out that once again its an issue of the police and local officials not enforcing existing laws and intervening early enough.

Maybe now the Million Commie Mommies will disband and Rosie and her wife to be will move to San Fran permanently, never to be heard from again.

Congress Daily Reports

CongressDaily PM is reporting that other amendments we will be seeing include a repeal of the DC Gun Ban. Bravo!!!!! I'd take that!!!!

A new record

WOW! We have destroyed previous countertop-chronicles traffic records with our gun debate blogging today. And just to think, I've also finalized two sets of comments to the Dept of Agriculture (on biotech issues and energy issues) while blogging.

I Am The Multi Tasker!!!!

Concealed Carry Bill

For what its worth, a similar concealed carry provision was introduced last March by Sen. Campbell. It garnered 67 co-sponsors (more than enough to succeed) and passed out of the judiciary committee 18-1

Quorum Call

Kennedy just called for a short quorum call on the unemployment amendment.

Campbell Enters Hospital for "Non-Cardiac" Chest Pain

Some of you may have noticed that three senators are absent from todays voting. That liberal slime bag John Kerry, John "slip and fall" edwards are obvious absentees. The third is Republican Ben "Nighthorse" Campbell of Colorado. Roll call just reported that Sen. Campbell has checked himself into George Washington Hospital with mild chest pains. Initial diagnosis indicated the pain is non cardiac. Sen. Campbell is 70 years old. Please keep him in your thoughts.

Kennedy and his Letter

Kennedy keeps reading from these wonderful letters on the floor. These letters all allegedly come from his various constituents. Average people. People not in George Bush's world. Presumably not in your or my world either. People in Ted Kennedy's world.

What I find so amazing is that these average people, steam fitters, union members, dishwashers, etc etc etc, all seem to have an uncanny knowledge of the ins and outs of parlimenatary process. They know the details like only a 25 year member of the Senate would. They word the letters like they come from a Washington, D.C. special interest group. Yet, they keep claiming these come from average americans. LIke the kind who can't find europe on a map. Hmmm. No other comment really needed.

Voting Rights

Their talking about voting rights now. Kennedy is again on the floor, and still his committee can't refer me to Hi-Bel Inc.'s web page.

Kerry's A Smelly Frog

Don't despair Kerry haters ... I haven't forgotten about you!!!

Turns out, that amongst other reasons to hate Kerry, the Washington Times is reporting that he is a smelly, traitorous frog!

This says all you need to know

"I know my cousin, and I know he has a clear view of the rest of the world," said 58-year-old Brice Lalonde. "And sometimes the rest of the world feels a little bit left out, not understood by the United States."
"I must say too," added Mr. Lalonde, a former French environment minister and one-time presidential candidate, "his environmental policies are much better than Mr. George Bush's."

Go John Go

Ensign, not McCain.

He is calling Kennedy out - talking about the hundreds of millions given to Massachusetts to cover unemployment that has not been spent.

Maria Cantwell (the dot bomb bankrupt senator from Washington - real networks) is explaining the situation. Turns out that Massachussets has the funds appropriated to other programs. WHat? WHy not spend it on unemplyment.

Ensign strikes back - WE NEED FISCAL DISCIPLINE!!!

Kennedy on the floor again

This time he is ranting about unemployment. The real america. The two americas. George Bush's American and everyone elses America.

Mr. Kennedy? Where is your America?
The America where I can make a fortune as an illegal drug dealer (bootlegger) and rise to prominence in the senate as an alcoholic drunk driving windbag, and get away with murdering Mary Jo Kopechne

Gun Safety Device Vote

Here's the info on Boxers Amendment. Sorry it passed, but do not worry. It passed overwhelmingly, but it is bound to be stripped out in conference and there will be no recorded vote on its inclusion. Yes, those who voted here are wimps, trying to have it both ways, but that is politics. The Conference will be controlled by Republicans and unlike the energy bill, which barely passed the Senate, they will not be able to filibuster the Lawful Commerce In Arms Act.

This won't be on the bill voted out of congress and sent to the president, though it will be included in the Senate version sent to conference.

Gun Liability - Gun Safety Devices


Feb. 26, 2004 Senate Roll Call Vote 17 S 1805


Boxer, D-Calif., amendment no. 2620 that would prohibit the sale or transfer of handguns by a licensed manufacturer, importer or dealer unless a secure gun storage or safety device is provided for each handgun. It would exempt gun transfers to U.S. or state government agencies and law enforcement officials. It would provide civil liability exemptions for individuals who legally possess a handgun and use a secure gun storage or safety device. It also would impose penalties of up to $2,500 and license suspension or revocation for manufacturers, dealers or importers who sell a handgun without such locking devices.

Adopted by a vote of 70-27:
Republicans 25-25
Democrats 44-2 (Northern Democrats 37-1, Southern Democrats 7-1)
Independents 1-0
Note: Before adoption, the Senate adopted by voice vote the Kohl, D-Wis., second-degree amendment no. 2622 to the Boxer amendment no. 2620.

YEAS (70)

REPUBLICANS (25)

Bennett (UT) Frist (TN) Roberts (KS)
Brownback (KS) Grassley (IA) Santorum (PA)
Chafee (RI) Gregg (NH) Smith, G. (OR)
Cochran (MS) Hagel (NE) Snowe (ME)
Coleman (MN) Hutchison, K. (TX) Stevens (AK)
Collins, S. (ME) Lugar (IN) Voinovich (OH)
DeWine (OH) McCain (AZ) Warner (VA)
Domenici (NM) McConnell (KY)
Fitzgerald (IL) Murkowski, L. (AK)

DEMOCRATS (44)
Akaka (HI) Dodd (CT) Lieberman (CT)
Baucus, M. (MT) Dorgan (ND) Lincoln (AR)
Bayh (IN) Durbin (IL) Mikulski (MD)
Biden (DE) Feingold (WI) Murray (WA)
Bingaman (NM) Feinstein (CA) Nelson, Ben (NE)
Boxer (CA) Graham, B. (FL) Nelson, Bill (FL)
Breaux (LA) Harkin (IA) Pryor (AR)
Byrd (WV) Hollings (SC) Reed, J. (RI)
Cantwell (WA) Inouye (HI) Reid, H. (NV)
Carper (DE) Kennedy, E. (MA) Rockefeller (WV)
Clinton (NY) Kohl (WI) Sarbanes (MD)
Conrad (ND) Landrieu (LA) Schumer (NY)
Corzine (NJ) Lautenberg (NJ) Stabenow (MI)
Daschle (SD) Leahy (VT) Wyden (OR)
Dayton (MN) Levin, C. (MI)

INDEPENDENTS (1)
Jeffords (VT)

NAYS (27)

REPUBLICANS (25)

REPUBLICANS (25)
Alexander, L. (TN) Crapo (ID) Nickles (OK)
Allard (CO) Dole (NC) Sessions, J. (AL)
Allen, G. (VA) Ensign (NV) Shelby (AL)
Bond (MO) Enzi (WY) Specter (PA)
Bunning (KY) Graham, L. (SC) Sununu (NH)
Burns, C. (MT) Hatch (UT) Talent (MO)
Chambliss (GA) Inhofe (OK) Thomas, C. (WY)
Cornyn (TX) Kyl (AZ)
Craig (ID) Lott (MS)

DEMOCRATS (2)
Johnson, Tim (SD) Miller, Z. (GA)

Hi-Bel Inc.

Just got off the phone with Kennedy's Judiciary Staff again. The company he was talking about (the one marketing armor piercing bullets that can take down an airplace) his Hi-Bel Inc. Of course, they still can't actually give me an internet address. I'm wondering if Kennedy is puling our leg on this one. Have no fear ... they are just down the street from me. I will not give up on this one. The truth will set us free!!!!!!!!

Unemployment

I'm not entirely against an expansion of unemployment benefits. I've known too many people who lost jobs and had a difficult time finding jobs and don't think its unreasonable to extend the benefits for longer than 36 weeks.

While this should basically be a state issue, in those areas where states meet and people routinely cross state lines for employment it does become a legitimate federal issue. The situation exists here in DC but also in New York, Kansas City, St. Louis, and to a lesser extent Boston. Im sure its also going on in other cities.

Anyway, you can always find work, but sometimes finding the right job takes too long and once you accept a lesser job, you lose the opportunity to fully apply yourself to finding more appropriate employment.

Of course, any extension would need to have certain limits on it ... a definite time frame, showings of actual effort undertaken, etc.

In any case though, it doesn't belong in a Tort Reform bill.

Off the Gun Amendments

Back, just briefly.

Canwell is going to offer an unemployment compensation amendment. There are a number of non firearms amendments coming.

back to the meeting

Musings of The GeekWithA.45

As Geek With A .45 describes, Kennedy is frothing, and ranting, and screaming and shouting ... but Craig is rebutting rebutting rebutting.

Got to run. Have a meeting to attend (trying to file comments with the Ag Department today) Back in 30 minutes.


Oh wait, now he is upset that hunting rounds are unregulated. Oh No. anyone over 18 can hunt or possess. Kennedy is fuming. But so is Mary Jo Kopechne's family. Shouldn't there be laws against murders like Kennedy being a US Senator????


got to run, the boss is calling

Kennedy Still Doesn't Get It

Geek With A .45 is blogging away as well. Good job.

Kennedy still doesn't get it though. He's talking about my .30-30 taking a helicopter down, or a passanger plane.

More Kennedy Lies

Kennedy kept referring to some web page called Hi-Bell or Ti-Bell. I couldn't find it so I called his office for the address. Spoke to three people there, no one knows where the web page is and they said the staffer working on the issue and Sen. Kennedy were still on the floor.

I'm calling back later

Go Larry Go

Larry Craig just cited all the hunting rounds that Kennedy seeks to eliminate - including .30-30 and .30-06


Of course, being from Idaho, he calls it 30 Ought 6. I know the liberals are running scared

Kennedy's confusion

Well, know Kennedy is stating his bill doesn't apply to reasonable and mainstream activities and approrpiate types of ammunition like those used to hunt deer and turkey and ducks.

Of course, more hunting rifles are outfitted in .30-30 than any other cartridge in the world. So, I wonder which he means. . .

Is .30-30 a dangerous and out of the mainstream armor piercing round? Or is it a legitimate hunting round.

Rosie O'Donnell...

John at The-Crease comments on Rosie's reason for getting married ... and finds its for the Bennies.

In support of this conclusion he quotes Rosie:

We applied for spousal privilege and were denied it by the state. As a result, everything that I said to Kelli, every letter that I wrote her, every e-mail, every correspondence and conversation was entered into the record," O'Donnell said. "After the trial, I am now and will forever be a total proponent of gay marriage."

While I agree with his conclusion, I think he is missing the bigger problem. Its not that she is getting married for the benefits over loce, kids, and family, the bigger problem is that she is getting married to squash the truth and prevent testimony at trial.

The Big Fat Idiot Is Rambling On ...

and on and on and on about why Cops shouldn't carry guns and now he is rambling on and on and on about cop killer bullets and the need to outlaw them. Of course, he is talking about rifle rounds, not handgun rounds ... but of course all rifle rounds will pierce body armor (well, maybe not .22lr) He is holding up the web page of Ti Bell (but didnt give the internet address - and claiming that these things are evil. He cites .223 and 7.62x39 as the worst.

What - he is know going after 30-30. Calls it outrageous that this ammo is allowed to be sold. Calls it extreme and out of themainstream. What a second?????? Isnt 30-30 the ultimate hunting round??????????????????????????????


Aaaaaaahhhhhhh - Jump off a f'ing bridge Teddy

Concealed Carry Update!

OK, Orin Hatch is introducing his Amendment. It provides for nationwide concealed carry by law enforcement officers (on and off duty) and retired law enforcement officers.

Thats a good thing. Same standard should apply to all citizens, but we take our victories where we can get them. Jack Reed (D-RI) is a co-sponsor . . . so I do have some concern over its actual language.

Of course, Christopher Dodd is complaining again about the underlying bill. He is pissed off. Maybe the gun industry (which is located in Ct) and the insurance industry (which is in Ct) ought to tell him where to stick it come November

More Amendments

Looks like we are going to get some concealed carry amendment as well as a cop killer bullet amendment. Good grief.

Arlen Spector

You can tell he is in a close race, Arlen Spector just voted against Barbara Boxer's trigger lock amendment.

Peggy Noonan

As usual, Peggy Noonan has a column that once again warrants your time to read. She touches upon Kerry's ultimate unelectability; the gay marriage amendment, the difficult decision Bush made, and the dangers of moralizing; and the split in the electorate (it is now a fight over 4%).

More Gun Debate

Now Dachle is talking about the problems with the Indian Trust Fund and how badly mismanaged it has been by both parties.

Estimates of what is should contain range from 10 billion to 100s of billions. No one knows and the governemnt refuses to account for it.

If ever a reason for the 2nd Amendment presented itself, it is this theft.
Oh, now he is blaming everything on Bush ... all of a sudden its a Bush issue and he is trying to prevent settlement. As much as I disagree with the actions of the government, Bush is simply doing the same thing as everyone else (especially Clinton) and trying to protect the Union. The Indians should be paid, but Bush also has a duty to limit the damage to the nation as a whole.

Of course, what this has to do with the gun debate, I do not know.

More gun stuff

Tom Daschle just took the floor to offer an amendment and talk about another issue.

Not sure what it is but right now he is pandering to his constituents and firearms owners and how great they are and how the are important to America and how he would get on his knees and suck if thats what it takes to get re-elected.

Ooops, we knew it couldnt go on forever, because now he is talking about kids being killed and defective products and the need for trigger locks and that this is a bi partisan concern and that it goes a long way to balance the right of victims (how trigger locks do this I dont know) ... oh, but he is talking about the underlying act and his admendments to it (thats ok with me)

More on the Gun Debate

Boxer is now accepting that trigger locks are available easily enough, but she is still pushing to require trigger locks because kids find guns and use them.

She understands the need to avoid regulation, but can't get over the fact that kids are dying because guns aren't locked up. She is now citing the demands of the national safe kids campaign ... and repeating her bogus "facts" on the high rates of childhood deaths - especially in urban southern cities.

Uuuuh, but how many of those are gnag related homicide.

What most terrible about this amendment is that while Congress doesn't dictate the specifics of the devices, they have to be approved by the Consumer Products Safety Commission. The CPSC of course is the same agency that tried to force a recall of BB guns because of an inherent defect - you can point it at yourself and fire. I could just image what they would do to firearms, a product they are specifically prohibited from regulating because of their past political troublemaking, but which Boxer now wants them to have oversight of.

Go Larry Go

Larry Craig (R-ID) just put Sen. Boxer in her place. Craig is great!

Spare Me The Melodrama

She keeps going on and on and on and on and on about the freaken children. She's really pushing this trigger lock requirement, but is ignoring the fact that all guns come with them anyway these days.

Boxer Lies

Boxer is on the floor right now reapting the lies of the gun control crowd over the number of childhood deaths. How background checks at gun shows and a ban on semi automatic firearms affects the deaths of children is unknown. But I guess that really doesn't matter

Treasonous Kerry, The Masshole

So, know it appears that Kerrywas nothing but a pawn for the communists, willingly taking their propoganda and spreading it as the truth to sow the seeds of discontent and weaken the United States. Isn't that treasonous?

Frank Lautenberg Can Blow It Out His Ass

Lautenberg is on the floor right now rambling on and on about the Washington Snipers and how evil guns are. He can blow it out his ass.

Gosh, I am so glad I escaped the Peoples Republic of New Joisey.

Vietnam Veterans Against John Kerry

Cause they have important things to say.

Armageddon

WOW! Drudge just picked up this story, that we were almost wiped out by an asteroid! This news is going to prompt me to reconsider Tyler Cowen's position on the matter. I do admit that I didn't pay much attention to his post when it was first made.

Bogus Koran

Glen Reynolds comments on a widely circultated email containing an eerie prophecy concerning 9/11

Quran (9:11) -- For it is written that a son of Arabia would awaken a
fearsome Eagle. The wrath of the Eagle would be felt throughout the
lands of Allah and lo, while some of the people trembled in despair
still more rejoiced; for the wrath of the Eagle cleansed the lands of
Allah; and there was peace.

Glen thinks its bogus because his copy of the Koran says Sura 9 is "Repentance" and contains this verse 11:

Yet if they repent, and perform the prayer, and pay the alms, then they are your brothers in religion; and We distinguish the signs for a people who know.

In all matters Koran, I usually refer to the online The Holy Qur'an hosted by the University of Virginia. It's Chapter 9 is titled "The Immunity" and states the following at verse 11:

"9.11": But if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, they are your brethren in faith; and We make the communications clear for a people who know.

Pretty close to what Glenn found but with some unique and perhaps important differences. Repentence and Immunity, are indicative of completly seperate paths to a similar goal. Also interesting is the that the last sentence seems to say something different. What do these differences mean? I am not a scholar on the Koran but I would speculate they are simply within the margin of error of translating Arabic.

One thing nice about the online koran is that I am able to do a text search whenever I get these random emails. Most, alas, turn out to be bogus. My search of the entire text for the terms eagle, bird, and falcon turned up no passages.

An Eerie Silence

The last few days we've witnessed an incredible amount of noise on the part of the liberal media heavywieghts about how evil republican's were looking to arm baby killers, father rapers, drug addicts, terorrists, and all the while spitting on the god given American right to sue you, me, he, she, and anyone else regardless of culpability as long as they have money that we need to balance our budgets.

Its therefore rather surprising that I am having such a hard time finding any reports on the Senate's overwhelming vote of confidence in the Lawful Arms in Commerce Act.

Oh, wait a minute, no its not. These people don't want anyone to know how extreme their views are and how mainstream the second amendment actually is.

Rejoice!!!! We Will Be Set Free!

We still have some way to go, but it's now clear that the Lawful Commerce In Firearms Act will pass the Senate. With a 75-22 count, it has overwhelming support, showing liberal claims of being mainstream for what they are. Still, some work remains in ensuring that 16 votes don't flip over the Assault Weapons and Gun Show Bans.

Gun Porn II

AK-47

Time remaining until AW Ban expiration:








In honor and hope of the United States Senate doing the right and honorable thing this week by passing the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act without any amendments (and specifically without renewing the so called "assualt weapons" ban) I bring you a special double header of Gun Porn . . .

As they say, there is nothing like a good double teaming, and todays selections are sure to satisfy.
First, we looked at the venerable Smith & Wesson .357 Magnum. Mmmm Mmmm Mmmmm.
And for round two, I present the World's Finest Assault Weapon, Mikhail Kalashnikov's baby, the AK-47!

Oooh, I can see the GFW's running scared now.
For all you need and want to know about this fine piece of equipment, visit AK-47.net

We are gonna have a good time this weekend!!!!!

Gun Porn

The Smith & Wesson 6" 686P in .357 Magnum

• Caliber: .357 Magnum®/.38 S&W Special +P


• Capacity: 7 Rounds


• Barrel Length: 6"


• Front Sight: Red Ramp


• Rear Sight: Adjustable White Outline


• Grip: Hogue Rubber/ SB


• Trigger: .312" Smooth Target


• Hammer: .375" Target


• Frame: L-Medium


• Finish: Satin Stainless


• Overall length: 11-15/16"


• Material: Stainless Steel


• Weight Empty: 43 ounces

My brother is bringing his down this weekend. Jealous?

Wictory Wednesday

So, has the liberal bias pissed you off enough? Has that clueless twit a-hole John Kerry got your blood boiling in a rage.

Well, do not despair. There is hope and there are things you can do!

Don't Get Mad. Get Even!

Today is Wictory Wednesday. Every Wednesday from now till election day, I will ask my readers to volunteer and/or donate to the Bush campaign if they haven't done so already. And if you have volunteered and donated, then get a friend to join you. It's the only way to defeat the lying liberal media and their special interest pandering whores in Congress and in the Kerry Campaign.

If you're a blogger, you can join Wictory Wednesday simply by putting up a post like this every Wednesday, asking your readers to volunteer and/or donate to the president's re-election campaign.

Kerry, The Interventionist

The New York Times conducted a sit down interview with John "Give Peace A Chance" Kerry today. Amongst the nuggets are these forceful comments:

He said that if he were president, he would be pressing Haitian rebels to back off their goal of toppling Mr. Aristide, perhaps by threatening the deployment of an international peacekeeping force.

"I think you've got to be real and threatening," he said. His message to the rebels, he said, would be: "You're not going to take over, you're not kicking him out, this democracy is going to be sustained, we're willing to put in a new government, new prime minister, we're willing to work with you, but you're not going to succeed in your goal of exiling" Mr. Aristide. "And unless that's clear, you can't necessarily stop it in its tracks."


So, does that mean he now supports the President's strong actions in Iraq? Well, we don't and apparantely neither does the more liberal senator from Taxachussets because apparently:

Mr. Kerry acknowledged that he did not fully know the diplomatic strategy of the Bush administration to deal with Haiti's crisis.

Isn't that something he should figure out before leveling criticism?

More Gay Marriage Stuff

John at The Creasehas clarified his earlier statements and seems to recognize what my intent was - that two people can call themseves whatever they want.

I've seriously got to get back to work, and hopefully will avoid posting on this for the rest of the day.

More Gay Marriage Stuff

The Crease has taken exception to some of my comments on the gay marriage debate, stating that I make some

interesting points, but to me he seems to be viewing the issue through a rather narrow scope. He's casting the issue on individual terms, when really it's a broad societal issue.

John goes on to say that the issue is really much greater than I am casting it as, and that it influences the basic foundations of our society.

Generally, I tend to agree with them, but more importantly I think he has misunderstood what I meant by stating

As a libertarian, I generally believe we are each free to do what we want as long as our actions don't directly hurt others. To that end, I have no problem with homosexual's doing what they do or referring to themselves as married.

All I was implying was that in the privacy of ones bedroom and thoughts, we can each call ourselves and see ourselves in whatever light we want. What I was not doing was making a statement on the impact of legalized and state recognized gay marriage on anyone else.

I have my own personal feelings on the subject, but I haven't fully developed them to the point of willingly sharing with them. When I do, I will post them. However, I always support the right of anyone to try and challenge society and to change norms and the law but do not necessarily agree with the intent of all campaigns seeking change.

Its the old "I defend your right to say what you want, even if I don't agree with it" standard. I'd chalk it up to the golden rule - Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You.

Shouldn't we call it the John Kerry Award

Sorry for just getting to this, but I hate the pro-bowl. Anyway, in his season ending, post Pro Bowl, Tuesday Morning Quarterback column, Gregg Easterbrook hands out awards for the worst predictions of the previous season. One, by Washington's own Joe Theisman, deserves what from heretofore shall be known as the John Kerry Award:

Having it both ways: On the same day that he predicted Bucs over Pats in the ESPN meta-forecast, Joe Theismann predicted Pats over Bucs in his own column. So Joe "predicted" the correct Super Bowl winner, but also predicted the incorrect Super Bowl winner.

Easterbrook also hands out a couple of bad prediction awards to the New York Times. The first concerns their Iraq war predictions.

Bonus bad prediction! A week after American and British forces entered Iraq, the New York Times editorial page declared, "At this point the odds favor Saddam."

Where is the investigation into the Times post Iraq entry intelligence? The injustice! The injustice!

The second, of course could serve as runner up in the John Kerry Award contest:

In one place in a two-page spread of NFL predictions, the New York Times said the Giants would win the NFC championship. In another place in the same spread, the same paper said the Bucs "will repeat" as NFC champions.

Gay Marriage Amendment

Sadly it has come to this. A wise law professor of mine gave his students two bits of important advice. The first, don't get caught holding the bag isn't applicable here. The second, Pigs Get Slaughtered is.

The shenanigans and hijinks of a greedy and impatient gay community, not content with the tremendous gains of the last few years, have grown more and more vocal and are now demanding full marital rights. In the face of opposition to this idea, they have resorted to sneaky judicial activism and outright contempt for the law in the loony kooky kook lands of Massachussets and San Francisco. As a result of these foolish, impatient, and petty actions, they are going to force a massive national debate on the subject and a concerted effort to change the constitution, with President Bush’s endorsement. Not only does the amendment stand a good chance of passing but the ensuing fight stands to roll back many (if not all) of the gains they have made as a community over the last two decades.

I have remained rather quiet on the issue of gay marriage. The reasons are many, but essentially, it is because the issue has little effect on me. As a libertarian, I generally believe we are each free to do what we want as long as our actions don't directly hurt others. To that end, I have no problem with homosexual's doing what they do or referring to themselves as married. I appreciate the Gay community's desire for mainstream and legal/governmental acceptance of their marriage and find it understandable on both a financial and an emotional level. Being married I am free to enjoy all the benefits of society and can't even begin to imagine what life without them might be like. However, many people for entirely rational (and for that case both historical and biological) reasons are strongly opposed to the idea of gay marriage and as a result, the constitution stands a good chance of being amended. Whenever that occurs, and the the actions of one group threaten to undermine the rights of many (and any effort to Amend the constitution is rife with risk of this sort) I have to speak up.

While a libertarian, and fan of "stirring things up" I am particularly cautious when changing a fundamental law and trait of human relations that has reached across all societies and cultures for as long as humans walked on the earth. In other words, billions of years of precedent should not be thrown out the window in the course of a few months (actually, the debate has gone on much longer, and I've been aware of it dating back at least to the mid 1990s, before Vermont to a Hawaiian Supreme Court case, and to Scandinavia before that).

Before the recent hijinks, I thought that mainstream acceptance of gay marriage was bound to happen eventually, just not for a few more years. By forcing the issue now though, these activists are going to ensure that gay marriages (and perhaps even civil unions) are not recognized. As someone said in the debate (I'll post the link when I find it) when 2.5% of the country begins to forcefully dictate its terms to the other 97.5%, they are always crushed like a grape.

What I have always felt was a better strategic move for the gay community on the issue (especially in light of the Robinson fiasco with the Episcopal Church) is to force the issue of gay marriage not through equal protection but under the much stronger Freedom of Religion clause in the First Amendment. Instead of forcing societies hand, and relying on the poorly constructed and reasoned fiats of judicial activists, Gays should have instead sought marriage within an accepted mainstream church (as much as it annoys me, the Episcopal Church would have been the most welcoming target of this type of strategy). Once married by a church, any federal or state prohibition on the recognition becomes much more difficult to sustain. As a result, it would become easier and far less controversial for any court to make a well reasoned and properly constructed defense of the 1st Amendment's Freedom of Religion clause and Congress and the President would be far more loath to tinker with the Bill of Rights (though you never known, the Democratic Party has been seeking to repeal the Second Amendment for most of my life)

On the related issue of the Episcopal Church's anointment of Gay Bishop Robinson, I've been very concerned that his appointment was in direct violation of the Church's cannons and rules (not to mention the bible itself). In light of how powerful the influence of gay and liberal activists seem to be within the Church, the same result could have been achieved without creating such massive turmoil by simply seeking to amend the church's cannons. Once that occurred Robinson could have been considered for Bishop. While it would have taken slightly longer to occur, and a fight would still have ensued, it would not be nearly as bloody as the one occurring now within the Episcopal Church because one of the pillars of opposition to Robinson's appointment would have been removed - the Church’s own prohibition against gays. As it stands now, the prohibition remains in place with Robinson and the Anglican hierarchy thumbing their nose at the rule of church law.