House PASSES Ban on frivolous lawsuits on gunmakers!!! (ROLL CALL - Who voted what)

Thomas ^ | 4-9-03

[demosthenes the elder]

oh, you done did it now, tom!

[demosthenes the elder]

that is pretty deep.
not sure I thoroughly agree on all points.
am quite thoroughly sure I am not prepared to offer an equally cogent counterargument.

[tpaine]

Yes. A squealing plethora of oinkings about 'begging questions' will soon descend upon us from our FR soi-King.

[Carry_Okie]

Well if you'd like to read others' opinons about what I have to say on the topic of civic regulation, consider this.

[The Wizard]

good for the house

[demosthenes the elder]

I went, I read (some 5 pages), I bookmarked.
good stuff, too good for rapid digestion - stuff needing time for quiet reflection and analysis.
I assume you ar Mark Edward Vande Pol?
I tip my hat.

[Carry_Okie]

A "letter of marque" strategy is a waste of time.

It's been a year and a half since the government set out to get him. How much did it cost?

Seeing as you are an expert, how big would the contract have to be to entice someone to get it done? I'd bet we'd have saved both time and money.

[demosthenes the elder]

urrrh... you say that as if that is a good thing.

[tpaine]

If government is doing less, our chances for individual liberty clearly improve.
54 -CO-

And it becomes obvious that if we restrict governments to their proper role, -- protecting individual liberty; -- chances are excellent that terrorism against governments would fade away, as it is an unproductive & stupid way to attempt to gain liberty.

[Carry_Okie]

Thanks for your time. There are a lot of people who can't read material that dense, especially 400 pages of it. The good news is that there are not a few humor breaks.

[TC Rider]

Interesting. I note that NC's Bob Etheridge (D) did the weasel dance voting yes for the bill, then voting for all of the ammendments to water it down.

[demosthenes the elder]

once I get a bit deeper into it, and see whether you have addressed the issue, it might be interesting to get your take on the global warming issue... on Mars.

[sinkspur]

Seeing as you are an expert, how big would the contract have to be to entice someone to get it done? I'd bet we'd have saved both time and money.

Well, there's a $25 million bounty on his head. And the money is still in the bank.

[Roscoe]

1) Citizens have a right, protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, to keep and bear arms.

(2) Lawsuits have been commenced against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, and importers of firearms that operate as designed and intended, which seek money damages and other relief for the harm caused by the misuse of firearms by third parties, including criminals.

(3) The manufacture, importation, possession, sale, and use of firearms and ammunition in the United States are heavily regulated by Federal, State, and local laws. Such Federal laws include the Gun Control Act of 1968, the National Firearms Act, and the Arms Export Control Act.

Cheerleading the federalization of gun control?

[demosthenes the elder]

what have you DONE?!? cf#74

[Carry_Okie]

$25 million is chump change. A billion or more sounds about right. It's a steal compared to the cost of this operation.

[Captain Kirk]

Of course, Paul could lose his seat. Unlike most Republicans and Democrats, that is not his first priority. Fortunately, there are still men and women in the world who care more about principle than winning the next election.

2004 is still a long way to go as politics go....we shall see what is happening at the point with new "democratic government" of Iraq...that is if they don't all stab each other first.

[!1776!]

My guess is that Mr. Paul voted against the bill because he believes that the Congress doesn't have the Constitutional power to be passing legislation concerning or regulating private arms ownership or commerce in any way.

Perhaps he found the findings in the bill objectionable?

That may be the case.

My question to you is, if his was the deciding vote on this specific issue, which way would have you wanted him to vote?

From a real world standpoint, would the clear intent of the Constituion be more supported by a yes vote based on content or a no vote based on process?

[Carry_Okie]

My question to you is, if his was the deciding vote on this specific issue, which way would have you wanted him to vote?

From a real world standpoint, would the clear intent of the Constituion be more supported by a yes vote based on content or a no vote based on process?

Tough question. Obviously my first act would be to offer an amendment to strike the findings with a memorandum explaining the operant constitutional principles inserted into the record.

Failing that, the choice to make a principled decsion to vote no based upon process would depend upon on a couple of prerequisites: 1) confidence in the ability of activist groups or the DOJ to set up a case correctly and and bring an effective suit on the constitutionality of the law, AND 2)confidence in the appelate and supreme court system to come to an expeditious decision and confine the case to constitutional principles rather than boot it on political grounds.

I know; that's a tall order, one that is unsupported by historical performance of the courts and the justice department in bringing the cases to a head (note how the administration just booted Emerson). Some might say it's a totally unrealistic choice. Thank goodness we aren't in a position where Mr. Paul was faced with that choice.

Failing any confidence in the courts and faced with having to make the deciding vote, my choice would be to go with the second, obviously more expedient though "unprincipled" option. My reason would hinge upon what I call "feed-forward" in political processes. A good example is leftist schools that produce leftist professors that train leftist teachers... Without gun owners, there simply wouldn't be an organized and effective constituency for armed self-defense. Sometimes you just have to throw a wrench in the spokes to buy time, all self-righteousness to the contrary.

The reason for my apparent breach of principle is the key distinction between our current situation and that faced by the founders. It illustrates why such choices now carry such import and peril:

• The accrual of civic power is increasingly irreversible;
• The disparity in firepower and organizational technology between government and an armed citizenry has become immense;
• The performance of the justice system is so tedious, expensive, and protracted that irreversible harm can be done while in pursuit of a judgment; and finally
• The bureaucratic propensity to simply ignore the law has become depressingly commonplace.

We are so far down the road to serfdom that one must grab a rope on the way into the vortex not knowing how secure it might be. Hence the non-optimal choice is still supported by principle.

[!1776!]

The reason for my apparent breach of principle is the key distinction between our current situation and that faced by the founders. It illustrates why such choices now carry such import and peril:

It is a tough question, but that is where we get a chance to put our principles to the test...

Personally, I don't believe it would be a breach of those principles because the issue at hand in this case tests a very specific principle - should frivilous lawsuits against the firearms industry (or any industry for that matter) be allowed?

Is taking part in that decision supportive of the flawed process? Maybe.

I think a bigger question is whether or not the sum of very narrow, specific stands on specific issues based on issue specific principles would "equal" the total principle base you are working from.

Does or can the sum of the parts equal the whole?

I'm thinking too much for a Saturday...