[Carry_Okie]

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?

[sinkspur]

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.

This bill prevents and, in fact, nullifies existing lawsuits against gunmakers.

Indeed, I would think Paul would be in favor, since it prevents the assault against the financial assets of gun companies by bleeding them dry through legal defenses.

But, as in many of his votes, Paul comes out on the losing end.

I've lost all respect I ever had for Paul with his childish petulance about the war against Hussein.

I hope he feels like hell tonight.

[StriperSniper]

in any way.

I think he will only vote for removing one that shouldn't be there in the first place, or as you said in all other cases.

[!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?