Quoted: also, I agree with Lippo to a certain extent.... The amendment does direct the AG to conduct testing that *could* ultimately erode our rights

In the Senate version. The House has not even touched it this year.

It's a study whose results are reported to the Congress. The AG can do NOTHING on his own.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Edit: Not worth it. People know that disinformation is our enemy. We need to be on the lookout for the anti gunners in our midst. Ok, let's clear something up.... For those of you saying that the amedment wasn't included....what is your source????? Also, the congressional record for yesterday will be published sometime today. We can see exactly what was said in support of this amendment. I agree, it passed...THE SENATE. However, it did nothing to alter the ability to posses AP ammo, nor did it alter the definition. Some people just need to be outraged.

Yet!

I'm not outraged. This is just wrong. And at least I'm willing to say the truth.

Quoted: Quoted: also, I agree with Lippo to a certain extent.... The amendment does direct the AG to conduct testing that *could* ultimately erode our rights In the Senate version. The House has not even touched it this year. It's a study whose results are reported to the Congress. The AG can do NOTHING on his own.

Yes, I understand that dport....I used to work up there ya know...

You forgot this part lippo:

(3) REPORT- Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act, the Attorney General shall submit a report containing the results of the study conducted under this subsection to-- (A) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the Senate; and (B) the chairman and ranking member of the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives.

The AG is to report his findings to the Congress. They make the decisions, not him.

So sit down already and stop screaeming bloody murder.

You guys ough to jump off LIPPO's back.

The REPUB's -- for reasons I cannot fathom (all they had to do was reject Kennedy's amendment flat) -- have made a power delegation to the executive branch.

From a separation of powers standpoint, these are BAD because a PURELY political actor appointed by and serving at the pleasure of a chief executive can take drastic actions. (think of all of Clinton's EO's).

I dare say that if this crap makes it though conf. committee (hopefully it won't), then what would prevent an AG from making a report like this:

REPORT OF THE AG. CONCLUSION:   IT IS FEASIBLE TO TEST VARIOUS AMMO VIZ ARMOR PIERCING BULLETS.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCLUDES THAT THE TESTING NEED NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHETHER ANY PARTIUCLAR PROJECTILE FROM ANY PARTICULAR WEAPON WILL PIERCE LEVEL IV ARMOR.  IF SO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCLUDES SUCH AMMUNITION IS DANGEROUS AND SUGGESTS THAT IT BE REMOVED FROM THE 'SPORTING' CATEGORY UNDER THE REGS.

That is all it would take.  

Quoted: also, I agree with Lippo to a certain extent.... The amendment does direct the AG to conduct testing that *could* ultimately erode our rights

maybe it's an issue of semantics or legalese, but it doersn't read that way to me (then again, I'm not a lawyer).

1) STUDY- The Attorney General shall conduct a study to determine whether a uniform standard for the testing of projectiles against Body Armor is feasible.

By the language, it doesn' call for a performance based test proceedure to determine if a certain round, load or firearm/ammunition combination is aromor piercing.

It calls for a study to see if it's even feasible (fair, consistant), to set up a standard for testing whether or not which ammo (based on performance), is armor piercing.

Quoted: Quoted: SS109 isn't AP. Oh, well goodie for you. Make some more apologies for them.

LMAO! He isn't making excuses for anyone just pointing out YOUR mistake!

It calls for a study to see if it's even feasible (fair, consistant), to set up a standard for testing whether or not which ammo (based on performance), is armor piercing.

When Congress calls for a report on an issue like this, they really limit their ability to do anything legislatively that is off base with the report.

The report that is called for here can make gunowners lives hell in a few years.

You'll have Feinstein waving around a report talking about how feasible it is to deal with "cop killer" bullets and the republicants not passing legislation.  It will let them further push the divide between LEOs and non LEOs.

Be wary any time the government says "lets study this."

My point is WHY?

What was the point of the amendment?   Do we have a majority or don't we.

Quoted: REPORT OF THE AG. CONCLUSION:   IT IS FEASIBLE TO TEST VARIOUS AMMO VIZ ARMOR PIERCING BULLETS.  THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCLUDES THAT THE TESTING NEED NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ANYTHING OTHER THAN WHETHER ANY PARTIUCLAR PROJECTILE FROM ANY PARTICULAR WEAPON WILL PIERCE LEVEL IV ARMOR.  IF SO, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CONCLUDES SUCH AMMUNITION IS DANGEROUS AND SUGGESTS THAT IT BE REMOVED FROM THE 'SPORTING' CATEGORY UNDER THE REGS. That is all it would take.

Except that the section clearly states...

A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and

(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.


If barrel lengths and amount of powder are  to be cosidered (given the thousands of possible combinations),  how could they arrive at a uniform standard?

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: also, I agree with Lippo to a certain extent.... The amendment does direct the AG to conduct testing that *could* ultimately erode our rights In the Senate version. The House has not even touched it this year. It's a study whose results are reported to the Congress. The AG can do NOTHING on his own. Yes, I understand that dport....I used to work up there ya know...

It wasn't for you, it was for some "other" people.

Quoted: It calls for a study to see if it's even feasible (fair, consistant), to set up a standard for testing whether or not which ammo (based on performance), is armor piercing. When Congress calls for a report on an issue like this, they really limit their ability to do anything legislatively that is off base with the report. The report that is called for here can make gunowners lives hell in a few years. You'll have Feinstein waving around a report talking about how feasible it is to deal with "cop killer" bullets and the republicants not passing legislation.  It will let them further push the divide between LEOs and non LEOs. Be wary any time the government says "lets study this." My point is WHY? What was the point of the amendment?   Do we have a majority or don't we.

That is a good question... consider that this was the LAST amendment proposed....

There was absolutely no need to add this unless a side deal was made to add it....which it appears there was.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SS109 isn't AP. Oh, well goodie for you. Make some more apologies for them. LMAO! He isn't making excuses for anyone just pointing out YOUR mistake!

Please note that he has, at this time, failed to edit his hystrionic, lying lead in.  

You might want to ask yourself why.  

Quoted: It calls for a study to see if it's even feasible (fair, consistant), to set up a standard for testing whether or not which ammo (based on performance), is armor piercing. When Congress calls for a report on an issue like this, they really limit their ability to do anything legislatively that is off base with the report. The report that is called for here can make gunowners lives hell in a few years. You'll have Feinstein waving around a report talking about how feasible it is to deal with "cop killer" bullets and the republicants not passing legislation.  It will let them further push the divide between LEOs and non LEOs. Be wary any time the government says "lets study this." My point is WHY? What was the point of the amendment?   Do we have a majority or don't we.

There's no mention of funding the study.

If it even comes up again, our side can just vote to deny the funding of it.

Guys...

Do a search for lippo's posts.  

I seriously doubt that any argument is going to sway his opinion on EVILE repuglikins .

This thread needs to be canned.

Quoted: This thread needs to be canned.

That is funny. All the supposed gun rights advocates have no problem with the incrementalism, however they do have a problem with any Republican being called a politician. If you discuss anything you diagree with Rep. politicians you get asshat comments like the one above. Guzzel the Kool-Aid.

Quoted: Quoted: This thread needs to be canned. That is funny. All the supposed gun rights advocates have no problem with the incrementalism, however they do have a problem with any Republican being called a politician. If you discuss anything you diagree with Rep. politicians you get asshat comments like the one above. Guzzel the Kool-Aid.

I lived in MO for 4 years, so you're going to have to SHOW ME the incrementalism in the law. In fact, show me where this "incrementalism" in the final version of the bill, you know the one where the House and the Senate have agreed on the language.

Guzzel the Kool-Aid.

You can't spell either?  You and lippo should hook up and study together.

Quoted: Quoted: This thread needs to be canned. That is funny. All the supposed gun rights advocates have no problem with the incrementalism, however they do have a problem with any Republican being called a politician. If you discuss anything you diagree with Rep. politicians you get asshat comments like the one above. Guzzel the Kool-Aid.

This thread is full of garbage and incorrect information. Hey guys, the AWB creeped into SB397 too

I don't personally attack anyone here, don't attack me.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SS109 isn't AP. Oh, well goodie for you. Make some more apologies for them. How about posting the text to the amendment? Also is this the final bill coming out of the House-Senate Committee where they finalize the language before passing the final version and sending it to the President? Riders get attached all the time before bills are sent to this committee where they get axed in the name of setting up a common language. What I posted is what was posted on the Thomas site. I put it all there. And THIS was agreed too, and will be on the final bill given to the president to sign. Like the patriot act, it's vague and will give the government OPEN SEASON on AP ammo. You all say, oh, don't worry, it's only some language. WHY IS IT IN THERE THEN? And the way it looks, it WILL stay for the president to sign.

The main question is, WTF you need with AP ammo any way?  Plan on shooting up an armored convoy?  Regulating AP ammo is the same as regulating explosives or Full Auto weapons.  Although I firmly believe it to be unconstitutional, it has no real effect on the average citizen.

Quoted: Guzzel the Kool-Aid. You can't spell either?  You and lippo should hook up and study together.

Cool it man... Lippo is no troll.

A test and report on "armor peircing" ammunition sounds like bad juju....

What exactly is considered "armor peircing" thats the problem

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: SS109 isn't AP. Oh, well goodie for you. Make some more apologies for them. How about posting the text to the amendment? Also is this the final bill coming out of the House-Senate Committee where they finalize the language before passing the final version and sending it to the President? Riders get attached all the time before bills are sent to this committee where they get axed in the name of setting up a common language. What I posted is what was posted on the Thomas site. I put it all there. And THIS was agreed too, and will be on the final bill given to the president to sign. Like the patriot act, it's vague and will give the government OPEN SEASON on AP ammo. You all say, oh, don't worry, it's only some language. WHY IS IT IN THERE THEN? And the way it looks, it WILL stay for the president to sign. The main question is, WTF you need with AP ammo any way?  Plan on shooting up an armored convoy?  Regulating AP ammo is the same as regulating explosives or Full Auto weapons.  Although I firmly believe it to be unconstitutional, it has no real effect on the average citizen.

For that matter what do you even need guns for?

After all, we have police to protect us. Next will be you can only store 200 rounds at a time. Wait, let's wait till then to bitch.

Quoted: The main question is, WTF you need with AP ammo any way?  Plan on shooting up an armored convoy?  Regulating AP ammo is the same as regulating explosives or Full Auto weapons.  Although I firmly believe it to be unconstitutional, it has no real effect on the average citizen.

WTF do you NEED a gun?


I happen to like buying cheap surplus bullets.

Quoted: Quoted: The main question is, WTF you need with AP ammo any way?  Plan on shooting up an armored convoy?  Regulating AP ammo is the same as regulating explosives or Full Auto weapons.  Although I firmly believe it to be unconstitutional, it has no real effect on the average citizen. Oh, this should be interesting.

+1 I never thought I'd hear that question come from an arfcommer...

Do you NEED an AR15, do you NEED an AK47, do you NEED more than 10 rounds, do you NEED this or that? No, we don't need it, yet.

It's cripping to need and not have, than have an not need. I've got AP rifle ammo stacked up for the blue helmets when they come to confiscate my weapons.

Quoted: The main question is, WTF you need with AP ammo any way?  Plan on shooting up an armored convoy?  Regulating AP ammo is the same as regulating explosives or Full Auto weapons.  Although I firmly believe it to be unconstitutional, it has no real effect on the average citizen.

If you don't know what you're talking about, don't post.

Oh how I long for school to start

Quoted: The main question is, WTF you need with AP ammo any way?  Plan on shooting up an armored convoy?  Regulating AP ammo is the same as regulating explosives or Full Auto weapons.  Although I firmly believe it to be unconstitutional, it has no real effect on the average citizen.

You can't give the anti's a single fucking inch. Not even a half a hair. Otherwise the scum sucking bastards will be around asking why you need XM193, or regular capacity magazines. What part of "shall not be infringed" is giving you difficulty? It doesn't matter what I "need". You don't get it do you? Have you ever used the phrase "sensible gun control"? Fuck, dude, think about what you are saying. The full auto ban, importation of parts ban, next it's gonna be ammo that "has been found to be capable of piercing armor".

GT
I need a howitzer.

Quoted: Quoted: The main question is, WTF you need with AP ammo any way?  Plan on shooting up an armored convoy?  Regulating AP ammo is the same as regulating explosives or Full Auto weapons.  Although I firmly believe it to be unconstitutional, it has no real effect on the average citizen. You can't give the anti's a single fucking inch. Not even a half a hair. Otherwise the scum sucking bastards will be around asking why you need XM193, or regular capacity magazines. What part of "shall not be infringed" is giving you difficulty? It doesn't matter what I "need". You don't get it do you? Have you ever used the phrase "sensible gun control"? Fuck, dude, think about what you are saying. The full auto ban, importation of parts ban, next it's gonna be ammo that "has been found to be capable of piercing armor". GT I need a howitzer.

Yup, we have to keep winning everytime, they only have to win once.

Honestly... I think some of you guys are looking for a conspiracy where there is none... that we got sold out by the NRA and Craig after winning on a major firearms related bill that took years to pass? C'mon, just look at the Senators who voted against it!

I suspect this is more like a final kick-in-the-pants to the antis to kill the "cop killer" ammo debate once and for all.

The feasability study calls for "performance" based testing (Kennedys amendment was performance based).

This shit came up before in 1986.

www.nraila.org/Issues/FactSheets/Read.aspx?ID=55

Publicity-hungry anti-gun members of Congress soon recognized that NBC`s "Cop Killer Bullet" term was the most exciting buzzword since "Saturday Night Special." Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.) introduced "a bill to stop the proliferation of `cop-killer` bullets." Biaggi`s bill proposed a performance based prohibition, which would have outlawed any bullet that, when fired from a 5" barrelled handgun, would be capable of penetrating the equivalent of 18 layers of Kevlar, the tradename of a fiber used in the construction of soft body armor.

Technical experts of the FBI, BATF, Secret Service and police forensic labs throughout the country warned that a performance based ban would be impractical and unenforceable. The National Rifle associaition (NRA) warned additionally that it would have affected more than 85% of commonplace, conventional hunting and target shooting rifle ammunition, in addition to the specialty handgun rounds that were the intended targets of the bill. NRA joined many in law enforcement in opposition to the bill.

Federal and local law enforcement experts could not think of an acceptable approach to restricting the ammunition, but with input from the NRA, the original performance-based concept was discarded for one based upon the design and construction of the projectiles themselves. In 1986, after a four-year battle, Congress approved H.R. 3121, which prohibited the sale, other than to law enforcement and the armed forces, of ammunition manufactured with "a projectile or projectile core which may be used in a handgun and which is constructed entirely (excluding the presence of traces of other substances) from one or a combination of tungsten alloys, steel, iron, brass, bronze, beryllium copper, or depleted uranium," other than shotgun shot required by federal regulations for hunting and other specifically-described projectiles. Upon that bill`s passage, the original sponsor, Rep. Mario Biaggi (D-N.Y.), said "Our final legislative product was not some watered-down version of what we set out to do. In the end, there was no compromise on the part of police safety." Despite NRA`s help in writing the law, the anti-gun lobby continues to claim that NRA opposed it.

The original 1986 "cop killer bullet" act specified when fired from a 5" barrelled handgun". Craigs amendment specifies:

(A) variations in performance that are related to the length of the barrel of the handgun or center-fire rifle from which the projectile is fired; and

(B) the amount of powder used to propel the projectile.

If the DOJ determined in 1986 that "performance based ban would be impractical and unenforceable" when the proposed bill was a bit more specific (WRT to barrel length), what makes anyone think a "performance" based testing would yield more damaging results with Craigs broader testing/study proposal?

Craigs amendment also specifies " Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this Act". Who controls the Congress, Oval office and DOJ for the next 2 years? With that in mind: what do you think the conclusion of any study would be?

Quoted: Guys... Do a search for lippo's posts.   I seriously doubt that any argument is going to sway his opinion on EVILE repuglikins .

Sorry if you take it wrong. To clarify...I DON'T TRUST ANY OF THEM. No matter WHAT party affiliation. I've learned from experience that you can NOT trust the government to do what is right or to uphold the Contract we have, which is called the Constitution. The ratio of wrong winning over right in this country is totally out of control. Wrong wins WAY more than it should. It doesn't matter who's in power, absolute power corrupts absolutely. And we have given them WAY too much absolute power.

If you love a party so much that you can not open your eyes to facts or it clouds your judgement, I feel sorry for you. I hope they don't come and seize your house using and eminent domain case. And I hope the police don't raid your house when you haven't done anything wrong, killing your dog and then not having to accept any responsibility for the illegal raid. Anybody that you give power over you, needs to be watched with a VERY, VERY close eye.

And mark my words, this WILL come back to haunt us.

I was VERY happy to see the Liabiltiy bill passed. And I don't care at all if you have to give a trigger lock when a gun is purchased. That's actually a smart thing and isn't UnConstitutional. But WHY did Senator Craig "have" to put this Amendment on the bill? Why, because they made a back room deal which is wrong in the first place. Government shouldn't work in back room deals when it comes down the Rights of the citizens. If they want to make a back room deal about which road gets built first, I don't see any problem with that. But when it comes to the Constitution, I DO have a big problem with it.

S. 397 protects the government as well as the citizens. Nice. But, if the gun business is put out of business, then where is the government going to get it's guns? They don't care about you and me, they ARE protecting themselves and their ability to control power. Repulicans and Democrats do the same thing, just in a different context. The Republicans make you think they are on the side of gun owners. The most UnConstitutional laws have been signed into law under REPUBLICAN Presidents. We KNOW the Democrats are not on our side. The Republicans are just better at sticking it to us, while we thank them for it. The reason the AWB was allowed to sunset, was for votes...plain and simple. Right after that? The ATF, under a REPUBLICAN appointed AG, cracks down with an illegal and UnConstitutional ban on importations. Free Trade my aunt fanny. S.397 protected votes, jobs and the governments ability to gain access to their firearms. The Republicans want "control" of firearms within the population...the Democrats want to BAN firearms within the population. And this Amendment just proves that point. If you can't see it, then you should go back to mowing the lawn and forget about it. By the time you open your eyes, it'll be too late.

And for the whinners that don't have anything better to say than to attack me over my choice of words, I'll change my initial wording to satisfy your fragile ego.

And to NoVaGator and GonzoAR15-1, thanks for trying to clarify this for me. I get attacked with most of my threads that have to deal with the government...because, people don't understand what I am trying to say and they get defensive, because I look at ALL sides of the issue. I may not write as clear as I'd like...hense the avitar.

Threads such as this, in a forum such as this, make me realize how over it really is. I am a Rep. because it is the lesser of the 2 evils. Do you really think our children will have the same 2nd amendment rights that we do? Do you not see the incrementalism in the laws. I'm sorry to disappoint all the GWB advocates who want to believe the Rep. are not politicians, but do you really think they give two shits about your gun rights? They won't even protect our borders for God's sakes. Believe what you want, maybe it dulls the pain for you, but it helps nothing to ignore the truth about our politicians and their skirts.

Quoted: You aren't the brightest are you?

Frist dosen't want to run for president, he's pissing-off the wrong people and he knows it.

LoginName...What year does the next congressional election take place? 2006? Why did Bush appoint a Anti-gun Attorney General? Conspiracy? Control, plain and simple, my gun owner friend. Simple control. I haven't seen a WORD in the Bill of Rights OR the Constitution that says anything about the AG being allowed to make determinations on what MY Rights are under the Bill of Rights. This amendment shouldn't even be CONSIDERED...AT ALL. I remember reading, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Our founding fathers wanted the government to be afraid of the citizens...armed or otherwise. That's the only way, we'll keep them in check. But that's not the way it is now, they aren't afraid of us, only that they'll "look" bad and lose power to the other party.

We got screwed, this will come back to haunt us, it shouldn't have even been allowed to be voted on, it should have been kicked out of committee and you CAN NOT trust the governement to do what is right. Why do you think so many people want to voice that they know what their Rights are lately? If we "weren't" under attack, we wouldn't have to say anything and wouldn't have to be so vigilant.

Quoted: And to NoVaGator and GonzoAR15-1, thanks for trying to clarify this for me. I get attacked with most of my threads that have to deal with the government...because, people don't understand what I am trying to say and they get defensive, because I look at ALL sides of the issue. I may not write as clear as I'd like...hense the avitar.

The problem is simple. You don't know what you're outraged about. Your original post was incomplete. You seemed extremely mad over an amendment that you didn't even know the text of. You were arguing out of ignorance.

If you had started out with the law as it is on the books, then posted the amendment that would change the law and then argued how it was a bad thing, you would have gotten a lot more respect.

Not to mention your OP(before you edited it) was all about how we got screwed, but no mention that this was only one bill that passed on house of Congress. You did not go on to elaborate how the House needs to pass a similar bill, then the two Chambers of Congress sit down in committee to hammer out the language and then BOTH Chambers need to vote on it again before it even gets to the President's desk.

No mention of either of these things, yet you started telling other members, specifically me, that they need to get their heads out of their asses.

You didn't even know the language of the amendment at the time and you had the audacity to tell someone else to get their head out of their ass? Please.

Here are my suggestions for your future "the sky is falling" threads:
1. Know the language of the bill/amendment.
2. Know where it is in the legislative process.
3. Outline how it is a threat to the RKBA.
4. Give recommendations on how we can stop it.

A mistrust of government can be a healthy thing as long as it is in conjunction with the proper activism. Being hysterical accomplishes nothing.

Now you can take my advice and become a RKBA activist leader, or you can continue on your current path and be known as Chicken Little.

Quoted: LoginName...What year does the next congressional election take place? 2006? Why did Bush appoint a Anti-gun Attorney General? Conspiracy? Control, plain and simple, my gun owner friend. Simple control. I haven't seen a WORD in the Bill of Rights OR the Constitution that says anything about the AG being allowed to make determinations on what MY Rights are under the Bill of Rights. This amendment shouldn't even be CONSIDERED...AT ALL. I remember reading, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Our founding fathers wanted the government to be afraid of the citizens...armed or otherwise. That's the only way, we'll keep them in check. But that's not the way it is now, they aren't afraid of us, only that they'll "look" bad and lose power to the other party. We got screwed, this will come back to haunt us, it shouldn't have even been allowed to be voted on, it should have been kicked out of committee and you CAN NOT trust the governement to do what is right. Why do you think so many people want to voice that they know what their Rights are lately? If we "weren't" under attack, we wouldn't have to say anything and wouldn't have to be so vigilant.

I repeat!

The problem with "Armor Piercing" is that they try to confuse the MILITARY definition, which is a round having the ability to pierce a 1/8" mild steel plate at X distance, with another, having the ability to pierce Level 4 (or whatever else they decide) body armor.

And the whole thing about ammo piercing body armor was originally about handgun rounds... it did not include rifles.  The antis would love to include rifle rounds, and thus, ban most rifle ammo.

We need to fight this.

Quoted: We got screwed, this will come back to haunt us, it shouldn't have even been allowed to be voted on, it should have been kicked out of committee and you CAN NOT trust the governement to do what is right. Why do you think so many people want to voice that they know what their Rights are lately? If we "weren't" under attack, we wouldn't have to say anything and wouldn't have to be so vigilant.

You still don't get it do you? It's not law, yet.

If people here want to defeat this call/write your congress critter and tell them you don't want the study portion of this amendment's language to be included in the House version of the bill.

Quoted: Well, lets see. YES, IT DID PASS! And no matter what. Testing will lead to confiscation or jail time for standing up for your Rights! And any anti-gun Attorney General....like Goonzales...can say, NO MORE FOR YOU....PERIOD! Just like the ATF interpeting their own version of the GCA and not allowing the imporation of barrels. No big deal? People that think like you, are one of these....

You can't post a coherent thought in this thread, can you?

Quoted: It's cripping to need and not have, than have an not need. I've got AP rifle ammo stacked up for the blue helmets when they come to confiscate my weapons.

me too!!!

Quoted: Quoted: We got screwed, this will come back to haunt us, it shouldn't have even been allowed to be voted on, it should have been kicked out of committee and you CAN NOT trust the governement to do what is right. Why do you think so many people want to voice that they know what their Rights are lately? If we "weren't" under attack, we wouldn't have to say anything and wouldn't have to be so vigilant. You still don't get it do you? It's not law, yet. (No, YOU don't get it. It SHOULDN'T HAVE come out of committee, in the FIRST PLACE) If people here want to defeat this call/write your congress critter and tell them you don't want the study portion of this amendment's language to be included in the House version of the bill.

So you think a Republican controlled house will vote this down? Go against a Republican Senator? I thought, it was made clear that this bill should be passed WITH NO AMENDMENTS!

Or did I hear that wrong from the start? What did Bush actually ask for?

You can call or write all you want on this part of it, it won't do a bit of good. The Republicans WILL NOT go against this. Look at all the bashing Frist is getting over his change of mind over stem cell research.

And, you said that I am a Chicken Little. THIS AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD! It's not a conspiracy, it's TRYANNY in it's classic form. CONTROL OVER YOU!

I don't care what you say, you can live in your own little world where you battle for your Rights day after day and walk away with what you percieve as a small victory, while you are LOSING the WAR.

I voted Republican because they are the lessor of two evils, but the lessor of two evils is STILL evil! You on the other hand, think they are completely on your side. Too bad for you.

This Amendment should have never been allowed out of committee, and if we had a government that actually "recognized" our Rights, this would be struck down by committee or be heard by the Surpreme Court and struck down. And you KNOW the US Surpreme Court will NEVER hear a 2nd Amendment case. You DO realize that right?

Quoted: Quoted: Well, lets see. YES, IT DID PASS! And no matter what. Testing will lead to confiscation or jail time for standing up for your Rights! And any anti-gun Attorney General....like Goonzales...can say, NO MORE FOR YOU....PERIOD! Just like the ATF interpeting their own version of the GCA and not allowing the imporation of barrels. No big deal? People that think like you, are one of these.... You can't post a coherent thought in this thread, can you?

Let's see..

"Yes it did pass"

"And no matter what. Testing will lead to confiscation or jail time for standing up for your Rights!"

"And any anti-gun Attorney General....like Goonzales...can say, NO MORE FOR YOU....PERIOD! Just like the ATF interpeting their own version of the GCA and not allowing the imporation of barrels."

Sorry you don't seem to be able to read. Or was the size a problem for you? I did that because people here don't seem to like to read things unless you do something with it out of the ordinary. They read the first post, then make their decision based on their own perception of what they wanted to read. Just like what you seemed to do. Or am I wrong? If you don't like the bold, smileys or size, sorry, but it's the only way to get some lunk heads to read the post.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We got screwed, this will come back to haunt us, it shouldn't have even been allowed to be voted on, it should have been kicked out of committee and you CAN NOT trust the governement to do what is right. Why do you think so many people want to voice that they know what their Rights are lately? If we "weren't" under attack, we wouldn't have to say anything and wouldn't have to be so vigilant. You still don't get it do you? It's not law, yet. (No, YOU don't get it. It SHOULDN'T HAVE come out of committee, in the FIRST PLACE) If people here want to defeat this call/write your congress critter and tell them you don't want the study portion of this amendment's language to be included in the House version of the bill. So you think a Republican controlled house will vote this down? Go against a Republican Senator? I thought, it was made clear that this bill should be passed WITH NO AMENDMENTS!

Actually, the House is more conservative than the Senate. Has been for years. Or have you NOT been paying attention?

Or did I hear that wrong from the start? What did Bush actually ask for? You can call or write all you want on this part of it, it won't do a bit of good. The Republicans WILL NOT go against this. Look at all the bashing Frist is getting over his change of mind over stem cell research. And, you said that I am a Chicken Little. THIS AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD! It's not a conspiracy, it's TRYANNY in it's classic form. CONTROL OVER YOU!

How is it any more unConstitutional than what is already on the books? The R's in the House don't go along with the R's in the Senate blindly. Again you haven't been paying attention.

I don't care what you say, you can live in your own little world where you battle for your Rights day after day and walk away with what you percieve as a small victory, while you are LOSING the WAR.

You don't care what anyone says, and that's the problem. You wallow in your ignorance.
Protecting gun companies from frivolous lawsuits, while not expanding the definition of AP is hardly a small victory.

I voted Republican because they are the lessor of two evils, but the lessor of two evils is STILL evil! You on the other hand, think they are completely on your side. Too bad for you.

Now you have just shown yourself to be a complete and total LIAR. You have no honor. You are the lowest of the low.
If you had read my post you would see where I said mistrust of the government is a good thing.

This Amendment should have never been allowed out of committee, and if we had a government that actually "recognized" our Rights, this would be struck down by committee or be heard by the Surpreme Court and struck down. And you KNOW the US Surpreme Court will NEVER hear a 2nd Amendment case. You DO realize that right?

Hmm, the USSC has already heard 2nd cases. And with more conservative appointees they could hear even more.  This part of your post ignores numerous USSC rulings that say the 2nd is an individual right.

Your post also ignores political reality. This amendment was offered up to stop the Kennedy amendment, would you rather have that amendment? Oh wait, you don't actually read these things, you just get spun up. The Kennedy amendment WOULD have expanded the definition of AP.

This bill has a long road to hoe before it makes the President's desk. It can get better or it can get worse. It's up to responsible Americans to lobby our representative to make it better.

Quoted: Quoted: LoginName...What year does the next congressional election take place? 2006? Why did Bush appoint a Anti-gun Attorney General? Conspiracy? Control, plain and simple, my gun owner friend. Simple control. I haven't seen a WORD in the Bill of Rights OR the Constitution that says anything about the AG being allowed to make determinations on what MY Rights are under the Bill of Rights. This amendment shouldn't even be CONSIDERED...AT ALL. I remember reading, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". Our founding fathers wanted the government to be afraid of the citizens...armed or otherwise. That's the only way, we'll keep them in check. But that's not the way it is now, they aren't afraid of us, only that they'll "look" bad and lose power to the other party. We got screwed, this will come back to haunt us, it shouldn't have even been allowed to be voted on, it should have been kicked out of committee and you CAN NOT trust the governement to do what is right. Why do you think so many people want to voice that they know what their Rights are lately? If we "weren't" under attack, we wouldn't have to say anything and wouldn't have to be so vigilant. I repeat! www.actuacine.net/Poster/chicken02.jpg

We'll talk after 2006 and again in 2008. If within the next 5 to 10 years, I am wrong, I WILL glady and be MOST HAPPY to say so. Though, I HAVE seen what has happened to our Firearm Rights since 1986, when I was old enough to realize what's been going on. And I CAN assure you, we ARE on the road of the control of your 2nd Amendment rights. What's next? Oh, SURE, you can use a gun at a range or on "controlled" hunting grounds....that's NOT an infringement, you still can "use" a gun...but you'll have to turn your gun into the police department for "safe" keeping while you are not using it." Sound familiar? It's Japan. And I wouldn't doubt for a minute, that within the next 50 years, our grandchildren will only be able to own airsoft within their homes. CCW? I thought we didn't need to have that? Don't our 2nd Amendment Rights cover that already? I know that the 2nd Amendment and my Michigan State Constitution says that my Right to self defense "shall not be infringed" opon. So I can't carry in a school, where my children are? I can't go to a place where I might "want" to make sure I protect myself or my family? Sounds like infringement to me! We ARE infringed upon and I don't like it. Our Constitution means NOTHING anymore and I don't like it. You don't want to seem to care about it. Well good for you. I, on the other hand, care what I leave my kids.

Now go mow your lawn!

Let me help a brother out:

Prozac
Pronounced: PRO-zak
Generic name: Fluoxetine hydrochloride
Other brand name: Sarafem

Why is this drug prescribed?
Return to top

Prozac is prescribed for the treatment of depression--that is, a continuing depression that interferes with daily functioning. The symptoms of major depression often include changes in appetite, sleep habits, and mind/body coordination; decreased sex drive; increased fatigue; feelings of guilt or worthlessness; difficulty concentrating; slowed thinking; and suicidal thoughts.

Prozac is also prescribed to treat obsessive-compulsive disorder. An obsession is a thought that won't go away; a compulsion is an action done over and over to relieve anxiety. The drug is also used in the treatment of bulimia (binge-eating followed by deliberate vomiting). It has also been used to treat other eating disorders and obesity.

In addition, Prozac is used to treat panic disorder, including panic associated with agoraphobia (a severe fear of being in crowds or public places). People with panic disorder usually suffer from panic attacks--feelings of intense fear that develop suddenly, often for no reason. Various symptoms occur during the attacks, including a rapid or pounding heartbeat, chest pain, sweating, trembling, and shortness of breath.

In children and adolescents, Prozac is used to treat major depression and obsessive-compulsive disorder.

Under the brand name Sarafem, the active ingredient in Prozac is also prescribed for the treatment of premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD), formerly known as premenstrual syndrome (PMS). Symptoms of PMDD include mood problems such as anxiety, depression, irritability or persistent anger, mood swings, and tension. Physical problems that accompany PMDD include bloating, breast tenderness, headache, and joint and muscle pain. Symptoms typically begin 1 to 2 weeks before a woman's menstrual period and are severe enough to interfere with day-to-day activities and relationships.

Prozac is a member of the family of drugs called "selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors." Serotonin is one of the chemical messengers believed to govern moods. Ordinarily, it is quickly reabsorbed after its release at the junctures between nerves. Re-uptake inhibitors such as Prozac slow this process, thereby boosting the levels of serotonin available in the brain.

Lippo, if you are already taking this drug, then up the dosage.

Quoted: ...If you don't like the bold, smileys or size, sorry, but it's the only way to get some lunk heads to read the post.

Not that fonts are your only problem, but using stupidly big fonts, too much bold lettering, and other stupid gimmicks just ensures that people will not read what you have to say. They'll skim it and see you are ranting about something and they'll move on.

Why don't you tell us (in plain english), why the bill, should it become law, is something to be worried about? You are big on ranting and raving like a loon, but why not calm down a bit and and actually explain what the legal ramifications of the amendment are?

While I'm not ready to run down the street naked & screaming over this amendment, I am dissapointed that it was allowed to be tacked on to an otherwise good bill. I acknowledge that it has the *potential * to do our rights grave harm in the future, and I very much hope that this language is stripped out in committee.

I would suggest that we all contact our reps. & the Republican leadership of the House & Senate and tell them kick this amendment to the curb!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: We got screwed, this will come back to haunt us, it shouldn't have even been allowed to be voted on, it should have been kicked out of committee and you CAN NOT trust the governement to do what is right. Why do you think so many people want to voice that they know what their Rights are lately? If we "weren't" under attack, we wouldn't have to say anything and wouldn't have to be so vigilant. You still don't get it do you? It's not law, yet. (No, YOU don't get it. It SHOULDN'T HAVE come out of committee, in the FIRST PLACE) If people here want to defeat this call/write your congress critter and tell them you don't want the study portion of this amendment's language to be included in the House version of the bill. So you think a Republican controlled house will vote this down? Go against a Republican Senator? I thought, it was made clear that this bill should be passed WITH NO AMENDMENTS! Actually, the House is more conservative than the Senate. Has been for years. Or have you NOT been paying attention? Or did I hear that wrong from the start? What did Bush actually ask for? You can call or write all you want on this part of it, it won't do a bit of good. The Republicans WILL NOT go against this. Look at all the bashing Frist is getting over his change of mind over stem cell research. And, you said that I am a Chicken Little. THIS AMENDMENT IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. PERIOD! It's not a conspiracy, it's TRYANNY in it's classic form. CONTROL OVER YOU! How is it any more unConstitutional than what is already on the books? The R's in the House don't go along with the R's in the Senate blindly. Again you haven't been paying attention. I don't care what you say, you can live in your own little world where you battle for your Rights day after day and walk away with what you percieve as a small victory, while you are LOSING the WAR. You don't care what anyone says, and that's the problem. You wallow in your ignorance. Protecting gun companies from frivolous lawsuits, while not expanding the definition of AP is hardly a small victory. (We are still losing the war. Or haven't you seen all of the Rights we have lost. I am not some young one, looking the last couple of years. Which is what it "looks" like you are doing. Yes, S.397 was a great victory which will be clouded by Senator Craig, once the control of the government goes into the wrong hands. And the current AG IS an Anti. His actions are proving it.) I voted Republican because they are the lessor of two evils, but the lessor of two evils is STILL evil! You on the other hand, think they are completely on your side. Too bad for you. Now you have just shown yourself to be a complete and total LIAR. You have no honor. You are the lowest of the low.   (Liar, huh? Sounds like a VERY personal attack. I DID vote republican and they ARE the lessor of two evils. How does that make me a liar? You must REALLY love the republican party so much, you can't stand it when someone tells the truth. And you tell ME to calm down? ) If you had read my post you would see where I said mistrust of the government is a good thing. (Well, it looks like that's the only thing we'll agree on) This Amendment should have never been allowed out of committee, and if we had a government that actually "recognized" our Rights, this would be struck down by committee or be heard by the Surpreme Court and struck down. And you KNOW the US Surpreme Court will NEVER hear a 2nd Amendment case. You DO realize that right? Hmm, the USSC has already heard 2nd cases. (Can you name any where we were given our Rights back?) And with more conservative appointees they could hear even more.   This part of your post ignores numerous USSC rulings that say the 2nd is an individual right.(Where? I only heard that the Justice department said that and that Rice said that. Bush will spout that all day long, but his Justice department doesn't seem to know what the word "infringed" means.) Your post also ignores political reality. This amendment was offered up to stop the Kennedy amendment, would you rather have that amendment? Oh wait, you don't actually read these things, you just get spun up. The Kennedy amendment WOULD have expanded the definition of AP. (I understand what you are saying, but you don't want to acknowledge the fact that no matter what, these kinds of infringements should never even leave the committee. You want to fight them, I want to see the government "uphold" the Constitution from the word go. There's the difference between us. You like to fight, I want to see that we don't have too.) This bill has a long road to hoe before it makes the President's desk. It can get better or it can get worse. It's up to responsible Americans to lobby our representative to make it better. (I hope it gets better, but experience shows that it won't. We have short lived victories, followed by more repressive laws. Look it up, that's a fact. For example, 922(r) and the GCA of 1968 followed by FOIA of 1986, said that "importers" are business owners. So for the last 4 years, the ATF has been gone around by gun owners with "parts" kits to build guns that we should Constitutionally and illegal be able to own, when they see it's more than just a couple...comes a crack down and now, even "individuals" which the GCA CLEARLY states are allowed to import barrels and such, will NOW, NOT, be able to do so. You've go a lot to learn about what reality is. Pressuring your elected reps, in the long run, is a losing battle. We should still do it, but if you ask me, they shouldn't be allowed more than one term anyway. And if they go against the Consitution or the Bill of Rights, they should be kicked out immediately. No need for shooting them, just, you post yourself as unwilling to uphold the Constitution, so you are done. Levin would be one of the first to go. But unfortunately, politics don't have anything to do with the Constitution or what's right anymore. It's about "how" many votes you can get. And THAT'S the truth.)