Rights of gun manufacturer more important than defense budget

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Gabriella84, Jul 27, 2005.

  1. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    Some misguided Republicans in Congress surprise even other Republicans at times. Can we all say "special interest money?"

    http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-292925-997330.php

    Senate Republican leaders decided Tuesday that a gun manufacturers’ liability bill is more important than next year’s $441.6 billion defense authorization bill.
    With Democrats expressing amazement that there could be any higher legislative priority in a time of war than the annual defense bill that includes money for pay and benefits, operations and maintenance, and weapons’ purchases and research, Sen. Bill Frist of Tennessee, the Senate Republican leader, decided Tuesday that a bill protecting gun manufacturers from lawsuits over the illegal use of firearms was a higher priority.

    The decision came after Republican leaders failed to muster the 60 votes needed to prevent amendments not strictly related to the defense budget from being offered to the defense bill.

    In a count of 50-48, seven Republicans joined Democrats in voting not to restrict debate, a move that Democratic leaders said would have prevented consideration of amendments to help veterans and survivors of deceased service members, along with other issues.

    With Congress planning to leave town Friday for one-month break, debate on S 397, Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act, is expected to last two or three days, and then Senate leaders plan to take up an energy bill, an estate tax reform bill and an Interior Department funding bill that has a $1.5 billion bailout attached for veterans’ health care programs, leaving no time until September to get back to the defense bill.

    The House approved its version of the defense bill in May and has been waiting for the Senate to catch up to begin negotiations with the Bush administration on a final version.
     
  2. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511
    Suing gun manufacturer for the proper functioning of their product is assinine. Why should they be liable for what criminals do with their product? You're insane if you can justify this.
     
  3. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    I totally agree with you. But that is not the point of this story.
    Is protecting the rights of a gun manufacturer more important than passing a defense budget?
     
  4. dilloduck
    Offline

    dilloduck Diamond Member

    Joined:
    May 8, 2004
    Messages:
    53,240
    Thanks Received:
    5,552
    Trophy Points:
    1,850
    Location:
    Austin, TX
    Ratings:
    +6,403
    hmmmmm little bitty gun manufacturer vs. HUMONGOUS GOVT DOD ?

    little guy is always supposed to win these aren't they?
     
  5. Gabriella84
    Online

    Gabriella84 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0
    If he has the power and enough gun lobby money in his pocket, a Senate majority leader can easily place special interests above the best interests of the country.
     
  6. rtwngAvngr
    Offline

    rtwngAvngr Guest

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2004
    Messages:
    15,755
    Thanks Received:
    511
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +511

    You can't let insane minority parties tack dangerous precedent setting crap onto other bills. Even if those bills are important. Your partie's little trick failed, as it should have.
     
  7. Merlin
    Offline

    Merlin Active Member

    Joined:
    Jul 5, 2004
    Messages:
    405
    Thanks Received:
    61
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Location:
    Ponchatoula, La.
    Ratings:
    +61
    It absolutely is!!!!
     
  8. Gem
    Offline

    Gem BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    2,080
    Thanks Received:
    782
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +782
    Wait a minute, wait a minute. The Congress is going on vacation for 1 month starting Friday. They have 2 days left. They can't get everything they want to discuss done in time...and my guess is that something as big as the Defense bill isn't going to be done in 2 days...so instead of starting a discussion, taking a one month break, then picking it up again...they chose to get as much of the smaller stuff done before the break...so they can concentrate on the big stuff when they get back....

    Why is this a big deal?

    I think we all need to exhale a bit. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar...sometimes a decision to hold off on a defense bill is just a decision to give it the time it deserves...rather than proof that the evil republicans are on the take...
     

Share This Page