95 CONGRESSCRITTERS WANT TO BAN 'ASSAULT WEAPONS'

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 95 CONGRESSCRITTERS WANT TO BAN 'ASSAULT WEAPONS'

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:48:49 PM EDT

H.R.1312
Title: To reauthorize the assault weapons ban, and for other purposes.
Sponsor: Rep McCarthy, Carolyn [NY-4] (introduced 3/15/2005) Cosponsors (94)
Latest Major Action: 4/4/2005 Referred to House subcommittee. Status: Referred to the Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
COSPONSORS(94), ALPHABETICAL [followed by Cosponsors withdrawn]: (Sort: by date)
Rep Abercrombie, Neil [HI-1] - 7/28/2005 Rep Ackerman, Gary L. [NY-5] - 5/19/2005
Rep Andrews, Robert E. [NJ-1] - 7/28/2005 Rep Becerra, Xavier [CA-31] - 7/28/2005
Rep Berman, Howard L. [CA-28] - 6/8/2005 Rep Bishop, Timothy H. [NY-1] - 7/28/2005
Rep Blumenauer, Earl [OR-3] - 4/28/2005 Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 7/28/2005
Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3] - 7/28/2005 Rep Capps, Lois [CA-23] - 7/28/2005
Rep Capuano, Michael E. [MA-8] - 7/28/2005 Rep Carson, Julia [IN-7] - 5/12/2005
Rep Case, Ed [HI-2] - 4/28/2005 Rep Clay, Wm. Lacy [MO-1] - 7/28/2005
Rep Conyers, John, Jr. [MI-14] - 5/12/2005 Rep Crowley, Joseph [NY-7] - 7/28/2005
Rep Cummings, Elijah E. [MD-7] - 4/21/2005 Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 6/23/2005
Rep Delahunt, William D. [MA-10] - 7/28/2005 Rep DeLauro, Rosa L. [CT-3] - 4/28/2005
Rep Emanuel, Rahm [IL-5] - 6/30/2005 Rep Engel, Eliot L. [NY-17] - 4/21/2005
Rep Eshoo, Anna G. [CA-14] - 7/28/2005 Rep Evans, Lane [IL-17] - 7/28/2005
Rep Farr, Sam [CA-17] - 7/14/2005 Rep Frank, Barney [MA-4] - 7/28/2005
Rep Grijalva, Raul M. [AZ-7] - 7/14/2005 Rep Gutierrez, Luis V. [IL-4] - 6/23/2005
Rep Harman, Jane [CA-36] - 7/28/2005 Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 7/28/2005
Rep Holt, Rush D. [NJ-12] - 4/21/2005 Rep Honda, Michael M. [CA-15] - 7/28/2005
Rep Hoyer, Steny H. [MD-5] - 7/28/2005 Rep Israel, Steve [NY-2] - 6/8/2005
Rep Jackson, Jesse L., Jr. [IL-2] - 7/28/2005 Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 4/14/2005
Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30] - 7/14/2005 Rep Jones, Stephanie Tubbs [OH-11] - 7/28/2005
Rep Kennedy, Patrick J. [RI-1] - 4/21/2005 Rep Kucinich, Dennis J. [OH-10] - 7/28/2005
Rep Langevin, James R. [RI-2] - 4/21/2005 Rep Lantos, Tom [CA-12] - 7/28/2005
Rep Larson, John B. [CT-1] - 7/22/2005 Rep Lee, Barbara [CA-9] - 4/21/2005
Rep Lewis, John [GA-5] - 7/28/2005 Rep Lofgren, Zoe [CA-16] - 4/28/2005
Rep Lowey, Nita M. [NY-18] - 6/17/2005 Rep Maloney, Carolyn B. [NY-14] - 6/8/2005
Rep Markey, Edward J. [MA-7] - 7/28/2005 Rep Matsui, Doris O. [CA-5] - 4/21/2005
Rep McCollum, Betty [MN-4] - 7/28/2005 Rep McDermott, Jim [WA-7] - 4/21/2005
Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] - 4/28/2005 Rep Meehan, Martin T. [MA-5] - 7/28/2005
Rep Meeks, Gregory W. [NY-6] - 7/28/2005 Rep Menendez, Robert [NJ-13] - 7/28/2005
Rep Millender-McDonald, Juanita [CA-37] - 4/28/2005 Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13] - 4/28/2005
Rep Miller, George [CA-7] - 5/19/2005 Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 7/14/2005
Rep Nadler, Jerrold [NY-8] - 7/14/2005 Rep Napolitano, Grace F. [CA-38] - 7/28/2005
Rep Olver, John W. [MA-1] - 7/28/2005 Rep Owens, Major R. [NY-11] - 7/28/2005
Rep Pallone, Frank, Jr. [NJ-6] - 4/21/2005 Rep Pascrell, Bill, Jr. [NJ-8] - 7/28/2005
Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4] - 7/28/2005 Rep Payne, Donald M. [NJ-10] - 4/28/2005
Rep Price, David E. [NC-4] - 4/28/2005 Rep Rangel, Charles B. [NY-15] - 7/28/2005
Rep Rothman, Steven R. [NJ-9] - 7/28/2005 Rep Roybal-Allard, Lucille [CA-34] - 5/19/2005
Rep Sabo, Martin Olav [MN-5] - 6/17/2005 Rep Sanchez, Linda T. [CA-39] - 7/28/2005
Rep Sanchez, Loretta [CA-47] - 7/28/2005 Rep Schakowsky, Janice D. [IL-9] - 5/12/2005
Rep Schiff, Adam B. [CA-29] - 7/28/2005 Rep Serrano, Jose E. [NY-16] - 7/14/2005
Rep Sherman, Brad [CA-27] - 4/14/2005 Rep Slaughter, Louise McIntosh [NY-28] - 5/12/2005
Rep Solis, Hilda L. [CA-32] - 7/28/2005 Rep Stark, Fortney Pete [CA-13] - 5/12/2005
Rep Tauscher, Ellen O. [CA-10] - 7/28/2005 Rep Tierney, John F. [MA-6] - 7/28/2005
Rep Towns, Edolphus [NY-10] - 7/28/2005 Rep Van Hollen, Chris [MD-8] - 5/12/2005
Rep Velazquez, Nydia M. [NY-12] - 7/28/2005 Rep Waters, Maxine [CA-35] - 7/28/2005
Rep Watson, Diane E. [CA-33] - 7/14/2005 Rep Waxman, Henry A. [CA-30] - 4/21/2005
Rep Weiner, Anthony D. [NY-9] - 7/28/2005 Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 4/21/2005
Rep Woolsey, Lynn C. [CA-6] - 4/21/2005 Rep Wynn, Albert Russell [MD-4] - 5/26/2005

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:50:34 PM EDT

[#1]

DOA

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:51:48 PM EDT

[#2]

Blue State moonbat freaks.

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:52:59 PM EDT

[#3]

come and get 'em!!

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:53:07 PM EDT

[#4]

Dennis Kucinich

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:54:25 PM EDT

[#5]

Gun Control is a political death warrant. They need to be reminded of that.

Posted: 2/15/2006 3:58:40 PM EDT

[#6]

I wouldn't pay it no mind, they're just unhappy with the current configuration of the SIG 556.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:00:55 PM EDT

[#7]

Sheila Jackson Lee, what a ......

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:00:56 PM EDT

[#8]

Quoted:
I wouldn't pay it no mind, they're just unhappy with the current configuration of the SIG 556.

I think gun control is a non-issue for a while.
Let's enjoy the reprieve, but not rest on our laurels.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:02:22 PM EDT

[#9]

You're boring me.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:06:48 PM EDT

[#10]

This is still an opprotunity to express your disgust with their position. If they think there isn't any resistance to the idea they'll only be emboldened.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:16:30 PM EDT

[#11]

BARNEY FRANK!!!!! Say it ain't so!

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:18:19 PM EDT

[#12]

Bill has been dead since 4/4/05.

More CRC fear-mongering.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:20:25 PM EDT

[#13]

Quoted:
Gun Control is a political death warrant. They need to be reminded of that.

Maybe they shouldn't be reminded. Let them cast their votes and be seen and counted. They can go campaign to their constituents and whine that the crime is caused by their failure. Let their opponents bury them and get them out of Congress. It's not just guns: gun policy and laws are simply illustrations of the overall attitude of a government.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:21:13 PM EDT

[#14]

Quoted:
This is still an opprotunity to express your disgust with their position. If they think there isn't any resistance to the idea they'll only be emboldened.

As soon as they seize congress next year

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:27:34 PM EDT

[#15]

Quoted:
Quoted:
This is still an opprotunity to express your disgust with their position. If they think there isn't any resistance to the idea they'll only be emboldened.

As soon as they seize congress next year

The magic eight ball says: "Not very likely"

February 15, 2006
A Prediction for the 2006 House Contest - Part II
By Jay Cost

Two days ago, I began to discuss what I believe to be the best way to predict congressional elections. Developed first by Edward Tufte and later refined by Gary Jacobson, the “Tufte/Jacobson theory” is starting point I have chosen. It argues that we can predict the outcome of a congressional election based upon three factors: exposure, presidential job approval and changes in real disposable income per capita (RDI/cap). It is time to supply the details, supplement the theory with some extra concerns, and make a prediction for 2006.

Exposure is the extent to which the party of the President is above its historical average. For every 1% over its historical average, the party of the President tends to lose 0.76% of its congressional caucus in the next election, all else being equal. The Republican majority has averaged, since 1994, 227.33 seats. So, considering that today it enjoys 232, one might be inclined to assign a value of 2.01% to exposure. However, this would fail to account for the GOP mid-census Texas redistricting. Redistricting, from a national perspective, typically does not benefit one party more than another. However, the 1990 census resulted in a heavy and sustained Republican advantage – and Jacobson adjusted the exposure statistic to account for this Republican edge (by his estimate, 42 seats). We must do the same to account for the 2004 redistricting, which netted the Republicans four seats in the Texas delegation. This redistricting meant that the three net seats they gained in 2004 were not a consequence of a real expansion of their majority, but rather a slight shrinking of their majority counteracted by redistricting. If we control for this “inflation,” we would say that, in real terms, the GOP actually has one fewer seat in the 109th than it did in the 108th – 228 “real” seats. Accordingly, let us say that the GOP is overexposed by about 0.29%. Because every percentage over its historical average costs a party 0.76% of its delegation, we therefore expect this slight overexposure to cost the Republicans 0.22% of their delegation, all else being equal.

Next is presidential approval. History tells us that for every additional point of popularity a president enjoys in the final Gallup poll before the election, he increases the percentage size of his congressional party by 0.25%, all else being equal. The Gallup polls taken this year show Bush pulling an average of 42.0% approval. His approval rating obviously could trend in either direction in the next nine months. However, given the stability of his job approval since the beginning of 2006, I think it is fair to argue that he has largely stopped the hemorrhaging and that he will still be at about 42% approval on November 7. If this comes true, Bush’s popularity will yield an increase in the GOP’s congressional delegation of 10.50%, all else being equal.

The final important statistic is real disposable income per capita (RDI/cap). We are interested in its percentage change in the twelve months prior to the election. In the wake of Katrina, RDI/cap rose by a robust 3.7%. In the final quarter of 2005, it increased by a brisk 1.03%. Between 2001 and 2004, it increased by about 2% per year. It seems reasonable to conclude, given the pace of its growth in the fourth quarter of 2005 and recent history not affected by Katrina, that it will reach the 2% mark by election time. Though I am not an economist, this actually seems to me to be conservative. Indeed, for RDI/cap to reach a 12-month increase of 2% by October, it need only expand at 0.097% per month; this will not require much exertion for an economy whose GDP is expanding by more than 3% per year. In terms of congressional elections, every 1% increase in RDI/cap yields a 1.29% increase in the President’s party delegation. Thus, we can expect the state of the economy to boost the House GOP delegation by 2.58%, all else equal.

Finally, as I indicated yesterday, there is a baseline value. In other words, if you assume that the party of the President is neither over- nor under-exposed, that nobody likes the President, and that RDI/cap has neither grown nor shrunk in the last year, you can expect the party of the President to lose seats – specifically 17.7% of its delegation.

It is now a matter of simple arithmetic: 10.50% (presidential approval) + 2.58% (RDI/cap) - 0.22% (exposure) – 17.7% (baseline) = -4.84%. In other words, we can expect that the House Republican delegation will shrink by 4.84%. This means that, according to this theory, the Republicans will lose about 11 seats in November.

This is only the beginning of the story. It is not the end. Between 1946 and 2002, Tufte/Jacobson explains 70% of the variation in congressional elections – very good for political science work, but obviously far from perfect. So, the relevant question is: if we vary from this 11-seat mark, whom will the variation favor? The answer depends upon what kind of variation we are discussing – it can either be truly random variation or systematic variation. If it is truly random, then no theory can improve upon Tufte/Jacobson and we must leave things where they stand. If it is systematic variation, it means that the theory is currently missing an important causal process.

Truly random variation, e.g. the entire Texas Republican delegation catches encephalitis and cannot campaign, is impossible to predict and certainly extant to some degree in any process. If Tufte/Jacobson is a completely true theory of how congressional elections operate, and the only reason the real world varies from its predictions is because of random “noise”, a Democratic recapture of the House is improbable but not impossible.

However, I think there are regular processes out there that this theory does not capture, but that favor the Republicans. These should therefore cause this theory to overestimate Democratic gains. As I hinted yesterday, I think this theory serves as the necessary foundation for understanding what will happen in November, but it does not capture the entirety of the process. It excludes certain variables that will serve to mitigate Republican losses. This is a criticism of the theory, but it should not be taken to mean that we should dismiss what we have already developed. All good social science theories necessarily simplify the real world, boiling it down to the essentials so that we can understand the process that exists “out there”. Thus, we should understand the theory we have just reviewed as true but incomplete.

The first important variable that we have thus far excluded is the incumbency advantage. In the last fifty-five years, incumbents have increasingly shielded themselves from electoral mood swings. In other words, the incumbency advantage has expanded in the last half century such that most incumbent Republicans survive in anti-Republican years, and therefore seat changes in anti-Republican years are almost always via open seats. Scholars like Oklahoma University’s Ronald Keith Gaddie contend that exposure is less important than open-seat exposure – i.e. the number of net open seats that a party sports at election time. What matters is still the number of marginal seats a party has, but seats where incumbents are running tend not to be marginal. What of this year? Once again the number of open seats is minute – less than 5% of the House. David Wissing recently noted that there are 20 open seats (13 Republicans, 7 Democrats), only four of which (according to Stuart Rothenberg) are “strong takeover possibilities”. If Gaddie is correct and retirement is today the principal engine of partisan seat swings in Congress, we should not expect the Democrats to beat the 11-seat margin that we have outlined. They will likely net less than 10.

The second important variable that we have excluded has not yet been explored systematically by political scientists. Nevertheless, I think it is important. This is the tight alignment of the Republican electorate – the GOP’s set of voters is more aligned than it ever has been and it is more aligned than the Democrats’ set of voters. Until very recently, there were a large number of Republican-controlled congressional districts wherein voters chose Democratic presidential candidates. Today, there are a scant 17 congressional districts that voted for Kerry and a Republican member of Congress. Meanwhile, there are 41 congressional districts that voted for Bush and a Democratic member of Congress. While we cannot know for certain, this probably means that the distribution of his anemic popularity helps Bush. It is probable that anti-Bush voters are less likely to be located in Republican districts relative to other Republican presidents; pro-Bush voters are about as likely as ever to be located in Democratic districts relative to other Republican presidents. Thus, his job approval is probably more “efficient”, historically speaking, at protecting Republican incumbents, but still as efficient at damaging Democratic incumbents.

Are there other factors that are not captured by the model that favor the Democrats? None come to mind beside congressional job approval. The poor marks Congress currently receives are not captured by the Tufte/Jacobson model, but it is unclear that this will have a significant effect. As I mentioned previously, there has been initial work exploring whether people’s perceptions of Congress help or hurt the President’s party. However, it remains incomplete and there are important questions that linger. It also seems unlikely that the Abramoff scandal will harm Republicans in any significant way. Beyond Congress’s poor marks remain only Bush’s poor marks – which the Tufte/Jacobson theory captures and (probably) overestimates. There seem to be no strong causal processes that we have not yet discussed that would favor the Democrats. Indeed – we could probably tick off a few that additionally favor the Republicans: their strong money advantage, their strong mobilization advantage, the fact that they are not saddled with an ostensible incompetent like Howard Dean, etc.

Thus, we should consider an 11-seat swing in November as the maximum Democratic gain. Factoring in the incumbency pushes my estimate to less than 10. Factoring in the tight alignment of the electorate pushes my estimate to a Democratic gain of about 8 seats. Assuming that (a) Bush’s popularity does not drop off, (b) the economy does not stagnate and (c) Republicans do not have to defend more net open seats, I predict that the 110th Congress will have 224 Republicans and 211 Democrats.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:28:08 PM EDT

[#16]

change topic title to "The Usual Suspects"

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:29:10 PM EDT

[#17]

Quoted:
Quoted:
This is still an opprotunity to express your disgust with their position. If they think there isn't any resistance to the idea they'll only be emboldened.

As soon as they seize congress next year

Yeah, that's the spirit.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:29:24 PM EDT

[#18]

Quoted:
Dennis Kucinich

Don't forget our RINO's who would pass the ban also, DeSwine and Voinobitch.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:33:41 PM EDT

[#19]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is still an opprotunity to express your disgust with their position. If they think there isn't any resistance to the idea they'll only be emboldened.

As soon as they seize congress next year

Yeah, that's the spirit.

Exactlyt, lets just quit, throw away a very proabable winning hand and let them have congress, turn in our guns just so CRC won't have to be wrong.

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:36:03 PM EDT

[#20]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is still an opprotunity to express your disgust with their position. If they think there isn't any resistance to the idea they'll only be emboldened.

As soon as they seize congress next year

Yeah, that's the spirit.

Exactlyt, lets just quit, throw away a very proabable winning hand and let them have congress, turn in our guns just so CRC won't have to be wrong.

He'll be too busy posting threads about year-old bills trying to stir up fear instead of actually doing any grass-roots work

Posted: 2/15/2006 4:42:01 PM EDT

[#21]

Quoted:
Gun Control is a political death warrant. They need to be reminded of that.

No, don't remind them. That way it will be the "death warrant" of their political career and we'll be able to elect pro-gun people in their place.

Posted: 2/15/2006 5:45:48 PM EDT

[#22]

The AWB wasn't a blip on the radar, as far as crime prevention, either when passed or sunset.

No gun law has done anything to reduce crime. In fact, there is a lot of evidence that gun control increases crime.

So, let's get over this guns = crime thing.

It is not about crime prevention.

The goal of the gun controllers is CONTROL. They want no resistance from the people. They don't want us to be able to "just say no" to whatever their latest nefarious scheme. If they decide that tomorrow they are going to herd up groups of people and march them into cattle cars, they don't want anyone taking potshots at their JBT's.

Just imagine how fast the Nazis would have run out of storm troopers if European Jews had the kind of gun ownership rates that American citizens have.

It is not about crime. It is about monopoly of force. The socialists/communists want all the power.

Even Chairman Mao said it, "Political power comes from the barrel of a gun."

Posted: 2/15/2006 5:52:29 PM EDT

[#23]

Gun control as a political issue is dead, post again if it makes it out of comitee (it won't)...actually strike that post again if it gets out of comitee and schedualed for an open debate. Neither will happen.

Posted: 2/15/2006 5:57:41 PM EDT

[#24]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
This is still an opprotunity to express your disgust with their position. If they think there isn't any resistance to the idea they'll only be emboldened.

As soon as they seize congress next year

Yeah, that's the spirit.

Exactlyt, lets just quit, throw away a very proabable winning hand and let them have congress, turn in our guns just so CRC won't have to be wrong.

He'll be too busy posting threads about year-old bills trying to stir up fear instead of actually doing any grass-roots work

Fuck your snide comments, Roboman !

If you cannot be helpful for the cause then the least you could do is to cease shitting on CRC's thread.

If you gotta problem then start your own thread!

LB

Posted: 2/15/2006 5:59:07 PM EDT

[#25]

"I'm just a bill

And I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill"

It cracks me up whenever I hear some common sense preaching citizen complain about those damn politicians who can't get anything done...

That's the way it should be!

Posted: 2/15/2006 6:01:07 PM EDT

[#26]

I am merely pointing out that a threat to our rights exist.

All it takes is a few changes to bill and bammo, it's law.

That's exactly what happend in 1993-1994!

Posted: 2/15/2006 6:11:23 PM EDT

[#27]

Quoted:
BARNEY FRANK!!!!! Say it ain't so!

ha hes a fag from mass...glad i left that fucked up state

Posted: 2/15/2006 6:12:54 PM EDT

[#28]

What was that word again...oh yeah...Domestic Enemies.

Posted: 2/15/2006 6:14:49 PM EDT

[#29]

Quoted:
Blue State moonbat freaks.

That has a nice ring to it.

Posted: 2/15/2006 6:15:47 PM EDT

[#30]

Can't they just wait until after the SCAR/ ARM comes out?

Posted: 2/15/2006 6:45:42 PM EDT

[#31]

They are the usual suspects: a reliable nest of communists, traitors, crumb-snatchers, beggars, thieves, and hydraulic lawn-jockeys, spewing self-righteousness and entitlement at the flip of a switch. They are the pixel-sized elements of the target at which Jehovah's almighty J-Dam of vengeance will be directed on judgment day, whe He at last determines to cleanse the Earth. The eyeless, multi-eared exoskeletal vermin gnawing the marrow of the bones of such as Jefferson and Madison, they flee with a gut churning skitter whenever the Constitution is invoked. They are the conscientious remnant, who can be relied upon to speak truth to power - and loudly - so long as the grand jury is out of session and the per diem is guaranteed. They are so many 3 pound blocks of government cheese with carboard wrappers and arms and legs and character which being neither hot nor cold must be spat out. With every breath they draw they argue forcefully for monarchy or oligarchy or anarchy or any archy but the archy that got drunk and shit them out near the levers of power. Their mere living indicts Abraham for having importuned the Almighty in advance of His cleansing of Sodom and Gomorrah. They breathe and thereby beg Jesus to reconsider, to invert time, and to remain in the bosom of the Trinity, aloof from the sufferings of His poor creatures. Individually, they are proof that .22 long rifle cartridges cost too much to waste; collectively, they are a fleshy, self-important rubber stamp reading "Deposit Only" and visible only on the back of a welfare check. One day they will die. Thank God that even then rats and roaches will hunger, or those Democratic stalwarts' lives would have been entirely devoid of purpose.

Heaven grant that a hundred years hence, in the pre-dawn gloom of some dusty crossroad, a penniless, toothless vagabond without fortune, hope, or prospect may find that an undercooked tamale has forced him to seek untimely relief for the griping of his bowels; that he may thoughtlessly squat over the open end of a trickly culvert and in the groaning release of his tired and crusty bung shit upon their unmarked and disremembered grave.

Posted: 2/15/2006 8:30:04 PM EDT

[#32]

Quoted:
Sheila Jackson Lee, what a ......

Need to run her ass out of the state.

Posted: 2/15/2006 9:47:27 PM EDT

[#33]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Sheila Jackson Lee, what a ......

Need to run her ass out of the ~~state~~.

~~country~~....no hmmm...

~~planet~~.......ummmm not really....

~~solar system~~.....well not exactly....

~~universe~~......err let's see

Dimension....YEAH....that's what I want.

I want her and her big stupid hat OUT OF MY DIMENSION.

Yes, that will do nicely.

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:02:02 PM EDT

[#34]

Quoted:
What was that word again...oh yeah...Domestic ~~Enemies~~ Terrorists.

Fixed it for you buddy

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:14:24 PM EDT

[#35]

These are the guys that are actually capable of feeling some heat from their constituency if their stance becomes well known.

1) Rep Brady, Robert A. [PA-1] - 7/28/2005
2) Rep Brown, Corrine [FL-3]
3) Rep DeGette, Diana [CO-1] - 6/23/2005
4) Rep Hastings, Alcee L. [FL-23] - 7/28/2005
5) Rep Jackson-Lee, Sheila [TX-18] - 4/14/2005
6) Rep Johnson, Eddie Bernice [TX-30]
7) Rep Lewis, John [GA-5]
8) Rep Miller, Brad [NC-13]
9) Rep Moran, James P. [VA-8] - 7/14/2005
10) Rep Pastor, Ed [AZ-4]
11) Rep Wexler, Robert [FL-19] - 4/21/2005

Hopefully ILA is emailing folks that live in those districts. Also,

For the Texas folks

www.house.gov/ebjohnson/

BTW: How did a loser like Sheila Jackson-Lee get elected in this great state?

My GOD! Google the name if you care to... What a freak show.

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:22:00 PM EDT

[#36]

Quoted:
They are the usual suspects: a reliable nest of communists, traitors, crumb-snatchers, beggars, thieves, and hydraulic lawn-jockeys, spewing self-righteousness and entitlement at the flip of a switch. They are the pixel-sized elements of the target at which Jehovah's almighty J-Dam of vengeance will be directed on judgment day, whe He at last determines to cleanse the Earth. The eyeless, multi-eared exoskeletal vermin gnawing the marrow of the bones of such as Jefferson and Madison, they flee with a gut churning skitter whenever the Constitution is invoked. They are the conscientious remnant, who can be relied upon to speak truth to power - and loudly - so long as the grand jury is out of session and the per diem is guaranteed. They are so many 3 pound blocks of government cheese with carboard wrappers and arms and legs and character which being neither hot nor cold must be spat out. With every breath they draw they argue forcefully for monarchy or oligarchy or anarchy or any archy but the archy that got drunk and shit them out near the levers of power. Their mere living indicts Abraham for having importuned the Almighty in advance of His cleansing of Sodom and Gomorrah. They breathe and thereby beg Jesus to reconsider, to invert time, and to remain in the bosom of the Trinity, aloof from the sufferings of His poor creatures. Individually, they are proof that .22 long rifle cartridges cost too much to waste; collectively, they are a fleshy, self-important rubber stamp reading "Deposit Only" and visible only on the back of a welfare check. One day they will die. Thank God that even then rats and roaches will hunger, or those Democratic stalwarts' lives would have been entirely devoid of purpose.

Heaven grant that a hundred years hence, in the pre-dawn gloom of some dusty crossroad, a penniless, toothless vagabond without fortune, hope, or prospect may find that an undercooked tamale has forced him to seek untimely relief for the griping of his bowels; that he may thoughtlessly squat over the open end of a trickly culvert and in the groaning release of his tired and crusty bung shit upon their unmarked and disremembered grave.

You know L1A, you should write an anthology of these brooding, razor-like missives you
so effrortlessly create.

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:36:54 PM EDT

[#37]

Quoted:
Sheila Jackson Lee, what a ......

I thought that bitch had a stroke and drowned in her swimming pool? Maybe it was just a dream...

Posted: 2/15/2006 10:41:03 PM EDT

[#38]

this is why I am always placing orders for future banned guns.

sig 556-"Ill take 2"
"Oh I see you are running a special on AR lower receivers today, ah only $88 each for 10, Ill take ten of them"

Posted: 2/16/2006 4:51:19 AM EDT

[#39]

Quoted:
Quoted:
Sheila Jackson Lee, what a ......

I thought that bitch had a stroke and drowned in her swimming pool? Maybe it was just a dream...

LOL.

Posted: 2/16/2006 5:03:22 AM EDT

[#40]

Never let your guard down.

Posted: 2/16/2006 5:05:37 AM EDT

[#41]

but..but....but there's no difference b/w democrats and republicans!!!1111

Posted: 2/16/2006 5:05:57 AM EDT

[#42]

Quoted:
Gun Control is a political death warrant. They need to be reminded of that.

We need to encourage them to continue lookin' like clueless MoFo's....do it for the lil Chilrun.
Pete

Posted: 2/16/2006 5:10:17 AM EDT

[#43]

If every one on that list were to spontaneously combust, would anyone really care?

I know I wouldn't.

Posted: 2/16/2006 5:20:23 AM EDT

[#44]

And this is a surprise?

Virtually every one of these moonbats is a member of the Congressional Progressive Caucus. Until 1999, they were all members of the Congressional Caucus of the Democratic Socialists of America. That year they were outed and they quickly changed their name.

Their leader is none other than the only avowed Socialist in Congress, Bernie Saunders from Vermont. Their former leader was Dennis Kucinich from Ohio.

It is the avowed aim of all Democrats, Socialists, Communists, Progressives, and Libtards to rid "society" of all firearms. They firmly believe that only the police and the military (and the Party Secret Police of course...) should have guns.

A vote for a Democrat is a vote to disarm yourself! If they regain power in Congress...you can rest assured that this will make it to the President's desk.

REMEMBER THAT MY FRIENDS THE NEXT TIME YOU STEP INTO THE VOTING BOOTH!!!

Posted: 2/16/2006 5:23:09 AM EDT

[#45]

Quoted:
Gun Control is a political death warrant. They need to be reminded of that.

NOT for these assholes. Take a look at their districts. Virtually every fucking one is absolutely BULLETPROOF. They are all in the most liberal districts in the country. They are the most commie of a liberal Democratic Party now.

They couldn't care LESS about being "reminded" 'cause it don't matter to them. They are perfectly safe. Others may listen to us...but certainly not these people.

Posted: 2/16/2006 5:33:15 AM EDT

[#46]

G-D it!! take a quick look at where these people are from:

NY, NJ, CA, and MA. will you people PLEASE get your "representatives" under control. you can live how you like, and vote how you want in your own state, but i'm getting sick and damned tired of defending my freedoms from the politicians of 4 states!!!

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - 95 CONGRESSCRITTERS WANT TO BAN 'ASSAULT WEAPONS'

General » General Discussion

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us