We won this battle, and the fruits of our hard work and determination is great. But let's not forget the traitors in the Republican Ranks....

www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=108&session=2&vote=00024

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 108th Congress - 2nd Session

as compiled through Senate LIS by the Senate Bill Clerk under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate


Vote Summary

Question: On the Amendment (Feinstein Amdt. No. 2637 )  
Vote Number:  24 Vote Date:  March 2, 2004, 11:38 AM
Required For Majority:  1/2 Vote Result:  Amendment Agreed to
Amendment Number:  S.Amdt. 2637 to S. 1805 (Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act )  
Statement of Purpose:  To provide for a 10-year extension of the assault weapons ban.
Vote Counts: YEAs 52
NAYs 47
Not Voting 1
Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Alphabetical by Senator Name Akaka (D-HI), Yea
Alexander (R-TN), Nay
Allard (R-CO), Nay
Allen (R-VA), Nay
Baucus (D-MT), Nay
Bayh (D-IN), Yea
Bennett (R-UT), Nay
Biden (D-DE), Yea
Bingaman (D-NM), Yea
Bond (R-MO), Nay
Boxer (D-CA), Yea
Breaux (D-LA), Yea
Brownback (R-KS), Nay
Bunning (R-KY), Nay
Burns (R-MT), Nay
Byrd (D-WV), Yea
Campbell (R-CO), Nay
Cantwell (D-WA), Yea
Carper (D-DE), Yea
Chafee (R-RI), Yea
Chambliss (R-GA), Nay
Clinton (D-NY), Yea
Cochran (R-MS), Nay
Coleman (R-MN), Nay
Collins (R-ME), Yea
Conrad (D-ND), Yea
Cornyn (R-TX), Nay
Corzine (D-NJ), Yea
Craig (R-ID), Nay
Crapo (R-ID), Nay
Daschle (D-SD), Yea
Dayton (D-MN), Yea
DeWine (R-OH), Yea
Dodd (D-CT), Yea
Dole (R-NC), Nay
Domenici (R-NM), Nay
Dorgan (D-ND), Yea
Durbin (D-IL), Yea
Edwards (D-NC), Yea
Ensign (R-NV), Nay
Enzi (R-WY), Nay
Feingold (D-WI), Nay
Feinstein (D-CA), Yea
Fitzgerald (R-IL), Yea
Frist (R-TN), Nay
Graham (D-FL), Yea
Graham (R-SC), Nay
Grassley (R-IA), Nay
Gregg (R-NH), Yea
Hagel (R-NE), Nay
Harkin (D-IA), Yea
Hatch (R-UT), Nay
Hollings (D-SC), Yea
Hutchison (R-TX), Nay
Inhofe (R-OK), Nay
Inouye (D-HI), Yea
Jeffords (I-VT), Yea
Johnson (D-SD), Not Voting
Kennedy (D-MA), Yea
Kerry (D-MA), Yea
Kohl (D-WI), Yea
Kyl (R-AZ), Nay
Landrieu (D-LA), Nay
Lautenberg (D-NJ), Yea
Leahy (D-VT), Yea
Levin (D-MI), Yea
Lieberman (D-CT), Yea
Lincoln (D-AR), Yea
Lott (R-MS), Nay
Lugar (R-IN), Yea
McCain (R-AZ), Nay
McConnell (R-KY), Nay
Mikulski (D-MD), Yea
Miller (D-GA), Nay
Murkowski (R-AK), Nay
Murray (D-WA), Yea
Nelson (D-FL), Yea
Nelson (D-NE), Nay
Nickles (R-OK), Nay
Pryor (D-AR), Yea
Reed (D-RI), Yea
Reid (D-NV), Nay
Roberts (R-KS), Nay
Rockefeller (D-WV), Yea
Santorum (R-PA), Nay
Sarbanes (D-MD), Yea
Schumer (D-NY), Yea
Sessions (R-AL), Nay
Shelby (R-AL), Nay
Smith (R-OR), Yea
Snowe (R-ME), Yea
Specter (R-PA), Nay
Stabenow (D-MI), Yea
Stevens (R-AK), Nay
Sununu (R-NH), Nay
Talent (R-MO), Nay
Thomas (R-WY), Nay
Voinovich (R-OH), Yea
Warner (R-VA), Yea
Wyden (D-OR), Yea

Vote Summary By Senator Name By Vote Position By Home State


Grouped By Vote Position YEAs ---52
Akaka (D-HI)
Bayh (D-IN)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Breaux (D-LA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Carper (D-DE)
Chafee (R-RI)
Clinton (D-NY)
Collins (R-ME)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Daschle (D-SD)
Dayton (D-MN)
DeWine (R-OH)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Edwards (D-NC)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Fitzgerald (R-IL)
Graham (D-FL)
Gregg (R-NH)
Harkin (D-IA)
Hollings (D-SC)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Kohl (D-WI)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Lieberman (D-CT)
Lincoln (D-AR)
Lugar (R-IN)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Nelson (D-FL)
Pryor (D-AR)
Reed (D-RI)
Rockefeller (D-WV)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)
Smith (R-OR)
Snowe (R-ME)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Voinovich (R-OH)
Warner (R-VA)
Wyden (D-OR)

NAYs ---47
Alexander (R-TN)
Allard (R-CO)
Allen (R-VA)
Baucus (D-MT)
Bennett (R-UT)
Bond (R-MO)
Brownback (R-KS)
Bunning (R-KY)
Burns (R-MT)
Campbell (R-CO)
Chambliss (R-GA)
Cochran (R-MS)
Coleman (R-MN)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Craig (R-ID)
Crapo (R-ID)
Dole (R-NC)
Domenici (R-NM)
Ensign (R-NV)
Enzi (R-WY)
Feingold (D-WI)
Frist (R-TN)
Graham (R-SC)
Grassley (R-IA)
Hagel (R-NE)
Hatch (R-UT)
Hutchison (R-TX)
Inhofe (R-OK)
Kyl (R-AZ)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lott (R-MS)
McCain (R-AZ)
McConnell (R-KY)
Miller (D-GA)
Murkowski (R-AK)
Nelson (D-NE)
Nickles (R-OK)
Reid (D-NV)
Roberts (R-KS)
Santorum (R-PA)
Sessions (R-AL)
Shelby (R-AL)
Specter (R-PA)
Stevens (R-AK)
Sununu (R-NH)
Talent (R-MO)
Thomas (R-WY)

Not Voting - 1

By revenge I mean of course voting them out of office...

Quoted: By revenge I mean of course voting them out of office...

Yes, because allowing more democrats to win in Congress will make things SO much better for us next year, right?

Wrote a letter to Mike DeWine a couple months ago and never heard back.

Quoted: Quoted: By revenge I mean of course voting them out of office... Yes, because allowing more democrats to win in Congress will make things SO much better for us next year, right?

They already have the votes to pass the AWB in the Senate...the House is the biggest reason we don't have one today. You might want to care to read the list and see the Democrats that voted on our side, including an original sponser of the '94 ban. Can you name him??

Quoted: Wrote a letter to Mike DeWine a couple months ago and never heard back.

I've talked to his office more times than I care to recall...I firmly believe DeWine is a lost cause...

Quoted: Wrote a letter to Mike DeWine a couple months ago and never heard back.

Yeah, I get crap from him all the time as a response.
Letters, emails...  always liberal drivel
"he supports our 2nd amendment rights...  
he thinks violence is a problem...
maintain hunting rights...
blah...
blah...
blah...

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By revenge I mean of course voting them out of office... Yes, because allowing more democrats to win in Congress will make things SO much better for us next year, right? They already have the votes to pass the AWB in the Senate...the House is the biggest reason we don't have one today. You might want to care to read the list and see the Democrats that voted on our side, including an original sponser of the '94 ban. Can you name him??

Either you don't understand how things work in Congress or you're a DU plant.

The blue dogs will bite us if they have a majority in either the House or Senate.  Lets say the dems get a majority in Congress; the party line is for more gun control.  What do you think the job of the majority Whip is?  And once they win, they get control of the committees, and thus they get to set the legislative agenda until the next election.  You'll see gun control being pushed out of committee for a floor vote before you can say "Another ban?".

And let go one step further.  Lets assume BUsh does win a second term, but you "punish" some republicans by allowing dems to win.  What the hell do you think are going to happen to Bush's judicial nominees?  Does the term "Bork" mean anything to you?

ETA:  I know there's plenty of turncoat republicans in congress, but if you don't support them, you're janding the democrats the keys to the legislative agenda and power over future court nominees.  Those republicans may suck, but they're still better than the alternative IMHO.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By revenge I mean of course voting them out of office... Yes, because allowing more democrats to win in Congress will make things SO much better for us next year, right? They already have the votes to pass the AWB in the Senate...the House is the biggest reason we don't have one today. You might want to care to read the list and see the Democrats that voted on our side, including an original sponser of the '94 ban. Can you name him?? Either you don't understand how things work in Congress or you're a DU plant. The blue dogs will bite us if they have a majority in either the House or Senate.  Lets say the dems get a majority in Congress; the party line is for more gun control.  What do you think the job of the majority Whip is?  And once they win, they get control of the committees, and thus they get to set the legislative agenda until the next election. And let go one step further.  Lets assume BUsh does win a second term, but you "punish" some republicans by allowing dems to win.  What the hell do you think are going to happen to Bush's judicial nominees?  Does the term "Bork" mean anything to you?

Words of wisdom my friends

Already doing this (for a different reason). The idea is that if one of the Republicans is sacrificed to the will of the people, the others will listen up. Political Human Sacrifice

CW

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By revenge I mean of course voting them out of office... Yes, because allowing more democrats to win in Congress will make things SO much better for us next year, right? They already have the votes to pass the AWB in the Senate...the House is the biggest reason we don't have one today. You might want to care to read the list and see the Democrats that voted on our side, including an original sponser of the '94 ban. Can you name him?? Either you don't understand how things work in Congress or you're a DU plant. The blue dogs will bite us if they have a majority in either the House or Senate.  Lets say the dems get a majority in Congress; the party line is for more gun control.  What do you think the job of the majority Whip is?  And once they win, they get control of the committees, and thus they get to set the legislative agenda until the next election.  You'll see gun control being pushed out of committee for a floor vote before you can say "Another ban?". And let go one step further.  Lets assume BUsh does win a second term, but you "punish" some republicans by allowing dems to win.  What the hell do you think are going to happen to Bush's judicial nominees?  Does the term "Bork" mean anything to you? ETA:  I know there's plenty of turncoat republicans in congress, but if you don't support them, you're janding the democrats the keys to the legislative agenda and power over future court nominees.  Those republicans may suck, but they're still better than the alternative IMHO.

Feingold is the answer btw...no, I'm not a plant, yes, I know how Congress works, and yes, I know who Bork is...

Anyways, tough talk from a New Yorker...here in Ohio we don't like to vote for someone we know is anti-gun...we got screwed for several years with Taft and his delays on our CCW, and Voinovich and Dewine turned out to be much more liberal than they advertised. See, here in Ohio and other battleground states we are trying to not become another NY. Maybe if this time Dewine doesn't win, the Republican Party will run a pro gun candiate...

Or we can just take your advise, vote for him, and know we just voted for an anti-gunner...No thanks...

Quoted: Already doing this (for a different reason). The idea is that if one of the Republicans is sacrificed to the will of the people, the others will listen up. CW

Exactly...DeWine is a weasel and he needs to go...period!

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By revenge I mean of course voting them out of office... Yes, because allowing more democrats to win in Congress will make things SO much better for us next year, right? They already have the votes to pass the AWB in the Senate...the House is the biggest reason we don't have one today. You might want to care to read the list and see the Democrats that voted on our side, including an original sponser of the '94 ban. Can you name him?? Either you don't understand how things work in Congress or you're a DU plant. The blue dogs will bite us if they have a majority in either the House or Senate.  Lets say the dems get a majority in Congress; the party line is for more gun control.  What do you think the job of the majority Whip is?  And once they win, they get control of the committees, and thus they get to set the legislative agenda until the next election.  You'll see gun control being pushed out of committee for a floor vote before you can say "Another ban?". And let go one step further.  Lets assume BUsh does win a second term, but you "punish" some republicans by allowing dems to win.  What the hell do you think are going to happen to Bush's judicial nominees?  Does the term "Bork" mean anything to you? ETA:  I know there's plenty of turncoat republicans in congress, but if you don't support them, you're janding the democrats the keys to the legislative agenda and power over future court nominees.  Those republicans may suck, but they're still better than the alternative IMHO. Feingold is the answer btw...no, I'm not a plant, yes, I know how Congress works, and yes, I know who Bork is... Anyways, tough talk from a New Yorker...here in Ohio we don't like to vote for someone we know is anti-gun...we got screwed for several years with Taft and his delays on our CCW, and Voinovich and Dewine turned out to be much more liberal than they advertised. See, here in Ohio and other battleground states we are trying to not become another NY. Maybe if this time Dewine doesn't win, the Republican Party will run a pro gun candiate... Or we can just take your advise, vote for him, and know we just voted for an anti-gunner...No thanks...

Problem is by not voting for him, you may very well tip the balance in Congress and not only get a democrat in OH, but dems in all the committee chairs throughout.  The primary is where you should be working harder to get pro-gun candidates instead of Dewine.  Now that its the general election, you're risking control of all the committees and judicial nominations by allowing a democrat to get in.  Remember, Dewine may only represent Ohio, but control of the House and senate go to the party with the most people in Congress.  Why do you think losing that turncoat Jeffords a couple years ago was such a serious blow to the republicans?  He was a RINO, but as soon as he changed party affiliation, the republicans lost control of the Senate.  All because of him and his one vote.

Quoted: The way to beat RINO's is in the primary--NOT in the general election.  Please use a bit of savvy, guys--the MOST IMPORTANT thing is to maintain a Republican majority in both the House and Senate--and to extend their majority in the Senate to overcome filibusters.  MUCH is hanging on this election, including judicial appointments, as mentioned by Shaggy.

EVERYONE HERE NEEDS TO COMMIT THIS TO MEMORY!!!!!

Yeah, VoinoDICK and DeWHINE are anti-gun assholes.  But so what?  They make Republicans the majority.  The alternative to that is too damn ugly to even consider.

The PRIMARIES is where we must attack.  Send Voinovich and DeWine packing, and replace them with real Republicans who will then have a fighting chance to set things right.  You will never get that chance if two Ds replace them in the Senate's roster.

DO NOT CUT YOUR NOSE TO SPITE YOUR FACE

Quoted: Quoted: By revenge I mean of course voting them out of office... Yes, because allowing more democrats to win in Congress will make things SO much better for us next year, right?

+1

squeezecockerspaniel - please tell me what we "Won" - in failing to prevent that piece of shit legislation from passing, from running its full 10 years, unmolested?

Glad is is gone. Glad we staved off attempts to renew it. Beyond those very narrow precincts, we've done next to nothing to inform, educate, or coffer dam against similar legislation in the future.


Edited to add: - it will be the same fight over and over again, until Feinstein, Schumer, Brady et al are removed from the government. We should be fighting against THOSE pieces of shit, NOT punishing our (supposed) own.

Quoted: Quoted: By revenge I mean of course voting them out of office... Yes, because allowing more democrats to win in Congress will make things SO much better for us next year, right?

...Or perhaps we can vote the two-timing "Republicans" that don't support their own party with Republicans THAT DO SO.

Jesus christ, did the room temperature IQ slip again?

Are there any DINO candidates that could replace those RINOs? By DINO I mean politicians like Zell Miller. (definitely more R than some Rs) Zell Miller voted in line with Rs more often than he did with Ds, even though he insists he is a D.

Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: By revenge I mean of course voting them out of office... Yes, because allowing more democrats to win in Congress will make things SO much better for us next year, right? ...Or perhaps we can vote the two-timing "Republicans" that don't support their own party with Republicans THAT DO SO. Jesus christ, did the room temperature IQ slip again?

In the primary you can do that - thats the time for it.  In the general election, if a republican loses to a democrat, its one less republican in Congress to contribute to a republican majority, and one more democrat to contribute to a democrat majority.  How do you think it gets decided who chairs committees and sets the legislative agenda?