S.308 (restaurant carry) debate from 4/17/13 - Page 22
Page 22 of 60 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast
Results 211 to 220 of 596

Thread: S.308 (restaurant carry) debate from 4/17/13

  1. #211
    Quote Originally Posted by DLB1964 View Post
    I believe this would have happened regardless based on what I have seen in the House and Senate the last 2 days.
    If the house had just passed the bill as is, the Senate doesn't get another chance to do this.

  2.   
  3. #212
    is he seriously debating a weapon falling and going off?? WTF

  4. Quote Originally Posted by John Canuck View Post
    If the house had just passed the bill as is, the Senate doesn't get another chance to do this.
    I understand that...but you are assuming that the House wasn't going to change anything in the next 2 readings.

    Totally respect what your saying- but I definitely think those clowns wouldn't have left things as is.

  5. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by Gadgetech View Post
    The senator from Richland assumes only the folks with CCW are going to commit a crime? I also didn't realize he was an insurance under writer.
    None of what he's saying is intended to change anyones mind, nor does any of it need to be true. The content of what they are saying isn't important as long as they keep talking.

    He never saw anyone with a sawed off shotgun "in his leg" either. He know's how stupid all this sounds, but if he can stop restaurant carry, that's all he cares about.

    This is all arranged to filibuster the vote. Rhetorical, stupid softball questions lobbed up in the air are just another tool to take up time. They only need to do this until 5:00 and they have killed the bill, without even voting.

    They (the antigun forces) just need to maintain control of the floor for another 50 minutes.

  6. #215
    Quote Originally Posted by DLB1964 View Post
    I understand that...but you are assuming that the House wasn't going to change anything in the next 2 readings.

    Totally respect what your saying- but I definitely think those clowns wouldn't have left things as is.
    If the big "pro gun" lobbying groups had told them to pass it the way it was, they would have been much more likely to do so.

    Their defense is that there is no guarantee that you would get the problems fixed in the next session. Agreed. There is also no guarantee that a restaurant carry bill will make it out of committee in the next session.

    Since you aren't here to play Jeopardy, I won't bother to tell you how an NRA A rated member of the House managed to keep restaurant carry from seeing the light of day for years simply by being the committee chairman. He never let it come up on his schedule. Simple. He was providing cover for other anti-gunners who didn't want to be on record as voting against restaurant carry.

    Getting rid of him provided the opening for us to get here. Now, the anti gunners win, without having to vote... again.

    It's possible that the only reason Pitt's threw his amendment on the pile is because S308 had to go back for concurrence already, so he had nothing to lose. His amendment was really just his own bill H 3422 (I think) that he couldn't get passed on it's own. Why would he ever think it would help restaurant carry... oh yeah.

  7. Theres 25 minutes of my life I had back.

  8. All that **** from Scott and his amendment was rebuffed. LOL

  9. Quote Originally Posted by John Canuck View Post
    If the big "pro gun" lobbying groups had told them to pass it the way it was, they would have been much more likely to do so.

    Their defense is that there is no guarantee that you would get the problems fixed in the next session. Agreed. There is also no guarantee that a restaurant carry bill will make it out of committee in the next session.

    Since you aren't here to play Jeopardy, I won't bother to tell you how an NRA A rated member of the House managed to keep restaurant carry from seeing the light of day for years simply by being the committee chairman. He never let it come up on his schedule. Simple. He was providing cover for other anti-gunners who didn't want to be on record as voting against restaurant carry.

    Getting rid of him provided the opening for us to get here. Now, the anti gunners win, without having to vote... again.

    It's possible that the only reason Pitt's threw his amendment on the pile is because S308 had to go back for concurrence already, so he had nothing to lose. His amendment was really just his own bill H 3422 (I think) that he couldn't get passed on it's own. Why would he ever think it would help restaurant carry... oh yeah.
    I heard about that guy...didn't get re-elected, right?

  10. #219
    For those more familiar with the process, are we dead until January or did the necessary parts need to happen to discuss when they come back later this month?

  11. #220
    For all the cowboys out there, S 308 is outta here... for now --> Blog

Page 22 of 60 FirstFirst ... 12202122232432 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast