<devils advocate mode on>

Yes. You do.

Jerry

You failed the test. Try again. I'll slow down this time:

Wickman is responsible for bringing this bill to life. Yes? (I see you agree). Would the NY/NJ Senators have had an "evil" bill to talk about had this bill not been introduced? Hmmm. Let's see how you'll bring the the NAR and alien abductions into this now.

Maybe you need one more Bud to help with your logic.

-John

Or a pile of something else quite similar to what the Wickmanites have been generating.

-John

"John DeMar"

-----

Now that's funny.

When I said "Must be crushed", if was with the thought of him thinking that the hacked bill would get threw. Now that it will have one hell of a time getting threw, he must now understand that the latest Wickman version has Zero chance.

NAR/TRA staying out of his bill would not have changed that.

HDS

So because it was Wickman's bill, and not the one NAR/TRA indicated it would have to introduce following litigation, the senators decided that rockets are evil and held the press conference? You got me there. Yep, all his fault. I completely agree now. Although,.. I don't see how NAR/TRA could have gotten legislation past these two based on their anti-gun, anti-terrorism views. Even if they were going to have far more {weight} restrictions on rockets, than the hatcheted bill, to appease the ATF. By your logic, we shouldn't even try.

Joel. phx

Besides, we're back to the lawsuit which is what everyone wanted in the first place, right? Prior to the bill, do you think the ATF would have sat on their hands when the judge rules in our favor? Hmmmm, not likely. More likely we would/will be seeing the same two senators in the news again (probably with Discovery Channel LDRS footage) introducing a bill.

Please, continue to twist this into an anti-wickman anti-nar thread, instead of anti-sanity of government employees.

------------------------------------------------------------ DONATE TO THE LEGAL FUND TODAY!! WE STILL HAVE A LONG ROAD AHEAD

Funny that it got to him ;)

^^ through :)

Thank you for explaining that. Not having more than a general understanding of a bill flowing through the government, I fail to see at what point he could have shoved that new one out there anyway. As such, I hadn't caught your line of thought. It is assuming, of course, that the other senators will vote no to save face (or they believe that line of crap). Has anyone determined the support the bill currently has? Did anyone contact their senator after the ATF report to explain what a load of crap it was? What about since the conference?

I fully agree. Nothing would have stopped these two from pouncing on a pro-rocketry bill.

NAR/TRA was 'supporting'* the hatcheted bill, yes? Do you think they're crushed too because Wickman has 'likewise ruined' their chances of introducing a "reasonable" bill(?). If I'm not mistaken, it's not the Wickman bill which is being stalled (their tact just means that it will take a vote, and these 2 might be the only nay's, yes?), it's the Hatcheted bill with only .9lbs of {specifically limited to} APCP. So if NAR/TRA had introduced their bill first (and/or whatever version they were going to introduce to the house) in order for it to slide on by, it would have been far less than 'just under a pound'? If we lose the lawsuit, how much under a pound is it worth fighting to exempt?

Would we not have run into these two guys no matter the road? Would the ATF not have sent the 'exaggeration' letter into the senate if we won the lawsuit in hopes {these two} senators would ""help them out""? Would there not be another bud in the fridge?

Joel. phx

*'supporting' in that they wanted it through the senate to introduce a revision.

That's what you get if you "mess" with the north end of a southbound bull. ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Me confused. Me fall into big trap. Now know truth. You verwy verwy smart. Wickman do no wrong. Must move to his compound. ;)

Now you're getting there. Change your statement to: "we shouldn't have tried yet" and you now have the main point.

-John DeMar

The legitimacy was questioned (and still is) by virtue of the run to the Supreme Court to overrule a state issue (the recount). So his "election" is really more of an "appointment".

And yet Clinton at least received more votes than all other candidates; the same cannot be said for W.

I don't recall Clinton lying about facts in order to take this country into war. He obviously lied about his personal life (which had little, if anything, to do with his official duties) but that is a far cry from cooking the intelligence facts so as to support a war. THAT sounds like Nixon, not Clinton and the result 29 years ago was an impeachment so imminent he had to resign.

Pete McClure NAR 78671 L1

-- "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."

- Winston [Leonard Spencer] Churchill (1874 - 1965)

- and then there's this from the current Oval Office occupant:

"I'm the Commander, see... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being President... [I] don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

George W. Bush to the National Security Council

I agree, David. But the key word is "elected". The only right W has to contend he was elected was that the Supreme Court said he could. The peoples right to make that determination was cut short by W's run to the friendly conservative SC. Consequently my contention that W was really appointed, not elected. I have to agree that Gore did the right thing tho: continuing the battle by basically taking it to the streets would have done more damage to the country than even W has done (I think, although the jury's still out on that one!).

Pete McClure NAR 78671 L1

-- "Victory at all costs, victory in spite of all terror, victory however long and hard the road may be; for without victory there is no survival."

- Winston [Leonard Spencer] Churchill (1874 - 1965)

- and then there's this from the current Oval Office occupant:

"I'm the Commander, see... I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting thing about being President... [I] don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

George W. Bush to the National Security Council

Just out of curiousity, Pete, but how do you discount that the independent analysis done by news organizations in reviewing all of the Florida ballots determined that Bush would have won regardless? All the Supreme Court decision really did was to put an end to all the games being played about which ballots should be counted, and which counties, etc.

David Erbas-White

Doesn't matter. It's been nothing but the same old tiresome boo-hoo, we wuz robbed and W is the anti-christ (and stupid, even!) from the democrats ever since the election.

Wrong again, Peter. GW won the certified election in accordance with FL law. The liberal FL SC chose to disregard FL Election Law. The Federal SC just made the state of FL whole again by telling the FL SC that it overstepped its powers. Al Gore tried to steal the election by sending an army of lawyers to FL to try to intimidate the various election districts into allowing illegal ballots to be counted in violation of FL election law. Now, had Gore been successful in stealing the election in the courts, you'd probably have seen a lot of major cans of whoopass opened up on liberals across the country. Since we all know that liberals don't like guns, all y'all would have been like ducks in a shooting gallery, dropping like flies across the Heartlands. ;-)

(The above was sarcasm, in case any readers are sarcasm-impaired)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

David, Don't confuse him with facts. He's right because it "feels" right. ;-)

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

That's a revisionist's historical perspective. The election was certified according to FL Law. It was the FL SC that stepped in and acted unconstitutionally, extending the election process.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

No, they didn't support it. I suggest that you go back and reread the posts made by Mark Bundick on the topic.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

Convenient of you to snip relevant text.

As you suggested, NAR statement: "1. TRA and NAR do not -endorse- the substitute S 724. We are not pleased with the contents of the substitute bill,

**but right now it is the only game in town**, and **it is important that it not die in the Senate **

at this time because that will significantly diminish enthusiasm for introducing a companion bill in the House. As stated before, at this time, a companion bill in the House is our best opportunity to develop and pass a bill that is a major improvement over the current Senate bill. And failure to do anything means we are willing to accept the current motor weight limit of 62.5 grams."

Since you snipped the footnote I wrote, here it is again:

*'supporting' in that they wanted it through the senate to introduce a revision.

NAR/TRA wants it to stay alive in the senate. We support the bill such that they can introduce a revision at some future point in time.

Joel. phx

Well put, Karl.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers

The NAR/TRA supports the efforts to keep the debate alive in the senate, but clearly stated that they don't endorse the substitute bill. You stated that they supported the hatcheted bill. There IS a difference.

Mark Simpson NAR 71503 Level II God Bless our peacekeepers