The Law Suits and Bush

G

Glenn E. Meyer

New member
The law suits against gun companies have a real chance of destroying the industry for private citizens.

If Bush gets in, he can stop Federal level involvement. States could continue on their own but one could make aid contingent on their being stopped.

Gore will go ahead full steam with the suits.

So if we vote third party and get Gore and the suits continue and are successful, how will the third party vote help us?

How will the third party president who is going to be elected after the pump is primed going to undo the damage, esp. to smaller companies that just disappeared?
 
What does Dubya like for breakfast...WAFFLE, WAFFLE, WAFFLES! On gun control the man likes to waffle. Its always the question will he be for us or not. Me thinks his feet are feet of clay. Least ways that's what the Duke would say...I'll betcha.
 
I feel that the suits have already gone passed the point of being called back. Too many lawyers have the $ signs in thier eyes and will not relent unless the Supreme Court, or better yet, the People put a stop to them. When money is involved, people (guberments, lawyers) will not stop unless their leashes are pulled and the choke chain tightens. Also the other branches of the guberment have sticky fingers. The dems are rabid about bankrupting the firearms industry and disarming the citizens. The repubs are worried about not being voted in, or losing votes during the next elections that they will "stonewall" the process but will not stop it. They will say, "we tried" to console the gunowners but will not try to overrule it. The rebublicans have the majority in both houses but do little to overrule/over turn just one of the unConstitutional executive orders that klinton has signed. Even those who are (were) deemed good people who actually wanted to do right by the People give up and say, "well, I tried" (case in point: Craig in ID giving up halting klintons land grab). We could have a repub. president and 100% in both houses and we would probably still be fighting for our Rights. I still have hope, but the hope will HAVE to be from the People and not from the guberment. Everytime we've looked to the guberment to solve or help in a situation, we the People have always been disappointed. Bush will slow down the process, but won't stop it (on all issues); we know that gore will speed up the process. We're also caught in a dilemma of having to vote for the lesser of the two evils. I would like to see Keyes or someone like him in office. But we know that we can't afford to take the chance and vote for a third party for fear of gore winning just like klinton won both elections. We, the People, need to look into our hearts, use our minds, and solve this problem. If we leave it up to the guberment, we all know the outcome. I don't think it's time for another tea party but maybe a tea party lite. Acts of NON-Violent civic disorder (is it illegal to call for this?). Look at the NAACP. I don't agree with them (the confederate flag issue, affirmative action) but people and the guberment are bowing down to thier acts. Right now, we are falling, one by one. Being jailed, losing in court, and being scared into committing small acts of civil disobedence or speaking out loud. I to am scared of doing such things. One person alone can't do anything and will lose everything. Oh well, just some thoughts on the subject.

USP45usp
 
USP45, Bush signed preemptive legislation in Texas. Bob Barr, or another Republican, has authored legislation to prohibit the federal government from suing the gun makers. Clinton certainly won't sign it, but I'll bet you a C-note that Bush would.

Dick
Want to send Bush a message? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner
you know.
 
USP: I tend to agree with you; The legal system in this country is going into terminal meltdown, because the lawyers have gamed the system to the point where it doesn't really matter what laws are on the books. A Republican President and Congress COULD stop this, but there's no particular reason to believe that they actually place enough importance on our rights to TRY. They'd catch more flack from the media in the process than they're willing to take on our behalf.

I don't think we're quite there yet, but if present trends continue we can't be more than a handful of years away from the point where violent action is justified. And maybe the fact that we don't consider present circumstances enough to justify violence NOW, is why we've reached this point; I imagine Patrick Henry would have gone postal several decades ago.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Monkeyleg: Tell me; When Bush was running for Gov. in Texas, was he promising to block any attempt to repeal gun control laws? Threatening to end private transactions? Promising to raise the age for gun ownership to 21?

Bush was pro-gun in Texas, because he thought he had to be. He's becoming "moderately" anti-gun, (Moderate only in terms of this minute's standards; He's more anti-gun than Clinton would admit to before he was elected.) because he thinks that's what he has to be to be elected nation-wide. Our rights mean nothing to him, either way.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Bush signed the legislation in Texas to stop the suits. He is campaining to stop this kind of litigation in general--here we will be helped by many business lobbies and a much broader social coalition. Congress cannot directly control what the justice dept does (separation of powers and all that). Without justice dept. resources in these suits they would not go far. This would not look like the tobacco companies litigation (where this crap started). This is one in which a change in executives could make all the difference in the world.

Lonnie
 
Lonnie: Actually, they can help what the Justice department does; By impeaching the guy at the head if he does wrong. That's why we have one President; He's supposed to be held responsible for EVERYTHING the executive branch does. Not just for what he does personally.

To bad the Republicans took a dive, and just went through the motions instead of making a real effort to remove him from office.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
Brett,
I do think that the rep's grabbed the wrong issue with the sex and lying thing. Had they laid back a bit and kept the powder dry they could have made a serious run for removal for the china campain money, as it turned out their credibility was too damaged to to pursue that as vigorously as would have been possible. Monica/lying allowed the press to bury the china story.
Lonnie
 
Lonnie: As far as I could see, it wasn't a sex and lying thing, it was a perjury thing. The sex was utterly incidental. But, yes, there had to be a half dozen things they could have nailed him on, if they'd really meant to bring him down; Unconstitutional executive orders. Filegate. Travelgate. The Chinese money. Corrupting the Justice Department. Selling seats on trade missions for $100,000 a pop.

There were conservative groups like Judicial Watch which had been investigating this creep for years, they offered the Republicans all in information they'd gathered, and the GOP threw it in the trash can. The House leadership took a dive, (The House as a whole had voted to do everything it took, but the leaders ignored the vote.) then the Senate didn't even bother to make it look good when they went down.

------------------
Sic semper tyrannis!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top