How your rep voted on House S$W bill...
- Thread starter simonov jr
- Start date
Interesting how the demograhphics line up on this one.... Seems like most of the No's came from the northeast from republicans. Other than that it was by party line.
That is the same pattern I've seen on most gun issues. The small pocket of N's in Colorado will be taken care of this next election thanks to our friends in the trt.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
That is the same pattern I've seen on most gun issues. The small pocket of N's in Colorado will be taken care of this next election thanks to our friends in the trt.
------------------
Richard
The debate is not about guns,
but rather who has the ultimate power to rule,
the People or Government.
RKBA!
Pennsylvania was all YES. It's about time these guys voted something correctly!
------------------
Son
1911 Addiction
"No man is so poor as to have nothing worth giving."
------------------
Son
1911 Addiction
"No man is so poor as to have nothing worth giving."
Across the board yesses in my state. Sigh... I'm itching for a good fight, so maybe I should move to an anti-gun state/district for awhile, just for the challenge of defeating the anti-gun politicians. Can't you guys in those states start some ugly vicious non-gun-related rumors, true or not, about these morons to defeat them in November?
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Mine's cool. I write him all the time to remind him 
It is interesting how the GOP shows some softness on this and the Dems keep their guys in line or so it seems.
It is interesting how the GOP shows some softness on this and the Dems keep their guys in line or so it seems.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Glenn E. Meyer:
It is interesting how the GOP shows some softness on this and the Dems keep their guys in line or so it seems.
[/quote]
"Interesting?" Yeah, if you consider a total lack of principles and determined wishy-washiness to be interesting.
If the GOP were as pro-gun as they claim to be, this would've been a shutout.
It is interesting how the GOP shows some softness on this and the Dems keep their guys in line or so it seems.
[/quote]
"Interesting?" Yeah, if you consider a total lack of principles and determined wishy-washiness to be interesting.
If the GOP were as pro-gun as they claim to be, this would've been a shutout.
This vote was the straw that did it!!! Every damn Representative from my state, even the ONLY Democrat voted yes. Except Rep. Northup, from my district.
I have written and received replies that stated she would not support the S&W deal. She is nothing but a liar.
I will most certainly ask her why and inform her that no matter what she will not be receiving my vote nor anyone else's that I can explain the facts to.
Here it is:
KENTUCKY
Republicans - Fletcher, Y; Lewis, Y; **Northup, N**; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, X.
Democrats - Lucas, Y.
Man, am I peeved.
Sgt.K
I have written and received replies that stated she would not support the S&W deal. She is nothing but a liar.
I will most certainly ask her why and inform her that no matter what she will not be receiving my vote nor anyone else's that I can explain the facts to.
Here it is:
KENTUCKY
Republicans - Fletcher, Y; Lewis, Y; **Northup, N**; Rogers, Y; Whitfield, X.
Democrats - Lucas, Y.
Man, am I peeved.
Sgt.K
Just sent this to my Rep.
Honorable Representative Northup,
I would like an explanation as to why you voted against H.AMDT.905 (A037) Amends: H.R.4690
Sponsor: Rep Hostettler, John N. (offered 6/26/2000)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment numbered 23 printed in the Congressional Record to add a new section which provides that no funds in the bill may be used to enforce, implement, or administer the provisions of the settlement document dated March 17, 2000, between Smith and Wesson and the Department of the Treasury.
Needless to say, I was shocked and felt let-down. Because in numerous replies to my letters you stated "The agreement struck by the Administration and Smith and Wesson undercuts both our legislative and judicial process and sets a dangerous precedent that consumers or the government could use against any legal commercial good." And "Further, promoting a partisan vote on this issue during consideration of appropriations bills (which fund the entire operation of federal government programs) could lead to extreme difficulties for their passage in the House."
The fact is that ALL of the Representatives from Kentucky that were present, even the ONLY Democrat, voted for this Amendment. Therefore the "disclaimer" in the prior quote is invalid.
Therefore, I need a really good reason as to why you voted "Nay", and why I should vote "Yea" for you come November. Reasons other than avoiding "Partisan" politics, and "but look at what I have supported".
Sincerely yours,
I found out the best way to get a "real" response is to put some type of emotion in your reply, hence "Needless to say, I was shock and felt let-down". If it works for the liberals, why not.
She always responds. So I'll let you know what she has to say for herself.
Sgt.K
Honorable Representative Northup,
I would like an explanation as to why you voted against H.AMDT.905 (A037) Amends: H.R.4690
Sponsor: Rep Hostettler, John N. (offered 6/26/2000)
AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment numbered 23 printed in the Congressional Record to add a new section which provides that no funds in the bill may be used to enforce, implement, or administer the provisions of the settlement document dated March 17, 2000, between Smith and Wesson and the Department of the Treasury.
Needless to say, I was shocked and felt let-down. Because in numerous replies to my letters you stated "The agreement struck by the Administration and Smith and Wesson undercuts both our legislative and judicial process and sets a dangerous precedent that consumers or the government could use against any legal commercial good." And "Further, promoting a partisan vote on this issue during consideration of appropriations bills (which fund the entire operation of federal government programs) could lead to extreme difficulties for their passage in the House."
The fact is that ALL of the Representatives from Kentucky that were present, even the ONLY Democrat, voted for this Amendment. Therefore the "disclaimer" in the prior quote is invalid.
Therefore, I need a really good reason as to why you voted "Nay", and why I should vote "Yea" for you come November. Reasons other than avoiding "Partisan" politics, and "but look at what I have supported".
Sincerely yours,
I found out the best way to get a "real" response is to put some type of emotion in your reply, hence "Needless to say, I was shock and felt let-down". If it works for the liberals, why not.
She always responds. So I'll let you know what she has to say for herself.
Sgt.K