Weapons Ban Lacks Votes to Pass Senate


PDA






Old Fuff
January 25, 2013, 06:13 PM
This is for those who keep writing letters and sending e-mails, even in the face of certain defeat. You know the ones – the ones who will never give up. The ones who pledge that no legislator or candidate that supports gun control in any way or form will ever get their votes. We haven’t won the fight, but we’ve come along way against heavy odds.

Oh, and this comes from a source owned and controled by NYC Mayor Bloomberg.

Assault Weapons Ban Lacks Democratic Votes to Pass Senate

By Heidi Przybyla and Julie Hirschfeld Davis - Jan 25, 2013

A proposed ban on sales of assault weapons would be defeated in the U.S. Senate today unless some members changed their current views, based on a Bloomberg review of recent lawmaker statements and interviews.

At least six of the 55 senators who caucus with Democrats have recently expressed skepticism or outright opposition to a ban, the review found. That means Democrats wouldn’t have a simple 51-vote majority to pass the measure, let alone the 60 votes needed to break a Republican filibuster to bring it to a floor vote.

Read the entire article at:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-01-25/assault-weapons-ban-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html

If you enjoyed reading about "Weapons Ban Lacks Votes to Pass Senate" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
fxstchewy
January 25, 2013, 06:15 PM
Thanks for the Info.........:)

WoodchuckAssassin
January 25, 2013, 06:29 PM
It's a beautiful thing to see the government defending the constitution. Lets keep this trend going!

Coop45
January 25, 2013, 06:34 PM
Now the politicking begins.

sota
January 25, 2013, 06:35 PM
you mean it's a beautiful thing to see our masters and overlords realising the inmates just might get cactus swinging mad enough at them to DO something about it (like vote them out.)

they still need to get kicked to the curb. any representative that so much as sneezed in favor of gun control should be removed.

Bighouse Doc
January 25, 2013, 08:23 PM
This is FAR from over!

-Doc

Bartholomew Roberts
January 25, 2013, 09:15 PM
Good news; but the vote is tighter than that article indicates. For one thing, at least some Republican Senators will vote for a ban, so we need more than 6 Democrats to win a majority vote.

Second, some of Senators they describe as uncertain or maybe are questionable. Susan Collins has voted for every previous AWB, so I'll be surprised if she doesn't vote for this one... And Joe Manchin is already on record with the "no one needs more than 10 rounds nonsense."

We've got lots of reasons to celebrate and be positive; but we cannot let up and we can't get lazy. This is going to be an all or nothing fight.

Silent Bob
January 25, 2013, 09:29 PM
The fat lady definitely hasn't sang on this one. The Democrats not in favor of a new AWB or wavering are going to have to withstand an incredible amount of party and media pressure (think Challenger Deep at the bottom of the Marianas Trench level of pressure) demanding their vote for it.

k_dawg
January 25, 2013, 09:31 PM
Make sure you email to support every (the few ) Democrat and RINOs who has voiced being against it.

They hold the keys.

Old Fuff
January 25, 2013, 11:02 PM
Of course it isn't a done deal! But up until today the media's
“talking heads" have told us that the ban would pass in the Senate, but probably get hung up in the House.

But then came a flood of mail and messages. Now suddenly the Senate is questionable and nobody wants to talk about the situation in the House, that if anything is even more unlikely to pass a ban because they are equally under piles of communications, and 100% of the members are up for election in 2014.

If the pressure and leverage these messages represent doesn’t slack off we may be starting down the mountain rather then crawling up.

One thing is for sure. The reaction is nothing like what the ban's supporters expected.

vamo
January 25, 2013, 11:03 PM
Keep in mind it takes 60 not 51 votes nowadays to get something through the senate.

blkbrd666
January 25, 2013, 11:29 PM
Just keep in mind it could be a ploy to get the pro-guns to exhale and relax/slack off. Just before useless won the election, a lot of the news outlets were saying Romney had a good chance.

5 Screw Smith
January 25, 2013, 11:31 PM
How many senators are willing to fall on their swords again to vote for another AWB?

I'm guessing not too many. :uhoh:

Texshooter
January 26, 2013, 12:16 AM
More pressure

then

some more

icanthitabarn
January 26, 2013, 12:26 AM
The dems might be planning a huge head fake. Come out as a bunch of righties with a fresh new outlook and get a bunch of future rep. votes that they have proven not to deserve anyways.

horsemen61
January 26, 2013, 12:31 AM
This makes me happy :D:D:D

Wylie1
January 26, 2013, 12:31 AM
I may actually get some sleep tonight. Thank you!

Bartholomew Roberts
January 26, 2013, 08:49 AM
Keep in mind it takes 60 not 51 votes nowadays to get something through the senate.

Actually, one of the recent changes is that you can no longer filibuster the motion to proceed (only one chance now vs. two previous).

However, the Chairman of the House Judiciary has said no gun control is making it through his committee. I think it is definitely worthwhile to point out to those Senators up for reelection in 2014 that supporting gun control may cost them a lot in 2014 and the bill will still fail anyway.
*

Yo Mama
January 26, 2013, 08:56 AM
Sorry, but the media is good at using this to get people to stop calling and writing. All of a sudden Senate Committee passes, Senate approves. I don't see how it doesn't.

The House I'm not as worried about, for now.

hso
January 26, 2013, 09:09 AM
today unless some members changed their current views

Let's not celebrate before the struggle is actually won. Some members can change their views. The AWB '13 can be reworked after the authors see what will meet complete and unyielding resistance such that those provisions constitute a "poison pill" for passing and need to be removed. We've seen a too much waffling on universal background checks and on magazine capacity to be comfortable that those are deal breakers for some politicians.

We've seen far to much media support for modern sporting rifle bans and magazine capacity restrictions to relax. We also face state attacks like the battle won in NY by Antis (sure the struggle isn't over but the first round goes to the Antis).

beatledog7
January 26, 2013, 09:21 AM
It's sad that we've been relegated to a system in which two political parties and their more-or-less standardized "views" on issues have taken over what should be first a Constitution-based and secondly a constituency-focused legislature.

The Constitution is threatened, and we are going to see what pretty much boils down to "sides of the aisle" vote, just like we see on every major issue facing our nation. The system is broken.

BSA1
January 26, 2013, 09:38 AM
There are more than one way to skin a cat.

While everyone is focused on Feinsteins bill in the Senate and all of the multiple bills in the House of Representatives the libs might try to get provisions passed by adding them as riders/amendments on other totally non-gun related bills. This is a very common tactic.

bubbameat
January 26, 2013, 09:53 AM
Keep calling! Keep writing! Stay on their rear ends. As soon as you see a commercial pressuring a politician on the fence call and send another email. If they waver hit them again.

wojownik
January 26, 2013, 11:38 AM
This ain't over. Even when it's over, it won't be over.

There's a lot of social and media pressure on this one. It looks like the votes aren't there right now, but things can happen.

And, if and when the Feinstein bill fails, count on one or more different forms of legislation to follow up after that ... maybe a specific magazine restriction bill, maybe also a watered down form of an AWB bill, etc. etc...

The Feinstein bill is such an overreach, it makes many things look "reasonable" by comparison. The real political pressure may come to pass something "lesser" (but still problematic) if the Feinstein bill fails.

This is going to be a year long dance in Congress ... maybe longer.

It'll certainly be longer to roll back the questionable legislation that NY, NJ, CT, MA and others are shoving down the throats of their citizens.

phil dirt
January 26, 2013, 11:54 AM
This fight will NEVER be over. We must keep up the pressure.

I see that the Communist USA party has voiced its approval of all of Feinstein and Obama's gun ban agenda. This is more than a fight to protect our right to self defense. It is a fight to protect the Constitution from tyrants who would first disarm us.

billybob44
January 26, 2013, 01:13 PM
Keep in mind it takes 60 not 51 votes nowadays to get something through the senate.
Yea, Harry R. and his punks are trying to get that changed to a simple majority??

Bartholomew Roberts
January 26, 2013, 01:19 PM
They already did their filibuster reform bill and it passed. You can still filibuster with 60 votes; however you can no longer filibuster the motion to proceed (one chance instead of two to filibuster).

Cesiumsponge
January 26, 2013, 01:27 PM
I suspect most of the mind-changing was based on keeping their seat, not principle. Very few politicians will stick with principles if it costs them their seat. That means it can change back if the tides sway in their favor, politically.

BamAlmighty
January 26, 2013, 01:48 PM
Re election is a wonderful thing.

Doesn't mean they won't try to do it again down the road.

fdashes
January 26, 2013, 01:53 PM
Term limits even better

glove
January 26, 2013, 02:00 PM
Term limits even better
Term Limits yea vote them out.

G2065G
January 26, 2013, 02:01 PM
I agree. Keep the pressure on. There are MANY more bills than just that garbage proposed by Feinstein. This one https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/x101 Has a Lot of support votes, because hey, "It's common sense". Need people to oppose this just as much, or more. All they need to do is win with ONE of these pos bills.

Old Fuff
January 26, 2013, 02:18 PM
Guys...

The Bloomberg revelation does not mean we should stop or even back up. What it means is what we have been doing has apparently had an effect, more will... well... do more.

Unfortunately we have some members who, lacking any positive news, were ready to give up. Now a ray of sunlight has broken through the clouds, and it can be seen that Team Obama is less then invincible. Each day that passes we get closer to the 2014 election - and they know it, and now they know that we will stay the course and not go away.

For the other side that leaves an uneasy feeling... :uhoh:

AlexanderA
January 26, 2013, 02:44 PM
Term limits even better

No. A term-limited officeholder is a lame duck, meaning he can do anything he darn well pleases without fear of retaliation from the voters. (Exactly the position Obama is in, in his second term.) Gun owners would have no clout with such people.

savanahsdad
January 26, 2013, 03:13 PM
they never had the votes ! the drive-by media was just assumeing if they had a "D" after there name that they would be for a gun ban ,
there are 11 democrat senators with "A" and "B" rateings from the NRA Harry R got a "B" from the NRA ! the far left MSNBC ran a pole in favor of a AWB 89% were not in favor of it , you can see it on there web site , I'd bet they will never air it !
but don't sleep too tight , they will fine another way to screw with us , more back ground checks , permits, fees, ect ect ,

as for a ban , not going to happen, in 2010, after the dems, got there clock cleaned out , the NRA, said "We now have the most pro-gun house and senate, in 50 years,

Blakenzy
January 26, 2013, 03:27 PM
We are in an endurance race, a war of attrition. As soon as we go to sleep, something will pass, guaranteed. It's going to be a looong four years.. or more.

Things to look out for: magazine restrictions, Universal Background Check(prelude to Universal registration), making F2F transfers a felony.

Feinstein's Bill will be broken up and attempts will be made to introduce and pass the provisions individually, over time.

jimmyraythomason
January 26, 2013, 03:35 PM
Now the politicking begins.
Yes. Clinton's 1994 ban didn't have the votes to pass either....until the arm twisting was done.

bubbameat
January 26, 2013, 03:36 PM
No. A term-limited officeholder is a lame duck, meaning he can do anything he darn well pleases without fear of retaliation from the voters. (Exactly the position Obama is in, in his second term.) Gun owners would have no clout with such people.

Then treat the replacement as the person who voted.

k_dawg
January 26, 2013, 04:35 PM
Feinstein new her bill would never have the chance of day light.

It was intentionally designed to allow follow-on bills to be called "Moderate" and "Bi-partisan".

beatledog7
January 26, 2013, 06:43 PM
Term limits are already in place, but we call them elections.

Ash
January 27, 2013, 09:14 AM
I also don't think this will blow over without wounding at best. It might, we'll have to see. But we cannot, like a Revolutionary War militia, return home to our crops because we have not spotted the British in line yet. This is precisely the time they WANT us to think it will blow over. The panic started and has subsided a bit - not much, but a bit - because you cannot realistically maintain a constant state of alert. So, the ant bed got kicked and we ran about for a while. The ants are slowing. Perhaps that was all there was too it, but we cannot afford to relax now. We have to keep the pressure up as this is but a lull in the fighting. Pieces are being moved about, deals being made.

We cannot afford another Corn Husker Compromise. We have to keep going on this one.

zenner22
January 27, 2013, 01:07 PM
The articles I'm reading seem to indicate they realize an AWB will not be forthcoming. But in all those same articles they feel confident they can get a "high cap" mag ban. We've got to make extremely clear to them that we are against them banning ANYTHING, rifle, pistol, shotgun or magazine. We won't accept a ban on anything.

Why don't they get the message? It's pretty easy to understand: Go after the bad guys. Leave us alone.

Blakenzy
January 27, 2013, 01:26 PM
I agree. Feinstein's AWB was never expected to pass, it was an effort to shock us and desensitize us to follow up legislation such as Magazine Bans, Mandatory Universal Background Checks and Registration.

Deanimator
January 27, 2013, 02:03 PM
Makes all of the "It's a cookbook! We've got to 'compromise'!" hysteria look even more foolish.

I emailed my Congressman a couple of weeks ago.

Silent Bob
January 27, 2013, 04:38 PM
The real fight will be magazine capacity. This is one they cannot be allowed to win, what happened in NY and is being proposed in MA shows clearly, without a doubt, that the anti-gunners will not always be happy with a 10rd mag limit. 7 rounds will be the next step for the gun grabbers.

481
January 27, 2013, 04:44 PM
The articles I'm reading seem to indicate they realize an AWB will not be forthcoming. But in all those same articles they feel confident they can get a "high cap" mag ban. We've got to make extremely clear to them that we are against them banning ANYTHING, rifle, pistol, shotgun or magazine. We won't accept a ban on anything.

Why don't they get the message? It's pretty easy to understand: Go after the bad guys. Leave us alone.

Why don't they get the message? Oh, that's easy. 'Cause they're politicians! :evil:

wunderkind
January 28, 2013, 05:04 PM
We can't let up on the letter writing and emails. Whenever the majority needs a few votes here and a few votes there, they start attaching attractive pork, uh, I mean, "riders" to the original bill to make it more attractive.

Don't like my assault weapons ban, Senator? Maybe you'll like it more if there's 300 million for 'infrastructure upgrades' for your state added to the bill! That is what we need to watch out for now.

Yosemite Sam
January 28, 2013, 11:16 PM
Don't let your guard down one bit, folks! If anti-gunners are willing to lie to and deceive American laymen about the efficacy of gun control, who are we to believe that they WON'T lie to us? Any battle is full of deception.

This could be a tactic by Bloomberg to let us (his enemy) let our guard down and sleep on the job. I'm not buying it for a second, and I'll maintain political pressure.

Dr_B
January 29, 2013, 01:51 AM
This news means nothing. The only news that will mean anything is the news that says the vote happened and there weren't enough in favor.

HorseSoldier
January 29, 2013, 02:24 AM
This could be a tactic by Bloomberg to let us (his enemy) let our guard down and sleep on the job. I'm not buying it for a second, and I'll maintain political pressure.


Political pressure needs to be maintained, no debate about that.

However, let's just all keep a little perspective on hand when we start talking about these people being sophisticated master manipulators. They aren't that smart, they aren't 10 feet tall (even if some of their wallets are ten feet tall), and they are showing themselves to be increasingly out of touch with modern American voters of all flavors when it comes to gun control.

We can defeat these people. I don't just mean we can block this round of legislation. I mean we can break them. Look at the general trajectory of concealed carry policies by state over the last 30-40 years. Look at the ubiquitousness of the AR and defensive handguns in most parts of this country. When was the last time national level mainstream politicians on either side were even willing to do more than pay lip service to the idea of gun control except when some tragedy provided a short opening? Look at the fact that while one side was screaming about outlawing guns after Sandy Hook, the other side was successfully advancing the idea of more guns being in schools as protection and potential remedy against lunatics.

Think about that last part -- what gun related mass shooting in the last 30 years has led to successful pushes at the local level and real debate at the state and national level about the value of armed civilians as a component of collective security for citizens and their children?

This fight is going to be nasty and hard, but not because I think Obama is determined to make anti-2A action his legacy but because I think the proliferation of post-9/11 and post-Obama gun sales and everything else that has happened since the '94 AWB has made the anti-2A movement's leadership aware that they are at, or approaching, a demographic tipping point where nothing but failure and marginalization yawns out in front of them. They will lash out -- and we need to push hard to ensure they don't succeed as the flail desperately -- but I don't see the weight of history of their side right now.

Ash
January 29, 2013, 06:15 AM
Or, they see Obamacare and the fact that the government is not held accountable for not functioning. No budget in almost half a decade, refusing to follow or enforce laws they do not care for, the reelection, and the major step towards socialized medicine gives supporters the feeling of power and support. Many believe quite literally they can do as they please. This panic has been vastly more pronounced exactly because the president seems to believe he can really do just as he pleases, can make any kind of pronouncement he wishes, and rule almost as he deigns.

No, he does not see himself as a dictator to be fair, but the guy isn't American, regardless of his Hawaii birth place, he's spent so much of his life living where the roles of the people versus rulers is different than our own. His fundamental understanding of American citizens is formed by other nations, not ours. My mom or dad always told me it didn't matter what happened at my friends' houses, where I lived the rules were the rules. Obama doesn't in his core believe in American rules and ideas about people vs government. He truly sees people as being ruled in some vaguely parliamentary way.

Why does that matter? They truly believe that they can push through these bans the costs be damned because, well, the costs won't be that big of a deal, they won't ultimately hurt the President, and the ultimate molding of America is more important - not for the sake of the people, but for the sake of the people.

As silly as I think quoting movies is to establish legitimacy, they feel as Loki did in The Avengers.

"I come with glad tidings of a world made free. [Free from] Freedom. Freedom is life's great lie. Once you accept that, in your heart...you will know peace. "

"Is not this simpler? Is this not your natural state? It's the unspoken truth of humanity, that you crave subjugation. The bright lure of freedom diminishes your life's joy in a mad scramble for power, for identity. You were made to be ruled. In the end, you will always kneel."

They seek to make us free, free from the responsibilities that come with freedom, of standing on our two feet, of protecting ourselves and our families. When we seek freedom, we unleash evil upon the world that, but for us, could not exist. That is their belief. They seek to ignore the Constitution because they find it inconvenient and irrelevant because it was written by men dead now for 200 years.

Read the Bible. Read it for understanding. I say that to anyone, not merely a Christian. Don't read the New Testament, but read the Old Testament. Don't read it to understand God's judgement if you have no concerns about God. Read it to understand human nature. That book, if you view it as nothing more, was written more than 3,000 years ago, with the newest portions of the Old Testament being somewhere around 2,500 years old. Mankind has never changed. Our garments change, our speech changes, our modes of killing and transport change, our understanding of the physical world evolves, but WE DO NOT CHANGE. Ever. What you read, written by men who did not know of the New World, who did not know of Washington or Madison or any person who is far more recent, shows that we are the same now as ever. It isn't prediction of the future but merely knowing the hearts of man kind.

Had Marx read it, rather than discarding it among the piles of opiates for the masses, he would have understood that his ideals could not work with humanity. The framers of the Constitution DID actually read it and agreed with it regarding humanity's behavior. It had not changed by the waning of the 18th century. It has not changed now in the dawn of the 21st century.

Hitler thought he could ignore Napoleon's defeat in Russia. He fell the exact same way.

We must draw the line, we must NOT compromise. Humanity's heart has never changed nor will it ever. Our hubris arises because we believe with more knowledge comes more wisdom. Absurd. I might understand the atom, but my heart is no different now than when Jefferson wrote letters to Madison or when Joel warned Judah about human behavior.

The left refuses to understand human nature. They wish the safety of servitude. I demand the danger of freedom and with it, the power to protect myself, my wife, my children, my property. I do not ask for that right, for it is mine already. But I refuse to cede it to someone else.

We must fight this, because if we do not, then our constitution and the line IT draws in the sand against the government is irrelevant. The stakes are far higher than merely who gets to own an AR or a 30 round magazine.

Ash
January 29, 2013, 06:22 AM
This is a great video, by the way:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DGtkYC0RjHY

JRH6856
January 29, 2013, 06:56 AM
Great Post, Ash!

I've long said that our society is highly technologized, not highly civilized. The one constant in world history is man's inhumanity to man.

If you enjoyed reading about "Weapons Ban Lacks Votes to Pass Senate" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!