1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Start writing again. Reid says that gun control will be brought to the senate floor

Discussion in 'General Gun Discussions' started by ol' scratch, Feb 4, 2013.

  1. ol' scratch

    ol' scratch Well-Known Member

    Last edited: Feb 4, 2013
  2. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    The final bill that gets passed will have zero input from the gun community, due to the collective decision to "stonewall" it. (Note the cries here and elsewhere of "no compromise!" "shall not be infringed!" etc.) When you gamble all or nothing, remember that it's just as likely to get nothing as to get it all.

    The baseline assumption among gun people is that nothing will be passed, and that therefore "compromise" represents a pure (and needless) erosion of gun rights. If, on the other hand, the baseline assumption is that something will be passed, a "compromise" represents what can be rescued from the mess.

    We should have come up with some creative ideas to placate the hue and cry, at the start of this process. And, no, proposing armed guards in all schools won't cut it.
  3. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member

    Yep, Leahy and Reid failed to endorse the Feinstein AWB at the senate gun control hearing. Contrary to popular notion a "failure to endorse" does not equal a "rejection" of the proposed Feinstein AWB.

    According to senator Feinstein: Reid has promised her a full senate vote on the AWB. Senator Feinstein says Leahy has sanctioned her own hearings on the AWB. Senator Dianne Feinstein is a senior member of the US senate. She will get her way because the senate leadership refuses to rein her in.

    Do not underestimate the ability of senator Feinstein to push her AWB through the US senate. She has done just that twice before. In 2004 the vote to extend the AWB was 52-47. Ten Republican senators voted to extend the AWB.

    Hold your senators feet to the fire on this issue until his/her socks smoke.
  4. Ragnar Danneskjold

    Ragnar Danneskjold Well-Known Member

    Except that we've been placating and giving up our rights little by little for decades. What exactly have we got for it?

    Here's something from Lawdog that sums up the situation quite succinctly.

  5. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    There hasn't been any compromise offered, so I am not sure where all the remorse over not being able to surrender some of our Second Amendment rights immediately is coming from. Compromise is when both parties give up something. You agreeing to take less of my personal property and rights now if I agree to roll over and show my belly isn't compromise, it is surrender, and people who do not understand that distinction are not doing themselves or the Second Amendment any favors.

    The surrender being advocated would mean that we do not punish our representatives for selling out rights expressly protected in the Bill of Rights. It would also mean surrendering when the NRA has a majority of A-rated Representatives in the House. If you aren't going to fight with those odds, you might as well just hand over your firearms; because you aren't going to fight ever.
  6. goon

    goon Well-Known Member

    If it won't pass the house, why expose Democrats in the senate to having to vote for it?
    Is this an attempt to force the pro-gun side to the negotiating table? Or do they really think they can find enough support to pass it?

    Background checks I no longer support. I have seen my mistake on that one, but it probably has enough support from the public to pass. Hell, one of my former roommates owns guns and still thinks harsh laws and taxing ammo to double the cost is the solution - if even gun owners can come up with crazy ideas like that as "reasonable"...
    But I will still resist it.

    Magazine capacity bans - can they find support for that? I will oppose it too, but if the limit is set at twenty or thirty rounds, how will we fight that? Only people like us would oppose it on principle - a great many fudds would gladly give more than that. Honestly, even I would have a hard time explaining the necessity of more than thirty rounds for defense, and I am against more gun control. I agree that restrictions are an infringement, but I don't see a way to get the public to see that... Or to care.

    I'll be writing more this week just the same though.
    Last edited: Feb 4, 2013
  7. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Good question. The Chairman of the House Judiciary has already said no gun control is leaving his committee. So you would need a simple majority and a successful discharge petition (1986's FOPA being the only successful example of a discharge petition in the last hundred years or so) to override that if he is telling the truth - or the Senate would have to attach the legislation to a bill that has already passed the House - and all that effort will get you is a floor vote with 220 NRA A-rated Reps lined up.

    So you would have to wonder why the President is demanding a floor vote on gun control in the Senate when he has 6 Democratic Senators in strong pro-2A states who are up for re-election in 2014. Mark Begich, Mark Pryor, Mary Landrieu, Kay Hagan, Max Baucus, Tim Johnson - and that doesn't even get into states that are more centrist in general policy but still have strong Second Amendment support like Colorado, New Mexico, New Hampshire, Vermont, etc.

    It is almost like he wants to lose control of the Senate in 2014 and live out the last two years of his presidency like GWB from 2006-2008.
  8. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    Yes, they really think that they can pass something. And, objectively speaking, they probably have the votes to pass at least background checks in both Houses. (An NRA "A" rating doesn't mean much in this media and public-opinion climate.) A magazine ban is iffy, and a full-on AWB is probably a no-go.

    The "creative ideas" that we should have put on the table include things such as:

    -- Decoupling the background checks from the FFL system, by allowing private individuals to access the NICS, for example through a toll-free number or Web site.

    -- Ironclad guarantees that no records of the guns or owners would be kept.

    -- Incentives for the use of the check system, such as immunity from prosecution or civil liability of the seller if the gun is later misused. If such incentives were in place, the system could even be made voluntary.

    Unfortunately, it's too late, and we're not going to get any of these things. We're probably going to end up with all gun transactions being channeled through FFL's, providing an additional "profit center" for those businesses.

    What really scares me is a 10-round magazine capacity limit, which would outlaw all the common M1 carbine mags, for instance, as well as even the "small" AR-15 mags. And even if they grandfather the existing ones, a ban on future transfers would make them practically worthless (as well as severely restricting the use of the guns for which they are intended).

    Our "line in the sand" should be the magazine ban. A "notional" "universal background check" can be lived with, if it's suitably amended.
  9. alsaqr

    alsaqr Well-Known Member

    Wrong!!! Our line in the sand should be no degradation of our Second Amendmernt rights.
  10. GEM

    GEM Well-Known Member

    As we have seen in many debates, ideological purity is more important to some than actual pragmatic results. I can't get too political but one just has to look at recent primaries to see candidates bending to stupid ideological purity.

    Perhaps one party wouldn't mind the loss if it sweeps the ideological impure from their fold. Both parties have extremists who like to do this. Of course, if you are an extremist, you see this as fine and dandy. Then, you can stomp around and flap your arms.

    Happens all the time.

    However, it is an lesson that some progun folks of one party (who dat?) have the spines of fettucini that has been cooked to long.
  11. Cosmoline

    Cosmoline Well-Known Member

    Is there a Second Amendment right to transfer without a background check, though?

    I think the AWB is DOA and the high cap ban a non-starter in the House certainly. But the UBC has some traction. It's really up to the pro-gun reps to decide whether to kill it now and hope the GOP holds onto the House in the mid terms or let it get through under their control and under their supervision.
  12. AlexanderA

    AlexanderA Well-Known Member

    You can yell that until you're blue in the face, but it won't help you when something you don't like gets passed. We need to be aware enough of the actual situation so that we can pick our battles carefully, for maximum effect.
  13. ultramag44

    ultramag44 Well-Known Member

    Gentlemen, we must remember our definition of compromise is in line with Mr. Webster's dictionary. Each side gets something, but not everything they want.

    The liberal / Democrat definition of "compromise": "Give in and allow us this, or we will ram through something you really won't like!"
  14. TNBilly

    TNBilly Well-Known Member


    reminds me of Bohener's definition of compromise.........
  15. TNBilly

    TNBilly Well-Known Member

    you really believe anything you're saying? You're the voice of defeat in our midst! If Reid himself were posting here he wouldn't state things much different!
  16. razorback2003

    razorback2003 Well-Known Member

    WE compromised on NFA, CGA 68, 86 machine gun ban, Brady Bill. All those laws were supposed to fix everything, but you know what they never did. On top of it add to the strict laws in California and the northeastern states. Nothing has been fixed and nothing will be fixed by those laws.

    These laws are nothing but a sidestep away from imposing mandatory death penalty for capital murder and putting more armed security of some kind in schools.
  17. doc2rn

    doc2rn Well-Known Member

    I would give up my 30 rd mags if I got access to the AA-12! ;)

    After all didn't the V.P. say we should all own a shotgun....
  18. Bartholomew Roberts

    Bartholomew Roberts Moderator Emeritus

    Yes, you've been clear that you would prefer a rousing game of "just the tip.". I am guessing that is based on your fear that they have the votes to do it whether you want to or not rather than personal preference, so let's examine that.

    An NRA A-rating is no guarantee of future performance, as Bill Clinton, Kristen Gillibrand and Joe Manchin can attest to. However, in the House, it means that Rep either truly believes in the Second Amendment or thought he needed that rating just two years ago to keep his job. I don't think the true believers are going to change their mind and the remainder depend on whether they think that the situation has changed dramatically in two years. If the NRA tells them "no registration" then they know what they need to do to keep that rating.

    Who is we? Do you have a mouse in your pocket and if so, do either one of you work on the Hill? Are you suggesting that writing our Congressman with "creative ideas" regarding what we can give up is a more productive strategy than telling them "No support for gun control!"?

    Well, that is a handy way to run a background check on my neighbors to satisfy my morbid curiousity. NICS was specifically excluded to anyone but FFLs due to privacy concerns when it was first established. What has changed since then?

    Exactly how would we go about getting ironclad guarantees from Senators who have already said they would confiscate every firearm in America if they had the votes? Exactly, how do you have a good faith negotiation with those people that results in a guarantee you can trust? And why would we do this given abuses of NICS that have already been documented regarding records retention?

    There is no civil liability for legally selling a firearm unless a reasonable person knew or should have known that the person purchasing was a prohibited person or someone who expressly planned to misuse it. This isn't a bonus for us - it is something we already have.

    The "notional" universal background check you suggest would not have prevented the Newtown shooting (murdered gun owner and stole guns), the Lanza shooting (went through NICS), the Virginia Tech shooting (went through NICS) or the Giffords shooting (went through NICS). Even the people suggesting it have already acknowledged it won't reduce crime or stop these incidents - so when you surrender your rights to them now from a position of some strength, what do you think will happen WHEN the next horrifying incident occurs and they propose another list of solutions that restricts legal gun use but would not have actually stopped the shooting in question?

    Do you think they'll say "Well, gosh, they were reasonable last time. Let's give them a pass on this one."?
  19. zxcvbob

    zxcvbob Well-Known Member

    I know! Let's throw AlexanderA under the bus and call that "compromise". (I call it appeasement, and it never works out well)
  20. Bubbles

    Bubbles Well-Known Member

    This is precisely why NICS will not be available to the public. "Universal background check" = "no private transfers".

Share This Page