Does the anti-gun agenda have enough votes?

I think you can relax a little bit. At the moment there is no active legislation and it's doubtful whether the votes would exist for any. Nothing is going to be proposed for probably another month or so and by then people will have calmed down a bit which will help our side a lot.

Now I'm not suggesting you completely ignore the issue and trust that everything will be okay. We do need to keep letting our elected officials know where we stand. However, at the moment we don't need to be in full blown panic mode.

If the NRA takes a strong stance against any new gun control laws then I can't see the House ever passing such a law. The Senate could probably get one passed if Reid was on board, and he seems willing now, but I think he would cool to it if the NRA put a lot of pressure on him. Just thank God that the Republicans kept control of the House. If not, we'd be in a lot of trouble right now.

At the moment there is no active legislation

Click to expand...

Meaningless. Look at how quickly Obamacare was rammed through and that law was thousands of pages long. Most people had never seen the actual legislation until hours before the vote. It is incredibly easy to ram through a bill when there is motivation. Shoot, they could simply tack on a gun ban as a last second amendment to a fiscal cliff bill.

Meaningless. Look at how quickly Obamacare was rammed through and that law was thousands of pages long.

Click to expand...

Yes, and the Congress and Senate at that time wanted that law to happen. That's the only way it got rammed through that fast. The votes were there for it.

they could simply tack on a gun ban as a last second amendment to a fiscal cliff bill.

Click to expand...

They're having a hard enough time getting a bill through that only addresses the fiscal cliff. Throw a ban in there and it would kill it for sure. They won't risk endangering the fiscal cliff legislation by tossing in a poisoned pill.

Feinstein's office says she'll enter renewed AWB legislation when the new Congress opens on January 1. Assuming the bill is similar to 1994, I'd venture an opinion that (a) it would pass the Senate (by the numbers), but (b) a similar bill would have a very uphill battle in the House.

However, if a different form of such legislation is entered (perhaps "just" a magazine capacity restriction, leaving the cosmetic features of firearms alone), then that could well make squeak through the House and Senate.

In politics, never say never. Especially if there's another incident (and I objectively pray nothing else happens) following this one.

This is a very real discussion now in policy circles.

Any House member from all but the most liberal states who votes for a ban will lose his or seat in 2014, and a Senator who's up in 2014 most likely will as well.

They know this, but with the current fervor they may be inclined to set that knowledge aside for whatever short-term personal gain they think they can achieve. Should that happen, when election time comes around, the obvious uselessness of the ban will have proven itself, and they'll be dumped.

You guys are putting way to much faith in the historically worthless Republicans to save the day.

A fine example is the way Boehner is negotiating with himself over the fiscal cliff all the president has done is given the cold shoulder to reduce him to the discraceful state he's in now.

The Republicans will fold to the massive popular upswelling for action on this faster than a fat guy collapses a cheap Chinese folding chair.

Because at the end of the day the gun community is a very small albeit vocal and well organized segment of the total voting population. And if y'all are relying on the Republican party to save the day then we better get good at adapting.



posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

Right now the rabid anti gun voices have never before had this kind of traction and momentum that I can ever remember and with the liberal press going full tilt on their totally uneven reporting,I can only believe unless there is a hard push back and damn soon there will be plenty of nasty legislating against us.
These people think they have us on a total run at the moment.

I think if the House Speaker folds along with Reid we are messed up. If House Speaker does not allow a floor vote, we will be ok the next two years. I would buy what i wanted over this next two years because after 2015, there may be the votes in the House to get trouble passed.

They almost certainly lack the votes in the House, and probably lack them in the Senate.
Senator Reid is a smart man. He knows what the 94 AWB cost his party - they wound up losing a lot of seats over that, and the fundraising boost to the other side via the NRA was huge. It arguably caused them to lose the 2000 election, where the NRA spent massively more than they had on any one campaign in history.

Senator Reid's JOB as Senate majority leader is to ensure his party retains a Senate majority. Ramming a new AWB through the Senate, watching it die in the House, and losing control of the Senate at the midterm elections (which historically do not favor the party holding the White House), then facing an opposition legislative supermajority in the two years running up to a no-incumbent presidential election, is an absolute nightmare scenario for Harry Reid and his party.

I seriously don't think he'll take any big risks on a historical longshot.

No, I don't think they have the votes.

As one fellow Texan to another Scott I wish I could hold the same view but being the Dems are made up with so many of the anti gun left,and the fact that they are rushing in for the kill because they smell blood, I think their reasoning will go to the wayside and they will follow the emotions of the moment with stacks of bills.
Ladies and gentlemen,we have a hard fight on our hands.

Here's a look at some nationwide firearms ownership statistics that are quite relevant:

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytime...wnership-statistics-partisan-divide-is-sharp/

Texan Scott said:

Ramming a new AWB through the Senate, watching it die in the House, and losing control of the Senate at the midterm elections (which historically do not favor the party holding the White House), then facing an opposition legislative supermajority in the two years running up to a no-incumbent presidential election, is an absolute nightmare scenario for Harry Reid and his party.

I seriously don't think he'll take any big risks on a historical longshot.

Click to expand...

Oh, I most certainly disagree.

I think that Democrats are in a post-election refractory period and feel completely invincible. This is what is fueling the fiscal cliff idiocy and I think is the exact same bravado that will propel them to go for the throat with the AWB.

I think they'll overestimate the 'groundswell' of support, and over-reach with the AWB proposal.

Guys its not the 1990's anymore we had it beat into our heads with the last election how the Democratic of this nation's voters have shifted to urban left leaning.

They know this and with approval ratings near single digits congressional popularity can only go up.

Again its not 1994 any more. Gun control isn't the third rail it used to be in Washington.




posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complains about

What do y'all think is going to happen if Obama tells Boehner that he will back off on tax increases on the wealthy in return for a reinstatement of an AWB?