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

Status
Not open for further replies.
ol' scratch

ol' scratch

Member
Joined
Apr 16, 2009
Messages
1,383
Location
South of Hell....Michigan.
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Let's say I have this cake. It is a very nice cake, with "GUN RIGHTS" written across the top in lovely floral icing. Along you come and say, "Give me that cake."

I say, "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise. Give me half." I respond by asking what I get out of this compromise, and you reply that I get to keep half of my cake.

Okay, we compromise. Let us call this compromise The National Firearms Act of 1934.

This leaves me with half of my cake and there I am, enjoying my cake when you walk back up and say, "Give me that cake."

I say -- again: "No, it's my cake."

You say, "Let's compromise." What do I get out of this compromise? Why, I get to keep half of what's left of the cake I already own.

So, we compromise -- let us call this one the Gun Control Act of 1968 -- and this time I'm left holding what is now just a quarter of my cake.

And I'm sitting in the corner with my quarter piece of cake, and here you come again. You want my cake. Again.

This time you take several bites -- we'll call this compromise the Clinton Executive Orders -- and I'm left with about a tenth of what has always been MY DAMN CAKE and you've got nine-tenths of it.

Let me restate that: I started out with MY CAKE and you have already 'compromised' me out of ninety percent of MY CAKE ...

... and here you come again. Compromise! ... Lautenberg Act (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The HUD/Smith and Wesson agreement (nibble, nibble). Compromise! ... The Brady Law (NOM NOM NOM). Compromise! ... The School Safety and Law Enforcement Improvement Act (sweet tap-dancing Freyja, my finger!)

After every one of these "compromises" -- in which I lose rights and you lose NOTHING -- I'm left holding crumbs of what was once a large and satisfying cake, and you're standing there with most of MY CAKE, making anime eyes and whining about being "reasonable", and wondering "why we won't compromise" as you try for the rest of my cake.

In 1933 I -- or any other American -- could buy a fully-automatic Thompson sub-machine gun, a 20mm anti-tank gun, or shorten the barrel of any gun I owned to any length I thought fit, silence any gun I owned, and a host of other things.

Come your "compromise" in 1934, and suddenly I can't buy a sub-machine gun, a silencer, or a Short-Barreled Firearm without .Gov permission and paying a hefty tax. What the hell did y'all lose in this "compromise"?

In 1967 I, or any other American, could buy or sell firearms anywhere we felt like it, in any State we felt like, with no restrictions. We "compromised" in 1968, and suddenly I've got to have a Federal Firearms License to have a business involving firearms, and there's whole bunch of rules limiting what, where and how I buy or sell guns.

In 1968, "sporting purpose" -- a term found NOT ANY DAMNED WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION, TO SAY NOTHING OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT -- suddenly became a legal reason to prevent the importation of guns that had been freely imported in 1967.

Tell me, do -- exactly what the hell did you lose in this 1968 "compromise"?

The Lautenberg Act was a "compromise" which suddenly deprived Americans of a Constitutional Right for being accused or convicted of a misdemeanor -- a bloody MISDEMEANOR! What did your side lose in this "compromise"?

I could go on and on, but the plain and simple truth of the matter is that a genuine "compromise" means that both sides give up something. My side of the discussion has been giving, giving, and giving yet more -- and your side has been taking, taking, and now wants to take more.

For you, "compromise" means you'll take half of my cake now, and the other half of my cake next time. Always has been, always will be.

I've got news for you: That is not "compromise".

I'm done with being reasonable, and I'm done with "compromise". Nothing about gun control in this country has ever been "reasonable" nor a genuine "compromise", and I have flat had enough.
Click to expand...
 
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.
 
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:
If it won't pass the house, why expose Democrats in the senate to having to vote for it?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Or do they really think they can find enough support to pass it?
Click to expand...

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

Wrong!!! Our line in the sand should be no degradation of our Second Amendmernt rights.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Wrong!!! Our line in the sand should be no degradation of our Second Amendmernt rights.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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!"
 
AlexanderA said:
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.
Click to expand...
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!
 
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.
 
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....
 
AlexanderA said:
Yes, they really think that they can pass something.
Click to expand...

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.

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.
Click to expand...

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.

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

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!"?

-- 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.
Click to expand...

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?

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

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?

-- 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.
Click to expand...

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.

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

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."?
 
I know! Let's throw AlexanderA under the bus and call that "compromise". (I call it appeasement, and it never works out well)
 
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?
Click to expand...
This is precisely why NICS will not be available to the public. "Universal background check" = "no private transfers".
 
robhof

I don't see any Obama idea getting through the House in the next few years, unless he gets of his high horse and talks to the Republicans like fellow lawmakers instead of the scum of the earth, responsable for all that is wrong in Washington, and I don't see him changing, after all he has a mandate from the people?????:cuss::cuss::fire::banghead::cuss:
 
AlexanderA said:
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.
Click to expand...
Sir, what creative thoughts do you think WOULD placate these folks?

Yes, that is the problem and why we must fight back against every single incremental step to the eventual loss of our guns.
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
...
Click to expand...

The current system is anything but ideal and abolishing it is a pipe dream. So we're stuck fighting a defensive battle against increasingly dumb ideas dreamt up by people who seem to wear their ignorance on the topic like a big shiny badge.

I suggest that presenting 2A/RKBA-savvy ideas to improve the system and strengthen 2A/RKBA makes more sense than always playing the obstructionist and being stuck (at best) in a perpetual stalemate. This just promulgates the (very dangerous for 2A/RKBA) perception among the main-stream that increased gun control is inevitable and just a matter of time (especially as the RNC continues to find new and clever ways to shoot themselves in the foot w/ the electorate and with the possibility that the balance of the SCOTUS may change in <=4 years).

re: Decoupling - You don't need to give the "seller" access to do the lookup, just the buyer. The buyer can then present the seller with a background check document with a hashed code whose authenticity and validity could be easily and quickly verified (on-line or telephone). This document could be printed at home by the buyer in advance and used w/ valid ID at an FFL to purchase firearms, saving the FFL time and money.

re: Data - Even if you only buy firearms as private-party sales, unless you only use cash for your ammunition and accessory purchases, the data is out there, can be collected, aggregated and analyzed easily. At least by decoupling the back ground check from the transaction, the current 1:1 relationship between the two when purchasing from an FFL would be far more abstract than it is today. As far as private party sales go, they would know you requested a background check on yourself and they would know whether the seller verified it or not, but they would not know if the transaction actually occurred or not.
 
Without any specific suggestions, I could see one way in which it might be useful to contribute to these bills:

Offer amendments to eliminate or blunt some of the more egregious elements. Then, even if the amendments are adopted, vote AGAINST the bill. If it still passes, then perhaps its negative impact has been lessened.
 
It seems we may be fighting one battle in the Senate where our position isn't as strong, and another in he House where our position is stronger. Should we use different tactics in these two different situations?


The NRA has adopted the "stand and fight" mentality - is this because they know it will work or because they are delusional? I would think the NRA would have a pretty good idea of their chances on this since that is their business, but who knows?

Last, is anyone keeping track of how each rep and senator is likely to vote? Maybe we could start a thread tracking that based off all the email responses we have gotten...?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Reid pulls gun bill from Senate
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
Bruno2
B
B
  • Locked
Reid Tells "Moms Demand Action" No Gun Control on Senate Agenda in 2013
Replies
6
Views
949
Robert
Robert
G
  • Locked
Is Thursday the day the Senate votes on Gun Control?
Replies
8
Views
588
Bartholomew Roberts
B
B
  • Locked
Obama Gun Control Likely To Be Broken Into Pieces By Senate
Replies
6
Views
883
Trent
Trent
A
  • Locked
Senate Bipartisan Group Negotiating Gun Control Proposals
Replies
0
Views
405
Alaska444
A
Back
Top