All is Lost

[buzz_knox]

I don't recall whether one of the items on those lists was the de-funding of anti-gun research grants from the CDC.

That's because the defunding happened when Kellerman refused to hand over his research, years ago.

Frankly I am tired of the lap dogs of the Republican Party attempting to scare me or bully me into voting for their pseudo-conservative candidates.

As opposed to the lap dogs of the Democratic Party saying that they are no longer pro-gun and deserve a chance at power and they double triple pinkie swear not to use their position of authority to make sure gun owners can never do to them what was done in 1994?

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Buzzz,

I know when the Democrats are lying to me... their lips are moving. I already don't trust them

I trusted the Republicans to do the right thing if they ever took power in Washington... they blew it.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Suggest a search here on THR since this matter has been discussed extensively. You were a part of that, but I know memory can be short.

There is no need to search. I explained how the anonymous hold works. It doesn't block a bill, it just makes a bill follow the usual procedure.

Here is Sen. Grassley's bill to eliminate the anonymous nature of the hold. It explains the procedural aspects as well as they relate to unanimous consent agreements.
http://www.fas.org/sgp/congress/2002/s041702.html

 

[Thin Black Line]

Bart, many thanks for the link. I loved the following quote:

The practice of anonymous
multiple or rolling holds is more akin to legislative guerilla warfare
than to the way the Senate should conduct its business.

Too bad there we didn't have ppl willing to use these apparently legal geurilla
tactics when it came to defending our rights in the past. After all, we've had
plenty of ppl defending the use of other possibly less than legal tactics to
defend our freedom these days......

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Too bad there we didn't have ppl willing to use these apparently legal geurilla tactics when it came to defending our rights in the past.

If I understand the procedure right (and Senate procedure is a pretty arcane process, so I may be wrong), you can only place a hold on legislation when it is scheduled to be fast-tracked. In order to fast-track legislation, you need unanimous consent of a quorum of Senators.

A hold is basically saying "No I don't consent to fast tracking that legislation, it must go through the regular process or you must address these concerns I have first and then I will withdraw my objection."

While I can't point to a specific bill and say "We put a hold on this anti-gun legislation", I am unaware of any anti-gun legislation (or gun legislation period) that has ever been fast tracked (unanimous consent). So that would suggest that either the other side doesn't even bother trying or that holds are being used to stop that legislation.

Anonymous multiple rolling holds is an extension of the same idea. There is no actual rule spelling out how anonymous holds worj in Senate procedure. It is basically just a gentleman's agreement among the leadership. Right now, the Republicans will allow a Senator who places a hold to remain anonymous for three days. After that, they notify the bill's author of the identity of the holder. A multiple rolling hold is where different Senators object anonymously, then withdraw the objection and another Senator objects in order to secretly delay a bill for longer than three days without giving up their identity. I doubt many gun bills ever get the chance to see it though since they are usually pretty controversial.

 

[liberalgunnut]

Senator Bob Smith Blocking Anti-gun Crime Bill
-- But Trent Lott threatens to 'roll' Smith

by Gun Owners of America
8001 Forbes Place, Suite 102
Springfield, VA 22151
(703)321-8585

(Tuesday, July 13, 1999) -- The Senate is looking more like the OK Corral than a country club these days. Normally, the Senate has earned its "country club" reputation as members address each other cordially and refrain from disturbing the progress of business in that house. But a cross-fire has ensued over the anti-gun juvenile bill that was hastily passed in the wake of the Colorado tragedy.

The newspaper headlines from the nation's capital don't even begin to capture the rising temperature levels in the Senate. But they do indicate that the battle lines are forming between the truly pro-gun champions (led by Bob Smith of New Hampshire) and the gun compromisers (led by Majority Leader Trent Lott of Mississippi and Orrin Hatch of Utah):

* The Good News: "Gun Bill Blocked by Smith... Vows Filibuster on Juvenile Justice Conference" -- Roll Call, 7/1/99;
* The Bad News: "Lott hopes to free up 'gun bill'" -- The Washington Times, 7/3/99

Senators Lott and Hatch are avidly working to send the anti-gun crime bill (S. 254) to President Clinton. But thankfully, Senator Bob Smith (NH) is using every parliamentary maneuver imaginable to keep Clinton's anti-gun crime bill bottled up. Smith has placed a "hold" on the juvenile crime legislation. A "hold" is a parliamentary procedure that can indefinitely delay unconstitutional legislation-- as long as the leadership is willing to honor the "hold."

And there's the problem: the "hold" works as long as the leadership is willing to honor it. Both Lott and Hatch voted for S. 254 in May, even though the bill was replete with gun bans and gun owner registration. Thus, it is imperative that gun owners let the Republican leadership know they don't want S. 254 to continue advancing through the legislative process.

 

[Thin Black Line]

Senators Lott and Hatch are avidly working to send the anti-gun crime bill (S. 254) to President Clinton. But thankfully, Senator Bob Smith (NH) is using every parliamentary maneuver imaginable to keep Clinton's anti-gun crime bill bottled up. Smith has placed a "hold" on the juvenile crime legislation. A "hold" is a parliamentary procedure that can indefinitely delay unconstitutional legislation-- as long as the leadership is willing to honor the "hold."

I stand corrected --it has been used once....so which party did Lott
and Hatch belong to?

 

[liberalgunnut]

yeah... I figured that I didn't need to point out the obvious.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

I stand corrected --it has been used once....so which party did Lott
and Hatch belong to?

Well Lott is not a senator anymore and Sen. Hatch has a GOA rating of C which puts him above the 48 Democratic senators with a GOA grade of D or worse; but not very good compared to his own party.

O, and they are the same party as the Sen. Smith (the guy who used the hold to stop the gun bill) - Republican.

 

[liberalgunnut]

Doing my part under the fairness doctrine...

Sen. Dianne Feinstein has frozen a bill that she says would gut federal agents’ ability to shut down or severely penalize reckless gun dealers.

“This legislation would make it difficult, if not impossible, for the ATF to penalize gun dealers who have broken the law and to prevent rogue dealers from continuing to sell guns,” said Feinstein, D-Calif., in announcing the Senate hold she had placed on HR 5092.

“I cannot consent to allowing such a bill to pass through the Senate without any opportunity to debate the merits or offer amendments.”

Feinstein noted that the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association wrote to Congress on Sept. 25 urging it to oppose the bill, noting it “would have a devastating effect on the ability of law enforcement to stem the flow of firearms from lawbreaking gun dealers to violent criminals.”

more here...

http://www.gunlawnews.org/House-Bills/hr5092.html

One note on this... Given that republicans completely control the agenda and that debate was not apparently allowed on this bill... the only recourse of any senator that had questions on this bill is to place a hold on it. That said, I hate Feinstein.

 

[redneck2]

I vote for Bush twice because of that, and admit that was a mistake.

If there is no candidate I can vote for, then I just won't vote this time.

Yeah, boy that's the program. People in Iraq stand in line for hours at the risk of getting shot or blown up to vote. You want to take your bat and ball and go home.

Bottom line for me......

AWB died

More states have CCW than 8 years ago

Dems tried to pass amnesty bill and Republican House blocked it (late, but it was done)

Legislation to build a fence has been signed

Tax rates have dropped

Death tax has been greatly reduced

We haven't had a domestic attack in over 5 years

So ask yourself.....would these really have happened if Dems controlled everything??

AND #1 by far...(drum roll)....conservative judges to SCOTUS. The implications of this are incredible. There are 3-4 of the judges that may go off in the next 2 years. If the Dems get the Senate, they have vowed to block every conservative judge. Remember, once they're in, they're in forever. We can whine about one point that we didn't get, but you forget all that we did get.

To keep this 2a related.......look at the areas that are Dem strongholds (Kali, Mass, Chicago, DC). That's what they want everywhere. Even if one individual Dem is pro 2a, they give control of the purse strings and committee agendas to Feinstein, Schumer and Pelosi

 

[Lone_Gunman]

Redneck, you aren't paying attention

AWB died

But Bush would have signed its renewal.

Dems tried to pass amnesty bill and Republican House blocked it (late, but it was done)

Bush supported the amnesty bill too... it was the Republican members of the House that blocked it.

Legislation to build a fence has been signed

But there is no funding for the fence. They voted to build a fence but don't have any plans to spend money on it, which means it will not get built.

Tax rates have dropped

For how long though? Bush has increased social welfare more than any president LBJ. We are spending a lot more on defense and the War. Sooner or later, bills come due.

So ask yourself.....would these really have happened if Dems controlled everything??

I do not want Democrats in charge of everything... Just in charge of either the House or Senate, so there can at least be debate, compromise, gridlock, and a chance to halt the Neo-Conservative agenda.

AND #1 by far...(drum roll)....conservative judges to SCOTUS.

The most conservative member of the Supreme Court, Clarence Thomas, was confirmed by a Democrat controlled Senate. The Republicans therefore do not have to be in charge of the Senate for us to get conservative judges. We just need the President to appoint conservatives and then use the bully pulpit to push for their confirmation. I don't have a lot of faith in Bush's appointments anyway, considering the whole Harriet Miers fiasco. Who will he try to appoint next, his dog?

 

[Ieyasu]

I don't recall whether one of the items on those lists was the de-funding of anti-gun research grants from the CDC.

That's because the defunding happened when Kellerman refused to hand over his research, years ago.

True, but the point is, the anti-gun CDC propaganda machine was de-funded under a Republican controlled House -- wouldn't have happened with the Dems in charge.

 

[buzz_knox]

I do not want Democrats in charge of everything... Just in charge of either the House or Senate, so there can at least be debate, compromise, gridlock, and a chance to halt the Neo-Conservative agenda.

You could do all this by voting for a 3rd party. With votes so tight, every vote that doesn't go to the Reps helps the Dems. And in this race, a 3rd party could actually pick up speed, and not be a cult of personality like with Perot.

Except that it really is about making sure the Dems win. You are invested in punishing the Reps by giving the Dems a mandate through the largest number of votes possible.

I guess anger is good for bringing out true motives.

 

[Lone_Gunman]

There isnt a third party running in my district, at least as far as I know right now. And if there is a Libertarian, I won't vote for them, because I disagree with their drug policy and open border policy.

But yes, I think Republicans need to be punished for doing a bad job. I am not hiding that, and will gladly bring out my true motives on my own, thanks.

 

[redneck2]

But Bush would have signed its renewal.

You don't get it pal. The Republicans control congress SO HE DIDN'T HAVE TO

Bush supported the amnesty bill too... it was the Republican members of the House that blocked it.

for God's sake, read that again and tell me you really meant to type it. It absolutely proves what I'm saying

For how long though? Bush has increased social welfare more than any president LBJ. We are spending a lot more on defense and the War. Sooner or later, bills come due.

If the Dems are in charge, I guarantee it will be gone. The Treasury just took in the second largest amount in history. If you increase tax rates, revenues go down because it stifles the economy. What, you think the Dems will lower taxes??

I could go on down the list, but it will do no good. You should understand one thing. Bush is not running for re-election. No matter how much hatred you have for Bush (founded or not), voting for a Dem will hurt you big time in the long run. You're kinda like the teenager that commits suicide. "I'm gonna show them"

 

[BADUNAME4]

I only read the first and last post so appologies if I'm out of context. The difference, as I see it, is that you can at least talk to Republicans whether you agree with them or not. Democrats, generally, aren't even approachable on these issues. In other words, you can work with Republicans (some more than others) and you can't work with Democrats. Republicans are somewhat all over the place on issues (more independent) while Democrats are in lock-step.

 

[Joe Demko]

You don't get it pal. The Republicans control congress SO HE DIDN'T HAVE TO

I'm willing to take Nimchimpski at his word; he said he would sign it. Anything else is extraneous. He told us exactly what kind of man he is.

 

[QuestionEverything]

I'm amazed that some people think the GOP, which has shown utter contempt for civil rights and total distrust toward the American people, respects the 2nd Amendment as anything but a political football. Protection from unreasonable search and seizure? Due process? Trial by jury? All scrapped to protect us from those eeevil drugs and terra-ists. The Ninth and Tenth Amendments are likewise jokes now. Do you think a President willing to illegally spy on citizens has any respect for their right to bear arms? Not likely.

The reason Bush and friends haven't launched an attack on the 2nd is that they rightly see it as political suicide. Clinton and Gore have acknowledged that the AWB cost Democrats the Senate in '94 and the presidency in 2000, and Bush has based policy on public opinion more than any other president in history. But that doesn't mean he doesn't have plenty of anti-gun friends waiting in the wings for their big chance. Pataki, Bloomberg, Schwarzenegger, Bill Bennett, Sarah Brady and many others have no taste for gun ownership by anyone who can't afford personal bodyguards.

Now that gun control is a known loser issue, I strongly doubt Democrats will pursue it anytime in the near future. Myself and other pro-RKBA Democrats are organizing and lobbying to make sure that what remains of the party's anti-gun plank is ground into sawdust and burned. With 200 million guns in the country, even the most rabid anti-gunner has to face the reality that there's no way to get rid of them all. All the antis have left is incoherent fearmongering about terrorists shooting down jets with .50 BMGs, and any politician with a brain knows they're ballot-box poison.

 

[davec]

Vote R to give Bush a rubber stamp congress from which they can aid and abet him in mangling and bungling everything he attempts to do.

see: Iraq, Search for Bin Laden, Katrina aftermath, run-away spending, largest entitlement since the great society, more federal government in the school systems....and on and on

 

[The_Shootist]

Bottom Line

Shrug....I simply will NEVER EVER vote Democrat for the simple reason that there is a hard core leftist cadre in that party that would infringe further on the 2nd Amendment, back off from prosecuting the War on Terror, cut and run from iraq and raise taxes.

I don't care what kind of a job the Republicans have done as protrayed by the left wing vermin in the liberal media...the Democrats, given their past history, would be worse. They have the agenda to prove it.