Rolling the dice?
- Thread starter SSN Vet
- Start date
- Status
Real attempts? No. I've seen hopeless bills with absolutely no chance of passing submitted year after year so they can tell their base they are trying. I've heard speeches.
Passing any bill into law require a majority of the US House to agree. The next time it is even remotely possible for the House to be controlled by Democrats is 2022.
Last edited:
Red Wind
Member
Good points. Even the 1994 AWB passed the Democratically controlled House by only a vote or two. That November, the GOP retook the House for the first time since 1954. Bill Clinton emphatically blamed the AWB for the loss of the House.
Many Dem pols with long memories shudder at pushing gun control. It usually turns out to be costly for the left. We will see what happens this November.
Many Dem pols with long memories shudder at pushing gun control. It usually turns out to be costly for the left. We will see what happens this November.
Those were indeed real attempts, and they will keep on making real attempts. All they needed were a couple more votes.
Do they also put up stupid bills along the way that have no chance? Yes, they do, but they have had some real, concerted, efforts to ban guns, and it will continue.
To say otherwise isn't realistic and could even be considered intentionally downplaying it.
2022? Really. You're being the opposite of chicken little, neither of which help.
It might be useful to actually see the platform plank we're talking about.
Title and preamble about "sensible action" and families and "gun violence"
The lie that they respect any gun owner. And the implicit lie that national level restrictions will do anything for hot spots of high crime rate cities.
Brady was such a success we'll do more of the same in spite of the data showing that there's nearly no statistical value in Brady.
We'll encourage crippling lawsuits paid for by wealthy Antis (<cough> Bloomberg) to put retailers and manufacturers out of business even though their products weren't defective.
We'll ignore the data from the DOJ showing that all rifles of any type are no more involved in homicides than clubs OR knives OR even hands and feet and continue to demonize based on appearance to promote fear in the public so we can promise to make them free of fear instead of free of violence.
I got nothin' here. I'm not aware of any effort to stop BATFE from yanking FFLs where the dealer breaks the law. Must be "create fear where no threat actually exists".
Welllll, no one wants terrorists to get guns or dangerous mental health sufferers to get guns, but most of the mass shootings and terrorist attacks have taken place under very restrictive state and federal programs or where the federal oversight failed to communicate with the other federal agencies responsible for approving purchases through NICS so I'm not sure what they want unless it is to treat ALL OF US as if we can't be trusted with firearms.
Government studies during and after AWB showed that there was no conclusive evidence that any government gun restrictions had any significant effect on firearms related homicides, but because the Republicans banned the CDC from funding firearms homicide studies we'll make it a point that the Republicans block funding for more of these studies.
Title and preamble about "sensible action" and families and "gun violence"
The lie that they respect any gun owner. And the implicit lie that national level restrictions will do anything for hot spots of high crime rate cities.
Brady was such a success we'll do more of the same in spite of the data showing that there's nearly no statistical value in Brady.
We'll encourage crippling lawsuits paid for by wealthy Antis (<cough> Bloomberg) to put retailers and manufacturers out of business even though their products weren't defective.
We'll ignore the data from the DOJ showing that all rifles of any type are no more involved in homicides than clubs OR knives OR even hands and feet and continue to demonize based on appearance to promote fear in the public so we can promise to make them free of fear instead of free of violence.
.
I got nothin' here. I'm not aware of any effort to stop BATFE from yanking FFLs where the dealer breaks the law. Must be "create fear where no threat actually exists".
Welllll, no one wants terrorists to get guns or dangerous mental health sufferers to get guns, but most of the mass shootings and terrorist attacks have taken place under very restrictive state and federal programs or where the federal oversight failed to communicate with the other federal agencies responsible for approving purchases through NICS so I'm not sure what they want unless it is to treat ALL OF US as if we can't be trusted with firearms.
Government studies during and after AWB showed that there was no conclusive evidence that any government gun restrictions had any significant effect on firearms related homicides, but because the Republicans banned the CDC from funding firearms homicide studies we'll make it a point that the Republicans block funding for more of these studies.
danez71
Member
I think there were 38 R's that voted for the AWB of 94.
What will the outcome be if 38 voted for it next time?
And if the R's lose just a few more seats...?
Yes, the D's are rolling the dice... loaded dice they're rolling.
With Hillary picking SCOTUS memberS, the dice won't be checked either.
Vote the entire ticket. If you live in an area dominated by Democrats and RINOs... vote RINO. They at least want to keep their jobs and it strengthens the #s.
What will the outcome be if 38 voted for it next time?
And if the R's lose just a few more seats...?
Yes, the D's are rolling the dice... loaded dice they're rolling.
With Hillary picking SCOTUS memberS, the dice won't be checked either.
Vote the entire ticket. If you live in an area dominated by Democrats and RINOs... vote RINO. They at least want to keep their jobs and it strengthens the #s.
AlexanderA
Member
This is the most worrisome thing, to me. California, New York, Connecticut, and Massachusetts are the most recent templates. As I have pointed out already, an administration can do a lot of damage here, without any input from Congress. They are specifically targeting the AR-15. Obama hasn't done the worst that he could do, but Hillary, if she wins, can claim a fresh mandate to ban AR's, especially since she's made gun control a centerpiece of her campaign. In fact, she's so far out on a limb on this, that it would be difficult for her to back down and not do anything. Wanting fast progress on an agenda, a Hillary administration would move surprisingly quickly on guns. I'm concerned that the NRA and the Republicans would be caught flat-footed.
Shanghai McCoy
Member
^^^
I agree with Alexander. The laws most recently passed in California show what a Democrat politician will do if they can.
Hillary Clinton will want to "take charge" when she is elected and guns will be the first item I am sure.
I agree with Alexander. The laws most recently passed in California show what a Democrat politician will do if they can.
Hillary Clinton will want to "take charge" when she is elected and guns will be the first item I am sure.
There are hundreds of SC decisions that have been overturned.
I don't think you're paying attention to what's been happening lately with judicial activism and the tortured path of logic to justify some recent SC decisions.
The Obamacare mandate is suddenly a "tax" according to the SC after being specifically held that it is not and cannot be a tax? (And this argument supported by a "conservative" justice.)
Suddenly the SC finds a "right" to gay marriage in the Constitution? And it becomes in effect "law" despite the fact that the SC can't make laws.
It's a stretch to take comfort thinking that a 7/2 liberal/conservative can't/won't suddenly decide that the "well regulated militia" clause means something other than individual rights, or find some other loophole. Especially with a president and both houses of congress breathing down their neck to erase this last stronghold of freedom and liberty.
This ain't your childhood's supreme court.
grampajack
AR Junkie
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2016
- Messages
- 1,714
I think what's happening is that the country is being split right down the middle. The progressives and conservatives basically can't live under the same rule of law because their values are too far apart. There's just no more room for moderate views. Either you're a humanist progressive with no belief in right and wrong beyond the status quo, or you're a conservative who believes society is built on certain values. In essence, it comes down to whether you live for your own gratification, or whether you believe you serve a greater good and that your life has more meaning than things like sexual liberation and drugs.
The progressive movement can only take our society so far before there's a rift, where a certain portion of the population just can't go any further. I think we've reached that point where going any further is purely unthinkable for God fearing Americans. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedoms are just never going to be resolved between the left and right, and hostilities are only going to grow stronger. The progressive movement has gone as far as they can with subversive tactics, and now their ultimate goals can only be reached by force. At this point, they will no long try to persuade you. Either you're with them willingly, or they will force their values onto you at gunpoint. Thus, the progressives are going for broke, and the mask is coming off because appealing to moderate views no longer serves them.
The progressive movement can only take our society so far before there's a rift, where a certain portion of the population just can't go any further. I think we've reached that point where going any further is purely unthinkable for God fearing Americans. Issues like abortion, gay marriage, and religious freedoms are just never going to be resolved between the left and right, and hostilities are only going to grow stronger. The progressive movement has gone as far as they can with subversive tactics, and now their ultimate goals can only be reached by force. At this point, they will no long try to persuade you. Either you're with them willingly, or they will force their values onto you at gunpoint. Thus, the progressives are going for broke, and the mask is coming off because appealing to moderate views no longer serves them.
Red Wind
Member
jmorris said:
By 1994, JFK had already been dead for 31 years. The ideological turn toward the extreme left among Democrats had been going on for decades.
And to bring your apples more up to date
, from January, 2009 to January, 2011, Democrats not only held the White House, they overwhelming held the House of Representatives by a 257 to 178 margin, and the Senate by 59 to 41. In fact, for 4 of those 24 months, their Senate majority was 60 to 40, a possible filibuster proof majority.Yet, during that full 2 years, only one piece of major legislation got passed: ObamaCare, and that by one vote in the House, with shenanigans in the dead of night.
So, getting any major gun control legislation passed is not as simple as it may appear, even with "total" control of all 3 branches, which rarely occurs.
Here is a view from a liberal website on the matter.
Last edited:
1994 was before the NRA primaried any Republican Rep that even talked to the other side about gun control.
If every Democrat and 38 Republicans in the House voted for a gun control bill today it would lose by 23 votes.
Republicans hold the House 247 to 186 and they will continue to hold it until at least 2022. Today there are only 35 swing districts in the USA where a real election takes place. The rest were created to be safe Democratic or Republican districts. The next time districts will be redrawn is 2022.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
jmorris
Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2005
- Messages
- 24,241
She was not talking about gun control at the time but this was from her speech last night.
"How do you make an idea like that real? You do it step by step. Year by year, sometimes even door by door."
And that is exactly what they are doing with incremental gun control measures. "Sensible" is just a group that is too small to worry about hurting your numbers. So while some folks don't worry about others rights to a particular firearm design, they are just short sided to see the end game and that no other groups will still be there by the time they come for your single shot, shot gun your shooting with lead free ammunition that is taxed $20 a shell after you pass a background check and submit your finger prints and mental fitness approval from a .gov Doctor.
"How do you make an idea like that real? You do it step by step. Year by year, sometimes even door by door."
And that is exactly what they are doing with incremental gun control measures. "Sensible" is just a group that is too small to worry about hurting your numbers. So while some folks don't worry about others rights to a particular firearm design, they are just short sided to see the end game and that no other groups will still be there by the time they come for your single shot, shot gun your shooting with lead free ammunition that is taxed $20 a shell after you pass a background check and submit your finger prints and mental fitness approval from a .gov Doctor.
Last edited:
ljnowell
Member
Exactly correct. Submitting bills that you know have absolutely no chance of becoming law is pandering to your base not real attempts at passing a law.
Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk
Red Wind
Member
I hope JSH1 and I have made it abundantly clear that the passage of any major gun control legislation in the foreseeable future is going to be extremely difficult, if not impossible, even for a rabid, gun hating, fearing Administration that Hillary Rodham Clinton would "lead."
Of course, we have to be vigilant and pro-active for firearms. We also have to remain calm through any potential storms which inevitably will occur. That's life.
Of course, we have to be vigilant and pro-active for firearms. We also have to remain calm through any potential storms which inevitably will occur. That's life.
danez71
Member
Out of the 35 swing districts, 24-25 are held by Republicans. Lets use 24.
If the 24 are lost to the Dems and 38 R's flip like last time.... we lose by 1 according to your #'s.
IMO, I don't trust this group of politicians any more than the group from 1993/94.
It would not surprise me at all if more than 38 flipped.
Getting a California, NY, or MA law on the national law would be quite difficult. But given some more horror shows and a Democratic president, it would be done.
The GOP could go along in a moral panic. Remember both GWB and Mitt were in favor of the AWB renewal.
You might see more state bans depending on the votes and demographics in those states. SCOTUS has shown that it will do nothing against those types of laws.
In a sense it is like the choice debates - supposedly settled law but continued state and federal attempts to limit it.
The GOP could go along in a moral panic. Remember both GWB and Mitt were in favor of the AWB renewal.
You might see more state bans depending on the votes and demographics in those states. SCOTUS has shown that it will do nothing against those types of laws.
In a sense it is like the choice debates - supposedly settled law but continued state and federal attempts to limit it.
VoodooMountain
Member
Possible worst case scenario.
Ny safe act and/or the laws in California that were recently signed can be tried in the court of law as being unconstitutional. If Hillary gets to pick the next sc justice and these cases reach that level it will be game over. We would have a nation wide enacted version of the laws.
And even if it isn't t this, there will be more anticonstitutional travesties coming our way if/when Hillary wins. Her family and those in her circle of power are truly snakes.
Ny safe act and/or the laws in California that were recently signed can be tried in the court of law as being unconstitutional. If Hillary gets to pick the next sc justice and these cases reach that level it will be game over. We would have a nation wide enacted version of the laws.
And even if it isn't t this, there will be more anticonstitutional travesties coming our way if/when Hillary wins. Her family and those in her circle of power are truly snakes.
Last edited:
No4Mk1*
Member
Grandpa Jack is correct.
The SCOTUS is now just an extension of the executive branch and can now create rule of law at will. If Hillary appoints the next justice they will define the militia as the National Guard and declare that personal firearm ownership deprives others of equal protection, their civil rights, or some other lie in order to ban whatever they want. They do not need congress as they have proven with their recent social agenda.
The SCOTUS is now just an extension of the executive branch and can now create rule of law at will. If Hillary appoints the next justice they will define the militia as the National Guard and declare that personal firearm ownership deprives others of equal protection, their civil rights, or some other lie in order to ban whatever they want. They do not need congress as they have proven with their recent social agenda.
ljnowell
Member
Red Wind
Member
This Charleston ,South Carolina Realtor may come in handy. Just adjust it to the country of your choice!
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/...-moving-to-canada-because-of-trump-or-clinton
http://www.charlestoncitypaper.com/...-moving-to-canada-because-of-trump-or-clinton
Zeke/PA
Member
Take notice!
Hitlary's big mouth has NOT addressed the "Gun Lobby" !!!!
WHY??
Hitlary's big mouth has NOT addressed the "Gun Lobby" !!!!
WHY??
- Status
