HR 1022- It's BAAAACK!! ... do the Dems want your guns ?? Assault or otherwise??

[Flash]

Then ..... with the White House in the "blue" column and no veto possible, and with Pelosi, Schummer, Feinstein, Kennedy, Kerry, Boxer, Murray, and a left wing host of others in charge .... you'd better bury your guns. And watch out, as it will be "pay-back" time for 1994 and gun owners ...... [/B]

Yeahhhhhh, riiiiggghhhhhhtttttt..........:icon_roll

 

[MasterBates]

Yeahhhhhh, riiiiggghhhhhhtttttt..........:icon_roll

People in England and Australia said the same thing less than 10 years ago.

 

[A4sForever]

Yeahhhhhh, riiiiggghhhhhhtttttt..........:icon_roll

Com'on, Flash. Don't be stupid, cause you're not. But when you say things like this ..... ??? Naive???

But: Go ahead and stick your head in the sand ... and while you're at it ... check with your brethren in Australia, Canada, and England. Can't happen here, right ... ???? The ol' frog in the pot scenario ... of course, the mere fact that the Dem's tried overarching gun control in early 1994 when they controlled all three -- White House, Senate, and House of Reps --- doesn't mean they'll do it again, yes ???

Even Bill Clinton opined that the NRA and gun owners were responsible in large part for the 1994 gun-control backlash at the polls ...

 

[statesman]

Flash my degree is in political science and I know what it takes to go for cloture. But today in the senate you don't even worry about 51 votes because the filibuster is always implied.

The idea is much like our Nuclear deterrent strategy. We don't use it but the threat being there is enough to deter.

The senate doesn't filibuster much any more because generally the minority party wont even try to push things through unless they have 60 votes.

 

[Flash]

Com'on, Flash. Don't be stupid, cause you're not. But when you say things like this ..... ??? Naive???

But: Go ahead and stick your head in the sand ... and while you're at it ... check with your brethren in Australia, Canada, and England. Can't happen here, right ... ???? The ol' frog in the pot scenario ... of course, the mere fact that the Dem's tried overarching gun control in early 1994 when they controlled all three -- White House, Senate, and House of Reps --- doesn't mean they'll do it again, yes ???

Even Bill Clinton opined that the NRA and gun owners were responsible in large part for the 1994 gun-control backlash at the polls ...

No, I am not that naive......There is one big difference between those countries and the United States, we have the second amendment and they did not. Some forms of gun control might be attempted but nothing as sweeping and broad as what happened in Australia and Britain. What was passed in 1994 was a minor law, in the grand scheme of things, and did little to prevent further gun violence.

To claim that we need to hide our guns is a bit of hyperbole, guns are not goign to banned any time soon. Plus, how would you get this stuff passed pro-gun Democrats like Senator Tester and Senator Casey?

It is just too much of a hot potato for most Democrats to handle. they will probably play some lip service to gun control but not pass sweeping measures, much like Clinton did in the early part of his first term.

 

[Flash]

Flash my degree is in political science and I know what it takes to go for cloture. But today in the senate you don't even worry about 51 votes because the filibuster is always implied.

The idea is much like our Nuclear deterrent strategy. We don't use it but the threat being there is enough to deter.

The senate doesn't filibuster much any more because generally the minority party wont even try to push things through unless they have 60 votes.

Really?! You could have fooled me........

Spending bill with a withdrawal date from Iraq:

Vote Counts:
YEAs 51
NAYs 47
Not Voting 2

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/L...ote_cfm.cfm?congress=110&session=1&vote=00126

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,268699,00.html

 

[Flash]

Would not be "able" to or would not "have the drive to"? Because as I just said, its as easy as opening the paper, going to an estate sale, or even doing a private sale at a gun show. Those are just a few of the ways firearms are easily obtainable without a background check, and I didn't even get in to the black market/illegal ways to get one. I would definitely agree that it may cut down on the number of mentally unstable that actually end up with firearms, but for those that are truly motivated to do someone else harm its hardly a roadblock.

All that being said, I completely agree that the mentally ill should not be able to legally obtain firearms. It's part of the reason we run background checks through the ATF. Some slip through the cracks, but overall it is a good program.

That was my point.

 

[statesman]

Well I didn't plan on making a Political science debate out of this, but you have chosen a vote on a bill that everyone knew was going to be vetoed. I guess the diction I used was a bit generalized.

I should have said that in situations which are controversial to the minority party and you have split government, specifically when the opposition has the White House, a filibuster is always implied. The days of Strom Thermond are gone.

On HR 1591 the White House came out against it right from the start, giving Senators a free pass to vote the way they need to vote to appease their constituencies. If HR 1022 doesn't draw attention from the White House and a clear message that it will be vetoed then the Dems wont put much effort into actually trying to get it passed unless they have 60.

 

[FMRAM]

Yeahhhhhh, riiiiggghhhhhhtttttt..........:icon_roll

That guy is wearing two different boots...

 

[Lawman]

That guy is wearing two different boots...

Correct me if Im wrong.... but I do believe that is Henry Rollins

 

[PropStop]

Correct me if Im wrong.... but I do believe that is Henry Rollins

You're wrong, that's Brett.

 

[GulfBreezeGuy]

I think it would be interesting to see what percentage of the founding fathers worked in an industry that is currently, or has previously suffered shutdown attempts at the hands of the Grand Caucus of Donkeys. I'm thinking at least 30%, but then again, I have a grasp of history comparable to North Korean schoolchildren, so there you go.

On the up side, it might up the value of my 'assault weapons' in private sales.

 

[Flash]

I think it would be interesting to see what percentage of the founding fathers worked in an industry that is currently, or has previously suffered shutdown attempts at the hands of the Grand Caucus of Donkeys. I'm thinking at least 30%, but then again, I have a grasp of history comparable to North Korean schoolchildren, so there you go.

On the up side, it might up the value of my 'assault weapons' in private sales.

Well, the whole slavery thing was bad.......

P.S. Holy thread resurrection!

 

[GulfBreezeGuy]

Weren't the Dems in favor of keeping slavery around? Lincoln was a Republican, if I remember right.

I was thinking more in terms of the brewers, tobacconists, and gunsmiths.

And, yes I should check the dates on the stickies. I had a window-licker moment there, thinking that since it was near the top it had to be new. The snozeberries taste like snozeberries!

 

[AJB37]

Weren't the Dems in favor of keeping slavery around? Lincoln was a Republican, if I remember right.

I was thinking more in terms of the brewers, tobacconists, and gunsmiths.

And, yes I should check the dates on the stickies. I had a window-licker moment there, thinking that since it was near the top it had to be new. The snozeberries taste like snozeberries!

Yes, the Democrats started as the party for southern white plantation owners. However the parties gradually switched platforms after WWII if I recall correctly. But Lincoln's Republican party is not the Republican party of today.