House Bill H.R. 4269

[Tinbucket]

House Bill HR 4269

Once we get rid of this bunch of criminals and Globalists the fight will be easier.
A Law to require all bills submitted meet the Constitutional test might stop a lot of it.
We just have to keep vigilant and elect local and state and national People, that are really champions of the Constitution and not wanting to eliminate, or change America and our Rights.
Every once in a while a new up and comer shows on the scene. Unfortunately he took the political science classes where they teach that a lie is a useful too, even essential tool to get elected. If you don't get elected then you can't get your agenda passed.
Right now there are probably some Youngsters, who can play the game, but with a dedication and devotion to our Republic.
When we find one we must push them protect them and get them elected.
The Big Money comes along and if you agree, with their agenda, they will give you money and make way for you in the halls of Government.
Money is the real power. Until we get public financing and end Corporate Personhood, it will be a tough fight though.
If you have money and desire to keep the Republic humming and protect
America and Americans, to be a champion and not a "I'm not going to do anythign unless I get something out of it" politician, we want you.

 

[thallub]

This House bill already has 149 sponsors and if the Dems take control of congress it's sure to pass.

The bill dies on 31 December, 2016. There will be another bill to replace it.

Passage of an assault weapons ban in a Democrat controlled US House is not a done deal. The reason: Pro-gun Democrats. Yep, i said pro-gun Democrats.

An examination of the US House vote on the 1994 "assault weapons" ban is in order.

1. The "assault weapons" ban passed the US House by a vote of 216-214. 38 Republicans and one Independent voted in favor. 77 Democrats voted no.

2. Former president Ronald Reagan wrote every member of the US congress asking them to vote for the "assault weapons" ban.

My memory is not what it used to be. Changed: Two congressmen, a Republican and a Democrat , changed their votes based on the appeal from Reagan: That put it over the top.

3. The House minority leader voted for the ban.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/05/06/us/how-representatives-voted-on-bill-to-ban-assault-guns.html

BTW: The Democrat, US Rep. Swett of NH, received numerous death threats for changing his vote.

 

[carguychris]

Once we get rid of this bunch of... Globalists the fight will be easier.

There are "Globalists" on both sides of the aisle. "Globalist" views do not necessarily track together with gun control.

Which brings me to the term itself and the reason I've put it in quotes. IMHO the term "Globalist" has become so overused in today's political landscape that it's been beaten into near-meaningless, similar to the "Fascist", which likewise—despite its actual concise definition—tends to be used popularly to mean little more than "a politician whose views I think are evil."

A Law to require all bills submitted meet the Constitutional test might stop a lot of it.

And this law would be administered by...?

Money is the real power. Until we get public financing and end Corporate Personhood, it will be a tough fight though.

How do you figure that will help promote gun rights? I don't see a lot of corporations actively campaigning for gun control, other than a handful that exist mainly to serve as mouthpieces for wealthy public figures.

Also, remember that most of the recent campaign finance reform measures—notably McCain Feingold—aren't aimed solely at frequently-cited corporate boogeymen like Exxon Mobil or Monsanto. They're also aimed at reducing the influence of powerful non-governmental organizations like the AFL-CIO, the Sierra Club, and the NRA. Something to consider the next time you hear a candidate promise to "take on the gun lobby."

Passage of an assault weapons ban in a Democrat controlled US House is not a done deal. The reason: Pro-gun Democrats. Yep, i said pro-gun Democrats.

A very astute observation.

We are in a very strange political situation with the upcoming presidential election. Both candidates are deeply despised by broad swaths of the electorate, and both have espoused views that run counter to many longtime members of their own parties. Both are likely to garner initial approval ratings that are far lower than normal for a new first-term president.

There is a very real possibility that either candidate will see significant factions in their own party's Congressional caucus rebel against them, resulting in legislative gridlock.