You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
President's Gun Control Proposals
- Thread starter hogdogs
- Start date
The Presidents speech seemed to contain several references to the constitution being out dated
Closely followed by a pledge to uphold the Constitution, no doubt.
Stunningly disturbing.
Bart Noir
Looks like Harry Reid is moving along with the Mr. Obama's plan. Obviously Reid has no choice but to proceed with this issue, but based on his supposed support for the 2A I had hoped he would not be so eager and might move a little slower.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/22/sen-reid-pushes-ahead-with-gun-legislation/
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2013/01/22/sen-reid-pushes-ahead-with-gun-legislation/
I think it would be GREAT to see every Democrat on the Senate vote for an AWB, it would basically hand the Senate back to the GOP in 2014.
I thought Harry said somewhere along the lines he would not make the Senate vote on a bill that had no chance in the house. I guess that is no longer the case because I cannot see DF's bill having any chance in the house. You would have all but 5-10 republicans voting against it and probably somewhere north of 40-50 dems.
I thought Harry said somewhere along the lines he would not make the Senate vote on a bill that had no chance in the house. I guess that is no longer the case because I cannot see DF's bill having any chance in the house. You would have all but 5-10 republicans voting against it and probably somewhere north of 40-50 dems.
Actually the Dems have more to gain from a failure to pass an AWB then from success. If it fails it's another round of evil-american-gun-industry and evil-NRA looney extremists.
If it passes it will again fail to do anything substantive and prove their failed idealistic concepts are wrong, ... again.
If it passes it will again fail to do anything substantive and prove their failed idealistic concepts are wrong, ... again.
I would be very careful with that assumption. After all, wasn't the 2012 election supposed to be some magical watershed that was going to change the balance of power? That's what I kept hearing, but it's certainly not what happened.I think it would be GREAT to see every Democrat on the Senate vote for an AWB, it would basically hand the Senate back to the GOP in 2014.
Last week, Reid opined that he didn't see any major legislation getting through the House. This week, he's introducing a bill in the Senate. That worries me, and it implies that he knows something we don't. We can't afford to rest on assumptions.
We also do ourselves a disservice by assuming that D=gun banner and R=defender of the 2A. The RKBA isn't so clearly divided over party lines, so let's dispense with the partisanship.
Last week, Reid opined that he didn't see any major legislation getting through the House. This week, he's introducing a bill in the Senate. That worries me, and it implies that he knows something we don't.
Yep^^^
I also think he will not set up senate dems to vote for something that will not pass the house . By having the senate vote on a AWB it will put everyone on record . If that bill then does not pass the house everyone that voted for it would be in big trouble in 2014 . He will not serve them up for failure .
But while many of those Democrats are reluctant to back the most ambitious reforms, they are open to supporting other, more modest steps. Alaska Sen. Mark Begich, for example, said he supports the incentives the president outlined to bolster security at schools and could back some of the components of Mr. Obama’s plan relating to mental health.
These types of thing including background checks for all gun sales IMO would not hurt any member to the point of being voted out if passed .
I think we all know something is going to get passed . Now we wait and see what the real proposal is going to be .
We also do ourselves a disservice by assuming that D=gun banner and R=defender of the 2A. The RKBA isn't so clearly divided over party lines, so let's dispense with the partisanship.
I am not so sure, convince me Tom.
You may be correct in the fact, but the actual truth is that the one thing I am learning is that the truth doesn't have a heck of alot to do with things.
Maybe instead of the truth, and playing nice, and doing "what's right" and going by the rules. Maybe we need our own "ends justify the means". A little fire with fire.
Good ol common sense and reason is being perverted by the other guys. It's being used against us by people who are organized and ruthless in the pursuit of their goals.
So if painting a picture with an overly broad brush seems over the top I think I can live with it. Show me how it hurts more then it helps?
Alabama Shooter
New member
I am not so sure, convince me
An appetizer while you wait?
In 1969, journalist William Safire asked Richard Nixon what he thought about gun control. "Guns are an abomination," Nixon replied. According to Safire, Nixon went on to confess that, "Free from fear of gun owners' retaliation at the polls, he favored making handguns illegal and requiring licenses for hunting rifles."
It was President George Bush, Sr. who banned the import of "assault weapons" in 1989, and promoted the view that Americans should only be allowed to own weapons suitable for "sporting purposes."
It was Governor Ronald Reagan of California who signed the Mulford Act in 1967, "prohibiting the carrying of firearms on one's person or in a vehicle, in any public place or on any public street." The law was aimed at stopping the Black Panthers, but affected all gun owners.
Twenty-four years later, Reagan was still pushing gun control. "I support the Brady Bill," he said in a March 28, 1991 speech, "and I urge the Congress to enact it without further delay."
One of the most aggressive gun control advocates today is Republican mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City, whose administration sued 26 gun manufacturers in June 2000, and whose police commissioner, Howard Safir, proposed a nationwide plan for gun licensing, complete with yearly "safety" inspections.
Another Republican, New York State Governor George Pataki, on August 10, 2000, signed into law what The New York Times called "the nation's strictest gun controls," a radical program mandating trigger locks, background checks at gun shows and "ballistic fingerprinting" of guns sold in the state. It also raised the legal age to buy a handgun to 21 and banned "assault weapons," the sale or possession of which would now be punishable by seven years in prison.
Through the 1990s a large number of gun control laws were enacted in NJ with Republican majorities in the legislature and and Republican Govenor.
Mitt Romney- "Deadly assault weapons have no place in Massachusetts. These guns are not made for recreation or self-defense. They are instruments of destruction with the sole purpose of hunting down and killing people." 2004
@TOM: You are half correct, RTKBA is NOT just a D or R issue. You have D's who are pro 2A and as NY has shown us R's who are Anti. A lot of the gun control we have today began out of a fear by R's and Southern D's of "Left Wing" groups in the 60's and 70's.
The problem is the people that currently set the national agenda for the D's are rabidly anti gun. They want to push through any and all restrictions on the second amendment. The R's are trying to fight that while rolling back existing restrictions.
In local and state elections this might be less of an issue. As I said above, you will have at the state level some pro gun D's and anti gun R's. In Illinois for example, even though D’s outnumber R’s in both the State House and Senate Pro-2A D’s are keeping anti-gun legislation from passing.
On the national level though the agenda is pretty well set.
This is really going to be a Battle of the Bulge for gun rights nationally. We had them on the run but they turned around and surprised us. If house D's follow the rank and file of the party we are probably going to see an AWB, I think they are only outnumbered by 17 or 18 in the house and I could easily see that many R's breaking away.
If you on the other hand see many pro 2A D's break from the party, say NO I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS and vote against it an AWB it won't pass. I am not a national political expert but the Machine that created our president here in Illinois is superb at putting pressure on politicians to vote along the party line.
The problem is the people that currently set the national agenda for the D's are rabidly anti gun. They want to push through any and all restrictions on the second amendment. The R's are trying to fight that while rolling back existing restrictions.
In local and state elections this might be less of an issue. As I said above, you will have at the state level some pro gun D's and anti gun R's. In Illinois for example, even though D’s outnumber R’s in both the State House and Senate Pro-2A D’s are keeping anti-gun legislation from passing.
On the national level though the agenda is pretty well set.
This is really going to be a Battle of the Bulge for gun rights nationally. We had them on the run but they turned around and surprised us. If house D's follow the rank and file of the party we are probably going to see an AWB, I think they are only outnumbered by 17 or 18 in the house and I could easily see that many R's breaking away.
If you on the other hand see many pro 2A D's break from the party, say NO I WILL NOT SUPPORT THIS and vote against it an AWB it won't pass. I am not a national political expert but the Machine that created our president here in Illinois is superb at putting pressure on politicians to vote along the party line.
Last edited:
I'm not sure what you're asking, but let's remember that many Republicans, including Presidential candidates Dole and McCain, supported the original Assault Weapons Ban. Several Democrats opposed it, including Harry Reid.So if painting a picture with an overly broad brush seems over the top I think I can live with it. Show me how it hurts more then it helps?
While the Democratic platform has historically supported gun control, there are varying shades of gray, and many Democrats rated A by the NRA.
Tom Servo said:Last week, Reid opined that he didn't see any major legislation getting through the House. This week, he's introducing a bill in the Senate.
We will have to see what Reid has proposed compared to Feinstein, Lautenberg, Schumer, and others who are also submitting bills.
Mr. Reid said he expects an open amendment process once the bill reaches the floor.
I find the above statement from the article interesting. I thought Reid was famous for carefully controlling amendments on the Senate floor.
OK. He wants a universal background checks? I want an amendment that lowers the national speed limit to 35 mph.Mr. Reid said he expects an open amendment process once the bill reaches the floor.
He wants a ban on high-capacity magazines? I want amendments that completely defund some popular government services.
The math isn't hard.
It looks like a way to open negotiations by taking the first step saying "yes we are serious, yes we can deal".
But I don't see much latitude, what is it they want that we can afford to give?
Another time limit like the past one?
20 rounds instead of 10?
Another list of silly cosmetic criteria?
Will we get to keep semiauto but only with fixed magazines of say 10 rounds?
Or will the number of rounds vary by caliber? Or maybe they will not limit the rounds and instead say only single-stacked mags that do not extend below the base of the grip?
And the list could go on and on, and still it will not do anything to stop or even mitigate something like Sandy Hook.
But I don't see much latitude, what is it they want that we can afford to give?
Another time limit like the past one?
20 rounds instead of 10?
Another list of silly cosmetic criteria?
Will we get to keep semiauto but only with fixed magazines of say 10 rounds?
Or will the number of rounds vary by caliber? Or maybe they will not limit the rounds and instead say only single-stacked mags that do not extend below the base of the grip?
And the list could go on and on, and still it will not do anything to stop or even mitigate something like Sandy Hook.
Last edited:
Stevie-Ray
New member
And what good will that do with today's Americans? They had 4 years of totally failed policies and going from the frying pan into the fire, and voted him right back in!If it passes it will again fail to do anything substantive and prove their failed idealistic concepts are wrong, ... again.
I didn't say it would do any good. I said it would fail to accomplish it's purported purpose.
As for the broad brush statement it goes like this.
If I paint all Dems as anti-gun then maybe the ones who aren't will work a little harder to prove it. A Rep who is anti-gun might see the light. I have no idea.
But while we are discussing it, if myself or someone else get's a little casual about the nuances, who cares? Too many people walking on tip-toes, too many people nit-picking and playing games.
The issue is simple really, it's the 2nd Amendment, it's purpose and reason for being. It is clear, it was ratified and it is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution. If there are people who want to change it, then change it. But don't let them play games and do end-runs around it cause that dog shouldn't be allowed to hunt.
The idea that we need to negotiate, that we have to make a deal or we might lose the whole thing. These fears, they are part of the problem. The second amendment doesn't only protect our right to keep and bare, it also charges us with a responsibility to protect as well. That means fighting, fighting online, fighting with friends, relatives, work mates, school mates, teachers, reporters, congressmen, and even with a President.
And if the words are not enough, if our voice is not strong enough, if our kung-fu abandons us.................Courage.
This is not only about guns, this is about a fundamental change in our nation, our people. They don't just want your guns, they want a "better world".
As for the broad brush statement it goes like this.
If I paint all Dems as anti-gun then maybe the ones who aren't will work a little harder to prove it. A Rep who is anti-gun might see the light. I have no idea.
But while we are discussing it, if myself or someone else get's a little casual about the nuances, who cares? Too many people walking on tip-toes, too many people nit-picking and playing games.
The issue is simple really, it's the 2nd Amendment, it's purpose and reason for being. It is clear, it was ratified and it is one of the cornerstones of the Constitution. If there are people who want to change it, then change it. But don't let them play games and do end-runs around it cause that dog shouldn't be allowed to hunt.
The idea that we need to negotiate, that we have to make a deal or we might lose the whole thing. These fears, they are part of the problem. The second amendment doesn't only protect our right to keep and bare, it also charges us with a responsibility to protect as well. That means fighting, fighting online, fighting with friends, relatives, work mates, school mates, teachers, reporters, congressmen, and even with a President.
And if the words are not enough, if our voice is not strong enough, if our kung-fu abandons us.................Courage.
This is not only about guns, this is about a fundamental change in our nation, our people. They don't just want your guns, they want a "better world".
mrbatchelor
New member
If it passes it will again fail to do anything substantive and prove their failed idealistic concepts are wrong, ... again.
If it passes this time it won't matter if the idealistic concepts are wrong. If it passes this time it's permanent. Forever as long as Washington is the Capitol. Longer than anyone currently participating in this discussion, even the young guys, will live.
Think about that. Forever, or at least until you and I are dead as hammers. Whichever you prefer.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I think you are correct. If such a bill passes, it will never be rescinded.
If it fails, and there are electoral consequences for those supporting it - then it might truly become a poison bill for a very long time.
If it fails, and there are electoral consequences for those supporting it - then it might truly become a poison bill for a very long time.