Assault Weapon Ban likely to die

[TripleDigitRide]

Keep the pleasure on our elected officials.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/assault-weapons-ban_n_2617091.html?m=false&icid=hp_politics_ftr_desktop

[MacGyver]

Remind me to toast Edmund Randolph the next time I get a chance.  Turns out that whole bicameral legislature is pretty important.

[mcurrier]

Don't let your guard down, at best it's just a diversionary tactic.  They are still at ATTACK-CON 1 on taking guns from law-abiding citizens.

[mikegideon]

When it dies, this boy is going to do some of the loudest, most obnoxious dick wagging in the history of the art! I may wait until the mag ban dies too, or I may not.

[Links2k]

I understand that a lot of democrats are more concerned about losing their seats than pushing for a ban. So, there will be no ban. I'm against any type of ban, but their actions hold true to form. They are just being politicians. It's all about staying in power.

[TripleDigitRide]

We need to push back against ANY ban. Even if they remove the assault weapon portion, they will likely leave in a ban on high-capacity magazines ban, not to mention the background check BS.

[1gewehr]

Remember, it's not JUST Feinstein's bill that's out there.  There are several bills in the Senate.

 

Make sure that you send both Alexander and Corker firm notice that you will not tolerate ANY gun Control legislation.

Including:

'Universal' Background Checks

Magazine size limits

A ban on any kinds of weapons

or any other restrictions that their pointy little heads can come up with.

[mikegideon]

I understand that a lot of democrats are more concerned about losing their seats than pushing for a ban. So, there will be no ban. I'm against any type of ban, but their actions hold true to form. They are just being politicians. It's all about staying in power.

 

Couple of ways to look at that. The people that will throw them out of office ARE the people they are supposed to represent. We allow our politicians to be scumbags. Sometimes we make an exception, like their votes on gun bans.

[Links2k]

We allow our politicians to be scumbags.

You are correct.

[Oh Shoot]

History would suggest that contentious legislation doesn't get finally hammered out until late in the second year of a Congress.

 

Point being, we likely won't know for sure just what will or won't be enacted until almost 2015.

 

Then, gawd help us, if the GOP loses the House, anti-gun legislation will start right back up again, but with more success.

 

- OS

[mikegideon]

History would suggest that contentious legislation doesn't get finally hammered out until late in the second year of a Congress.

 

Point being, we likely won't know for sure just what will or won't be enacted until almost 2015.

 

Then, gawd help us, if the GOP loses the House, anti-gun legislation will start right back up again, but with more success.

 

- OS

 

This entire gun banning mess is favoring a good GOP midterm. Reid wants this whole mess to go away. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they rush it through committee, and throw it onto the floor for a ceremonial killing. The longer they drag this out, the worse it's gonna be for the Demwits. Just my opinion, o' course.

[Links2k]

This entire gun banning mess is favoring a good GOP midterm. Reid wants this whole mess to go away. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they rush it through committee, and throw it onto the floor for a ceremonial killing. The longer they drag this out, the worse it's gonna be for the Demwits. Just my opinion, o' course.

Reid wishes that it would die today. Edited February 5, 2013 by LINKS2K

[Oh Shoot]

This entire gun banning mess is favoring a good GOP midterm. Reid wants this whole mess to go away. I wouldn't be a bit surprised if they rush it through committee, and throw it onto the floor for a ceremonial killing. The longer they drag this out, the worse it's gonna be for the Demwits. Just my opinion, o' course.

 

If you mean Feinstein's Bill, that's likely. But her effort is just the opening volley.

 

There are two years left in this Congress.

 

- OS

Edited February 5, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[MacGyver]

With our victories over the past 20 years in both state legislatures and the judicial system, the gun grabbers know that this is their last, best chance to do anything.  If they can't get it done now, they probably won't get another chance.

 

This may in fact be their final stand.  While on one hand that seems like reason to celebrate, be careful.  People who feel like they've got nothing to lose are some of the most dangerous adversaries out there.

[mikegideon]

If you mean Feinstein's Bill, that's likely. But her effort is just the opening volley.

 

There are two years left in this Congress.

 

- OS

 

Are you sayin' they kill one ban outright, and another one has a chance a month later? I'm not saying the fight is over. Just saying that they have one shot at bans. Harry doesn't want it coming up at all. My money says it won't after it fails once.

[Guest CCI]

And if it does die! What's stopping Obama from doing an EO?

[MacGyver]

Are you sayin' they kill one ban outright, and another one has a chance a month later? I'm not saying the fight is over. Just saying that they have one shot at bans. Harry doesn't want it coming up at all. My money says it won't after it fails once.

The current talk is allowing Feinstein's bill to come to a vote on the floor so that red state democrats can vote against it and say they helped defeat an AWB.  Then, with that out of the way, they'll introduce a bill with universal background checks, federal trafficking provisions and a magazine capacity limit.

 

They're going into the "negotiation" with the preconceived idea gun owners are going to give up something.

[mikegideon]

And if it does die! What's stopping Obama from doing an EO?

 

Impeachment maybe?

[Oh Shoot]

Are you sayin' they kill one ban outright, and another one has a chance a month later? I'm not saying the fight is over. Just saying that they have one shot at bans. Harry doesn't want it coming up at all. My money says it won't after it fails once.

 

Oh, the "weapons ban" part seems a no go.

 

But Feinstein's bill could be amended for just the mags, or separate bills offered, whatever. There are already a number filed in both Senate and House. Can tell ya, that an "assault weapon" with 10 round mag going forward would lose much of the appeal to me if I were a new buyer.

 

We haven't even really seen the first ammo related legislation much mentioned yet, like Blumenthal's. I believe there are also separate bills already filed for the universal background check thing.

 

And I may have been wrong about the House, a bill there is getting some press today regarding gun trafficking and whatnot; though I don't see exactly what it would really make different, they might pass it as part of the "we are concerned" political optics. Who knows...

 

Point is, just don't know what all may evolve, seems this will be a longer two years than usual, sort of like those towns you can spend a week in just one night. ;)

 

- OS

[Jonnin]

feinstein's bill was meant to fail.   She knew that.  It was a political statement, or a statement of goals, and a way to say "we compromised, we took out the ban on everything and replaced it with a ban on 1/2!" at a future date.  Combined with testing the waters to see what would fly.  

 

The death of that bull is nice but that isnt the fight. 

[mikegideon]

The current talk is allowing Feinstein's bill to come to a vote on the floor so that red state democrats can vote against it and say they helped defeat an AWB.  Then, with that out of the way, they'll introduce a bill with universal background checks, federal trafficking provisions and a magazine capacity limit.

 

They're going into the "negotiation" with the preconceived idea that we've got to give up something.

 

I know, and the fight will be mag bans. Lots of political damage for very little good. Still a ban, and will still get folks unseated. I'm with OhShoot. I think the background checks will pass.

[mikegideon]

Oh, the "weapons ban" part seems a no go.

 

But Feinstein's bill could be amended for just the mags, or separate bills offered, whatever. There are already a number filed in both Senate and House. Can tell ya, that an "assault weapon" with 10 round mag going forward would lose much of the appeal to me if I were a new buyer.

 

We haven't even really seen the first ammo related legislation much mentioned yet, like Blumenthal's. I believe there are also separate bills already filed for the universal background check thing.

 

And I may have been wrong about the House, a bill there is getting some press today regarding gun trafficking and whatnot; though I don't see exactly what it would really make different, they might pass it as part of the "we are concerned" political optics. Who knows...

 

Point is, just don't know what all may evolve, seems this will be a longer two years than usual, sort of like those towns you can spend a week in just one night. ;)

 

- OS

 

The mag ban is going to impact the BIG crowd... all the handgunners. Is it worth it to a politician?

Edited February 5, 2013 by mikegideon

[Guest RevScottie]

Keep the pleasure on our elected officials.
 

 

Isn't that what got Bill Clinton in trouble?  :rofl:

[mcurrier]

Impeachment maybe?

 

Caesar can not be impeached.  Off with your head for even suggesting it.  Your family too.

[walton6467]

Great, the panic is going away. Now restock the dang ammo cabinet at Walmart and let's get on with life.