Reid's setting up for a vote on Thursday for gun legislation

[jphillips63]

Just read this not sure if its been posted yet

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/09/as-vote-looms-gun-control-backers-ratchet-up-pressure-on-congress/

[austin7.62]

Damn! Better go out and buy all the high caps I can find!!!

 

 

Just kidding. 

[Oh Shoot]

It's the real beginning of whatever form of expanded background checks we'll wind up with. But certainly the end to private sales at the least.

 

- OS

[Guest Cami]

Harry Reid makes me physically ill.

[RED333]

He is trying to get taxes in on the bill as well, tax a transfer, records to be kept.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

He can't get anything done by himself. From what I understand, he can't break a filibuster. The right

is saying they will. You can't ban private sales. Maybe on paper for the sheep who will comply, but no

one else. He's just trying to make noise at this point.

 

I'll be shocked if anything comes out of the Senate, and even more shocked if it passed in the House.

A war was started over this and a couple other things.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

That may also be a ploy to get something passed with a simple majority. If he gets away with something like that,

I hope one does happen. I really wonder what it will take to get these fools thrown out of Congress.

 

Stuff like the IRS raids on Gibson Guitar and Mountain Pure Water are meant to get us used to the strong arm

of the government so gun confiscation can be the next thing we can be ready for. EPA effectively causing a tax

on driveways and mall parking lots. Where is this crap going to end. It won't if we keep on sticking our heads out

to be chopped off or a yoke put on it by a slave master. Guess who that is.

[Oh Shoot]

He can't get anything done by himself. From what I understand, he can't break a filibuster. ...

 

Doesn't look like to me there will be one, seems he will have the 60 votes for cloture.

 

I'll be shocked if anything comes out of the Senate, and even more shocked if it passed in the House.

 

Oh, there's 51 votes for something to come out the Senate, which will be the expanded background check thing.

 

Only question is whether it can pass the House, which I believe it will.  Will basically just end private sales, period, and has been the lowest hanging possible fruit even before Sandy Hook.

 

- OS

[JWinTN]

If I heard and understood correctly: Alexander- Aye, Corker- Aye

[Worriedman]

Doesn't look like to me there will be one, seems he will have the 60 votes for cloture.

 

 

Oh, there's 51 votes for something to come out the Senate, which will be the expanded background check thing.

 

Only question is whether it can pass the House, which I believe it will.  Will basically just end private sales, period, and has been the lowest hanging possible fruit even before Sandy Hook.

 

- OS

How prophetic on the Senate side, and you are correct on the House side as well. 

 

Guns sales and gifting firearms to your children as we have know it is now a thing of the past.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Worriedman

[Greg_Mid_TN]

I just got through contacting both Alexander's and Corker's office and voiced my disappoinment and disgust with thier vote to support Harry Reid and the gun grabbers. I will work actively the next campaign cycle to see that both of them are primaried.

 

I knew both of them were weak on this, but I have e-mails from both of them that state that neither would support or vote for any legislation that would infringe on our 2nd Ammendment right.

 

Greg.

[Bigiron]

Alexander and Corker are laughing and saying "ha ha, fooled you again".

[Oh Shoot]

I just got through contacting both Alexander's and Corker's office and voiced my disappoinment and disgust with thier vote to support Harry Reid and the gun grabbers. I will work actively the next campaign cycle to see that both of them are primaried.

 

I knew both of them were weak on this, but I have e-mails from both of them that state that neither would support or vote for any legislation that would infringe on our 2nd Ammendment right.

 

Greg.

 

Alexander and Corker are laughing and saying "ha ha, fooled you again".

 

 

To be fair, they both voted to let the festivities begin only. Neither has actually voted on any bill or amendment to it.

 

It's interesting how often I read here about how bills should never simply be quashed in committee but should be brought out for public airing and vote. Of course, that's just some bills.

 

Everyone here poo poos the "pro gun control" polling touted nightly by the various talking heads (how'd that work out for the presidential election?), but it's really clear that expanded background checks have overwhelming support, including in the states with NRA A-rated senators and in the districts with A-rated reps.

 

So in some cases, even those senators who will ultimately vote against the bill and all of its amendments need to at least be able to show they were willing to consider the measures in the first place. The gun issues this time around are indeed many of these pols' worst nightmare issue, as taking either side is dangerous for them.

 

Even ascribing to them the lofty aim to balance the will of their constituency along with adherence of the Constitution this is a tough call even for moral men, let alone a DC pol.

 

- OS

[Oh Shoot]

How prophetic on the Senate side, and you are correct on the House side as well. 
 
Guns sales and gifting forearms to your children as we have know it is now a thing of the past.

 
Well documented on here, I've been predicting an end to private sales for several years, likely before the end of BHO's presidency, but within a decade no matter who was in office. Didn't need Sandy Hook to accomplish it, but of course that's the jump-start as to the now of it.
 
Pre-bill release scuttlebutt all points to an exception for transferring firearms among family members, and if so, I expect "family" to be precisely defined.
 
- OS

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Doesn't look like to me there will be one, seems he will have the 60 votes for cloture.

 

 

Oh, there's 51 votes for something to come out the Senate, which will be the expanded background check thing.

 

Only question is whether it can pass the House, which I believe it will.  Will basically just end private sales, period, and has been the lowest hanging possible fruit even before Sandy Hook.

 

- OS

They did get that cloture, but it still has a long way before it passes. The House has more vulnerable membes,

like every two years. I'm cautiously optimistic that even Boehner won't screw anything like this up. Private sales

won't end, though, because of the Senate, Mac, because people won't lay down and submit to this, only at gun

shows, and that's a big maybe. Too many ways to circumvent, and you know it. They're only after full blown

confiscation. This is only going to piss off a bunch of people. The same ones buying guns up right now.

 

There will come a point in time that no laws passed will mean anything. We're going to start seeing the evidence

real soon, if we haven't already. If votes by us folks out here in the hinterlands don't get anywhere before much

longer, things will get so bad that the rule of law that should exist, won't exist.

 

In other words, you're right about the outcome of the votes, so far, but the final outcome, well, that's another story.

 

I'm kinda to the point that I have no control over the outcome of whatever the Hell they vote on and I'm becoming

rather cynical about the whole process to worry about who is right or wrong. I'm just concerning myself with how

the result will right itself. In other words, I'd rather be involved with doing something than worrying over them.

 

Of course, I could be completely wrong on that.

[Spiffy]

IF they vote to pass what amounts to the banning of private sales, we should all push to get them to do background checks on booze sales. We wouldn't wanna a driver with a DUI or points on their licenses buying alcohol now would we.

[Oh Shoot]

They did get that cloture, but it still has a long way before it passes. The House has more vulnerable membes,

like every two years. I'm cautiously optimistic that even Boehner won't screw anything like this up....

 

You really just don't believe in the overwhelming support of universal background checks yet, do ya?

 

These guys have all the polls parsed for their own constituencies ya know, and they now know that even in states/districts with NRA grade A pols the pro-check side is overwhelming. And yes, even NRA members support it, as long as registration is not tied to it, though that question is never asked by NRA itself in that form, so they can claim its polling shows the membership to be against it.

 

These bastards are finally in the worst place possible, and it's a damn delicate dance for even the staunchest pro-gun pols. Hence the first step to allow the bills and amendments to hit the floor for debate. Even for the ones who will vote against all of them, they can at least show support for an "honest open dialog", and a vote.

 

But the background check thing is double edged sword, as voting against it could cost them more votes than voting for it in even the most traditionally solid pro-gun states and districts. The only question in their minds is to what degree each side will actually gear up more in opposition during their next election, but certainly not regarding the overwhelming consensus of opinion of their constituencies.

 

- OS

Edited April 11, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Worriedman]

To be fair, they both voted to let the festivities begin only. Neither has actually voted on any bill or amendment to it.

 

It's interesting how often I read here about how bills should never simply be quashed in committee but should be brought out for public airing and vote. Of course, that's just some bills.

 

- OS

 

The federal government does not have the power to regulate arms, their only Constitutional charge is to "not infringe" the people's Right to keep and bear them. That is all, nothing else. Debate it in the State, where it belongs.

Edited April 12, 2013 by Worriedman

[Oh Shoot]

The federal government does not have the power to regulate arms, their only Constitutional charge is to "not infringe" the people's Right to keep and bear them. That is all, nothing else. Debate it in the State, where it belongs.

 

As much as most everyone here agrees, including myself, the reality is that the fed does regulate arms ever since 1934. And not only by law, but from Presidential Orders and import/export rules neither of which were even enacted by votes of our representatives.

 

And just think, this result from a citizenry which basically originally went to war over a couple of tax hikes and gun confiscation.

 

- OS

[Worriedman]

As much as most everyone here agrees, including myself, the reality is that the fed does regulate arms ever since 1934. And not only by law, but from Presidential Orders and import/export rules neither of which were even enacted by votes of our representatives.

 

And just think, this result from a citizenry which basically originally went to war over a couple of tax hikes and gun confiscation.

 

- OS

Shame on all of us for allowing it to get this far out of bounds.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

You really just don't believe in the overwhelming support of universal background checks yet, do ya?

 

These guys have all the polls parsed for their own constituencies ya know, and they now know that even in states/districts with NRA grade A pols the pro-check side is overwhelming. And yes, even NRA members support it, as long as registration is not tied to it, though that question is never asked by NRA itself in that form, so they can claim its polling shows the membership to be against it.

 

These bastards are finally in the worst place possible, and it's a damn delicate dance for even the staunchest pro-gun pols. Hence the first step to allow the bills and amendments to hit the floor for debate. Even for the ones who will vote against all of them, they can at least show support for an "honest open dialog", and a vote.

 

But the background check thing is double edged sword, as voting against it could cost them more votes than voting for it in even the most traditionally solid pro-gun states and districts. The only question in their minds is to what degree each side will actually gear up more in opposition during their next election, but certainly not regarding the overwhelming consensus of opinion of their constituencies.

 

- OS

Actually, no, I don't.

[Oh Shoot]

Actually, no, I don't.

 

Well, I  must admit that so far, the proposed checks actually do not outright ban private sales, to my amazement.  Although while the gunshow part is only an inconvenience, the "online" part is insane on several levels.

 

But if it stays that way and passes, or doesn't pass at all,  I'll be very glad indeed to have this particular prediction proven wrong. For now, of course.

 

- OS

Edited April 13, 2013 by Oh Shoot