Dems may not have the votes to pass the gun ban

[chris7375]

It would seem that some Dems are skeptical of the ban Feinstein is proposing. The ban includes 2200 Hunting and sporting rifles. If they don't muster the votes the bill could be dead in the water.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...an-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html

 

[tecoyah]

Gotta love politics.

 

[misterveritis]

Bring it to a vote

It would seem that some Dems are skeptical of the ban Feinstein is proposing. The ban includes 2200 Hunting and sporting rifles. If they don't muster the votes the bill could be dead in the water.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...an-lacks-democratic-votes-to-pass-senate.html

Let's get the Democrats on record as being against, yet again, the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Bring it up for a vote and let's record the results. We need to know who is an an enemy of the Constitution.

 

[myp]

Let's get the Democrats on record as being against, yet again, the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Bring it up for a vote and let's record the results. We need to know who is an an enemy of the Constitution.

You interpret it as being against the Constitution* Everyone is not in agreement over that.

 

[chris7375]

You interpret it as being against the Constitution* Everyone is not in agreement over that.

Agreed it is your interpretation of the Constitution. Though the history I have read and know the Second amendment means we have the right to bear arms. Jefferson, Adams, Washington and all the other forefathers were in agreement when it was written in and voted on. So I myself don't see how it can be interpreted any other way then to mean what it says.

These were not stupid men they knew Science would advance as would the weapons people could use. Again through letters you can see most were in agreement as to the Second Amendment. They did not right The Right to keep and bear arm but only if it is a musket. Why did it not say this because they knew advancement was inevitable. The bill of rights was not meant to be rewritten. Those were rights given to us to protect us from tyranny.

 

[tecoyah]

Let's get the Democrats on record as being against, yet again, the Bill of Rights and the US Constitution. Bring it up for a vote and let's record the results. We need to know who is an an enemy of the Constitution.

Good Idea:

"
Reagan's administration passed more restrictive gun laws than any other administration (including the dubiously-named "Firearm Protection Act of 1986 which banned citizens owning automatic weapons without special permission). And the "Clinton ban" was actually named after Ronald Reagan's press secretary after James Brady was shot by a nutjob.

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.

Gun control crusaders argue that the Republicans are simply yielding to grassroots pressure, to gain political advantage. But polls show little evidence of such pressure.

The ominous Assault Weapons Ban that passed in 1994 was a key part of H.R. 3355, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Despite some people saying the bill was authored by Joe Biden, they're wrong. The author was Rep. Jack Brooks from Texas. Biden wasn't even a sponsor. Right wing gun enthusiasts claim Democrats are the bad guys, trying to take away their guns, but an examination of the voting record shows nothing of the sort.

In the House of Representatives, the vote was not even close. A "verbal vote" was cast so there is not even a record in the House of who voted for/against. There was not enough opposition to even require more detailed voting processes.

In the Senate, the story is much the same, but the senators' votes are on record, and we can see in no-uncertain terms that the Republicans supported the assault weapons ban just as much as the democrats. Here's how the actual vote went down:

Number of Democrats voting for the AWB: 50/53 (94.3%)
Number of Republicans voting for the AWB: 45/47 (95.7%)

Yes, among Republicans in the Senate, a higher percentage supported the AWB than Democrats!

Republicans:
Richard Shelby (AL), Frank Murkowski, Ted Stevens (AK), JOHN MCCAIN (AZ), Christopher Bond (MO), Conrad Burns (MT), Judd Gregg, Bob Smith (NH), Pete Domenici (NM), Alfonse D'Amato (NY), Duncan Faircloth, Jesse Helms (NC), Don Nickles (OK), Robert Packwood (OR), Arlen Specter (PA), John Chafee (RI), J. Thurmond (SC), Larry Pressler (SD), Kay Hutchison (TX), George Brown, Ben Campbell (CO), William Roth (DE), Connie MAck (FL), Paul Coverdell (GA), Larry Craig, Dirk Kempthorne (ID), Daniel Coats, Richard Lugar (IN), Charles Grassley (IA), Bob Dole, Nancy Kassebaum (KS), Mitch McConnell (KY), William Cohen (ME), Thad Cochran, Trent Lott (MS), Robert Bennett, Orrin Hatch (UT), James Jeffords (VT), John Warner (VA), T. Gorton (WA), Alan Simpson, Malcolm Wallop (WY)

Democrats:
Howell Heflin (AL) Dennis DeConcini (AZ), Dale Bumpers, David Pryor (AR) Barara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein (CA), Max Baucus (MT), J. Exon, J. Kerrey (NE), Richard Bryan, Harry Reid (NV), William Bradley, Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Jef Bingaman (NM), Daniel Moynihan (NY), John Glenn, Howard Metzenbaum (OH), David Boren (OK), Harris Wofford (PA), Claiborne Pell (RI), Ernest Hollings (SC), Tom Daschle (SD), Harlan Matthews, James Sasser (TN), Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman (CT), Joe Biden (DE), Bob Graham (FL), Sam Nunn (GA), Daniel Akaka, Daniel Inouye (HI), Carol Braun (IL), Thomas Harkin (IA), Wendell Ford (KY), John Breaux, John Johnston (LA), George Mitchell (ME), Barbara Mikulski, Paul Sarbanes (MD), Edward Kennedy, John Kerry (MA), Carl Levin, Don Riegle (MI), Paul Wellstone (MN), Pat Leahy (VT), Charles Robb (VA), Patty Murray (WA), Robert Byrd, John Rockefeller (WV), Herbert Kohl (WI)

Republicans voting against:
David Durenberger (MN),Mark Hatfield (OR)

Democrats voting against:
Paul Simon (IL), Russell Feingold (WI)

Not voting: Byron Dorgan - Democrat (ND)"

http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=2471&dt=1



Damn Commies.

 

[misterveritis]

How else to interpret a gun ban?

You interpret it as being against the Constitution* Everyone is not in agreement over that.

It is not only against the US Constitution. It is also against the American people and against our rights.

You, being a wolf, want the sheep to be disarmed. It makes the dinner selection easier for the wolf. Doesn't it?

 

[misterveritis]

Update the enemies list

Good Idea:

"
Reagan's administration passed more restrictive gun laws than any other administration (including the dubiously-named "Firearm Protection Act of 1986 which banned citizens owning automatic weapons without special permission). And the "Clinton ban" was actually named after Ronald Reagan's press secretary after James Brady was shot by a nutjob.

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.

Gun control crusaders argue that the Republicans are simply yielding to grassroots pressure, to gain political advantage. But polls show little evidence of such pressure.

The ominous Assault Weapons Ban that passed in 1994 was a key part of H.R. 3355, The Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Despite some people saying the bill was authored by Joe Biden, they're wrong. The author was Rep. Jack Brooks from Texas. Biden wasn't even a sponsor. Right wing gun enthusiasts claim Democrats are the bad guys, trying to take away their guns, but an examination of the voting record shows nothing of the sort.

In the House of Representatives, the vote was not even close. A "verbal vote" was cast so there is not even a record in the House of who voted for/against. There was not enough opposition to even require more detailed voting processes.

In the Senate, the story is much the same, but the senators' votes are on record, and we can see in no-uncertain terms that the Republicans supported the assault weapons ban just as much as the democrats. Here's how the actual vote went down:

Number of Democrats voting for the AWB: 50/53 (94.3%)
Number of Republicans voting for the AWB: 45/47 (95.7%)

Yes, among Republicans in the Senate, a higher percentage supported the AWB than Democrats!

Republicans:
Richard Shelby (AL), Frank Murkowski, Ted Stevens (AK), JOHN MCCAIN (AZ), Christopher Bond (MO), Conrad Burns (MT), Judd Gregg, Bob Smith (NH), Pete Domenici (NM), Alfonse D'Amato (NY), Duncan Faircloth, Jesse Helms (NC), Don Nickles (OK), Robert Packwood (OR), Arlen Specter (PA), John Chafee (RI), J. Thurmond (SC), Larry Pressler (SD), Kay Hutchison (TX), George Brown, Ben Campbell (CO), William Roth (DE), Connie MAck (FL), Paul Coverdell (GA), Larry Craig, Dirk Kempthorne (ID), Daniel Coats, Richard Lugar (IN), Charles Grassley (IA), Bob Dole, Nancy Kassebaum (KS), Mitch McConnell (KY), William Cohen (ME), Thad Cochran, Trent Lott (MS), Robert Bennett, Orrin Hatch (UT), James Jeffords (VT), John Warner (VA), T. Gorton (WA), Alan Simpson, Malcolm Wallop (WY)

Democrats:
Howell Heflin (AL) Dennis DeConcini (AZ), Dale Bumpers, David Pryor (AR) Barara Boxer, Dianne Feinstein (CA), Max Baucus (MT), J. Exon, J. Kerrey (NE), Richard Bryan, Harry Reid (NV), William Bradley, Frank Lautenberg (NJ), Jef Bingaman (NM), Daniel Moynihan (NY), John Glenn, Howard Metzenbaum (OH), David Boren (OK), Harris Wofford (PA), Claiborne Pell (RI), Ernest Hollings (SC), Tom Daschle (SD), Harlan Matthews, James Sasser (TN), Chris Dodd, Joe Lieberman (CT), Joe Biden (DE), Bob Graham (FL), Sam Nunn (GA), Daniel Akaka, Daniel Inouye (HI), Carol Braun (IL), Thomas Harkin (IA), Wendell Ford (KY), John Breaux, John Johnston (LA), George Mitchell (ME), Barbara Mikulski, Paul Sarbanes (MD), Edward Kennedy, John Kerry (MA), Carl Levin, Don Riegle (MI), Paul Wellstone (MN), Pat Leahy (VT), Charles Robb (VA), Patty Murray (WA), Robert Byrd, John Rockefeller (WV), Herbert Kohl (WI)

Republicans voting against:
David Durenberger (MN),Mark Hatfield (OR)

Democrats voting against:
Paul Simon (IL), Russell Feingold (WI)

Not voting: Byron Dorgan - Democrat (ND)"

http://bsalert.com/artsearch.php?fn=2&as=2471&dt=1



Damn Commies.

It is time to update the enemies list. Don't you agree?

 

[tecoyah]

It is time to update the enemies list. Don't you agree?

.....Nope.....

 

[myp]

It is not only against the US Constitution. It is also against the American people and against our rights.

You, being a wolf, want the sheep to be disarmed. It makes the dinner selection easier for the wolf. Doesn't it?

Again, you think it is against the Constitution, I don't necessarily.

You as an American are against it, I am not necessarily against it.

Stop making these general statements- they don't mean anything and hurt your case because they clearly are not true- it takes 1 person to break such absolute statements and we have more than 1 on this board alone.

 

[myp]

Agreed it is your interpretation of the Constitution. Though the history I have read and know the Second amendment means we have the right to bear arms. Jefferson, Adams, Washington and all the other forefathers were in agreement when it was written in and voted on. So I myself don't see how it can be interpreted any other way then to mean what it says.

Right to bear arms and right to bear all arms are very different.

These were not stupid men they knew Science would advance as would the weapons people could use. Again through letters you can see most were in agreement as to the Second Amendment. They did not right The Right to keep and bear arm but only if it is a musket. Why did it not say this because they knew advancement was inevitable. The bill of rights was not meant to be rewritten. Those were rights given to us to protect us from tyranny.

Even smart men could not have been sure that nukes, Ak-47s, etc. would be a reality one day. At that time all that was science fiction if even that (they probably didn't even think of it so not even that). These guys weren't prophets- in reality we have no idea what they would have supported if they had a orb that could see into the future.

Also, it must be remembered the intent of the 2nd amendment is to protect v. government. I am not sure even allowing semi-automatics does that in any substantial way anymore. You want violent revolution over the US government? You'll need police/military support or a way to get to THEIR weapons which still won't be 2nd amendment protected- things like bombs.

 

[myp]

My other issue here is at what point does the Constitution just become wrong? Let's remember that it has had to be added to over the years to allow things like racial and gender equality, things that the founders might not have agreed with. IF there was a move to push a Constitutional amendment that clarified the 2nd amendment and it passed, then would you two (and others who disagree with me) be okay with it? After all, the Constitution says it can be changed and has a procedure for that. You can make the argument that the current proposals are against the 2nd amendment, but if the actual Constitution was changed, then would you be okay with it? Is the opposition based on solely the 2nd amendment just because those trying to make changes are doing so with the wrong procedure (typical legislation vs. Constitutional changes)?

 

[tecoyah]

There seems a reason we call our Constitution a living document. There seems a purpose to create something undying, evolving, and worthy of protection even by the least in our nation. There seems to me, something beyong the written word embeded within such an amazing human creation....something that guarantees the rights to life, liberty, and a reason to live, excel, and be a part of something larger than any of us.

To pretend this conceptual reality is unbending and sterile manifestation of minds unable to even dream of our world is folly. It seems unAmerican to dwell in ignorance.

Keep your guns, and I will keep mine....but quit being blind to reality.

 

[chris7375]

Right to bear arms and right to bear all arms are very different.



Even smart men could not have been sure that nukes, Ak-47s, etc. would be a reality one day. At that time all that was science fiction if even that (they probably didn't even think of it so not even that). These guys weren't prophets- in reality we have no idea what they would have supported if they had a orb that could see into the future.

Also, it must be remembered the intent of the 2nd amendment is to protect v. government. I am not sure even allowing semi-automatics does that in any substantial way anymore. You want violent revolution over the US government? You'll need police/military support or a way to get to THEIR weapons which still won't be 2nd amendment protected- things like bombs.

Again I agree that they did not know what was going to be created or the advances that would be made.

I am not arguing the fact that there are limits to what a person should be allowed to have. The forefathers put that right in there for one simple reason.

To give the people equal footing in their self defense if the government ever became a Tyranny. Some believe it has already. I think it is a close call at this point in time.

To ban guns without a definitive study saying it would help is stupid. To ban all the guns Feinstein wants banned is absurd.

It is ok for her to have and carry an assault rifle but not ok for us to defend ourselves from the likes of her and her rule.

Though any study again conducted will have a spin to favor what ever the party wants. The majority of the masses won't look deeply into the study but rely on the media spin that is thrust upon them.

It has happened many times before and it will happen with this.

 

[misterveritis]

So you don't want a vote?

.....Nope.....

So you don't want a vote on the gun grabbers' anti-Constitutional schemes?

 

[misterveritis]

Again, you think it is against the Constitution, I don't necessarily.

You as an American are against it, I am not necessarily against it.

Stop making these general statements- they don't mean anything and hurt your case because they clearly are not true- it takes 1 person to break such absolute statements and we have more than 1 on this board alone.

Of course you don't. You are a statist. You constantly support bigger, more intrusive government.

 

[misterveritis]

Second Amendment - A counterpoise to the Standing Army

Right to bear arms and right to bear all arms are very different.

In the debates on the US Constitution it is clear that the point of the Second Amendment was to make sure the citizenry could be a counterpoise to a standing army under the control of an out of control executive. It is an individual right. The weapons, the arms, are individual arms, the same arms as those carried by the infantry in a standing army. It did not include crew-served weapons. It still does not. It did not include grenades or bombs. It still does not.

Even smart men could not have been sure that nukes, Ak-47s, etc. would be a reality one day. At that time all that was science fiction if even that (they probably didn't even think of it so not even that). These guys weren't prophets- in reality we have no idea what they would have supported if they had a orb that could see into the future.

All of that misses the point. human nature has not changed. All governments tend toward tyranny and mediocrity. They did then. They continue to do so today. We have our rights because we exist. We did then. We still do today.

Also, it must be remembered the intent of the 2nd amendment is to protect v. government. I am not sure even allowing semi-automatics does that in any substantial way anymore. You want violent revolution over the US government? You'll need police/military support or a way to get to THEIR weapons which still won't be 2nd amendment protected- things like bombs.

The states can still have organized militias with crew served weapons, artillery, tanks and aircraft.

Fifty million armed me will do just fine against a one million man army.

 

[clax]

Of course you don't. You are a statist. You constantly support bigger, more intrusive government.

the problem with the USA currently is that people are unaware of what it means to be a patriot. You fight to the death to preserve the republic. Some folks bend at the knee and worship their kings in the supreme court, that is anti American.

I need an AR 15 to hold my own against the oppressive government. That is exactly why they are to take them away, so they don't have to answer to the ruler of this nation.

Those of us who understand how a republic work understand that. Arguing with people who want to be ruled by emperors is fruitless.

 

[myp]

Of course you don't. You are a statist. You constantly support bigger, more intrusive government.

Because you said so? I am actually a limited government guy who values freedom tremendously but not absolutely because absolute freedom is not possible and above all values long-term utilitarian prosperity.

 

[clax]

Because you said so? I am actually a limited government guy who values freedom tremendously but not absolutely because absolute freedom is not possible and above all values long-term utilitarian prosperity.

Seems you don't really know what limited government means