Feinstein Promises Assault Weapons Ban Hours After House Passes Background Check Bill

[Boss]

^^If you're talking 1639, it wasn't nearly quite that simple...they were hamstrung with a very small window to get signatures, among other things. Our side also doesn't have billionaire support allowing people to do it full time, all day, every day. And some of the WA courts are not staunch supporters of law-abiding gun owners' Rights. If they were, 1639 never would have been on the ballot for all its non-compliance issues (not a single issue as required, illegible, etc).

As said many times, you have to KEEP it off the books...because GETTING it off the books is a much bigger challenge.

$.02 worth,
Boss

 

[Alexx1401]

^^If you're talking 1639, it wasn't nearly quite that simple...they were hamstrung with a very small window to get signatures, among other things. Our side also doesn't have billionaire support allowing people to do it full time, all day, every day. And some of the WA courts are not staunch supporters of law-abiding gun owners' Rights. If they were, 1639 never would have been on the ballot for all its non-compliance issues (not a single issue as required, illegible, etc).

As said many times, you have to KEEP it off the books...because GETTING it off the books is a much bigger challenge.

$.02 worth,
Boss

It would become a waste of time but I could put pages of examples like this. Many gun owners do not want to hear the truth There is always an "excuse" why it's someone else who is at fault, not the gun owners who vote to end rights. Those who do not vote, throw away their vote, ignore what is happening, all voted. They voted for just what they are getting. Often it takes years before many of them even find out some new law went in, that they ignored, so out comes the excuses. Great, they can enjoy what they let happen while the tell themselves they have a good excuse. Result does not change, they get what they voted for.
When you see gun owners say they are fine with more restrictions because it does not effect them, so they are "OK" with it? They also are over the top mad when the people they voted for finally come for some gun they own.
So we are outnumbered and out spent, great. Many gun owners read that, sounds great to them, so they sit on their hands and do nothing, or worse yet they vote for people like the POTUS we have now. Telling themselves he is going to "take care of them" so it's all worth it. Sounds like fun. They deserve exactly what they get.

 

[Ridge Walker]

There is no doubt in my mind that there was some cheating. That does not mean Millions of people did not vote for this, including millions of gun owners. The state I live in they voted in a law making my 10/22's Assault Weapons. Gun owners sat on their hands and let it go into law. One of the supporting shops here put up a ton of time and money to put it back up to voters for a do over. We could not get enough gun owners to bother to sign. That is not a problem with fair and honest. It's problem with voters get just what they deserve then cry and complain.

Agreed, and it points out that the reason for the Bill of Rights. To protect us all from Mob Rule. The courts are refusing to do their job. 'Shall Not Be' is perfectly clear.

 

[Boss]

^^Yes, but let's not forget what was accomplished on a state level so far this year...it doesn't negate pending fed. stuff...but the WA gun folks make their voices heard locally. They will continue to do so...if it were not for C19, alot more organization, etc. could have been built on last year.

And to toss it out there of course, when the GC crowd 'fails,' in their effort, what happens to the non-gun owners or the FUDDs that don't own one of the effected firearms/accessories? Absolutely nothing. Not.A.Single.Thing. It's the same the day after as it was the day before. When the 2A side loses? ALOT happens...restrictions, registrations, pending legal prosecution, etc.

This is why the 2A side has got to go on the 'offensive' legislatively and support things like the 2A Preservation Act 10,000% when they come up. Making that happen across the entire US with folks that often are asleep at the wheel is an up-avalanche challenge, and the opposition knows it, but you've got to keep at it. With email, SM, good old fashioned mail, etc.

Keep spreading the word (in more places than this little sub-forum).

ETA: Among other things, think about how being unable to transfer standard capacity magazines is going to effect private party sales...going to be alotta pistols and rifles will sold with no mags. If you've had a Glock or Sig that's only ever had standard capacity mags...its going to be a problem...all as designed.

$.02 worth,
Boss

 

[chukar]

Amazing article. Well thought out and presented in my simple mind:

MSN

 

[wired]

Feinstein promises that every 6 months

 

[CountryGent]

Feinstein promises that every 6 months

Indeed. And sometimes she even cackles about it.

 

[Boss]

The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result.

As said before, every 'failed' new restriction is used as an argument for MORE incremental restrictions. 'We didn't/haven't gone far enough...yet!' But the prohibitionists' real agenda is to end law-abiding citizen firearm ownership, so every step is doubling down on 'failed' efforts as an advance toward that end-game.

Anything else is an admission that their restrictions don't/won't work, and they will NOT allow that to happen. Never mind everything they're trying to prevent is already illegal (murder, muggings, home invasions, violent crimes, etc.). So if violent crimes are illegal, why are they occurring? Because criminals break the law? [Yes, obviously]. So how are MORE laws going to stop criminals who by their nature break laws? [They won't, obviously].

$.02 worth,
Boss

 

[NW Backpacker]

Feinstein promises that every 6 months

Yes, she does. Difference this time is that they now control all 3 parts of the law-making machine. Also, they have no problem using massive bribes to the states to get politicians to vote their way, end the filibuster, or anything else they want.

DO NOT allow them to disarm us:

https://metallicman.com/laoban4site...overnment-and-how-utopia-manifested-for-them/

 

[titsonritz]

Feinstein promises that every 6 months

That's because she is a senile old bag and it won't be long she'll be doing it every six days, then muttering it to herself every six minutes. BTW, have they taken her gun away yet or are going to wait until she throws a .40 through someones chest at diner because she took it out and sat on it during a Twinkie defense flash back?

 

[wired]

The filibuster is still in effect. Rest tight.

 

[User 1234]

The filibuster didn't prevent the $1,300,000,000,000 liberal give-away pork bill from going into effect, so I would not be so sure it will block an AWB.

 

[wired]

The filibuster didn't prevent the $1,300,000,000,000 liberal give-away pork bill from going into effect, so I would not be so sure it will block an AWB.

Yeah it will. That was a budget reconciliation thing . They could squeeze that through . An AWB is going to require a extensive rewrite of large segments of the 68 GCA. Aint gonna happen in a budget reconciliation bill.

 

[CRBMoA]

The filibuster didn't prevent the $1,300,000,000,000 liberal give-away pork bill from going into effect, so I would not be so sure it will block an AWB.

Not much pork in an AWB.

 

[User 1234]

Any reason that the Democrats, who control both houses, can't suspend the rules, or load up an AWB with pork, and use the same procedure?

 

[wired]

Any reason that the Democrats, who control both houses, can't suspend the rules, or load up an AWB with pork, and use the same procedure?

Yes, multiple reasons. Passing laws and passing budgets are different parliamentary processes. "Going nuclear" in the senate and overriding the filibuster process has been brought up a few times but never implemented because its the Senate and they dont play that sh!t. They'd have to actually blow through a 60 vote majority to get anything like that through. Not going to happen.

 

[NW Backpacker]

An AWB is going to require a extensive rewrite of large segments of the 68 GCA. Aint gonna happen in a budget reconciliation bill.

How did they get the 94 AWB through? Did they rewrite the 68 GCA?

The filibuster didn't prevent the $1,300,000,000,000 liberal give-away pork bill from going into effect , so I would not be so sure it will block an AWB.

Exactly. How many senators would vote to get rid of the filibuster for a $Trillion pork bribe to their state? FYI: The bill was $1,900,000,000,000, not $1,300,000,000,000. Perhaps you mean that ONLY $1.3 trillion of the 1.9 trillion was pork? That is possible I guess. Wait until they get to the green new deal for some really big numbers!

 

[wired]

How did they get the 94 AWB through? Did they rewrite the 68 GCA?



Exactly. How many senators would vote to get rid of the filibuster for a $Trillion pork bribe to their state? FYI: The bill was $1,900,000,000,000, not $1,300,000,000,000. Perhaps you mean that ONLY $1.3 trillion of the 1.9 trillion was pork? That is possible I guess. Wait until they get to the green new deal for some really big numbers!

How'd they get it through? They voted on it and yeah they amended the 68 GCA with a temporary measure . No fillibuster was threatened . The 94 crime bill was the culmination of years of work by GHW Bush that was finished up by Clinton and the AWB section was added. Times were different.

 

[User 1234]

'A tremendous sea change': Democrats see a path to remaking the Senate filibuster

Between Sen. Joe Manchin's support for a "talking filibuster" and unified GOP opposition to the popular Covid-19 relief bill, some lawmakers see an opening.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Soli]

I wish I had your confidence that the filibuster will not go away. Some very smart people I know want it gone. They're smart, but foolish, IMO.