National Need More Reasons To Make Sure Antis Don't Take Over In 2020?

[arakboss]

The antis will go nuts if they take over Senate and White House.

House Dems file 'Assault Weapons Ban of 2019' and that's just for starters

Read More

 

[DB is Here]

I need no additional reasons...that is all.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Would those pass in the House of Representatives as it is now? Probably so.

Would those pass in the Senate as it is now? Probably not.

Would the President sign any of them? Probably not.

If we don't get our act together and things go badly for us in 2020, the answers to those 3 questions will be Yes, Yes and Yes.

 

[BSG 75]

This is nothing new. Democrats have introduced an "assault weapons" ban in every new Congress for years.

S.150 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

Text - H.R.4269 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

S.2095 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Assault Weapons Ban of 2017

Democrats have tried to pass an "assault weapons" ban almost as many times as Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare. In both cases they knew the bills were going nowhere. It's all posturing and virtue signaling by both Democrats ("assault weapons") and Republicans (Obamacare) to appeal to their bases.

 

[Stomper]

Let it rain!!

 

[arakboss]

This is nothing new. Democrats have introduced an "assault weapons" ban in every new Congress for years.

S.150 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

Text - H.R.4269 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

S.2095 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Assault Weapons Ban of 2017

Democrats have tried to pass an "assault weapons" ban almost as many times as Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare. In both cases they knew the bills were going nowhere. It's all posturing and virtue signaling by both Democrats ("assault weapons") and Republicans (Obamacare) to appeal to their bases.

The difference will be if the antis control the House, Senate and White House again. There seems to be more of an appetite for gun control even among some Republicans these days. Whether there would be enough votes for an AW ban I can't say. But I would rather not risk it.

 

[JustSomeGuy]

This is nothing new. Democrats have introduced an "assault weapons" ban in every new Congress for years.



S.150 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Assault Weapons Ban of 2013

Text - H.R.4269 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Assault Weapons Ban of 2015

S.2095 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Assault Weapons Ban of 2017

Democrats have tried to pass an "assault weapons" ban almost as many times as Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare. In both cases they knew the bills were going nowhere. It's all posturing and virtue signaling by both Democrats ("assault weapons") and Republicans (Obamacare) to appeal to their bases.

You're absolutely right. This isn't new. We've seen it time and again, and as long as the balance of power doesn't shift, we will keep seeing it. However, if the balance does shift in the anti's favor, we may be done seeing it and relegated to living it.

 

[nwslopoke]

Obviously I don't agree with any of these bills but we have to insist as I've said before, no exceptions. Their security, the police, judges and policy makers are not above the law. If we don't have them they don't need them.

 

[BSG 75]

The difference will be if the antis control the House, Senate and White House again. There seems to be more of an appetite for gun control even among some Republicans these days. Whether their would be enough votes for an AW ban I can't say. But I would rather not risk it.

The Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate in 2015 and 2016. They voted dozens of times to repeal Obamacare without worrying about the consequences because they knew Obama would veto it, and they didn't have the votes to override the veto so their bluff would never have to be called. But Republicans kept having meaningless votes to repeal Obamacare in order to appeal to their base.

Then in 2017 Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. Now there was an actual possibility of repealing Obamacare. It wasn't just fun and games anymore, it could actually happen. Remember what happened? Republican Congress members were chased out of town halls by angry mobs who didn't want Obamacare repealed.

Republicans controlled the House, the Senate, and the White House. Did Obamacare get repealed? They eliminated the individual mandate, but otherwise Obamacare is still here.

Remember, it takes 60 votes in the Senate to end a filibuster and pass a bill. Even if the Democrats have 51 or 52 or 53 or 54 seats and control the Senate they would have to get several weaselly RINOs to join them to get to 60 votes in order to pass an "assault weapon" ban in the Senate. If the Democrats get close to or more than 60 seats (the last time that happened was in 2011 when they had 58 seats) then all bets are off.

Gun control advocates realize how hard it is to pass gun control at the Federal level so they have shifted their efforts to passing gun control at the state level in blue states like Washington and Oregon, where it is much much much easier.

 

[nwslopoke]

Gee, where could they find a few weasily republicans? Outside of the west coast, east coast, Colorado, and a few other states I'm at a loss.

Some may say I have a cynical lack of faith in the system. They would be correct. Comes by way of experience.

 

[BSG 75]

Gee, where could they find a few weasily republicans? Outside of the west coast, east coast, Colorado, and a few other states I'm at a loss.

Well, all eight senators from WA/OR/CA/HI are Democrats, so no Republicans there. The Republican Alaska senators are pro-gun rights.

With the exception of Susan Collins of ME and Pat Toomey of PA (who did introduce a "bipartisan" "universal" background check bill) all of the senators from the northeast are Democrats, so at most they could get two Republican votes from there. The Republican senators from the southeast are unlikely to support gun control.

Colorado has one Republican senator, Cory Gardner, and he isn't pro-gun control.

U.S. Sen. Cory Gardner was asked about background checks for gun purchases on a national news program Sunday morning and did not deny that he has put a hold on a bill designed to strengthen accountability of federal agencies that don't properly document applicants' criminal histories.

The Colorado Republican, interviewed on CBS' "Face the Nation," said he has concerns about the measure that has broad bipartisan support in the Senate over what he describes as "due process issues."
Cory Gardner doesn't deny blocking a bipartisan effort to improve gun-purchase background checks in TV interview – The Denver Post

So the Democrats would have to get pretty close to or at least 60 seats to get an "assault weapons" ban through the Senate. Now on the other hand so-called "universal" background checks, which have more support, might get passed.

 

[WoodsPlinker]

Let it rain!!

 

[nammac]

Obviously I don't agree with any of these bills but we have to insist as I've said before, no exceptions. Their security, the police, judges and policy makers are no above the law. If we don't have them they don't need them.

Wait!!!

One set of rules for the elites and the serfs?!?!?!

That's just plain non-sense...

 

[NW Backpacker]

.........

So the Democrats would have to get pretty close to or at least 60 seats to get an "assault weapons" ban through the Senate. Now on the other hand so-called "universal" background checks, which have more support, might get passed.

Hope you are right about that, but what about the nuclear option? Could they do that?

Nuclear option - Wikipedia

 

[JustSomeGuy]

Being just an old rancher that isn't educated in the finer points of parliamentary process, I'd think they could. Given their rabid hatred of all things firearm, I'm fairly certain if they think they can get away with it they'll go for it.

 

[P7M13]

This is nothing new. Democrats have introduced an "assault weapons" ban in every new Congress for years.
S.150 - 113th Congress (2013-2014): Assault Weapons Ban of 2013
Text - H.R.4269 - 114th Congress (2015-2016): Assault Weapons Ban of 2015
S.2095 - 115th Congress (2017-2018): Assault Weapons Ban of 2017
Democrats have tried to pass an "assault weapons" ban almost as many times as Republicans have tried to repeal Obamacare. In both cases they knew the bills were going nowhere. It's all posturing and virtue signaling by both Democrats ("assault weapons") and Republicans (Obamacare) to appeal to their bases.

Now if only they would pass a HR or SB banning stupidity in congressional members. Many would be locked out.

 

[Diamondback]

Friends don't let friends vote for raving psychotics. That's all the reason I need, and most of today's Democrats are in dire need of psychotropic medications, nice tight ccoats and comfortable cushioned rooms.

 

[Connor Murphy]

Now if only they would pass a HR or SB banning stupidity in congressional members. Many would be locked out.

Locked out? They may have trouble getting a quorum.

 

[User 1234]

This delay, the time Trump is in the White House, will hopefully give us enough time for the U.S. Supreme Court to issue a ruling or two striking down state laws and defining the boundaries of the 2nd Amendment protection. That will slow down the antis in some states and overturn existing laws in other states.