Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 10/21/2001 8:43:18 AM EDT
In The House of Representatives there are 3 key positions. These are: Speaker Of The House, Majority Leader, and Majority Whip. These 3 work together deciding what even goes on the Calendar or what goes to comitee. They alone can esentially kill a bill before it even goes to the floor of the House. These 3 will be responsible for whether or not to schedule a vote on any new bills, such as a new AW Ban. So who are they: Speaker Of The House: Hon. J. Dennis Hastert (IL) Majority Leader: Hon. Richard "Dick" Armey (TX) Majority Whip: Hon. Tom DeLay (TX) Now I see 2 Texans who could very easily prevent a new ban from ever coming to a vote. Now here is the bad part. If Democrats were to gain 10 seats in 2002, they could regain control of the House. Here are their leaders: Minority Leader: Dishon. Richard Gephardt (MO) Minority Whip: Dishon. ? The Minority Whip recently changed and the info. I have isn't up to date. I believe it is a woman now. If Democrats retake control, Gephardt would decide what goes on the agenda. He could then send numerous bills through Congress to further restrict our rights. In addition the Speaker is 3rd in line for President if Bush and Cheney were to be killed. The point is, IN 2002 VOTE FOR REPUBLICANS. IF YOU HAVE A CHOICE OF A DEMOCRAT WHO WILL TAKE YOUR GUNS OR A REPUBLICAN WHO WILL TAKE YOUR GUNS VOTE REPUBLICAN. ONLY BY PRESERVING REPUBLICAN LEADERSHIP CAN WE HOPE TO DEFEAT NEW LEGISLATION. The individual house member is powerless to act if the house leadership decides not to put something on the Calendar.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 11:17:19 AM EDT
You talked as if it wasn't a Republican who banned them in the first place and laid the ground work for Bill CLinton.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 11:18:39 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 11:32:16 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/21/2001 11:28:23 AM EDT by cc48510]
A Republican didn't ban them. The original definitions in many cases came from the 1968 GCA passed under Johnson. The 1994 Ban was passed under Clinton. The only other one is the 1989 Import Ban Passed By Bush, Sr. To understand what happened in 1989, you must understand Democrats held Congress firmly. Bush made a deal with Democratic leaders that in exchamge for passing some of their agenda including the notorious tax hike, they would pass some of his agenda in COngress. Well, Bush kept his word and Congressional Democrats not only backed out, but used their own agreement against Bush. Now, W. and others have learned from his father's mistake. Bush, Jr. is alot damned better than his Father. Then again I am talking about the house. More specifically those 2 Texans Delay and Armey. I haven't heard of them ever selling us out. No matter who held the White House, to pass thos bans they needed Congress. 1934, 1968, and 1994 saw all branches of Government held by Democrats. In 1989 only 1 branch was held by a Republican and that Republican was a pussy in the face of a Democrat controlled Congress. For once we hold The House, The White House, and To A Limited Degree SOCTUS.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 11:39:09 AM EDT
The FIRST ban concerning what has come to be called semi auto assault rifles WAS the '89 Import Ban. 2004 is an election year, Jr. will do what daddy did. He wants to be re elected. If he doesn't he will be crucified. And raf, I DO HAVE ABETTER PLAN. Buy them now, they will be gone. Remember thinking, If only I had known they were gonna ban them? Well they are gonna do it again in 2004. It will be worse. They will define any firearm "capable" of accepting a high capacity magazine as a assault rifle and ban the importation and manufacture of such. Current examples of single stack AKs, and HKs SL8 will be the model. ALL high cpacity firearms will be preban and will adjust in price accordingly. This is how they will go after them. It WILL pass.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 11:42:33 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 11:51:17 AM EDT
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 11:59:32 AM EDT
Who Cares What W. Might Do ? I Am saying it will not get past the house. 2 key positions that decide whether or not a bill even comes to the floor of the house belong to Texans. As far as I can see it DeLay and Armey would have nothing to fear because their constituents would back them. Those in charge could just not ever put the bill on the calendar. It has been done before. The threat has also been used before against presidents as in the case of Bush, Sr.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 12:45:52 PM EDT
This makes interesting reading. Itr also underscores the ignorance of Congress and the Media. They repeatedly refer to 30 Round Clips. It says it passed by one vote. One of those guys retired immediately afterwards. Several were voted out of office. [url]http://www-tech.mit.edu/V114/N26/ban.26w.html[/url]
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 1:01:35 PM EDT
Originally Posted By cc48510: This makes interesting reading. Itr also underscores the ignorance of Congress and the Media. They repeatedly refer to 30 Round Clips.
View Quote
wow i need to get me some of those 30 round garand clips [:D]
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 1:05:27 PM EDT
cc48510, Sorry to piss on your parade. For how I feel. I would love to see this crap ALL repealed all the way back to the NFA of 1934. It would be cool to buy full autos at the local hardware store. It is just my previous experience working for a Federal Agency which taught me how things get done and why that forms my opinions. I'm just trying to give you guys fair warning. I was caught off guard by the 89' Import Ban and truly never believed the 94' Crime Bill would pass. But I sure as hell see this one coming.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 1:06:55 PM EDT
"And raf, I DO HAVE ABETTER PLAN. Buy them now, they will be gone. Remember thinking, If only I had known they were gonna ban them? Well they are gonna do it again in 2004. It will be worse." He has a very good point,I'm sick of all the old farts taling about how they got a M-16 for $5.00 or some crap. Buy all the guns you can now so there will still be some market.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 1:08:53 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/21/2001 1:04:10 PM EDT by Imbroglio]
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: They will define any firearm "capable" of accepting a high capacity magazine as a assault rifle and ban the importation and manufacture of such. Current examples of single stack AKs, and HKs SL8 will be the model. ALL high cpacity firearms will be preban and will adjust in price accordingly. This is how they will go after them. It WILL pass.
View Quote
I would support such a proposal and will write letters to my representatives urging them to vote for the legislation. This is a more preferable course of action as it would prevent a democrat administration from introducing and passing the same law.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 1:22:27 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/21/2001 1:21:06 PM EDT by SouthernShark]
The Liberatarian nuts can preach to their hearts delight about the parade of horribles which the Republicans are going to inflict upon us when they sale us out. I don't see that happening though myself. I'm not sure who is supposed to "crucify" Bush if he doesn't push for a new ban. NY, NJ, and Kalifornia, the three big states which support gun control, are going to vote AGAINST Bush anyway. If Bush really wants to win the election, he has to please all those states which are pro-gun, otherwise he is toast. He isn't going to win Kalifornia just because he passes some POS law. Florida, for instance, is very pro-gun. So if Bush wants to win Florida next time around, and I think we can all agree that its an important state to win, he better not piss off the gun owners in this state. Steyr Aug is entitled to his opinion. But let's keep it real, opinions are like assholes and everybody has got one. My asshole says the ban sunsets, or is at least heavily modified so that its not such a pain in the ass. -SS
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 1:50:23 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SouthernShark: I'm not sure who is supposed to "crucify" Bush if he doesn't push for a new ban. NY, NJ, and Kalifornia, the three big states which support gun control, are going to vote AGAINST Bush anyway. If Bush really wants to win the election, he has to please all those states which are pro-gun, otherwise he is toast. He isn't going to win Kalifornia just because he passes some POS law.
View Quote
Just being buddy-buddy with el presidente fox and having a "re-awakening of humanity" and granting citizenship with the illegals will get him kalifornia.
My asshole says the ban sunsets, or is at least heavily modified so that its not such a pain in the ass. -SS
View Quote
Like I said before, some people will accept gun control as long as it comes from the party the support. Keep doing that and pretty soon there won't be anything left for them to take away.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 1:52:23 PM EDT
Folks, let me give you some news about the 2000 Election - the damn thing was as close as it was simply because BUSH didn't garner enough of the votes of WHITE MEN!!!! Not Blacks, not Hispanics, not soccer moms, not any other 'minority' group! George H.W. Bush obtained [b]59%[/b] of the votes of WHITE MEN in 1988, and won handily! George W. Bush obtained [b]54%[/b] of the votes of WHITE MEN in 2000 and came pretty damn close to losing the election (I seem to recall). The fact he won at all can be attributed to other blocks voting for him in higher numbers than usual! If George W. had won the same percentage of WHITE MEN voters in 2000 as his Daddy did back in 1988, he would have been the winner of about 320 electoral votes to 215 for Gore. Landslide! So, if WHITE MEN continue to insist on voting against their own interests, we're pretty much cooked! BTW, continue to Vote Republican! All we needed were a few more Republican congresscritters back in 1994 and the AW Ban would've never seen the light of day! Eric The(GawdSakes!CanYouRememberThat?)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 2:43:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SouthernShark: I'm not sure who is supposed to "crucify" Bush if he doesn't push for a new ban. -SS
View Quote
It will be the uniformed public who VASTLY outnumber us. As soon as one of these morons is able to say "Bush wants UZIs For Children" it will be all over. Two facts of life will factor here. 1. The Libertarian Party won't win even if they ran Jesus Christ for President. 2. George Bush Jr. will do whatever it takes to win this election, including signing the new ban. Don't get me wrong, I LIKE George Bush Jr. I like him a hellava lot more than his father. I like his brother Jeb, our Governor even more. I still think Neil should be shot, but I like George and Jeb. I just know George has two options... 1. Sign the bill which will come up RIGHT BEFORE THE ELECTION. or 2. Lose the the Democratic candidate. Which is arguable worse than him signing the bill. In simple terms we are fucked by the situation. He already has to overcome the dubious air of the last election. Dems are dying to pay him back for "stealing." And to be fair if Gore had won he would suffer much of the same "YOU STOLE THE VOTE" flak. George has some advantage due to the fact that we are at war and still will be at war come election time. However if he does not sign the new ban he will lose. For every intelligent, thinking American who understands freedom there are 10 people watching Oprah as if she were GOD.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 2:43:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/21/2001 2:56:37 PM EDT by cc48510]
The 103rd Congress was split 258-176 in favor of the Democrats. The following election (only 1 month later) it went to 230-204 in favor of the Republicans. That means Democrats lost 54 Seats. Republicans gained 54 seats. But, the AW Ban passed by 1 vote. Had the vote come a few months later it would have overwhelmingly failed. The current Congress is split 221-212. That is a 9 vote advantage to the Republicans. Then again even though Democrats in 1994 had an 82 vote advantage the ban only passed by 1 vote. Democrats/Republicans 1934: 314/117. Democrats Had a 197 Vote Advantage. 1968: 248/187. Democrats Had a 61 Vote Advantage. 1986: 253/182. Democrats Had a 71 Vote Advantage. 1989: 260/175. Democrats Had a 85 Vote Advantage. 1991: 267/167. Democrats Had a 100 Vote Advantage. 1994: 258/176. Democrats Had a 82 Vote Advantage. 1995: 204/230. Republicans Retook Congress and Had a 26 Vote Advantage. That Is a Net Gain of 104 Votes. 2001: 212/221. Republicans Still Mantain a 9 Vote Advantage. [url]http://clerkweb.house.gov/histrecs/househis/lists/divisionh.htm[/url] [url]http://www.senate.gov/learning/stat_13.html[/url] When All These Laws were passed Democrats Overwhelmingly held the House, held the Senate by a good margin, and in all but 1 case held the White House.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:13:20 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/21/2001 3:10:31 PM EDT by SouthernShark]
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: However if he does not sign the new ban he will lose. For every intelligent, thinking American who understands freedom there are 10 people watching Oprah as if she were GOD.
View Quote
Sir with all due respect that just doesn't make any sense. The people who are going to be upset by the loss of the AW ban are the same people who are going to vote against Bush. The rest of the people either don't care, or have some other reason for voting for Bush (pro-life). On the other hand, the Republicans have everything to lose if they sign that damn ban again. Almost every state which Bush won is pro-gun. Even Bill Clinton admits that the NRA cost Gore the election. Yet you say that an anti-gun agenda makes sense for Bush?????? Give me a break. If Bush signs the AW renewal he will sink like a rock just like his daddy did. -SS
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:17:27 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SouthernShark: Sir with all due respect that just doesn't make any sense. Almost every state which Bush won is pro-gun. Even Bill Clinton admits that the NRA cost Gore the election. Yet you say that an anti-gun agenda makes sense for Bush?????? Give me a break. If Bush signs the AW renewal he will sink like a rock just like his daddy did. -SS
View Quote
God I hope you all are right. But if GW Jr. DOES sign it, what are you gonna do? Vote for Gore?
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:22:07 PM EDT
Also, September 11 may effect the outcome of this. People (some at least) have seen gun laws are useless. Gun ownership is up considerably. Bush has beome a War President. If he handles this war well and takes care of Osama BIn Laden and Saddam Hussein he could very well win overwhelmingly even regardless of his Domestic Agenda.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:33:38 PM EDT
It's a 50/50 chance right now. If all goes well and the Mid-East problem fades we might just sneak under the radar.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:37:07 PM EDT
I, for one, am glad that the terrorists didn't use any firearms in their attacks! And that firearms weren't even possessed by the terrorists! Surely they could have picked up some weapons by using the 'gun show loophole.' Isn't that where all the criminals get theirs? Eric The(But[u]That[/u]Won'tChangeSarahBrady'sMind,NoSiree!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:38:43 PM EDT
Tom Foley the speaker of the house in 94 kept the voting open on the floor of the house till they had enough votes an extra 10-15 minutes. Foley represented Eastern WA which is extremely po-gun Unlike the Peoples Republic of Weastern WA " Saviors of lesser Washingtonians" needless to say people here were really PO'd at his actions, His response " I did what "I" felt was right" He lost re-election but was rewarded with a cushy Ambassodorship by Klinton......
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:41:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/21/2001 3:36:13 PM EDT by SouthernShark]
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG: God I hope you all are right. But if GW Jr. DOES sign it, what are you gonna do? Vote for Gore?
View Quote
If Bush signs it, I'll vote for myself. We, as gun owners, have a duty to let the Republicans know that a vote against guns will cost them. If they don't feel like they will be punished, then they won't fear us. -SS
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:43:54 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: I, for one, am glad that the terrorists didn't use any firearms in their attacks! And that firearms weren't even possessed by the terrorists! Surely they could have picked up some weapons by using the 'gun show loophole.' Isn't that where all the criminals get theirs? Eric The(But[u]That[/u]Won'tChangeSarahBrady'sMind,NoSiree!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
Only the tireless efforts of Sarah Brady and HCI prevented these terrorists from boarding with FULLY AUTOMATIC AK-47 ASSAULT RIFLE MACHINE GUNS WITH REALLY BIG CLIPS.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:45:09 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SouthernShark: If Bush signs it, I'll vote for myself. We, as gun owners, have a duty to let the Republicans know that a vote against guns will cost them. If they don't feel like they will be punished, then they won't fear us. -SS
View Quote
At least vote for the Libertarian candidate. He's likely to get almost 100 votes.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:45:27 PM EDT
post from tangeant -
He lost re-election but was rewarded with a cushy Ambassodorship by Klinton....
View Quote
Which is [b]over[/b] now, so he's back to being a private citizen, living under the very laws that he helped to pass during his tenure. Eric The(That'llServeHimRight!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:46:48 PM EDT
Originally Posted By EricTheHun: post from tangeant -
He lost re-election but was rewarded with a cushy Ambassodorship by Klinton....
View Quote
Which is [b]over[/b] now, so he's back to being a private citizen, living under the very laws that he helped to pass during his tenure. Eric The(That'llServeHimRight!)Hun[>]:)]
View Quote
you forgot to add "...with a cushy book deal and Secret Service protection for life." Yeah, that will teach him.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:49:37 PM EDT
Post from SteyrAUG -
you forgot to add "...with a cushy book deal and Secret Service protection for life."
View Quote
Well, I didn't want to crush everyone with that! Eric The(IWon'tEven[u]Mention[/u]HisPension!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 3:55:30 PM EDT
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 4:03:35 PM EDT
Sorry, guys, I didn't make myself clear - I was actually talking about Tom Foley! Not Bill What's-His-Name! I'm afraid there will always be a regretfully large number of Americans who will continue to worship our former president, for reasons that will never be understood by the rest of us. Eric The(YouKnowIDon'tOrdinarilyAdmitToBeingLessTh­anAbsolutelyClear,SoCherishThisMoment!)Hun[>]:)]
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 4:15:11 PM EDT
At the time this thing originally passed, I was told the sunset provision was for both the guns AND large magazines... in other words, if a new bill is not passed, large cap mags and rifles with all the bells and whistles will be legal again. Is this correct?
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 4:17:41 PM EDT
Originally Posted By A_Free_Man: At the time this thing originally passed, I was told the sunset provision was for both the guns AND large magazines... in other words, if a new bill is not passed, large cap mags and rifles with all the bells and whistles will be legal again. Is this correct?
View Quote
that is correct of course we can all go back to the pipedream that is crime bill sunsetting without a more restrictive law or one like it
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 4:38:34 PM EDT
Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:God I hope you all are right. But if GW Jr. DOES sign it, what are you gonna do? Vote for Gore?
View Quote
I sure as hell ain't going to vote for Bush if he does. I'll definitely vote for a 3rd party then, probably the LP.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 4:55:21 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/21/2001 4:51:53 PM EDT by ArmdLbrl]
Because the democrats have been very cooperative with the war effort, hardly any incumbants are going to loose in the off year elections next year. Because of the redistricting, the Sun Belt gains seats in 02 and the Democrat strongholds in the rust belt loose seats. The State of Arizona is already busily gerrymandering the new districts here to ensure that they are solid Republican districts. And they have already survived the first legal challenge from MALDEF. Given the change in public attitude to firearms since the terrorist attack its highly unlikely any new measures will be taken if the Dems were to win a majority of the new seats. As it is the Republicans should see a gain of 5 or 6 seats, increasing their lead to around 15.
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 5:03:29 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 10/21/2001 4:58:23 PM EDT by Skibane]
As Judy Tanuta would say: [img]http://www.judytenuta.com/gallery/images/galaxyaccord.jpg[/img] [red][size=6][b]"Yeah, it could happen!"[/b][/size=6][/red]
Link Posted: 10/21/2001 5:15:34 PM EDT
I really do believe it will go away. Redistricting is going our way, so it's less likely that they will pick up the seats needed to gain control in the house, and it's likely that we will take back the senate in 02'. Guns cost the Democrats the Whitehouse, I seriously doubt that they will make an issue of it in an election year. What I see more likely is a compromise bill, That keeps NICS, but axes the AWB. Even more likely then that I think that it will just quietly slip into the good night with out much fanfare except for a small spot on it on 20/20 that focuses mostly on Sarah Brady "Fought against guns, but she lost against cancer", or some human interest puke like that.
Top Top