Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/7/2004 7:59:31 AM EST
She recently made a comment vowing to bring her 2004 renewal bill up for a vote again but how can she do this?

I am at a loss to see any germane legislation or Frist capitualting and letting her do this?

Bush has stayed silent so she's not using him.

Thoughts?

Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:01:52 AM EST
She'd better hurry because summer recess is almost upon her.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:02:47 AM EST
She talks a good game,

But all she's going to do is piss and moan, like an impotent jerk while she grabs her akles and takes it up the tailpipe
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:03:16 AM EST
Therein lies the problem...

She can't, and even if she can, the House hates AWB legislation...

She's just trying to stay in the media spotlight...
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:04:44 AM EST

Originally Posted By BenDover:
She'd better hurry because summer recess is almost upon her.



When do they break for summer vacation?
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:04:48 AM EST
somewhat reminiscent of baghdad bob

"I assure all mothers of america that the AWB will be renewed, and your children will be safe from the evils of the bushmaster XM-15 sniper rifle forever."

or something like that anyway
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:06:05 AM EST
She is pandering to her idiot voting block.

Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:09:30 AM EST
According to the GOA's April newsletter, Feinstein intends to propose it as an amendment to any bill that has potential to pass. This is ULTRA DANGEROUS, since if it is attached an an amendment to a bill that had already passed the house, then it would not require a vote by the full House, it would only need approval of the negotiating commitee.

Also, remember that the Senate does not work like the House. The Speaker of the House can give floor time to whoever he wants, and the Speaker decides what bills will or will not be voted on. As I understand it, in the Senate, the Senator that has the floor may yield the floor to whomever they want, and unless their is a filabuster (60 votes against a bill), any Senator who has the floor can call for a vote on a bill, or can submit a bill.

Lastly, this is the exact same strategy that the Senate used to attach the AWB extension to S1805 "Lawful Commerece in Arms", and the amendment was approved by the REPUBLICAN HELD Senate 52-47!

Be on your guard, this fight is not over by a long shot.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:09:50 AM EST
Let's see how much traction the MMM march in DC on Sunday has...
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:11:48 AM EST

Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:
She talks a good game,

But all she's going to do is piss and moan, like an impotent jerk while she grabs her akles and takes it up the tailpipe



But would you.... I mean, with her..........really.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:13:31 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
According to the GOA's April newsletter, Feinstein intends to propose it as an amendment to any bill that has potential to pass. This is ULTRA DANGEROUS, since if it is attached an an amendment to a bill that had already passed the house, then it would not require a vote by the full House, it would only need approval of the negotiating commitee.

Also, remember that the Senate does not work like the House. The Speaker of the House can give floor time to whoever he wants, and the Speaker decides what bills will or will not be voted on. As I understand it, in the Senate, the Senator that has the floor may yield the floor to whomever they want, and unless their is a filabuster (60 votes against a bill), any Senator who has the floor can call for a vote on a bill, or can submit a bill.

Lastly, this is the exact same strategy that the Senate used to attach the AWB extension to S1805 "Lawful Commerece in Arms", and the amendment was approved by the REPUBLICAN HELD Senate 52-47!

Be on your guard, this fight is not over by a long shot.



The way your running around the boards posting, one could get the idea you WANT the ban renewed.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:16:20 AM EST

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
According to the GOA's April newsletter, Feinstein intends to propose it as an amendment to any bill that has potential to pass. This is ULTRA DANGEROUS, since if it is attached an an amendment to a bill that had already passed the house, then it would not require a vote by the full House, it would only need approval of the negotiating commitee.

Also, remember that the Senate does not work like the House. The Speaker of the House can give floor time to whoever he wants, and the Speaker decides what bills will or will not be voted on. As I understand it, in the Senate, the Senator that has the floor may yield the floor to whomever they want, and unless their is a filabuster (60 votes against a bill), any Senator who has the floor can call for a vote on a bill, or can submit a bill.

Lastly, this is the exact same strategy that the Senate used to attach the AWB extension to S1805 "Lawful Commerece in Arms", and the amendment was approved by the REPUBLICAN HELD Senate 52-47!

Be on your guard, this fight is not over by a long shot.



The way your running around the boards posting, one could get the idea you WANT the ban renewed.



Yes, that's it! You caught me! By trying to make gun owners aware of the fact that the expiration of the AWB is NOT a sure thing and trying to get them to stop thinking like it is, I am sabotaging our chances of having it Sunset. Boy are you clever!
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:17:30 AM EST
Somehow....thats exactly the reply I expected.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:18:58 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
According to the GOA's April newsletter, Feinstein intends to propose it as an amendment to any bill that has potential to pass. This is ULTRA DANGEROUS, since if it is attached an an amendment to a bill that had already passed the house, then it would not require a vote by the full House, it would only need approval of the negotiating commitee.


The amended bill would still ultimately have to be passed by the house and senate.

Congresss is going to be in recess from July 26 to September 6, so she wil need to act fast.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:21:46 AM EST

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:
Somehow....thats exactly the reply I expected.



Well what should I do? Sit back, and read all the posting that say "don't worry" and do nothing at all? Do you not realize that there are alot of powerful people in this country that do not want you to own guns?

And let's say I am over reacting. So What? Why is that bad? Wouldn't you rather over react than under react? Why would you criticize someone who is trying to motivate people to protect our rights? Do you just not want to think about it? Do you think that our rights will defend themselves, and they don't need any maintenece from citizens?

I don't get what your complaint is.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:22:41 AM EST
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:25:41 AM EST

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:

Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:
She talks a good game,

But all she's going to do is piss and moan, like an impotent jerk while she grabs her akles and takes it up the tailpipe



But would you.... I mean, with her..........really.



I wouldnt do that even with Imbroglio's dick.


Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:25:53 AM EST
Gotta keep the million mom's donations rolling in.
Bet Fineswine and der cronies have some well padded pockets.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:26:22 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 8:31:59 AM EST by Fenian]
There are no rules in the Senate to prevent any senator from attaching any amenment to any bill...so she could very easily do this. It's smart politics, if you can take a step back and look at it...she thinks (mistakenly, if polls are to be believed) the the Dems can still get votes on gun control...so, they'll try to get folks on record as opposing the AWB renewal in the hopes that it will mean votes for the party in November.

Of course, most sane people (and a few Senated Dems lol) realize gun control is a MAJOR problem for the party in November. But, that lesson will never sink in for some folks. Hell, even Daschle has tried to run away from this, as HE's up for reelection. It's pretty funny to watch all this.

In order for it to get to the House, she'd have to attach it to something that's going to be taken up by the House as well, otherwise, she's just pissing in the wind...which may be the case.

Of course, I've been thinking all along that any celebrations over the Sunset are WAY premature...there's nothing more dangerous than a liberal 6 months before and election, and if they think they can squeeze some votes out, they'll make a big issue out of it.

Now, with all of the misinformation the media has been engaging in, making sure that the average joe thinks were talking about full auto when they say "assault" weapons, there is some danger of this thing picking up steam.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:36:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 8:38:37 AM EST by Bartholomew_Roberts]

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
According to the GOA's April newsletter, Feinstein intends to propose it as an amendment to any bill that has potential to pass. This is ULTRA DANGEROUS, since if it is attached an an amendment to a bill that had already passed the house, then it would not require a vote by the full House, it would only need approval of the negotiating commitee.



No, that isn't correct. I appreciate the passion for our common cause; but if you spread information that isn't true, it doesn't help it. If a bill passed the Senate and differed substantially from the version passed by the House, it would go to a conference committee for the differences to be ironed out. The House and Senate would both appoint members and the House will generally get more members. The conference committee cannot add anything that isn't already in the House or Senate versions of the bill; but they can strike stuff from the bill.

Once the conference committee agrees on a bill, it goes back to the floor of the Senate and the House for a final up/down vote.


Also, remember that the Senate does not work like the House. The Speaker of the House can give floor time to whoever he wants, and the Speaker decides what bills will or will not be voted on. As I understand it, in the Senate, the Senator that has the floor may yield the floor to whomever they want, and unless their is a filabuster (60 votes against a bill), any Senator who has the floor can call for a vote on a bill, or can submit a bill.


It is easier to propose a bill via amendment in the Senate compared to the House. Usually, the Senators from both parties will sit down and work out what amendments will be proposed before the bill is even debated until they get enough votes to insure cloture. Once they have enough (2/3) to invoke cloture, only those amendments filed before the agreement can go forward without unanimous consent.


Lastly, this is the exact same strategy that the Senate used to attach the AWB extension to S1805 "Lawful Commerece in Arms", and the amendment was approved by the REPUBLICAN HELD Senate 52-47!

Be on your guard, this fight is not over by a long shot.




Definitely don't quit now; because it certainly isn't over until September 14, 2004.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:38:50 AM EST

Originally Posted By imposter:
Congresss is going to be in recess from July 26 to September 6, so she wil need to act fast.



Here is the thing that I don't understand, and that frustrates me to no end:

September 14 is not far away, and there aren't that many days between now and then that the Senate will be in session. We are so close to having this stupid, impotenet infringment on our second amendment rights sunset, and yet it sounds to me like most of you think this sunset is a sure thing. And I'm even getting criticized for trying to stir you up against this, and pointing out possible attacks that the liberals are planning.

In my opinion the Sunset of the AWB will not be a sure thing until September 14, 2004. I am not going to stop calling and writing my 2 liberal Democrat Senators and my Liberal Democrat Representitive, (telling them to vote against any bill that would extend or expand the AWB) until then. I can't understand why all of you wouldn't feel exactly the same way.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:40:10 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:


Also, remember that the Senate does not work like the House. The Speaker of the House can give floor time to whoever he wants, and the Speaker decides what bills will or will not be voted on.



Actually, all that is controlled by the House Rules Committee...any bill or resolution that gets to the floor has to have a rule passed allowing it...and that rule sets the debate length, how the time is divided, and whether or not amendments will be allowed, and what amendments. When you see them actually debating legislation, all of that is controlled via the rule...they already know that each side has x amount of time, and which side speaks last.

Each side will have a "floor manager" (or several) for a particular bill, and they're the ones that will decide who gets to speak during that alloted time. That's when you get all those silly phrases like " I yield myself such time as I may consume", and I yield back the balance of my time". You'll hear the floor managers asking "how much time remains" so that they know how much time to grant in case they get extra folks wishing to speak.

It's this lack of rules that allows the Senate to do things differently.

Of course, Dave Dreier, the Rules Committee Chairman, is part of the Republican leadership, and works closely with Hastert and DeLay. If they don't want it, it ain't gettin' to the floor.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:45:31 AM EST
Sen. Frist, I read may shutdown business in the Senate for the rest of the year due to Tom Daschle's blocking of appointments!
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:51:25 AM EST

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
According to the GOA's April newsletter, Feinstein intends to propose it as an amendment to any bill that has potential to pass. This is ULTRA DANGEROUS, since if it is attached an an amendment to a bill that had already passed the house, then it would not require a vote by the full House, it would only need approval of the negotiating commitee.



No, that isn't correct. I appreciate the passion for our common cause; but if you spread information that isn't true, it doesn't help it. If a bill passed the Senate and differed substantially from the version passed by the House, it would go to a conference committee for the differences to be ironed out. The House and Senate would both appoint members and the House will generally get more members. The conference committee cannot add anything that isn't already in the House or Senate versions of the bill; but they can strike stuff from the bill.

Once the conference committee agrees on a bill, it goes back to the floor of the Senate and the House for a final up/down vote.



I think we are saying the same thing with different words:

The Lawful Commerece in Arms Act is a perfect example. The House version (HR1036) passed without amendment. When it came before the Senate as S.1805, they attached an amendment that would have made the current AWB permenant. Fortunately, the final version of S.1805 was defeated. But, if it had not been defeated, then S.1805 would have gone to a conference commitee where the differences would have been ironed out (as you say). The key is that it WOULD NOT have gone back for a vote by the full House. This would have defeated DeLay's promise not to allow the AWB to come to a vote in the house.

If Feinstein can attach an amendment to any bill before the Senate that has already passed the House, and get the final bill to pass the Senate, then she will not have to worry about DeLay dening the AWB a vote in the House. The AWB amendment would go to conference commitee where only a few members of the House would decide what will and won't stay on the bill before sending it to the President for signature.

Please remember, there was already a vote in the Senate to extend the AWB. It passed 52-47! Fortunately, the total bill was defeated, but back in March, there were 52 US Senators who were in support of extending the AWB! This battle is not over until September 14!
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:52:08 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
This is ULTRA DANGEROUS, since if it is attached an an amendment to a bill that had already passed the house, then it would not require a vote by the full House, it would only need approval of the negotiating commitee.



Wrong.

If a bill goes to conference, the new version that comes out must be voted on by the full membership of both chambers.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:56:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:
Somehow....thats exactly the reply I expected.



Well what should I do? Sit back, and read all the posting that say "don't worry" and do nothing at all? Do you not realize that there are alot of powerful people in this country that do not want you to own guns?

And let's say I am over reacting. So What? Why is that bad? Wouldn't you rather over react than under react? Why would you criticize someone who is trying to motivate people to protect our rights? Do you just not want to think about it? Do you think that our rights will defend themselves, and they don't need any maintenece from citizens?

I don't get what your complaint is.



You are trying to get us to reveal our "super extra secret strategy" to defeat your gal Feinstein and don't deny it.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 8:58:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By motown_steve:

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:

Originally Posted By motown_steve:
According to the GOA's April newsletter, Feinstein intends to propose it as an amendment to any bill that has potential to pass. This is ULTRA DANGEROUS, since if it is attached an an amendment to a bill that had already passed the house, then it would not require a vote by the full House, it would only need approval of the negotiating commitee.



No, that isn't correct. I appreciate the passion for our common cause; but if you spread information that isn't true, it doesn't help it. If a bill passed the Senate and differed substantially from the version passed by the House, it would go to a conference committee for the differences to be ironed out. The House and Senate would both appoint members and the House will generally get more members. The conference committee cannot add anything that isn't already in the House or Senate versions of the bill; but they can strike stuff from the bill.

Once the conference committee agrees on a bill, it goes back to the floor of the Senate and the House for a final up/down vote.



I think we are saying the same thing with different words:

The Lawful Commerece in Arms Act is a perfect example. The House version (HR1036) passed without amendment. When it came before the Senate as S.1805, they attached an amendment that would have made the current AWB permenant. Fortunately, the final version of S.1805 was defeated. But, if it had not been defeated, then S.1805 would have gone to a conference commitee where the differences would have been ironed out (as you say). The key is that it WOULD NOT have gone back for a vote by the full House. This would have defeated DeLay's promise not to allow the AWB to come to a vote in the house.

If Feinstein can attach an amendment to any bill before the Senate that has already passed the House, and get the final bill to pass the Senate, then she will not have to worry about DeLay dening the AWB a vote in the House. The AWB amendment would go to conference commitee where only a few members of the House would decide what will and won't stay on the bill before sending it to the President for signature.

Please remember, there was already a vote in the Senate to extend the AWB. It passed 52-47! Fortunately, the total bill was defeated, but back in March, there were 52 US Senators who were in support of extending the AWB! This battle is not over until September 14!

]


I don't know where you get your info, but the process ACTUALLY works like this:::

Bill passed by House or Senate

Bill passed by the other side of congress with ammendment(s), or in different form

Conference committee decides on how to reconcile the 2 bills

FINAL VERSION GOES BACK FOR A VOTE IN BOTH HOUSES.

Had the PLCA passed the Senate, it WOULD HAVE HAD TO PASS THE FULL HOUSE AFTER CONFERENCE to reach GW.

For any bill to become law, it must pass both houses in IDENTICAL FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS. There is no way to 'sneak' an AWB bill past the House. The only way to do it is to attach it to a must-pass bill (like the 86 MG ban being added to FOPA) and hope they'll swallow the fly with the coffee, so to speak...
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:00:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By eodtech2000:
Sen. Frist, I read may shutdown business in the Senate for the rest of the year due to Tom Daschle's blocking of appointments!



Wouldn't that be nice? Give Daschle and the demonrats a taste of their own medicine.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:07:47 AM EST
All this worry is really for not. As soon as the next session opens they (antis) will be all over trying to create a new ban anyway. We can fight and win for a long time but, just like the war on terra', we need to win %100 of the time, they only need to win once. Don't get me wrong, I want there to be no ban as much or more than anyone here. but I almost think that in the long run we may be better off with the old ban instead of a new, more restrictive one.

I wish all this crap would just go away but as long as this country is full of these liberal, American hating, rights crushing freaking asses bitches making laws we are always going to be the "bad guys".
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:08:52 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 9:14:50 AM EST by ScaryGuy]
I will believe that the ban will go away when it's gone...On September 15, 2004.

Until then, I expect no less than every backstabbing, ass-kissing, underhanded, low down dirty trick cheap shot they've got for Fineswine and her ilk to try to get the damn thing (or worse,)through.

Frist has already shown he won't stand up to them and block it, so I think many of you underestimate the possibilty of it getting through the Senate. Once it does that it has a shot. And, no, I DON'T expect the Republicans to ride in at the last hour and suddenly have an attack of "the bill of rights" and stave it off, either. If it's attached to a politically expedient bill, it will get passed. Conference Committee or otherwise.

Call me a Chicken Little if you will, whatever, I've been around long enough to know how the other side works, and this ban being Dianne's "legacy"she'll do all she can to see to it that this piece of shit monument to her and her liberal cohorts will stand.

This fight isn't over, not by a damn sight. And the attitude of "there's no way they can get it passed in time, so why bring it up..blah blah blah" is EXACTLY the attiude they want to see and the tool by which they'll see it done.

Ever Vigilant.

SG
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:15:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By Dave_A:
I don't know where you get your info, but the process ACTUALLY works like this:::

Bill passed by House or Senate

Bill passed by the other side of congress with ammendment(s), or in different form

Conference committee decides on how to reconcile the 2 bills

FINAL VERSION GOES BACK FOR A VOTE IN BOTH HOUSES.

Had the PLCA passed the Senate, it WOULD HAVE HAD TO PASS THE FULL HOUSE AFTER CONFERENCE to reach GW.

For any bill to become law, it must pass both houses in IDENTICAL FORM. NO EXCEPTIONS. There is no way to 'sneak' an AWB bill past the House. The only way to do it is to attach it to a must-pass bill (like the 86 MG ban being added to FOPA) and hope they'll swallow the fly with the coffee, so to speak...



I'll admit that I didn't go back to my Government books to look up the exact process. In the April GOA newsletter, they have an extensive article about S.1805. This article refers to the exact same process that was used to pass the McCain-Feingold Act. They imply that in the case of McCain-Feingold, the bill was passed by the House, amended by the Senate, sent to conference comittee, and then sent to the President for signature.

This article also implies, that a bill which goes to conference comittee can recieve a favorable recommendation, and not require full consideration by the House before being sent to the President.

Page 6:

www.gunowners.org/news/n042604.pdf
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 9:25:59 AM EST
CRIMINALS DO NOT OBEY LAWS. ANY FURTHER LEGISLATION WHICH PREVENTS LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FROM THEIR SECOND AMENDMENT RIGHTS IS NOTHING SHORT OF STUPIDITY.
PUNISHING LAW ABIDING CITIZENS FOR THE ACTIONS OF LAWLESS CRIMINALS SHALL MARK THE BEGINNING OF THE SECOND CIVIL WAR. I SHALL PREPARE ACCORDINGLY.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:28:00 AM EST
Larry Craig has promised FILIBUSTER bigtime.

They got only 52 votes to pass the ban.

They ain't getting 60 to break filibuster.


So I guess she can try to add this to any bill?

CRC
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:29:17 AM EST
I fully expect people like Craig and Ensign to do a fillibuster.

They sounded PISSED about what went down with S 1805.

I know Lindsey Graham was. He went off on Craig and Frist.

CRC
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:32:57 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 10:33:26 AM EST by Belfry_Express]

Originally Posted By CRC:
I fully expect people like Craig and Ensign to do a fillibuster.

They sounded PISSED about what went down with S 1805.

I know Lindsey Graham was. He went off on Craig and Frist.

CRC



I know they were pissed, but the antis didnt think Craig had it in him to torpedo his own bill. That one came from way out in left field and they never saw it coming.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:35:44 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 10:37:02 AM EST by CRC]

Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:

Originally Posted By CRC:
I fully expect people like Craig and Ensign to do a fillibuster.

They sounded PISSED about what went down with S 1805.

I know Lindsey Graham was. He went off on Craig and Frist.

CRC



I know they were pissed, but the antis didnt think Craig had it in him to torpedo his own bill. That one came from way out in left field and they never saw it coming.



The antis claimed that the NRA leadership wanted to cut a deal on the AWB.

Then why did the NRA put all that money into CLINTONGUNBAN.COM?

Why did they tell me "no deals" on the phone before the votes?

Why did Craig, an NRA member, pull the plug?

I agree Craig pulled a fast one on them. He is the ONLY reason we are going to see the AWB sunset.

CRC
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:38:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:

Originally Posted By CRC:
I fully expect people like Craig and Ensign to do a fillibuster.

They sounded PISSED about what went down with S 1805.

I know Lindsey Graham was. He went off on Craig and Frist.

CRC



I know they were pissed, but the antis didnt think Craig had it in him to torpedo his own bill. That one came from way out in left field and they never saw it coming.



The antis claimed that the NRA leadership wanted to cut a deal on the AWB.

Then why did the NRA put all that money into CLINTONGUNBAN.COM?

Why did they tell me "no deals" before the votes?

I agree Craig pulled a fast one on them.

CRC



Now they are changing their story. I thought the antis were bitching because the NRA emailed everyone of their crew to "pull the plug" using the NRA issue PDAs and that the NRA was pulling all the strings.

The NRA was not gonna make one deal.

They shot the hostage and the hostage taker took 2 to the chest
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:39:18 AM EST

Originally Posted By ScaryGuy:
I will believe that the ban will go away when it's gone...On September 15, 2004.


Actually, the happy day is September 14.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:39:38 AM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 10:40:21 AM EST by cyanide]

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:

Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:
She talks a good game,

But all she's going to do is piss and moan, like an impotent jerk while she grabs her akles and takes it up the tailpipe



But would you.... I mean, with her..........really.



If she ever had a real man, she might not be so anal on this AWB thing.

I'd hit it for the cause .
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:39:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By imposter:

Originally Posted By ScaryGuy:
I will believe that the ban will go away when it's gone...On September 15, 2004.


Actually, the happy day is September 14.


but who is counting
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:43:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:

Originally Posted By CRC:

Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:

Originally Posted By CRC:
I fully expect people like Craig and Ensign to do a fillibuster.

They sounded PISSED about what went down with S 1805.

I know Lindsey Graham was. He went off on Craig and Frist.

CRC



I know they were pissed, but the antis didnt think Craig had it in him to torpedo his own bill. That one came from way out in left field and they never saw it coming.



The antis claimed that the NRA leadership wanted to cut a deal on the AWB.

Then why did the NRA put all that money into CLINTONGUNBAN.COM?

Why did they tell me "no deals" before the votes?

I agree Craig pulled a fast one on them.

CRC



Now they are changing their story. I thought the antis were bitching because the NRA emailed everyone of their crew to "pull the plug" using the NRA issue PDAs and that the NRA was pulling all the strings.

The NRA was not gonna make one deal.

They shot the hostage and the hostage taker took 2 to the chest



Agreed.

CRC
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 10:44:00 AM EST
Damn straight! Craig for president 2008!!!!!
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 11:07:26 AM EST

Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:

Originally Posted By Belfry_Express:
She talks a good game,

But all she's going to do is piss and moan, like an impotent jerk while she grabs her akles and takes it up the tailpipe



But would you.... I mean, with her..........really.



I wouldnt do that even with Imbroglio's dick.





Way sick. Perish the thought. Better yet, may both the thought and the woman perish.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 11:25:53 AM EST


Link Posted: 5/7/2004 11:42:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:

If she ever had a real man, she might not be so anal on this AWB thing.




If she WERE a real man, she wouldn't be so anal!! That's a MAN, baby
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 11:53:02 AM EST

Originally Posted By cyanide:

Originally Posted By Hawkeye:
But would you.... I mean, with her..........really.



If she ever had a real man, she might not be so anal on this AWB thing.

I'd hit it for the cause .



I'd rather lick shit off a statue of Hitler.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 12:27:45 PM EST

I think we are saying the same thing with different words:


No, we are not.


The key is that it WOULD NOT have gone back for a vote by the full House.


This is not true. It would have gone to the floor of the House for a vote by the full House.


This would have defeated DeLay's promise not to allow the AWB to come to a vote in the house.


Delay would have less power to stop a bill coming from that direction. Hastert would have a better chance.


The AWB amendment would go to conference commitee where only a few members of the House would decide what will and won't stay on the bill before sending it to the President for signature.


No, that isn't the way the process works. Please, if you don't know how the process works don't spread erroneous information. Either ask someone or read up on it:

thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.toc.html


Please remember, there was already a vote in the Senate to extend the AWB. It passed 52-47! Fortunately, the total bill was defeated, but back in March, there were 52 US Senators who were in support of extending the AWB! This battle is not over until September 14!


Definitely worth remembering... also remember that at least five of those Senators are retiring and four of those who voted against us are retiring this year. Vote in the primaries and general election to make sure the Senator who replaces them WILL stand up for us.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 12:32:22 PM EST

Originally Posted By Bartholomew_Roberts:

I think we are saying the same thing with different words:


No, we are not.


The key is that it WOULD NOT have gone back for a vote by the full House.


This is not true. It would have gone to the floor of the House for a vote by the full House.


This would have defeated DeLay's promise not to allow the AWB to come to a vote in the house.


Delay would have less power to stop a bill coming from that direction. Hastert would have a better chance.


The AWB amendment would go to conference commitee where only a few members of the House would decide what will and won't stay on the bill before sending it to the President for signature.


No, that isn't the way the process works. Please, if you don't know how the process works don't spread erroneous information. Either ask someone or read up on it:

thomas.loc.gov/home/lawsmade.toc.html


Please remember, there was already a vote in the Senate to extend the AWB. It passed 52-47! Fortunately, the total bill was defeated, but back in March, there were 52 US Senators who were in support of extending the AWB! This battle is not over until September 14!


Definitely worth remembering... also remember that at least five of those Senators are retiring and four of those who voted against us are retiring this year. Vote in the primaries and general election to make sure the Senator who replaces them WILL stand up for us.



OK, well I've got it all wrong. As I said before, I didn't go check my government books before posting, so shame on me. I was just going from the information that I read in the GOA newsletter. I apologize to all of you for making a big deal out of nothing, and for being an ass by stating things that are totally false.

There's nothing to worry about. The AWB Sunset is safe and sound, go back to your lives and please ignore my anti-gun left-wing socialist ramblings.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 12:35:31 PM EST
I hate to bust some bubbles but there are no hard and fast rules in the constitution on how conferencing is done between both houses. So yes, bill can pass in conference committees without going back to a full vote in each house. It's just a matter of bending some rules or word definition to suit the purpose at hand. Yes this does happen.
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 12:46:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/7/2004 12:49:29 PM EST by jrzy]

Originally Posted By cyanide:
If she ever had a real man, she might not be so anal on this AWB thing.

I'd hit it for the cause .



If you do that I shall make sure we all remember you with the utmost respect and honor that we can muster and we shall mark the day of your death (the day you actually nail her/it) as a national holiday. Insert throw up icon here
Link Posted: 5/7/2004 12:55:59 PM EST
Er, no. What you're describing would allow a law to be passed without the approval of the House.

www.usconstitution.net/consttop_law.html

Once a bill leaves the House and the Senate, it must be checked. If anything in the two versions of the bill differ, in any way (even in something as minor as punctuation), the bill must be reconciled. The house in which the bill originated is given a copy of the bill with its differences. For example, if the House originated a bill, then sent it along to the Senate for consideration, and the Senate made changes, the bill is sent back to the House. If the changes are minor, they might be accepted by the originating house with no debate. If changes are of a more substantial nature, however, a conference is called for.

In a conference, a number of Representative and a number of Senators meet to work out the differences in the two versions of the bill. The people in the conference committee are known as managers. The number of managers from each house of Congress is of little concern, because the managers from each house vote separately. So, for example, a conference committee might have ten Representatives and seven Senators. Managers are not allowed to substantially change the bill. They may add an amendment from one bill into the other, or take out an amendment added but not in the other. But they cannot add new amendments to both versions of the bill. When there is disagreement, new text, which might be a compromise between two versions, can be proposed. But the changes must be consistent with the bill itself.

Following negotiations, the managers make reports back to their houses, that they were able to agree on the bill, able to agree only on some parts of the bill, or were unable to agree at all on the bill. If the first case, the bill is revoted upon in both houses. If the latter two cases, the bill may go back to a new conference committee, referred back to the committees in the two houses, or it may just die because the differences are too vast to bridge.



See also Article I, section 7: "Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States;"

If the house didn't vote on the full and final bill, it didn't pass the house.

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top