User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:01:52 AM EDT
[#1]
She'd better hurry because summer recess is almost upon her.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:02:47 AM EDT
[#2]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:03:16 AM EDT
[#3]
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... |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:04:44 AM EDT
[#4]
When do they break for summer vacation? |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:04:48 AM EDT
[#5]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:06:05 AM EDT
[#6]
She is pandering to her idiot voting block.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:09:30 AM EDT
[#7]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:09:50 AM EDT
[#8]
Let's see how much traction the MMM march in DC on Sunday has...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:11:48 AM EDT
[#9]
But would you.... I mean, with her..........really. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:13:31 AM EDT
[#10]
The way your running around the boards posting, one could get the idea you WANT the ban renewed. 
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:16:20 AM EDT
[#11]
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! 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:17:30 AM EDT
[#12]
Somehow....thats exactly the reply I expected.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:18:58 AM EDT
[#13]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:21:46 AM EDT
[#14]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:22:41 AM EDT
[#15]
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:25:41 AM EDT
[#16]
I wouldnt do that even with Imbroglio's dick. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:25:53 AM EDT
[#17]
Gotta keep the million mom's donations rolling in.
Bet Fineswine and der cronies have some well padded pockets.  |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:26:22 AM EDT
[#18]
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. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:36:41 AM EDT
[#19]
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.
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.
Definitely don't quit now; because it certainly isn't over until September 14, 2004. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:38:50 AM EDT
[#20]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:40:10 AM EDT
[#21]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:45:31 AM EDT
[#22]
Sen. Frist, I read may shutdown business in the Senate for the rest of the year due to Tom Daschle's blocking of appointments!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:51:25 AM EDT
[#23]
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! |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:52:08 AM EDT
[#24]
Wrong. If a bill goes to conference, the new version that comes out must be voted on by the full membership of both chambers. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:56:23 AM EDT
[#25]
You are trying to get us to reveal our "super extra secret strategy" to defeat your gal Feinstein and don't deny it. 
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 9:58:26 AM EDT
[#26]
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... |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 10:00:11 AM EDT
[#27]
Wouldn't that be nice? Give Daschle and the demonrats a taste of their own medicine. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 10:07:47 AM EDT
[#28]
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". 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 10:08:52 AM EDT
[#29]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 10:15:13 AM EDT
[#30]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 10:25:59 AM EDT
[#31]
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. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 11:28:00 AM EDT
[#32]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 11:29:17 AM EDT
[#33]
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 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 11:32:57 AM EDT
[#34]
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. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 11:35:44 AM EDT
[#35]
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 |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 11:38:16 AM EDT
[#36]
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 |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 11:39:18 AM EDT
[#37]
Actually, the happy day is September 14. |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 11:39:38 AM EDT
[#38]
If she ever had a real man, she might not be so anal on this AWB thing.  I'd hit it for the cause .
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 11:39:52 AM EDT
[#39]
but who is counting
|
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 11:43:51 AM EDT
[#40]
Agreed. CRC |
||||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 11:44:00 AM EDT
[#41]
Damn straight! Craig for president 2008!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 12:07:26 PM EDT
[#42]
Way sick. Perish the thought. Better yet, may both the thought and the woman perish. |
|||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 12:25:53 PM EDT
[#43]
 |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 12:42:23 PM EDT
[#44]
If she WERE a real man, she wouldn't be so anal!! That's a MAN, baby
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 12:53:02 PM EDT
[#45]
I'd rather lick shit off a statue of Hitler. |
||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 1:27:45 PM EDT
[#46]
No, we are not.
This is not true. It would have gone to the floor of the House for a vote by the full House.
Delay would have less power to stop a bill coming from that direction. Hastert would have a better chance.
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
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. |
|||||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 1:32:22 PM EDT
[#47]
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. |
||||||
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 1:35:31 PM EDT
[#48]
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.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 1:46:16 PM EDT
[#49]
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 |
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/7/2004 1:55:59 PM EDT
[#50]
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
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. |
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
