Skip to comments.Harry Reid Prepares to Annihilate Second Amendment
Posted on 01/03/2013 10:45:17 AM PST by arthurus
Gun grabbers are not going to be able to get 60 votes to break a Senate filibuster of gun control. But, with the help of fake "pro-gun" Senate Democrats, they may be able to get 50.
So the question of whether Senate Democrats will need 50 votes or 60 votes will determine whether gun control - and much of Obama's agenda - will be slammed through and passed into law.
This brings us to the "nuclear option."
This is a trick which anti-gun Democrats intend to use the first day of the Senate session in order to obliterate the Senate rules and clear the way for 50-vote passage of gun control.
Your senator's vote on the "nuclear option" may be the most important gun-related vote he casts during the 113th Congress. It may be the difference between whether Obama can secure Senate passage of gun bans, magazine bans, gun show bans, and bans on private gun sales.
Anti-gun Democrats will try to tell you that the Senate is just following its precedents.
But that's a bald-faced lie. As Democrats made clear during the Bush administration when the Republicans were contemplating the "nuclear option," the nuclear option has been threatened, but the trigger has never been pulled.
Anti-gun Democrats will try to tell you that the "nuclear option" can only be invoked on the first day.
That's a lie.
(Excerpt) Read more at rightsidenews.com ...
Sooooo, I guess the senate can pass laws without the house of representatives now?
Its often been observed that perception is more important than reality. The observation is often correct. It is never MORE CORRECT than for those weve come to call liberals. I prefer statist but liberal has morphed from its classic meaning to the other end of the spectrum so Ill stay with it.
Since these folks operate almost entirely on EMOTION and FEELING, REALITY seldom allows FACTS to intrude upon the delusional worldview they have constructed and the comfort that provides them. It is that illogical, irrational and delusional mindset that prompts many of them to continue to quest after a Utopian society. The thought that such a society can and will never be achieved in a fallen world populated with failed sinners never penetrates whatever remains of their cognitive consciousness. Its a DANGEROUS WORLD and, as the liberals continue to define deviancy down, it becomes more dangerous daily.
There is another, far more sinister, level of the liberal call for gun control.
It was Mencken who offered that The urge to save humanity is most often a false front for the URGE TO RULE. He clearly had been a student of the liberal politicians of his day. Were he alive today and able to observe the likes of Chuck Schumer, Diane Feinstein, Obama and the rest, hed almost certainly have used far stronger language to frame his sage observation.
To conclude, dozens of studies reveal the FACTS concerning gun control. Those FACTS are that where firearms are widely and READILY available to law-abiding citizens, CRIME GOES DOWN! The liberals who willfully ignore the FACTUAL EVIDENCE and continue to call for gun control (i.e. the DISARMING of DECENT CITIZENS, thereby denying them the ability to exercise their God-given right to self-defense) are those about whom Mencken wrote: Their goal is NOT about preserving life. It is about the hell-bent pursuit of the impossible to achieve Utopian world where all are equal but some (thatd be THEM) are MORE equal than others (thatd be US).
There are many PRO-RTKABA videos on You Tube that your often busy lives dont allow you to find on your own. Search there for Gun Control, watch them and, more importantly SHARE THEM with the folks in your orbit.
Were in a fight. And losing will ultimately cost us much more than our right to our guns.
Yep, there's still that hurdle. Getting rid of fillibuster menas all of zero's appointments (judicial and otherwise) can be railroaded through the Senate.
Indeed, this assumes a majority in the House votes for Feinstein’s proposal.
Millions of firearms were purchased in the past few years just to return the favor.
Didn’t the NRA back Ried in 2010?
5 And that law of the land which is constitutional, supporting that principle of freedom in maintaining rights and privileges, belongs to all mankind, and is justifiable before me.
6 Therefore, I, the Lord, justify you, and your brethren of my church, in befriending that law which is the constitutional law of the land;
They know that a newly elected president is supposed to have all kinds of capital to get stuff through so they're trying to make it appear that Obama is in that position.
In reality, much of his capital has already been spent in the cliff fight. He's come limping out of that and looks very weak going forward.
The gun thing will go nowhere.
Here is an article with Reid and Wayne LaPierre at a pork funded range.
I recall Lapierre getting upset over all the flack he caught for that. I hope he was right and Ried does not side with the gun grabbers.
Only on a Treaty, and that requires a super majority.
Unfortunately, the Senate is in the hands of the anti-constitution Harry Reid, and the House is in the hands of the tearful Boehner. The House does not reassure me any more than the Senate does.
Meteors and lightning never strike when you want them to.
I recall Lapierre getting upset over all the flack he caught for that. I hope he was right and Ried does not side with the gun grabbers
oh, he will. you can count of that.
Let’s get this sh*t over with.
” the nuclear option has been threatened, but the trigger has never been pulled.”
Yes, it was already used to ram O-care through.
If anything passes it's not going to look remotely like Feinstein's proposal. (Fienstein's proposal wouldn't even likely pass constitutional muster with the courts...) They...might...be able to get the so called "gun show loophole" through (which would be essentially pointless and uneforcable see (1) below) and maybe limits on hi-cap magazines which would look like the 1994 ban with all existing ones being grandfathered in and manufacture banned after a certain date (also pointless see (2) below).
(1) Closing the gun show loophole would require anybody selling a gun to another individual to go through a licensed gun dealer and have a backgroud check done. Unless you are stupid enough to pay by check or give a dated receipt, there would be no way to tell if the transaction took place before or after the requirement went into place, making it essentially on the honor system, and almost impossible to enforce.
(2) Hi-Cap Magazines are as plentiful as ball point pens and will always be easy to obtain, ban on manufacture or not. The last time they tried to ban them the price had barely budged at the end of the ten year ban and most gun stores had tables full of them.
You mean the house of rubberstamp
This seems an impossible task. The only way the communists could control these by outlawing them completly so their mere existence is a crime.
What we need to do is pick a hollyweird A lister and take them out by refusing to buy or support any show, tv program, product, etc that has their appearance. make them ecconomically shunned.
No, after some apparent dithering on the topic, it did not.
It did, however, support Manchin in a thoroughly disgusting, boot licking manner ... both in 2010 and 2012.
We're about to test the mettle of the oh-so-wonderful, NRA A+ rated and endorsed Senaturd Manchin.
Find your spine.
Well so long as it is a tax not a fine or penalty ......
The NRA didn’t “endorse” Reid but they did feature him in their monthly magazine and Wayne said great things about him.
But...but...but....the NRA endorsed him.......duh!
You might think about where you would hide your guns. Your defense is the Second Amendment.
Was Sandy Hook related to MF-Ultra???
Let them vote. If it’s passed those who voted yay make the list for the free after party.