NSSF Warning - Senate plans Universal background check vote TODAY

Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,632
You cannot just bring up something out of order unless there is no objection. It will be objected to by cruz, rubio, rand, lee, sessions.... And not allowed to be brought up. This is Bs and all for show so they (ct's two shltbag senators, feinstein, etc) can whine about if after.
 

Horrible

NES Member
Rating - 100%
16   0   0
Joined
Mar 1, 2009
Messages
12,522
Likes
5,549
Location
NOLA
These suckers are like rabid dogs. I'm beginning to think they want a shooting war. What the hell is wrong with them. Can't calm perspective rule here?

Never let a good crisis go to waste. Feinstein has been pulling this $hit for over a quarter-century.
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Jul 11, 2006
Messages
5,139
Likes
2,060
Location
citizen turned Felon in CT
There should be an Amendment that once something is voted on and doesn't pass that it can't be brought back up again for "X" number of years (maybe 20?)

PART of the problem is that every few months the same shit gets brought up and tried to force through. "They" only have to be "lucky" once to have it passed
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 4, 2006
Messages
18,157
Likes
9,210
no fly list = no guns shot down also...

Senate blocks effort to keep gun from terrorists

Senate Republicans on Thursday rejected an amendment to the ObamaCare repeal bill that would have tied it to a separate fight on blocking suspected or known terrorists from being able to buy guns.
Senators voted 45-54 on procedural hurdle for the measure from Sen. Dianne Feinstein.

The California Democrat's proposal, which she has also introduced as a separate piece of legislation, would allow the attorney general to block the sale or transfer of a gun or explosive to a suspected or known terrorist if the individual is believed to use the weapons in an act of terrorism.

Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) broke rank and voted against moving forward with Feinstein's amendment, while Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) voted with Democrats.

Speaking to reporters earlier Thursday, Feinstein called her amendment "the definition of a no-brainer."

She underscored the bipartisan support behind the proposal, pointing out that a House Republican has introduced a similar bill and the idea was initially backed by the Bush administration's Department of Justice in 2007.

Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), however, suggested that Feinstein's amendment would strip Americans of due process.

"This is not the way we're supposed to do things in this country," he said ahead of the vote.

Senators also rejected an amendment from Cornyn by a 55-44 vote on a procedural hurdle.

More @ http://thehill.com/blogs/floor-acti...te-blocks-tying-gun-fight-to-obamacare-repeal
 

rogues

NES Member
Rating - 100%
27   0   0
Joined
Jan 8, 2013
Messages
527
Likes
128
Location
Corner of No and Where
Sorry, maybe I'm confusing it with the "nuclear option" in the senate for filibuster rules. Too many damn rules.

In any case, any defeat of something this unconstitutional of less than 0-100 is too close in my book.
 
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Jan 22, 2013
Messages
13,326
Likes
6,632
Anything other than nominees (judges, secretary of commerce, etc) require 60 votes to envoke cloture. A senate could change the rules though like reid did to jam through the judges. That was a good plan by reid too, now with R's in charge obama judge nominees are sitting not getting votes. I would be surprised if any appeals court nominees see votes. Just leave them open for the next POTUS to fill.
 

Garys

NES Member
Rating - 100%
92   0   0
Joined
Oct 19, 2005
Messages
20,388
Likes
5,629
Location
Stoughton
You have that backwards. The old Senate rules required a 60 vote majority to send something to a floor vote. Harry Reid changed that and McConnel has kept it because it screws with the Dems now that the Republicans control the Senate. The House requires a simple majority to send a bill to the floor.



Under the old simple majority rules, it would be.

Now it takes 60 votes for anything to pass.
 

Whutmeworry

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Mar 13, 2013
Messages
1,951
Likes
1,182
Location
NOT 1600 Pennsylvannia Avenue anymore!!!!
"The California Democrat's proposal, which she has also introduced as a separate piece of legislation, would allow the attorney general to block the sale or transfer of a gun or explosive to a suspected or known terrorist if the individual is believed to use the weapons in an act of terrorism."

What the f**k are these suspected or known terrorists - known to be such by our federal government - doing roaming around in free society to begin with??? Why aren't they incarcerated (or better yet deceased) so they don't have the opportunity to gather weapons to begin with???

A rhetorical question, I know. [angry]
 

omega42

NES Member
Rating - 100%
4   0   0
Joined
Apr 11, 2009
Messages
3,292
Likes
2,822
Location
NH
"The California Democrat's proposal, which she has also introduced as a separate piece of legislation, would allow the attorney general to block the sale or transfer of a gun or explosive to a suspected or known terrorist if the individual is believed to use the weapons in an act of terrorism."

What the f**k are these suspected or known terrorists - known to be such by our federal government - doing roaming around in free society to begin with??? Why aren't they incarcerated (or better yet deceased) so they don't have the opportunity to gather weapons to begin with???

A rhetorical question, I know. [angry]

Also the wrong question. The "No Fly" list is developed using secret criteria with no due process to get on and no due process to get off. Hard to appeal against evidence you're not allowed to see. While some of the people on the list may be actual or potential terrorists there is no way of knowing the percentages. The antis now want to apply the same methods to 2A rights.
 

frenchman

NES Member
Rating - 100%
1   0   0
Joined
Sep 13, 2012
Messages
7,773
Likes
6,895
"The California Democrat's proposal, which she has also introduced as a separate piece of legislation, would allow the attorney general to block the sale or transfer of a gun or explosive to a suspected or known terrorist if the individual is believed to use the weapons in an act of terrorism."

What the f**k are these suspected or known terrorists - known to be such by our federal government - doing roaming around in free society to begin with??? Why aren't they incarcerated (or better yet deceased) so they don't have the opportunity to gather weapons to begin with???

A rhetorical question, I know. [angry]
suspected ​terrorist. Means you. And me. And the rest of us.
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
Nov 8, 2009
Messages
4,702
Likes
1,143
Location
Brookline, NH
If Republican senators/reps had half the determination/resolve she has and actually supported legislation that PROTECTED our rights they would win virtually every election every year

They lose because too many of them have no morals/values and fail to actually protect liberty/freedom/rights

That or they actually do and you've fallen for the media's portrayal of Republicans as subhuman.
 
Rating - 100%
13   0   0
Joined
Jan 1, 2014
Messages
978
Likes
192
Location
Massachusetts
The Constitution isn't enough. There need to be consequences for voting for laws or conducting activities which are unconstitutional. This is a major flaw in our system.

You can't write names down on a piece of paper entitled "terror suspects" and say "these people's rights will be denied."
 
Rating - 0%
0   0   0
Joined
May 5, 2005
Messages
10,924
Likes
434
Location
Vermont, a Free State
So 47 of our Senators are quite willing to ignore our Constitution?
A$$holes.

Yeah, that bothers me too.

suspected ​terrorist. Means you. And me. And the rest of us.

Yup, I KNOW I fit their agenda too. Good to know I'm in good company.

The Constitution isn't enough. There need to be consequences for voting for laws or conducting activities which are unconstitutional. This is a major flaw in our system.

You can't write names down on a piece of paper entitled "terror suspects" and say "these people's rights will be denied."

I'll think you dig deep enough, and you'll find there is something. But the foxes are guarding the chicken coop, and they know they won't be tried until they leave.

Some senators are really afraid they will be shot. The only thing that's saving them is the simple fact that the same people they fear are actually law abiding citizens, and therefore won't commit a "mala per se" crime of murder.
 
Top Bottom