Reid determined to have vote on gun control measures, even if Republicans filibuster

Why do we need a congress? Why don't we just have Harry Reid and dictator Obama make decisions for us instead. So Reid says he plans to get a vote on his gun control proposal no matter what, despite the outcry of 14 senators that will participate in a filibuster.

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid promised Tuesday to make sure the various gun control provisions come to a vote regardless of Republican opposition.

At least 14 Republicans have promised to filibuster gun control measures. Reid said he planned to file cloture Tuesday evening on the bill, and if he fails to get the 60 votes necessary to overcome the filibuster, he told reporters, “we’re gonna vote on these things anyway.”

Reid said he would place each individual measure directly on the calendar and bring each to a vote, something he says he has the authority to do under Senate Rule XIV “and other measures.”

“It’ll take a little bit of time, but as I’ve said for months now, the American people deserve a vote on background checks and federal trafficking and safety in schools and the size of clips, and yes, assault weapons. And of course, mental health,” he said.

So Reid is looking beyond just extended background checks, he's going to try and slam through a limit on magazines, and still push to ban "assault weapons". Hopefully a filibuster just like the one on drones will happen, and they can hold the floor and call these clowns out on their BS.

Now we have Biden going around the country claiming that Constitutionalists are nutcases, and that they don't plan to create a national registry.. he mocked us.. I don't think he's really kidding around though, I think he just down plays everything to get people complacent.

everyday I read more draconian news, just leaves me

dailycaller.com...

I see no reason why the Senate should not vote on each and every one of those gun control measures. Little, if any, of them will pass; however, I believe it is important that each and every one of the 100 senators should be on the record as to where they stand on the issues. What's so wrong with that?

Hiding behind a filibuster to avoid going on the record is about as cowardly an act there is.

Originally posted by LeatherNLace
I see no reason why the Senate should not vote on each and every one of those gun control measures. Little, if any, of them will pass; however, I believe it is important that each and every one of the 100 senators should be on the record as to where they stand on the issues. What's so wrong with that?

Hiding behind a filibuster to avoid going on the record is about as cowardly an act there is.

edit on 9-4-2013 by LeatherNLace because: (no reason given)

Or... using a filibuster to present facts, and actually hold open dialog on the measures being proposed. Apparently you aren't aware of how our congress works. They draft bills, don't read them, and then ram them through without any opposition. I'm all for opposition against gun control, especially since it's an infringement on the rights granted to us by the constitution. I don't know about you, but that document still matters to me.

reply to post by LeatherNLace

Hiding behind a filibuster to avoid going on the record is about as cowardly an act there is.

Actually hiding behind government, and its "laws" is a cowardly act there is, it is even more cowardly when congressman hide behind their secret service details, fully armed with full auto weapons.

Laws didn't stop Aurora,Newton, and more bigger laws aren't going to stop any more of them from happening.

reply to post by eXia7


The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.

reply to post by eXia7
I swear, why don't Obama and Reid just publicly announce a dictatorial takeover and quit pussy footing around? I don't understand why they're even pretending we have other duly elected representatives and a process they are legally obliged to follow anymore, cuz Lord knows they surely laugh at the idea!

reply to post by Hopechest

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

Really sitting there saying congress gets to DICTATE what rights we have and what we don't ?

Uh no our rights don't come from congress, they never have.

Well this the crap that we elect into government that turn around and try to undermine the constitution and do anything they can to impose their own fundamentalist views, then people still wonder about who are the terrorist in the nation, well they are within our own government destroying anything they can before establishing their own agendas.

This more than just gun control this about Americans been monitored and manipulated while restricting freedoms, the Reconstruction of our nation has begun.

Oh for those who apparently don't know the interstate commerce clause is "what gives" that power to "regulate".

If people want to call everyone being better armed than the average gun owner "regulation".

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7

 

The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.

I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you still believe an AR-15 is an assault rifle? Congress shouldn't be trying to "fix" the constitution, they should be trying to uphold it.

Originally posted by marg6043
Well this the crap that we elect into government that turn around and try to undermine the constitution and do anything they can to impose their own fundamentalist views, then people still wonder about who are the terrorist in the nation, well they are within our own government destroying anything they can before establishing their own agendas.

This more than just gun control this about Americans been monitored and manipulated while restricting freedoms, the Reconstruction of our nation has begun.

Good point, and you gave me a good idea.. I should probably do a really long thread on evidence of the encroaching police state, I just haven't gotten time or the energy to do a lot of research right now. But, you're right... people elect these people usually out of ignorance, then they get in and try and become control freaks... very annoying.

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest

 

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

Really sitting there saying congress gets to DICTATE what rights we have and what we don't ?

Uh no our rights don't come from congress, they never have.

They are not dictating what rights you have, they are making laws which the Congress allows them to do. Nothing in the second amendment says they cannot regulate guns. If it does please show it to me.

How you equate "the right to bear arms" to "the right to bear any and all arms ever invented" confuses me. If the framers wanted that they would have specified that people can own anything they want. The framers were very exact in their language, often debating for days over the use of a single word because of its meaning. I doubt they would have left a whole phrase up to interpretation if that wasn't their original intent.

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7

 

The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.

I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you still believe an AR-15 is an assault rifle? Congress shouldn't be trying to "fix" the constitution, they should be trying to uphold it.

How is Congress trying to fix the Constitution?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congress can regulate firearms. That alone makes it constitutional unless you don't believe in the Supreme Court.

Do you believe the Supreme Court has the power to decide what's constitutional or not?

reply to post by Hopechest

They are not dictating what rights you have,

Yes they are case in point can't buy a gun in this country without the permission of government who set forth a certain criteria of perfection if a person passed that criteria they will be granted the honor of owning a gun.

That is what a background check is guilty until proven innocent.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7

 

The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.

I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you still believe an AR-15 is an assault rifle? Congress shouldn't be trying to "fix" the constitution, they should be trying to uphold it.

How is Congress trying to fix the Constitution?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congress can regulate firearms. That alone makes it constitutional unless you don't believe in the Supreme Court.

Do you believe the Supreme Court has the power to decide what's constitutional or not?

Obama has said himself that the constitution is an "imperfect document". Perhaps "fix" isn't the right word, perhaps I should say undermine instead.

I agree with regulating certain firearms, you know.. RPG, Tanks, Warplanes, Grenades, Fully Automatic weapons and the such. But what is proposed in these bills that have been floating around, especially Feinstein's bill. They pretty much seek to ban everything that isn't a single fire bolt action rifle. Handguns are on the list as well to be banned. So you say it's ok for the Supreme Court to speak for you? The Supreme Court isn't all roses and unicorns sad to say, do you believe that corruption cannot exist there?

Originally posted by neo96
reply to post by Hopechest

 

They are not dictating what rights you have,

Yes they are case in point can't buy a gun in this country without the permission of government who set forth a certain criteria of perfection if a person passed that criteria they will be granted the honor of owning a gun.

That is what a background check is guilty until proven innocent.

And?

Because you have rights in the Constitution does not mean that they cannot be regulated to a certain degree by society.

This was settled in the 1919 Supreme Court case of Schenck v. United States where the Supreme Court said that a person cannot yell fire in a movie theater even though the 1st amendment gives everyone the right to free speech.

Because the second amendment gives everyone the right to bear arms does not mean that the government cannot restrict it in certain instances such as felons, being approved by a background check, or age. Congress is still allowed to regulate although they cannot, nor can a state now, simply abolish weapons as the Heller case showed.

Originally posted by eXia7

Or... using a filibuster to present facts, and actually hold open dialog on the measures being proposed. Apparently you aren't aware of how our congress works. They draft bills, don't read them, and then ram them through without any opposition. I'm all for opposition against gun control, especially since it's an infringement on the rights granted to us by the constitution. I don't know about you, but that document still matters to me.

Apparently, it is you that doesn't understand how congress works. During a filibuster, there is no open dialog and/or debate. Actually, a filibuster is the exact opposite of open dialog and/or debate.

filibuster |ˈfiləˌbəstər|
noun
1. an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures. ie: it was defeated by a Senate filibuster in June.

In other words, a filibuster is an obstructionist tool utilized by those favoring the minority position on a particular issue and the oration is seldom related to the topic at hand. Hell, they've been known to read from the phone book during filibusters. So please, spare us the lesson on the practicality of the filibuster.

On top of that, it's usually the corporate lawyers & lobbyist who draft the bills and not our congressmen. The corporations who employ the lobbyist have entire legal teams specifically task with writing future legislation. Go figure!

Originally posted by Flatfish

Originally posted by eXia7

Or... using a filibuster to present facts, and actually hold open dialog on the measures being proposed. Apparently you aren't aware of how our congress works. They draft bills, don't read them, and then ram them through without any opposition. I'm all for opposition against gun control, especially since it's an infringement on the rights granted to us by the constitution. I don't know about you, but that document still matters to me.

Apparently, it is you that doesn't understand how congress works. During a filibuster, there is no open dialog and/or debate. Actually, a filibuster is the exact opposite of open dialog and/or debate.

filibuster |ˈfiləˌbəstər|
noun
1. an action such as a prolonged speech that obstructs progress in a legislative assembly while not technically contravening the required procedures. ie: it was defeated by a Senate filibuster in June.

In other words, a filibuster is an obstructionist tool utilized by those favoring the minority position on a particular issue and the oration is seldom related to the topic at hand. Hell, they've been known to read from the phone book during filibusters. So please, spare us the lesson on the practicality of the filibuster.

On top of that, it's usually the corporate lawyers & lobbyist who draft the bills and not our congressmen. The corporations who employ the lobbyist have entire legal teams specifically task with writing future legislation. Go figure!

Apparently you didn't watch the last filibuster. glad you can read though.

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7

 

The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.

I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you still believe an AR-15 is an assault rifle? Congress shouldn't be trying to "fix" the constitution, they should be trying to uphold it.

How is Congress trying to fix the Constitution?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congress can regulate firearms. That alone makes it constitutional unless you don't believe in the Supreme Court.

Do you believe the Supreme Court has the power to decide what's constitutional or not?

Obama has said himself that the constitution is an "imperfect document". Perhaps "fix" isn't the right word, perhaps I should say undermine instead.

I agree with regulating certain firearms, you know.. RPG, Tanks, Warplanes, Grenades, Fully Automatic weapons and the such. But what is proposed in these bills that have been floating around, especially Feinstein's bill. They pretty much seek to ban everything that isn't a single fire bolt action rifle. Handguns are on the list as well to be banned. So you say it's ok for the Supreme Court to speak for you? The Supreme Court isn't all roses and unicorns sad to say, do you believe that corruption cannot exist there?

The Supreme Court has already ruled that handguns cannot be banned.

Kind of an uphill battle there. As for Obama saying the Constitution is an imperfect document, well at least he acknowledged it. Lincoln believed the Constitution was nothing more than a guideline for him to follow...a set of recommendations if you will. Many Presidents have different interpretations of what the Constitution is and this is why we have a legislative and judicial branch...to balance everything out.

The Supreme Court is not there to speak for anyone other than the framers of the Constitution. Whatever their current interpretation of it is will decide the laws we have to follow. You may not like this system but it is the one we have.

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Hopechest

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by Hopechest
reply to post by eXia7

 

The Constitution says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't specify which ones and it doesn't say any and all of them.

Of course Congress can regulate gun-control, per the Constitution. As for the Congress, well they are fighting over an issue, as the Congress was designed to do.

This is why the framers designed the system the way they did. The Congress is not supposed to react quickly, they are supposed to debate and discuss whereas the President is given powers so he can react immediately. The Congress is acting pretty much the way they have since their inception.

I'm not sure I understand your position. Do you still believe an AR-15 is an assault rifle? Congress shouldn't be trying to "fix" the constitution, they should be trying to uphold it.

How is Congress trying to fix the Constitution?

The Supreme Court has ruled that the Congress can regulate firearms. That alone makes it constitutional unless you don't believe in the Supreme Court.

Do you believe the Supreme Court has the power to decide what's constitutional or not?

Obama has said himself that the constitution is an "imperfect document". Perhaps "fix" isn't the right word, perhaps I should say undermine instead.

I agree with regulating certain firearms, you know.. RPG, Tanks, Warplanes, Grenades, Fully Automatic weapons and the such. But what is proposed in these bills that have been floating around, especially Feinstein's bill. They pretty much seek to ban everything that isn't a single fire bolt action rifle. Handguns are on the list as well to be banned. So you say it's ok for the Supreme Court to speak for you? The Supreme Court isn't all roses and unicorns sad to say, do you believe that corruption cannot exist there?

The Supreme Court has already ruled that handguns cannot be banned.

Kind of an uphill battle there. As for Obama saying the Constitution is an imperfect document, well at least he acknowledged it. Lincoln believed the Constitution was nothing more than a guideline for him to follow...a set of recommendations if you will. Many Presidents have different interpretations of what the Constitution is and this is why we have a legislative and judicial branch...to balance everything out.

The Supreme Court is not there to speak for anyone other than the framers of the Constitution. Whatever their current interpretation of it is will decide the laws we have to follow. You may not like this system but it is the one we have.

To that I say, I'll believe it when I see it. But, lately everything that has been going on has been unconstitutional, and I haven't heard the Supreme Court step in and put a stop to it.. who knows, perhaps they will someday.