Senate Democrats Drop Assault Weapons Ban from Gun Bill

[onwebcam]

"Senate Democrats today dropped a controversial proposal to ban assault weapons from a gun control bill they plan to introduce on the floor of the Senate in April.

The decision to drop ban indicated that Democrats could sense that the overall bill likely had no chance of passing with an assault weapons language included.

"I'm not going to try to put something on the floor that won't succeed," said Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev. "I want something that will succeed. The worst thing in the world would be to bring something to the floor and it dies there. I am working to put something together than can get 60 votes on the floor."

http://gma.yahoo.com/senate-democrat...-politics.html

[Rochard]

Yes, because I need my AR15... Just in case Mexico invades. Or those damn pesky Canadians!

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yes, because I need my AR15... Just in case Mexico invades. Or those damn pesky Canadians!

just want to keep my guns

[tony286]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yes, because I need my AR15... Just in case Mexico invades. Or those damn pesky Canadians!

You forgot to over throw the government.

[kane]

I think this was pretty inevitable and I think the democrats knew it before they even wrote the bill. It was posturing. They knew there was no way they would get this through the house and senate in the current political climate so they added it to appease some of their base and then later dropped it as a "show of good faith."

[Vendzilla]

Originally Posted by kane

I think this was pretty inevitable and I think the democrats knew it before they even wrote the bill. It was posturing. They knew there was no way they would get this through the house and senate in the current political climate so they added it to appease some of their base and then later dropped it as a "show of good faith."

The last time they tried the ban on assault weapons, it cost a lot of democratic seats

[kane]

Originally Posted by Vendzilla

The last time they tried the ban on assault weapons, it cost a lot of democratic seats

They did, but I think there was more to it than just the the assault weapons ban. The republicans hated Clinton and it was a mid-term election which normally goes against the party that holds the white house.

Things are different now. There is actually a lot of support for an assault weapons ban right now. Depending on which poll you read anywhere between 40-55% of those polled support assault weapons bans. Of course, these polls can be very subjective depending on how you word them so you have to take them with a grain of salt. Still, the fallout might not be as bad and could actually benefit them in some areas.

I think the democrats are working hard to paint clear differences between them and the republicans for the next mid-term election. They need a big turn out in order to hold the senate and give them any shot at taking back the house or gaining seats in the house. In order to do that they need to activate the base of the liberal party. That why I think this was always nothing more than a stunt. They get the benefit of trying without the potential fallout of succeeding and they can now stand in front of their supporters and say, "The evil republicans want to sell machine guns to everyone. We tried to stop them!"

Just my 2cents

[brassmonkey]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yes, because I need my AR15... Just in case Mexico invades. Or those damn pesky Canadians!

its not the governments right to punish gun owners that follow the law. and the law wont affect guns already owned

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by kane

anywhere between 40-55% of those polled support assault weapons bans

Getting away from the weapons controversy for a second...Should the govt. ever be taking "action" on anything that 60 to 45 percent of people don't want them touching anyway?

With all the laws and rules and shit that they have passed over the years on local, state, and federal levels about EVERYTHING...I'm starting to think it's less about the "role" of govt. and more about is there any "role" left for a so-called "free" person in our society?

Seems like everything is controlled by the govt. these days. You would think we would have evolved to more freedom over time...but it looks like we are devolving to less personal freedom and more govt. oversight and control.

[kane]

Originally Posted by Robbie

Getting away from the weapons controversy for a second...Should the govt. ever be taking "action" on anything that 60 to 45 percent of people don't want them touching anyway?

With all the laws and rules and shit that they have passed over the years on local, state, and federal levels about EVERYTHING...I'm starting to think it's less about the "role" of govt. and more about is there any "role" left for a so-called "free" person in our society?

Seems like everything is controlled by the govt. these days. You would think we would have evolved to more freedom over time...but it looks like we are devolving to less personal freedom and more govt. oversight and control.

I agree fully. If a poll shows that 40% of the people support something those politicians that also support that will use this as a way to "prove" there is support for their position when the reality is that 60% of the people don't want it.

I think there are some cases where there is room for the legal system to step in so as to protect those in the minority from mob rule, but it seems like the leadership treats the people like they are 5-year-old kids. If we don't let them do what they want they punish us and try to force us to do so.

Look at the current forced budget cuts. One of the first things I read was how generals and other commanders were told to tell the troops on the ground in combat areas to conserve bullets and gas because they will be rationed now that there are cuts to the budget. We could handle 100% of the budget cuts to the military just by choosing to build a few less fighters or one less ship, but instead they want the new to show the story of how the horrible budget cuts are putting soldiers in harms way.

[Rochard]

Not my problem what we allow our kids to play with... This fucker had 110 round drums and was planning to kill lots of people....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,7559657.story

[baddog]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Not my problem what we allow our kids to play with... This fucker had 110 round drums and was planning to kill lots of people....

http://www.latimes.com/news/nation/n...,7559657.story

What does that have to do with banning weapons from people that do not have that kind of evil intent? Do we just ban everything that might possibly be used in a terrible way?

[- Jesus Christ -]

Instead of looking at the psychological abuse the public education system inflicts on children we have loud mouth, short sighted fools attempting ban things.