Pearl Killer Captured  |   Home  |   ‘Bama to Open Against Wisconsin in Cowboys Stadium in 2015

Reid Kills Assault Weapons Ban

It was an idea so stupid that it didn’t take a single Republican to kill it.

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month.

After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.

Posted by Owen at 2142 hrs
Firearms + Politics + Politics - General

1. Meanwhile over in the House, we have majority leadership hewing to a budget proposal so head-in-the-clouds that even Byron York was on Twitter blasting it as having no practical value; as though Paul Ryan isn’t still walking around with Barack Obama’s footprint on his ass.

   So one side shelves proposals that have no chance of becoming law. The other side doubles down on them.

   Reince Priebus has a lot of work in front of him.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 19, 2013 at 2259 hrs
   
   
   

2. If Obama. Feinstein, et al cannot ban the guns through the legislative process, they will make ammunition scarce and prohibitively expensive. 

   California’s Commission of Fish and Game, Feinstein’s home state, already bans lead ammunition is a large area (roughly from Los Angeles to San Jose) and California’s legislature begins considering Assembly Member Anthony Rendon’s bill mandating use of nonlead ammunition for hunting.  Soon after passage, watch for Obama’s EPA to model an new national lead ammo ban.  Collection points for the ‘poison’ bullets will not be far behind. 

   4 years ago, I would have been headed for the rubber room for suggesting such far fetched ideas, not anymore.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2013 at 0517 hrs
   
   
   

3. Yes… Liberals equate balancing a budget in ten years to having head in the clouds…

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2013 at 0656 hrs
   
   
   

4. Sorry, Smeety—that’s not Ryan’s only problem.

   He proposes to completely fund ObozoCare (forgetting the GOP’s promise to DE-fund it); his plan increases FedGov spending by 3++%/annum; and he assumes GDP growth every year of the 10 years.

   It is “Democrat Lite”.

   As to the main topic:  not to worry.  The 5th-grader “understanding” of the 2A will return in the Senate, when it’s less visible.

   Posted by dad29 on March 20, 2013 at 0702 hrs
   
   
   

5. That’s alright RS, I’m sure the Senate will put out a perfectly resonable and responsible budget

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2013 at 0723 hrs
   
   
   

6. The difference is rather simple, RS.  The ability of Republican senators and representatives to oppose gun control is unlimited. They can cheerfully allow any such measures to come up for a vote and vote against them on principle.  Most upsetting to you they claim the moral high ground when doing so and then get to brag about it in the next election.

   The ability of the Democrats to oppose budgeting is not unlimited. They don’t want to go on record voting against any measure that might result in a balanced budget regardless of the budgeting assumptions.

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2013 at 0802 hrs
   
   
   

7. If Gruber played the horn as poorly as he does political analysis, he would starve.

   Posted by Badger on March 20, 2013 at 0825 hrs
   
   
   

8. Nice straw man Smeety, but that isn’t at all what I said. And you missed York’s point entirely. A proposal that “balances” the budget in ten years based on the presumption that the ACA will be overturned and on an income tax scheme of 10%/25% is most definitely head in the clouds. It has zero shot of becoming law. And yet, the House GOP will talk about it as though it’s something more than what it really is: a tilting-at-windmills philosophical exercise.

   I absolutely believe the federal budget can be balanced in ten years. It’d be nice if those discussions were focused on outcomes that were actually possible in a bipartisan political environment. What Paul Ryan proposes is no more realistic than the Democrats showing up tomorrow with a plan that retires our debt by levying a one-time $16 trillion surcharge on the ten wealthiest Americans.

   Paul Ryan is sadly embracing the legacy of his mentor, Jack Kemp; a guy who fell short as a politician because he struggled to rectify his vision for the future with the political constraints of his time in order to accomplish anything tangible.

   Posted by Recess Supervisor on March 20, 2013 at 0928 hrs
   
   
   

9. So, allowing people to keep three of every four dollars earned (FED only) is head in clouds? 

   This is where the left is taking us…. Right off the edge…

   Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2013 at 1003 hrs
   
   
   

10. Nice straw man Smeety, but that isn’t at all what I said.

    Please ignore this guy. He’s a troll incapable of intelligent dialog.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2013 at 1607 hrs
    
    
    

11. Recess Supervisor a troll?
    Not in my opinion.

    He’s experienced in a way 99.9% of the board isn’t and brings common sense to a board of knuckle draggers on both sides .

     

     

     

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2013 at 1723 hrs
    
    
    

12. ignore Smeety. RS is the most level headed, and logical person who posts on this site.  My apologies for any confusion.

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 20, 2013 at 1735 hrs
    
    
    

13. Heh…

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 21, 2013 at 0825 hrs
    
    
    

14. http://www.youtube.com/embed/9RABZq5IoaQ?feature=player_embedded

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on March 22, 2013 at 1511 hrs
    
    
    

Commenting is not available in this channel entry.