-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
NSSF Warning - Senate plans Universal background check vote TODAY
- Thread starter allen-1
- Start date
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.
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?
![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
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
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
rogues
NES Member
That is waaaay too close.
rogues
NES Member
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.
In any case, any defeat of something this unconstitutional of less than 0-100 is too close in my book.
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
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.
allen-1
NES Member
Whutmeworry
NES Member
"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]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/008.gif "Angry [angry]")
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.
"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.
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.
suspected terrorist. Means you. And me. And the rest of us."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.
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."
You can't write names down on a piece of paper entitled "terror suspects" and say "these people's rights will be denied."
Yeah, that bothers me too.
Yup, I KNOW I fit their agenda too. Good to know I'm in good company.
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.
Similar threads
