Posted on 01/08/2013 4:06:24 PM PST by Red Steel
McCAIN MAY BE WORKING TO STAB US IN THE BACK
It was reported yesterday that Vice President Joe Biden “guaranteed” to ailing Boston Mayor Tom Menino that sweeping gun control legislation would be passed by the end of January.
How sweeping?
A quick look at Feinstein’s semi-auto ban legislation suggests that up to 75% of all handguns currently in circulation would be banned, along with 50% of all long guns.
Depending on its configuration, the AR-15 you already have would probably be treated like a machine gun. You would have to be fingerprinted, background checked by the FBI, and undergo a six-month license application process to keep it. And when you die, the government will seize it.
If you don’t get an NFA license, you can expect the SWAT teams to descend on your house.
But, you ask, how could such rabidly anti-gun legislation ever get past Congress?
For an answer, look at what happened on the fiscal cliff.
The Senate would change its rules so that it could pass a gun ban with only 50 votes (plus the vote of Vice President Joe Biden) -– or so that you could write the gun ban in a House-Senate conference committee on a must-pass bill. Democrats like West Virginia’s Joe Manchin, Nevada’s Harry Reid, and Pennsylvania’s Bob Casey — who will not have to run for reelection for awhile –- will cast “courageous” votes for this gun ban.
And it will hit the House with enormous momentum –- momentum which House Speaker John Boehner (who has already called for a dialogue on gun control) may not have the courage to resist.
But the first step will be to demolish the Senate rules so that gun control only requires 50 votes -– or so that gun control can be inserted in the conference report on a must-pass bill. And this is where John McCain comes in.
McCain is angry that Kentucky Senator Rand Paul worked with Gun Owners of America on a variety of pro-gun issues that slowed down his defense funding bill. And it is no secret why McCain loves House-Senate conferences: Just last month, he and Armed Services Chairman Carl Levin used the DoD conference to demolish position adopted by Senate supermajorities, including the prohibition on indefinitely detaining American citizens without trial. Therefore, McCain and Levin are out to punish Paul and GOA for opposing his legislation to indefinitely detain American citizens.
So they are working together on a series of rules changes to, inter alia, make gun control a lot easier to pass.
The first McCain-Levin rules change would make it impossible to fight a motion to proceed to gun control legislation. Remember ObamaCare? Our last real shot to kill ObamaCare was by filibustering the motion to proceed to it. Once the motion to proceed was adopted, the bill became amendable and Harry Reid could play “let’s-make-a-deal.”
The second McCain-Levin rules change would make it easier to add gun control to a bill in conference. Currently, senators can block a conference. If the McCain proposals are adopted, a must-pass bill could be sent to conference, amended in conference with a draconian gun ban, and then sent back to the House and the Senate on a take-it-or-leave-it basis.
McCain will try to tell you that that would be outside the “scope of conference.” But “scope of conference” rules are never followed. Gramm-Rudman was written in conference from the ground up.
The third McCain-Levin rules change would block any amendments except for those Leader McConnell and Manager McCain proposed. All other senators would be out in the cold.
This McCain-Levin package must be stopped.
Senator Rand Paul is currently planning to offer an amendment requiring a two-thirds vote in the Senate before any anti-gun measure can be passed.
I know. I know. If it were up to me, gun control would not be able to be passed with 100 votes. But we need to propose something which will pass the Senate.
So this is the “day of march.” We saw, with the resolution of the fiscal cliff debate, how the diminution of the Senate rules (and Republican courage) can lead to historically bad results.
But if conservatives allow these rules changes to be implemented, they have no reason to complain when the rules allow them to be defeated in battles over the debt limit, the continuing resolution, and sequestration.
In those battles, the rules -– which are now up for debate -– will determine whether we win or lose.
The only vote I ever cast that I regret. I was suckered into voting for him by Sarah Palin. And it’s obvious I wasted my vote.
And so are all the conveniences that allow them to be so confident. Ever have so many small, usually insignificant things go wrong at once that you felt that you must have a Kick Me sign on your back. If that happens over and over, and costs a little money when it does, nerves start to get raw. You start thinking about what you ought to do different. You go on defense.
It is a valid opinion that the 2008 election offered a choice between two men who, if elected, would likely become The Worst President In The History of The United States.
John Sidney McCain is a vindictive, narrow-minded and tyrannical opportunist who could've destroyed the USA by accident. Barack Hussein Obama, of course, is even worse.
+1
“It will not make it through the House regardless. FU mccain.”
We’ve been screwed so often by our “friends” that getting blindsided would not be surprizing.
Bingo.
I guess the only ones surprised are Sarah Palin and the Republican primary voters in AZ.
I picture in the same position as Mussolini’s wife upside down on a telephone pole.
I’m not sure a rules change matters because McC never does filibusters anyway. He goes back to Louisville every weekend, or did.
And guess who will end up with the swat teams full auto toys and other goodies!
Not all us Zonies cast our our for his last election to the senate. I sure as hell didn’t.
Voted for ‘him’ with Palin. Said never again and followed through.
An ideological cross-section? What, from communist to fascist?
TSome of the ones who have served a long time have to pretend to be persuaded...
Barack Obama 4/25/05: “The President hasn’t gotten his way. And that is now prompting a change in the Senate rules that really I think would change the character of the Senate forever…what I worry about would be that you essentially still have two chambers the House and the Senate but you have simply majoritarian absolute power on either side, and that’s just not what the founders intended.”
Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “So this president has come to the majority here in the Senate and basically said ‘change the rules.’ ‘Do it the way I want it done.’ And I guess there just weren’t very many voices on the other side of the isle that acted the way previous generations of senators have acted and said ‘Mr. President we are with you, we support you, but that’s a bridge too far we can’t go there.’ You have to restrain yourself Mr. President.
Charles Schumer 5/18/2005: “We are on the precipice of a crisis, a constitutional crisis. The checks and balances which have been at the core of this Republic are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. The checks and balances which say that if you get 51% of the vote you don’t get your way 100% of the time. It is amazing it’s almost a temper tantrum.
Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “Mr. President the right to extended debate is never more important than the one party who controls congress and the white house. In these cases the filibuster serves as a check on power and preserves our limited government.”
Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: The nuclear option if successful will turn the Senate into a body that could have its rules broken at any time by a majority of senators unhappy with any position taken by the minority. It begins with judicial nominations. Next will be executive appointments and then legislation.
Joe Biden 5/23/2005: This nuclear option is ultimately an example of the arrogance of power. It is a fundamental power grab.
Harry Reid 5/18/2005: “But no we are not going to follow the Senate rules. No, because of the arrogance of power of this Republican administration.”
Chris Dodd 5/18/2005: “I’ve never passed a single bill worth talking about that didn’t have a lead co sponsor that was a Republican. And I don’t know of a single piece of legislation that’s ever been adopted here that didn’t have a Republican and Democrat in the lead. That’s because we need to sit down and work with each other. The rules of this institution have required that. That’s why we exist. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about 218 years ago? They understood Mr. President that there is a tyranny of the majority.
Dianne Feinstein 5/18/2005: “If the Republican leadership insists on forcing the nuclear option the senate becomes ipso facto the House of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party of power can dominate and control the agenda with absolute power.”
Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “You’ve got majority rule and then you have the senate over here where people can slow things down where they can debate where they have something called the filibuster. You know it seems like it’s a little less than efficient — well that’s right it is. And deliberately designed to be so.”
Joe Biden 5/23/05: “I say to my friends on the Republican side you may own the field right now buy you won’t own it forever I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don’t make the kind of naked power grab you are doing.”
Charles Schumer 5/23/2005: “They want their way every single time. And they will change the rules, break the rules, and misread the constitution so that they will get their way.”
Hillary Clinton 5/23/2005: “The Senate is being asked to turn itself inside out, to ignore the precedent to ignore the way our system has work, the delicate balance that we have obtain that has kept this constitution system going, for immediate gratification of the present President.”
Max Baucus 5/19/2005: “This is the way Democracy ends. Not with a bomb but with a gavel.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7X3lQ...=youtube_gdata
I had a couple other folks on another thread telling me that an AWB will never pass so we are all worried about nothing...
Yeah, I called ‘em “idiots” too so don’t feel bad about thinkin’ it.
Depends on how frightened they are.
Of the media. An of us.
If you don’t get an NFA license, you can expect the SWAT teams to descend on your house.
Dear Mr. Security Agent: A letter to law enforcement
“They had best be careful what they wish for. Actions have consequences. The consequences of this one are beyond fathonable.”
“Unintended” consequences, surely!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.