"Assault Weapons" Ban & UBC in U.S. Senate

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I did not take this the way you did. McConnell is a clever guy and has survived for a long time. I think he is laying a trap for the Democrats. Assault Weapons ban probably does not even have 40 votes, but he can maybe get some Presidential contenders on record, which will alienate the voters in WI, MI, and PA that they will need to win.
     

    PowPow

    Where's the beef?
    Nov 22, 2012
    4,712
    Howard County
    It sounds like this time he will be bringing this dreck to the floor. It needs to stay dead and buried where it belongs.
     

    PowPow

    Where's the beef?
    Nov 22, 2012
    4,712
    Howard County
    From the article:

    The Courier-Journal reports that McConnell was a guest on the Louisville, KY, Terry Meiners Show where he said, “What we can’t do is fail to pass something,” adding, “The urgency of this is not lost on any of us.”

    This doesn't sounds like cleverness to me, but we'll see.
     

    rockstarr

    Major Deplorable
    Feb 25, 2013
    4,592
    The Bolshevik Lands
    I don't see a ban passing, nor do I see trump signing it if it did.

    I actually think a ban would gather more than 40 votes however.

    I bet Murkowski an Collins would vote for it.

    id put it at closer to 48-52 in favor. give or take a vote or 2 maybe.

    trump knows its a death sentence for his 2020 campaign if a ban were to pass and him sign it though.

    I wouldn't worry.
     

    ToolAA

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 17, 2016
    10,500
    God's Country
    I don't see a ban passing, nor do I see trump signing it if it did.



    I actually think a ban would gather more than 40 votes however.



    I bet Murkowski an Collins would vote for it.



    id put it at closer to 48-52 in favor. give or take a vote or 2 maybe.



    trump knows its a death sentence for his 2020 campaign if a ban were to pass and him sign it though.



    I wouldn't worry.



    Not so sure about the Trump statement. I stated somewhere in the forum during the campaign that while I support Trump as president I do not believe that he actually understand or respects the constitution. I believe he views it like a business contract. One where it’s language can be subject to interpretation. He will cite it’s contents when it suits his goals and he will evade it’s implications when it doesn’t. In some respects this makes him remarkably similar to just about every other politician in DC.

    So don’t count on a veto by T45 if some sort of restrictive bill lands on his desk.

    Furthermore even if he does sign a bill restricting 2A rights I do not think it will have any significant negative bearing on his chances of being elected. The states where he is most likely to win already are the ones where the most ardent 2A supporters reside. He will still win those states by double digits. It’s the battleground states where there are independent voters and moderate republicans that might support more restrictions and their support would likely offset the minority in those states who moved into the “Never Trump” camp in response to his support of restrictions.
     

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    Not so sure about the Trump statement. I stated somewhere in the forum during the campaign that while I support Trump as president I do not believe that he actually understand or respects the constitution. I

    The whole reason we need a constitution is because politicians, regardless of affiliation, have not respected rights. This has been true for millennia. The constitution was designed to restrict government precisely for this reason. The question is really: how will his appointments enforce the constitution. That remains to be seen.
     

    ToolAA

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 17, 2016
    10,500
    God's Country
    The whole reason we need a constitution is because politicians, regardless of affiliation, have not respected rights. This has been true for millennia. The constitution was designed to restrict government precisely for this reason. The question is really: how will his appointments enforce the constitution. That remains to be seen.


    I will NOT go as far to claim like the left that Trump is actually and intentionally working to dismantle the constitution. I think his primary instinct is to reach his stated goals by whatever means necessary but on terms which he views as a net Win in terms of making the deal. He is actually very simple and predictable in this way.

    Obama was supposedly a constitutional scholar so I find some of his actions a little more reprehensible that Trumps.
    So I agree it’s up to those who do understand the ramifications to advise the president. What disturbs me most about Trump is the perception that his subordinates seem to be thrown under the bus by Trump when they try to operate within the bounds of the constitution and those actions are perceived as insubordinate by Trump.

    When reflecting on his approach I tell myself I would much rather have the chaos of Trump than the appearance of governmental harmony while the powers that be, work behind the scenes to wither away our rights.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,179
    Sun City West, AZ
    The last thing Obama was was a Constitutional scholar. He had absolutely no respect for the Constitution unless it served his purposes. He would ignore court decisions that he didn't like. The DACA program was illegal...it was born from his Executive Order not from legislation action as the Constitution requires. He several times lamented he wasn't an Emperor. He was on record prior to his election that he thought the Constitution was a "charter of negative rights" in that in his view it unduly restricted the government from doing what it wanted.

    Between Obama's election and inauguration two of his campaign and transition officials said "under Obama's rule" when answering questions about his priorities. While maybe unintentional wording it did signal a mindset within the Obama camp.

    Barack Obama was an abomination to Constitutional principles. While I believe Jimmy Carter was feckless and and ineffective President I do not believe he intended to be that nor to harm the nation. Barack Obama intentionally wanted to harm the country and turn it into a leftist utopia.
     
    Last edited:

    danb

    dont be a dumbass
    Feb 24, 2013
    22,704
    google is your friend, I am not.
    I will NOT go as far to claim like the left that Trump is actually and intentionally working to dismantle the constitution. I think his primary instinct is to reach his stated goals by whatever means necessary but on terms which he views as a net Win in terms of making the deal. He is actually very simple and predictable in this way.

    Obama was supposedly a constitutional scholar so I find some of his actions a little more reprehensible that Trumps.
    So I agree it’s up to those who do understand the ramifications to advise the president. What disturbs me most about Trump is the perception that his subordinates seem to be thrown under the bus by Trump when they try to operate within the bounds of the constitution and those actions are perceived as insubordinate by Trump.

    When reflecting on his approach I tell myself I would much rather have the chaos of Trump than the appearance of governmental harmony while the powers that be, work behind the scenes to wither away our rights.

    You miss the point. It does not matter whether people are scholars or not. People run for office to "do something" and the incentives of office are such that they try to use the powers of the office to do whatever needs to be done at the moment. Rights be damned. Democrats or Republicans both will grab your constitutional rights for public safety. It does not matter if they supposedly "know better" the incentives of the office transforms people. They are going to try because they can wield the power.

    If humans were angels, or ruled by them, we would not need power distributed among branches and a constitution.

    As I said, the question is not whether politicians will try to trample rights if its convenient, the question is how will his Judicial appointments enforce the constitution?
     

    press1280

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 11, 2010
    7,878
    WV
    My question is whether there will be some attempt at a compromise (UBC for National Reciprocity) or whether it'll just be a total gun control bill :(
     

    teratos

    My hair is amazing
    MDS Supporter
    Patriot Picket
    Jan 22, 2009
    59,775
    Bel Air
    I wonder how the Courts would see it. Also whether pro-gun States would nullify it.
     

    TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,179
    Sun City West, AZ
    My question is whether there will be some attempt at a compromise (UBC for National Reciprocity) or whether it'll just be a total gun control bill :(

    The Republicans might ask for that and the Democrats will compromise by flat out refusing and then the GOP will say "OK...we tried". Then they'll roll over and we won't even have the opportunity to get butter.

    That's compromise by DC standards.
     

    ToolAA

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Jun 17, 2016
    10,500
    God's Country
    You miss the point. It does not matter whether people are scholars or not. People run for office to "do something" and the incentives of office are such that they try to use the powers of the office to do whatever needs to be done at the moment. Rights be damned. Democrats or Republicans both will grab your constitutional rights for public safety. It does not matter if they supposedly "know better" the incentives of the office transforms people. They are going to try because they can wield the power.

    If humans were angels, or ruled by them, we would not need power distributed among branches and a constitution.

    As I said, the question is not whether politicians will try to trample rights if its convenient, the question is how will his Judicial appointments enforce the constitution?


    I did indeed miss your point and agree that once politicians find themselves in positions of power the will sometimes work to circumvent the systems in place. Trump is no different.

    Judicial appointments are the main reason I support Trump and will likely continue to support him in 2020.
     

    smokey

    2A TEACHER
    Jan 31, 2008
    31,412
    What is this now, 4 d chess....5d? I'm not sure how many. I just know we're going to end up getting D'd
     

    jcutonilli

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 28, 2013
    2,474
    Didn't the supreme court rule that something thats in common use cannot be banned? I believe I read somewhere that there are around 80 million "assault weapons" in the US

    The Supreme Court has not ruled on "assault weapons". They have found that arms in common use are protected. The problem is that many lower courts have found that even if they are protected, the laws banning them meet the intermediate scrutiny standard and are found constitutional. DC, MD, NY, CT, MA, Highland Park are all examples places with laws that the lower court has found constitutional. The Supreme Court has not taken any of these cases (The MA case is currently going through the cert process)
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,930
    Messages
    7,259,487
    Members
    33,350
    Latest member
    Rotorboater

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom