he is old enough to remember 1994..

It is called progress.

if those Dems were replaced considering their districts. How about we keep Dems in those districts as they can do much more good on the many other more important issues ahead..

TheNRA was the big loser yesterday.

The poison pen amendment they tried to sneak through.

Once I heard about it, that day was hoping this whole thing would fail.

Because the NRA has been trying to get that for decades.

To obliterate the NY/California laws.

Now it failed. And will never happen.

NRA=big loser of the war, even if they won the small battle yesterday, that would have been defeated in the house anyhow.

Most people who love guns, probably don't even realize how big a loss the NRA sustained yesterday. But luckily, I do not like guns. So I see it very clearly.

NRA=LOSER

AND-that is the reason Joe S. is so fuming mad. He must see it too.

What would be great would be if they could designate the NRA a terror org. And freeze their assets, audit them, do a money trail and make donating to them, akin to donating to OBL

Gun people need to free themselves from their prisons of being beholden to the gun.

Why would anyone want one?

All the NRA has is their $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to blackmail.
Blackmailers are terrorists.

Finally in 2014 the Great Equalizer will take away that advantage like never before

It beholds the person to be on the side of MORE money than the side of the NRA who will have less money.

Last edited Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:13 PM - Edit history (1)

which is what you seem not to get. Even if the Heller case is overturned, it merely would clear the way for legislatures to enact certain restrictions. But you still need to get legislatures to do that and, most importantly, you need national legislation. But the problem with passing national gun legislation isn't the Second Amendment. Indeed, if Heller is overturned, you can expect in very short order to see a massive campaign orchestrated by the NRA and the Republican party to pass a national law preempting restrictive gun legislation. I don't know that such legislation could succeed, but it will mean that the chances of peeling off votes to pass national gun laws won't be getting any easier -- at least not until the voters make gun legislation enough of a priority as to force the hands of their elected officials.



edited to add the most necessary word "not" to the subject line. My bad.

by that time it will be 75-25 or 80-20

President Obama always crosses the T's and Dot's the I's.

That is what those against him always forget about.
He does things in ways that are not this particular moment obvious.

Like the health care.
The Court ratified it.

This will happen.
And out of the box, what NYC is talking about can remove all guns from the streets. All of them.
If one really wants it, there are ways to make it occur.

Classic.

that you're dreaming if you think a court decision holding that the 2nd Amendment apply to individual gun ownership will result in the NRA being gone.

I missed it, but did the Supreme Court upholding the right to abortion make anti-abortion groups disappear? If the court reverses itself and makes it legal to restrict abortion do you think NARAL just vanishes "poof" into thin air?

You have the reasoning skills of an adolescent.

What SCOTUS says holds. Reinterpretation and nothing gunnies like mean anything.
Because What SCOTUS says holds.

That poison pen was the single worst thing that could have happened.

It was voted down.

Thank God for Harry Reid not giving up the 60.

The NRA lost big time.
They have lost the war

Though 35 a day, 100s wounded, others dying from gun suicides, 1000s of families in mourning
will continue til President Hillary Rodham Clinton is in office, and SCOTUs including Justice Obama rerules on the 2nd.

Supreme Court trumps.

All it takes is one. And it will happen during the regime of Hillary Clinton 2017-2025.

what you'll get is a long rambling love fest of his favorite pols.
I've yet to get anything remotely coherent from him when I ask straight forward questions, but maybe you'll have better luck.

should never own a gun.

Your opinions are....very interesting.

Wait. What?

and under the 2nd, why couldn't we?

The reinterpretation is coming. No matter what anyone who doesn't want it to happen says so or not.

Unless of course Jeb Bush is president. Or Rubio. Or Christie. Or Rand Paul.

as you seem to assume. It simply clears the path for more legislative battles that we are no more likely to win than before unless we do a better job of mobilizing voters to make gun regulation a priority matter in elections.

and no reinterpretation of the 2nd is coming anytime soon.

The 1st amendment is never absolute.
Major exceptions

The 2nd will be the same
Major exceptions (like private people.) Militias=national guard not the kookie constitutionalists who probably never read the constitution

After all, dueling is now illegal.
Alexander Hamilton probably wishes it was then.

"ahem", President Obama, says that the 2A is an individual right.
How do you wrap your head around that one?

And their votes. This is the Senate, where rural red gun toting states have disproportionate power, aggravated by the filibuster.

If the NRA were so powerful, it could control blue areas too. The voters of those states enable this. They have disproportionate power by the very nature of the Senate. SD and Wyoming, Arkansas and Alaska, have two Senators each, and so do New York, California, Illinois. It is not Harry Reid's fault the Founders decided states could have equal power in the Senate. Thus low population states have as much say as high population states.

And the Senators do what they do so they can be re-elected.

We need to stop blaming Reid and the Democrats for this mess. It just lets the Republicans off the hook for their obstructionism and creating these legislative trainwrecks in Congress. This isn't over yet. The public is still overwhelmingly on our side on this issue and if there is any issue that could help with Democratic turnout in 2014, this would be a powerful one.

and a good Senator who had the power to stop the obstruction, and didn't even try?

This needed 60 votes to pass.

Quote: "It just lets the Republicans off the hook for their obstructionism"

BTW - if Reid had kept his promise, we would have had true filibuster reform, and it would have taken only 50 votes. You knew that...

and made matters worse.
It got 57.
It needed 60

Thank God for Harry Reid being firm and having the foresight to see ahead.

And I let Harry Reid know that I think he is great!
I support Harry Reid 100%.

When one realizes what one can lose with the 60, it far outweighs what one can win.
Because the house would have not gone along anyhow.

with the extremists making up the 20
and those wanting FORWARD movement positive instead of whining about things that cannot change and ending up obstructing the 80 need to do it.

It will take continuous democratic presidents and a change in SCOTUS

How did that Ralph Nader throwing the election and giving us Alito and Roberts do?

We could have had 2 more Thurgood Marshall's instead.

the back and forth presidents don't work

Continuous agenda of Barack Obama to last forever and everything will change for the better

80-20 is needed with Hillary Clinton.

And a new Ted Kennedy is needed, and I hope Elizabeth Warren is that voice from the senate for decades to come.

What is also needed is a daily tote board of all those killed by guns and wounded
In an upward running total

And ads against every single pro-gun candidate in the house and senate.


If we can get 70 senators, that speak in unison, then 60 is attainable.
and then get rid of those that won't.

Remember when Rush Limbaugh said that President Obama wants to annhiliate the republican party politicians? DAMN RIGHT I want that to happen.
Most normal republican people don't agree with their leaders.
Perhaps 15 to 20% of them do. The rest don't.

We need to be 80-20 instead of 50-50

If Harry Reid had the votes to reform the filibuster and purposely defeated the efforts, then, fine, o.k. I see your point. However, my understanding of the situation at the time is that Reid supported efforts to reform the filibuster, along with several freshman Senators but a lot of Blue Dog and "old guard" Democrats (i.e. Feinstein, Levin) didn't and the stronger measure ultimately would not pass, so they had to settle for another "weak tea" agreement with the GOP that is obviously not working out. I don't believe that Harry Reid is "evil" and/or purposely attempting to sabotage reform but I see a lot of people here seem to believe that he is essentially conspiring with McConnell and the Republican Tea Party to thwart the will of the public. I'm sorry but I just don't see that. Lots of people assume the worst about President Obama as well and think that he's basically longing for every opportunity to engage in some "hippie-punching" and I just don't see that either.

and not getting that bill passed?

No penalty?

Now what ratio of people, in your experience, do what they say they are planning on doing, at all times?

50/50? 60/40? 80/20? 90/10?

Since we know that people don't always do what they say they'll do, and since there is no penalty for bringing up a vote, then why not make the Senators vote, going on record and making them take responsibility for a position taken? Facing voter backlash over an unpopular vote my be just the push we need to get some shit done!

The cost of failure is moot, because not having tried is failure in itself.

and I guess if you thought that putting something up for a vote knowing that it will fail would produce sufficient backlash for its later success it would be a good idea (like say, the gun bill that was procedurally defeated yesterday). However, filibuster reform is not something that most people are all that "plugged into" and why waste the time on a vote that is going nowhere (not saying I necessarily agree with the mindset but just saying what might have been going through their heads)? I do agree with you in principle that we should be putting more things up for votes and letting the chips fall where they may but I suspect that members of Congress aren't much interested in voting on things that they know aren't going to pass. I'm sure that, aside from embarrassing the President and Democrats, one of the chief reasons that the Republicans are busy filibustering stuff is that they know that they're going to be on the wrong side of public opinion on many up-or-down votes, so they make sure that they don't happen in the first place. I'm sure that they also take considerable pleasure in watching us chew out President Obama and the Democrats in the Senate instead of attacking them and their rampant obstructionism. I'm sure that they also don't want the House to feel any heat from the Senate to have to take action on anything the Senate passes since Boehner has adopted a "Let's wait and see what the Senate does" attitude towards taking up highly charged issues.

Place the blame on the NRA

and remember-without the 60 needed, the poison pen amendment would have passed,
and moved states like NY and California 50 years backward.

Now we have the anger, and it will motivate the base for 2014 to get the republicans and NRA stooges out of office.

What is really needed is a major liberal who can replace long term Teddy Kennedy to twist arms. I am hoping that person will be Elizabeth Warren. She should take up this issue and be the long term new Teddy.

That is what is missing from the democratic senate.

But the house would have vetoed this and it wouldn't have happened.

The 2nd needs reinterpretation and then the NRA will be firmly departed.

No one is going to give a shit about this in November 2014.

and I expect we will lose some seats.

If we lose the Senate, it will be an opportunity for a change in leadership. Not sure if that will be worth it or not.

I find some DUers' perceptions of how Congress works to be pretty funny.

someone else could be leader?

We were told to shut up and that everything would be fine.

I wonder what those people would say now.

Last edited Thu Apr 18, 2013, 01:20 PM - Edit history (1)

And for good reason.

Its not a popular position, but I'm going to defend Reid and the handling of the filibuster --- but only up to a point.

First, it was never clear that Reid had the votes of his own caucus for getting rid of the filibuster or even substantially revising the rules(and, indeed, seemed rather apparent that he didn't).

Second, despite what people seem to be assuming, even getting rid of the filibuster would not have impacted the substantive outcome of the Manchin/Toomey bill -- it would have never made it out of the House (or would have made it out of the House is a form that actually amounted to a rollback of current protections, forcing Democrats to vote against it). If there is any evidence to suggest otherwise, I'd like to see it.

So we end up with a vote in the Senate that looks like a minority is frustrating the will of the majority, which is probably a better place to be in with respect to trying to move forward in the future than a bill that passes a Senate but fails (or is twisted around) in the House. As we all know, most House members' seats are even more secure than most Senators' seats.

Some here seem to believe that we will be blessed with a Democratic President and/or a Democratic majority in the Senate for the rest of all time. But that's wishful thinking. So Reid and a number of Senators take the long view. Better to keep powder dry on the filibuster and have it available to use if/when the Republicans regain control of the Senate (which, sadly, can't be ruled out in 2014, although I would hope the vote on the gun control bill will help us hold on to Senate control). The alternative would have winning a pyrhhic victory in the Senate on a bill that wouldn't have become law. And that's where Reid is coming from.

Now, that's not to say that there is nothing to be gained from filibuster reform. While it won't help us pass legislation, it would remove a stumbling block to the confirmation of judges and other top officials. Of course, we have used the filibuster to block repub judges and officials in the past, so its a benefit, but one that is nearly equally offset by its cost.

What I do fault Reid on is not pushing for reforms that will make it harder to use the filibuster rather than kill it. If repubs opposing the gun control legislation had to stand up a la Rand Paul and make speech after speech defending their opposition to background checks, the pressure on them to cave or compromise would have grown over time. While changing the rules would mean that in the future Democrats might have to do the same thing (stand and hold the floor) to oppose a Repub majority, I am more comfortable with the notion that we will not be making arguments that lack the support of a substantial majority of the people and, if anything, can use our resistance to the repub proposal to build support for our position.

It's all a big con game. They WANT this neverending stalemate.

1) What could happen in the other house is a pathetic excuse for not doing something.

2) If he can't convince others to vote with him then he shouldn't be leader.

3) Filibuster reform is the latest thing, not the only thing when it comes to Reid's lack of leadership.

4) If the Democrats want him as leader then they must be okay with not getting anything done, which is not an option for a country that is in dire straits.

You should run and then get everyone to agree with you.

But in the meantime, giving up the filibuster card when what we get in return is passage of a bill in the Senate that will be blocked in the House is a very very bad trade particularly when we can still force the Senate repubs to cast votes that can be used as evidence of their frustrating the will of the majority. All the moreso when our own control of the Senate is far from certain in 2014.

I would admit to having a bit of schadenfreude watching somebody the DU brigade thinks would "fight" hit the exact same institutional hurdles Reid had, but it wouldn't actually make any difference.

by reelecting the do-nothing politicians who have made it their goal that nothing gets done.

If Senate Democrats didn't like what he was doing, they would replace him.

couldn't tell...

think about that the next time your SO asks "Do these pants make me look fat?"

The fact is they do. The pants make them look fat.

The truth is you don't care about that, because to you, the SO looks like heaven.

So ...endorsement or criticism? Whats the truth?

51 votes wins. The 60 vote rule is an artificial construct, and has no basis in the Constitution. It is just a "deal," and as usual, Democrats trust that the opposition party is being honest, while the opposition party knows Democrats will always give in.

But all I see is Senators kow-towing to the NRA. If they knew, as apparently everyone else did, that the bill would never get through the House anyway, what was the risk? They could have stood up on principle. Instead, they gave in to the extremists and the lobbyists.

That amendment would have made things 100 times worse.

The whole ballgame has to change. No negotiated law will work.

It has to be 100% because otherwise we get nothing in regard to guns.

Recipricity would have taken down all the already strong states gun laws.
And the NRA has fought for that for decades.

The senators probably didn't even know what it is.
But 57 said yes, and if there wasn't the 60, the NRA would have won

it has to be 100% when one talks about guns.

The system is broken. It's a fucking game for the rich players. They have nothing to lose...they're wealthy beyond belief, and if they lost their jobs tomorrow, they'd still have pensions and health insurance. There is no consequence for being self-serving.

I rarely agree with you on anything, graham. I'm not sure I "agree" with you on this. All I know is that the current system is totally fucked up. Under the GOP majority, every bill passed. Anything Bush wanted passed. If Dick "Dick" Cheney had to come it to break a tie, he did, and the bill passed. Now, we're held hostage to the 60-vote "rule," which isn't a law or a Constitutional amendment or anything that couldn't be revoked tomorrow. If the GOP knew that they didn't have this leverage, where would they be? It isn't so much a question of what the outcome of this particular vote would have been, it is more about tactics. When you know you can stop ANYTHING by invoking cloture and the 60 vote rule, why would you not use it? As opposed to actually allowing the majority to vote the will of their constituents. It's an absurd system. Harry Reid promised he'd end it, and he didn't. We will never move forward if we don't move forward.

Like a war it is.
Lincoln was too nice after the Civil War.

We will be back to majority rules, just as under BushCo. Why do Democrats continue to believe the GOP will ever play fair?

Nice avatar.

As if there would be a chance in hell I'd vote for Jeb.

But you seem to be all over the "go along to get along" meme. If we just keep giving in to the GOP, one of these days they'll respect us...or something.

As many others have asked, which "GRAHAM" do you want for anything? Lindsay? Cracker? Parsons? Greene? Norton? Chapman? It's difficult to deduce from your posts.

The double entendre was never thought of when I said it, but it refered to my
wanting him for VP with Gore, and Kerry. Bob Graham would have won the election in 2004
instead of the dismal Edwards. After Edwards was picked, I wanted Bob for any position in the Kerry administration, but of course, he did not win. That is where my name comes from, I still would want him involved in anything. It was an oversight when I signed up here not putting the Bob in, but I also never thought about Lindsay.
As for the name Lindsay, I am a John V. Lindsay fan from NYC in the 60s-70s, who kept NYC from burning after Dr. King died.

Anyhow, you are thinking in old school terms.

"giving in to the gop" you are talking about the office holders of the GOP/tea/libertarian party.

I believe that 30% of those voters are not tea party draconians, especially the women, and with the right campaign, will vote for Hillary Clinton in 2016, making it an 70-30, 80-20 reallignment, and making 2016 another LBJ slaughtering Goldwater landslide.
The office holders and NRA backers are old and tend to be demographically speaking, white and male(demographic statististical numbers show that.)

We need more votes. LBJ needed Rebpuclians because of the racist dixiecrats in getting the civil rights/voting rights, even the medicare passed. I think he ended up with 70 plus votes on each. We need more votes.

We are not giving in, we are dividing their party to a place they can never again win a presidential election, and soon will lose the house (and in big numbers in 16 and 18 and 20 we could have a landslide in the Senate.
With democratic presidents come liberal SCOTUS.

We can take the entire system to places it never was at.
Not the back/forth of Presidents the last so many years.

...depending on which failure you're addressing.

It is a failure of the Senate leadership.

Or the majority that were barely mustered for extremely modest gun regulation?

This is far bigger than a senator or two.

...to get the filibuster rule changed. They will not hesitate. But, it doesn't really matter. The Democrats seldom used it anyway...

Did I miss some magic moment whe the House suddenly went from having a repub majority to a Democratic majority? When more than a dozen of the 230-plus House repub members were suddenly going to embrace gun restrictions opposed by all but a handful of repub Senators (and not a single Democratic House member would jump ship and follow the handful of Democratic Senators that caved?)

Are there really folks out there that thought that if only there hadn't been a filibuster and the Senate had passed the Manchin/Toomey language by 54-46, the House majority that opposes the legislation would have just dried up and blown away?

No, the House would NEVER have passed the legislation, even if it had passed the Senate. No one argues that point.

So, if you KNOW that, if you KNOW that your vote will probably have no consequence, why not send a message to the electorate that you at least CARE? That you're bigger than the gun-totin' Tea Baggers over there in the House? That you want to do what is right for the children killed by gun violence? Why wouldn't you do that?

Because you're a spineless, bought and paid for pussy, that's why.

The Manchin/Toomey bill was hardly the vision of anyone who wants serious gun control. But it was the most that might be accomplished. Except it wasn't even that.

and then accomplishing those dreams on behalf of everyone in our national community.