Elections Kamala Harris Vows To Bypass Congress If Not Appeased On Gun Laws

[RerouteToRemain]

I'm sure if Trump signed an EO to end all restrictions on the sale and possession of all firearm types you would be up in arms, too. Because you're so consistent about respecting the three, co-equal branches of government. <45>

At least he could use the constitution (shall not be infringed) as his reason to do so lol.

But that's laughable, more gun laws have been passed under trump than obama. Including bypassing Congress to get bump stocks banned.

 

[ultramanhyata]

But that's laughable, more gun laws have been passed under trump than obama. Including bypassing Congress to get bump stocks banned.

You should put a fact like this in spoiler tags. With the warning that choosing to read it may case seizures in people with a certain rightward ideological bent.

 

[RerouteToRemain]

You should put a fact like this in spoiler tags. With the warning that choosing to read it may case seizures in people with a certain rightward ideological bent.

As a very pro 2nd supporter Trump and the GOP controlled house/senate have been an abysmal failure in regards to pro gun stuff.

“The eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end,” Trump said. “You have a true friend and champion in the White House.” “never, ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms” "But you came through for me, and I am going to come through for you."





After getting elected


HPA
Reciprocity
NFA reform

Take guns first due process second red flag laws
"Fix" nics
Bump stock ban
Etc

 

[IGIT]

It’s important to keep in mind Trumps actions don’t justify doing the same thing.

hello Lead!

i'm not sure i like that.

due to Mr. Trump's unusual proclivities as a candidate and as POTUS (all of which appears to be supported by the GOP electorate), there is a rich lode of "whataboutism" to be mined, aye?

i think that avenue should be left open, both legislatively and rhetorically.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

I would hope so, yes.

hola once more Lead,

with the way the court is currently comprised, along with the age of the Supreme Court Justices, 2nd amendment enthusiasts should rest easy for the next 2 or 3 decades or so.

rightwingers should build a monument for Mitch McConnell. the maneuver he pulled when he stiffed Merrick Garland was masterful. i was severely depressed about what went down, but politically speaking, you gotta admire it.

- IGIT

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

When was the last time congress declared war? There is a reason why there are so many Trump and Obama fanboys out there. Because they are looking for a king and father figure, and have no fucking clue what our government is about in the first place. This is how people like you criticize one politician as if the problem originated with them. In reality you’re just trying to steer people to what you want.

Never hear of you and you've got me confused with someone else.

I'm sure if Trump signed an EO to end all restrictions on the sale and possession of all firearm types you would be up in arms, too. Because you're so consistent about respecting the three, co-equal branches of government. <45>

No clue what you're trolling about this time.

As a very pro 2nd supporter Trump and the GOP controlled house/senate have been an abysmal failure in regards to pro gun stuff.

“The eight-year assault on your Second Amendment freedoms has come to a crashing end,” Trump said. “You have a true friend and champion in the White House.” “never, ever infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms” "But you came through for me, and I am going to come through for you."





After getting elected


HPA
Reciprocity
NFA reform

Take guns first due process second red flag laws
"Fix" nics
Bump stock ban
Etc

Amen. Fuck not only Trump, but all the Republican assholes in Congress who could have passed those laws and didn't.

 

[IGIT]

Amen. Fuck not only Trump, but all the Republican assholes in Congress who could have passed those laws and didn't.

hi Cubo de Sangre,

yarp.

i thought nationwide conceal and carry reciprocity legislation would be a lock for this past congress and White House since its one of the Holy Grails for gunowners across the country.

alas, President Trump said "no"...and with the House slipping from the grasp of the GOP in the midterms, the window has closed.

- IGIT

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

hi Cubo de Sangre,

yarp.

i thought a nationwide conceal and carry reciprocity legislation would be a lock for this past congress and White House since its one of the Holy Grails for gunowners across the country.

alas, President Trump said "no"...and with the House slipping from the grasp of the GOP in the midterms, the window has closed.

- IGIT

Pretty much.

 

[IGIT]

Pretty much.

hi again Cubo de Sangre,

well...

*ponders*

what you can say, for sure, is that President Trump wasn't ready to shut down the government over the issue. he wasn't ready to come out, guns blazing, in support of the measure.

the legislation would need 60 votes in the Senate...and the votes weren't there.

you can say the same about the entire wish list that gun advocates have pined for. you need 60 votes in the Senate to pass laws, and the GOP did not have them.

in the brief window that the GOP had the juice to pass what they wanted (VP Pence could cast the deciding vote), the only thing they got written into law was a humongous tax cut for the wealthy.

- IGIT

 

[Islam Imamate]

One you wouldn't even know about if you didn't read it, while with this, you'd sure as hell notice your 2nd amendment right gone.

Well I wouldn't because I don't own guns but nonetheless point taken. I still think its a massive overreach by Trump because the power of the purse is the domain of Congress but the distinction you make is a fair one.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

the legislation would need 60 votes in the Senate...and the votes weren't there.

Isn't it the case you only need 51 (or 50, with the VP breaking the tie)?

 

[IGIT]

Isn't it the case you only need 51 (or 50, with the VP breaking the tie)?

hi again Cubo,

nope. the way the Founders set things up, it takes more than a simple majority in the Senate to pass a law.

for things like nominees to the cabinet, i think its been changed to 51 votes. for legislation that is purely related to the budget (which is how the GOP tax plan was passed), i think the threshold is also 51 votes using the "reconciliation" procedure.

but in general? no.

without Democratic help, Mr. Trump is in pretty much the same place Mr. Obama was. all he can do is conduct foreign policy, trade policy and issue executive orders.

you could make the case that Mr. Obama's EO's were more effective, because his administration wasn't constantly getting challenged (and losing) in court, but otherwise there's not much that President Trump could do (or ever could have done) domestically - in terms of actually passing laws.

- IGIT

 

[Madmick]

Already so much like Hillary-- this lady.

"I think the Boston Bomber should be allowed to vote from his cell."

Outrage. Less than 24h later...

"I didn't mean it!"


Bitch, believe in something.

 

[IGIT]

Already so much like Hillary-- this lady.

"I think the Boston Bomber should be allowed to vote from his cell."

Outrage. Less than 24h later...

"I didn't mean it!"


Bitch, believe in something.

hi angry Madmick,

she believes in the same thing Mr. Booker and Mrs. Gillibrand believe in; appealing to the broadest swath of the electorate (after they're done cribbing lines from Mr. Sanders) and hoping Joe Biden falls off a cliff or gets run over by a car in the next few months.

- IGIT

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

nope. the way the Founders set things up, it takes more than a simple majority in the Senate to pass a law.

Not everyone agrees.

http://niemanwatchdog.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=background.view&backgroundid=381

How many votes does it take to pass a bill in the Senate?
a. 51
b. 75
c. 60
d. none of the above

If you guessed 60, it would be wrong, but understandable because that’s what the media mostly report whenever the subject comes up.

Even senators speaking on the record obscure the truth. The Washington Postrecently quoted Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid:

“‘I have a responsibility to get a bill on the Senate floor that will get 60 votes,’ Reid said. ‘That's my number one responsibility, and there are times when I have to set aside my personal preferences for the good of the Senate and I think the country.’”

In fact, Reid does not need 60 votes to pass a bill. He needs 60 votes in order to allow the Senate to vote on a bill, something The Post didn’t bother to explain in this instance.

https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/15/vice-president-as-presiding-officer

Yet it was agreed that allowing the Vice President to preside over the Senate, and to vote in case of a tie, solved two important problems. First, it allowed that body—at all times—to come to a definitive resolution, because the President of the Senate would break tie votes. Second, it preserved the equality of the states in the Senate. Should a Senator be chosen to preside over the body, and should that Senator cast the tie-breaking vote, a state would, in effect, increase its representation. Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States.

Alternatively, if the Senator as presiding President would be allowed to vote only in case of a tie, a state would end up losing half its representation during normal votes. The Federalist No. 68. There have been over two hundred occasions when the Vice President has had to cast a tie-breaking vote, but most occurred early in the history of the Republic. In fact, the first Vice President, John Adams, cast the highest number of such votes.

Wouldn't really need a tie-breaking vote if what you say is true.

 

[Madmick]

hi angry Madmick,

she believes in the same thing Mr. Booker and Mrs. Gillibrand believe in; appealing to the broadest swath of the electorate (after they're done cribbing lines from Mr. Sanders) and hoping Joe Biden falls off a cliff or gets run over by a car in the next few months.

- IGIT

IGIT,

Learn to read between the lines. Everything you said was redundant.

- Madmick

 

[IGIT]

IGIT,

Learn to read between the lines. Everything you said was redundant.

- Madmick

hi Madmick,

i expected no less of you.

thank you Madmick.

- IGIT

 

[IGIT]

hi Cubo again,

folks can have all sorts of opinions, that's fine.

i'm not a constitutional scholar or anything like that, i was just citing the law as i understand it. Donald himself said that the law would need 60 votes, and the votes weren't there.

for once, he's right.

but i agree he didn't really fight for it. he was negatively affected, emotionally, by the spate of mass shootings that were occurring.

- IGIT

 

[Madmick]

hi Madmick,

i expected no less of you.

thank you Madmick.

- IGIT

Hi IGIT,

"Angry" and "Mad" mean the same thing, for example. Redundant.

Cheers,
- Madmick

 

[IGIT]

hi Madmick,

Already so much like Hillary-- this lady.

"I think the Boston Bomber should be allowed to vote from his cell."

anyway, that's not what Mrs. Harris said. you may not like her, but really, you don't need to make things up.

here's what she said;

HARRIS: I agree that the right to vote is one of the very important components of citizenship and it is something that people should not be stripped of needlessly, which is why I have been long an advocate of making sure that the formally incarcerated are not denied a right to vote, which is the case in so many states in our country, in some states permanently deprived of the right to vote.

And these are policies that go back to Jim Crow. These are policies that go back to the heart of policies that have been about disenfranchisement, policies that continue until today, and we need to take it seriously.

LEMON: But people who are in — convicted, in prison, like the Boston Marathon bomber, on death row, people who are convicted of sexual assault, they should be able to vote?

HARRIS: I think we should have that conversation.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corn...estore-boston-marathon-bombers-voting-rights/

Mr. Sanders was the one who said that the Boston Marathon Bomber should be allowed to vote from his cell. his justification was the State Constitution of Vermont, which specifies that everyone can vote. so for him, its just a "law thing".

sorry for the context, but i had some time to kill.

- IGIT