This message was self-deleted by its author
This message was self-deleted by its author (stopbush) on Tue Jun 28, 2016, 01:09 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.
= new reply since forum marked as read
proverbial stopped clock. Every so often, he "gets" it ... more often, not. 
meaning they are still in play until the end of this calendar year. In January 2017, the 115th Congress will be seated and the bills will automatically die.
You knew that, right? 
Oh wait.
And you seem to assume that what is proposed cannot be further amended - presumably if the amended version can be attached to an appropriations bill. The idea is to put the GOP on record for the raw bills and also get a sense at what could be done to begin to put some changes in place related to guns given that Democrats do not control Congress. IMHO, the AWB needs to be updated and put back in place.
It's sad that DU is severely lacking in civics.
My comments stand, as written, none of them would have prevented Orlando.
As for the AWB it was based strictly on cosmetic features and guns manufactured before the ban were still perfectly legal. Removing a bayonet lug or flash suppressor did nothing to affect how the firearm functioned.
It's not 1994 anymore, there is no chance of another AWB passing and even if, for the purposes of discussion another AWB passed, you would see massive non-compliance by owners, law enforcement refusing to enforce the law and probably state level non-compliance. Just look at NY and CT, estimates on CT is that there is 80% non-compliance and NY County Sheriff departments have publicly said they would not enforce the NY SAFE Act.
You may also want to remember that the 1994 AWB ban cost the Democrats the control of the House, which they had controlled since 1952; it cost Tom Foley his seat, the first sitting Speaker of the House since 1862 to be defeated in a re-election campaign; it cost Jack Brooks his seat, Brooks was the most senior Representative ever to have lost a general election for the U.S. House. Gun control cost Ann Richards the governorship of Texas and started George W. Bush on the path to be President. Gun control = getting Republicans elected.
You knew that, right? Oh wait.
and I provided them without comment. Yet you went on a rant anyway. It's not that I disagree with your assertions but that given the fact that Democrats don't control the committees, then the decisions regarding what is included or removed from a draft bill, let alone whatever manages to even make it out of committee, is not the Democrats' decision.
And to blame the AWB on the loss of Congress is ludicrous, particularly given Foley (who was the old-style backroom politico) had not anticipated the Reagan regime's embedded infrastructure and its RW talk radio media empire that gave rise to the propaganda that promoted the likes of Newt Gingrich - a speaker who himself lost his Speakership just 4 years later and resigned his seat, essentially being drummed out of Congress. His successor Hastert, hung on for 8 years but was also drummed out after major GOP losses in the 2006 election, finally getting frog-marched to prison this month.
But you knew that, right? Oh wait.
I wouldn't hang my hat on such weak nonsense about this one issue. The purposefully distorted view of the rise of diversity and "multiculturalism" eventually leading to the vomitous term "political correctness" was, among other RW talking-point subjects, rampant in the 1990s, and pounded out to the public 24/7/365.
The GOP tends to be proactive in terms of election strategy and ensuring turnout during critical periods (like census years) so that they can draw the lines, and that is something that Democrats need to start doing, beginning at the state/local levels.
Suddenly what Bill Clinton says is considered legitimate on DU now? Someone who it seems a majority of DUers call a "turd way, Wall Street humping, DLC, corporatist Democrat"?
Congressional elections have traditionally had a low turnout during non-Presidential election years and -
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2014/07/24/voter-turnout-always-drops-off-for-midterm-elections-but-why/
The AWB was not some sort of catalyst with respect to the Democratic losses in Congress in the '90s. And the fact that the GOP gawd Ronald Wilson Reagan supported the AWB, underscores any major significance of it with respect to influencing the election the year it passed.
Instead, Gingrich and the RW media foisted the "Contract With America" onto the electorate and a majority of the voters who bothered to show up and vote in many congressional districts, bought that pile of detritus.
He's just a human being like myself. And a flawed one at that. But he did what Carter, Mondale, and Dukakis could not do, and even then, he only won by plurality.
But your continued insistence that the AWB had something to do with that despite the GOP embracing it at the time, continues to baffle, and to cite Clinton, who had to come up with an excuse, is also baffling... But since you are using him as an argument - here were his thoughts as to why Democrats lost right after that election -
The second message he discerned was skepticism about whether the Administration had really done what it claimed about crime and the deficit, but that even if it had: "We still feel insecure. We don't feel that our incomes are going up, that our jobs are more stable, that our neighborhoods are safer, that the fabric of American life is growing more civilized and more law-abiding."
Finally, he said the public was saying, "We don't think the government can solve all the problems and we don't want the Democrats telling us from Washington that they know what is right about everything."
http://www.nytimes.com/1994/11/10/us/1994-elections-congress-overview-gop-celebrates-its-sweep-power-clinton-vows.html?pagewanted=all
Nothing about the AWB there.
So which Clinton do you want to believe?
and he's definitely not as progressive as some think. Sure, he makes fun of Repubs and conserves a lot, but that's low hanging fruit for him too.
Politically, I'd call him more of a "liberal leaning libertarian" rather than any kind of liberal.
I laugh when he makes a joke I enjoy and kind of ignore things like this.
he mocks the people who voted in favor of leaving the EU, criticized the SCOTUS for ruling against Obama's immigration
policy, mocks Donald Trump, but because he dares to mock the House sit-in, he's an "asshole"?
If that video was edited to omit the sit-in part, and leave the rest of the monologue in place, some here would
think it was the funniest bit of comedy they've seen all week.
