TexasCHLforum.com

When they ban them, it's time to use them.

I think the dumbest thing about the committee is that it's a codification of party politics. The leaders of the two parties pick people to make important decisions.

What if a third party candidate got elected to a seat in either house? Essentially you're telling the people who voted for the third party candidate that they no longer are as fully represented as the people who voted for one of the big two parties.

This is yet another entrenchment of the two-headed, one party system that brought us to the bad economic place we are now.

PracticalTactical wrote:I think the dumbest thing about the committee is that it's a codification of party politics. The leaders of the two parties pick people to make important decisions.

Verified by the selection of John Kerry as one of the 3 Dem senators.

Business as usual. How much compromise do you think will be evident with 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans?

Rex B wrote:

PracticalTactical wrote:I think the dumbest thing about the committee is that it's a codification of party politics. The leaders of the two parties pick people to make important decisions.

Verified by the selection of John Kerry as one of the 3 Dem senators.

Business as usual. How much compromise do you think will be evident with 6 Democrats and 6 Republicans?

If party leadership picked them, there will be few if any fiscal conservatives on either side, so you can count on the Repugnicans doing what Obama wants.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't think that Obama is above trying to subvert the Constitution, but I also do think that GOA hyperventilates a lot. I tend to take what they say with a big grain of salt. So this speculation that the "super congress" would attempt to legislate gun control (which is entirely outside its mandate—which is to find a way through the budget crisis) is exactly that: speculation, and it is not based on the facts.

It is a fact that boneheads like Kerry would try if they thought they could, but this committee is merely that....a committee. It isn't really a super congress.

Are you kidding? All Obama really wants to achieve is to subvert the Constitution and make it completely irrelevant. His justice department is making “constitutional” judgments and deciding not to enforce laws. His “Administrative Branch”, which I don’t recall reading about in the constitution, is completely out of control. The EPA wants TX shut down power plants. With summers like this one, we need more plants, not fewer. Passing fuel economy standards on semis and garbage trucks? I don’t recall that being openly debated in congress and voted on by my representative. Doesn’t sound constitutional to me. Requiring me to purchase a service (ie healthcare)? The founders never intended our government to have that kind of power. The longer this group is in DC, the more they will diminish the power of the Constitution, and the deeper into tyranny we will all be.

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't think that Obama is above trying to subvert the Constitution, but I also do think that GOA hyperventilates a lot. I tend to take what they say with a big grain of salt. So this speculation that the "super congress" would attempt to legislate gun control (which is entirely outside its mandate—which is to find a way through the budget crisis) is exactly that: speculation, and it is not based on the facts.

It is a fact that boneheads like Kerry would try if they thought they could, but this committee is merely that....a committee. It isn't really a super congress.

Agreed, I think these folks just huff and puff about stuff like this so people get scared and send them $20 to fight for the cause. Not unlike the NRA.

dfwxd45 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:I don't think that Obama is above trying to subvert the Constitution, but I also do think that GOA hyperventilates a lot. I tend to take what they say with a big grain of salt. So this speculation that the "super congress" would attempt to legislate gun control (which is entirely outside its mandate—which is to find a way through the budget crisis) is exactly that: speculation, and it is not based on the facts.

It is a fact that boneheads like Kerry would try if they thought they could, but this committee is merely that....a committee. It isn't really a super congress.

Are you kidding? All Obama really wants to achieve is to subvert the Constitution and make it completely irrelevant. His justice department is making “constitutional” judgments and deciding not to enforce laws. His “Administrative Branch”, which I don’t recall reading about in the constitution, is completely out of control. The EPA wants TX shut down power plants. With summers like this one, we need more plants, not fewer. Passing fuel economy standards on semis and garbage trucks? I don’t recall that being openly debated in congress and voted on by my representative. Doesn’t sound constitutional to me. Requiring me to purchase a service (ie healthcare)? The founders never intended our government to have that kind of power. The longer this group is in DC, the more they will diminish the power of the Constitution, and the deeper into tyranny we will all be.

No, I'm not kidding. Try actually READING what I posted instead of going off half cocked.

I SAID that I agreed Obama isn't above trying to subvert the Constitution. Read further...... This is a COMMITTEE folks, and it's ONLY mandate is to make a list of comprehensive economic reform recommendations which must then be voted on by both houses of Congress, in the normal fashion.

Now Congress may well screw this up. I have complete faith in their ability to get things wrong; but you all need to not hyperventilate about the actual nature of this committe—which is all it is—because it makes you appear ill-informed. That just plays right into the hands of the opposition.

Here is a description of the "super committee" from a reliable source: http://patriotpost.us/edition/2011/08/12/digest/:

News From the Swamp: The Debt 'Super Committee'

Capitol Hill Democrats and Republicans have announced their 12 picks for the so-called Congressional Super Committee that is charged with finding a way to reduce the debt by $1.5 trillion over 10 years. The evenly split bipartisan committee will have until Thanksgiving to agree on a plan, and speculation is rampant about what that plan will look like, or if it will even materialize. Based on the picks, the latter is most likely.

See that? A highly reliable conservative pro-gun commentator is saying that given the nature of the committee's mandate (to reduce the debt) and makeup of the people picked to be on it, it is unlikely that it will even be able to settle on a debt plan on which to move forward.

Once again, GAO gets its panties all in a wad.....and once again, they're wrong.

I SERIOUSLY doubt they'll manage to work gun control into their bill. They have to have it done by Thanksgiving. And they're off for the month of August. Also, Con-gress has to pass the budget for the next Gub-mint Fiscal Year (GFY) by the end of this GFY (end of September). Give how several of these 'comittee' members will likely spend more time preening and strutting in front of any TV camera they can find during 'negotiations', I'd be amazed if they can agree on seating arrangements before they've lost at least a week. Then they'll have to argue for a month about the actual issue.

But this is all just kabuki theatre anyway. The final 'bill' is likely already written and done, the rest will just be for show. At the 11th hour they'll all come out of a room smiling and patting each other (and themselves) on the back and talking about 'compromise' and all the usual drivel. But I really don't see in the timeline how they could work gun contol in there AND somehow show it would 'reduce the deficit'. ONLY way would be to impose some massive ad valoram tax on every firearm (or maybe ammo).

The way I see them going for gun control would be to target some chemical, substance, or equipment that is essential to production of ammo and then regulate that into the point of extinction. I see it happening more in that fashion. They could do that via regulations issued via EPA, OSHA, etc. Liberal gun-grabber agencies all. Once regulated out of existence here, the State Department would then work to prevent importation. For an example, look at how the EPA use of lead regulations eliminated importation of small motorcycles. I could see them following the same pattern. That would be the more likely scenario.

XinTX wrote:.....The way I see them going for gun control would be to target some chemical, substance, or equipment that is essential to production of ammo and then regulate that into the point of extinction. I see it happening more in that fashion. They could do that via regulations issued via EPA, OSHA, etc. Liberal gun-grabber agencies all. Once regulated out of existence here, the State Department would then work to prevent importation. For an example, look at how the EPA use of lead regulations eliminated importation of small motorcycles. I could see them following the same pattern. That would be the more likely scenario.

Patty Murray and John Kerry would stop at nothing to add gun control to anything. But there are too many other aspects of the Liberal agenda on the table in this debate for me to suspect that they would leave one of other others items on the table in favor of some sort of gun control.

That said, I don't have a lot of confidence in the GOP House picks on the committee. It will be left the the GOP Senate representatives to represent a Conservative position. At the end of the day, the tradeoffs in whatever comes out of the committee might be ugly and it can only get an up or down vote from the two houses.

I've assumed all along that if the WH could have figured out how to push the gun control agenda as a regulation, it would have been done. There is still time for that, particularly if it looks like the tide is indeed running against an Obama reelection. Unfortunately, the jury is still out on that, too. There is still a lot of time for some October surprises.

chasfm11 wrote:I've assumed all along that if the WH could have figured out how to push the gun control agenda as a regulation, it would have been done. There is still time for that, particularly if it looks like the tide is indeed running against an Obama reelection. Unfortunately, the jury is still out on that, too. There is still a lot of time for some October surprises.

I have no doubt they already have it figured out. They're just waiting for the right time to spring it.

chasfm11 wrote:

XinTX wrote:.....The way I see them going for gun control would be to target some chemical, substance, or equipment that is essential to production of ammo and then regulate that into the point of extinction. I see it happening more in that fashion. They could do that via regulations issued via EPA, OSHA, etc. Liberal gun-grabber agencies all. Once regulated out of existence here, the State Department would then work to prevent importation. For an example, look at how the EPA use of lead regulations eliminated importation of small motorcycles. I could see them following the same pattern. That would be the more likely scenario.

Patty Murray and John Kerry would stop at nothing to add gun control to anything....

But.... but..... but......... John Kerry says that he supports the 2nd Amendment and owns a shotgun, doesn't he?

The Annoyed Man wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

XinTX wrote:.....The way I see them going for gun control would be to target some chemical, substance, or equipment that is essential to production of ammo and then regulate that into the point of extinction. I see it happening more in that fashion. They could do that via regulations issued via EPA, OSHA, etc. Liberal gun-grabber agencies all. Once regulated out of existence here, the State Department would then work to prevent importation. For an example, look at how the EPA use of lead regulations eliminated importation of small motorcycles. I could see them following the same pattern. That would be the more likely scenario.

Patty Murray and John Kerry would stop at nothing to add gun control to anything....

But.... but..... but......... John Kerry says that he supports the 2nd Amendment and owns a shotgun, doesn't he?

I'll bet John Kerry also has a bridge investment that he'd like to talk to you about. They have bridges in Taxachusettes just like they have bridges from Brooklyn in NYC. The veracity of Senators from that State is seriously in doubt. I'm sure that Senator Kerry is for the 2nd amendment before he votes against it.

chasfm11 wrote:

The Annoyed Man wrote:

chasfm11 wrote:

XinTX wrote:.....The way I see them going for gun control would be to target some chemical, substance, or equipment that is essential to production of ammo and then regulate that into the point of extinction. I see it happening more in that fashion. They could do that via regulations issued via EPA, OSHA, etc. Liberal gun-grabber agencies all. Once regulated out of existence here, the State Department would then work to prevent importation. For an example, look at how the EPA use of lead regulations eliminated importation of small motorcycles. I could see them following the same pattern. That would be the more likely scenario.

Patty Murray and John Kerry would stop at nothing to add gun control to anything....

But.... but..... but......... John Kerry says that he supports the 2nd Amendment and owns a shotgun, doesn't he?

I'll bet John Kerry also has a bridge investment that he'd like to talk to you about. They have bridges in Taxachusettes just like they have bridges from Brooklyn in NYC. The veracity of Senators from that State is seriously in doubt. I'm sure that Senator Kerry is for the 2nd amendment before he votes against it.

Democratic politicians in Massachusetts have special maps showing the locations of all bridges.

I was watching a documentary on the French Revolution recently. There was a group called the 'Commission of Twelve.' I forget the exact wording but the documentary stated that they operated as a group monarchy. They brought about the 'Reign of Terror.' Just the outward expression against the 'revolution' was cause for condemnation. The guillotine was never busier.