search
top

Lame Duck Session

Seeing a meme go around social media about passing National Reciprocity or SHARE in lame duck, just like Obamacare. Facts:

  • National reciprocity already passed the House. The House was never our problem. The Senate is our problem. The Senate is now less of a problem because we flipped at least one “no” vote (McCaskill) to a “yes” vote, but we don’t get that Senate until Nancy Pelosi takes back the gavel.
  • Obamacare did not pass in lame duck session. It became law in March of 2010, well before the midterms where Dems took a “shellacking.”
  • SHARE could pass the House in lame duck, but the problem is still the Senate.

For the foreseeable future, our agenda at the federal level isn’t going anywhere. Bloomberg has successfully halted our momentum and pushed us back to a defensive position. What we have to hope for are judicial confirmation, lots of them. I also have to say, I wish RGB a full recovery, but maybe it’s time for her to retire and look after her health. I know I wouldn’t still want to be working at 85.

34 Responses to “Lame Duck Session”

  1. RAH says:

    Broken ribs can be very nasty I hope she recovers and retires
    But I can not imagine how much the left will freak if Trump gets a chance in 2019 to nominate a replacement

    This is why we voted him in

  2. JC_VA says:

    Speedy recovery, hopefully.

    Wouldn’t wish pain or suffering on any elderly person. We’re all getting there ourselves. Praying for the Singularity to help, but there are no guarantees :)

    It does seem to point to increased frailty, however. Falling is an indicator of approaching/accelerating morbidity in old age. I’ve a feeling she doesn’t have another year on the bench, let alone two.

  3. CarlosT says:

    I don’t wish her ill, but if a Republican is in the White House, Ginsburg will die on the bench rather than retiring. She’s a committed partisan and would never voluntarily allow Trump to replace her.

  4. Joe says:

    Bloomberg is a piss-ant compared to the Silicon Valley Billionaire Donor Class. The biggest threat to Gun Rights, including all of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, is Big Tech. Bloomberg is effectively their new sock-puppet.

    One of the reasons I fear him getting the 2020 Democrat Presidential Ticket Nomination is because he has been dumping $cask like crazy to “Progressive Activist Groups”. The radical Left are hypocritical sheeple, and I fear that he can buy their votes and following.

    Look at JB Ptizker in Illinois. Also, the biggest threats we face are at the State Level. We are in massive trouble in Oregon, Washington, Illinois, Maine, New Mexico, Delaware, Clorado, Rhode Island, and Nevada. Several of those States have historically bern super “Pro-Gun”, but as we havevseen with the radical, Maoist Left, they feast on the destruction of our Bill of Rights, any time, anyhow, and anywhere, no matter how much. A lot of those once pro-gun States are soon to be gonners.

    • Sebastian says:

      Bloomberg is the one organizing the anti-gun movement. I think it’s the other way around. At least on this issue.

      • Joe says:

        Big Tech has the influence. They’ve built the infrastructure for him (Zuckerurg and Facebook as an example alongside Google with search and news feed algorithms) and , and everyone of the Tech Billionaires, separately, are worth more $$$ than him.

        • countertop says:

          According to Forbes, Bloomberg is worth $51.8 billion making him the 10th richest person in the US.

          https://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/#d78066f7e2ff

          So no, everyone of the Tech Billionaires, separately, are not worth more $$$ than him. Only 6 of them are (Neither Warren Buffet (#3) nor either of the Koch Brothers (both tied for 7) are tech billionaires.

      • Richard says:

        I tend to agree with Joe on this. Bloomberg is a huge problem with spending and organizing but the propaganda advantage of the tech oligarchs is huge and getting bigger. It is getting harder and harder to burn through the smoke screen and figure out what is actually going on out there on guns or anything else. Plus they are constantly spying on us which will sooner or later be turned to our issue if it isn’t already.

        • Patrick Henry, the 2nd says:

          I agree.

          I know Bloomberg is spending a lot of money, but really its been a lot of wasted money. I don’t blame him for our current environment except in a small way. He really hasn’t been that detrimental to the gun rights debate. Most of his victories would most likely have been victories anyway.

          The big tech is a much bigger concern. They have the propaganda advantage that Bloomberg does not.

          • Joe says:

            The NRA needs to start tackling these Tech Billionaires and Bloomberg in more vicious manners, and I will be bias in saying this, the 2018 Ohio Gubernatorial Election is the blueprint.

            Mike DeWine’s Campaign and Buckeye Firearms Association dud a phenomenal job of tarring and feathering Democrats to Bloomberg and the Silicon Valley Billionaire Donor Class (which is 99.9% Democrat).

            Everytime the Democrats, like Richard Cordray mentioned thst term, “Gun-Lobby”, they got skewered by DeWine and BFA as the worst possible hypocrites, and bald-faced liars, and DeWine ripped Cordray to shreds on that in the 3 Ohio Gubernatorial Debates, that of which were the most watched ever in Ohio Gubernatorial Election History.

        • Alpheus says:

          One of the creepy aspects of Facebook, et al. is that they not only have the ability to remind people to vote…but to remind only certain people to vote.

          And they determine who to remind by the data they collected spying on us…

  5. AnOregonian says:

    My question is, why is the Senate having a problem with this?

    I got the impression it was that McConnell just doesn’t care about our issues, but is that in fact actually the problem?

  6. Scott in AZ says:

    The Sen ate could pass NCCR now before the current term of Congress ends, just nuke the 60 vote rule for all bills.

    But the Weasel Reps in the Senate don’t care about gun rights anymore than the Dems do.

    • JC_VA says:

      Nuke the 60 vote rule for this, and you might end up regretting it when a future Democrat Senate decides to undo it.

  7. aerodawg says:

    Tick tock Ruthy. Your time is a comin…

  8. Joe says:

    Exactly. Chuck Schumer said that in 2016, if the Democrats took the Senate with a President Hillary Clinton, the Legislative Filibuster in the Senate was gone.

  9. SiGraybeard says:

    A minor point. Obamacare didn’t become law until March 2010, but was passed on Christmas Eve of ’09, the last minutes of the complete Dem control of the presidency, senate and house. So yes it was a lame duck session.

  10. Richard says:

    Where is National Observer. I miss him. Did his Soros funding run out? Is he off filling in ballots in FL or AZ.

  11. Dave says:

    I personally think that it doesn’t matter how many R’s we have in either house of Congress when it comes to passing pro-gun legislation at the national level. They simply don’t want to do it…or at best, are ambivalent about spending political capital to please a voting bloc that isn’t going anywhere.

    What are gun owners going to do? Vote Democrat? Vote Libertarian? Stay home? If they do, the Republicans may lose a majority, but I believe that they’re perfectly fine with that on a macro level. As the minority party, they may have a smaller share of the power, but they still have power (compared to you), and they don’t have to actually produce anything. They can just shake their fists in the air and blame the Dems for their inability to pass pro-gun laws, all while insisting that they’ll continue to “fight the good fight,” if only you’ll re-elect them.

    The bottom line is that pleasing pro-gun voters with actual results is a very, very low priority for the GOP. The pro-gun voter can’t (or won’t) hurt them, and they know it.

    The answer? Hell, I don’t know.

    • Sebastian says:

      I think it’s true. As long as gun owners believe (correctly in my opinion) that Dem control means sweeping gun and accessory bans, they don’t really have to do anything for us other than block the Dems from passing said measures.

      • Joe says:

        The answer is that American Gun Owners as a political demographic will soin join the “Voting Doesn’t Matter” Demographic on the National Level, just as what happened in California after George Deukmejian signed that 1989 Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act.

        Not only that, good ‘ole Demographics are going to conquer us. Need an example? Take a look at Virginia. The greatest gifts to the Gun Ban Movement were the 1965 Immigration Act and 1986 Amnesty.

        If you all want an example of is coming to America within the next 4 to 8 years, take a look at Political “Leaders” in Latin America like Andres Manuel Lopez-Obrador (Mexico), Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua), and Nicholas Maduro (Venezuela). All of those people are filthy Communists, and America’s good ‘ole Demographics are shifting our Country’s Politics more to that area.

        To answer your question; Gun Owners are being displaced by Immigration from the 3rd World to the Dust-Bin of History.

        • Richard says:

          On the bright side there is Jair Bolsonaro, the President-elect of Brazil. One of his planks is to make it easier for citizens to own firearms.

          • Joe says:

            My wife is half Brazilian, and combined with on-hand knowledge and info from my in-laws, including the obvious fact of me having been to Brazil, it took Brazil almost 30 years to flip 180 on the Political Spectrum.

            The American people, including ALL of the public from around the world outside of Brazil, and most obvious in those who never visited, have no idea how bad the socialists/communists realy damaged the Country.

            I got married this year, but when we were just dating and engaged, I visited Brazil half-a-dozen times and spent a lot of time there with my then girlfriend/fiance and her family there, in Rio Branco, Acre. Brazil from 2010 up until Bolsonaro being elected was sinking into Civil-War.

            All those “protests” going on in those times that got international media air-time represented a fraction of the tip of the iceberg regarding how bad it got.

            That’s what it will take for the USA to break from this disgusting love-affair with socialism/communism.

    • Sebastian says:

      I also don’t have an answer.

    • Arnie says:

      Well, this is why I voted Republican regardless of what the Democrat “claimed” about “supporting the Second Amendment”:

      (CNSNews.com) – Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) is expected to chair the House Judiciary Committee in the next Congress. On Sunday, he said protecting the Mueller investigation is his top “oversight” priority; and gun control is one of his top legislative priorities:

      “Well, we will certainly pursue sensible gun control legislation as one of our priorities,” Nadler told ABC’s “This Week” with George Stephanopoulos.

      “We’re having – we’re getting to the point now where we’re having mass shootings every week. It’s not even – it’s hardly news. You know, we have – we’re told that – by the NRA and others that the problem is mental health or whatever. But you look at Western Europe, you look at Japan and they have 50 gun deaths, 120 gun deaths, 150 gun deaths, we have 33,000 a year.”

      “It’s a slander on the American people to say that our people are 10,000 times as mentally ill as people in Western Europe or Japan. The problem is the unfettered use of assault – of military-style weapons, the lack of appropriate background checks, and we will do – we will have to deal with this.”

      It is not slander. At least 40 million voters who voted democrat are mentally ill or consciously opposed to the Second Amendment. “Unfettered use of assault – of military-style weapons” is exactly what the Second Amendment protects. I’ll vote straight GOP as long as Democrat leadership continues to make these threats. I will not vote that party into a majority regardless of what their individual candidates say. They seem to always vote in lockstep when the leadership wants to ban my guns.

      Link:
      https://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/susan-jones/rep-nadler-we-will-certainly-purse-sensible-gun-control-legislation-one-our

      Respectfully, Arnie

  12. JC_VA says:

    The answer is to deliberately run pro-gun candidates and get them elected.

    Not GOP candidates who aren’t all that concerned with gun rights but who’ll vote the right way. Not GOP candidates who’ll pay lip service but really aren’t bothered.

    This is how the gay community got into the Democratic Party. They SELECTED and then ELECTED gay candidates. They didn’t know a thing about economics, nor how to run finances. They were there purely to advance gay rights.

    We need to be voting AND operating the same. But it requires the gun community to stop making excuses for not running, get up off their lazy asses, and actually change the party to a more optimal configuration for gun rights.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. SayUncle » So, there was an election - […] used those two years to pander to us gun owners by giving us what we asked for. Oh, wait.…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

top