springfield shooter
-
Posts
1,025 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Calendar
Store
Posts posted by springfield shooter
-
-
Cost the Democrats? Here's hoping it does.
-
On 7/30/2022 at 8:28 AM, mauserme said:
To overcome the filibuster it would take first, ten Republicans who not only believe in a ban but also that this particular bill is the way to do it and, second, that don't care about the consequences of an affirmative vote or don't perceive that there would be negative political consequences. I don't believe that combination can be found in the current makeup of the Senate.
I don't believe 50 Democrats will vote for this. Jon Testor of Montana (Trump by 16%), and Joe Manchin of West Virginia (Trump by almost 39%) are (IMO) both doubtful.
-
On 7/29/2022 at 2:30 PM, mauserme said:
She was parroting what the propagandists at Everytown told her. It didn't seem as if she did any actual fact checking.
Do you think she cares?
-
On 7/29/2022 at 7:26 PM, mauserme said:
I'm not confused about it.
-
On 7/29/2022 at 11:09 AM, mauserme said:
The deal has sparked the ire of numerous gun (control) advocates, including David Hogg, a survivor of the Marjorie Stoneman Douglas High School shooting in Parkland, Florida.
Salon calls Hogg a "survivor"? As I recall, he wasn't even in the building when this shooting occurred.
-
On 7/27/2022 at 6:51 PM, mauserme said:
They are the anti-gun leadership they choose.
Yep.
-
On 7/27/2022 at 3:56 PM, mauserme said:
He's the guy that may have set an all time record for folks opposing his legislation - 35,900 witness slips filed against his HB4244, with only 431 proponents.
He should get used to this, especially if he gets silly with gun control bills.
I'd forgotten about this. He seems to like the "heavy handed" approach.
-
Interesting. Willis and Stoneback are both lame ducks.
-
On 7/21/2022 at 9:03 AM, Ranger said:
They know this is unlikely to withstand SCOTUS; but believe it will help them win votes and keep majorities this fall. I hope they are wrong abou tthat.
If it gets that far, it won't get 60 votes for cloture in the Senate. Matter of fact, I don't think it would get 50.
But I believe you are correct, it's about political theater.
-
On 7/13/2022 at 9:51 AM, MrTriple said:
Forget the disarmament part, they merely want to appease scared suburban voters and pretend that they're "doing something".
The real question, given how bad the environment is for the Democrats nationally (the GOP is now making a push to flip deep-blue seats, that's how bad things are) do they actually have the votes for a special session, at least on guns?
The Democrats have to be careful that they don't do anything that could hinder the reelection chances of their more "moderate" candidates in vulnerable seats. Even Illinois isn't going to be immune from the effects of the national environment, and we should fully expect at least several seats to flip, including ones that nobody sees coming.
No doubt they are currently looking at saving purplish seats. The thing we need is long memories. Trust is earned.
-
On 7/12/2022 at 11:23 AM, Bubbacs said:
"We're living in a country awash in weapons of war,"
He's just going to collect these WEAPONS of WAR and redistribute them in war torn countries like Afghanistan. They will thank him!
I think he's already left them plenty of real ones.
-
If the AWB was so great, why didn't the Democrats do something about re-instating it when they virtually controlled Washington in 2009 and '10?
Somebody should ask President Biden, as he was in town back then.
-
On 7/9/2022 at 9:42 PM, MrTriple said:
I think the real question is the Senate, where the Democrats have a 6-seat supermajority. What I wonder is how many of those six seats are held by downstate, central, and/or rural state senators who would face a difficult re-election bid because of the issue, particularly given the likelihood that both 2022 and 2024 will be highly favorable years for the Republicans.
The question for them then becomes, "is it worth the political risk to pass a bill that'll be challenged in court almost immediately in a post-Bruen environment, particularly if it could cost the Democratic Party its supermajority in the State Senate? Especially over something that may not ultimately withstand constitutional scrutiny?"
Per the map linked to below, they currently hold 5 seats from Bloomington/Peoria (the 46th District) south.
https://www.zipdatamaps.com/politics/state-level/districts/map-of-illinois-state-senate-districts
-
On 7/9/2022 at 5:53 PM, vk60187 said:
Problem is, the IL Supreme Court already ruled assault weapons ban of Deerfield constitutional.
Remember, this would likely be decided in federal court.
There are knowledgeable people on this forum that believe with the recent SCOTUS ruling against New York state, we would be well positioned to prevail against a statewide AWB.
Might take a while, or maybe not.
-
On 7/9/2022 at 1:14 PM, vk60187 said:
If you had to wager, do you think the bill would pass?
I don't have the expertise to give you a good answer. There haven't been (yet) any downstate Dem senators co-sponsor the Senate bill. And only one representative on the House bill.
If the Republicans hang together and all vote "no", the Democrats still have the numbers to pass with a super majority. But it might cost them some of the few downstate seats they have. If they don't care, they can pass whatever they want to.
If they do pass anything, I feel confident (as an interested observer) saying it'll be challenged in court.
-
On 7/9/2022 at 1:31 AM, markthesignguy said:
how many representatives that have jumped onto HB5522 are lame ducks?
77 Willis is one...
16 Stoneback
How many are from downstate? Unless you consider Peoria "downstate"....as of yesterday evening, only one.
From St. Clair county.
One of the two counties in the southern half of the state to vote Biden in 2020.
-
I just spent a few minutes looking at the new co-sponsors for these bills. None of the senators, and only one representative, is from downstate (East St. Louis, which is a solid Democrat area).
-
On 7/4/2022 at 7:57 AM, mauserme said:
My opinion is that this was all by design to allow them to eventually track every firearm owned in Illinois. If gun registration was the big surprise in a last minute amendment it appeared to be, the ISRA would have objected. They said nothing.
The ISRA was on board with that every step of the way.
Which is why I am no longer a member.
-
On 6/29/2022 at 6:01 PM, MagSlap said:
For once I agree with you....
They are canvasing already...
ISWYDT 😎
-
On 6/24/2022 at 2:02 PM, spanishjames said:
The riots and unrest that transpired over the last couple years awakened many of the people who'd normally be anti-gun, to the fact that they're responsible for their own safety and well-being.
Anti-gun legislation will always be unpopular so long as the government is unable to provide adequate protection for its citizens.
Or unwilling.
-
On 6/23/2022 at 10:28 AM, bmyers said:
I like Alito's response to the dissent
In light of what we have actually held, it is hard to see what legitimate purpose can possibly be served by most of the dissent’s lengthy introductory section. See post, at 1–8 (opinion of BREYER, J.). Why, for example, does the dissent think it is relevant to recount the mass shootings that have occurred in recent years? Post, at 4–5. Does the dissent think that laws like New York’s prevent or deter such atrocities? Will a person bent on carrying out a mass shooting be stopped if he knows that it is illegal to carry a handgun outside the home? And how does the dissent account for the fact that one of the mass shootings near the top of its list took place in Buffalo? The New York law at issue in this case obviously did not stop that perpetrator. What is the relevance of statistics about the use of guns to commit suicide? See post, at 5–6. Does the dissent think that a lot of people who possess guns in their homes will be stopped or deterred from shooting themselves if they cannot lawfully take them outside? (Pg 71 of the PDF)
When a judge writing an opinion resorts to "the feelz", they probably don't have the Constitution on their side....and they know it.
-
On 6/20/2022 at 5:57 AM, mauserme said:
As it stands right now, I'm not anticipating a push for bans.
👍
-
Here's predicting that nothing that can get 60 votes in the Senate will pass in the House.
-
On 6/9/2022 at 8:20 AM, cybermgk said:
Intersting arbitrary round count on the mag ban, max of 14. It;s beyond stupid. It would make illegal a vast majority of even handgun mags, that most have, as they are generally 15-17 rds if talking 9mm. BUT, I guarentee if law, there would be glock 14 rd mags in a heartbeat, for sale. And it solves nothing, nothing at all.
But it lets them virtue signal.
It’s Open Season on Gun Laws
in National Politics
Posted
In other words, consistent with the supreme law of the land. Oh....the humanity!