Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said he wanted to bring a gun bill to the full Senate that would have enough support to overcome any GOP attempts to prevent debate from even starting. He expressed concern that including the assault weapons provision might effectively block passage of any bill at all.
Instead, the sponsor of the provision, Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, said she will offer her ban on the military-style firearms as an amendment. But Feinstein is all but certain to need 60 votes from the 100-member Senate to prevail, and she faces solid Republican opposition as well as likely defections from some Democrats.
"I very much regret it," Feinstein, D-Calif., told reporters of Reid's decision. "I tried my best."
Reid said that "using the most optimistic numbers," there were less than 40 votes for Feinstein's ban. That is far less than the 60 needed to begin considering legislation.
"I'm not going to try to put something on the floor that won't succeed. I want something that will succeed. I think the worst of all worlds would be to bring to something to the floor and it dies there," Reid said.
Exactly right. If it were at the beginning of a term then he would have pushed hard for it. Just the same as Obama wanting to push something thru like the health care raping. He was real gung ho about it at first but now you hear nothing about it. It doesn't even go into effect until I believe 2016, a big screw you to those on the right. And also it will be another election tactic. He makes that go into effect at the beginning of a possible republican presidency. He makes it so that people (read: voters) will be covered by their health care and when Republicans try to reverse it they will be on the side of the left. On top of that they use it for the 2020 election to say spending is out of order. Before the year is out I wouldn't be surprised if he tries to push something else hugely unpopular thru.For those that cant read the stitches on a fast ball...Harry didnt bring the bill up for a vote for two reasons and two only! First he doesnt have enough votes to get it through without a replublican led filibuster. Number 2, at least 14 democrats are up for election in the mid term and about half of them are in serious jeopardy. He doesnt want to loose his position as the senate house leader and he damn sure doesnt want to give the senate to the republicans who already have congress under control. So the last thing he wants to do is force those 14 members who are up for re-election in the mid terms having to go on record by voting for a bill thats unpopular with most folks in the US. With the current push back in several democrat controlled states on recently passed gun control bills, he is deathly afraid that voters will retaliate and punish the democrat party for passing an unpopular bill. It aint got nothing to do with the second amendment, a divide in the party, or a trust issue, its all political posturing and trying to hold on to their majority in the senate. Harry aint as stupid as he would like you to think he is, thats just a front he puts on to keep everyones eye off the ball. Doing the right thing was hardly a consideration to Harry. Thats the real story, the one without the sugar coating on it.
IF the vote worked it would be a good idea, the vote or letters/emails haven't worked so far. Their still in office and still stripping away our rights, slowly but surely! Wait til the new gun/ammo taxes come up for vote!well Id say the Dems or Reps should be voted out if they would have voted for it. You know the ones Im talking about. Look into the voting records of your locals that are up for reelection or if thats too much send me a pm with there name and Ill get you there voting records. Lets send em home. We need to pull the covers off our eyes.