Need a STRAIGHT..NO B.S. ANSWER on question about the filibuster..

[Straight Shooter]

Ok, since the election, Ive read/seen & heard several different opinions about this, and Im asking those of you that KNOW the answer..not your opinion or what you "think", but rather KNOW the correct answer, to chime in and educate me on this, please.
So..Repubs own the House and Senate..GREAT. And with the V.P. voting, that gives us 53 votes, right?
Now, using this forums objects of discussion-firearms- lets say a very very pro-gun bill comes up in the House...then Senate.
Lets say..National CCW/NFA Repeal, ect..something that really gets the libs dander up like never before. CAN THEY, OR CAN THEY NOT..FILIBUSTER THIS IN EITHER HOUSE? If YES..what happens next?
What EXACTLY is "The Nuclear Option" and could it/will it be used?
I guess what Im asking really- is there ANY way the libs can stop Trumps stated goals on any subject that has 100% Repub support? How?
Really looking for FACTUAL ANSWRS, not debate or "discussion"'. Like Jack Webb used to say.."Just the facts, only the facts".
Also- Obama signed some crap into law last week, saying Trump or Congress couldn't undo it in the future. I didn't think that was Constitutionally possible. Can Trump and the new Congress undo ANYTHING/EVERYTHING this piece of shit has done?
Thank yall very much for any help here.

[FromMyColdDeadHand]

The breakdown for 2017 is 52 GOP, 46 DEM and 2 IND. The '53rd' VP vote is only in case of a tie at 50-50.

Filibusters don't exist as such in the House. Committee is where things seems to die there. Control the House and control what gets voted on.

Senate is still 60, except for some appointees. So yes, the Dems can block pretty much what they want to legislatively. You can get around it like Obamacare did, but it isn't common and someone would have to explain how that exactly works. Of course, that only happens if you control both houses.

As for Obama's recent activity. The one that made the most headlines was banning drilling in the Arctic and East Coast. I think it is a 1950s law that says that something like "from time to time the President may give areas protected status". You can't write a law that prevents a later Congress from passing a law- that is what a Constitutional Amendment is for. Can Trump reverse it. I bet he can try and then it goes to the court. Obama may have overplayed his hand and stretched the law, but who hears the case is more important than the law (IMHO). That will be tied up in court till Trump is out. They could pass a new law giving the president authority to open drilling or even specifically open those areas. That will still go to court, but I assume that is pretty clear and would fall in favor of the drilling.

The UN vote on Israel is a lot more permanent. That is a pretty pussy move. Makes me worry even more about New Years- since that might be a nice way to hide some stuff.

[Digital_Damage]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option

[Alex V]

Senate can use budget reconciliation to remove funding for certain programs effectively gutting them. This only requires 51 votes.

I think what you are taking about is Obama's EO to prevent any further off shore oil exploration. If that is what you are referring to, it was an EO and can be undone by an EO from Donald J I imagine. Having said that, I heard that it would set of a court battle for some reason. Not sure why, maybe someone can clue us both in.

[chuckman]

Legally the Senate can use the nuclear option (well described in the Wiki page linked above) to vote with a majority. Harry Reid et al., came up with that, and if the GOP does its business, they will die by it as well. The nuclear option decreases the amount of votes to overcome a filibuster. In most cases a simple majority is all that is needed (i.e., the nuclear option), but 3/5 is still required to end filibusters on legislation and SCOUTUS nominees.

Some of what Obama signed off on, Trump can reverse by EO. A good Solicitor General could go to the SCOTUS to have much of what Obama did, undone. The laws that actually went through the House and Senate would be much harder to un-do.

As said above, the House doesn't do filibusters because it is so big. Its' rules will have dissention die out in committee, but there was a rule implemented in 1842 limiting duration of debate in the House.

[_Stormin_]

Basically, Obama governed with "a pen and a phone" for the last few years. They're now scarred shitless that DJT is going to do the exact same thing, but with a big red sharpie over most of his Executive Orders

The nuclear option exists in the Senate to push things through, so the Dems will attempt to put all legislation in the court of public opinion. Want to drill for oil? MSNBC will air Rachel Maddow in a Trump mask drowning seal pups in Brent Crude 24/7... Hearing Protection Act? Let's just say that I'm genuinely concerned that somehow a notable nationally televised crime will somehow have a suppressor involved just in time for that legislation to come up for a vote. (Yeah yeah, tin foil hat, but after enough "assault rifle" reports where there was no rifle and in some cases not even a firearm involved, I don't trust the MSM one bit.)

[Straight Shooter]

Hearing Protection Act? Let's just say that I'm genuinely concerned that somehow a notable nationally televised crime will somehow have a suppressor involved just in time for that legislation to come up for a vote. (Yeah yeah, tin foil hat, but after enough "assault rifle" reports where there was no rifle and in some cases not even a firearm involved, I don't trust the MSM one bit.)[/QUOTE]

I agree with this 100%, itll be plain as the nose on your face its a black flag op.

[JoshNC]

I agree with this 100%, itll be plain as the nose on your face its a black flag op.

Yeah it will be evident to those paying attention. The sheeple majority will just go on about their regular scheduled programming listening to the MSM idiot talking heads while posting on bookface about how we need to ban "silencers, high capacity assault-style clips, and military style assault style rifles", claiming that they are implements of war and have no place in civilian life, blah blah blah...

[sjc3081]

Do you thick assholes like John McCain and Lindsey Graham will vote to weaken the NFA?

[CPM]

[QUOTE=Straight Shooter;2432017]Hearing Protection Act? Let's just say that I'm genuinely concerned that somehow a notable nationally televised crime will somehow have a suppressor involved just in time for that legislation to come up for a vote. (Yeah yeah, tin foil hat, but after enough "assault rifle" reports where there was no rifle and in some cases not even a firearm involved, I don't trust the MSM one bit.)[/QUOTE

Side bet that the shooter is white and is dead at the end? Extra on by his own hand?