Feinstein: Reid excluded the assault-weapons ban from Senate gun bill

posted at 9:21 am on March 19, 2013 by Ed Morrissey

No one expected the assault-weapons ban proposed by Dianne Feinstein to pass as part of the Senate’s gun-control package.  Now it won’t even be a part of it.  Last night, Feinstein told reporters that Harry Reid had excluded it from the final version of the legislative package:

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) said on Monday that a controversial assault weapons ban will not be part of a Democratic gun bill that was expected to reach the Senate floor next month.

After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment. But its exclusion from the package makes what was already an uphill battle an almost certain defeat.

“Almost certain defeat”? Left on its own as an amendment, Feinstein’s bill would be lucky to get 35 votes. She knows it, too, which is why she vented her frustration:

“My understanding is it will not be [part of the base bill],” Feinstein said. “It will be separate.”

Asked if she were concerned about the decision, Feinstein paused and said, “Sure. I would like to [see the bill moved], but the leader has decided not to do it.”

“You will have to ask him [Reid],” she said, when asked why the decision was made.

Do we need to ask? Reid can be accused of many things, but he’s not clueless when it comes to the politics of guns.  Reid wants to pass a bipartisan bill to expand background checks, and he’s more than willing to sacrifice Feinstein’s effort to get it, especially since Reid was never enthusiastic about the renewed AWB in the first place.

This way, he gets two wins.  First, using Feinstein’s proposal as the extreme of the effort, the background-check legislation looks more reasonable, even where it may not be.  Second, by allowing Democrats in red states to vote against the AWB in a separate floor action, he protects them from attacks in the 2014 election.   It’s a win-win for Reid.

It’s more of a mixed bag for gun-rights advocates. Depending on whether the Senate bill includes federal registration of all firearms, it’s a big loss — but that has absolutely no chance of passing the House anyway, and Republicans in the Senate won’t have any reason to stick around if it does.  If it doesn’t, it’s more of a headache than a problem.  The upside will be the outright rejection of the AWB, which should stick a stake through its heart for another decade after politicians who took the risk to demand it ended up with egg on their faces.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

I bet that’s his weapon of choice when abducting little boys.

Flange on March 19, 2013 at 9:23 AM

She looks like an updated version of Ma Barker in that photo.

kingsjester on March 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM

She holds it like an expert..

Electrongod on March 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM

With her extensive experience concerning weapons, one would think she would know to keep her finger off the trigger.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Dianne Whinestein loses again. I guess the MSM will be handy for all the tea and sympathy she’s going to try getting.

Liam on March 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM

She looks like an updated version of Ma Barker in that photo.

kingsjester on March 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM

.
Don’t she, though ? … : )

listens2glenn on March 19, 2013 at 9:27 AM

So muskets, the original assault gun (never mind that spears and stone axes are the first assault “weapons”) aren’t going to be banned? Sorry, but private citizen selling to private citizen gun sales should not be subject to background checks. It is already illegal to make straw man purchases, and a criminal who’s selling a gun to a hitman isn’t going to go to an FFL dealer to get a background check.

What’s next, background health checks to buy Big Gulps?

rbj on March 19, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Reid saw Feinstein get herself gutted by Cruz the other day and muttered to himself: “Holy shiite, she’s dumber than I am!” Still, this is a bit worrisome, why do demorats hate children?

Love the pic, the woman in the background wearing the red and black has a look on her face like, “Uhhh…that evil thing isn’t going to attack us, is it?”

Bishop on March 19, 2013 at 9:37 AM

I love seeing Squealer the pig weep… Take her paint bucket away and get her the hell away from the side of the barn.

Polish Rifle on March 19, 2013 at 9:38 AM

AP, any kind of universal background check scheme automatically includes federal registration. It’s inherent to the concept.

JohnTant on March 19, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Harry helped write the bill in the first place.

docflash on March 19, 2013 at 9:40 AM

Looks like the assault legislation ban is working out again.

RSbrewer on March 19, 2013 at 9:41 AM

That is a great victory for the Constitution and the true Patriots… A great victory for America…

mnjg on March 19, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Er, should have said “EM,” not “AP.” :)

JohnTant on March 19, 2013 at 9:42 AM

Headline

“Senator with sixth-grade understanding of Constitution gets schooled by batsh*t crazy Senate majority leader.”

MarkT on March 19, 2013 at 9:43 AM

What might have been a factor in this exclusion is that Reid let the wrong person sponsor the ban, then be the one to have to defend it. Cruz wiped the floor with DiFi, after which she went on the air to simper, whine, and complain about how unfairly she was treated by an evil Texas Conservative.

When another loonie goes a spree, Whinestein’s bill will be dusted off and brought back after months of I-told-you-so’s by her, the MSM, and all the other liberals.

Liam on March 19, 2013 at 9:47 AM

The feds can take their background checks and shove em up their arses too.

RobertE on March 19, 2013 at 9:49 AM

he’s more than willing to sacrifice Feinstein’s effort to get it,

Effort? How much effort is there in dusting off the same old legislation you’ve been pushing for years BUT NOW with 20 dead children to be used as tiny little props at Senate hearings!

Happy Nomad on March 19, 2013 at 9:50 AM

Wait. What? You mean, Reid screwed Feinstein over? Not Ted Cruz? Not an evil Republican? Someone from her own team?

Who would have thought?

Mr. Arkadin on March 19, 2013 at 9:50 AM

She looks like an updated version of Ma Barker in that photo.

kingsjester on March 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Perfect description!

The price of freedom is eternal vigilance. Our legislators had better not forget that we have ten amendments guaranteeing our inherent rights and that no government can infringe on those rights.

National registration is a toe in the door toward taxation and confiscation. Man up, legislators!

onlineanalyst on March 19, 2013 at 9:50 AM

THANK YOU SEN CRUZ without you this bill would have gained speed instead of being roadblocked.

unseen on March 19, 2013 at 9:52 AM

i said above in other thread. they will try the backdoor next and if that’s locked they will use a window. these gungrabbers want your guns and they are coming for them don’t wake up and be crypus one day. They have no guns so the government can take 10% of their life savings and not worry about an armed revolt. I would like to see DC try to do that here. If they take our guns they will be able to.

unseen on March 19, 2013 at 9:55 AM

CYprus is a case study on why we need a 2nd amendment.

unseen on March 19, 2013 at 9:59 AM

She looks like an updated version of Ma Barker in that photo.

kingsjester on March 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM

Someone’s gotta photoshop the homburg hat and cigar onto this Feinstein pic. To not do so would constitute a crime against humanity.

CYprus is a case study on why we need a 2nd amendment.

unseen on March 19, 2013 at 9:59 AM

Good to see you back.

RepubChica on March 19, 2013 at 10:04 AM

By the way, go straight to hell, DiFi.

Midas on March 19, 2013 at 10:06 AM

She doesn’t seem that upset about it. Maybe Reid promised her something. That’s usually the way he works, no? He could plan on burying it in another piece of legislation that Republicans WILL vote for and then blame them for it. Call me cynical when it comes to anything Reid has a hand in.

scalleywag on March 19, 2013 at 10:06 AM

As a native Texan, I’m extremely proud of our new senator Ted Cruz. He hasn’t been in office 90 days yet has caused more progressives and RINOS to wet themselves than John Cornyn has in 11 years.
Possibly it was when Feinstein told Cruz how when she saw the bodies of Moscone and Milk, that she had looked at bodies that had been “shot with these weapons.” And yet the .38 cal. revolver that killed them isn’t on her ban list.
Or maybe it was saying she had seen the bullets that implode.”

cartooner on March 19, 2013 at 10:10 AM

Good to see you back.

RepubChica on March 19, 2013 at 10:04 AM

thanks. we’ll see how long before the GOPE totally pisses me off again and I say screw it

unseen on March 19, 2013 at 10:11 AM

cartooner on March 19, 2013 at 10:10 AM

My respect for the man continues to grow. His CPAC speech was very good, his thanks to Gov Palin showed he had class and his attacks on the Senate floor and in committee are direct and pointed and are causing a difference. Cruz is new yet and I hope he doesn’t get co-opted by the GOPE anytime soon. Until he does he has my support.

unseen on March 19, 2013 at 10:13 AM

The battle is far from over. Y’all know it. The next nutjob will start the crusader’s of gun free nirvana all over again. Stay on your toes, don’t think because DiFi is disappointed that DiFi Jr won’t someday have Harry’s job. Keep to your posts, stay awake.

Limerick on March 19, 2013 at 10:14 AM

She doesn’t seem that upset about it. Maybe Reid promised her something. That’s usually the way he works, no? He could plan on burying it in another piece of legislation that Republicans WILL vote for and then blame them for it. Call me cynical when it comes to anything Reid has a hand in.

scalleywag on March 19, 2013 at 10:06 AM

yeap they saw the defense being put up and decided to try the backdoor with Schumer’s bill.

unseen on March 19, 2013 at 10:14 AM

Possibly it was when Feinstein told Cruz how when she saw the bodies of Moscone and Milk, that she had looked at bodies that had been “shot with these weapons.” And yet the .38 cal. revolver that killed them isn’t on her ban list.

cartooner on March 19, 2013 at 10:10 AM

More likely because ol’ Diane carries a .38 herself for her own protection as she readily admitted. She and Mark Kelly probably had a good laugh over this bill as they stood together at the gun range, chuckling about their hypocrisy.

Bishop on March 19, 2013 at 10:17 AM

She looks like an updated version of Ma Barker in that photo.

kingsjester on March 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM

I was thinking more like Shelley Winters in “Bloody Mama.”

Del Dolemonte on March 19, 2013 at 10:17 AM

hypocrisy.

Bishop on March 19, 2013 at 10:17 AM

elites have no knowledge of this word, no frame of reference and no definition.

unseen on March 19, 2013 at 10:19 AM

yeap they saw the defense being put up and decided to try the backdoor with Schumer’s bill.

unseen on March 19, 2013 at 10:14 AM

He’s a conniving little pipsqueak.

scalleywag on March 19, 2013 at 10:23 AM

With her extensive experience concerning weapons, one would think she would know to keep her finger off the trigger.

IlikedAUH2O on March 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM

In her whining to Senator Cruze, DiFi mentioned ‘imploding bullets’. They are extremely dangerous, I assume.

slickwillie2001 on March 19, 2013 at 10:23 AM

The liberties of the American people were dependent upon the ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box,” Frederick Douglass once wrote. “Without these no class of people could live and flourish in this country.”

J_Crater on March 19, 2013 at 10:26 AM

What’s next, background health checks to buy Big Gulps?

rbj on March 19, 2013 at 9:33 AM

Now you’ve gone and done it, thanks!
I think it’s already waiting in BloomTurds top desk drawer, just waiting to go, now the rest will be jumping on the bandwagon.

De Oppresso Liber on March 19, 2013 at 10:27 AM

I guess that it will still be “legal to hunt humans” in America.

**eyeroll**

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 10:28 AM

guess that it will still be “legal to hunt humans” in America.

**eyeroll**

Resist We Much on March 19, 2013 at 10:28 AM

yeah sadly abortion is still legal.

unseen on March 19, 2013 at 10:30 AM

Support gun control, band the Feinstein’s.

In Government , “Do nothing and you can never be accused of NOT KNOWING WHAT YOU ARE DOING”. Do Something and you PROVE YOU DO NOT know what you are doing.

Short list:

Obama Care: (EXPLETIVE DELETED, EXPLINATIONS NOT NEEDED)
The Housing Market:(EXPLETIVE DELETED, EXPLINATIONS NOT NEEDED)
Path to Citizenship: Faster for illegal alines then for legal aliens.

Not one gun control law would prevent or deter any of the mass shooting.

New York State Gun Control Law: Banned automatic weapons from the police but not movie and TV productions.
Colorado State: Banned all weapons magazines for any weapon for anyone.

jpcpt03 on March 19, 2013 at 10:31 AM

In the picture — is Feinstein wearing a “mob suit”?

unclesmrgol on March 19, 2013 at 10:33 AM

Ms. Feinstein needs to exclude her finger from that trigger.

The Schaef on March 19, 2013 at 10:39 AM

Obama’s Advisors: Disarm America Through Taxation

They are advising him to tax guns, ammunition, magazines, and licenses and then attach draconian remedies for failure to register and pay the taxes. Set the taxes low the first year, then increase them gradually to the point where a person owning an AR 15, three magazines and a box of ammo would owe $5,000 a year in taxes.

If a gun owner doesn’t pay, the small print at the end of the tax law would subject him to jail and confiscation of everything he owns.

Why use this approach? Because people ignore gradual change and taxes can be imposed as a gradual change.

petefrt on March 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM

The NRA had better score this vote. If anything registration is worse than banning a list of specific guns.

Fenris on March 19, 2013 at 10:48 AM

She holds it like an expert..

Electrongod on March 19, 2013 at 9:24 AM

…and you don’t want to know where its been!

KOOLAID2 on March 19, 2013 at 10:51 AM

If anything registration is worse than banning a list of specific guns.

Fenris on March 19, 2013 at 10:48 AM

Definitely. Anything that enables a federal gun registry is off the table. Once they know who owns what, confiscation will follow as surely as death and taxes.

petefrt on March 19, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Feinstein: Reid excluded the assault-weapons ban from Senate gun bill

Cruz +1
Feinstein 0

petefrt on March 19, 2013 at 10:54 AM

…any kind of universal background check scheme automatically includes federal registration. It’s inherent to the concept.

JohnTant on March 19, 2013 at 9:39 AM

Exactly. The seemingly “innocuous” proposal for universal background checks can’t be enforced unless/until the government knows who has what. Only then can they track the transfer between private citizens.

Should a universal background check pass, registration would be the next logical step.

Hill60 on March 19, 2013 at 10:56 AM

The NRA had better score this vote. If anything registration is worse than banning a list of specific guns.

Fenris on March 19, 2013 at 10:48 AM

If the universal background check is written the same as what they did in Colorado, it’s far more intrusive than most people think – in addition to being a backdoor registration.
The bill in Colorado requires a background check for ANY transfer of possession of a weapon or magazine. That means if you let your son borrow one of your guns to go hunting or shooting – you have to do a background check on him. If let your son borrow a 30 round magazine to go target shooting, that is an illegal transfer of an illegal magazine. If you want to GIVE your gun to your own kid, you need to get a background check. This is MUCH worse than what they say in public, where they only talk about selling guns to others who MIGHT be criminals.

dentarthurdent on March 19, 2013 at 11:00 AM

…any kind of universal background check scheme automatically includes federal registration. It’s inherent to the concept.

JohnTant on March 19, 2013 at 9:39 AM

of course. In order to enforce the requirement to get a background check done for a private sale, they must know who currently owns each and every gun. Without a registry, they cannot prove that there was an illegal transfer without a background check.

dentarthurdent on March 19, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Poor Di! This was going to be her “legacy”.

GarandFan on March 19, 2013 at 11:03 AM

Definitely. Anything that enables a federal gun registry is off the table. Once they know who owns what, confiscation will follow as surely as death and taxes.

petefrt on March 19, 2013 at 10:53 AM

You bet. See my comment above 11:03.

dentarthurdent on March 19, 2013 at 11:04 AM

of course. In order to enforce the requirement to get a background check done for a private sale, they must know who currently owns each and every gun. Without a registry, they cannot prove that there was an illegal transfer without a background check.

dentarthurdent on March 19, 2013 at 11:03 AM

I have not yet seen the NRA make this argument.
Has anyone else?
This is the key to the whole battle – in my view.

dentarthurdent on March 19, 2013 at 11:06 AM

Definitely. Anything that enables a federal gun registry is off the table. Once they know who owns what, confiscation will follow as surely as death and taxes.

petefrt on March 19, 2013 at 10:53 AM

Do we really believe that the information provided for background checks has NOT been stored for the last fifteen years?

The data doesn’t indicate whether the deal was executed (?) but the government would see this as very useful information nevertheless.

slickwillie2001 on March 19, 2013 at 11:13 AM

This way, he gets two wins. First, using Feinstein’s proposal as the extreme of the effort, the background-check legislation looks more reasonable, even where it may not be. Second, by allowing Democrats in red states to vote against the AWB in a separate floor action, he protects them from attacks in the 2014 election. It’s a win-win for Reid.

Disagree, Ed.

This is no “win” at all. This is pure damage control after the ghoulish display from the Democrats after the Sandy Hook shootings.

Making yourself look better than a ghoul is not a “win.”

mintycrys on March 19, 2013 at 11:15 AM

GOP only just now figures out that maybe they’re not so good at connecting with folks. That their message might be weak and that folks think of them too often as mean spirited and silly.
 
verbaluce on March 19, 2013 at 10:32 AM

rogerb on March 19, 2013 at 11:23 AM

After a meeting with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) on Monday, a frustrated Feinstein said she learned that the bill she sponsored — which bans 157 different models of assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines — wouldn’t be part of a Democratic gun bill to be offered on the Senate floor. Instead, it can be offered as an amendment.

Oh, the humanity!!

tom on March 19, 2013 at 11:23 AM

Do we really believe that the information provided for background checks has NOT been stored for the last fifteen years?

The data doesn’t indicate whether the deal was executed (?) but the government would see this as very useful information nevertheless.

slickwillie2001 on March 19, 2013 at 11:13 AM

Of course it has, but theoretically not at the federal level.
At least in Colorado – the background check request is put through a computer to the Colorado Bureau of Investigation. That’s as far as it goes and does not necessarily contain detailed information about what is being bought. But there is an ATF requirement for all dealers to keep their records for as long as they’re in business, and if they go out of business, those records get turned over to the ATF. And the ATF or FBI or such can inspect those records any time they want.

dentarthurdent on March 19, 2013 at 11:26 AM

dentarthurdent on March 19, 2013 at 11:06 AM

No, I think the focus has been on background checks – but few have taken it to the next logical step, which would be mandatory registration. Without registration – there’s no way to confirm the legality of a transfer.

Hill60 on March 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Obama’s Advisors: Disarm America Through Taxation

They are advising him to tax guns, ammunition, magazines, and licenses and then attach draconian remedies for failure to register and pay the taxes. Set the taxes low the first year, then increase them gradually to the point where a person owning an AR 15, three magazines and a box of ammo would owe $5,000 a year in taxes.

If a gun owner doesn’t pay, the small print at the end of the tax law would subject him to jail and confiscation of everything he owns.

Why use this approach? Because people ignore gradual change and taxes can be imposed as a gradual change.

petefrt on March 19, 2013 at 10:42 AM

There’s one big barrier to doing this: in order to tax firearms, they’ll have to know exactly who has them. So they have to build a database of everyone who has firearms if they want to tax them.

And building that database is where they would get fought.

I don’t think it’s an impossible barrier for them to get around. But it’s another reminder that anything that leads to a registry of gun owners is, in a word, unacceptable.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Feinstein is as corrupt a politician as has ever lived, she has funneled hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars of tax payer money to her husbands company. She has bought off the California judicial system, which is the only reason she hasn’t been prosecuted, both her and the California legal system are disgraces.

SWalker on March 19, 2013 at 12:04 PM

Instead, it can be offered as an amendment.

In other words, snuck into another bill in the middle of the night that has already passed.

SWalker on March 19, 2013 at 12:07 PM

No, I think the focus has been on background checks – but few have taken it to the next logical step, which would be mandatory registration. Without registration – there’s no way to confirm the legality of a transfer.

Hill60 on March 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Exactly. The background check is just the first step, then when that does nothing and can’t be enforced, they point out that without a registry they can’t enforce the requirement for background checks.

dentarthurdent on March 19, 2013 at 12:11 PM

There’s one big barrier to doing this: in order to tax firearms, they’ll have to know exactly who has them. So they have to build a database of everyone who has firearms if they want to tax them.

And building that database is where they would get fought.

I don’t think it’s an impossible barrier for them to get around. But it’s another reminder that anything that leads to a registry of gun owners is, in a word, unacceptable.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Another EXACTLY!
EVERYTHING they’re trying leads to the need for a registry.

dentarthurdent on March 19, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Reid is an ass, but is generally a very good politician. He’s earned the “DINO” designation from many a leftist commenter over the years. If the Dems fortunes in the Senate turn, he’ll be gone fast, they still haven’t forgiven him for his failure to push a public option through his chamber.

LukeinNE on March 19, 2013 at 12:17 PM

But it’s another reminder that anything that leads to a registry of gun owners is, in a word, unacceptable.

tom on March 19, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Absolutely. Off the table. Line in the sand.

petefrt on March 19, 2013 at 12:59 PM

What is that thing wearing??? With all the money and graft she’s stolen over the years you’d think that she might actually be able to find something other than a goodwill mens suit.

You know, when you’ve stolen millions you’d thing maybe you could get a face lift or maybe even a face transplant. You should should be able to afford a decent hair stylist.

acyl72 on March 19, 2013 at 1:01 PM

She is too stupid to understand that her bill was too outrageous for the other dems in the Senate.

Mirimichi on March 19, 2013 at 1:07 PM

“You will have to ask him [Reid],” she said, when asked why the decision was made.”

Harry Rectum can count votes. The End.

novaculus on March 19, 2013 at 1:09 PM

The founding fathers would be stunned that the States ceded the right to bear arms to the Feds. Stunned.

pat on March 19, 2013 at 1:17 PM

So if Federal universal background checks did somehow pass, shouldn’t my concealed carry permit be recognized everywhere in the country?

Daemonocracy on March 19, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Earlier this week there was an article on DiFi’s assault-weapons ban where she talked about seeing people shot and killed and putting her fingers into the bullet wounds.

I’m wondering if DiFi ever put her fingers into the pierced skull of a baby killed in a partial birth abortion and why doesn’t she want to outlaw that horrific procedure?

RJL on March 19, 2013 at 1:50 PM

What was the justification the Dems used? “If it saves one life”?

I guess Reid doesn’t care about saving lives.

Catoclysmos on March 19, 2013 at 1:50 PM

I’m surprised no one has mentioned this yet: the NRA endorsed Harry Reid during the last election for his Senate seat. This probably has something to do with that, IMHO.

ICBMMan on March 19, 2013 at 1:55 PM

This old bat is one of my US senators, the other one of which is just as ugly and, if possible, less intelligent.

One would think that if she was going to make destroying the Second Amendment her life’s work that she might have made it a point to learn something about firearms.

When that photo was taken, she not only held the weapon with her finger on the trigger, a big no-no to anyone with any kind of knowledge about firearms, but she apparently pointed it at her supporters and the attending press, who evidently didn’t know any better, either.

She’s not only stupid, but ignorant of her subject as well, and to top it off, she’s not even an exception among her equally ill-read colleagues. One would think that to be a US lawmaker, it would at least be a requirement that she read the Constitution, but if she can’t even educate herself on a subject that seems to obsess her, how much less do you think an old, out of date (in her opinion, that is) document like the one that forms the bedrock of our nation interests her?

I have read and studied it, and it appalls me to see how our leaders ignore it every day — even many that are supposed to be on our side.

No wonder the country is in trouble.

Don’t be under any illusion that the voters of California will ever rid us of this hag. She’s there until she drops dead — an event I hope I live to see.

And by the way, don’t bother calling me sexist. I’m female, and in my opinion, this woman belongs in remedial first grade. Or maybe federal prison. Or both.

hachiban on March 19, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Like I said back in DEC. NOTHING is getting banned.

TX-96 on March 19, 2013 at 4:01 PM

There is no upside in any of this for democrats. The voters in favor of it were always going to vote for them. What it does do is greatly increase the number of voters who will not consider their position on anything else when it comes to voting against them. Plus they are MOTIVATED voters.

bluesdoc70 on March 19, 2013 at 8:12 PM

Late to the party here, but I just want to add the comment that that horrid woman needs to get her stinkin’ finger off the trigger of that firearm. The rest of us citizens are plenty capable of owning and safely using firearms. That idiot of the Senate? Not so much.

AZfederalist on March 19, 2013 at 9:35 PM