Cruz: Obama’s gun-control push is going to cost Democrats the Senate in 2014

posted at 5:21 pm on April 10, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

When it comes to his handling of the raging gun-control debate, at least, President Obama’s approval rate has been dipping — and Sen. Ted Cruz is thinking that the president’s relentless, brazen demagoguery on the issue is probably doing the Democrats more harm than good. More gun control from the federal government isn’t exactly going to help red-state Democratic incumbents maintain their seats, after all. Via The Hill:

“I think the president has shown he is willing to demagogue an issue and that it is ultimately going to backfire,” Cruz said in an interview on Laura Ingraham’s radio show. …

“In fact, in my view, as a result of their onslaught on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, I think there’s going to be a very significant consequence in 2014,” Cruz added. “I think as a result of this fight that President Obama is picking, I think the stage is set for Republicans to take control of the United States Senate because of this fight right now, because of coming after the right to keep and bear arms of peaceful law-abiding Americans. I think a number of red state Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014 are going to lose their seats and I think they should.”

It definitely looks like the Second Amendment is going to be playing a revamped role in the upcoming midterms — a potential problem there being that the best way to make that happen might be to force said red-state Democrats to go on the record with a vote, and Sen. Cruz and others have said that they’ll “oppose the motion to proceed to any legislation that will serve as a vehicle for any additional gun restrictions.” As assuredly epic as another #StandWithRand-type filibuster would be, Allahpundit pointed out yesterday that the even more strategic move for the GOP might be letting the Democratic caucus squirm over those hard votes. The WSJ, for their part, wasn’t pleased about the prospect of a filibuster on the issue:

In an instant, these GOP wizards have taken the onus off Senate Democrats and made Republicans the media’s gun-control focus. Mr. Reid is now bellowing about Republicans blocking a vote, and Democrats such as Mark Pryor (Arkansas), Mary Landrieu (Louisiana) and Mark Begich (Alaska) don’t have to declare themselves on provisions that might be unpopular at home.

Meanwhile, Mr. Obama can retreat to his favorite pose of portraying Republicans as obstructionists, which pressures GOP moderates like Maine Senator Susan Collins. “And yet, some folks back in Washington are already floating the idea that they may use political stunts to prevent votes on any of these reforms,” Mr. Obama said on Monday—without mentioning that the “folks” who oppose his bill are Democrats.

But Sen. Cruz stuck to his guns, promising to move forward with a filibuster on a restrictive gun-control bill (you can listen to the audio here):

“I think the criticism has been silly,” Cruz said before adding that “the Republicans who are saying that they are happy to vote to shutoff debate and move to the bill, they don’t even know what the bill contains.

“The bill that these Republicans are going on television saying ‘we’ve got to move to and vote on,’ they still don’t know the details because the Democrats haven’t released the details of the bill that they’re moving to proceed to.”

Whichever way it happens, the Senate is scheduled to start moving on the issue on Thursday. It’s going down.


Related Posts:

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

Comment pages: 1 2

Sorry but I think republicans are going to lose the House and not win the Senate. It won’t be over gun background checks though.(Well duh since 90% of the people support that.) It will be because of doing absolutely nothing except being obsessed with sex.

stingray9813 on April 10, 2013 at 5:26 PM

You need a more flattering picture of the junior senator from Texas. It looks like something a Newsweek cover layout artist would find.

321mdl on April 10, 2013 at 5:30 PM

Sorry but I think republicans are going to lose the House and not win the Senate. It won’t be over gun background checks though.(Well duh since 90% of the people support that.) It will be because of doing absolutely nothing except being obsessed with sex.

stingray9813 on April 10, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Please tell me which of the following should require a background check and which should be prosecuted as a felony should a background check not be conducted:

1. Uncle George owns a farm, where he has taught his nephew Abraham shooting skills and gun safety over a number of years. On Abraham’s 18th birthday, Uncle George gives Abraham a 20-gauge shotgun once owned by Abraham’s grandfather.

2. Abraham lends the shotgun to his long time hunting buddy and best friend, who uses it on a hunting trip and returns it to Abraham ten days later.

3. Uncle George and his friends have an informal hunting club, which leases “hunting rights” from a rural landowner. The “club” holds shooting competitions on an open field on the landowner’s property. At one of these “shoots,” George allows another “club” member to use a pistol George inherited from his father.

4. George’s friend asks about purchasing the pistol. He visits George’s farm to discuss a possible purchase and examine the pistol carefully. George and his friend walk to a hillside well away from George’s house, where the friend shoots the pistol at targets on a dirt embankment.

5. George agrees to sell the pistol to his friend. Before doing so he calls a licensed gun dealer he knows, asking the dealer to run a background check on the prospective purchaser, just in case. The dealer agrees, and tells George by telephone that the purchaser checks out. After hearing this, George sells his friend the pistol.

6. George takes his family on a month-long vacation to Europe. Concerned about a break-in during his absence, he leaves his firearms and other valuables with a trusted neighbor for safekeeping while he is away.

7. Nephew Abraham’s apartment is burglarized. Thieves steal his prized 20-gauge shotgun. The day after the burglary he calls the local police. They come to his apartment, interview him, and tell him they’ll make some inquiries and get back in touch. Abraham takes no further action, waiting to hear back from the police.

Think hard, bright boy, because these are just some black helicopter hypotheticals.

I await your answers.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Cruz: Obama’s gun-control push is going to cost Democrats the Senate in 2014

I don’t know. Toomey is working to lose his Senate seat in 2016 on the same stupid, un-Constitutional gun-control push.

Yeah … the GOP should be cleaning up in 2014, but they should have run away with things in 2012 and they didn’t – because they are colluding with the dems against what little is left of America.

2012 was my last GOP vote and I’m sure I am not alone in this. Decades of voting GOP (usually as a hostage) finally done. I wish the GOP would die quickly to make way for a party that actually represents conservatives and sticks up for America. I don’t trust anyone in the GOP as far as I can throw Christie – the Barky loving idiot who is representative of the utter scum and idiots in the GOP these days.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM

it will and it wont. depends what states

Drunk Report on April 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Sorry but I think republicans are going to lose the House and not win the Senate. It won’t be over gun background checks though.(Well duh since 90% of the people support that.) It will be because of doing absolutely nothing except being obsessed with sex.

stingray9813 on April 10, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Wait. Who is obsessed with sex?

Could it be … the party that has had a string of Senators making big announcements about how they have “evolved” on same sex marriage and now consider it some sort of a civil right?

tom on April 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Cruz might be right. It depends on if the GOP stands up and yells stop to Obama. Once the people see a party that wants to stop Obama the people will rally behind them.

As long as the GOP continues to give Obama everything he wants the people will not vote GOP. what’s the use.

unseen on April 10, 2013 at 5:34 PM

Have no fear democrats, republicans will run a few more Todd Akins ensuring a D majority.

lonestar1 on April 10, 2013 at 5:38 PM

Come on, stingray, tell me which of the above scenarios should require background checks and felony prosecutions in the event background checks are not conducted.

Don’t be a little puss.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 5:39 PM

Sorry but I think republicans are going to lose the House and not win the Senate. It won’t be over gun background checks though.(Well duh since 90% of the people support that.) It will be because of doing absolutely nothing except being obsessed with sex.

stingray9813 on April 10, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Brilliant Satire!

Del Dolemonte on April 10, 2013 at 5:40 PM

Come on, stingray, tell me which of the above scenarios should require background checks and felony prosecutions in the event background checks are not conducted.

Don’t be a little puss.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 5:39 PM

God knows I hope you have a background check.

stingray9813 on April 10, 2013 at 5:41 PM

Cruz: Obama’s gun-control push is going to cost Democrats the Senate in 2014

It might, if our side wasn’t actively scheming to help them keep it by pushing for amnesty.

xblade on April 10, 2013 at 5:41 PM

I believe it matters little whether Cruz is right or wrong on the 2014 elections. The trajectory has been established and there isn’t enough fuel in the tank to change it. The only options left are to let it crash or press the self destruct button!!

Deano1952 on April 10, 2013 at 5:42 PM

tom on April 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM

this…

its the dems ‘squirrel’ for cripe sakes

cmsinaz on April 10, 2013 at 5:43 PM

Whichever way it happens, the Senate is scheduled to start moving on the issue on Thursday. It’s going down.

Well, I hope it’s going down, but judging Republicans up to now, I’m not so sure.

rickv404 on April 10, 2013 at 5:44 PM

I’m more interested to know what Cruz is doing to recruit candidates as part of the NRSC

commodore on April 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Good for Cruz.

Stick with it, Ted. Don’t listen to the math-challenged Republicans and Conservatives who can’t think their way out of paperbag telling you there ought to be a vote so that three or four vulnerable Dems have to vote “Not Present!”

I tell ya, they call us the Stupid Party but it’s the moderates and wusses in the Party that carry that banner and blow the trumpets.

Dusty on April 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Sorry but I think republicans are going to lose the House and not win the Senate. It won’t be over gun background checks though.(Well duh since 90% of the people support that.) It will be because of doing absolutely nothing except being obsessed with sex.

stingray9813 on April 10, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Source or it didn’t happen.
I’ll wait.

RovesChins on April 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM

stingray9813 on April 10, 2013 at 5:26 PM

Brilliant Satire!

Del Dolemonte on April 10, 2013 at 5:40 PM

I can’t say that I totally disagree with him.
Frankly I’m a bit concerned about 2014 if the same spineless establishment GOP (as someone else said – the Vichy Right) runs the campaign.

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM

God knows I hope you have a background check.

stingray9813 on April 10, 2013 at 5:41 PM

I’ve already passed.

FYI, ALL of the scenarios that I described WOULD require a background check under Chuck Schumer’s proposed legislation, S. 374, a/k/a the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013. EACH would be a felony for the seller and/or the buyer and each weapon would be a distinct violation.

Pursuant to S. 374:

* If you leave home for more than 7 days and leave anyone at home, that becomes a felony illegal transfer. 5 years in prison for each of you…for EACH weapon.

* If you take a friend shooting and allow him to fire your gun, that is a felony illegal transfer. 5 years in prison for each of you…for EACH weapon.

* If you have a gun lost or stolen and don’t report it within 24 hours, you’ve committed a felony. 5 years in prison…for EACH weapon.

* If you lend a gun to someone for to try out at the range, provide a loaner for a student in training, let your son shoot a rifle you purchased while hunting, or provide a gun to a woman for self-defence, you’ve committed a felony. 5 years in prison for each of you…for EACH weapon.

Americans do not support such requirements for background checks…and, certainly, not by 90%.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Never count the Dem’s out when Karl Rove is still in the game

halfbaked on April 10, 2013 at 5:53 PM

Please pray that Rand Paul does not cave and goes through with his filibuster. This is about the constitution, bill of rights, our liberty and principles.

Just say no!!!!

Amjean on April 10, 2013 at 5:53 PM

I think a number of red state Democrats who are up for reelection in 2014 are going to lose their seats and I think they should.”

Not to mention Toomey and some other “Republicans” as well.

FloatingRock on April 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM

Correction:

EACH would be a felony for the seller transferor and/or the buyer transferee and each weapon would be a distinct violation.

Schumer’s background check legislation regulates ALL transfers of EVERY kind. No sale is required.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM

“In fact, in my view, as a result of their onslaught on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms, I think there’s going to be a very significant consequence in 2014,” Cruz added.

You have to wonder if Cruz truly believes that, or if he’s just incapable of making anything but grandiose statements.
Just an absurd remark.
Red meat for the diehards, I guess.

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 5:57 PM

“Today is the start of a healthy debate that must end with the Senate and House, hopefully, passing these commonsense measures and the president signing it into law. The event of Newtown, truly the events at Newton, changed us all. It changes our country, our communities, our town and it changed our hearts and minds.”

- Senator Joe Manchin, today

Newtown did NOT change the Constitution. If you want to change the Constitution, AMEND IT.

Learn the law:

Gun Taxes, Ammo Licences, Liability Insurance, And Other New Ideas From The Gun-Grabbers Are As Unconstitutional As The Last New Ideas They Had

Senator Dianne Feinstein: “I’m Not a Sixth Grader”

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 6:00 PM

Ted Cruz will not back down.

Many herein above posters think quiting is a way to win.

Or think it is cute to talk down about Ted Cruz walking point at night in Washington D.C. for U.S. all with the likes of John McCain lurking in the bushes.

Many here in my not so humble opinion do not deserve the freedom and liberty brave men died for with all the “we can not win cry baby crap.

fight or get out of the way of those who will

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 10, 2013 at 6:01 PM

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Leaving aside the riddle games…
what exactly is your position on background checks?
Not sure you’ve really ever offered that.
Now I’m not asking about whether there are or aren’t ‘already laws’…assuming it’s a blank slate, what do you think is reasonable?

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Yo, verbs out of balance,

Get your NY thug Schummer back in a session with Ted Cruz if you can.

Fun to watch.

More fun would be a one on one with the empty suit Obama.

Pop Corn sell out deal that.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 10, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 5:47 PM

Seems that this would pretty much outlaw youth hunting, yes?

KCB on April 10, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 5:54 PM

This guy never met a gun control act he didn’t like, what bothers me is the language used in them especially in the 68 one, it is eerily similar in wording to another gun control act from further back, ah but that’s just a coincidence, nothing to see there move along.

MarshFox on April 10, 2013 at 6:05 PM

verbs out of balance

Change the subject more often, that helps.

Obama needs a new place to hide his commie looks too.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 10, 2013 at 6:06 PM

He makes a good point about the Republican Senators wanting to go ahead a have a vote on the bill without having any idea what’s in it. I’m sure the bill will be written by Democrats and Reid will rush a vote once he has enough votes to pass it. You’ll have to pass it to see what’s in it.

supernova on April 10, 2013 at 6:06 PM

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM

The problem isn’t background checks … the problem is storing the data and creating a list of people who own firearms.

Gun confiscation always begins with registration. Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot or a democrat.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Define reasonable and where that word stops and then we’ll talk, because with the Government reasonable never stops once it is started.

MarshFox on April 10, 2013 at 6:10 PM

Yo, verbs out of balance,

Get your NY thug Schummer back in a session with Ted Cruz if you can.

Fun to watch.

More fun would be a one on one with the empty suit Obama.

Pop Corn sell out deal that.

APACHEWHOKNOWS on April 10, 2013 at 6:04 PM

Do you have a point you’re trying to make?
I mean aside from your dislike of me, Schumer, and Obama?

(And it is ‘Schumer’, btw. Granted your spelling it ‘Schummer’ might have been intended as some odd insult…as is your style. But I’m thinking you just misspelled it, right? If not, and it was instead one of your name change zingers…do explain. Thanks.)

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:11 PM

verbaldouche – Are you serious?

RWM has documented countless times that the law being presented is unconstitutional. It is clear from what RWM posts that anything infringing on the 2nd ammendment isn’t constitutional. Background checks are already being done so this “background” check bill, like most liberal proposals, is grounded in redundancy and hyprocrisy. It is only a tool, like you, to bring more infringements on the second ammendment which clearly states the words, “shall not be infringed”.

It seems, IMHO, that RWM supports existing law and is very articulate on Suprement Court rulings on the second ammendment. I don’t mean to be typing words for RWM but shees read the posts.

rsherwd65 on April 10, 2013 at 6:14 PM

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Define reasonable and where that word stops and then we’ll talk, because with the Government reasonable never stops once it is started.

MarshFox on April 10, 2013 at 6:10 PM

No.
Just use the word ‘reasonable’. I’m sure you know the word and it’s meaning.
Use as you’d use it in any context.

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:15 PM

Anyone who tells you otherwise is an idiot or a democrat.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:09 PM

It’s never an “or”.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 6:15 PM

The sad thing is, Cruz should be right.

Should.

But the way some Senate Republicans are handling this, it’ll probably be a case of snatching defeat from the jaws of Victory.

catmman on April 10, 2013 at 6:15 PM

verbaldouche – Are you serious?

rsherwd65 on April 10, 2013 at 6:14 PM

Yes, just not very smart. Alas, is a leftist.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 6:16 PM

It’s never an “or”.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 6:15

True

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:17 PM

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM

I have no problem with background checks for the people exercising their right to purchase guns, just as I have no problem with background checks for people exercising their right to vote. Of course THAT would be seen as totally unacceptable by YOU, right?

Snitchmo on April 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Leaving aside the riddle games…
what exactly is your position on background checks?
Not sure you’ve really ever offered that.
Now I’m not asking about whether there are or aren’t ‘already laws’…assuming it’s a blank slate, what do you think is reasonable?

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM

I don’t have a problem with commercial background checks, per se. I do have problems with what should be allowed to prevent the purchase of a firearm. That a woman took anti-depressants, anxiety and insomnia medications for a period after losing her husband or being raped should not preclude her from exercising her constitutionally-protected right to bear arms, especially when her due process rights have been denied. This is happening in New York now. I have a problem with medical professionals merely having to say that they ‘suspect’ someone ‘might’ be mentally ill is, likewise, unconstitutional. The test isn’t whether someone might be mentally ill, but whether the person is ‘an imminent threat to herself or others.’

The mental health requirements that are being passed – like the SAFE Act in New York, which prohibits ANYONE, who has EVER taken any psychotropic medication, which would include drugs for depression, anxiety, insomnia, ADD, ADHD, etc. – will probably fail to survive strict scrutiny. Yes, governments have a compelling interest in keeping weapons out of the hands of those adjudicated mentally-ill or those that are ‘an imminent threat to themselves or others,’ but the laws are overly broad and are not the least restrictive means that the government can use to achieve that interest. While the government can prevent those, who have been adjudicated mentally ill and those whom mental health professionals have warned are imminent dangers to themselves or others, it cannot infringe on the rights of those that have neither been adjudicated mentally ill nor reported to be an imminent danger. That someone might have taken ADD or insomnia medication in the past is NOT proof that the person is ‘an imminent threat to himself or others.’

Such laws are likewise an unconstitutional deprivation of a constitutionally-protected right without due process. Each person must be entitled to a hearing before his right to bear arms, his guns can be permanently confiscated or his licence is permanently suspended or pulled.

The state has an interest in protecting the public from those that pose ‘an imminent danger to themselves or others,’ but those that had temporary mental conditions, which have been resolved (past insomnia and mild depression after a spouse died, anxiety and insomnia during a financially-trying period in the past, etc) cannot be deprived of their right to bear arms without a hearing with the state proving that the individual is an imminent danger to himself or others. There must be some adjudication. In most of these cases, the burden on the state is going to be too high for it to survive strict scrutiny.

Both Colorado and Arizona could’ve easily shown why a Jared Loughner or James Holmes should be prohibited from purchasing guns or have his weapons confiscated temporarily – and maybe permanently – based on the plethora of evidence that existed prior to their crimes, but the fact that a woman took an anti-depressant 10 years ago for 6 months after being raped is insufficient to prove that the state has a right to deprive of her constitutionally-protected right to own a gun for self-defence. There MUST be more. She MUST be an imminent threat to herself or others.

I have a HUGE problem with the fact that we supposedly need more laws, more onerous background checks, etc, even though:

1. Gun crime prosecutions under the Obama administration have decreased by 45% from the Bush administration; and,

2. Only 71 of the 71,000 people, who lied on their background checks in 2009, were prosecuted by the Obama administration; and,

3. In 2010, 72,142 were denied the right to buy a gun. 33,907 (47%) of those were denied because they lied about a felony indictment or conviction on their background check; yet, only 44 were prosecuted and 13 convicted of lying; and,

4. Even though people, who have been adjudicated mentally ill, are not allowed to own firearms under Federal law, 23 states and the District of Columbia had submitted fewer than 100 mental health records to the federal database, 17 states had submitted fewer than 10 mental health records, and 4 states had not submitted any in 2012, and the Feds cannot mandate compliance; and

5. As Vice-President Joe Biden said: “We don’t have time to prosecute everybody who lies on background checks.”

6. Who remembers Hadiya Pendleton, the girl who was murdered in Chicago not long after performing at Obama’s second inauguration? One of her killers, Michael Ward, pleaded guilty to AGGRAVATED UNLAWFUL USE OF A FIREARM – A CLASS IV FELONY – in January, 2012. He was sentenced to two years probation…WHICH HE VIOLATED THREE TIMES IN LESS THAN ONE YEAR.

While NONE of the proposals that Democrats have made would have prevented Hadiya Pendleton’s murder BECAUSE THE GUN WAS OBTAINED – WAIT FOR IT – ILLEGALLY, she might very well be alive today had Michael Ward been sentenced to jail or prison rather than probation or had his probation revoked after the first or second or third violation.

7. 93% of all guns used in crimes are obtained ILLEGALLY and nothing that has been proposed is going to stop that.

8. Most of the people, who are drafting these laws, have NO IDEA about which they are talking. NONE.

Let’s pass MORE GUN CONTROL LAWS for Obama NOT TO ENFORCE!!!

BTW: I am not playing games with riddles. The scenarios that I have proposed on this thread WOULD REQUIRE BACKGROUND CHECKS AND BE SUBJECT TO FELONY PROSECUTIONS.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM

that’s cute to think that. I have 3 million newly arrived reasons to think that it don’t matter what el presidente does in 2014 or 2016.

joeindc44 on April 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Face it we have a Democratic DICTATORSHIP in this country!!!!

With Amnesty next, the real question is going to be should the next name of our country be…….

….UNITED STATES OF MEXICO or AMERICO or maybe MEXIMERICA?

Buh bye Republic.

PappyD61 on April 10, 2013 at 6:21 PM

If anybody thinks that the vast majority of voters are going to remember Toomey’s gun control vote in 2016, they’re delusional.

If you want him out now, you’ll have to initiate recall. That should scare some sense into him. Start trial ballooning it now to make him think twice about gun control. You can recall him pour encourager les autres.

mintycrys on April 10, 2013 at 6:23 PM

RWM has documented countless times that the law being presented is unconstitutional. It is clear from what RWM posts that anything infringing on the 2nd ammendment isn’t constitutional. Background checks are already being done so this “background” check bill, like most liberal proposals, is grounded in redundancy and hyprocrisy. It is only a tool, like you, to bring more infringements on the second ammendment which clearly states the words, “shall not be infringed”.

It seems, IMHO, that RWM supports existing law and is very articulate on Suprement Court rulings on the second ammendment. I don’t mean to be typing words for RWM but shees read the posts.

rsherwd65 on April 10, 2013 at 6:14 PM

If you wanna jump in, Try and follow my question…pretty simple one.
I’ll help you –
You object to based on ‘redundancy’ in the laws.
Fine.
Do you object to background checks?

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:23 PM

I like Cruz, but this statement is only red meat thrown at his base

Hell..we’re going to lose the house….dems never stopped their ground game…we don’t have one

Redford on April 10, 2013 at 6:24 PM

MarshFox on April 10, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Well, he’s for confiscation at the end of the day.

I’ve been doing a lot of research on the issue lately. If you are interested, check out the link on insurance, taxes, certificates, etc.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Do you object to background checks?

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:23 PM

Background checks are already being done.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:27 PM

No.
Just use the word ‘reasonable’. I’m sure you know the word and it’s meaning.
Use as you’d use it in any context.

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:15 PM

So, explain to me, if you would be so kind – if the feds don’t, won’t or can’t enforce all the laws we already have (about 30,000 of them nationwide), is it “reasonable” to write new laws that don’t accomplish the publicly stated goals for writing those laws?

Last year there were about 60 million background checks run for gun purchases. About 77,000 were denied because they lied on the form or were felons illegally attempting to buy a weapon, and only 44 of those were prosecuted.
What will a wider net for background checks accomplish if they don’t even prosecute the people who violate the current laws regarding background checks?

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 6:27 PM

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM

As I read it, the Constitution does not mention ‘background checks’ anywhere.

Not in the 2nd Amendment. Not anywhere.

Perhaps we ought not have background checks.

Solaratov on April 10, 2013 at 6:28 PM

also cute: This idea that the GOP establishment can even create some sense of blame on the donkeys for their bad faith gun control efforts.

We’ll be arguing about paying for sandra fluke’s inevitable same sex in vitro choices instead of nailing obama for any policy choice he’s pursued.*

* even though those choices are a basic I hate u to america.

joeindc44 on April 10, 2013 at 6:29 PM

From the other post about Toomey’s collusion with the dem scum on this pathetic attempt at un-Constitutional gun-control:

The background check bill, which would close the gun show loophole and expand checks to online sales, is officially co-sponsored by Schumer; Toomey;

What the hell is there to expand to “online sales” with regards to background checks?? Any sales that go interstate have to be delivered to an FFL which means that background checks are made – whether it’s a private sale or not. If it’s an in-state sale then the state, itself, decides what checks are necessary. But, this junk is in there just to try and get through as many offenses to the Constitution as is possible, while lying about it the whole way.

Toomey can take a long walk off a short pier. He is slime. He’ll get tossed in 2016 and open up the Senate to control by the dems -w ho are even worse than these idjit GOPers but it’s come down to a difference that doesn’t matter much in reality, any more.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 10, 2013 at 6:30 PM

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 6:20 PM

Ok…fair enough.
You do in fact support background checks –
but with the caveat that any resulting denial be followed by a hearing.
That seems reasonable.
As far as mental health requirements being too broadly and in some cases wrongly defined and applied, also a fair concern.

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:31 PM

Seems that this would pretty much outlaw youth hunting, yes?

KCB on April 10, 2013 at 6:05 PM

Yes, S. 374 would, for all intents and purposes, outlaw youth hunting AND shooting.

Under current Federal law, it is prohibited for a dealer to sell a handgun and many semi-automatics to anyone under 21 and long guns to anyone under 18.

If you expand the law to include transfers, not just sales, then kids under 18 couldn’t shoot a long gun.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 6:31 PM

No.
Just use the word ‘reasonable’. I’m sure you know the word and it’s meaning.
Use as you’d use it in any context.

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:15 PM

NO.

You leftists always change the definition to suit your ends.

You come up with what a “reasonable” background check entails — and then we’ll tell you if WE think it’s “reasonable”.

Solaratov on April 10, 2013 at 6:32 PM

As with immigration, the law as currently constituted would be perfectly fine – if it were enforced.

Background checks stopped Lanza from buying his own gun. Its why he had to steal his mothers.

Facts show that criminals don’t get their guns through commercial means. They buy them illegally, which by the by, is illegal.

Assault weapons compromise a minuscule amount of the crimes committed with rifles, let alone firearms en toto. But the big bugaboo is assault weapons. Why?

Lies pervade the rhetoric. The “40%” stat is a lie. Its a lie and deliberate misinformation talking about how background checks aren’t conducted at guns shows or over the internet – all lies.

The government fails to prosecute – or even investigate – up to 60% of the incidents where NICS rejects someone. A good percentage of those are incorrect rejections for one reason or another, btw…

Its all a fracking joke…

*spit*

catmman on April 10, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Do you object to background checks?

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:23 PM

We already do background checks.

catmman on April 10, 2013 at 6:34 PM

What the hell is there to expand to “online sales” with regards to background checks?? Any sales that go interstate have to be delivered to an FFL which means that background checks are made – whether it’s a private sale or not.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 10, 2013 at 6:30 PM

I’m sure the fine print creates a trail that liberals will use eventually. The one enduring truth about liberals is they never stop … never.

The only time they stop is when we’re all dead.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:34 PM

The “GOP” is trying to rename itself “The Gay Old Pussies”…..

That’s what they got…..

Cruz and Rand are the only men left…..

It’s going to take a MMA fight to stop the Marxists – not just telling them to stop….

redguy on April 10, 2013 at 6:35 PM

The gop leadership wants AMNESTY, they will go along with gun control, and the are just looking for a reason to fold on homosexual marriage.

I’m sorry but if you think the base is going to come out to support these Progressive lying pieces of Possum shinola you are wrong.

And for those in talk radio here is a message to them…..WHEN YOU HAVE ANY DEMOCRAT ON….AUDIO included…..I WILL TURN OFF YOUR SHOW.

No more will I listen to liars I can’t do anything about.

And the gop is headed for the same fate.

PappyD61 on April 10, 2013 at 6:36 PM

We already do background checks.

catmman on April 10, 2013 at 6:34 PM

verbaluce should go to a gun shop and ask what’s involved in buying a gun.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Last year there were about 60 million background checks run for gun purchases. About 77,000 were denied because they lied on the form or were felons illegally attempting to buy a weapon, and only 44 of those were prosecuted.
What will a wider net for background checks accomplish if they don’t even prosecute the people who violate the current laws regarding background checks?

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 6:27 PM

OK…so you want to see more efficient and effective background check system and laws.
But you don’t object generally…or deem such unconstitutional.

My overall point (and with RWM) is that you guys don’t object to all of this all that much.

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:37 PM

We already do background checks.

catmman on April 10, 2013 at 6:34 PM

Which you support…yes?

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:15 PM

I do indeed know what reasonable means, because I can be so, a learned trait even for someone who was raised by some unreasonable people. Background checks are fine for actual gun dealers, however it stops there, and gun dealers means a shop that is set up, not gun shows, don’t even go there with me, I am not a fan of waiting periods because they stop very little, and sometimes they hurt more than they help. Private transactions, no not happening. One last thing, gun registration in anyway shape or form is unreasonable, period and I ain’t budging on that. That is why background checks bother me so, they should check on a person, not tell what they are buying. A foolish man would believe in the angelic nature of any government.

MarshFox on April 10, 2013 at 6:39 PM

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 5:31 PM

Leaving aside the riddle games…
what exactly is your position on background checks?
Not sure you’ve really ever offered that.
Now I’m not asking about whether there are or aren’t ‘already laws’…assuming it’s a blank slate, what do you think is reasonable?

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM

What is your position on the Second Amendment, or, the constitution in general?

On a side note: I saw a POS gang banger walking out of Walfart with a knife hanging from his sagging a$$ pants that would have made Crocodile Dundee blush. I found myself hoping he got so high one night, he impales himself on it. But, Walfart is a gun free zone.

RovesChins on April 10, 2013 at 6:40 PM

(Off to see some Shakespeare…Julius Cesar….the play is all about background checks for daggers.)

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:40 PM

Which you support…yes?

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Do you support creating a registry of gun owners?

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM

Which you support…yes?

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM

No. In just about all other paperwork you are merely asked questions as to eligibility and are held to charges of perjury if you lie. Only with guns is there some sort of national background check. The feral government has no business mucking around in this, at all. On top of all that, cars are more dangerous than guns and are used as getaway vehicles in nearly 100% of all crimes (not to mention being gigantic missiles, themselves, or transportation tools for bombs. Are you for national background checks fro all purchases of a car or rental?? And there is no Constitutional right to have a car.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM

We already do background checks.

catmman on April 10, 2013 at 6:34 PM

verbaluce should go to a gun shop and ask what’s involved in buying a gun.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:36 PM

The last three guns we purchased included a government butt flossing they were so thorough.

RovesChins on April 10, 2013 at 6:42 PM

This is the latest info on the Toomey/Machin collusion:

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/10/the-public-safety-and-second-amendment-rights-protection-act/

The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act
Sens. Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey

Bottom Line: The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act would require states and the federal government to send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill extends the existing background check system to gun shows and online sales.

There is much more at the link above. As expected, some of it is laughable and the rest is against the 2nd Amendment and applies to law abiding Citizens. Didn’t see anything about illegal aliens tho:-)

bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 6:43 PM

The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act

May the charlatans’ brains splatter into a million pieces, from Machiavellian deceit alone.

Schadenfreude on April 10, 2013 at 6:44 PM

Ok…fair enough.
You do in fact support background checks –
but with the caveat that any resulting denial be followed by a hearing.
That seems reasonable.
As far as mental health requirements being too broadly and in some cases wrongly defined and applied, also a fair concern.

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:31 PM

The mental health requirement is a big concern. How many people do you know that have never taken anti-depressants, SSRIs, anti-anxiety, insomnia, ADD, ADHD, etc, meds? New York is claiming that, if you’ve EVER taken any of these types of medications, it can prohibit you from exercising your Second Amendment rights. That’s just absurd. Also, in states like California, if your spouse has taken meds such as I’ve listed, YOU can lose your Second Amendment rights.

It’s crazy. Imagine if states put a mental health requirement on abortion. If you’ve taken any of these meds, you cannot have an abortion because some women have suffered mentally from the procedure in the past. You might not be able to make an informed consent or the procedure could trigger a ‘relapse.’ Such would be met with outrage.

The mental health prohibition should ONLY be allowed for those that have been adjudicated mentally ill or mental health professionals have diagnosed the person to be an imminent threat to themselves or others…and this prohibition should not be permanent.

If we just accept ‘reasonable’ or some other vaguely-defined term, then we will get the equivalent of the Pop-Tart Gun violation in the background check system. What if your neighbour is a medical professional, who has NEVER treated you, but she thinks you are mentally ill because she doesn’t like the way you respond to the mountains of shit that her 42 cats leave in your yard? Under many of these recently enacted and proposed laws, your neighbour could prohibit you from exercising your right to bear arms for self-defence or hunting. It’s absurd.

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 6:45 PM

Assault semi-auto weapons compromise a minuscule amount of the crimes committed with rifles, let alone firearms en toto. But the big bugaboo is assault semi-auto weapons. Why?

catmman on April 10, 2013 at 6:32 PM

Fixed that.

Only TWO legally-registered Class III weapons (assault weapons) have been used in crimes (murders, IIRC) since the NFA was enacted in 1934. And one of those was used by a deputy who got it from his department’s arms room.

Solaratov on April 10, 2013 at 6:45 PM

OK…so you want to see more efficient and effective background check system and laws.
But you don’t object generally…or deem such unconstitutional.
verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Wrong.
There is no need to change what we already have in place that operates at the state level.
But criminals don’t buy their guns from legitimate dealers, and they don’t submit to background checks – well at least the smarter ones don’t.
There IS a need to actually prosecute and imprison the criminals.
But you Dems apparently don’t really want to do that.
Is it because you actually like having the criminal activity to justify your power grabs and cuts into the Constitution?

dentarthurdent on April 10, 2013 at 6:47 PM

He is so right there.

jake49 on April 10, 2013 at 6:47 PM

bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 6:43 PM

I wonder how all that will stop some nut from killing people.

Maybe they should create nut free zones.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:48 PM

We already do background checks.

catmman on April 10, 2013 at 6:34 PM

verbaluce should go to a gun shop and ask what’s involved in buying a gun.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:36 PM

Most of them have a guard with one of those wands at the front door that can detect liberals, so he might not get in.

slickwillie2001 on April 10, 2013 at 6:50 PM

The last three guns we purchased included a government butt flossing they were so thorough.

RovesChins on April 10, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I expect it to get worse.

Take verbaluce with you next time, he might like a government butt flossing.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:50 PM

why? Who are we trying to stop from getting guns? It seems to me that everyone, except for people who are committed as insane or are taking anti-psychotic meds should get a gun. Maybe people on probation for violent crimes, but even former convicts should be allowed.

so what is the point of a background check? What are you checking for? The left wants to disarm america regardless of the reason. They tried to scare us for decades by insisting that guns in the homes are just waiting to be accidentally discharged into mom. Now, it’s school shootings…when those are done by insane people. or terrorists.

Criminals will get guns regardless and ditto for paid hitmen. So, who are you stopping? It’s just an exercise in futility and govt power encroachment as the left desperately tries to create a national gun registry among all the other stalinist things they want.

So, background checks? maybe. Is it that important? No. Won’t stop crime or big violent attacks.

joeindc44 on April 10, 2013 at 6:51 PM

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on April 10, 2013 at 6:41 PM

I like the way you think!

MarshFox on April 10, 2013 at 6:51 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=IjTwjARl1nw#!

Ted Cruz on Mark Levin today. H/T john.frank on April 10, 2013 at 1:56 PM

QOTD 4/9/13

bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 6:51 PM

Regrettably the wsj is just an establishment organ..happy to cave to anything, as long as their buds get the $$$$$$$ they need to have a glorious lifestyle.

The ocnjoining of the Left and cultural/business elites in shaping America for their own purposes is really out of control.

If the right fails to make it voice heard we might as well give up. Sure barry will demagogue the obstructionism of the right (yeah, I am sooooo Shocked that barry, dearest, prettiest barry would get all petulant and everything)

If the right can’t face down barry, and the wsj and the leftist media, and yes, the universities and hollywood…well then what? It is better to go down in glory…that to lose the integrity of the Constitution…and common sense. And of course that is the problem

Too many Rs are clinging to their drapes and perks and their ‘legacy’…and sure, they’ll carve out some money for their children..but that’s about it

r keller on April 10, 2013 at 6:51 PM

OK…so you want to see more efficient and effective background check system and laws.
But you don’t object generally…or deem such unconstitutional.

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:37 PM

No.

But as long as the laws are in effect, they should be at least utilized and offenders prosecuted. YOUR government is NOT enforcing the law already on the books. They’re just whining that we “need tougher laws”.

Why? To what end? Just a “tougher” law for the .gov to ignore? Or an excuse to turn an entire class of people into criminals?

Nobody trusts YOUR government, verbaluce. And with good reason.

Solaratov on April 10, 2013 at 6:52 PM

The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act would require states and the federal government to send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). The bill extends the existing background check system to gun shows and online sales.

bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 6:43 PM

The Federal government cannot mandate states forward such information or require participation in particular programmes. The most that it can do is tie reasonable conditions to a portion of funding for projects or programmes that are connected to them. For example, states cannot be forced to raise drinking ages, lower BAC, or lower the speed limit. The most the Feds can do is to tie reasonable conditions to a portion of highway moneys. See South Dakota v Dole, 483 U.S. 203 (1987), and National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius, 567 U.S. ___ (2012), Case No: 11-393, for two examples.

It also may not mandate that state, county, and municipal employees conduct background checks, see Printz v United States, 521 U.S. 898 (1997).

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 6:52 PM

oh, and btw, the concern trolls are right about one thing. 2014 and 2016? It will be all sex all the time

TRMS is already beating the drums about the stupid/sexist thing that some R governor said…they will beat this drum thru the Clinton administration

r keller on April 10, 2013 at 6:54 PM

Why? To what end? Just a “tougher” law for the .gov to ignore? Or an excuse to turn an entire class of people into criminals?

yeah, to what end, to block who?

It’s probably another backdoor to making everything illegal, so they can bust whoever they want, when they want. “oh, sorry, you mispelled a word on page 42 of the application for gun permit, Mr. Republican, you’re going to jail for 10 years.”

Whatever, point out something that background checks have done. Didn’t stop Newtown. Hasn’t stopped Chicago gangland violence. Didn’t stop Major Hassan.

joeindc44 on April 10, 2013 at 6:55 PM

bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 6:43 PM
I wonder how all that will stop some nut from killing people.

Maybe they should create nut free zones.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:48 PM

Pitiful, isn’t it? Clearly, stopping nuts from killing people is not their objective as we that can think already know.

We also know there are NO nut free zones in D.C.:-)

I like your expression tho; think I’ll put a sign with that in my yard, LOL

bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 6:57 PM

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:23 PM

As presently constituted I have no issue with background checks. In fact, my conceal carry permit allows me to get through the process in less time. I have gone through several background checks for the weapons I have purchased.

What I am opposed to in the upcoming legislation is having to do a background check on private transfers. If I want to give my son a hunting rifle for Christmas I should be able to do that without having to do a background check on my son. And I certainly don’t want records retained past the current requirement of 24 hours. No one has a right to know what I purchase at any time.

Regardless of what Congress wants to achieve we should all face the reality that there are mentally ill or bad people that decide to do bad things to people. Just look at Chicago as an example. Even more reason that second ammendment rights should not be infringed.

rsherwd65 on April 10, 2013 at 6:58 PM

The last three guns we purchased included a government butt flossing they were so thorough.

RovesChins on April 10, 2013 at 6:42 PM

I expect it to get worse.

Take verbaluce with you next time, he might like a government butt flossing.

darwin on April 10, 2013 at 6:50 PM

Dude. I wouldn’t be caught dead with that Sack of Sh!t. If we were stabbed in the same area, I would beg someone to kill me so I wouldn’t have to smell him.

RovesChins on April 10, 2013 at 7:01 PM

Which you support…yes?

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:38 PM

Philosophically, no, not really.

I will adhere and abide to them as the law stipulates because as currently instituted they are reasonable. The system has its faults, its true, but it does work – as illustrated with Lanza himself – and I’m not beyond supporting reasonable and rational laws.

As the Dems want now, they want the checks to include all personal information on the purchaser and firearms. They also want that information stored in a government database. Ostensibly for making it easier for public safety officials to track, but there’s the rub:

Criminals constitute a significantly small percentage of those who try to obtain their firearms through legal means which would subject them to such checks effectively rendering the expansion mute.

The effect on crime and criminals would be negligible. The effect on already law-abiding citizens is not rational or reasonable.

The government has trouble enforcing the laws they already have.

Again, as with immigration, it isn’t a problem with the laws – its a failure of the government to show some fortitude in enforcing those laws. Which is why people like me are against an expansion of the law:

it will have marginal impact on crime, the justification is weak, there are plenty of laws which already cover the subject at hand and the intrusion on the law-abiding is unacceptable.

We are getting beyond what is reasonable and rational and its turning into a government power grab, hence a lot of the dissent.

For me, (as with immigration) the government cant demonstrate the ability or fortitude to use the laws they already have. If they were, if the facts and figures showed the government was doing everything it could with what they’ve got, then i would rethink my position. That however isn’t the case. The Government won’t enforce said laws – not through any real physical inability to do so – but they lack the political will to do so. ‘Law’ as a term of Government is becoming more and more meaningless and therefore irrelevant.

More ‘law’ wont solve anything. Those like Biden who are trying to pass them have even said as much. So why the push?

The laws they are trying to push are already on the books. Yet Newtown occurred. The 94 AWB didn’t stop Columbine, not five years after. Gun-free and knife-free zones didn’t stop a maniac from slicing up fourteen people yesterday. There were already laws on the books. They didn’t work.

The ‘Law’ has become nothing but bromide for politicians to hold on to or expand their power base.

Until those responsible for the law, for enforcing it actually do their jobs and use the tools they already have – sorry.

No more.

There. Now my wife just got back from the hospital. I’m out. Later, Hot Air!

catmman on April 10, 2013 at 7:03 PM

OK…so you want to see more efficient and effective background check system and laws.
But you don’t object generally…or deem such unconstitutional.

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:37 PM

Do you really believe that those who illegally obtain firearms are going to be concerned or stopped by more stringent background checks?

RovesChins on April 10, 2013 at 7:07 PM

Resist We Much on April 10, 2013 at 6:52 PM

You have more knowledge and make more sense than a couple of the last SCOTUS’s rulings.

Encourage states to provide all their available records to NICS by restricting federal funds to states who do not comply.

(That sounds like a threat to me or the very least “Obamacare”)

Clarifies that submissions of mental health records into the NICS system are not prohibited by federal privacy laws (HIPAA).

(Hmmm..”Clarifies”, I don’t think that would be the word I’d use)

I bet this “proposal by Toomey/Machin is several hundred pages in length.

Oh, I accomplised today all I said I would yesterday:-)

bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 7:14 PM

verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 6:02 PM

Until background checks eliminate events such as Newtown, they should end.

NONE of the Senate gun bill would have prevented the Newtown tragedy, and the Senators all know and admit this fact. This is about gun-grabbing, boiling-frog style, and the intelligent people get it.

Criminals and the mentally ill are already banned from buying guns. THOSE people will still get guns.

We need to treat mental illness by locking up said people, but the libtards won’t permit it via ACLU.

ladyingray on April 10, 2013 at 7:17 PM

The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act

Words matter as they say. So this “proposal” by Toomney/Machin and “others” that didn’t appear in the pictures are saying:

We are going to protect Public Safety by Protecting your Second Amendment Rights. Right? LOL So in other words, you don’t have any Second Amendment Rights, period. We will tell you under what circumstances that we deem allowable, what Rights you do have when it comes to guns and a few other things.

bluefox on April 10, 2013 at 7:21 PM

Just an absurd remark.
verbaluce on April 10, 2013 at 5:57 PM

Why don’t you just make this your standard signature line at the bottom of each of your posts?

Aviator on April 10, 2013 at 7:23 PM

Comment pages: 1 2