Filibuster fails: Senate votes to open debate on gun-control bill, thanks to 16 Republicans

posted at 12:01 pm on April 11, 2013 by Allahpundit

I use the term “gun-control bill” loosely because … no bill exists yet. But let’s not let procedural niceties deter us from Doing Something. Among the 68 who voted to proceed on the bill this morning are 16 Republicans. Per Chad Pergram:

Alexander
Ayotte
Burr
Chambliss
Coburn
Collins
Corker
Flake
Graham
Heller
Hoeven
Isakson
Kirk
McCain
Toomey
Wicker

Democrats voting against proceeding: Just two, Mark Pryor and Mark Begich. Everyone else in the caucus except for Frank Lautenberg, who was absent, voted yes. A message to red-state Dems (and aisle-crossing Republicans) from the NRA:

We hope the Senate will replace the current provisions of S. 649 with language that is properly focused on addressing mental health inadequacies; prosecuting violent criminals; and keeping our kids safe in their schools. Should it fail to do so, the NRA will make an exception to our standard policy of not “scoring” procedural votes and strongly oppose a cloture motion to move to final passage of S. 649.

Whole lotta NRA ratings are going down tomorrow. Toomey’s reportedly telling friends that he hopes for for six to eight Republican votes to beat the next filibuster on cloture (although Mark Kirk appears to be the only sure thing right now). That’s possible, but is it possible to get to 60 with “only” that number of Republicans? You’d need at least five even if the Democratic caucus votes unanimously, and that’s a big if given the pressure on Pryor, Baucus, Landrieu, and Begich to block the bill. I can even almost imagine a scenario where Reid gets 60 votes for cloture and then the bill fails on the final up-or-down vote. There’ll be plenty of centrists, starting with the red-state Dems I just named, who’ll be looking to please both sides by casting a yes vote on cloture to beat the GOP’s filibuster and then a no on the bill itself to prove their pro-gun bona fides. If the GOP votes no as a bloc on the final vote, you’d need just six Democrats to join them to kill this thing. But Reid won’t allow that humiliation to happen. Presumably, if he knows he can’t get to 50, he’ll pull the bill. Stay tuned. Exit quotation via WaPo:

For Manchin, that agreement was the payoff from months of relationship-building with Republicans, including nights of pizza and beer on a senator-stuffed boat called the Black Tie. The final deal was worked out over the past week, and concluded late Tuesday with a huddle at a rooftop birthday party for TV host Joe Scarborough.

Update: DrewM e-mails with a fair point. There is a bill — the main gun-control bill that Reid’s been pushing. There’s no Toomey/Manchin bill yet, but that’ll be added as an amendment to the main bill later.


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 3 4

Every damn week these jokers in Congress give me yet another reason to ask rhetorically, “So why am I supposed to be voting GOP again???”

Aitch748 on April 11, 2013 at 12:23 PM

Mark Kirk will run for reelection as a Democrap.

Jaibones on April 11, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Counting on the House to not pass anything coming out of the Senate…

Remember how almost everyone thought Obamacare had ZERO chance of making it out of the SCOTUS?

Good times….

Yeah, I don’t count on anyone in Washington.

This is so fundamentally wrong, it should be a slam dunk.

That it isn’t shows just how far gone things are.

SMH…

catmman on April 11, 2013 at 1:13 PM

Filibuster fails: Senate votes to open debate on gun-control bill, thanks to 16 Republicans
Apr 11, 2013 12:01 PM by Allahpundit

Allahpundit, how can you hold so public a job and still be so stupid as to know the meaning of filibuster? It was not a filibuster, it was cloture. Cloture LIMITS DEBATE. Cloture does not open debate. I don’t know if you wrote this lede, but I suggest you hire someone to write your lede that is not from the University of Phoenix or the Columbia School of Jurnolism.

Old Country Boy on April 11, 2013 at 1:13 PM

The US Constitution was written to constrain the power of the federal government, and that is especially true of the Bill of Rights. This just reminds us of the wisdom of the founders, and the perpetual vigilance required for liberty.

– Ed…in the e-mail thread

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM

Sissy Mary has his voicemail answering all calls.

Jaibones on April 11, 2013 at 1:15 PM

The final deal was worked out over the past week, and concluded late Tuesday with a huddle at a rooftop birthday party for TV host Joe Scarborough.

Has he disclosed that he’s been huddling with the RINOs? Politicians and their marketing arm, the media.

Vince on April 11, 2013 at 1:16 PM

I have a suggestion for efficiency. If the background check legislation passes, make part of it an RFID bearing card for everyone who passes. At the airport,
These people would, upon displaying their card, be allowed to proceed directly to their flight without going through TSA. We could then lay off most of the TSA pukes. Obviously, the background check is more long-term rigorous than the TSA groping.

Old Country Boy on April 11, 2013 at 1:17 PM

Where we are is that Pat Toomey just jumped ship, saving the gun grabbing big government statists major embarrassment at the last minute — throwing Obama-Feinstein-Schumer a lifeline. What a disgraceful action on his part.

DaMav on April 11, 2013 at 1:18 PM

They were sidetracked by SoCon demands to address abortion.

hawkdriver on April 11, 2013 at 12:04 PM

. . . there’s gotta be some sort of Hall of Fame . . .

. . . oblique bulls-eye award . . .

. . . something.

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 1:18 PM

Primary all 16 of them.

Othniel on April 11, 2013 at 1:19 PM

For some, the thinking is to get red state Democrats on the record with the gun control bill, and let the House kill it. Some fear this is Jugears’s sooper smart trap that will let him demagogue minority voters to the polls next year to take the House. I say he can try, but good luck finding non-voting liberal minorities in the suburban and rural districts whose House seats are up next year. In Latin, I say oderint, dum suffragere non possunt. In Rio Linda, that’s “let them hate, as long as they can’t vote.” Congressmen, unlike Senators, can pretty much not care what people outside their districts think of them.

Sekhmet on April 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM

The Constitution sold out for some pizza and beer. Street walking prostitutes get paid more than that.

jnelchef on April 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Border control…how did my iPhone make boxer control?

elowe on April 11, 2013 at 12:19 PM

I dunno. Boxer Control seems like a perfectly reasonable attempt to rein in people like Anthony Weiner, Bill Clinton and the like. ;)

totherightofthem on April 11, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Alexander…Corker

Does the state of Tennessee have any better sense than this?

rickv404 on April 11, 2013 at 1:22 PM

And can we stop with the qualifying remarks about how we shouldn’t be like Democrats, please?

The political Right is going to be lambasted no matter what position they take.

The whole thing with Toomey is a microcosm of how this works: Doomberg and the Left were going to target Toomey in PA with money and ads trying to unseat him. All of a sudden, he comes out with a ‘compromise’ that favors the Democrats. All of a sudden – I mean its like magic, really – Doomberg and the Left DROP the negative attacks and even say they’ll pay for some positive press/ads to help Toomey out.

It was a Christmas miracle.

Screw the Left.

Screw compromise.

Do what’s right or gtfo of the way.

Period.

The Constitution says what it says.

Why in the bloody blue hell are we willing to ‘compromise’ on the Constitution?

Because we should be better than the Left? They don’t hamper themselves with such weakness.

“We’re in this for the species, boys and girls. It’s simple numbers, they have more!” As Carl said in ‘Starship Troopers’.

catmman on April 11, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Jaibones on April 11, 2013 at 1:12 PM

Mark Kirk is my senator. He will not switch parties. He can’t. The Democrats don’t like him (even though he votes like them). Frankly, I don’t see him winning reelection anyway. Most people who would likely vote for Kirk are disgusted by him, or getting the heck out of this state and moving to places like Texas for work and freedom.

Conservative Independent on April 11, 2013 at 1:23 PM

At the airport,
These people would, upon displaying their card, be allowed to proceed directly to their flight without going through TSA. We could then lay off most of the TSA pukes. Obviously, the background check is more long-term rigorous than the TSA groping.

Old Country Boy on April 11, 2013 at 1:17 PM

This administration profiles returning vets as potential terrorists but refuses to profile young Muslim males from foreign countries the same way. To the point that a guy screaming Alah Akbar as he kills 13 soldiers at Fort Hood is “workplace violence” and not terrorism.

If anything the TSA knowing that you’ve had an enhanced background check would be cause for even more stringent gate rape. After all, they know you have a weapon. And Americans with their own weapons is everything this administration and 16 traitor Republicans stand against.

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM

I don’t know a single person with an ounce of humanity that didn’t grieve along with the victims of Sandy Hook. I also don’t know a single person,other than those who benefit politically, whose first thoughts and deeds was to somehow exploit this calamity into a selfish, self serving attack on an immutable constitutionally guaranteed right. My sympathies have been corrupted by these willfully grand standing victims and their heartless attempt at exploiting the weaknesses of our legislators for their own purposes.

fourdeucer on April 11, 2013 at 1:25 PM

Most people who would likely vote for Kirk are disgusted by him, or getting the heck out of this state and moving to places like Texas for work and freedom.

Conservative Independent on April 11, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Maryland is undergoing a similar migration thanks to Martin O’Malley and an out-of-control liberal legislature. Wouldn’t it be fun if the refugees decide not to bother with any of the niceties of moving to a new state and fashion themselves as “undocumented migrants?”

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2013 at 1:28 PM

Does the state of Tennessee have any better sense than this?

rickv404 on April 11, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Given that Ashley Judd lives there- no.

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2013 at 1:30 PM

…they sure have been instrumental in making sure more Americans own unregistered weapons than ever before…

HotAirian on April 11, 2013 at 12:16 PM

What “unregistered weapons”, lefty? Every gun sold in a gun store – or at a gun show – is “registered” at the time of sale.

And, if you believe that the FBI actually destroys the records of the sales/background checks – as they are required BY LAW to do – then you’re a fool.

Solaratov on April 11, 2013 at 1:33 PM

The aren’t even trying to hide it anymore. The vice president and Democrat senators are openly thanking CNN and MSNBC for helping with the propaganda.

PRO-GUN CONTROL SENATOR TO CNN ANCHOR: ‘WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT’

Biden: MSNBC Host Deserves Award

HotAirian on April 11, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Solaratov on April 11, 2013 at 1:33 PM


LEFTY?
LOL

HotAirian on April 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM

From last night’s QotD

We have background checks now. I repeat.. we already right now when you buy a gun .. have background checks.

We have background checks already right now. Did you know that? We have background checks.

Right now when you buy a gun.. you have to go through a background check. So finally.. I just wanted to say.. we have background checks already in place. You can’t buy a gun at a gun shop or gun show today without going through a background check. We have them. It’s the law. They are already in place.

I know congress has a bill they have named called “Background checks.” They want to pass this new law called “background checks.” Well.. whatever it is.. and we don’t know what that law is. We will not know at all what that law really is until it’s passed… but it isn’t “background checks” because we already have that. So this has to be something else.

I realize this new law Democrats and some RINO’s want to pass is called a “background check” law… but we already have a background check law. So this has to be something else.

Just because they name a bill something.. doesn’t mean the actual bill has anything at all to do with what they call it.

For instance The “Affordable HealthCare Act” is actually in the process of making healthcare unaffordable. Even though it has the word ‘affordable” in its name.. it’s making healthcare unaffordable. Shocking, I know.

So.. just because this new law is being called a “background check” law… doesn’t mean that’s what it is. We already have background checks. We already have that. So this is something else.

This is something more diabolical. More invasive. More controlling than just background checks.. because we already have background checks. So they don’t need a new law. We have that law already. So this is something different. But what is it? We won’t know until it’s passed. That is all I can assure you.

JellyToast on April 11, 2013 at 6:42 AM

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM

The aren’t even trying to hide it anymore. The vice president and Democrat senators are openly thanking CNN and MSNBC for helping with the propaganda.

PRO-GUN CONTROL SENATOR TO CNN ANCHOR: ‘WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUPPORT’

Biden: MSNBC Host Deserves Award

HotAirian on April 11, 2013 at 1:33 PM

Goebbels is mighty proud of them all.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 1:36 PM

This gun control nonsense…

Some guy out in West Covina tried to disarm himself at a Home Depot…

coldwarrior on April 11, 2013 at 1:37 PM

JellyToast on April 11, 2013 at 6:42 AM

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM

That’s excellent. :)

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 1:38 PM

I’m kind of a liberal who likes to hang out here because I’m honestly curious about the way you guys think. And this time I’m having a hard time making sense of what I’m reading. So help me understand — we are not trying to convince each other — just help me understand your thinking: what is wrong with background checks?

I assume we agree that some checks on the Second Amendment are warranted. (My neighbor Jim probably should not own surface-to-air missiles, and maybe Ahmed in seat 14D should not bring his AK47 on board an airplane.)

Can we also agree that felons, people with domestic violence issues and crazy people should not be allowed to own or possess firearms? If not, how is that too onerous a restriction on libety?

Assuming that we can agree that felons, wife beaters and lunatics should not have guns, what is wrong with a system that lists felons, wife beaters and lunatics, and then checks whether you are on that list before you can buy a gun?

Please don’t wast your time telling me I’m stupid. Just assume I am and enlighten me.

Thanks.

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

o/t

Two Democrats – Sean Riley and Curtis Morrison – with Progress Kentucky have ADMITTED to being responsible to bugging McConnell’s office per a Kentucky state Democratic Party official.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

What it’s all about.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM

The whole thing with Toomey is a microcosm of how this works: Doomberg and the Left were going to target Toomey in PA with money and ads trying to unseat him. All of a sudden, he comes out with a ‘compromise’ that favors the Democrats. All of a sudden – I mean its like magic, really – Doomberg and the Left DROP the negative attacks and even say they’ll pay for some positive press/ads to help Toomey out.

I actually think this went in the tank when Toomey and some other Senators went to dinner with Obama during the Paul filibuster. Toomey may not necessarily have been picked as the front man for the deal that night, but I suspect an agreement in principle was reached between the Republicans and Obama to pass the gun registry at that dinner.

The advertising excuse seems like very weak tea to me; Toomey isn’t up for election for years yet.

Why in the bloody blue hell are we willing to ‘compromise’ on the Constitution?

Because we should be better than the Left? They don’t hamper themselves with such weakness.

“We’re in this for the species, boys and girls. It’s simple numbers, they have more!” As Carl said in ‘Starship Troopers’.

catmman on April 11, 2013 at 1:23 PM

It’s gone beyond compromise and seems to me to be active collaboration at this point. Remember, this wasn’t a situation where we were fighting to stop a bill. The bill had already essentially stalled. We’d won. The Republicans actually rode to Obama’s rescue on this. This isn’t some marginal social issue with dubious poll numbers, gun rights is the political right’s #1 winning issue in this country.

I don’t think the Republicans are salvageable and I think it would be better to let them collapse in on themselves than trying to continue propping them up. We tried internal reform in 2010, and virtually all of these guys have failed us.

Doomberg on April 11, 2013 at 1:40 PM

Wow. What a disgrace to see both of my “conservative” Tennessee senators on the wrong side of this vote. But not a surprise. I have sent email after email berating them for their consistent shortcomings on every vote that has mattered in the last five years.

Tennessee. The volunteer state. I suppose they believe that means we should volunteer to turn over our guns, our rights, our spines to the federal government.

red villain on April 11, 2013 at 1:41 PM

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Care to illustrate how (or why) a felon would bother with anything so trivial as a background check?

Felons, criminals, gangstas out in Chicago could not care one tiny bit less about any law regarding a weapon of any type. They are out laws.

But, let an outlaw come to know and understand that a civic-minded law-abiding citizen has decided to leave themselves unarmed?

Simple logic kicks in.

Shooting fish in a barrel is easy.

For a felon.

Or a government.

coldwarrior on April 11, 2013 at 1:43 PM

Does the state of Tennessee have any better sense than this?

rickv404 on April 11, 2013 at 1:22 PM

Unfortunately, Tennessee is represented by two of the most liberal republicans and scum of the earth that money can buy. These guys sell out every time, but then that is the state of politics here. Even the state legislature is a bunch of inbred rednecks. Hell, I’m from here, I should know!

hip shot on April 11, 2013 at 1:44 PM

I thought we already had background checks..?

d1carter on April 11, 2013 at 1:45 PM

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

We already have background checks for the very reasons you mentioned.

I wouldn’t call you stupid, just ignorant.

catmman on April 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM

I didn’t say pass the legislation. I said a filibuster doesn’t gain anything on this. Do you appreciate that nuance?

This isn’t becoming law. Let Red-State Dems vote for it and lose next election or let them vote against and embarrass O.

The filibuster extends this in a way that is beneficial for Dems. Voting on it extends in a way that is bad for Dems.

What the hell about that do you morons not understand?

ChrisL on April 11, 2013 at 12:32 PM

O-care was never going to pass.

O-care will never be upheld by SCOTUS.

Remember how those predictions turned out?

If this passes the Senate (which it will) it’s going to the House. and they only need around 20 Rs to jump ship and this pile of crap becomes the law. It will never be repealed.

At that point, it won’t matter how many seats the Dems lose in 2014. It won’t matter how much bad press you can gin up. None of it will matter. Obama, Schumer, and Feinstein will have taken your rights away and you’ll never get them back. Nuance *snort*!

They had the chance to kill it. They should have.

PetecminMd on April 11, 2013 at 1:46 PM

So help me understand — we are not trying to convince each other — just help me understand your thinking: what is wrong with background checks?

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

If background checks was what this was all about I would be fine with it. It’s not.

Please don’t wast your time telling me I’m stupid. Just assume I am and enlighten me.

Thanks.

I wouldn’t say stupid. I would go with ignorant. If you have been following this debate at all the surely by now you know that this isn’t about background checks.

HotAirian on April 11, 2013 at 1:47 PM

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

So when we determine you are a lunatic, you should go on a list? Good, you’re on.

hip shot on April 11, 2013 at 1:47 PM

o/t

Two Democrats – Sean Riley and Curtis Morrison – with Progress Kentucky have ADMITTED to being responsible to bugging McConnell’s office per a Kentucky state Democratic Party official.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

According to this article a Mr. Jacob Conway blew the whistle on them.

NotCoach on April 11, 2013 at 1:48 PM

Assuming that we can agree that felons, wife beaters and lunatics should not have guns, what is wrong with a system that lists felons, wife beaters and lunatics, and then checks whether you are on that list before you can buy a gun?

Please don’t wast your time telling me I’m stupid. Just assume I am and enlighten me.

Thanks.

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Dude. At the risk of repeating what has been said numerous times before in this thread alond: WE ALREADY HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS BY LAW. Didn’t mean to shout, but it seems that that simple statement just doesn’t appear to get through to people, no matter how many times it’s said in normal speaking tones or normal written form.

Hope that clears it up for you.

totherightofthem on April 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM

Phooey. alond=alone.

totherightofthem on April 11, 2013 at 1:52 PM

McCain and Graham “reached across the aisle”?

I.
Am.
Shocked.

CycloneCDB on April 11, 2013 at 12:08 PM

McCain might have “reached across”, but I’m pretty sure that Miss Lindsey got the “reach around”.

bofh on April 11, 2013 at 1:52 PM

So help me understand — we are not trying to convince each other — just help me understand your thinking: what is wrong with background checks?

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Nothing is wrong with basic background checks, I’d support those. What I don’t support is the creation of a national gun registry, and this appears to be an attempt to create such a registry by “stealth.”

Doomberg on April 11, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Our dog is toothless, blind, and deaf. All he can do is wag his tail and bark for his treats.

Limerick on April 11, 2013 at 1:52 PM

Source: Progress Kentucky Behind Mitch McConnell Campaign Recording

“Morrison is a longtime Democratic activist and occasional candidate for office.”

“occasional”

That’s hilarious!

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Assuming that we can agree that felons, wife beaters and lunatics should not have guns, what is wrong with a system that lists felons, wife beaters and lunatics, and then checks whether you are on that list before you can buy a gun?

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Answer this question first. How many of those dead children at Sandy Hook would have been alive today with expanded background checks?

The reality is that there is nothing being proposed that furthers public safety. Can’t we agree on that? That this is more about grabbing guns and dealing with private gun ownership than it is about curbing violence? In case you haven’t figured it out, not one gang member is going to comply with background checks.

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 1:53 PM

Is Mother Jones a co conspirator..?

d1carter on April 11, 2013 at 1:56 PM

WE ALREADY HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS BY LAW.

totherightofthem on April 11, 2013 at 1:51 PM

We already have background checks by law, and they don’t work!

For some reason, liberals seem to think that if someone is denied via background check, they’re just gonna give up, go home, and spend the day watching cartoons.

Since we don’t pursue and prosecute them, we give them the opportunity to go out and find an underground source for their firearms. If you’re really serious about gun violence, why aren’t you picking these guys up since they’ve broken one law and we know that they’ll be involved in more crime shortly?

Maybe we can’t prevent every criminal from obtaining a firearm, but we can do something about the ones who attempt to buy guns from an FFL.

PetecminMd on April 11, 2013 at 1:56 PM

d1carter on April 11, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Another George Soros operation.

coldwarrior on April 11, 2013 at 1:57 PM

What the hell is wrong with these men?

roux on April 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM

When the next (God forbid) shooting takes place will this Reid/Obama bill be called a total failure? Heck no, it will be time for another well thought out Reid/Obama bill.

Spits on the public sidewalk.

Limerick on April 11, 2013 at 2:00 PM

What a mistake and a disappointment Kelly Ayotte has been.

MadisonConservative on April 11, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Kabuki theater. This is just the prelude to the Toomey-Manchin bill being passed.

tommy71 on April 11, 2013 at 2:02 PM

“Bipartisan”? What rot!
One does not engage in “bipartisanship” with Evil…and democrats have shown that they are nothing more than the party of evil. RINOs should well remember the old admonition, that “when one sups with the devil, he should use a long spoon.”

And, debate…what? There can be no debate on abrogating the Constitution or the Bill of Rights. There can be no debate on the methods – or propriety – of violating the Constitutional Rights of Americans.
If there is a “debate” on these things, then it stands to reason that there are people who desire to strip an entire class of American citizens of their Rights under the Constitution rendering them serfs, rather than citizens.
And those who would deny rights to American citizens deserve to burn in Hell – or in the fires of righteous resistance to tyranny.

Solaratov on April 11, 2013 at 2:03 PM

Is Mother Jones a co conspirator..?

d1carter on April 11, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Only if it was involved in the secret taping. It has press protections and can release the tape…even if the recording was obtained illegally.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 2:03 PM

They just don’t get it. They think it is all just noise and we wouldn’t dare not be at the polls for the next or the next go around. Plain pure stupid. They don’t think their brand can be ignored. God save us all.

Limerick on April 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM

We already have background checks by law, and they don’t work!

For some reason, liberals seem to think that if someone is denied via background check, they’re just gonna give up, go home, and spend the day watching cartoons . . .

PetecminMd on April 11, 2013 at 1:56 PM

Wait — I got this. Seriously — this is wet-shirt simple:

*ahem*

Ban unlawful shootings.

Eh?

FIFY, AMERICA!

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM

What a mistake and a disappointment Kelly Ayotte has been.

MadisonConservative on April 11, 2013 at 2:01 PM

Indeed, and she smells of Obamacrap.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 2:05 PM

So help me understand — we are not trying to convince each other — just help me understand your thinking: what is wrong with background checks?

 
It’s already been answered. Refer to:
 

JellyToast on April 11, 2013 at 6:42 AM

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/11/filibuster-fails-senate-votes-to-open-debate-on-gun-control-bill-thanks-to-16-republicans/comment-page-2/#comment-6873215

 
___
 

Can we also agree that felons, people with domestic violence issues and crazy people should not be allowed to own or possess firearms? If not, how is that too onerous a restriction on libety?…
 
Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

 
I’m not being a jerk, but this is why we can’t have a serious discussion about the topic. You don’t know the basics, and you’re willing to be led by the nose by politicians who understand and exploit that ignorance.
 
You (not general you, but you time lord you) have an obligation as a citizen to know what the law says about felons, etc., before you suggest We (the “other”)
 

…I’m honestly curious about the way you guys think.

 
support felons having guns because LIBERTY!!!
 
Because otherwise we have no reason to believe you’re doing anything other than attempting to insert religious talking points into whatever forum you can find.
 

Assuming that we can agree that felons…
whether you are on that list before you can buy a gun?

 
I suggest you try to learn a bit about the topic before knowing everything about it.
 
Ask questions like:
 

Can felons legally possess firearms now?

 
Or:
 

Why don’t current background checks prevent felons from buying guns?

 
Or:
 

How does the the current ATF background check form address domestic violence?

 
Wait for a response, and then reply to it.

rogerb on April 11, 2013 at 2:05 PM

Whole lotta NRA ratings are going down tomorrow.

And they should! Here is the bill. Here is part that, if it isn’t amended, will stay as is:

Beginning on the date that is 180 days after the date of enactment of the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013, it shall be unlawful for any person who is not licensed under this chapter to transfer a firearm to any other person who is not licensed under this chapter, unless a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with subsection (s).

Does that mean that, for a private sale, I have to have a license to sell a gun, and the buyer needs one too? It talks about ‘any person’ in the first half, and then seperately about ‘licensed dealers’. To me those are two very different things, since dealers are all licensed…aren’t they?

WTF!?

Patriot Vet on April 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM

The Constitution sold out for some pizza and beer. Street walking prostitutes get paid more than that.

jnelchef on April 11, 2013 at 1:20 PM

They also provide a service…and value for money spent.

When was the last time a politician did that?

Solaratov on April 11, 2013 at 2:07 PM

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM

Dayummm! That’s the kinda laws we really need to enact.

:-)

coldwarrior on April 11, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Good replay! This cloture vote doesn’t guarantee passage of whatever bill they bring to the floor. In fact, many of the Repub’s can still vote no on the bill, as well as dems from Red States! It pays to call your senator and tell him to vote no!

tomshup on April 11, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Ban unlawful shootings.

Eh?

FIFY, AMERICA!

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 2:04 PM

The Newtown shooter broke all sorts of laws. There isn’t one more thing that the state could have done in that instance that had not already been banned, restricted, or controlled by the filthy commies of CT. The shooter even tried to buy a firearm but didn’t want to wait the ten days so he went home, killed his mom, and stole her weapons.

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2013 at 2:09 PM

WTF!?

Patriot Vet on April 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM

A citizen may not give transfer the gun to another citizen without going through a broker. If you see what I’m saying.

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 2:10 PM

This cloture vote doesn’t guarantee passage of whatever bill they bring to the floor. In fact, many of the Repub’s can still vote no on the bill, as well as dems from Red States! It pays to call your senator and tell him to vote no!

tomshup on April 11, 2013 at 2:08 PM

What you say is true. But that doesn’t diminish the bigger point. The Senate does not really have a bill to debate so todays cloture vote was essentially 16 Republicans and all but two commie-Dems voting to the general idea that Americans are to be denied their civil rights guaranteed by the Second Amendment. Yipee or something!

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM

I think the idea for some of the good conservatives among the cloture votes was to force a vote in the Senate where we can get Red State Democrats on the record voting for gun control. The filibuster could have given them the chance to say, “Oh, I totally wouldn’t have voted for that, thank goodness the filibuster worked.”

So before we get all mad, let’s try to give some folks the benefit of the doubt. The non-voting low-info minorities 0bama hopes to drag to the polls are largely not eligible to vote in the House elections next year, as they tend to be concentrated in urban areas.

Sekhmet on April 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Does that mean that, for a private sale, I have to have a license to sell a gun, and the buyer needs one too? It talks about ‘any person’ in the first half, and then seperately about ‘licensed dealers’. To me those are two very different things, since dealers are all licensed…aren’t they?

WTF!?

Patriot Vet on April 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM

No. You’ll have to take the gun to a licensed dealer, have him log it into his record book from you…and then log it out to whomever you’re selling it to (after the ‘background check’, of course).

The dealer will, of course, charge a fee for this service.

One wonders, naturally, just how many people will comply with this bit of chicanery. And how many will wave the “dextrous digit” at the law and just sell or buy as they want.

Solaratov on April 11, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Sekhmet on April 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Benefit of the doubt? What doubt? Since 08 the GOP has helped deliver BarryCare, higher taxes, more deficit spending, an EPA on drugs, no oil production, amnesty, a smaller military, and now this gun bill. Doubt? Why in the world would anyone not have doubts?

Limerick on April 11, 2013 at 2:15 PM

Does that mean that, for a private sale, I have to have a license to sell a gun, and the buyer needs one too? It talks about ‘any person’ in the first half, and then seperately about ‘licensed dealers’. To me those are two very different things, since dealers are all licensed…aren’t they?

WTF!?

Patriot Vet on April 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM

Please note that the language said TRANSFER. No sale is required. Even TEMPORARY TRANSFERS are covered, i.e., you leave your guns with your neighbour because you live in an area that has been hit with a lot of break-ins lately and are going on a long vacation. That’s a TRANSFER.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM:

My neighbor Jim probably should not own surface-to-air missiles

An entirely different class of weapon, with an explosive warhead. Although, during the War of Independence, some private citizens owned cannons. Restrictions are already in place for such weapon systems, so it’s fallacious to consider them part of ‘reasonable argument’ against firearms.

Can we also agree that felons, people with domestic violence issues and crazy people should not be allowed to own or possess firearms?

Felons can’t legally own guns. In many states, people convicted of domestic violence have their guns confiscated. If they later marry a gun owner, their spouse’s guns can also be confiscated if the state is keeping track. Something similar to this recently happened in CA, where a man married a woman barred from having any access to guns had his taken away by the sheriff. The man did not know that his wife had that restriction her. But his rights were trampled because of it. I guess liberals call that ‘an acceptable level of collateral damage’.

Anyone who is obviously crazy won’t be getting a legal gun. If it shows during a purchase, the intended buyer will be shown the door. And how far should the mental illness issue be taken? Someone law-abiding who is a member of AA? How about someone on medication for depression or anxiety, now or in the past? How far back do we want to go with that — five years? Twenty?

There are restrictions available, and many who shouldn’t own guns don’t always legally get them. Criminals invariably fall through the cracks of the system, which no new proposals will address. Even gun-grabbers admit their latest ideas won’t reduce crime.

Anything coming out now burdens only the law-abiding, on an explicit Constitutional right. And liberals have used, and keep fishing for, the most insulting and insane ideas they can find to win this matter. WE can’t have voter photo ID, but liberals demand ever-tighter authority to probe as far into a person’s history as they can. And you can be sure that somewhere, some time, a law-abiding person will be denied if it’s found he once went into therapy for depression.

And, of course, is the risk of a national database of who owns what and where these people can be found. The potential for abuse is far too great for the comfort of many of us.

As for me, I compromise no more on my right to self defense, either from crime or a tyrannical government. You and others don’t have to agree. But the bottom line is no more compromise. Many of us are done with that, and the gun-grabbers aren’t going to allowed to nudge another inch closer against us with their schemes.

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 2:17 PM

*transfer. ;) Bad edit. I was arguing in my mind about gifts, inheritance, keep this while I’m on vacation — and just stayed with “transfer.”

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 2:18 PM

So before we get all mad, let’s try to give some folks the benefit of the doubt.

Sekhmet on April 11, 2013 at 2:11 PM

Nope, it is up to these filthy traitors to explain themselves.

Happy Nomad on April 11, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Please note that the language said TRANSFER. No sale is required. Even TEMPORARY TRANSFERS are covered, i.e., you leave your guns with your neighbour because you live in an area that has been hit with a lot of break-ins lately and are going on a long vacation. That’s a TRANSFER.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Too weird. :)

Anyway, ^that.

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 2:18 PM

Solaratov on April 11, 2013 at 2:12 PM

I have several gun stocks in my basement.

In my garage, I have a small number of barrels and a few other parts, receivers, bolts, various magazines, that sort of stuff.

Lo, and behold, seems all those parts are similar in many respects, almost as if they could be interchangeable, imagine that.

Question, under this current bit of legislation, if my neighbor comes over on Monday and wants to buy a used gun stock…can I sell that to him without a broker?

And if he comes back next week, or maybe his adult son stops by, can they buy a couple receivers and a barrel or two, without going through a broker?

Can I Yard Sale the rest of the parts, all disassembled, of course, without having to pay a broker?

Spring has arrived, sorta, and I’ve really got to clean out the garage.

:-)

coldwarrior on April 11, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

“I speak jive…”

Lets try an analogy shall we?

What’s wrong with banning late term abortions? We’re all in agree my that killing babies is wrong, right?

Skywise on April 11, 2013 at 2:23 PM

A citizen may not give transfer the gun to another citizen without going through a broker. If you see what I’m saying.

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 2:10 PM

I see what you’re saying, I just can’t believe that no one has really brought this part of the bill up for discussion. I guess this is the first we are seeing it.

No. You’ll have to take the gun to a licensed dealer, have him log it into his record book from you…and then log it out to whomever you’re selling it to (after the ‘background check’, of course).

The dealer will, of course, charge a fee for this service.

One wonders, naturally, just how many people will comply with this bit of chicanery. And how many will wave the “dextrous digit” at the law and just sell or buy as they want.

Solaratov on April 11, 2013 at 2:12 PM

Not me. Fuck that!

Please note that the language said TRANSFER. No sale is required. Even TEMPORARY TRANSFERS are covered, i.e., you leave your guns with your neighbour because you live in an area that has been hit with a lot of break-ins lately and are going on a long vacation. That’s a TRANSFER.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 2:16 PM

Thanks! Good to note. You don’t need a registry when every ‘transfer’ is logged.

Patriot Vet on April 11, 2013 at 2:25 PM

Good replay! This cloture vote doesn’t guarantee passage of whatever bill they bring to the floor. In fact, many of the Repub’s can still vote no on the bill, as well as dems from Red States! It pays to call your senator and tell him to vote no!

tomshup on April 11, 2013 at 2:08 PM

Reality. The Democrats have a majority in the Senate. The only reason that they do not ignore the Republicans completely is because some of the specific rules of the Senate prevent them from doing so. The Republicans JUST GAVE UP THOSE RULES. It does not matter at all how they vote on the final bill because the Democrats always vote in lockstep. Even then, on the final vote there are a half dozen “Republican” Senators who will vote with whatever the Democrats want. By voting for cloture, they gave up any chance of stopping it in the Senate.

Reality. In the House, when was the last time this session that Republican Speaker of the House did not vote with the Democrats, giving them victory? What are the chances of stopping it in the House?

Reality. This bill has yet to be written and introduced, but has been given a free pass. It, like Obamacare, will be released as they vote. So no one will know what is in it until after it passes. There is no limit to what they can put in this bill.

Reality. The Republican Party has betrayed the Constitution.

Subotai Bahadur on April 11, 2013 at 2:26 PM

Assuming that we can agree that felons, wife beaters and lunatics should not have guns, what is wrong with a system that lists felons, wife beaters and lunatics, and then checks whether you are on that list before you can buy a gun?

Please don’t wast your time telling me I’m stupid. Just assume I am and enlighten me.

Thanks.

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

More than happy to oblige you on this. First, get your freaking finger out of the trigger guard!!!

Bmore on April 11, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Does that mean that, for a private sale, I have to have a license to sell a gun, and the buyer needs one too? It talks about ‘any person’ in the first half, and then seperately about ‘licensed dealers’. To me those are two very different things, since dealers are all licensed…aren’t they?

WTF!?

Patriot Vet on April 11, 2013 at 2:06 PM

It means if you are not a FFL holder, in order to sell a gun, you must conduct that sale through a FFL. The licensee will accept your firearm enter it into their acquisitions and disposition book, conduct a background check on the potential buyer and complete all the required paperwork (form 4473). Now here’s a potential problem for licensees: If the buyer is denied by NICS, you have to perform a check on the seller before you can return their firearm because you’ve already logged it into your inventory. What if the seller for whatever reason, is denied by NICS? Now you’ve got a gun in your inventory that you’re expected to safeguard that isn’t yours to sell.

Wendya on April 11, 2013 at 2:27 PM

Time Lord…

Paging Time Lord…

Your query has been answered.

Your response is wanted on the color-neutral courtesy phone of your choice as soon as you retrieve the arse you’ve been handed.

Time Lord…

Paging Time Lord…

catmman on April 11, 2013 at 2:28 PM

“I speak jive…”

Skywise on April 11, 2013 at 2:23 PM

lol

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 2:31 PM

You don’t need a registry when every ‘transfer’ is logged.

Patriot Vet on April 11, 2013 at 2:25 PM

And that would make you up to speed. :)

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 2:33 PM

My neighbor Jim probably should not own surface-to-air missiles…Can we also agree that felons, people with domestic violence issues and crazy people should not be allowed to own or possess firearms? If not, how is that too onerous a restriction on libety?…

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Learn the law…

Gun Control Laws: We Already Do That!


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

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

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 2:33 PM

LEFTY? LOL

HotAirian on April 11, 2013 at 1:35 PM

Sorry, he used the wrong terminology there. The correct name for your ilk is “Volksgenossen”.

Look it up; I won’t waste my time telling you who coined that particular term.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2013 at 2:36 PM

coldwarrior on April 11, 2013 at 2:21 PM

Knock yourself out.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 2:37 PM

Can we also agree that felons, people with domestic violence issues and crazy people should not be allowed to own or possess firearms? If not, how is that too onerous a restriction on libety?

Time Lord on April 11, 2013 at 1:39 PM

My extremist opinion:

1. Felons should be allowed to own firearms once they’ve served their sentence. If they’ve paid their debt to society, why is their right to self-defense still restricted? Ex-convicts are also more likely to live in low-income areas, and since they were previously involved in criminal activity, they have a far higher likelihood of needing to defend their lives at some point. On top of all this is the fact that some non-dangerous people are convicted of felonies in entirely unjust situations.

2. Agreed on those with domestic violence issues, provided that actual evidence of domestic violence can be shown, as opposed to a pissy spouse filing a frivolous charge just to screw the other one over.

3. Define “crazy people”. The state of New York is reportedly confiscating firearms from individuals who have been prescribed psychotropic drugs(antidepressants) at some point in their life, even if they no longer need or take them. How many millions of people would fall under such a category? Tens of millions, at the least. It is a highly dangerous precedent.

3a. And by the way, please note that if that linked article is true, then the crowd that keeps dismissively saying “nobody is coming to take your guns” is full of s**t. But then…we’ve known that since Katrina.

MadisonConservative on April 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM

This is all gonna end in one big red HA headline today. Right after that will be the blurb about how we just have to swallow it and fight again tomorrow.

How’s that for doubts?

Limerick on April 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Here we go…another ‘list…of ‘gutless’ Repubs.
How dart they not obstruct and thus derail debate and a vote by the people’s reps!

Though many of you aren’t at all consistent in what you find objectionable, you sure as heck are plenty consistent at objecting.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 2:41 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 2:41 PM

And some of you are plenty consistent in being brainless Fascist trolls.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2013 at 2:42 PM

dart dare

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM

The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act.

Goebbels couldn’t have come up with this.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 2:41 PM

You’re naive, again. Let them vote. I hope every one of the Ds who do will be thrown out in the red states. That’ll show you in 2016.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM

Goodbye, Chambliss and Isakson.

RDE2010 on April 11, 2013 at 2:43 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 2:41 PM

And some of you are plenty consistent in being brainless Fascist trolls.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2013 at 2:42 PM

So sensitive.
Ha.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 2:44 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4