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

Grab dem’ ruby slippers. TAP TAP TAP, There is no place like the GOP, there is no place like the GOP, there is no place like the GOP.

Sorry. I’m too busy putting up the flying monkey radar.

Limerick on April 11, 2013 at 2:44 PM

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

The whole idea of liability insurance for guns makes about a much sense as government mandating life insurance policies on the unborn, payable even if a woman aborts the baby.

Maybe I should shut up. I don’t want to give liberals any more ideas.

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 2:44 PM

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

Sure, but that will not prevent crazy people from buying guns on the street.

Oh, and define ‘crazy people.’

Current Federal background check law prevent those adjudicated mentally ill.

Under some of the proposed legislation, ANY medical professional or social worker could add a person’s name to the NICS…even one that is not treating or has personal/professional knowledge.

If you live next door to a flaky psychiatrist, who doesn’t like the way you get upset about her dog shitting in your yard, she can add your name. She can prevent your from exercising your Second Amendment rights. A lot of the legislation has no remedy either.

If a person has not been adjudicated mentally ill or presented to a treating medical professional that he or she is ‘an imminent threat to himself/herself or others,’ then he should, at the very least, have due process rights that allow him to challenge his deprivation.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM

So sensitiveble.
Ha.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 2:44 PM

FIFY.
Ha.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM

How’s that for doubts?

Limerick on April 11, 2013 at 2:40 PM

Pretty good, actually.

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 2:51 PM

Meant 2014, when the red state D senators will go bye-bye, as they should.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 2:52 PM

It would be nice to get a bunch of Democrats on record voting for some anti-gun bill.

claudius on April 11, 2013 at 2:52 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

1. Agree – They have every right guaranteed under the Constitution as any other person. Why is it that the Right to Bear Arms is the only Right that is taken away in the Constitution?

2. Why is domestic violence really any different than your first point? If someone who has a history of threatening/harrassing an individual wants to harm someone, denying access to a firearm isn’t really going to stop them if they are determined to harm that person. As we know, they will find a way to get a gun, or use some other instrument to do harm.

3. Since the psychiatric world keeps adding new ‘diseases’ to the list, I would say that just about everyone could be, at one point or another, denied their Second Amendment Right. It just depends on who is in power.

3a. It is, and it is also true in California. I linked to the CA article yesterday, the one the Liam mentions. Liam also brings up another great point, not only are the Rights of the felon denied, so are the Rights of his spouse by just being married. What’s to say that that person isn’t ‘reformed’? People do stupid things some times, but are they really bad all the time, forever? I don’t think so. If they are that bad, throw them back in jail.

Patriot Vet on April 11, 2013 at 2:55 PM

BTW:
 

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…
 
rogerb on April 11, 2013 at 2:05 PM

 
Not to mention getting irritated at us when we don’t want to sit at the kiddie table and talk about Sesame Street:
 
http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/10/cruz-obamas-gun-control-push-is-going-to-cost-democrats-the-senate-in-2014/comment-page-2/#comment-6872872

rogerb on April 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM

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

And yet libtards think it was just fine for the Dems to mount a record number of filibusters when the Republicans controlled both houses and the WH during the Bush years.
Hypocrisy?

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 3:01 PM

http://hotair.com/archives/2013/04/10/cruz-obamas-gun-control-push-is-going-to-cost-democrats-the-senate-in-2014/comment-page-2/#comment-6872872

rogerb on April 11, 2013 at 2:57 PM

You’re like some weird, self-aware filing cabinet.

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 3:01 PM

If you live next door to a flaky psychiatrist, who doesn’t like the way you get upset about her dog shitting in your yard, she can add your name.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 2:49 PM

Of course now, there’s no way for an upset neighbor to harass you and illegally cause trouble for you.
I mean…they are just without a single option.
But if these laws get passed…think about how your neighbor the psychiatrist will be able to harass you. You’ll, like, need to report them and stuff.
I imagine right now, there are at least 1000 professional psychiatrists salivating at the idea of being able to harass people by illegally adding their name to a list…that will stop that person momentarily from buying a firearm…if they want to buy one.
I mean, it’s pretty much a given.
If you live next to a psychiatrist…move now, before you have to.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Of course now, there’s no way for an upset neighbor to harass you and illegally cause trouble for you.
I mean…they are just without a single option.
But if these laws get passed…think about how your neighbor the psychiatrist will be able to harass you. You’ll, like, need to report them and stuff.
I imagine right now, there are at least 1000 professional psychiatrists salivating at the idea of being able to harass people by illegally adding their name to a list…that will stop that person momentarily from buying a firearm…if they want to buy one.
I mean, it’s pretty much a given.
If you live next to a psychiatrist…move now, before you have to.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Find the LD50 of whatever medication you are on, multiply that number by two and ingest plox.

tom daschle concerned on April 11, 2013 at 3:04 PM

At least Democrats stab us in the front.

Kataklysmic on April 11, 2013 at 12:13 PM

Ain’t that the truth. *sigh*

tencole on April 11, 2013 at 3:05 PM

tom daschle concerned on April 11, 2013 at 3:04 PM

RWM is fully capable.
Step aside.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:02 PM

It won’t be temporary. The feds will have the ‘unfit for firearms’ eval. A contrary one won’t mean spit. How long will it take, and how much personal treasure, to get that first doc’s eval squashed? This is one of this bill’s golden eggs.

Limerick on April 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM

You can A-L-W-A-Y-S count on RINOS to show their true allegiances. It is obvious that we cannot trust Republicans. Time to vote them all out even if oit means dems. take complete control of everything. I’d rather not have a lying scum bag Pub. screwing me than an honest communist.

they lie on April 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Why is anybody surprised at this vote? This bill will pass and it will be more tyrannical than anything publicly made none so far? And does anyone really believe the media and government line about why there is no ammo? We had better wake up and fix things before it’s too late.

bgibbs1000 on April 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM

It won’t be temporary. The feds will have the ‘unfit for firearms’ eval. A contrary one won’t mean spit. How long will it take, and how much personal treasure, to get that first doc’s eval squashed? This is one of this bill’s golden eggs.

Limerick on April 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM

And of course once they get the power, there’s no way it will be misused or they might make mistakes – like this one:

http://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2013/04/11/new-york-state-police-confiscate-gunsfrom-the-wrong-guy-n1564985

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 3:11 PM

16 RINO f%#kw*ts!

MCGIRV on April 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM

bgibbs1000 on April 11, 2013 at 3:08 PM

What media and government line about ammo?

catmman on April 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:02 PM

It won’t be temporary. The feds will have the ‘unfit for firearms’ eval. A contrary one won’t mean spit. How long will it take, and how much personal treasure, to get that first doc’s eval squashed? This is one of this bill’s golden eggs.

Limerick on April 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM

My point is that that wild hypothetical ‘what ifs’ are not arguments.
Yes, laws/regulations can be abused. Any Police Officer could, if she/he wanted, falsely accuse anyone, cuff ‘em and throw ‘em in jail.
Is that an argument against having cops?

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM

It won’t be temporary. The feds will have the ‘unfit for firearms’ eval. A contrary one won’t mean spit. How long will it take, and how much personal treasure, to get that first doc’s eval squashed? This is one of this bill’s golden eggs.

Limerick on April 11, 2013 at 3:07 PM

Who is to say a person will be allowed to see his own file? It would be easy enough for politicians to declare the documents are government property, and the names of medical professionals are withheld to protect their ‘privacy’ or there’s a ‘risk of suffering retaliation’. After all, if a person is claimed to me mentally unstable enough to warrant being denied a gun, it certainly follows that they’re also so unstable they pose a personal risk to the doctor.

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Both my damn Senators. Time to go Corker and Alexander. Tennessee is so dang red, could we get some good red action down here..

melle1228 on April 11, 2013 at 3:16 PM

Kirk > Giannoulias, but only slightly…

He was the lesser of two evils, a choice between a hard place and Barack’s clone in Illinois. Gawd, Kirk’s a disaster. Where’s Diva to tell us what a great Senator Kirk is?

Fallon on April 11, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Is that an argument against having cops?

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM

No – it’s an argument against having laws that violate our Constitutional rights and are poorly written, unenforceable and/or vague enough to allow for misinterpretation and misuse.

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 3:17 PM

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 3:13 PM

Again, you (and RWM) are spinning tale of illegal and unprofessional conduct.
Are you in opposition to the intent and spirit of the proposed background checks…or just what a mean and unprofessional doctor might do?

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:18 PM

My point is that that wild hypothetical ‘what ifs’ are not arguments.
Yes, laws/regulations can be abused. Any Police Officer could, if she/he wanted, falsely accuse anyone, cuff ‘em and throw ‘em in jail.
Is that an argument against having cops?

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM

You describe a situation in which due process applies. As written the gun registration lanaguage makes no mention of due process.

weaselyone on April 11, 2013 at 3:21 PM

Again, you (and RWM) are spinning tale of illegal and unprofessional conduct.
Are you in opposition to the intent and spirit of the proposed background checks…or just what a mean and unprofessional doctor might do?

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:18 PM

In Colorado, a court hearing where evidence is presented is required to revoke someone’s drivers license. It cannot be revoked just because some doctor calls the state and says the person is dangerous.
Given that owning a gun is a Constitutional right, and driving on public roads is NOT – how can you legally justify revoking someone’s Constitutional rights faster and easier than driving?

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 3:22 PM

Vote them out.

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

TX-96 on April 11, 2013 at 3:22 PM

I suppose that’s redundant. A self-aware filing cabinet is probably, by definition, weird.

Maybe not.

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Are you in opposition to the intent and spirit of the proposed background checks…or just what a mean and unprofessional doctor might do?

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Yes. Because we ALREADY HAVE BACKGROUND CHECKS.

catmman on April 11, 2013 at 3:23 PM

Again, you (and RWM) are spinning tale of illegal and unprofessional conduct.
Are you in opposition to the intent and spirit of the proposed background checks…or just what a mean and unprofessional doctor might do?
verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:18 PM

I am against the background checks.

It’s precrime.

As for doctors being deputized government agents. Sorry I go to my doctor for MY health, not to report into my federal health agent for to determine if I’m operating according to plan.

Do you have a problem with that? Because you should

Those who would sacrifice liberty for the sake of security deserve NEITHER.

Skywise on April 11, 2013 at 3:25 PM

Time to post this again…

Scary how fast we’re approaching this.

NORMAN: We cannot allow any race as greedy and corruptible as yours to have free run of the galaxy.
SPOCK: I’m curious, Norman. Just how do you intend to stop them?
NORMAN: We shall serve them. Their kind will be eager to accept our service. Soon they will become completely dependent upon us.
ALICE 99: Their aggressive and acquisitive instincts will be under our control.
NORMAN: We shall take care of them.
SPOCK: Eminently practical.
KIRK: The whole galaxy controlled by your kind?
NORMAN: Yes, Captain. And we shall serve them and you will be happy, and controlled.

Skywise on April 11, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Are you in opposition to the intent and spirit of the proposed background checks…or just what a mean and unprofessional doctor might do?

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Why are you libs pushing MORE background check laws when the current regime won’t even prosecute those who violate the current laws?

60 million background checks last year, 77,000 rejected, only 44 people prosecuted.

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Geeee my senator, Mr Mark Kirk….Mr bipartisanship and compromise and bff with Durbin….is on that list.
I’m shocked I tell ya, shocked!

tencole on April 11, 2013 at 3:28 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:18 PM

I’m less concerned about an unprofessional doctor than I am about an unscrupulous bureaucrat writing regulations on how the files are handled. Abuse of the system by those running it is all too easy, and all it takes is one functionary is position to deny the law-abiding recourse when banned from an explicit Constitutional right for no reason. That’s why shall-issue laws were written — because county sheriffs in some place refused to issue purchase permits because they didn’t believe private citizens should own guns or be allowed to carry concealed.

No more compromises from me on my right to self-defense. I will favor no new anti-gun laws. Period, story, end of.

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Okay, Susan Collins we understand, her lips move when she reads, but Tea Party-supported Pat Toomey, joining with Joe Manchin?

Mornin’ Mojo

Mornin Mojo on April 11, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 3:29 PM

Like this?
http://www.columbiatribune.com/news/highway-patrol-gave-feds-missouri-weapon-permits-data/article_266b644e-a235-11e2-a8e7-0019bb30f31a.html

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 3:30 PM

Exactly.

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Are you in opposition to the intent and spirit of the proposed background checks…or just what a mean and unprofessional doctor might do?

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:18 PM

Tell us what a “mental problem” is for purposes of the gun control bill. No, tell us what is in the bill as a disqualification during the background check.

Don’t tell us what you think should be in the bill, tell us whats in the bill.

BobMbx on April 11, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Exactly.

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 3:33 PM

And the one I posted at 3:11.
Government incompetence and no due process.

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 3:37 PM

Skywise on April 11, 2013 at 3:27 PM

Only on HA. :)

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 3:38 PM

My point is that that wild hypothetical ‘what ifs’ are not arguments.
Yes, laws/regulations can be abused. Any Police Officer could, if she/he wanted, falsely accuse anyone, cuff ‘em and throw ‘em in jail.
Is that an argument against having cops?

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM

The problem is that the people who are trying to control our methods of resisting tyranny (gun control) have a history of abusing laws and the political process. We all have been witness to that. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. Fool us 290 times, really shame on us.

Old Country Boy on April 11, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Exactly.

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 3:33 PM

Let us not forget how other government entities have done with private information:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/10/house-committee-votes-in-favor-pro-business-cyber-security-bill/

The government even hands out private information on citizens to people who simply request it.

weaselyone on April 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM

The government even hands out private information on citizens to people who simply request it.

weaselyone on April 11, 2013 at 3:43 PM

Of course – like the NY county giving the local paper the entire database of handgun permit holders.
We saw how wonderfully that worked out for everyone….

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 3:46 PM

Another Ferris law:

Did you really think that we want those laws to be observed?” said Dr. Ferris. “We want them broken. You’d better get it straight that it’s not a bunch of boy scouts you’re up against—then you’ll know that this is not the age for beautiful gestures. We’re after power and we mean it. You fellows were pikers, but we know the real trick, and you’d better get wise to it. There’s no way to rule innocent men. The only power any government has is the power to crack down on criminals. Well, when there aren’t enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws. Who wants a nation of law-abiding citizens? What’s there it that for anyone? But just pass the kind of laws that can neither be observed nor enforced nor objectively interpreted—and you create a nation of lawbreakers—and then you cash in on guilt. Now that’s the system, Mr. Rearden, that’s the game, and once you understand it, you’ll be much easier to deal with.

…figure it out verbaluce, and the obtuse all over.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Skywise on April 11, 2013 at 3:27 PM

And who does Harcourt Fenton Mudd represent? ;)

Dunedainn on April 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

I’m less concerned about an unprofessional doctor than I am about an unscrupulous bureaucrat writing regulations on how the files are handled.

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 3:29 PM

So but for this, you’re not concerned about unscrupulous bureaucrats?

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

So but for this, you’re not concerned about unscrupulous bureaucrats?

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:52 PM

We’re concerned about somehow offending the wrong people and consequently appearing on the Stasi’s- I mean your favorite peoples’ radar.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2013 at 3:54 PM

…figure it out verbaluce, and the obtuse all over.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Nostradamus was an amateur compared to Ayn Rand.

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 3:55 PM

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 3:50 PM

Read it when I was 16.
Silly and boring.
What are you going to quote next…’Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance’?
Or maybe ‘Jonathan Livingston Seagull’?

Try some George Saunders.
I (seriously) think you’d enjoy.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:58 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:58 PM

Sorry to disappoint you, but I highly doubt any of us will be quoting your favorite text.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM

The problem is that the people who are trying to control our methods of resisting tyranny (gun control) have a history of abusing laws and the political process. We all have been witness to that. Fool us once, shame on you. Fool us twice, shame on us. Fool us 290 times, really shame on us.

Old Country Boy on April 11, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Well, I imagine you reject any and all.
But that’s moot in this current debate, as the ‘tyranny’ argument doesn’t really have a seat at this table.
Nobody is making any pointless effort to try and assuage your ‘gun grabbing’ paranoia concerns.
So as displeased as you find yourself with the current state of affairs on this issue, you were displeased before and will be displeased after.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 3:50 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:58 PM

verbalunatic either is not bright enough to see the linkage to what is going on all around us in the real world, or can’t admit to it without admitting that is actually the libs’ plan.

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Nobody is making any pointless effort to try and assuage your ‘gun grabbing’ paranoia concerns.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Get on the train, they said. Stop being paranoid, they said.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Step aside.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:06 PM

the ‘tyranny’ argument doesn’t really have a seat at this table.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:05 PM

Someone is feeling particularly bossy today, folks.

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Savour this.

“savour”, just for RWM :)

p.s. verb, I read way more than you can imagine, all sorts.

p.p.s. that is a great quote (what you demean in it doesn’t count – you are not the free people kind).

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:09 PM

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 4:09 PM

SSDD.

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Have you made fun of the ACLU today? It agrees with me.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Dunedainn on April 11, 2013 at 4:03 PM

Like I said, not a fan of the genre.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Get on the train, they said. Stop being paranoid, they said.

Dunedainn on April 11, 2013 at 4:07 PM

Well that just leads right into my personal favorite -
“just cuz you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.”

For validated paranoia, I just love Marvin in RED.

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM

verbalunatic either is not bright enough to see the linkage to what is going on all around us in the real world, or can’t admit to it without admitting that is actually the libs’ plan.

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 4:07 PM

It’s the former but is also not a malevolent troll, one of the politer ones.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:11 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Have you made fun of the ACLU today? It agrees with me.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM

You make it tough on good verbie.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:11 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:02 PM

Have you made fun of the ACLU today? It agrees with me.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM

Who’s the broken clock in this scenario?
:)

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:12 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

Completely agree as well.
I’ve never like the thought that felons should not own guns. If they have paid their debt.. then it is paid.

But as for gun control… again.. we are being sold out by our own side.

Time and time again.. it is only because of traitorous Republicans that Democrats are able to get their agenda passed.

When it comes time to pound the last nail in the coffin of our nation.. I firmly believe it will be the GOP that does it. Or at the least… they will be there handing the hammer to the Democrat who uses it.

We no longer have a country. America is fast becoming the kind of nation people flee. But where do you flee to?

When America falls… so falls Western Civilization.

JellyToast on April 11, 2013 at 4:12 PM

one of the politer ones.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:11 PM

sometimes

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 4:12 PM

verb, when you suffer like Ayn and her family did, at the hands of the totalitarians, you get to judge. With all her fleas she knew her stuff. She is needed today. She’d swat your types by the millions.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:13 PM

You make it tough on good verbie.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:11 PM

When have I ever not welcomed such?
If I wanted it easy, I’d be over at Kos getting ego strokes.
But wherever you go, it’s Schadenfreude.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:14 PM

sometimes

dentarthurdent on April 11, 2013 at 4:12 PM

Perfection is tough.

Is harmless and sometimes tolerable. Doesn’t come here to crap on all others. Tries, just like a Romney-smitten-subject.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Hello, all –

For the first time since the 1990s, Congress might be on track to pass legislation aimed at reducing gun violence in the United States. And it’s because folks in Washington are starting to understand that the rest of the country isn’t going to sit by and let them ignore this issue. Your voices are the reason we have a chance to win this debate. The American people expect and demand a yes or no vote.

But this is a critical moment. It’s been almost four months since the tragedy at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, thousands more Americans have died at the hands of gun violence, and time is on the side of those who would prefer that we do nothing.

We want to make sure that your voices are impossible to ignore. So we’re asking people from all over the country to speak out online in concert — all at the same time. Will you join us?

Pledge to speak out about the need to reduce gun violence.

It’s easy to participate. Over the next few days, anyone can sign up to tweet or share a message to Facebook. Through that time, we’ll gather up as many people as we can. Then we’ll make sure that all these individual messages get posted together in the same moment for maximum effect.

That wave of social media will get seen by millions and millions of people.

We’re talking about common-sense reforms. Like the idea that any of us who want to buy a gun should have to go through a background check first — which 90 percent of Americans support.

So let’s make sure that there’s absolutely no confusion about the public consensus.

Pledge to speak out with us, and then forward this email to your family and friends:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/now-is-the-time/action

Thanks!

David

David Simas
Deputy Senior Advisor
The White House

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 4:14 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Stay here. I like you, with all your fleas :)

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:15 PM

verb, when you suffer like Ayn and her family did, at the hands of the totalitarians, you get to judge. With all her fleas she knew her stuff. She is needed today. She’d swat your types by the millions.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:13 PM

I’m sorry she suffered.
But that’s no excuse for her to make us suffer her boring prose and inane ‘philosophy’.
But maybe I’m being selfish?
Ah….what virtue.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:16 PM

My point is that that wild hypothetical ‘what ifs’ are not arguments.
Yes, laws/regulations can be abused. Any Police Officer could, if she/he wanted, falsely accuse anyone, cuff ‘em and throw ‘em in jail.
Is that an argument against having cops?

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 3:12 PM

Those cops just erroneously suspended the CCW licence and ordered a man to turn in his guns in NY.

‘I think that first and foremost, it stems from a flawed law that was passed so quickly without forethought on how something would be implemented. Certainly, I am disappointed on the fact that we were given information from State Police that this was an individual that we needed to act immediately on.

Previously we received correspondence from the State Police that a pistol permit holder in our County had a mental health condition that made them a potential harm to themselves or others, a provision in the NY SAFE Act that requires suspension of their pistol permit license.

When the State Police called to tell us they made a mistake and had the wrong person…it became clear that the State did not do their job here, and now we all look foolish.

Until the mental health provisions are fixed, these mistakes will continue to happen.’

- Erie County Clerk Chris Jacobs, Erie, New York

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 4:18 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Pop Quiz. Who wrote this?

…the Second Amendment wasn’t enacted with any of these things in mind. The amendment was adopted as a means to enable the new American republic, lacking a standing army or state national guards, to muster militia to put down domestic uprisings, including slave revolts, to repulse any attempted return by the British and to deal with clashes with Native Americans on the expanding frontier.

These issues vanished long ago. The Second Amendment is obsolete and now has been twisted to threaten the basic safety and security of all Americans. There is no basis for claiming this amendment was intended to permit unregulated personal acquisition of firearms, including amassing military weapons and private arsenals for “protection” from the government. No government, especially one that is new and fragile, has ever authorized citizens to arm themselves against it.

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 4:20 PM

But, don’t worry. Something similar will not happen to you. The Feds and the states PINKY PROMISE!

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM

When have I ever not welcomed such?
If I wanted it easy, I’d be over at Kos getting ego strokes.
But wherever you go, it’s Schadenfreude.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Please don’t ever go away. Its such a pleasure watching you try to act intelligent.

ShadowsPawn on April 11, 2013 at 4:21 PM

A retry:

Have you made fun of the ACLU today? It agrees with me.

Resist We Much on April 11, 2013 at 4:10 PM

We don’t even need a psychiatric professional who wants petty revenge on a neighbor and is willing to lie. How about simply a patient with chronic back pain who needs powerful pain killers? There’s a chance of addiction, or frequent mental impairment. I can see a bureaucrat refusing to issue a gun permit on that basis, whether or not the bureaucrat is scrupulous or not.

If the ACLU can see how riddled with problems these new proposals are, anyone else should, too, with no problems.

Liam on April 11, 2013 at 4:24 PM

Hillary sucks – oh wait no she doesn’t – Bill let’s Monica do that…..

redguy on April 11, 2013 at 12:32 PM

My female-homophile friends tell me there’s definitely a lot of sucking that goes on, along with some [moderated], and [moderated], and [moderated], well you get the idea.

Nutstuyu on April 11, 2013 at 4:25 PM

If the second amendment doesn’t mean anything any more, then OUR country is truly LOST!
Obama and the Communists have won and I am giving up.

Delsa on April 11, 2013 at 4:26 PM

I’m disappointed in you, verbaluce. The preceding quote was from peoplesworld.org, the official website of the Communist Party USA.

Gun confiscation is the ultimate goal Obama and all of his minions.

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 4:26 PM

But that’s no excuse for her to make us suffer her boring prose and inane ‘philosophy’.

Inane only to the tyrants.

But maybe I’m being selfish?
Ah….what virtue.

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:16 PM

Heh, you’re Randian. She promoted selfishness, in a good sense, as opposed to idiotic do-gooderism.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:28 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:14 PM

Stay here. I like you, with all your fleas :)

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Ooh ooh, a new protected class: verbasexuals!!!!!11!1!!1!1!!

Nutstuyu on April 11, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Nutstuyu on April 11, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Be nice

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:30 PM

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

Mark them. Remember them. If any of them are not successfully primaried, or heaven forbid, any get re-elected, then we deserve them…and what follows.

Not one single provision of this bill will stop or would have stopped any of the most recent carnage, if the wannabe murderer is hell bent on going out in a blaze off glory.

coldwarrior on April 11, 2013 at 12:11 PM

If people can be mentally deficient to exercise their second amendment right, is not Kirk mentally deficient now to exercise his job privileges?

Nutstuyu on April 11, 2013 at 4:31 PM

Nutstuyu on April 11, 2013 at 4:29 PM

Be nice

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:30 PM

Well, I could have combined “verbaluce” and “lamppost decorations” in the same sentence. Who knows what would have happened then.

Nutstuyu on April 11, 2013 at 4:33 PM

Nutstuyu on April 11, 2013 at 4:33 PM

The trolls around here are your enemies. Verb is confused.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:35 PM

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:14 PM
Stay here. I like you, with all your fleas :)
Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:15 PM

Thanks.
I will.
(Scratch)

verbaluce on April 11, 2013 at 4:35 PM

It time to vote all these Republics out of office.

jdun on April 11, 2013 at 4:39 PM

Nutstuyu on April 11, 2013 at 4:33 PM

The Eye is upon us. SWalker was banned yesterday.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:40 PM

I love this

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:40 PM

I’m disappointed in you, verbaluce. The preceding quote was from peoplesworld.org, the official website of the Communist Party USA.

Gun confiscation is the ultimate goal Obama and all of his minions.

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 4:26 PM

What’s that got to do with dancing like a teapot, chortling, making (what one believes are) clever allusions, and forcing engagement with Resist as though one were her intellectual peer?

BTW — Look at you coming in at #4 on Google. :) I had to look it up.

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 4:40 PM

#4 on what on Google?

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM

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

Simple answer in two parts: background checks already exist and are required by law, and felons & “wife beaters” already don’t care what the laws are.

Nutstuyu on April 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM

#4 on what on Google?

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Meh, the quote you gave verb.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM

#4 on what on Google?

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 4:42 PM

Well, whatever random string I copied and pasted from that quote, actually. :) Probably couldn’t repeat it if I tried.

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 4:43 PM

Nutstuyu on April 11, 2013 at 4:33 PM

The Eye is upon us. SWalker was banned yesterday.

Schadenfreude on April 11, 2013 at 4:40 PM

Yup. And I’m wondering if I combine “lamppost decorations” with a troll’s name, will I get banned too? Just curious if Ed (you watching babe?) is as selective as the MSM.

Nutstuyu on April 11, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Axe on April 11, 2013 at 4:43 PM

LOL!

kingsjester on April 11, 2013 at 4:44 PM

Toomey will now be vulnerable to a Democrat. I’m not voting for him again. I refuse to. I am sick of voting for Republicans who stab you in the back. The nation is finished anyway.

Apparently.. the thinks he’s reasonable now. All I see is a freaking appeaser.

JellyToast on April 11, 2013 at 4:45 PM

I’ve never understood the filibuster strategy on this. We need the Senate in 2014. Let those Democrats hang themselves. Reid has already given cover with the amendment process and then we proposed to filibuster and provide even more cover. Silly.

ButterflyDragon on April 11, 2013 at 4:50 PM

Comment pages: 1 2 3 4