Jeff Flake hints: I’ll support expanded background checks in return for changes on Internet sales

posted at 11:21 am on May 7, 2013 by Allahpundit

A week ago, he noted on his Facebook page that his poll numbers after voting no on Toomey/Manchin put him somewhere south of “pond scum.” Today, this.

He won’t face the voters again for five and a half years, but he shares a home state with Gabby Giffords and Mark Kelly. They can hurt him by campaigning against him in 2018 more than they can anyone else in the Senate. No wonder he’s looking for ways to flip:

Republican Sen. Jeff Flake told CNN he is willing to reverse his opposition to expanding background checks for guns if the Senate sponsors change on the bill’s provision dealing with internet sales…

He said under the measure as written, if a gun owner sends a few friends a text or email asking if they want to buy their gun, or posts it on their Facebook page, “that is considered a commercial sale.”

For people in rural areas in his state and others, he said that becomes inconvenient and costly…

Some Republicans opposed the measure out of fear that expanding background checks would put the country on a path to a national gun registry, but Flake said that is not his concern.

If Flake flips, that’s 55 votes for Toomey/Manchin. Johnny Isakson also allegedly told a gun-control activist yesterday that he’s “having conversations” with T&M to improve their bill, but when pressed on that by reporters, his spokesman claimed the bill “would have to be significantly reworked” to get his vote. Even so, Democrats are whispering that two Republicans have approached them to restart debate on it; assuming that Flake is one of them, that means there are potentially 56 votes for the taking. But wait, we’re not done:

“Joe Manchin called me yesterday,” Reid said. “He thinks he has a couple more votes. The one senator, Republican Senator from New Hampshire [Kelly Ayotte], has been — wham, man has she been hit hard. She’s the only senator in the northeast to vote against background checks. She went from a hugely positive number in New Hampshire — her negatives now outweigh her positives. She is being hit every place she goes. So we are going to pick up some more votes. I may be able to get another Democrat or two. That would get us up to 57. We may only need three additional Republicans. So we’ll see.”

If Reid can get two more Democrats, that makes 58 votes — tantalizingly close to 60, with Kelly Ayotte suddenly under even more pressure to flip and break the filibuster. She has an op-ed out today, in fact, insisting that she does support background checks but reiterating that “we shouldn’t be expanding a flawed system. The focus should be on fixing the existing system, which criminals are flouting.” Whether that means she’s resolved to stick to her guns by opposing T-M or whether she’s merely floating a trial balloon here to see if it’s enough to get gun-control fans to back off, we’ll see.

Even if Ayotte flips, Reid will still need one more. Politico has a fun piece today about Democrats whining that their pal Mike Bloomberg won’t leave poor Mark Pryor alone and focus on attacking pro-gun Republicans instead, but I wonder if that calculus will change if/when they’re a vote away from passing Toomey/Manchin. In that case, they can use a little extra arm-twisting. What I don’t get, though, is why Bloomberg’s group would attack Pryor with its own ads rather than fund local gun-control groups to do it for them. Having a big-city blue-state alliance like Mayors Against Illegal Guns dumping on him makes it easy for Pryor to dismiss them as outsiders meddling in a southern state’s affairs. Get a bunch of liberals from Little Rock to form “Razorbacks Against Self-Defense” or whatever and make them the front man.

Here’s what MAIG’s up to with Ayotte in New Hampshire.


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

He’s no different than the other political whores infesting Washington.

KickandSwimMom on May 7, 2013 at 11:26 AM

More ‘Let’s make a deal’ from the political class.

thatsafactjack on May 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Flake is selling out for an extremely weak cup of tea.

Ashamed to be an Arizonan today. And I voted for this weak kneed pol.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

You politico retards seem not to understand. Destroying the 2nd Amendment one bit at a time for some meaningless drivel concerning “internet sales” is not a winning position to take.

Go to hell, GOP, I’m about at the point where I’m not going to vote for any of you ever.

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM

Can anyone tell me why E-verify was implemented decades ago but not used?

trs on May 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM

What did President Cruz call them? squishes?

DanMan on May 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM

And what does this say exactly, that Flake put his vote forward and is now willing to rescind it because a herd of slawk-jawed leftist trash have spammed his email account? Spineless fud.

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 11:29 AM

Hey Jeff, rather than negotiating our rights away, WHY THE HELL don’t you stand up to these thugs and expose their agenda?!!!

So sick of these blind cowards…

katy on May 7, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Oops…thought this was about immigration.

trs on May 7, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Apparently no never means no to these people.

changer1701 on May 7, 2013 at 11:30 AM

Thanks, Arizona.
It’s a good thing you have Governor Jan Brewer or we would vote you off the island.

AllahsNippleHair on May 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM

DC… the only piece of land on the planet that turns good men into zombies.

katy on May 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM

“We’ve determined what you are, madam Mr. Flake. Now we’re just negotiating price.”

-George Bernard Shaw.

Wethal on May 7, 2013 at 11:32 AM

Flake is selling out for an extremely weak cup of tea.

Ashamed to be an Arizonan today. And I voted for this weak kneed pol.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

I’m sure he knows that; it’s a defense against accusations of flip-flopping. What he should be doing is bargaining for state reciprocity. Or better, demanding interstate sales and national conceal carry in the name of interstate commerce. I know the latter doesn’t really have anything to do with interstate commerce, but it’s not as far fetched as other issues. If you need to carry for business, it could cross state lines, that’s interstate commerce right there.

Fenris on May 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Wtf is wrong with Arizona?

Valkyriepundit on May 7, 2013 at 11:34 AM

Geez.

What a Flake.

JohnTant on May 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Flake is an appropriate name for this whore.

SirGawain on May 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

More ‘Let’s make a deal’ from the political class.

thatsafactjack on May 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Indeed – he has the perfect last name.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 11:36 AM

Noticed in the video the narrator didn’t just say Background Checks, he made it a point to say Comprehensive Background Checks, which would mean, health care checks, V.A. checks, probably family background checks and eventually opinions of friends and relatives.

fourdeucer on May 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

I care less about internet taxes than I do about a gun-grabbing government.

rbj on May 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

In 2018 will Arizona please flush this POS?

bw222 on May 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Gun show background checks aren’t the problem.

The problem is the ambiguity of the bill which could easily allow federal agencies to compile lists of gun owners.

If background checks at gun shows (for non-licensed sellers) is what they want then the bill need only be one sentence. The fact that it’s not implies they want more down the line.

darwin on May 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Flake has been the biggest disappointment from the newly elected 2012 senators. He had such a fantastic record encompassing his tenure in the House. He seems to have lost his soul when he was elected senator. Deb Fischer is turning out to be a dissapointment also.

ritewhit on May 7, 2013 at 11:42 AM

Some Republicans opposed the measure out of fear that expanding background checks would put the country on a path to a national gun registry, but Flake said that is not his concern.

He’s not concerned that universal background checks *might* create a registry, or he’s not concerned that it will?

The fact is a universal background check *must* have a registry in order to function. It’s inherent in the concept. And being against a registry on the grounds of eventual confiscation is not paranoid. Heck, we’re seeing it in California and New York right now.

On such a simple, easy, opposition-splitting issue like this, the Stupid Party is still eager to surrender. Unbelievable.

JohnTant on May 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM

I’m sure criminals will make sure to do all the proper paperwork.

AllahsNippleHair on May 7, 2013 at 11:43 AM

He’s living up to his name, I’ll give him that. Was he this big a squish before he was elected to the Senate? Or is McCain pulling the strings like Schumer does with Gillibrand in NY?

Doughboy on May 7, 2013 at 11:44 AM

“…….we’ve already establilshed that, now we’re just haggling.”

tommyboy on May 7, 2013 at 11:45 AM

SHALL

NOT

BE

INFRINGED

…LISTS of gun owners is illegal.

TX-96 on May 7, 2013 at 11:46 AM

Jeff Flake, think very carefully about your next few words…

JohnGalt23 on May 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

…The fact that it’s not implies they want more down the line.

darwin on May 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

The lefties always want more down the line. And the Republicans are nearly always playing defense, which means even if the left only gets their way once in a while then it is a one-way ratchet.

The conservatives in Congress (I know, precious few) need to step up with positive legislation themselves. Not just this issue, but especially immigration too.

And on messaging, I’m not convinced people want legislation on the issue of school shootings, for example, but that’s the political messaging. Some of that’s a state/local issue, but the Congress-sheep should make more an issue of non-enforcement of current law.

Fenris on May 7, 2013 at 11:47 AM

Talk about principals !
Not !

Lucano on May 7, 2013 at 11:48 AM

Thanks, Arizona.
It’s a good thing you have Governor Jan Brewer or we would vote you off the island.

AllahsNippleHair on May 7, 2013 at 11:31 AM

would that be the same jan brewer who’s now pushing for arizona to jump on the obamacare bandwagon??

chasdal on May 7, 2013 at 11:50 AM

So what’s Flake going to do next when Kelly and Giffords start whining about how we need to ban “assault weapons”? You know it will happen. These people don’t want to stop with background checks. Will he fold like a cheap suit again?

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 11:51 AM

Agree ritewhit

cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 11:51 AM

I hate this guy more every day.

Midas on May 7, 2013 at 11:52 AM

I give up with these people….

ToddPA on May 7, 2013 at 11:52 AM

I would warn not to be 100% “against background checks”. In the past the NRA had been for some expansion in background checks, we should take the position they had previously endorsed.

That doesn’t make us squishes or RINO’s, it makes us people of principle.

Tater Salad on May 7, 2013 at 11:53 AM

The asininity of this bill is it won’t haven’t stopped Newton or any other shooting. Even the Boston Bombers had guns.

This is strictly aimed at the law abiding citizen.

darwin on May 7, 2013 at 11:54 AM

Fenris on May 7, 2013 at 11:33 AM

Agreed.

Was he this big a squish before he was elected to the Senate? Or is McCain pulling the strings like Schumer does with Gillibrand in NY?

Doughboy on May 7, 2013 at 11:44 AM

Less of the former, more of the latter.

Flake’s biggest claim to fame in the House was his strong opposition to earmarks.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 11:55 AM

nothing like living up to your name

Windsweeping on May 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

I would warn not to be 100% “against background checks”. In the past the NRA had been for some expansion in background checks, we should take the position they had previously endorsed.

That doesn’t make us squishes or RINO’s, it makes us people of principle.

Tater Salad on May 7, 2013 at 11:53 AM

The problem isn’t necessarily the substance of the Toomey-Manchin bill. It’s what comes after it. We know background checks are just the start of their agenda. They will come for more, and one inch you give now is one inch less they have to take next time.

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

Universal background checks will create/expand the existing database. No other way to perceive this.

irongrampa on May 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM

Flake has been the biggest disappointment from the newly elected 2012 senators. He had such a fantastic record encompassing his tenure in the House. He seems to have lost his soul when he was elected senator. Deb Fischer is turning out to be a disappointment also.

ritewhit on May 7, 2013 at 11:42 AM

He does seem to have moved to the center very quickly, but that is the nature of the Senate at play. You don’t face voters again for years, you represent the entire state instead of a little district, and your vote takes on much more significance than it does in the House.

changer1701 on May 7, 2013 at 11:59 AM

Go to hell, GOP, I’m about at the point where I’m not going to vote for any of you ever.

Bishop on May 7, 2013 at 11:28 AM

I passed that milestone already. They’re going to have to ‘do the right thing’ for a damn long time to earn any trust back. Until then, ‘Republicans’ get no votes; ‘Conservatives’, individuals that demonstrate through their actions that they deserve the vote, will get it, even if they happen to be ‘Republican’ (eg: Cruz – unless he, too, turns).

It won’t matter in the end anyway, though – between people who will stop voting for the GOP, and all of the new Democrat voters the GOP is going to help the DNC land via amnesty, the GOP are a dead party walking; they just don’t know it yet.

Midas on May 7, 2013 at 12:00 PM

“I’m sorry, my polling numbers are down due to Obamas illegal personal political arm so I have to vote to rescind the first amendment…”

The Republic is dead.

Skywise on May 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Flake has gone full-blown TRAITOR rat – he’s pushing obama’s agenda 24/7, just like Rubio.

Pork-Chop on May 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM

Enjoy the rest of your one term as a Senator, Flake, because it’s all you’re going to get.

Between this and the pimping for the amnesty bill, you’re done.

AZCoyote on May 7, 2013 at 12:01 PM

I would warn not to be 100% “against background checks”. In the past the NRA had been for some expansion in background checks, we should take the position they had previously endorsed.

That doesn’t make us squishes or RINO’s, it makes us people of principle.

Tater Salad on May 7, 2013 at 11:53 AM
The problem isn’t necessarily the substance of the Toomey-Manchin bill. It’s what comes after it. We know background checks are just the start of their agenda. They will come for more, and one inch you give now is one inch less they have to take next time.

Mark1971 on May 7, 2013 at 11:56 AM

That argument is the same as the Left’s on late-term abortion. No one wants some sort of national registry or gun banning, however we should have a set of principles we believe in and stand by, not political positions. I like to think we are above that sort of thinking.

Tater Salad on May 7, 2013 at 12:02 PM

ayotte and flake kowtowing to this crapola…

enough…you had your shot…next up?

cmsinaz on May 7, 2013 at 12:03 PM

Jeff Flake…

It’s in the name.

katy on May 7, 2013 at 12:03 PM

This has slipped under my radar,

T

he NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) (Public Law 110-180) was a bipartisan effort to strengthen the NICS by increasing the quantity and quality of relevant records from Federal, State, and tribal authorities accessible by the system. Among its requirements, the NIAA mandated that executive departments and agencies (agencies) provide relevant information, including criminal history records, certain adjudications related to the mental health of a person, and other information, to databases accessible by the NICS.

Look at all the agencies participating.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2013/01/16/presidential-memorandum-improving-availability-relevant-executive-branch

fourdeucer on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM

The name, Flake, fits this guy like a glove! Don’t stand on principle, like some of your freshmen colleagues! Ted Cruz comes to mind. Being worried about the 2018 election doesn’t seem to have caused Sen. Cruz angst, as he follows through on his pre-election promises. If you could grow a pair like him and get under Reid’s skin, just half as much, we might get behind your next election in 2018…..you worthless hack! What the hell is going on in Arizona, where the women have more character and guts than the elected male Senators from that once relevant state?

tomshup on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM

YOU stupid fools, WE already have background checks! JUST enforce the laws WE have now!

GADS, how I detest these slug slimes that think more about keeping their job/how people like them than seeing to it our constitution is enforced!
L

letget on May 7, 2013 at 12:05 PM

Flake has been the biggest disappointment from the newly elected 2012 senators. He had such a fantastic record encompassing his tenure in the House. He seems to have lost his soul when he was elected senator. Deb Fischer is turning out to be a dissapointment also.

ritewhit on May 7, 2013 at 11:42 AM

They are opportunists, particularly when they become senators. Given enough time, even Rand Paul and Ted Cruz would disappoint, which is why they are both looking to run for president. They want to get to the meat, rather than wallow in the sauce for years to come. There has to be something better than the GOP.

rickv404 on May 7, 2013 at 12:07 PM

With sellouts like Flake, who the hell needs enemies like the leftist pawn scum. I’m so sick and tired of this crap. The more the politicians work to restrict our freedoms, more the dug in I find myself becoming. The more convinced I am that Cody Wilson from Defense Distributed is on to something that should be supported by any freedom loving American.

jawkneemusic on May 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM

I like to think we are above that sort of thinking.

Tater Salad on May 7, 2013 at 12:02 PM

We are above that way of thinking. However, our opponents are not.

It’s why their creeping incrementalism keeps chugging along, whereas ours never even leaves the station.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 12:09 PM

Universal background checks will create/expand the existing database. No other way to perceive this.
irongrampa on May 7, 2013 at 11:57 AM

In addiation the “check” will be for such a vague and broad criteria that the most trivial things will prohibit people from buying and keeping guns. Back door confiscation and prohibition. We saw this in New York already.

tommyboy on May 7, 2013 at 12:11 PM

No one votes on principal.

ctmom on May 7, 2013 at 12:13 PM

And these weak-kneed GOP Senators wonder why conservatives have fallen in love with the likes of Cruz, Paul, and Lee?

TheRightMan on May 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM

Anyone notice that the introduction of the Gang of 8 Immigration Bill happened around the same time as the Background Checks vote. I’m guessing that, here in AZ, the Immigration Bill had as much negative effect on his poll numbers as his Background Checks vote.

TritonTR on May 7, 2013 at 12:14 PM

In addiation the “check” will be for such a vague and broad criteria that the most trivial things will prohibit people from buying and keeping guns. Back door confiscation and prohibition. We saw this in New York already.

Absolutely….law abiding citizens must be disarmed as they are a threat to government tyranny.

hawkeye54 on May 7, 2013 at 12:15 PM

That argument is the same as the Left’s on late-term abortion. No one wants some sort of national registry or gun banning, however we should have a set of principles we believe in and stand by, not political positions. I like to think we are above that sort of thinking.
Tater Salad on May 7, 2013 at 12:02 PM

Really? No one?!

Yeah – because tracking all gun purchases in a federal database is ok because nobody said “registry”.
Forcibly taking guns from citizens WITH NO CRIMINAL HISTORY because they have a prescription for Paxil is okay because it’s not a “gun ban”

If it quacks like a duck…

Skywise on May 7, 2013 at 12:18 PM

“All we’re asking for is a reasonable and responsible expansion of background checks…”

Next shooting occurs

“All we’re asking for is a reasonable and responsible collection of data to verify ownership…”

Next shooting occurs

“All we’re asking for is a reasonable and responsible collection of weapons of war that have no place in our streets…”

Next shooting occurs

“All we’re asking for are reasonable and responsible restrictions on certain types of weapons, AR type rifles in particular…”

Next shooting occurs

“All we’re asking for are reasonable and responsible restrictions on certain types of handguns…”

Ad Nauseum Infinitum

catmman on May 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM

I don’t get why anyone would be so up in arms about this. Arizona kept electing the quintessential backstabber, John McCain. You get what you nominate, Arizona.

beatcanvas on May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

This has slipped under my radar,

The NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007 (NIAA) (Public Law 110-180) was a bipartisan effort to strengthen the NICS by increasing the quantity and quality of relevant records from Federal, State, and tribal authorities accessible by the system. Among its requirements, the NIAA mandated that executive departments and agencies (agencies) provide relevant information, including criminal history records, certain adjudications related to the mental health of a person, and other information, to databases accessible by the NICS.

fourdeucer on May 7, 2013 at 12:04 PM

RedState has been following the leak by the governor of the concealed carry list to the Social Security Administration in Missouri.

MO Governor denied it at first, until a letter from Napolitano thanking him for the list surfaced.

Why SS? Because then they can cross-reference concealed carry permits with anyone who might have been or is on SS disability for depression, bipolar disorder, etc.

Wethal on May 7, 2013 at 12:38 PM

beatcanvas on May 7, 2013 at 12:36 PM

The only problem is, their stupidity doesn’t just affect Arizona.

It affects all of us.

Which is why we need to abolish the Seventeenth Amendment.

catmman on May 7, 2013 at 12:43 PM

Again..letting the left determine the choices. Background checks and taxes are both crap sandwiches. Now pick one.
How about “no” to both, and offer up two conservative policies and call that compromise?

Get rid of these people. They’re not even aware of being played for suckers.

Mimzey on May 7, 2013 at 12:45 PM

JEFF FLAKE is the NEW JOHN MCCAIN.

…..and Bob Corker, and Saxby Chambliss and a dozen other Big gov loving republicans.

Purge them all!!

PappyD61 on May 7, 2013 at 12:51 PM

Wethal on May 7, 2013 at 12:38 PM

Thanks, I also noticed the number IX on the list of agencies had this

such other agencies or offices as the Chair may designate.

and , this was signed by executive order on January 1, 2013

fourdeucer on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

A week ago, he noted on his Facebook page that his poll numbers after voting no on Toomey/Manchin put him somewhere south of “pond scum.”

Allahpundit

.
How many of these Facebook comments are from genuine Arizona constituents?

The temptation to login and argue with them is STRONG.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2013 at 12:52 PM

Republican Sen. Jeff Flake told CNN he is willing to reverse his opposition to expanding background checks for guns if the Senate sponsors change on the bill’s provision dealing with internet sales…

So … Flake is willing to impose one offensively un-Constitutional restriction in exchange for the imposition of another offensively un-Constitutional power grab by the feral government?

Great … what a POS.

ThePrimordialOrderedPair on May 7, 2013 at 12:56 PM

There’s a story about a young bull and an old bull that Senator Flake needs to be told.

The moral of it, for him, is that you needn’t accept a bad thing in order to avoid a worse thing. You can, if you have the stones, kick both of them to the curb.

Our leaders are pathetic, and I’m just talking about the ones on our side.

greggriffith on May 7, 2013 at 12:58 PM

The Republicans are stupid.

Here you have the Democrats running on dead children when their legislative goal would have not stopped the crime they are using as the reason for their legislation.

But you know what? Most of the same people pushing the 2nd Amendment restriction bill (which is what we should all be calling it) helped to keep Gosnell’s shop of horrors open.

The Republicans should have a slew of bills relating to Gosnell being debated right now, and refuse to debate anything else until something like Virginia’s bill that regulates abortion mills gets passed on a national level, Planned Parenthood is defunded, and a federal taskforce to investigate abortion related crimes is implemented.

18-1 on May 7, 2013 at 1:05 PM

JEFF FLAKE is the NEW JOHN MCCAIN.

…..and Bob Corker, and Saxby Chambliss and a dozen other Big gov loving republicans.

There is precious little difference between the Republican and Democrat party anymore. Our elective choices are the left party and the far left party.

Hell – look at the MA election you’ve got two Obama supporters facing off.

18-1 on May 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM

I would warn not to be 100% “against background checks”. In the past the NRA had been for some expansion in background checks, we should take the position they had previously endorsed.

That doesn’t make us squishes or RINO’s, it makes us people of principle.

Tater Salad on May 7, 2013 at 11:53 AM

.
Tater’, I know you genuinely mean well … but I’m going in the opposite direction.
I believe any adult citizen who is NOT:

#1) currently “behind bars”

#2) diagnosed as being genuinely mentally handicapped to the point of being unable to discern right from wrong

should be allowed the same access to firearms that every other citizen has.

Just being a “convicted felon” should not disbar a person from legally possessing firearms.

Just being diagnosed “autistic”, or being on psychiatric meds is not sufficient cause to disbar a citizen from possessing and using firearms.

listens2glenn on May 7, 2013 at 1:17 PM

JEFF FLAKE is the NEW JOHN MCCAIN.

…..and Bob Corker, and Saxby Chambliss and a dozen other Big gov loving republicans.

There is precious little difference between the Republican and Democrat party anymore. Our elective choices are the left party and the far left party.

Hell – look at the MA election you’ve got two Obama supporters facing off.

18-1 on May 7, 2013 at 1:07 PM

True.

PappyD61 on May 7, 2013 at 1:20 PM

Ashamed to be an Arizonan today. And I voted for this weak kneed pol.

Difficultas_Est_Imperium on May 7, 2013 at 11:27 AM

Don’t tell us, tell him!

Vince on May 7, 2013 at 1:21 PM

Fluke this guy.

Schadenfreude on May 7, 2013 at 1:23 PM

Senate Republicans to House Republicans: “Screw you folks if my gun-grab vote causes the House to be lost to the Liberals…..just so long as MY seat is safe….”

olesparkie on May 7, 2013 at 1:36 PM

“All we’re asking for are reasonable and responsible restrictions on certain types of handguns…”

Ad Nauseum Infinitum

catmman on May 7, 2013 at 12:31 PM

That is, until they’ve succeeded in their goal of confiscating all guns in private hands.

rickv404 on May 7, 2013 at 1:39 PM

Fluke Flake.

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 1:39 PM

I would warn not to be 100% “against background checks”. In the past the NRA had been for some expansion in background checks, we should take the position they had previously endorsed.

That doesn’t make us squishes or RINO’s, it makes us people of principle.

Tater Salad on May 7, 2013 at 11:53 AM

The more I think about it, “SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED” means even felons have the right to bear arms.

The FF had no caveat. So as long as a felon is a citizen, he has the right to keep and bear arms. However, as soon as he uses that arm for evil, he should be put down accordingly. We contort ourselves with carving pieces out of the 2nd, 4th etc because we first refused, more appropriately wimped out on ensuring evil doers pay the price. Heck, under British rule, many of those who fought for independence would meet the classification of “felon”. And as we see now, the question of who may bear arms become arbitary based on nothing else than a made up rule as the politicians merrily went on their way bartering votes and compromising to increase or keep their hold on power.

Likewise, felons have the right to be secure in their persons, property etc. When we allow these politicians to target felons, it is just a matter of time before the govt targets its enemies. By enemies, I don’t mean public enemies, but political enemies. Look at how they try to use “fair” to shut down talk radio etc.

Some may say “what about the right to vote”, voting is a privilege, not an inalienable right. Here, the FF granted the franchise for voting to land owners, more appropriately, those who owned skin in the business of govt, as it is by their endeavors that the govt hopes to gain revenue by tariffs and customs. No problem extending the franchise to taxpayers, but we should be drawing the line at that. if you don’t pay taxes, you shouldn’t be voting.

AH_C on May 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Still not overly concerned, yet.

Notice, that this clown established a quid-pro-qua, regarding a bill that has already passed the senate, and has little chance of being significantly altered without causing significant number of dems to abandon it.

My suspicion is that he wants to establish that he was willing to vote for the recent gun control bill, but wanted to establish such an unlikely set of conditions for supporting it that he would never seriously be called upon to do it.

Additionally, I don’t particularly trust dems when they say they have, or nearly have the votes. Keep in mind, that they over estimated their support for the bill the first time around. Additionally, they may simply be trying to undermine certain senators positions. If they convince people that X, Y, and Z politicians are going to vote a certain way, those politicians are considerably more likely to actually vote that way.

Whats more telling here, is that democrats aren’t pushing for a new vote on this bill. If they thought they were only a vote short, they would at least get the ball moving by now. They won’t get the ball moving before then however, because every time a bill fails to pass the senate, the more difficult it is to pass it or something similar in a given year.

No, they’ll hold off until they’re within say, two votes or so. They’ll assume that they’ll can get another two votes by using the media coverage leading up to the vote to sway the last few senators they need.

So, they fact that they aren’t getting the ball rolling, likely means that the internal calculus hasn’t changed much since the last vote.

Besides that, this bill would also have to pass the House, which is probably a bigger hurdle at this point. The bill is simply unlikely to make it out of congress, which means that switching votes would simply put said senators on the bad side of both camps.

Gun control nuts would probably forgive these politicians, if the bill passed both houses and was signed into law. They won’t if the bill doesn’t pass, and switching sides would only cost them whatever support they have from 2nd amendment supporters.

WolvenOne on May 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM

You know you can’t take the constitution seriously when polls and votes are at stake. This guys a real champ.

DDay on May 7, 2013 at 1:48 PM

WolvenOne on May 7, 2013 at 1:46 PM

Good analysis. I hope your are correct.

davidk on May 7, 2013 at 1:49 PM

I don’t understand the desire to die on this hill repeatedly, when the war will end in the House, which they have no control over and will most likely not pass this bill.

ButterflyDragon on May 7, 2013 at 2:21 PM

I care less about internet taxes than I do about a gun-grabbing government.

rbj on May 7, 2013 at 11:37 AM

Yeah, but unless you’re one of Flake’s wealthy cronies he doesn’t care what you think, and his cronies don’t care about the second amendment, they care about money and power. In fact the 2nd amendment—which allows the victims of the many crooks and cronies that own Washington DC to own guns—are a threat to them.

FloatingRock on May 7, 2013 at 2:52 PM

I would warn not to be 100% “against background checks”. In the past the NRA had been for some expansion in background checks, we should take the position they had previously endorsed.

That doesn’t make us squishes or RINO’s, it makes us people of principle.

Tater Salad

I didn’t realize having principles meant we had to let the NRA think for us, or that they are automatically entitled to our support. Isn’t that something the left does?

xblade on May 7, 2013 at 2:53 PM

I would shut down the Internet, totally and permanently, before I would compromise the 2nd amendment.

FloatingRock on May 7, 2013 at 2:54 PM

What Flake doesn’t realize is that people’s memories fade. By the time he’s up for reelection, Giffords and Kelly will have rode off into the sunset and be a footnote in history. Five years is a lifetime in politics.

Those of us FOR the 2nd Amendment, OTOH, have very long memories. If Flake abandons us now, he can forget crawling back for help in five years.

Adjoran on May 7, 2013 at 2:54 PM

The more corrupt the government becomes, the more imperative it is for them to disarm the population.

FloatingRock on May 7, 2013 at 2:55 PM

NRA Stand and Fight: Universal Registration
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hKq3967hUgU

On January 30, 2013, Sen. Chuck Schumer promised that universal background checks wouldn’t create a gun registry. Yet just 13 days later, as Schumer was discussing gun control proposals, he stated, “the one which I’ve been pushing, which is universal registration.” It couldn’t be any clearer — when a politician says “universal background checks,” what they actually mean is “universal registration.”

Colbyjack on May 7, 2013 at 2:58 PM

Hey Mr. Flake, those are my rights you’re selling out on.

tommer74 on May 7, 2013 at 3:25 PM

How cavalierly this unprincipled opportunist would barter away our rights?Is Ted Cruz the only principled man left in Congress?Can we no longer expect our elected officials to remain true to the positions they held which got them elected?And the guy is stupid enough to blatantly reveal how corrupt he is!Guaranteed his thought process runs along these lines-Hey I have 5 and half years for these ignorant fools to forget what I do.I will act like a conservative firebrand the year before my re-election,and parade around my state proclaiming my conservative bona fides.I mean if Lindsey Graham can get away with it in South Carolina…!

redware on May 7, 2013 at 4:54 PM

Comment pages: 1 2