Meanwhile, the GOP Has Killed Expanded Background Checks for Gun Buyers

Gun fetishists win

PoliticsApril 2013 • Views: 22,317

Despite overwhelming popular support for the Toomey-Manchin background check compromise, the Republican Party voted en masse in the Senate today to kill the bill: Gun Control: Senate Rejects Background Checks Deal.

The Senate has rejected a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks on gun sales, handing President Barack Obama and Democratic leaders a major defeat on one of the key pieces of the president’s second-term agenda.

The vote was 54-46, with only four Republicans crossing the aisle and voting with the Democrats in favor of the bipartisan proposal by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). Sixty votes were needed.

The GOP Senators killed this already watered-down bill in full view of a group of Newtown family members.

In a fitting coda to this affair, a number of Newtown family members intend to sit in the gallery to watch today’s voting, a spokesperson for one of the family groups, Sandy Hook Promise, tells me. Among them are Mark and Jackie Barden, whose youngest son, Daniel, was killed in the shooting; Nicole Hockley, who lost her son Dylan; and Jimmy Greene, who lost his daughter Ana.

Family members decided that witnessing today’s events — even if painful — was too important to forego, a source familiar with their thinking tells me. However, there is still some hesitation about having their reaction appear on camera during what would be the first significant defeat of one of their most desired legislative goals, i.e., expanded background checks.

Jump to bottom

94 comments

The Mountain That Blogs Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:48:59pm

Cowards.

That said, even if it had passed, what were the odds of it making it through the House? 2%?

Political Atheist Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:51:10pm

Foolish. Most gun owners want this, it makes us safer too.

erik_t Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:52:18pm

While there are other lessons to be learned here, the filibuster needs to die. The end.

Kragar Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:52:18pm

Because criminals and the mentally unstable are going to get guns any ways, so why make it harder for them, right?

In the mean time, lets pass stiffer mandatory sentences for people found with a single joint and legislate what women are allowed to do to their own bodies.

dragonath Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:52:59pm

re: #2 Political Atheist

Foolish. Most gun owners want this, it makes us safer too.

Apparently, “most” isn’t good enough.

jc717 Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:53:27pm

To clarify, this was a filibuster. 54 voted for the measure, 46 against.

klys Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:53:47pm

I don’t understand: what reasons could Republicans give for voting against this? I’m sure they trotted out some silly excuse. What is it?

Charles Johnson Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:54:02pm

The latest polls had support for background checks at about 90%.

90%.

The GOP voted against it even though 90% of the public wanted it.

In what possible fucking way can this be justified as responsible governance? Assholes, every one of them.

piratedan Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:54:18pm

would still have liked to have the House vote on this as well, so that the total intransigence could be on record for anyone to see that yes, YOUR Congressional Representative is also a reprehensible tool (as opposed to only your Republican Senator) who is more beholden to the gun manufacturers than they are to the safety of you and yours..

erik_t Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:54:32pm

re: #7 klys

I don’t understand: what reasons could Republicans give for voting against this? I’m sure they trotted out some silly excuse. What is it?

Because fuck you, we’ve got our money. That’s all they have, but if we’re being honest with ourselves that’s all they ever have.

Charles Johnson Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:56:28pm

Today’s vote on background checks is a damning indictment of the stranglehold special interests have on Washington: bit.ly/YWwOvu
— Mike Bloomberg (@MikeBloomberg) April 17, 2013

dragonath Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:56:50pm

Apparently Rand wasn’t outraged enough to make this a talking filibuster, huh?

erik_t Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:57:46pm

re: #5 dragonath

Apparently, “most” isn’t good enough.

In fact, 86% of those in a gun-owning household support universal background checks.

There is literally no polled demographic that does not exhibit massively majority support except the one that matters: the Republican Party.

Kragar Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:59:02pm

There is not one single issue the GOP is right about. Not one.

Charles Johnson Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:59:32pm

A graphic of today’s background check vote huff.to/11ed1q3 twitter.com/samsteinhp/sta…
— Sam Stein (@samsteinhp) April 17, 2013

dragonath Wed, Apr 17, 2013 1:59:37pm

re: #13 erik_t

Polls are one thing, but if you asked some random gun owner to repudiate NRA talking points, I think the picture would look very different.

wrenchwench Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:00:07pm

re: #7 klys

I don’t understand: what reasons could Republicans give for voting against this? I’m sure they trotted out some silly excuse. What is it?

It wouldn’t have stopped the Boston Marathon bomber!!!!

HoosierHoops Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:00:34pm

re: #11 Charles Johnson

Just what the hell is the matter with having a back round check to own a lethal weapon?
It must be special interest influence cause I can’t think of any other effen reason

Decatur Deb Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:01:18pm

re: #8 Charles Johnson

The latest polls had support for background checks at about 90%.

90%.

The GOP voted against it even though 90% of the public wanted it.

In what possible fucking way can this be justified as responsible governance? Assholes, every one of them.

Those polls aren’t unskewed.

Varek Raith Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:01:31pm

re: #18 HoosierHoops

Just what the hell is the matter with having a back round checks to own a lethal weapon?
It must be special interest influence cause I can’t think of any other effen reason

Gun manufacturing.

HappyWarrior Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:02:20pm

You know when Pat Toomey whom I believe was in charge of the Club for Growth before his election to the Senate or connected with some really nutty right wing group looks like the voice of reason, you just may have jumped the shark. Of course, the GOPers have jumped several sharks these past four years. Can’t even get a bill passed expanding background checks? Yeah and people want to say both parties are the same. They’re not. I am sorry they’re just not. One party wants to live in reality and the other is filled with people who care more about making POTUS look bad than doing anything constructive.

klys Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:02:50pm

Poking around through the news stories, the bullshit excuse is that expanded background checks paves the way for a national gun registry that will be used to take away guns eventually.

No, seriously.

I’m waiting for the point where Republicans decide that the existing background checks could ALSO be used to put together a national gun registry and start petitioning to remove those.

Destro Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:03:55pm

Do these Senators like seeing Americans killed in large war level numbers by guns by their fellow citizens? Do they have that low of an opinion of their fellow Americans and they think Americans are savages to be feared and think we all need to arm ourselves to defend against ourselves?

How are these people able to call themselves patriots?

How are those against the NRA types the America haters in this?

Targetpractice Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:04:00pm

Wayne LaPierre got the last laugh…again.

Decatur Deb Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:04:40pm

Not angry at the TPGOP about this. They are scum and I expect no better. It’s the incompetent Dems who pissed away the 2014 election that should be flogged.

dragonath Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:05:55pm

Earlier, I overheard some guy saying “what’s the point of going to gun shows” if there’s background checks. That’s the mentality we’re fighting against here.

Considering Northeastern PA has gun show advertisements in pretty much every newspaper I’m honestly surprised Toomey brought this bill up.

The Mountain That Blogs Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:06:10pm

The only Republicans to vote for it were its two GOP sponsors (Toomey/Kirk), Susan Collins, and…John McCain. Wonder where McCain found his conscience?

HoosierHoops Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:06:11pm

re: #24 Targetpractice

Wayne LaPierre got the last laugh…again.

You know..They can refuse a drivers license by regulations if you are blind, deaf or have health issues.. But no.. We can’t stop crazy people buying a weapon and blowing people away.

Decatur Deb Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:07:44pm

re: #28 HoosierHoops

You know..They can refuse a drivers license by regulations if you are blind, deaf or have health issues.. But no.. We can’t stop crazy people buying a weapon and blowing people away.

For that matter, you can’t stop a blind person from buying an AR-15.

calochortus Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:08:05pm

I saw a comment on FR earlier to the effect that the evil liberals want to legalize assisted suicide (for the terminally ill, though he didn’t mention that) and yet want to keep guns out of the hands of the suicidal.

Talk about inconsistant!

steve_davis Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:08:22pm

re: #2 Political Atheist

It is as I’ve said on other issues that republicans stonewall. The stonewalling will lead to much more dire consequences for the party down the road. At some point, Republicans could have made the switch to granting homosexual couples the ability to have civil unions. Because they stonewalled the whole process, by the time the rest of society had moved forward, the only option was gay marriage. Everything else had been demagogued to the point where there was just no fire left in the rhetoric. And the NRA here is going to win a short-term victory that may possibly, within probably 50 years as a sae bet, lead to the eventual repeal of the second amendment. Society will finally get sick of this nonsense to the point where they’ll just decide to make real Republican’s worse fears and ban all guns not in the hands of military and law enforcement.

HappyWarrior Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:10:03pm

re: #28 HoosierHoops

You know..They can refuse a drivers license by regulations if you are blind, deaf or have health issues.. But no.. We can’t stop crazy people buying a weapon and blowing people away.

It’s crazy. Sorry GOP but the second amendment doesn’t say that guns aren’t to be regulated ever ever and I honestly doubt that they would be too keen with paranoid idiots feeling the need to own practically an arsenal to protect themselves from an imagined threat of Nazi Obama tyranny.

Targetpractice Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:10:43pm

If they were smart, Congressional Democrats would use the failure of this bill, one which would have implemented something that 90% of Americans say they support, to flog Republicans endlessly next year.

But they won’t, they’ll shelve is again and say “Maybe in another 4-8 years.”

The Mountain That Blogs Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:10:44pm

Meanwhile, of the five democrats to vote against it, three are up for reelection in blood-red states (not sure how vulnerable Baucus is considered, but I know Pryor and Begich are on thin ice), one is from North Dakota, and the other is the spineless Harry Reid, who refused to change the filibuster rules that would have prevented this from even mattering.

dragonath Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:11:12pm

re: #31 steve_davis

Cutting your nose to spite your face has been going on with these people since the civil war.

calochortus Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:12:18pm

I predict that the GOP will introduce a bill making it legal to shout “Fire!” in a crowded theater, because any infringement of our first amendment rights is a step onto that slippery slope that they’re all so scared of.

Stephen T. Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:12:29pm

re: #31 steve_davis

Everyone I know who is a member of the NRA was ashamed of the rhetoric coming from LaPiere over this issue. Yet none of them, so far, have had the guts to show their support for universal background checks by dropping their membership. It is a token gesture, I know, but it would be something, at least.

calochortus Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:13:36pm

re: #37 Stephen T.

Everyone I know who is a member of the NRA was ashamed of the rhetoric coming from LaPiere over this issue. Yet none of them, so far, have had the guts to show their support for universal background checks by dropping their membership. It is a token gesture, I know, but it would be something, at least.

That has been my experience as well, although my sample is pretty small.

Walking Spanish Down the Hall Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:13:43pm

So, was it a green, purple, blue or plaid person responsible for the bombing?

Sol Berdinowitz Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:13:57pm

re: #37 Stephen T.

Everyone I know who is a member of the NRA was ashamed of the rhetoric coming from LaPiere over this issue. Yet none of them, so far, have had the guts to show their support for universal background checks by dropping their membership. It is a token gesture, I know, but it would be something, at least.

Don’t want to give up the free magazine.

Targetpractice Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:14:04pm

re: #34 The Mountain That Blogs

Meanwhile, of the five democrats to vote against it, three are up for reelection in blood-red states (not sure how vulnerable Baucus is considered, but I know Pryor and Begich are on thin ice), one is from North Dakota, and the other is the spineless Harry Reid, who refused to change the filibuster rules that would have prevented this from even mattering.

After his performance this year, Reid should resign. This has got to be the most pathetic display of leadership I’ve ever seen. So what if the GOP will pull the same trick if they should ever regain the majority? Better that something get done now than live in constant fear of something that may not happen.

Charles Johnson Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:15:20pm

re: #6 jc717

To clarify, this was a filibuster. 54 voted for the measure, 46 against.

That’s correct - it wasn’t actually a vote on the bill itself. But the effect is the same.

Whack-A-Mole Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:15:28pm

The vote was 54-46, with only four Republicans crossing the aisle and voting with the Democrats in favor of the bipartisan proposal by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.). Sixty votes were needed.

It really annoys when things are reported like this. 60 votes were not needed to pass the bill. 60 votes were required to overcome the Republican filibuster.

I really wish news organizations would accurately report that detail and clearly show that it was the obstructionism by the GOP that caused the bill fail.

erik_t Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:16:16pm

re: #41 Targetpractice

After his performance this year, Reid should resign. This has got to be the most pathetic display of leadership I’ve ever seen. So what if the GOP will pull the same trick if they should ever regain the majority? Better that something get done now than live in constant fear of something that may not happen.

Also, too: As if how Democrats behave will somehow cow Republicans and get them to act in a reasonable and adult fashion.

Indeed, the plus side of a hypothetical GOP Senate takeover is that it might kill the filibuster and that it might stay dead thereafter.

Backwoods_Sleuth Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:16:24pm

re: #16 dragonath

Polls are one thing, but if you asked some random gun owner to repudiate NRA talking points, I think the picture would look very different.

I’m a random gun owner and one of the 90%.
I can also demolish every single damn NRA talking point.

Bulworth Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:17:42pm

re: #27 The Mountain That Blogs

It is surprising to discover Pat Toomey, Pat “Club For Growth” Toomey, among the more reasonable Senators, at least on this issue.

The Mountain That Blogs Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:18:01pm

re: #41 Targetpractice

I think he is waiting for the next Congress. It’s depressingly plausible that the democrats might lose the Senate next year simply due to which seats are up for election. If his majority survives that, he might do it. Then again, he is a spineless coward, so he probably won’t.

Ian G. Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:18:33pm

re: #8 Charles Johnson

The latest polls had support for background checks at about 90%.

90%.

The GOP voted against it even though 90% of the public wanted it.

In what possible fucking way can this be justified as responsible governance? Assholes, every one of them.

Because the same 90% who want this don’t show the level of activism that the 10% who oppose it show. The NRA will be sure to primary any Republican who opposes it, so why risk that if you’re a Republican when those who support it might not vote for you because you supported it.

It’s no different than so many other special interests in Washington. The idiotic embargo on Cuba would probably be long gone…except for the small minority who would destroy the political careers of those who would end the embargo. Meanwhile, those who would end the embargo just don’t care enough about the issue.

EXCLUSIVE! Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:18:52pm

Background checks would stop the free trade of weapons between crazy people. Can’t have that.

DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!! Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:19:18pm

Well there are a bunch of criminals and crazies out there who are so glad the Republican party has their back!

Bulworth Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:19:29pm

re: #43 Whack-A-Mole

Don’t worry. This will change whenever the GOP next takes the Senate. Then all matters will require an up or down vote and Chuck Toddler and Chris Matthews will clutch pearls anytime a Democrat mentions the word ‘filibuster’. //

Backwoods_Sleuth Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:19:39pm

re: #37 Stephen T.

Everyone I know who is a member of the NRA was ashamed of the rhetoric coming from LaPiere over this issue. Yet none of them, so far, have had the guts to show their support for universal background checks by dropping their membership. It is a token gesture, I know, but it would be something, at least.

OTOH, I personally know many people who have cancelled or declined to renew their NRA memberships over this.

blueraven Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:19:55pm

I know the other 4 dems voted on the filibuster because they are in red districts. I think Reid voted for it out of some sort of procedural shenanigans involving the role of majority leader. Cant remember exactly why that is at the moment, but he has done this before over something he actually supports.

Targetpractice Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:20:03pm

re: #47 The Mountain That Blogs

I think he is waiting for the next Congress. It’s depressingly plausible that the democrats might lose the Senate next year simply due to which seats are up for election. If his majority survives that, he might do it. Then again, he is a spineless coward, so he probably won’t.

So what if they lose next year? Does Obama get ejected and Romney installed if Dems lose the Senate next year? No, it just means he has to start exercising the veto pen. And it means that Democrats replace Republicans as the party filibustering virtually every bill.

AlexRogan Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:20:49pm

re: #2 Political Atheist

Foolish. Most gun owners want this, it makes us safer too.

re: #5 dragonath

Apparently, “most” isn’t good enough.

It’s not necessarily that some gun owners that oppose the proposed universal background checks (or any other restrictions), because, IMO, they don’t have the dollars or the political clout to pull something like this off.

The NRA and their gun industry BFFs do, though.

The Mountain That Blogs Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:21:24pm

On second thought, scratch Reid off the list. He always votes against failed cloture votes so he can enter a motion to reconsider, that’s almost certainly what happened here.

He’s still a spineless coward.

Targetpractice Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:21:33pm

re: #53 blueraven

I know the other 4 dems voted on the filibuster becasue they are in red districts. I think Reid voted for it out of some sort of procedural shenanigans involving the role of majority leader. Cant remember exactly why that is at the moment, but he has done this before over something he actually supports.

IIRC, it’s a procedural deal that allows him to bring the bill back up at a later time. But that’s just a formality at this point, there’s no chance that this bill will ever become law.

Gus Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:22:55pm

Asshole…

@gabbygiffords Try more respect and reason, less emotional bullying next time.
— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) April 17, 2013

AlexRogan Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:23:16pm

re: #37 Stephen T.

Everyone I know who is a member of the NRA was ashamed of the rhetoric coming from LaPiere over this issue. Yet none of them, so far, have had the guts to show their support for universal background checks by dropping their membership. It is a token gesture, I know, but it would be something, at least.

Not that it would have mattered anyway, since the gun industry has the NRA in their pockets (and by extension, the politicians that are in the NRA’s pockets).

Charles Johnson Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:24:25pm

Wow. Glenn Reynolds is a horrible person.

@gabbygiffords Try more respect and reason, less emotional bullying next time.
— Instapundit.com (@instapundit) April 17, 2013

Backwoods_Sleuth Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:24:29pm

re: #59 AlexRogan

Not that it would have mattered anyway, since the gun industry has the NRA in their pockets (and by extension, the politicians that are in the NRA’s pockets).

Exactly, the NRA does not represent gun owners at all.
It’s all about the money: manufacturers and dealers.

HoosierHoops Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:24:48pm

So the argument is with a back ground check the Gov’t has a national registry of guns so they can take our guns away?
How does that jibe with the 2nd amendment and SCOTUS rulings?
The Gov’t knows what car I drive so they may take it away. The IRS knows where I live..So they can take my house away. The Gov’t knows just everything about us already. What is the big effen deal?
We the people choose this by our Representative Republic.

Charles Johnson Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:24:49pm

re: #58 Gus

Asshole…

Ah, you saw that one too!

Gus Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:25:51pm

re: #63 Charles Johnson

Ah, you saw that one too!

Started searching.

Walking Spanish Down the Hall Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:26:22pm

re: #63 Charles Johnson

Ah, you saw that one too!

Gus can sniff out assholes a mile away.

blueraven Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:26:56pm

re: #57 Targetpractice

IIRC, it’s a procedural deal that allows him to bring the bill back up at a later time. But that’s just a formality at this point, there’s no chance that this bill will ever become law.

Yes, but he still has to do it.

Backwoods_Sleuth Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:27:45pm

no words…

Pro-Gun Radio Host Tells Newtown Victims’ Families ‘Go To Hell!’

euphgeek Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:27:55pm

I want to see every senator who voted against this and who is up for re-election to have a challenger who will win by saying that the senator opposed universal background checks for criminals. It would be easy to paint them as soft on crime.

erik_t Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:27:56pm

re: #65 Walking Spanish Down the Hall

Gus can sniff out assholes a mile away.

(must not act like fourth grader)
((must not act like fourth grader))
(((must not act like fourth grader)))

(giggles)
(shit)

Gus Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:28:57pm

Cripes. What a fucking dick.

Targetpractice Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:30:08pm

re: #68 euphgeek

I want to see every senator who voted against this and who is up for re-election to have a challenger who will win by saying that the senator opposed universal background checks for criminals. It would be easy to paint them as soft on crime.

Thing is, do these Democrats who voted against this bill think that it will save their asses from the NRA? That their loyalty to “gun rights” will be enough to prevent the NRA from endorsing their Republican opponents? Fuck no.

Walking Spanish Down the Hall Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:31:38pm

re: #70 Gus

Cripes. What a fucking dick.

Sorry.

Gus Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:32:33pm

re: #72 Walking Spanish Down the Hall

Sorry.

I’m talking about Glenn Reynolds.

Walking Spanish Down the Hall Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:33:00pm

re: #73 Gus

I’m talking about Glenn Reynolds.

Oh, that fucking dick.

DO WINGNUT WORDS SHOW THEY EVOLVED BRAINS?11!! Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:33:50pm

re: #60 Charles Johnson

Yeah because whenever I think of Gifford, I think of a big ol’ bully with no respect or reason.

////!

darthstar Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:38:56pm

re: #8 Charles Johnson

The latest polls had support for background checks at about 90%.

90%.

The GOP voted against it even though 90% of the public wanted it.

In what possible fucking way can this be justified as responsible governance? Assholes, every one of them.

You should read this article…it gave me hope for current supporters of the GOP. :)

Targetpractice Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:39:43pm

Once again, Fark’s headline says it all:

Gun Control background check passes 54-46. Oh wait, did we say pass? How is that filibuster reform working out for ya?

Walking Spanish Down the Hall Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:41:18pm

On a more mundane note, if anyone ever has the task of installing MS Office 365 on a system, make sure you remove all traces of Office 2010 and Skype before starting. You may find it necessary to go use fix-it.

And use a fast Internet connection.

Major Tom Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:42:14pm

Emotional presser at white house.

Backwoods_Sleuth Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:47:00pm

re: #79 Major Tom

Emotional presser at white house.

yes. Mr. ~~Barton~~ Barden almost had me in tears.
And now, President Obama speaking is angry. VERY angry.

stockman Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:47:12pm

As a long time gun owner I’m for background checks. The language of the bill mandates all transfers go through a FFL, which is a reasonable sticking point. If I as a private citizen could dial up the DOJ and request clearance on a potential private sale, would that suffice?

Title II: Requiring a Background Check for Every Firearm Sale - (Sec. 202) Amends the Brady Act to prohibit any person who does not hold a federal firearms license from transferring a firearm to any other unlicensed person unless a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer: (1) has first taken possession of the firearm for the purpose of complying with national instant criminal background check requirements; and (2) upon taking possession, complies with all firearms requirements as if transferring the firearm from the licensee’s inventory to the unlicensed transferee. Specifies exceptions, including for: (1) bona fide gifts between immediate family members; (2) a transfer from a decedent’s estate; (3) a transfer of possession between unlicensed persons in the transferor’s home for less than seven days; and (4) certain temporary transfers without the transfer of title in connection with lawful hunting or sporting purposes at a shooting range, at a shooting competition, or while hunting, fishing, or trapping during hunting season.

Political Atheist Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:47:59pm

re: #31 steve_davis

within probably 50 years as a sae bet, lead to the eventual repeal of the second amendment. Society will finally get sick of this nonsense to the point where they’ll just decide to make real Republican’s worse fears and ban all guns not in the hands of military and law enforcement.

A lot can happen to improve the existing situation. It’s not a 50 year term in office for the GOP. The very next congress may well pass this and more. And IMHO not one single amendment from the bill of rights will ever be repealed.

Try to keep in mind this does absolutely nothing to stop any state that wants to pass gun control legislation just like California has. Every California gun law on the books now has survived legal challenge.

abolitionist Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:49:23pm

re: #4 Kragar

Because criminals and the mentally unstable are going to get guns any ways, so why make it harder for them, right?

In the mean time, lets pass stiffer mandatory sentences for people found with a single joint and legislate what women are allowed to do to their own bodies.

This YouTube clip is from Murder of Innocence (TV 1993) starring Valerie Bertinelli. It’s a portrayal of a mentally ill woman with too-easy access to guns. The clip is quite scary, and a bit of a spoiler.

Youtube Video

The full movie is available on hulu.com —[edit] ~~altho due to the rating, it may be necessary to register/login.~~

Hulu Video

The sad reality is that the entire movie was heavily based on actual events.

Backwoods_Sleuth Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:51:44pm

Barack Obama: “This has been a very shameful day in Washington.”

He also addressed those who have been screaming the Newtown families have been used as political props.

dragonath Wed, Apr 17, 2013 2:55:11pm

re: #45 Backwoods_Sleuth

I’m a random gun owner and one of the 90%.
I can also demolish every single damn NRA talking point.

Yeah, me too, but the current voting habits of gun owners doesn’t give me a whole lot of faith.

Backwoods_Sleuth Wed, Apr 17, 2013 3:01:12pm

re: #85 dragonath

Yeah, me too, but the current voting habits of gun owners doesn’t give me a whole lot of faith.

there is that, agreed. But it’s full blown insanity on display right now.
Here in Kentucky, since this crap has escalated, I’ve actually been able to get people registered to vote (some in their 50s and 60s who have never bothered with voting before). It’s a strange backlash to the NRA craziness. These people who never bothered to worry about voting before are seeing the NRA as the enemy now…every time the NRA spouts new crazy, they are seeing it play out to a conclusion where guns WILL be taken away unless the NRA and their cohorts are shut up.

William Barnett-Lewis Wed, Apr 17, 2013 3:04:28pm

re: #85 dragonath

Yeah, me too, but the current voting habits of gun owners doesn’t give me a whole lot of faith.

The most interesting takeaway from that article for me is that democrats who are military vets are far more likely to own guns. Only half sarcastically I could call that a good reason to restore the draft…

dragonath Wed, Apr 17, 2013 3:06:19pm

re: #87 William Barnett-Lewis

That explains the weird age spread. The older generation is much less polarized than the younger set, which is almost 2:1 Republican!

Wargala Wed, Apr 17, 2013 4:22:05pm

Let’s be honest here for a minute:

NONE of the proposed new laws would have prevented ANY of the recent mass shootings. If you believe that, you’re not reading the bill, or you’re diluting yourself.

Does anyone care of tell me, in detail, how any of the proposed new laws would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings?

Let’s also not forget, every time there’s an event, and legislation is quickly passed in a knee jerk fashion, the legislation turns out to be power grab that’s abused by the government. The PATRIOT act is the biggest example I’ve seen in my lifetime.

Now go ahead and downvote me for telling the truth.

Wargala Wed, Apr 17, 2013 4:25:15pm

re: #60 Charles Johnson

To be fair, using Newtown as a political fodder is emotional bullying. The proposed legislation wouldn’t have stopped Newtown in the least. The weapon was stolen (a crime), used against it’s legal owner (a crime), brought onto a school campus (a crime), and used against school children (a crime).

See a pattern?

wrenchwench Wed, Apr 17, 2013 4:25:19pm

re: #89 Wargala

Let’s be honest here for a minute:

NONE of the proposed new laws would have prevented ANY of the recent mass shootings. If you believe that, you’re not reading the bill, or you’re diluting yourself.

Does anyone care of tell me, in detail, how any of the proposed new laws would have prevented any of the recent mass shootings?

Let’s also not forget, every time there’s an event, and legislation is quickly passed in a knee jerk fashion, the legislation turns out to be power grab that’s abused by the government. The PATRIOT act is the biggest example I’ve seen in my lifetime.

Now go ahead and downvote me for telling the truth.

If you’re looking for downvotes, post this comment on the next thread where more people are paying attention.

Meanwhile, may I set your straw man on fire?

Decatur Deb Wed, Apr 17, 2013 4:26:35pm

re: #89 Wargala

Welcome, newbie—you are posting at the end of a dead thread, where few will see it. It’s OK to bring your idea up to a fresher thread once it has a hundred or so comments.

Your argument is tenable, your spelling of ‘deluded’ is a little thin.

wrenchwench Wed, Apr 17, 2013 4:26:54pm

re: #90 Wargala

To be fair, using Newtown as a political fodder is emotional bullying. The proposed legislation wouldn’t have stopped Newtown in the least. The weapon was stolen (a crime), used against it’s legal owner (a crime), brought onto a school campus (a crime), and used against school children (a crime).

See a pattern?

That apostrophe in ‘it’s’ is also a crime. To be fair.

I’m seeing a pattern.

palomino Wed, Apr 17, 2013 4:52:21pm

re: #8 Charles Johnson

The latest polls had support for background checks at about 90%.

90%.

The GOP voted against it even though 90% of the public wanted it.

In what possible fucking way can this be justified as responsible governance? Assholes, every one of them.

There’s no such thing as “common sense gun control” in the eyes of most Republicans. They are nearly monolithic in rejecting what the rest of the developed world already knows empirically.

Spy Mode Auto

This article has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Meanwhile, the GOP Has Killed Expanded Background Checks for Gun Buyers

► LGF Headlines

► Top 10 Comments

► Bottom Comments

► Recent Comments

► Tools/Info

► Tag Cloud