Skip to main content

After last week's defeat of a Republican filibuster against starting the Senate debate on new gun legislation, the backers of a bill that would expand background checks for firearms buyers have found themselves unable so far to gather the 60 votes they need to overcome another filibuster on the contents of the legislation itself. That means any vote on the bill, which was expected as early as Tuesday, is likely to be delayed at least until Thursday.

The gun-friendly sponsors of the watered-down background check amendment to the gun bill—Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennysylvania and Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin III of West Virginia—conceded Monday afternoon that they had fallen short of their goal, although both expressed optimism that they would ultimately succeed. Manchin said:

"We've got to work hard and the more people know about the bill, the more people read the bill, the more people see the facts of the bill, it breaks down all the misnomers," he said of what he called misinformation about the background check proposal being spread by opponents.

There was movement in favor of the bill on Monday. Democratic Sens. Jon Tester of Montana and Kay Hagan of North Carolina, whose positions had been uncertain previously, said they would vote in favor. But three Democrats are probably "nay" votes: Max Baucus of Montana; Mark Pryor of Arkansas; and Mark Begich of Alaska. Both Begich and Pryor voted against ending the Republican filibuster last week. Two other Democrats, freshman Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Mary Landrieu of Louisiana could still swing either way.

Four of the 16 Republicans who voted to break the filibuster also can be counted in favor of the bill: Toomey, Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain Arizona.

But 10 of the 16, some of whose votes had remained iffy until Monday, are now firmly arrayed against the bill: Lamar Alexander and Bob Corker of Tennessee; Jeff Flake of Arizona; Richard Burr of North Carolina; Saxby Chambliss and Johnny Isakson of Georgia; Tom Coburn of Oklahoma; Lindsey Graham of South Carolina; John Hoeven of North Dakota; and Roger Wicker of Mississippi. That leaves just two who voted against the filibuster undecided: Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Dean Heller of Nevada.

Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said late Monday that GOP senators are free to "vote their conscience" and he will not whip the votes on the bill. After a meeting with Republicans Monday, Toomey said the leadership had chosen to “let the chips fall where they fall."

Even if Majority Leader Harry Reid can cajole Heitkamp, Landrieu, Ayotte and Heller to sign on, however, he will still only have 58 votes. Please continue reading below the fold to see what's being done to get those still-needed votes.

In an effort to find those needed extra votes, The New York Times reported late Monday night, Manchin and Toomey are considering options such as exempting from background checks residents of rural areas who live hundreds of miles from a gun dealer. That, they hope, might be the kind of tweak that brings Begich and even Alaska's Republican Sen. Lisa Murkowski into the ranks of the supporters.

If the Democratic leadership cannot get the needed 60 votes for the Manchin-Toomey proposal, what's left of the already wounded gun bill—provisions on tougher penalties for gun trafficking and straw purchases plus more federal money for school safety—might be joined by several Republican amendments. Those include one by Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma that would expand background checks to buys at gun shows and the internet but without requiring any record-keeping. Without records of sales, however, such a bill wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.

Losing on Manchin-Toomey, or seeing it watered-down even more than it already has been, might not be the worst thing that could happen. Republican amendments to the gun bill could make it easier for the dangerously mentally ill to obtain firearms, for instance.

And then there is the National Rifle Association's wet dream: getting what would amount to a federalization of concealed-carry permits by mandating that anyone who has a permit from any state to carry a hidden guns be allowed to do so throughout the United States. This would mean people from states that have bare minimum standards for getting such a permit would be able to carry concealed firearms in states with tougher standards.

Originally posted to Meteor Blades on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 06:55 AM PDT.

Also republished by Repeal or Amend the Second Amendment (RASA), Shut Down the NRA, and Daily Kos.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  The whole thing has been a fiasco from the get (9+ / 0-)

    go. How do you get people onboard while demonizing them? Similar to the tragedy on 9/11, the Connecticut mass shooting had the whole country on board with tightening firearm restrictions, the whole country still supports better background checks, yet this thing doesn't sail through the way it ought to, why?. I feel a whole lot of opportunity has been lost.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 07:04:21 AM PDT

    •  Getting people onboard while demonizing them? (4+ / 0-)

      Sums the situation up pretty well, at least as far as this site goes.  Many have made it clear that "gun owners" are the enemy that needs to be defeated.  Other have said things that are a lot worse.  And then they wonder why people don't get behind them and support their cause.  Go figure.

      •  they aren't for confiscation so much (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        sethtriggs

        they just want to drastically reduce the number of guns.

        "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

        by happymisanthropy on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:11:38 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Please, from the get go Mike Thompson, Dem of (12+ / 0-)

        Calif, gun owner, blue dog and Joe Biden, gun owner and not a gun owner bashing, have been leading on this.

        Who led on the other side? Wayne La Pierre. Get that clown away from this issue and the entire mood of it changes. Period.

      •  Yes, keep telling yourself that. (12+ / 0-)

        Because "people don't support their cause" makes a shitload of sense when support for expanded checks is in the nineties, and even a majority of gun owners.

        Because the fact that senators aren't supporting it is due a few meanies on daily kos, not the NRA.  Because of the meanie lobby.

        Because when the NRA and GOP and gun rightists talk about confiscation, they just mean a few meanies on daily kos, not an entire CT.  

        That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

        by Inland on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:19:28 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  Example(s)? (9+ / 0-)

        Please provide a link where someone... ANYone on this site has "made it clear" that "gun owners are the enemy"...

        Intractable gun owners with their fingers stuck in their ears and their heels dug into the ground are (one of) the enemies who need to be defeated...

        Please, try to have an honest debate...

        Thanks...

        Baby, where I come from...

        by ThatSinger on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:19:57 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  "His NRA sticker was all I needed to see (5+ / 0-)

          and I refused to hire him as a contractor."

          •  Just search 'gun nuts' in comments (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buddabelly, FrankRose, ancblu

            Of course, I'm sure everybody calling gun owners mental patients, sexually insecure and murderers are actually just referring to the 'gun nuts'.  Distinction!

            Look, I tried to be reasonable...

            by campionrules on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:47:57 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Replace "NRA" with "RNC"... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            tytalus, coquiero

            would it effect your hiring decision?

            Anti-NRA is not anti-gun...

            Baby, where I come from...

            by ThatSinger on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:20:33 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  The NRA has become (3+ / 0-)

            Simply a lobbyist for the arms industry. And there are millions of gun owners who are not NRA members. And thousands of NRA members who would be embarrassed to put a bumper sticker on their car because they realize how extreme the organization has become.
            I wouldn't hire that contractor either and I support the right to own guns, although like all rights it is not unlimited.

          •  In my opinion that was demonizing the NRA (4+ / 0-)

            which is quite appropriate.

            As many RKBAers point out, gun owners are not synonymous with the NRA.

            I have no problem whatsoever with responsible gun owners.

            I have a problem with irresponsible ones, including those who oppose limiting magazine sizes, universal background checks, those who think that registration=confiscation, and those who stockpile weapons.

            Those gun owners are aligned with the NRA,

            I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

            by coquiero on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 12:22:06 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nice to know that, for you, "responsible" means (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              noway2, ancblu

              "Agrees with me."

              So I, who own over thirty firearms, keep a couple of thousand rounds of ammunition on hand, cast my own bullets, reload my own ammunition, and disagree with you on the best policies to reduce violence in our society, am "irresponsible", despite the fact that my guns are stored locked and unloaded, I've taught my wife and children gun and shooting safety, (they're not the same thing,) and neither I nor anyone else has ever harmed anyone with any of the guns I have ever owned or used?

              One of our definitions of "responsible" has to be wrong.

              --Shannon

              "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
              "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

              by Leftie Gunner on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 01:27:43 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I don't know your personal story or (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Glen The Plumber

                circumstances, but I think gun culture in the US is out of control, and I can't see any reason why one person would have a need for 30 weapons and thousands of rounds of ammo, outside of a warlord in Mogadishu or a drug lord in Latin America.

                I think the general argument goes, "But it's my right, it's enshrined in the Constitution."

                If you need weapons on a working farm, I get that.  If you're a hunter, I get that.  You feel the need for a weapon for personal protection, I get that.  There are many, many reasons that I can see owning a weapon, or even multiple weapons.  Giving children the training you talk about, especially if there are guns in the house, that's a great idea.

                But without wanting to be inflammatory or personally insult you, I do think it's irresponsible to have that number of weapons and ammo.  There are too many variables that are out of your control.

                It is your right, enshrined in the Constitution.  That doesn't mean it's a good idea.

                I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                by coquiero on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 02:04:10 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Lots of reasons... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  noway2

                  At least one for each gun,  often more. Many of them different. "Because I like them" applies to all of them,  though... I don't keep guns I don't like.

                  Very few are things I "need"... but then, I don't "need" either of my motorcycles, or the rv,  or the dune buggy, or the bicycles, or a whole bunch of the stuff I own. Hell, the motorcycles are arguably more dangerous than the guns, at least in the sense that my risks are far less under my control.

                  "Need" simply isn't relevant to the discussion.

                  --Shannon

                  "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                  "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                  by Leftie Gunner on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 03:42:24 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Want" isn't in the 2nd Amendment either... (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    coquiero

                    there's a clearly defined purpose to the Right to Keep and Bear Arms... "because I want them" isn't in there...

                    Oh, and I thought car and motorcycle ownership weren't "rights"? That's the default argument against gun registration from you folks, isn't it? Make up your mind...

                    Baby, where I come from...

                    by ThatSinger on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 04:19:36 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                  •  Perhaps it should be (0+ / 0-)

                    then we might be better able to have a conversation about responsibility.

                    And about this:

                    Hell, the motorcycles are arguably more dangerous than the guns, at least in the sense that my risks are far less under my control.
                    I can only say, the people who are most confident about their "sense of control" are the ones I worry about the most.

                    I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

                    by coquiero on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 04:45:29 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  simply an observation... (0+ / 0-)

                      Statistically,  I have no idea which is the more dangerous. And I don't think it really matters much. Both are dangerous,  and require active risk management to be used at all.

                      All I was noting is that it seems to me that more of the risks in the case of the motorcycle come from outside factors. Short of a mechanical malfunction, my gun is unlikely to harm me or others while I'm using it unless I do something stupid. The risk of others is there, of course, unless you shoot alone, but the balance is different... There are simply more "others" around when riding. It's also true,  at least in my experience, that shooters tend to be more careful when shooting than drivers are when driving. Probably because the danger is more obvious.

                      --Shannon

                      "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
                      "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

                      by Leftie Gunner on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 06:49:58 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

            •  No, they are much more aligned with Gun Owners of (0+ / 0-)

              America, which is much nastier than the NRA, as hard as that might be to believe. NRA membership is nothing like NRA leadership. GOA is actually aligned within itself.

              Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

              by Mokurai on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:37:51 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  Does "blood on your hands" count? nt (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FrankRose, noway2, ancblu

          "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

          by Texas Lefty on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:04:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  They say "gun nut", you say "gun bigot'... (0+ / 0-)

          is there a difference?

          Baby, where I come from...

          by ThatSinger on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:18:18 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Really? Do you want me to actually cite you every (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          noway2

          diary that has "gun nut" in the title or just use the comments...or should I just try "nut job", "gun freaks", "NRA loons" or any number of other versions of the same?

      •  Not quite the case... (7+ / 0-)

        Gun Owners aren't the problem and that's been pretty clear as they are among those asking for Gun Control.

        The nuts that are getting the heat the most are the 2nd Amendment fanatics that are screaming that the government is going to take their guns. These people are misinformed and reacting to the something that just isn't real. Then there are those that have a fetish for guns and really need to seek medical help for their addiction to them.

        An overwhelming majority of people want things to change, but this loud, obnoxious fringe minority is making so much noise that the law makers are balking. Of course they will be demonized for their actions.

        "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

        by Wynter on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:43:02 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  oh no. people wrote mean things (0+ / 0-)

        so if your mean to me I won't agree to anything at all. even stuff  I said I agreed with!!!

        Gee whiz, you Gun Owners are the most wonderful responsible people I've ever heard of in the whole history of the world!

        can you pretty please support  Gun Background checks?  

      •  As a gun owner, I don't believe in demonizing... (6+ / 0-)

        ...gun owners. But the idea that the weakness of the Manchin-Toomey amendment, in particular, and for congressional support for anything other that weak new laws, in general, is the fault of demonizers is malarky.

        The NRA and GOA were and are opposed to any new gun legislation that tightens things up and we've heard a constant barrage from it and its enablers for months about how any proposed background check bill would be ineffective. Which means, essentially, that they believe we should get rid of the EXISTING background check law. That has also been the stance of several in the more avid gun-rights advocates here, which includes some individuals who have argued that even the law restricting machine-gun ownership and requiring strict background checks for owning them, plus registration and a special fee, should be done away with.

        How, precisely, were those who believe that all or almost all gun sales should include mandatory background checks supposed to make common cause with people holding those points of view?

        The people objecting to universal background checks are extremists. They are out of step with the vast majority of Americans.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:29:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  In response to the following points: (0+ / 0-)
          But the idea that the weakness of the Manchin-Toomey amendment ... is the fault of demonizers is malarky
          I mean nothing so grandiose, however, it should be readily apparent that the demonizing has cost supporters.  This is especially true outside of DK, where many self proclaimed Liberals are saying they intend to sit out the coming elections because they won't support the actions of the party.
          The NRA and GOA were and are opposed to any new gun legislation ...
          Indeed, and likely they always will be as this is their mission.  Looking at the political powers, neither side has sufficient strength to overwhelm the other.  If it did, we wouldn't be having this ongoing debate.  Consequently, the battle(s) will be won or lost by gaining (losing) those in the middle.
          The people objecting to universal background checks are extremists. They are out of step with the vast majority of Americans.
          So are the extremists on the other side, and so are many of the views expressed in this forum.
          •  do you have a poll to back this up..??.. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            coquiero, Free Jazz at High Noon
            This is especially true outside of DK, where many self proclaimed Liberals are saying they intend to sit out the coming elections because they won't support the actions of the party.
            ...of course not...just more baseless threats of an extremist.

            what you don't seem to understand is your voice has no more weight in the senate than mine...this is about the power of the NRA's lobbying...not the desires of the public.

            polls show most NRA members support universal background checks...yet the NRA won't budge...why..??..because they speak for their corporate sponsors...not their members.

            I won't claim to speak for "many self proclaimed" gun owners...but after going to a few gun violence rallies...I have met a few other gun owners there who have no problem with b/c, AWB and mag limits...they must be extremists.


            We are not broke, we are being robbed.

            by Glen The Plumber on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 02:05:51 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Speaking of malarky ... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          noway2, ban nock

          I suppose you must have missed teacherken's recent diary rant calling to primary Begich and Pryor simply for voting against the motion to proceed.

          It's unfortunate that you brand any and all opponents of the presently constructed M-T Amendment as extremists (without, I'm sure, meaning to demonize anyone or needless inflame the debate).

          My response to teacherken at the time, for which no response was ever offered, was to point out several factors that pertained specifically to Alaska (though I certainly thought that states with other distant rural communities might be equally impacted by the lack of FFL access or have similar Democratic challenges in opposing a more firmly embedded Republican establishment).

          And now lo and behold ... in the ugly sausage making the principal sponsors are now seeking to address this and other specific issues among select senators to garner the necessary 60 votes -- certainly including Begich and his moderate Republican Sr. Senator, Murkowski.

          The broad brush never paints very well, MB.  And on this issue, I"m sorry to say, my feeling is that you've been a part of inciting inflammatory reactions of this DK discussion and debate.

          •  I am happy to discuss whether I'm part... (0+ / 0-)

            ...of inciting inflammatory reactions here when you stop distorting what I actually have said. What I called extremist is not what you claimed. I did not direct my criticism at the foes of Manchin-Toomey. Rather, I went even broader-brush than that:

            The people objecting to universal background checks are extremists.
            And I stand by it. The 10%-15% of the population that opposes such checks are unwilling to support a law (not M-T) that would actually work to keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals and some people who are dangerously mentally ill. And it would do so without touching my 2nd Amendment rights. This refusal is extremist. And it's lethal.

            Every step of the way, we've been told that the things which would make gun regulations effective are verboten. Every step of the way, the NRA and its enablers have done all in their considerable power to undermine existing laws while pretending to favor enforcement.

            The talk about confiscation is bogus. We have a gun registry in this country, the machine-gun registry. It's 79 years old. Very few of the hundreds of thousands firearms registered under it have ever been confiscated and then only when an owner became, by criminal activity or serious mental deterioration, no  longer eligible to have guns. And yet we have people here actually arguing for getting rid of the extra hurdles machine-gun owners must leap over and dumping the existing background check as well.

            And these are not extremists?

            Meanwhile, we have some of these enablers here saying they will vote for Republicans rather than Democrats in the next election. Must I also convince you that most elected Republicans nowadays are extremists?

            What can be expected now that new gun legislation has been crushed is that we'll see a departure of those people who signed up here to talk nothing but guns in July after Aurora and in December after Newtown. Those who stick around and keep making their voting-for-Republicans assertions won't survive long.

            Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

            by Meteor Blades on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:07:10 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The devil is always in the details ... (0+ / 0-)

              and you know that as well or better than most here with respect to crafting legislation.

              Begich -- who has incurred some hysterical wrath around here -- opposed the only real game in town on background checks -- the M-T Amendment.  It is silly to suggest some distinction between the abstract point you supposedly made and application to this particular Amendment.

              And let us make no mistake here ... despite your broad brush, Begich is no extremist, nor is his senior Senator Murkowski, who also joined him in opposing the M-T Amendment today.  The reason, which I and some others have argued here on DK, concerns matters of policy and politics particular to the state they represent ... and not some ideological extremism as shills of the NRA.

              The disassociation here from reality is really quite stunning.  Those who advance this broad brush accusation also seem to have forgotten Begich's vote in support of the Affordable Care Act, for example, and that his possible opponent in 2014 is a resurrected Joe Miller -- an actual ideological wing nut that one can only wonder who he would support or not as a supreme court nominee in the remainder of Obama's presidency.  

              And I stand on my point of view as well, I'm sorry to say.

              And since previously mentioned you typically only HR for suggestions of violence (and not insult or disagreement), here one you can tag in one of your earlier diaries today ... the exact predictable outcome of this ramped up and demonizing talk of extremism:  http://www.dailykos.com/...

    •  Who the hell has demonized gun owners (16+ / 0-)

      Everyone pushing for reforms has gone out of their way to send signals of moderation and warmth towards hunters and gun owners. Whether its the President who basically always mentions the right to bear arms, the rights of gunowners, and the need to empathize with them. Or Mark Kelly, who is a gun-owner and proudly touts his hunting bonafides. Even the ads from Bloombergs group have hunters claiming they're fine with background checks.

      The main strategy of gun reform advocates has been to push incremental measures and, in so doing, peel away NRA members and hunters from their leadership. Its the exact opposite of demonizing, its co-option. Honestly, if you see demonizing in this campaign, you're basically a lost cause and will see that no matter what gun reform advocates say.

    •  Good question for Wayne La Pierre. If you took (6+ / 0-)

      him out of the equation, the entire mood of the debate changes.

      •  Oppose federalizing concealed carry! (11+ / 0-)

        Whatever you feel about the "right" of people in predominantly rural areas or where the gun culture is loose to allow everyone to be armed in public, that just isn't possible or sensible where people live in close proximity.  If North Dakota wants to allow mentally ill wife beaters and felons to own and publicly carry guns, fine.  Let them.  But my county in CA has more people than ND and our metro area would be one of the largest states.  We have very strict gun laws and in most counties concealed carry is almost impossible.  Why should a visitor from ND be able to carry his gun here because he is afraid of our diverse populace?  Why should anyone from a loose state like Florida that allows felons to own guns or a state that let's anyone concealed carry dictate what those people can do when they come here?

        If they want us to stop telling rural states what to do, they should not try to undermine our more restrictive laws.  Stay home with your gun and feel safe.  Fine with me.  But stay home.

        The scientific uncertainty doesn't mean that climate change isn't actually happening.

        by Mimikatz on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:39:04 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  We aren't corporate heads.. (0+ / 0-)

      therefore we are being ignored. When is America going to call the ball on Washington and kick some corrupt, political butt? That's MY question. These jackals ignore the American public and will continue to do so until we stop this kind of atrocity.
      Besides that, this is a TOTAL waste of time. This issue is a no brainer...oh, wait, I think I just answered my own question....

      The basis of our political system is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. George Washington

      by bluebuckeyewmn on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:22:43 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We are going to kick political butt (0+ / 0-)

        when we stop complaining, get off our own butts, and create Better and More Democrats among the electorate. We know how, and some of us are actively doing just that. It's a lot easier among voters than incumbents, which means that we need a lot of work on getting voters to toss out incumbents.

        But when a bill comes before Congress, we don't have time for that. The question is always how close we can get to what we want out of the sausage grinder with the Congresscritters we have.

        Here in Indiana, for example, our Blue Dog Sen. Donnelly has come out (yes, I know, ha-ha) for LGBT rights, and is halfway there on firearms (good with background checks, against any form of registry, which we already knew we couldn't get this time). If we can turn him on abortion at any point, we might even make a Democrat of him. If Indiana evolves at the same rate as the rest of the country, we could equalize Democratic and Republican voting strength in ten or twelve years, and then (assuming the Republicans are actually still around) pull out ahead. If we actually GOTV here as hard as we can, that day can come sooner.

        There are at least a dozen Senators of whom one can say much the same as about Donnelly: not 100% Democratic or Republican, choosing their issues very carefully based on some combination of personal views, campaign contributions, and what they think voters in their states think, and how likely they are to vote that issue. We are making the case that the public is overwhelmingly for more gun safety regulation, and that the NRA and GOA will no longer have elections in swing states all to themselves.

        Now we need to get thousands of letters and phone calls to each of them every time the question arises, to equalize the pressure, and then apply even more on our side. I called Donnelly and also Coats before the first cloture vote, and intend to do it again before critical amendments, cloture on voting, and the vote itself.

        Similarly in swing House districts. Did I mention that we need more contested districts? Oh, right:

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 11:09:22 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  because democracy is dead (0+ / 0-)
    •  I think that if BCs weren't introduced along with (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noway2

      AWB2 and mag restrictions, this bill would be a done deal.

      Now, instead of this bill being viewed on its own merit, it is seen as being simply a battle over 'gun control' at large & people are distrusting how it will be implemented & where 'gun control' will go from here.

      Frankly, I am at a loss on why the Pres decided to introduce BCs with the AWB. I don't see the upside to it.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 11:35:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So how stupid are Senators (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero

        When they can't read a bill of this importance and vote on the merits?

        •  Well....that's politics. (0+ / 0-)

          And they have elections to consider. And with the debate about BCs at least partially supplanted by the larger (and far less popular) concept of 'gun control', passing has been made harder and more risky.

          Pure speculation of course, but I think that if AWB and mag restrictions weren't what they opened on,  this bill would have passed already.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 12:11:03 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  He didn't. Feinstein was always going to (0+ / 0-)

        introduce the AWB.

        As to bills being considered on their own merits, these are Republicans we are dealing with. Many of them liars, racists, bigots, misogynists, and stooges of the kleptocrats, including the gun manufacturers.

        Honest politician
             One who stays bought

        Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

        by Mokurai on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 11:14:05 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  asdf (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Texas Lefty, FrankRose, noway2
    Without records of sales, however, such a bill wouldn't be worth the paper it's printed on.
    The feds could still bust illegal sellers at gun shows and elsewhere, but it wouldn't help in tracking down the guns found at crime scenes.  

    Which one was the point again?

    "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

    by happymisanthropy on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:09:53 AM PDT

    •  The number of private sales each year... (15+ / 0-)

      ...even if it's just 10% of the total sales is more than a million.

      The idea, in my view, was to make sure that those hundreds of thousands of private transactions (with a few exemptions for immediate family members and in some other very specific cases) be covered by background checks that would make it tougher for criminals and dangerously mentally ill people from obtaining firearms and deters people from selling them knowing that they may be criminally charged later if a unchecked gun buyer winds up breaking the law with that gun. Without records, same as dealers keep of their sales now, the deterrence part of too weak.

      The simplest way to do that would have been simply to require all private sales to be run through a dealer for a fee. Schumer tried to make it too complicated.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:23:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I like Dan Baum's idea... (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        noway2, Texas Lefty

        Put the NICS system on the Internet, and require sellers to keep a copy of the approval for 10 years. Just like the FFLs do now, but the increase in convenience will increase compliance.

        And don't charge a fee. It's a public resource... I pay my "fee" every April.

        You'd need some protections for privacy,  we don't want NICS to turn into a free background check for employers, but there's no reason it can't work,  and work better than requiring everybody who wants to sell or give a gun to a buddy to trek to the nearest fun shop and get dinged for 25 or 50 bucks of pure profit to the dealer, plus getting upsold on every accessory in the store.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 03:54:41 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  The second point IS the first point. (9+ / 0-)

      While it's theoretically possible for the ATF to raid gun shows and have undercover ops that catch a small percentage of illegal sellers, the enforcement mechanism stops at that point, UNLESS guns found in the hands of criminals can be traced.

      So what's the point of letting an illegal seller get away with it if he isn't caught at the point of sale?  

      Or maybe that is the point: to have a law that theoretically expands background checks but is so difficult to enforce that it does nothing, combined with lots of nice pro-gun sweeteners like nationwide permits to conceal carry.

      That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

      by Inland on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:14:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  But! (0+ / 0-)

        anybody who breaks the law and sells without a background check, is also going to break the other law and sell without keeping a record.

        Trying to catch them after the fact and prove that their guns weren't really stolen after all is going to be much harder and less effective than catching the illegal dealers in the act.

        "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

        by happymisanthropy on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:59:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Nope. (0+ / 0-)

          Really, the easiest thing is to take the papertrail of weapons that a person is suppose to have, and then compare that with the weapons he does have or can account for with background checks.

          That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

          by Inland on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 12:40:10 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  and how is that (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FrankRose

            less difficult than walking into a gun show and arresting two or three of the dozens of people I'm told are illegally dealing in weapons there on any given day?

            "with rights come responsibilities." Wrong. Responsibilities continue to exist even if you abdicate your rights.

            by happymisanthropy on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 12:44:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  That's what I've described. (0+ / 0-)

              Someone tells you "A didn't require a background check when he sold me the gun I was using", and you go compare the paper trail, sometimes days later.

              Otherwise, law enforcement has to correctly choose the given day and actually send an uncover agent and see if A will sell a gun without a check, hoping he doesn't smell anything wrong.

              That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

              by Inland on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 12:51:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

  •  Cornyn makes a funny. (9+ / 0-)
    Senate Minority Whip John Cornyn of Texas said late Monday that GOP senators are free to "vote their conscience" and he will not whip the votes on the bill.
    The GOP only exists to vote for special interest groups, like the NRA.  The idea that there's a party discipline separate from the NRA's efforts is hilarious.

    That's not even "gun control". It's more like "massacre control".

    by Inland on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:09:08 AM PDT

  •  "Vote their conscience"? (15+ / 0-)

    If tiny coffins don't tug at or unsettle your conscience, then what on God's green Earth will?

    How about I believe in the unlucky ones?

    by BenderRodriguez on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:12:51 AM PDT

  •  the anti gun control (0+ / 0-)

    pols will use the tragedy in boston as a cover to carry the water for the nra and the gun nuts in america, as bad as the bombing in boston is there were more individuals killed in newton although not injured or maimed.
    all violence and the means used to carry out mayhem must be put under an umbrella that protects all of america not just the elites who are seldom affected personally by incidents like this, if they were legislation like gun control would be on the fast track to passing by a voice vote i'm sure.

    •  It would be instructive to compare bomb control (0+ / 0-)

      laws to gun control laws. Of course, mad bombers can always make their own using a wide range of handbooks on the Internet, but that doesn't stop us from licensing dealers in explosives and restricting sales in various ways.

      Well, actually, with a good machine shop you can make your own guns, too, and be at no more risk of blowing yourself up than with bomb-making or meth labs. The 3D-printed gun is going to make the problem much worse.

      Ceterem censeo, gerrymandra delenda est

      by Mokurai on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 11:23:13 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  So, if 90% of the people support the checks (9+ / 0-)

    isn't that what a democracy stands for?  The will of the people, is not just a nice slogan or a bumper sticker, it is the base of our being as Americans.  Who are these people to deny that will?

  •  What's wrong with demonizing the devil (5+ / 0-)

    Americans suffer from a form of Social Mental Illness regarding (gun) violence. ALL DAY - most US networks have broadcast about nothing but the Boston Attack - 3 dead about 144 injured. No doubt a very disturbing incident.

    Since 9/11 America has destroyed two countries, Iraq and Afghanistan, murdered over 100,000 civilians in those two countries and all because 23 Saudi's hijacked a few planes and killed "nearly 3,000 people." Since that attack, "The Atlantic" reports in a story titled "Under a Blood red Sky" (July 21st 2012) Americans have killed with JUST guns: "...334,168 of there own countrymen either by homicide, suicide and unintentional death. The toll is 100 TIMES larger than the 9/11 toll."

    Three deaths are a tragedy - 334,168 deaths are a form of damnation of the soul that no other country on earth has ever sunk to. Americans, sorry another crazy struck - how about the morons among you look in the mirror next time this happens. The morons include those that kill and those that enable by thinking your second amendment is about "Liberty and Freedom" when all it is about IN REALITY is death, suffering and a madness of society unmatched anywhere else in the universe of men.

    Shame on you - shame on you!

  •  hand guns (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero

    The most dangerous guns are the ones no one talks about--hand guns do the most damage to the most people.  Saturday night specials is a term rarely heard anymore--background checks won't stop anything as long as surrogates are available.  At the least, bullets need to be as hard to get as prescription drugs--and need to be encoded on the inside.

    Apres Bush, le deluge.

    by melvynny on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:20:35 AM PDT

    •  We already know from the limited... (4+ / 0-)

      ...amount of studies that have been done that this is not true: "background checks won't stop anything." They already do. They don't stop everybody who shouldn't have a gun from getting one. Even an expanded version won't stop everybody. But anything that makes it harder saves lives.

      I totally agree, however, that more is needed in addition to a good background check law.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:35:54 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You could start by mandating (0+ / 0-)

        That law enforcement investigate any person who fails a NICS check. If they're a prohibited possessor,  it's a felony for them to handle the gun at all. Lying on the 4473 is also a felony.

        Seems like it would be pretty easy to get convictions...

        Just saying "sorry,  you were denied," like they tried to use an empty debit card, doesn't stop anybody from buying a gun....
        But it's pretty tough to buy one in prison.

        --Shannon

        "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees." -- Emiliano Zapata Salazar
        "Dissent is patriotic. Blind obedience is treason." --me

        by Leftie Gunner on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 08:04:15 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  If it is a socially progressive issue.... (0+ / 0-)

    It doesn't matter what the people want, they aren't going to get it. Pathetic. Harry, NUCLEAR OPTION! SCREW THE RURAL AREAS! I DON'T CARE WHAT FARMER BUBBA WANTS!

    •  Nuclear option, yes. Your "rural areas" attitude (6+ / 0-)

      is one we don't need.

      Life actaully is different in rural areas.

      A good friend of mine grew up in Texas, and came out of the house one day to see her mother being chased around a tree by a skunk.  Sounds kind of funny.  But she recognized the behavior of a rabid animal, grabbed a rifle from inside the house and shot the skunk.  Another person I know who currently works in rural northern Canada had two co-workers bitten by a rabid coyote last month.  My friend who lives on a ranch in the Southwest shoots rattlers near his house.  Not on the rest of the ranch; he figures it's up to him to wear boots and stay alert.  But near the house, yes.  Of course, it doesn't take a gun to kill a poisonous snake.  My dad chopped the head off one with a shovel.  But you don't really want to have to be that close to a poisonous snake, especially one with the striking power of a rattler.

      And hunting really is an important part of many rural people's lives, both for cultural reasons and because it's damned hard to make a living there if you're not a giant agribusiness corporation busily wrecking the land.  Rural people hunt to eat.

      Rural life is different.  The culture is different.  Most urban people don't begin to understand that, which is natural.  But we have enough consciousness about cultural differences on this site that we should automatically avoid the kind of casual disdain that in fact is so common here.

      We need to care what Farmer Bubba wants.  First, because progressives should respect differences and build alliances where possible.  Second, because there are a lot of rural states and they elect a lot of Senators.  The Republican dominance in the Senate has not been only because of the Southern Strategy.  They have also courted (and propagandized) the rural West.  Democrats, for the last 50 years or so, have been disdainful, lazy, and stupid in dealing with rural states.  And that's hurt us.  And so, naturally, we dislike the rural states more, and snigger even more at their clothes and make-up, their music, their way of talking.  Isn't predictability a wonderful thing?

      The Manchin/Toomey suggestion on exempting some rural areas from background checks (because they'd have to travel far to find a dealer to do the check) should be pursued if it might win some more votes for the bill.  Neither gangs nor disturbed people are likely to drive around the back roads of North Dakota asking people to sell them some guns.  THe focus of enforcement should be on gun dealers, gun shows, and areas of high population density.  That's where most of the action is.

      --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

      by Fiona West on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 11:18:23 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  You've said a lot of accurate (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        noway2, Mokurai

        and very sensible things there.  The comment deserves highlighting and support, however much it doesn't fit with "extremist" label so readily attached to those of us who take issue with some elements of PBO's firearm reform initiatives -- including the M-T Amendment as initially crafted.

  •  This is a long game (9+ / 0-)

    Either a watered-down version passes, and we will have to continue to fight to get real gun reform, including bans on selling on ammo magazines and military-style weapons.

    Or it doesn't, and we continue to fight to get something passed in the next Congress.  Which means, we fight to get a better Congress.

    Either way the struggle continues and will continue until we and our children are reasonably safe from gun humpers and their enablers.

    Barack Obama for President

    by looty on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:32:09 AM PDT

  •  Republican game plan (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cocinero, JerryNA

    I suspect McConnell and Boehner are working together on this.

    If the Senate fails to pass this, then the House need not vote on it, sparing a bunch of Repubs (as well as a few Dems) from having to cast a tough vote.

  •  Ayotte "undecided"... what a tool. (6+ / 0-)

    She really needs to stop listening to talking points and just listen to her constituents. Sign on to the bill already!!!

    "I think it's the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately." -- George Carlin, Satirical Comic,(1937-2008)

    by Wynter on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:34:38 AM PDT

  •  They won't protect you from guns (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA

    nor relegalize marijuana.

    Brilliant, brilliant serious responsible adult people.

    Contrary to what you are SUPPOSED to believe (if you, too, wish to consider yourself a responsible serious adult) guns are a little more dangerous than marijuana.

    It's TRUE, but you cannot get responsible serious adults to say it, let alone base policies on this reality.

  •  Correction: Pryor, Arkansas. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Meteor Blades
  •  Nationwide permit to carry would be a poison pill (7+ / 0-)

    Some blue state senators would not support a bill that included that. NY passed a very strict permit law. It was challenged in court and upheld. The Supreme Court refused to take the case.

    •  Yeah -- that's bringing in a whole other level of (3+ / 0-)

      controversy, whereas some things (like background checks) have that 90% level of support.  It could well be an effective way to sabotage the bill.

      --------------------- “These are troubling times. Corporation are treated like people. People are treated like things. …And if we ever needed to vote, we sure do need to vote now.” -- Rev. Dr. William J. Barber

      by Fiona West on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:21:18 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Poison Pill? It would end resistance from me. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noway2, FrankRose

      And many others. I'm willing to bet even the NRA would stop resisting if Reciprocity was added to the bill.

      •  Well, we do keep hearing that nobody has a problem (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        FrankRose, Texas Lefty

        with "responsible" gun owners(!).  Since data shows that those with carry permits are amongst the most "responsible" and have already submitted to a background check that FAR surpasses anything being proposed by the current legislation, national reciprocity should be a gimme, let alone a non-issue.  The fact that it is being so strongly objected to is a massive indication of insincerity and signals lack of honesty on the part of the restrictions proponents.

        (!)[sarcasm]Of course what goes, often times, unsaid is that a "responsible" gun owner is one who is willing to capitulate to any and all anti demands, e.g. AWB, magazine capacity, registration, insurance, etc.[/sarcasm]

  •  Get on the phones... (3+ / 0-)

    Remind these clowns of the will of the people

    202-224-3121

    Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

    by PsychoSavannah on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 09:59:55 AM PDT

  •  If 60 votes are required to pass Manchin-Toomey, (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    JerryNA, Eric Nelson, Meteor Blades

    then 60 votes had better be required to pass any of the absurd Republican amendments to the bill (meaning that they would need 15 Dems, meaning the amendments should be DOA).

  •  A jihadist troll? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber, Eric Nelson

    I guess there's a first for everything.

    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

    by Texas Lefty on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:17:12 AM PDT

  •  It's sad that 19 years later, the myth that the.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Glen The Plumber

    assault weapons ban still holds so much sway over legislators.

    A myth that has been blown all out of proportion and covered up other factors going on that had more to do with the Dems losing

    Indeed, as US News reported in a January 17 article, political scientists who have analyzed the 1994 election say it is "mythology" that gun violence prevention laws were the primary reason the Democrats were defeated. According to the article, headlined "Gun Control Laws Weren't Primary Reason Dems Lost in 1994"  
    Until the fear of the NRA, which according to recent reports hasn't done that well with the candidates that it supported or candidates it wanted to oust, is broken I guess dispelling the myth ought to be the beginning step taken in going for gun control legislation.

    Because this is just too much:

    ..federalization of concealed-carry permits [...] people [...] would be able to carry concealed firearms in states with tougher standards.
    And if reciprocity in some form is added to the bill making states with weak laws essentially the law for states with tough measures, and without any record keeping, this is not looking like a solution imo
    •  Iow's Dems need to lead on gun safety measures.. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      ..who actually believe in and aren't afraid to fight for it.
      AP -  Apr 15, 9:47 PM EDT

      "There's no debate that that's not an infringement of the Second Amendment" right to bear arms, said Toomey as he and Manchin touted their measure on the Senate floor.
      ..because this statement by Toomey as one of the a main players involved taking the lead ain't working.
      Instead of a coalition of Dems who aren't cowed by a myth.
      Break the 1994 myth first. Then get to work without the NRA involvement
      •  This is the place to start (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        tytalus, Glen The Plumber

        CPC - congressional Progressive caucus: Resolution on Preventing Gun Violence

        Resolved, That it is the sense of the Congressional Progressive Caucus that, at a minimum, greater safety requirements must be implemented to prevent the violent use of guns in America by—
        1.Banning the sale of military-style assault weapons as well as high-capacity magazines or clips that can hold more than 10 bullets at a time;
        2.Requiring all gun buyers to pass a criminal background check, no matter how they purchase the weapon; and,
        3.Supporting the availability and funding of mental health and substance abuse treatment so all individuals who are in need of help have sufficient access to these services, and the support of enhanced mental health services for children.
        These are the Dems that should be put in charge right now. And keep hammering. These solutions are what the vast majority of people want. It also works politically  imo
  •  Let it GO, already ... (0+ / 0-)

    Talk about wasting time and squandering political capital!

    As long as that is the prevailing political climate is "Heaven Forbid that law-abiding-gun-owners might be put to the same trouble and expense to register their casual gun sales that they are put through buying a used car."  ...expanded background checks without record keeping (actual registration of purchases) is a pointless exercise in I-don't-know-what.  Feelgood legislation?  The smug satisfaction of "having done something, knowing it to be futile?"

    We HAD a semi-permeable ban on AK/AR style assault guns.  Did it save lives ?  Not particularly.  Did it stop the flow from American sporting goods shops to Mexican drug cartels?  Not at all.

    Does a "background check" of straw buyers keep Virginia handguns off NY City's streets?   Not so much. Suffolk county busted yet another handgun-running ring this week.  Where did they get their inventory?  Well, "no body knows".  Nor are we likely to find out.  But they'll still be there for the next little gang of gunrunners, won't they.

    Now, the real issue is "do a lousy 30,000 dead Americans a year matter in the broader scheme of things" -- especially when we realize that 18,000 or so of them are suicides anyway.  It's not like anyone is knocking down a 2-billion dollar landmark building in the process of "10 Nine Elevens  every year."  Property matters.  Life is cheap.  AND, there's always MORE of it.  That's the GrownUP Manly View of things -- which as many as 15% of the American Electorate subscribe to.

    The rest would very much rather NOT have sidearms brandished in their faces in convenience store robberies and road rage incidents.  They'd very much prefer not to be caught in crossfires when "youth gangs" negotiate their territories with armed force.  

    And frankly, the professional police would very much rather that citizens NOT use firearms to defend what they imagine to be their rights to privacy and self-determination from the Police,  when there are Courts and Review Boards to attend to such matters after-the-fact.  (A state of affairs Thomas Jefferson could never have imagined:  "professional police" OR "judicial review".)

    Where the Gun Safety Zealots (like myself) screw up, is that we forget that when we talk about Arms Control, we're poking at a hornets nest.  

    Rather than talking about "restricting guns" we ought to be talking about "expanding access".

    For example:  if seeking some kind of control on the AK/AR weapons ... if only to make the Mexican government happy ... we ought to lead off with  a guarantee, excluding "traditional sporting long guns" from the proposed regulation.

    If we want to treat guns the way we treat powerboats, dogs and automobiles ...  register each one to a responsible adult owner -- we should consider an inexpensive "Citizen Buyer/Seller Permit that guarantees the right to purchase arms in accordance with local laws WITHOUT a "background check" for each and every transaction.

    Hunting burglars in your own backyard  is one thing: but "Comes the Revolution" we'll see how many First Amendment Patriots are really interested in shooting at trained professionals who shoot back.    

    Now .. these  folks, lost in the fantasy of "resisting a tyrannical government" with the the weapons they can buy in the sporting goods department at WalMart -- nothing but full-bore Arms Anarchy is going to satisfy THEM.

    They've got their masturbatory fantasy ... and any parent of pubescent sons, who wants to avoid ugly scenes,  has learned better than to poke their heads into bed or bathrooms without first knocking.

    They're like the "Naked Guys" in San Francisco who found a "discovered" 1st Amendment right to full  (non-erotic) nudity in public for both sexes.  The right, in fact,  exists and has been upheld in Federal Court.

    However, the right of the California Legislature to pass reasonable laws regulating the "when and where" has also been upheld.  

    And, BTW: the Roberts/Scalea Court which discovered the individual right to own handguns in Washington DC .... has just declined to consider an objection to New York State's requirement of "proof of special need" as a requirement for concealed carry permits -- as they hinted they would in ">Heller v District of Columbia.

  •  What I'm afraid will happen. (0+ / 0-)

    Nothing will pass.

    I'm not for an AWB but not even the background thing will pass.

    Then the gun industry and NRA will feel even more secure to keep marketing  a certain type of gun made for a certain type of mindset they and the GOP are pushing.

    I mean I love guns and shooting but I thought the whole Newtown thing was where the NRA and Gun Industry had been given enough rope and they were ready to hang themselves.

    I think they came close this time but if they learn nothing and continue the end times porn guns and marketing eventually the public will clamor for gun control that even most sane gun owners don't want.

  •  Once Again Cornyn steps aside (0+ / 0-)

    as a picador of some reknown, Cornyn has once again stepped aside as Minority Whip. the true Matador Whip of the Republican Party, the NRA, will step in and whip the Senators in line for an almost straight-line party vote against this bill. The goal is to remove any obstructions that may inhibit the ability of gun manufacturers to properly arm the nation with better and more efficient weapons of mass murder.

    What Fresh Hell is This? -- Dorothy Parker

    by chazz509 on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 11:01:02 AM PDT

  •  Max Baucus is so contemptible (0+ / 0-)

    on so many levels.

  •  Without records of sales..... (0+ / 0-)

    .....police would have to do their work the old fashion way, after a crime has taken place.

    Meteor: I'm not sure why you seem so fixated on the causes of nocturnal emissions of NRA members, but I find it unseemly and unprofessional.

  •  Hmmm (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    coquiero

    I think it was uncalled for to confuse members of the Senate by asking them to vote their conscience.  

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site