Author Topic: Senators strike deal on background checks (Read 17402 times)

Waitone · « **Reply #100 on:** April 16, 2013, 10:31:22 PM »

So they are trying to sweeten the bill by addressing some of the irritating gun laws that harass legitimate gun owners. Common tactic used by the left. It merely disguises the real purpose of the legislation which is gun registration. Everything else is eyewash. The left asks us to take 2 steps forward toward their view of gun rights. We negotiate it down to one step their direction. Net gain is one step in their direction. Later on they will ask for another but different 2 steps forward and we negotiate it down to one step. How 'bout this? We give'm nuthin'. How 'bout we take two steps our direction and demand that they agree to one step our direction. A good place to pick the issues we could use is the list of sweetener in the Toomey bill.

RoadKingLarry · « **Reply #101 on:** April 16, 2013, 10:46:04 PM »

They keep using that word (compromise), I don't think it means what they want us to think it means.

Tallpine · « **Reply #102 on:** April 17, 2013, 10:58:46 AM »

Quote

How 'bout we take two steps our direction and demand that they agree to one step our direction.

Oh, but you won't get anywhere with that absolute 2A thinking.

charby · « **Reply #103 on:** April 17, 2013, 10:59:38 AM »

MSM is already wailing that this might be a dead issue in the Senate.

TechMan · « **Reply #104 on:** April 17, 2013, 04:19:05 PM »

Quote from: charby on April 17, 2013, 10:59:38 AM

MSM is already wailing that this might be a dead issue in the Senate.

I hope so, because this is why it needs to die a horrible death in the Senate: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/17/boehner-pressed-on-holding-votes-with-no-house-majority-as-guns-immigration/

TL;DR Summary:

Quote

House Speaker John Boehner is being pressed by the conservative wing of the Republican Party not to allow a vote on major pieces of legislation -- from gun control to immigration -- without majority Republican support, after recent signals that he could be open to building a coalition with Democrats.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/17/boehner-pressed-on-holding-votes-with-no-house-majority-as-guns-immigration/#ixzz2Qko54Tgc

Tallpine · « **Reply #105 on:** April 17, 2013, 04:49:48 PM »

House Speaker Neville Boehner

drewtam · « **Reply #106 on:** April 17, 2013, 04:50:39 PM »

Fox is reporting that the bill was voted down in Senate 54-46.

Scout26 · « **Reply #107 on:** April 17, 2013, 04:52:27 PM »

Yahoo, as well. It is dead. Now maybe prices will begin to drop.

drewtam · « **Reply #108 on:** April 17, 2013, 04:52:53 PM »

More details from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/17/politics/senate-guns-vote/index.html?hpt=hp_t3

Quote

Due to procedural steps by Republican opponents, the amendment required 60 votes to pass in the 100-member chamber, meaning Democrats and their Independent allies who hold 55 seats needed support from some GOP senators to push them through.
The final vote was 54 in favor to 46 opposed with two Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting the compromise.

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #109 on:** April 17, 2013, 05:00:06 PM »

zxcvbob · « **Reply #110 on:** April 17, 2013, 05:01:47 PM »

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/vote_menu_113_1.htm

AZRedhawk44 · « **Reply #111 on:** April 17, 2013, 05:04:34 PM »

They've got something else waiting to slip in. Keep wary.

charby · « **Reply #112 on:** April 17, 2013, 05:13:37 PM »

Quote from: AZRedhawk44 on April 17, 2013, 05:04:34 PM

They've got something else waiting to slip in. Keep wary.

Always be checking what politicians are doing.

birdman · « **Reply #113 on:** April 17, 2013, 05:21:34 PM »

Quote from: scout26 on April 17, 2013, 04:52:27 PM

Yahoo, as well. It is dead. Now maybe prices will begin to drop.

This is just the T-M and grassley amendments people, NOT the bill, nor the rest of the amendments, but given this, I can't see the rest proceeding.

zxcvbob · « **Reply #114 on:** April 17, 2013, 05:27:30 PM »

It's interesting to see who voted for it and who voted again' it. Quite an odd mix, both ways.

Tallpine · « **Reply #115 on:** April 17, 2013, 05:39:40 PM »

Golleeeeee! Baucus actually voted against it

birdman · « **Reply #116 on:** April 17, 2013, 05:43:53 PM »

Update, looks like everything is going down in flames.

Unfortunately, this includes the grassley and burr amendments.

However, as those are only amendments, and would add "positives" to the bigger and really bad bill, that's okay for now, they can be pursued later. National reciprocity would have been a tough sell, but the burr amendment...damn dems.

drewtam · « **Reply #117 on:** April 17, 2013, 06:05:59 PM »

Quote from: birdman on April 17, 2013, 05:43:53 PM

Update, looks like everything is going down in flames :)

Yup...

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/feinstein-assault-weapons-ban-amendment-fails/

http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2013/04/foghorn/latest-updates-on-todays-senate-gun-control-amendments/

Quote

Lautenberg / Blumenthal Amendment [SPEAKING]
Bans “high capacity” magazines

Burr Amendment FAILS, 56/44
Requires judicial decision for Veterans Affairs to place someone on the NICS denial list.

Feinstein Assault Weapons Ban Amendment FAILS, 40/60
LOL “large velocity guns,” another wonderful example of Senator Feinstein playing Bingo with firearms-related vocabulary and rolling with whatever she can think up no matter if it actually makes sense. Also, where can I get my hands on these 100+ round clips she’s talking about? That’s got to be one large piece of aluminum . . .

Cornyn National Concealed Carry Reciprocity Amendment FAILS 57/43
By the way, I LOVE how Chuck Schumer’s argument about national reciprocity was that states should be able to set their own policies about guns, that what works in one state might not work in others. Which begs the question: why then is he pushing so hard to expand New York’s values about gun control on all of the other states?

Leahy/Collins Amendment FAILS 58/42 – More info on proposed provisions here.

Grassley/Cruz Amendment FAILS 52/48 – More info on proposed provisions here.

Tallpine · « **Reply #118 on:** April 17, 2013, 06:17:19 PM »

Quote from: birdman on April 17, 2013, 05:43:53 PM

Update, looks like everything is going down in flames.

Unfortunately, this includes the grassley and burr amendments.

However, as those are only amendments, and would add "positives" to the bigger and really bad bill, that's okay for now, they can be pursued later. National reciprocity would have been a tough sell, but the burr amendment...damn dems.

The damn Republicans can get off their butts and try to protect veterans separately

Add it to a bill to save baby robins or something....

birdman · « **Reply #119 on:** April 17, 2013, 06:53:58 PM »

Quote from: Tallpine on April 17, 2013, 06:17:19 PM

The damn Republicans can get off their butts and try to protect veterans separately

Add it to a bill to save baby robins or something....

Yup! Or...perhaps deptartment of education appropriations bill? :)

Jamisjockey · « **Reply #120 on:** April 17, 2013, 07:59:13 PM »

It's a shame that the homosexual lobby hasn't caught on to how case law for national reciprocity, visa vi the full faith and credit clause, would effect gay marriages or civil unions....

Scout26 · « **Reply #121 on:** April 17, 2013, 09:52:49 PM »

I'm shocked!!! Shocked I tell you, to discover that Mark Kirk (R-Ill north shore liberal) voted with the D's on this crap.

Fitz · « **Reply #122 on:** April 17, 2013, 09:53:12 PM »

Is anyone watching piers Morgan cry about it?

Fitz · « **Reply #123 on:** April 17, 2013, 09:53:45 PM »

Btw we should all report hmmm to the FBI... He said "do I have to get an ar15 and shoot up a school to make people see?"

TechMan · « **Reply #124 on:** April 17, 2013, 09:58:40 PM »

Quote from: Fitz on April 17, 2013, 09:53:12 PM

Is anyone watching piers Morgan cry about it?

Fortunately I don't have cable. If somebody finds a link please post.

News:

Author Topic: Senators strike deal on background checks (Read 17402 times)