Senate rejects tougher background checks

[RobertNashville]

And in 2016, it will be "vote (enter establishment Republican here) and regroup in 2020." In 2020, it will be the same. The same in 2024, 2028, 2032...

But it seems that the other option is to just vote for whoever the Dems put up and destroy the U.S. that much quicker.

 

I guess we are just f***ed either way we ago. Maybe I should just stop voting.  :surrender:

[mikegideon]

I just don't expect a big Democratic revolution. They're all full of ####. We all know that. So the surge in power happens because a larger than average group is running from the last folks they voted for. The Republicans have the house because the Democrats pissed everybody off. The Dems had it before that because everybody was pissed at the Republicans. Since they're both full of ####, and totally incapable of great leadership, neither one is going to achieve long term dominance.

 

The ones on the tit... I'm betting that will be dealt with. This is a really old game, with really old rules.

Edited April 18, 2013 by mikegideon

[JAB]

I was one of the ones saying that Romney was not our friend on gun issues. Guess what? I will say it, again. Romney was not our friend on gun issues. I have little doubt he would have responded to Sandy Hook by calling for more regulation. The enemy of our enemy isn't necessarily our friend.

As for the current Whiner in Chief, it did my heart good to see his little hissy fit- although I admit I didn't watch the entire speech. Edited April 18, 2013 by JAB

[LDRider]

My question is:  Do enough Dems feel they were wronged on this vote that they work to get Repubs out in the next mid year elections?

 

I personally feel that there are not enough Dems to affect Repubs being elected due to the fact that they don't feel as strongly about gun issues as Repubs may.

 

What say you?

 

Jeff

[Sam1]

I tried watching that, but didn't make it very far. Check out Joe's frowney face in that vid, though. Haha. He actually looks just like this.... :( (actually worse)

 

He looks like Jeff Dunham's Walter:

 

[D3vo]

Sadly, our RINO's voted with McCain.



Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk


They voted with him for cloture few days ago, but I think they voted against today.

That's great. He voted for it before he voted against it. This guy needs to be lose his job in the next primary.

[DaveTN]

Obama isn’t that upset. Gun control is an issue he could use to get people to take their eye off the ball (the economy).

 

 

[reed1285]

So is their a list yet to show how each one voted? Id like to send a few emails out

 

*edit

 

nevermind just found it. and in case anybody else was wondering about voting breakdown like i was...here it is.

 

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00097

Edited April 18, 2013 by reed1285

[RobertNashville]

I was one of the ones saying that Romney was not our friend on gun issues. Guess what? I will say it, again. Romney was not our friend on gun issues. I have little doubt he would have responded to Sandy Hook by calling for more regulation. The enemy of our enemy isn't necessarily our friend.

As for the current Whiner in Chief, it did my heart good to see his little hissy fit- although I admit I didn't watch the entire speech.

We can engage in conjecture all you or I want but you don't know what Romney would have done nor do I.

 

What doesn't take much conjecture is where Obama wants to take this country.

 

More importantly, while I may not be alive to see the real fruit of the 2012 election, the legacy wrought by those who claim to stand for the Constitution and didn't think Romney was good enough for their vote will begin when the Supreme Court Justices Obama will get to put into place get a chance to start ruling on cases.

[shortround]

But given the filibuster status,as a couple of Dems were saying in consolation today, the original bill AND all the amendments remain on the Senate calendar thorough the rest of the 113th Congress, as they were not actually technically defeated as per rules, but only dropped due to lack of stopping filibuster. And can be brought up at any time they think the vote structure may have shifted, without being resubmitted and going through committee process and all that.

- OS

 

They are keeping their fingers crossed for another Sandy Hook in the very near future.

[Guest 6.8 AR]

Obama isn’t that upset. Gun control is an issue he could use to get people to take their eye off the ball (the economy).

Yeh, that is right. It is a core belief of his, though, to take guns away. He will always be needed to be watched for

everything he is doing because of what you said. He does way too many things at once, probably on purpose,

since everyone who works for him are the ones making policy.

 

I think he is pissed off, more because of his arrogance and narcissism. He expected this to be an easy passage,

compared to Obamacare, which is starting to look like a nightmare, even to his own party.

[Guest Lester Weevils]

The core bill is Schumer's background check bill, nothing to do with Feinstein's, which simply never hit the floor.

 

It is S 374, and eloquently called "Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013".

 

Here's the full text:

 

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/113/s374/text

 

As I understand it, the whole brouhaha to allow it on the floor was the first filibuster vote, where everybody called every Republican who voted for that a traitor, but it was allowed so that the Manchin-Toomey (and the other 6 or 7 amendments) could also be introduced. But with the special 60 vote threshold deal, all the subsequent votes were in actuality also votes to end filibuster on each of them. Still unclear to me if a yes vote would have also enacted them, but a moot point I guess, as if you can get 60 votes you can almost certainly get 51.

 

But given the filibuster status,as a couple of Dems were saying in consolation today, the original bill AND all the amendments remain on the Senate calendar thorough the rest of the 113th Congress, as they were not actually technically defeated as per rules, but only dropped due to lack of stopping filibuster. And can be brought up at any time they think the vote structure may have shifted, without being resubmitted and going through committee process and all that.

 

Then you've got Reid saying that rules call for needing a single dissenting vote from the majority in order to bring them up also, but dunno if that's written in stone, or a "courtesy protocol". At any rate, he's a lying dog to say that's why he "had" to vote no, as 4 other Dems voted no before he did on the roll call.

 

Very convoluted indeed, and just another reason we all hate the bastards up there, as the general public can't even understand how the damn loaded dice game is even actually played, since the "rules" are so very flexible.

 

- OS

 

Thanks for the explanation, OS.

 

So will they continue to flog thru the amendments voting on them, and make a vote on Schumer's bill? Or table the mess to possibly bring it up later? And does the agreement on the amendments also apply to Schumer's original bill-- 60 required to pass it now, if voted on? Betcha there are enough votes to pass the dang thing on a simple majority with all the RINO senators helping out. 

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I think that bill is dead. We can speculate til the cows come home, and it very well could re-incarnate,

but I doubt it until after the midterms.

[Oh Shoot]

Thanks for the explanation, OS.

 

So will they continue to flog thru the amendments voting on them, and make a vote on Schumer's bill? Or table the mess to possibly bring it up later? And does the agreement on the amendments also apply to Schumer's original bill-- 60 required to pass it now, if voted on? Betcha there are enough votes to pass the dang thing on a simple majority with all the RINO senators helping out. 

 

Can't answer those questions as above my pay grade on US Senate Procedure. :)

 

Irony is that I was TN Lieutenant Governor in HI-Y in high school, presided for 4 days over our state wide assembly in actual senate chamber Nashville. And had to study Roberts Rules of Order and TN legislative rules for months to get through it -- the only thing I can tell you is that those rules have little if anything to do with how these chambers are actually run anymore on state level, and the federal level is in ionosphere of bizarre protocol, many of which happen because they "suspend the rules" by a simple voice vote in the first place.

 

Can tell you that everything voted on yesterday is still "on the table" through end of 113th Congress (ends Jan. 3, 2015 but practically of course on the last day of 2014). It's my understanding that if reintroduced, the special deal for voting made on them is reset, and they start over, with filibuster action still in play. If filibuster fails (or not even tried), they can be enacted with simply majority vote. Or they can suspend the rules and majority/minority leaders make damn near whatever deal they want, just like yesterday.

 

Only bills/amendments which fail on a vote on their actual enactment  must wait until the next Congress to be re-filed and go through the whole committee process, but these having been technically tabled via failure of cloture are still "live" during this session, however remote (or not) the chances that the voting structure might change before end of session for them to be brought back up.

 

- OS

 

edit: one thing wrong in my post 50, Lester.

 

The "core bill" started as Schumer's S 374 "Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013" but shifted over to Reid's S 649 "Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013" by the time of all the action.

Edited April 18, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest 6.8 AR]

If the Senate brought this bill up, again, it would be political suicide. They are already on record, this term.

They don't want to screw up, while trying to screw the Constitution, and us. ajnd I seriously doubt they will

bring it up next term, unless they get the House, and I doubt that, too. If the right had another Speaker,

other than Boehner, we could keep the House for a long time. That's the only wild card I see.

 

Obama will move on to do it, or something else, another way. He has said he doesn't like not being able to

run roughshod over the Constitution with Congress standing in the way.

[East_TN_Patriot]

You may be right, but I hope not.....You post some really interesting info ETP and you get to hear things from both sides of the isle on a lot of issues....I"d like to hear you're opinion.  What do you see in America's future. Are we destined to go down the Socialist road?  Or will things turn around before we get that far?

 

This is not an easy answer because "socialism" means different things to different people.  I also think that what most people call "socialism" would probably be more accurately labeled as "statism" or the belief that the government (especially the federal government) should have a strong influence over social affairs.  The establishment left believes in stronger regulation of business and certain individual activities they believe are detrimental to the "common good", the establishment right believes in stronger regulation of individual morality and limiting other civil liberties that are detrimental to the "common good".  Both sides participate in crony capitalism whether it's the Obama administration supporting his pet "green" energy business and big labor, or the establishment Republicans who support their pet industries like military and big finance.  Both establishment parties are beholden to these groups due to the money that they contribute to the political process.  In fact, many would suggest that democratic processes have become an illusion because access to the ballot, candidates who are endorsed, and the information distributed to voters about certain issues is extremely tainted by the money and influence of powerful groups in society.  

With all of that said, I see something happening that I do think bodes well for those of us who believe in smaller government (or at least a return to a true federalist system where the majority of political power is held at the state and local levels where individuals are more closely connected to the political process and the decisions made).  The Tea Party movement, the OWS movement, other similar grassroots movements, and the rise in libertarian thought (both on the left and the right) are signals that the federal hold on political power is on the verge of being seriously challenged.  More and more, people from all political persuasions are beginning to see that the effectiveness of those in federal government is extremely poor.  Even many Obama supporters see that his promises are nothing more than rhetoric and platitudes and what actions he does try to take are hampered by the political process influenced by powerful interest groups and individuals.  Because of this reality, I see many left leaning people call for a return of local control to most political issues.  I would like to think that this current gun control debacle would be further evidence that the federal government is ineffective at addressing the demands of people who want change.  The places that had a high concentration of people supporting more gun control were able to implement policies in their individual states and cities.  Frankly, if that's what they choose to do and how they choose to interpret the 2nd Amendment, that's their choice.  States that did not want gun control didn't get it and those who wanted it for the entire nation saw the efforts fail miserably.  Another recent example is the bombing attack in Boston.  For over a decade, people have entrusted their safety to the federal government to protect us, yet someone was able to walk into the Boston Marathon venue with not one, but three large bombs in duffle bags, and had no clue it was going to happen and apparently no clue who the suspect(s) is/are.  What I am saying is that I think people are beginning to see the failure of a strong federal government.

Where I do see a threat is in the realm of public assistance programs.  The number of people getting government assistance is eclipsing the number that are paying taxes. At the end of the day, as long as people keep getting their "free" stuff, they will vote with their wallets.  Pay attention to the claims of politicians.  "The (enter opposing candidate here) is threatening to cut your (Social Security/Medicare/Medicaid/unemployment/disability/VA benefits/retirement/etc.)!"  Republican voters are just as guilty of  falling for this as Democrats.  I suspect this will continue as long as the two major parties have control and can deficit spend us into more debt while supporting public "entitlement" programs.  Add in that many more radical people on the statist left (the true socialists) are calling for government seizure of wealth and corporate assets, the establishment of a "living wage", and similar efforts to redistribute wealth.  I don't see these more radical policies take hold in the near future.  What I do see is economic collapse followed by the inability of the federal government to continue "entitlement" payments at the same levels we currently see.  For people to survive, two things will happen: 1) those who are able to slough out a living will have to suck it up and press on in some way whether they like it or not, and/or 2) those who are in desperate need of help will have to seek it from local institutions that provide assistance using resources collected from the community.   In this case, people will basically be forced to turn away from the feds to provide for their existence.  I think this will be the key issue that will determine whether we go down the road to a statist society or a return to a more libertarian federalist society.  I have met one scholar, Jeff Ferrel, who is a pretty radical leftist, but he is so fed up with government that he is calling for a populist grassroots anarchist revolt that he believes will basically reveal what a true free society (and perhaps Marxist utopia) is supposed to be.  He and I had a pretty spirited debate and I still believe he's very mistaken, but it's just more proof to show that many on the political left are just as peeved about government power and infringement on fundamental civil liberties (case in point being the essay against gun control I posted the other day by a pretty far-left socialist).

[Randall53]

Thanks for the excellent post. You really point out the different factions of our country, each fighting to end up on top. I'm gonna read more and do some study on your points.....What really worries me the most is this:

 

"The number of people getting government assistance is eclipsing the number that are paying taxes. At the end of the day, as long as people keep getting their "free" stuff, they will vote with their wallets."

 

I think the majority of mainstream Liberals wants this to happen, and the majority of mainstream Conservatives are either lazy and just lets it happen, or don't know what to do about it. Who knows. Maybe the extremes of both sides will work something out and become the powerful middle....??

[Sam1]

They are keeping their fingers crossed for another Sandy Hook in the very near future.

 

 

They've already announced he is about to sign some executive orders on this now, Biden said that on a conference call yesterday I believe it was.  Get ready

[DaveTN]

They've already announced he is about to sign some executive orders on this now, Biden said that on a conference call yesterday I believe it was.  Get ready

This is how this guy works. If what is in the Constitution or what Congress decides is not agreeable to him he thinks he can just say “It shall be so! “
We will then see if the Legislative branch and the Judicial branch just stand by and let him do it, or they take action. At some point he needs to be reminded we have a system of checks and balances.