Gun control fight in the Senate
Chief Tango sends us a link to the Washington Post which reports that new gun laws are being proposed for adding into the Bipartisan Sportsmen Act (S.2363) which will make it easier for sportsmen to hunt and fish on government land and make more shooting ranges available. But the new proposals are strictly written down partisan lines;
Republicans want to overturn the ban on large-capacity magazines and assault weapons in the District of Columbia; expand the right to purchase or transport firearms and ammunition across state lines; limit when a military veteran can be denied a firearm due to mental illness; and allow gun owners to carry weapons into post offices or other federal sites. Democrats said they are working on proposals to limit the sale of certain weapons and ammunition; expand the national background-check system; and stiffen penalties for gun straw purchasers.
I’ll go along with the stiffened penalties for straw purchasers, but I wonder what “expand the national background checks” mean and which “certain weapons and ammunition” they want to regulate. So I went to Congress.gov and I see that Feinstein has an amendment that doesn’t have the text linked to it yet, so does Shaheen. Shaheen’s amendment has 5 co-sponsors, including Susan Collins, but no public text yet. In fairness, the Republican amendments haven’t been posted either. But if there is going to be debate this week, shouldn’t the public know what the debate is about?
Category: Congress sucks, Guns
It would be better if the headline read:
Gun
controlfight in the SenateNow, that would be well spent tax revenue–for the guns and ammo I mean. No vests.
You realize that the lib demonrats will piss themselves at the first sight of one of those “scary looking” Assault rifles !!!
Wouldn’t that be fun, hell, I’d plop myself down in front of C-Span and preempt everything else !!!!
which “certain weapons and ammunition” they want to regulate.
I’m going to go out on a limp and say the weapons they want to regulate are of the black and scary type that have “high capacity” magazines. As for the ammunition I’m not sure what type, but I think they want limit amounts purchased and ban online purchase of ammo. Another round of the dance of the tards for Harry Reid and company. Wonder how this will turn out.
Climb to Glory, I think you meant high capacity “clips” right?
Why should the public know what the debate is about? After all, we’re past all that now. It’s time for the serfs to take their dry crust of bread and be thankful to the overlords.
My day turned very black when I heard the term “post-Constitutional America” used in an interview, and realized they weren’t just being dramatic.
Myself, I would rather talk about post liberal idiot America !!!
That is a possibility with this mess happening right now.
Libs may be screaming the loudest but we are winning the fight for the hearts and minds of the voting public.
Witness the fact that since Sandy Hook tons more pro gun legislation has been passed over anti-gun legislation.
The only place anti-gun legislation has taken any kind of hold is the NE corridor and even there they are not having any luck enforcing it.
Sheriffs all over those states are refusing to enforce those laws and gun owners by the hundreds of thousands have refused to register their firearms, magazines and those super dooper extra large “clips” !!!
No doubt another case where they will ask to ban all guns and then complain because we won’t “compromise”.
In related news a new study was released from the Crime Prevention Research Center concerning the direct correlation of concealed hand gun increases and murder rate drops.
Linkhttp://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/07/09/murder-drops-as-concealed-carry-permits-rise-claims-study/
The children od sandy hook school would be alive today if they were banned.
Childern of Sandy Hook would be alive today if current laws, procedures, and establish safety practices had been followed. Rather than making blanket general statements how bout you use actual facts and specifics of just how ANY of these new laws would have prevented Sandy Hook. You can’t because they don’t.
The children would be alive if they were banned? Is that what you’re advocating, Pisspot? You want to ban children?
When will you learn, that when the other douchenozzles in the abandoned house you guys are squatting in, tell you to change the water in the bong, they don’t mean you should drink the water? Idiot!!!!
You want to ban the kids at sandy hook?
You really should work on your punctuation and phrasing.
VWP, why don’t you tell your audience here exactly why Sandy Hook bothers you so much. You keep saying “Sandy Hook, Sandy Hook” like it’s some kind of mantra. What about all of the children killed every day on the streets of Chicago, New York, or LA? They were just as innocent, attacked just as violently, and ended up just as dead. But for some reason, you never mention them. Why?
UpNorth: Those indefinite pronouns can be tough, especially when used by a guy who can’t remember to change his diaper at least once per month. It’s July 9th, vnwhatever. You are eight days late. Change the diaper.
PN: Ooooh! Pick me! Pick me! I know! Pick me!
Because he’s a typical racist liberal that is only concerned with white children from affluent neighborhoods, and not at all with minority children in the inner cities.
Oh, man! You have to be picked! Dang line jumper. But, yes, your answer is correct. What matters to vnwhatever and his ilk are the kids whose mommies drive the Volvo, Merc, or Prius. The mommies who take the bus or subway don’t count–and neither do their children.
Surely the children of Sandy Hook would be alive if only you had been there to suck Lanza’s dick while he took a ride on Sparkles the Unicorn, VWPud.
If guns were banned, he would have found a way to obtain one anyway. Criminals do it all the time, shitweasel. It’s called the black market. It’s easy to find and easy to patronize. You should know, given the amount of drugs you get from it. Or, if he didn’t want to pay, he would have mixed a few easily-obtainable agricultural items and rendered the entire school a smoking hole in the ground with MORE victims.
The kids of Sandy Hook would definitely be alive if a good guy with a gun (or better yet, more than one) had been there to intervene. But that wouldn’t suit your Maoist utopia, ergo those kids must be sacrificed in the name of your “greater good.”
Fuck you to death, you racist pedophile crackhead piece of shit.
Through the bad punctuation and missing words, I think I get what he is trying to say and I absolutely agree with VWP.
Trying to read between the lines, he is absolutely right.
He was trying to say “The children of Sandy Hook would be alive today if they had not banned weapons on school grounds.”
That’s what he meant, right?
‘Cause that is more than likely true.
If teachers, administration, staff and security people had been allowed to be armed, the shooter would not have had the time to hunt down the unarmed kids and adults.
If Shaheen tries to pull her usual shit with guns, either she thinks she’s got a 40-point lead on any potential GOP contender, or she knows she’s screwed and not getting reelected, because folks up here don’t take kindly to screwing with gun rights.
There are 38 amendments listed so far. Ugh.
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/L?d113:./temp/~bdaDSV8:1[1-38](Amendments_For_S.2363)&./temp/~bdVWiH|/home/LegislativeData.php|
But a good number of these amendments have no text at all; the only information provided is the sponsoring senator. WTF is up with that?
Maybe the data entry folks are as confused by all this nonsense as are the rest of us? 😉
The number of amendments tacked onto S.2363 has now jumped to 97 when I checked a few minutes ago.
Background checks for your background check!
Libtards are never going to let up on “background checks” arguement until those background checks result in the inability for everyone except their personal security to obtain a firearm.
Probably also need to keep an eye on HR 4783 which is an equally as bad, or worse bill, “Promoting Healthy Minds for Safe Communities” – a Bloomberg wish list.
http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/ask-your-us-rep-oppose-wide-ranging-gun-control-bill-hr-4783
At least this one has been directed to three different committees of the House. If I read the history of the correctly, it will require a request from the Speaker to get it out of each of the committees. That is not likely to happen.
(Please insert “bill” in the second sentence between “the” and “correctly.”)
If we need more background checks lets start with voters. Half of them got us where we are now. (I’m sure that a third of them were already though)
FU VWP. You’re an idiot!
That was supposed to read -(I’m sure that a third of them were already DEAD though)
This is a do nothing bill. It’s only purpose is to prop up those Red State Democrats who are vulnerable and face tough re-election challenges. Harry “Shithead” Reid will never allow any truly pro-gun legislation to ever make it to the floor.
Good call… news this morning says Reid is not letting any amendment come up for vote and as a result the Republicans will block the main bill (which will of course be spun into
“those damn Republicans never let pro-gun bills pass, either.”
What about increasing stiffer penalties for straw sellers, examples being the Department of Justice and the ATF.
If I did what they did during Fast and Furious, I’d spend the rest of my life in prison.