The US Senate will take up a “gun control compromise” bill today which will set the stage for the debate moving forward. Obviously a hot topic heading into 2014 and 2016 as well with candidates on all sides voicing opinions.

Report from the Washington Post:

Manchin’s deal was struck with two Republican senators, Mark Kirk (Ill.) and Patrick J. Toomey (Pa.). Its most important feature is a proposal to expand background checks for gun buyers, to cover transactions at gun shows and Internet sales.

The deal does not go as far as Obama wanted, however. It exempts sales between private citizens, where no business or advertising is involved.

But it will serve as a starting point for a long Senate debate. Wednesday’s deal was made because of Toomey, who got involved last Wednesday and holds an “A” rating from the National Rifle Association, just like Manchin. (Schumer and Kirk’s involvement was not much of a breakthrough, as both received an “F.”)

GOP Senator Ted Cruz is claiming that an overreach on gun restrictions will cost the Democrats control of the Senate in 2014. What does this mean for the midterms and beyond?

25 COMMENTS

  1. Why not got all the kinks worked out of strict gun control in the Chicago are and the run this by us again with some proven results. You want to pass legislation based on speculation, conjecture and surmise. Pass it on proven results in Chicago, go.

  2. The gun debate is such a curious waste of time for Democrats. It is putting conservative Democrats in a difficult position (bad for Dems), forces Republicans to vote as a bloc (bad for Dems), and probably won’t even reach the floor in the House (worse for Dems, because it will show that it was a waste of time). I often wonder why either party does things like this. Probably just to get headlines and distract us from issues they could do something about.

    Nate: are you testing “replies” to your “comment”? But then you said it was not a comment. One o’ them trick questions, eh?

    • “I often wonder why either party does things like this. Probably just to get headlines and distract us from issues they could do something about.”

      I think that is exactly correct… distraction..

      They release a squirrel in the backyard then jump up and down for the press to cover its every move. Meanwhile the house is on fire.

  3. I’ve commented on previous threads and yes 50% distraction and 50% part of BHO’s leadership future. Obama drives, Democrats follow, and MSM follows.
    I’ll watch this thread from the sidelines

    • How do you know he wasn’t behind it in the first place. Call me nuts, but it was my first thought. The families he flew in on Air Force One on our dime, did not include the members that were against this gun grab. They weren’t invited. He doesn’t give one hoot about these families they are just props and camouflage for these traitorous Senators to hide behind and an excuse to crap on their oath to uphold the Constitution. He has used grief stricken people to further his agenda. He & them sicken me.

      • Mary

        The Psychopaths in BOTH Political Parties sickens me. They BOTH usurp the Constitution. They BOTH govern against the “Will” of the People. They BOTH have the media “lying” for them. They BOTH use props. They BOTH are the “parties of millionaires” are in it for their own personal gain. In essence, they BOTH hate and want to destroy this Country.

        When will people get it through their THICK SKULLS that Republicans and Democrats are exactly the SAME!

        • DT: I wouldn’t say they are exactly the same. They’re more like the US and USSR during the cold war. They kept the world in line. We would have no problem with terrorists, because the US and USSR would have attacked from both sides to assure STABILITY.

          And it’s the same with the political parties. They divide up issues and pick a side, and there are no issues on which they agree, because keeping us divided requires them to have us align with one or the other. And, therefore, they’re not “exactly” the same.

          But the point is that they work together to stifle dissent, and make sure that there is no way for any third voice to really be heard. And thus, the STABILITY, in which their benefactors can profit.

          And, as I noted elsewhere, each picks part of the Constitution to attack, and each can only see where the other side is acting unconstitutionally.

  4. I can’t imagine living in a state with gun control. I wan’t – no I NEED – to be able to defend myself and my family. If they take that right away from me then I am not sure what I will do.

    I don’t want to be in a situation where I am ace to face with an intruder and the only one with a gun is the guy who broke in to my house.

  5. Gun control is a staple to the democrat party, much like abortion, wealth redistribution, income group (ie – class) warfare, national health care, open borders…etc. It is a thinking that says ‘we know what’s best for you, better than you do.’ Whenever they get a chance they bring it up, a disarmed citizenry is what they believe in. This is a similar law passed during the Clinton era, which expired.

    Nobody cares about gun control, not even the Sandy Hook parents. If they did, they would be asking – why doesn’t this legislation you are bringing up address how our kids got killed? Maybe they don’t know the legislation doesn’t address how that guy got his guns and the guns he got. This law is like finding out that peanut butter allergy killed some kids in a school, so the democrats start saying we need to ban bacon. I mean, yeah, you put them both on sandwiches, but you are still open to the original problem.

    • Josh: It is true that both parties have their particular nonsensical fethishes.

      But your analogy is just a little off. A more appropriate way to put it would be, “the law is like finding that kids get fat from peanut butter, so they start saying we need to reduce consumption of bacon.”

      I think it’s quite true that the proposed law doesn’t try to prevent the horror that already happened, but it wasn’t meant to. There is no way on God’s green earth that horrors like Sandy Hook can be “prevented.” You can never really “prevent” crime, you can only attempt to reduce the likelihood.

      The trouble with this country is that both sides of the artificial divide don’t listen, don’t try to understand, and have just too damned much fun complaining about the other side.

      I think you’ll find that a Democrat would say that Newtown was not the problem, but rather, a symptom of the large and myriad problem of gun violence, and that there are many facets to consider. While the items they were pushing (with no hope of passing, so the hysteria on both sides is ludicrous), they were just trying to make a point.

      Conservatives should find some way to talk about reducing the incidence and severity of violent attacks. That would give them the moral authority to yank the rug out from under liberals.

      This is an issue, like abortion, for which neither side really wants anything to change, because if it changed, there would be one less divisive issue that gives people a reason to buy into the “Republican” or “Democratic” fantasy.

      • first, I’ll admit my statement about parents not really caring about gun control, was pretty off the charts. should not have written that. I do believe the democrat party has taken advantage of these people to push something ‘as if’ it addressed their situation, but it doesn’t. They have victimized the victims and that is shameful.

        The way to reduce the incidents and violence is through education, not constraints. Taking alcohol away from an alcoholic, won’t really deal with their root issues. Preventing violent people from getting guns really won’t deal with their issues. They’ll just find another way. When situations like this happen it does make sense to take a look at what happened to see *if* augmenting legislation would help, but the democrat party seems to be sold on disarming the public. The only people who will follow the laws they pass are law abiding citizens. Criminals will still get guns and still use them. That’s not to say that we don’t need (or already have) good regulation of weapons, but it is fallacious to think that passing laws will keep criminals from breaking the law.

        Its like like lowering the speed limit will somehow reduce the number of speeders.

        People haven’t addressed the root issues. Like maybe the violence in Movies and TV feeds into these things.

        The Sandy Hook was not a symptom of a larger problem, it was a random occurrence by a crazy person. If you want to see gun violence go to inner cities. If they really want to reduce ‘gun violence’ they should look at the problems there and begin to address them. Gangs and drug traffic are likely the largest contributors to violence. If our government would honestly address those issues, we would likely see reduction in violence.

        If they want to experiment with background checks, how about a national registry for all people who have had a DUI or DWI. Then require every sale of alcohol to require a background check, and if someone has a DUI or DWI, they cannot purchase and it would be illegal for them to consume alcohol. Lots of holes in that idea, same holes as there are in the gun legislation will reduce gun violence thinking…

        • Or, to see it the other way, “it’s like reducing the number of cars will somehow reduce the amount of traffic.”

          And if you want to sound even-handed, try using the appropriate title, “Democratic Party.” Using a noun in place of an adjective is a childish way to insult. If you don’t know how it sounds to someone just listening to the discussion, try saying, “That Jew Senator, Lieberman.” Sounds completely different from “That Jewish Senator, Lieberman.” And you immediately sound like you have an axe to grind, instead of making a reasoned argument.

          But, again, the other side does not see this as an isolated incident, but rather, as only the most visible of a long string of attacks, before and since.

          Good point on the alcohol.

          But again, two sides hurling insults and not even trying to have a civil discussion. The way I see it, conservatives think there’s a bogeyman under every bed, so everyone should have a bazooka on the bedstand. AND conservatives think everyone is about peace and love, and nobody could ever have a mean feeling, so why defend yourself?

          When I was a kid, the NRA had the image of responsible authority, showing everyone that guns are dangerous, and that you can’t use one if you don’t have training and are responsible. Now, their answer to a shooting in a school is more guns i the school?? First, shooters are not idiots. They will know WHO and WHERE the hired gun is. Second, shooters don’t go in with a pea shooter. They have military style weapons. Some off-duty cop is going to be of any help with his Derringer? Pumping more guns into the system, willy-nilly gets back to the traffic argument in line one above.

          The argument for more mental health treatment makes sense, and it’s the type of serious suggestion that helps.

          • Not trying to insult anyone – Democrat and Democratic are synonymous.

            Not sure i agree with armed guards in schools being the answer either, however, i do wonder how many massacres have happened at schools with armed guards. i also wonder, if its true that armed guards don’t make schools safer…then why do some schools have armed guards? That’s not necessarily an argument for armed guards in schools, some schools may have it as a necessity and some may not. Local districts should decide, not Washington. And they could decide on the proper armament for their officers. Assuming the criminals will be militarily armed and the guards will be ‘Barney with a bullet’ is a bit extreme.

            Conservatives and libertarians i know say – ‘you are my government, you don’t tell me what to do, i tell you what to do. You don’t tell me the laws i am to obey, i tell you the laws i want for my society.’ Its called representation and that’s what they expect. Cons/Libt’s tend to take their personal protection as their personal responsibility, Liberals tend to give their personal protection to someone else.

            Cons/Libt’s don’t want their government (like Joe Biden) telling them, you don’t need *that* for your protection, you need *this*. He was telling a lady she didn’t need a certain type of weapon but just get a sawed off shot gun (which i think is illegal…). Who exactly is Joe Biden, or any government official, to tell citizen what they should or should not use?

            Society is pretty clear on this, but some of the democratIC party…;-)….just won’t give up their crusade even when America is by and large against it. I heard this gun legislation is one reason Clinton lost majority in the 90’s, along with gays in the military, universal health care….its like the same thing all over again. Makes me think it doesn’t bode well for the dems come mid-term.

            • Well, no, they aren’t synomymous. Synonyms are words that mean the same thing in the same part of speech. Take another look at the example i gave in regard to Jew and Jewish. If you use the noun form, the CONNOTATION is completely different. And, yes, you did mean to insult them because you will never hear a Democrat use “Democrat Party.” It began, I believe, in the 2000 election, in which the GOP ad split the word as it crawled across the screen, hesitating on “RAT.” It was childish and stupid, but so was the reaction by the other side. And that’s the point. Childishness breeds childishness.

              Good question about school armed guards. I think they are just for show. The reason we don’t have more attacks on the President is that people just assume that there are security guards and snipers all around. But, on the other hand, do we really want to live that way?

              I like your Barney Fife reference, but it makes the point I tried to make. It seems like most of the shooters in school have been armed like Navy Seals. And they know when and where they’ll strike. There is no way that a school guard can know what’s coming, and there’s no way that he’ll ever have commensurate arms–because the shooter will check first, and be sure to have more. And can you imagine, if a school guard WERE outfitted with automatic weapons, what kind of an outcry there would be the first time a guard trips and the uzi accidentally rips up 20 little bodies?

              I think the difference goes deeper. Liberals don’t expect “others” to defend them. They just don’t believe that they NEED defending. It will be interesting to see how liberal attitudes change after the Boston Marathon bombing. They’ve already said that people are signing up for next year at an incredible pace. So my guess is that liberals will continue to think they ar not in danger.

              And THAT is the real difference between conservatives and liberals. Since liberals think they have nothing to fear, they see no need for defense–and THEREFORE, when they see someone with a concealed weapon, THAT is the person they believe is causing danger. I mean, can you COMPREHEND that mentality? Peace and love, y’know?

              Regarding politics, I think you’re wrong. Above everything else, Americans want to feel that their president is in charge. They perceived Bush41 as weak, so they hired Clinton, but he waffled and accomplished very little (it doesn’t matter WHAT they accomplish, the American people will like the guy if he gets something done). They changed their mind again when Clinton handled Newt so well, and accomplished things opposite of what he ran on (eg, welfare reform). The American people just want a strong man. Then Gore came along, and instead of riding Clinton’s coat-tails, he tried to go all peace-and-love and tsk-tsk over Lewinski. That’s why Bush43 got in there. And after 9/11, his popularity was in the 90s. But in his second term, he seemed to meander, so his numbers went down. Obama seemed like a strong leader, offering hope and change, and got a strong mandate. Then he fiddle-dee-diddled health care reform for two years, people go sick of hearing about what he couldn’t seem to pass, and his numbers tanked. If he had faced anybody but a snot-nosed elitist entitled aristocrat, Obama would have been out of there. And, notice, his numbers went way up when he came out swinging after the election. Since then, he has not acted as tough, and his numbers are back down.

              SO–my point is that the American people want an FDR, an IKE, a JFK, a Reagan. It doesn’t matter that their policies were opposite. Americans hire style. And that’s why I don’t think this will have ANY impact on the election. In fact, my feeling is that this is the first time that anyone on the left has made any real attempt to do something about gun violence, so I think it will be seen as a bold move, rather than a negative.

        • I knew i shouldn’t have monitored this thread – but – and i’ll apologize first before my nastiness comes out. Josh, for the most part I’m on your side, but you (or probably anyone else) are no match for Goethe. he / she is a professional debater and will have you change your mind and position in a heartbeat.

          1. http://www.democrats.org/ – so is a singular no s? I assume there is no singular. Then they have ‘Democratic’ events. i wonder if there is an identity crises somewhere.

          2. Goethe “we the people” don’t believe there is a criminal, boogy man, or DHS behind every bush – but it is a possibility. And that’s why our forefathers gave us the 2nd Amendment at the Federal level – to protect us from ourselves.

          3. Many states have chosen to over ride the Federal 2nd Amendment and have put severe gun control legislation in place, CO & CT, among them. and it hasn’t changed much.If existing laws aren’t severely enforced, duplication at the Federal level will not help other than bring the nation one step closer to a national database of Gun registration.

          4. The real root problem is keeping the loony tunes and criminals away from guns. and that is an issue that starts back when a child is a few months old and lasts into into a mature, responsible, self reliant adult – I’m 73 and haven’t got there yet. One solution for criminals is every time a suspect is picked up, search for a gun, and if an illegal one is found – hard jail time. Long way from a fix but a start.

          5. Armed guards in schools does work. Maybe not in IL, MI, or NY, their challenges are somewhat more difficult. but Columbine and Aurora were declared “gun free zones” by the Democrats and left themselves open. Almost every school in CO now has multiple armed guards and is posted as such. My daughter’s high school has 2 off duty City police and 2 off duty County police 7am to 5pm.

          This subject should be a-political and common sense. But the present leader of the Democrats party rules with an iron fist and has 100% shepple – until yesterday. Now he is whining like the true coward that he is and threatening to write his own legislation with POTUS Executive Orders. Listen to the will of the people and protect the Constitution, my butt.

  6. Nope, not being insulting. Just trying to differentiate between the party and the people who vote for the party. I’ve learned that many people who vote democrat don’t really agree with what the propose. For example, my father in law was a died in the wool democrat, but he wanted a flat tax, didn’t believe in abortion, didn’t want gay marriage, didn’t want universal health care. Thought Obama was a borderline socialist / communist, but still voted for him. Why? He’s a democrat. Same thing with a lot of people I’ve known who vote democrat, if you talk issues with them, most of them think more in line with the republican ticket, but vote democrat because…they’re the party of the little guy, we’ve always been democrats…etc.

    The republicans i’ve talked to usually have issue reasons why they vote republican. It may not be the same with republicans and democrats everywhere, but most of the ones i’ve met this is the way it is.

    So, i wasn’t being insulting, just trying to point to it being the party, not the people.

    • People don’t vote Democrat. They vote Democratic. Oh, never mind–the point is how you are perceived, by the way you use the language.

      Anyway, the party thing is what I’ve been saying all along. To most people, their party affiliation is part of their identity. They are, say, Catholic Democrats who are Tigers fans, or Presbyterian Republicans wh are Cubby fans . That’s who they are–their belief system. That’s their tribe. And that’s half our problem. The two parties face every issue and choose a side. I can’t think of a single issue on which the parties agree, and that’s just not sane.

      And, yes, if you talk to a Democrat or a Republican, they can tell you “WHY” they are on that side, and they quote the party line, as if they had no brain of their own. And those are the “thinkers” who talk the party line. The rest, like your example, follow their party (tribe), because it is THEIR party–right or wrong (where have I heard that expression before?).

  7. Submitted without comment:

    Former GOP presidential candidate Ron Paul has slammed US law enforcement for responding to the Boston Marathon bombing with “police state tactics.”

    In a post on the website of libertarian activist Lew Rockwell, Mr. Paul said Monday that the governmental reaction to the tragic explosions was worse than the attack itself. The forced lockdown of much of the Boston area, police riding armored vehicles through the streets, and door-to-door searches without warrants were all reminiscent of a military coup or martial law, Paul added.

    “The Boston bombing provided the opportunity for the government to turn what should have been a police investigation into a military-style occupation of an American city,” according to Paul.

Comments are closed.