Lautenberg returns to Washington to vote for gun control measures. Anti-gun legislation still fails in the Senate
U.S. Senator Frank Lautenberg returned to the Senate floor in a wheelchair today, after a six week absence due to muscle fatigue caused by cancer treatments, in order to give gun control advocates a the deciding vote in legislation that would expand the use of background checks for gun purchasers. The legislation failed, 54-46. Sixty votes were required for passage. Other gun control measures failed in the Senate today by wider margins.
Four Democrats voted against the background check amendment. Four Republicans voted for it.
President Obama said, “It is a shameful day in Washington,” as family members of children killed in the Newtown, CT massacre stood behind him.
Obama, Senate Democrats, NBC, CBS, CNN, ABC, the New York Times, et al, as well as Barbara Buono and Sheila Oliver in Trenton, have been pushing to further restrict the right to bear arms since the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in Newtown on December 14 of last year.
Today’s legislative failure by Obama and the left is a victory for law abiding gun owners and the 2nd Amendment.
Today could be marked as the beginning of the lame duck phase of Obama’s presidency.
Most Americans don’t care, according to a Gallup poll released on Monday. Only 4% of Americans think guns are a major problem. Yet Washington and the national media have been consumed with the issue for the last four months.
More from my site
What about the pharmaceuticals?
“Ray Rice and Gun Control” ~ Colin Noir
Christie announces change to N.J. gun policy on eve of 2016 kickoff
Governor Christie and Gun Control
Tighter rules for N.J. gun dealers, manufacturers proposed by Christie administration
Christie pardons armored car driver who became a felon for driving with his gun
Opinion: Governor Christie was right to veto gun magazine bill
To Live and Die In Asbury Park (Part Two)
Gun Bans
Christie appointed gun commission calls for loosening concealed carry law
🙂
[…] By Art Gallagher | MoreMonmouthMusings.com […]
The President is right…it is a very shameful day for Washington. Nothing changes really. Criminals or people with severe mental illness can still buy a weapon at a gun show or online in many states. Does everyone realize that prevent that was the key point of the bill? The Manchin/Toomey bi-partisan compromise was government working the way it supposed to work when D’s and R’s come together. It’s unfortunate that those who caved to pressure form the NRA did not have the decency to allow a straight up or down vote on expanding backgound checks which are supported by 90% of the American people. I hope those 90% remember who voted against this bill the next time they are up for election. And people wonder why nothing gets done in Washington!! The NRA told numerous lies about the bill including the one in which they said that the bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms by honost citizens. Flat out lie by the NRA. Expanding backround checks to gun shows and online sales would not hurt anyones 2nd Amendments rights at all. All it would have done was require that the same background checks that already take place in gun shops be expanded to gun shows and online sales. How the hell can anyone be against that? Even though 90% of the Republicans sided with the NRA, I should note that Sen. McCain, Collins, Toomy and Krk did have the courage to support the bill.
Note that no bill or law will prevent all gun crimes. Preventing fellons and mentally ill people from buying weapons at gun shows and online, would have been a good start though and basic common sense.
enforcing the multiple levels of gun control laws we already have? Sorry, am glad for once that this Pres. had to experience a defeat- he thinks he can just trash the Constitution and Chris and balances and rule us from on high by his executive edicts and ideology. That new law would not have stopped the bombers in Boston or the mail laced with poison. You just can’t legislate crazy – or stupid. You can only do the best you can to isolate, not “mainstream”, the known behavior problems among us!
“checks and balances” of our government!
@ How About…As I mentioned you cant stop all violent crimes (and of course of bill to prevent felons and people with mental issues for purchasing guns would not have prevented Boston which was done with a bomb) with a or multiple gun laws but this would have stopped some killings and saved some lives. A basic common sense initial step approach was requiring the same background checks at gun shows and for online sales that are already in place for purchases at gun shops. If a politician does not have the courage to stand up and support that, than we need some new members of Congress that will.
@That’s: I would say its more a sign of a disfunctional Congress when a minority that is against an issue can deny the majority that is for a bi-partisan comprosmie the decency of a straight up or down vote.
And just to be clear, a no vote on this bill, keeps in place a system in many states where those that are mentally ill, convicted felons, etc. can buy a weapon at at gun show or online without a background check. Anyone in Congress that can not support that basic principle which has overwehlming bi-partisan support of the American people, does not deserve to be there.
Bob English Knife & Hammer Check Bill because crazies will still be able to buy them
http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Government/2013/01/03/FBI-More-People-Killed-With-Hammers-and-Clubs-Each-Year-Than-With-Rifles
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-rights/2013/01/03/fbi-more-people-killed-hammers-clubs-each-year-rifles
http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/12/how-people-are-murdered-in-united-states.html
Signed,
Silence Dogood, Redux
I am really starting to think Lautenberg is actually Dorian Grey!
@Lets Pass….people are murdered in a lot of different ways…not exactly a news flash.
Putting all the bs aside, the bottom line is that a NO vote yesterday permits convicted felons and those with severe mental illnesses to continue to be able to purchase a weapon in many states at a gun show or online without a background check. A YES vote would have required a backgound check.
It was not a 2nd Amednment issue and the govt was not going to take anyones guns away. There was language added to the bill that stricky does not allow any info collected to be used to start a national gun registry. This was the most simple basic step that could have been taken to keep criminals and mentaly ill people form easily obtaining guns. Simple question for you. Would you have voted yes or no? If no, why?
will still be able to buy hammers and knives and kill people
But Bob ignores the fact that more murders are committed that way according to the above links I just read.
@And convicted: I’ll rely on FBI stats which note that 68% of murders in 2011 where committed with firearms. Granted that many household items can be used to kill someone. A bedroom lamp, a pot, etc. The simple fact though is that bank robbers, cop killers and mass murderes are committing their crimes with GUNS and not hammers.
I’ll ask you the same question I asked “Let Pass”…Would you have voted yes or no on the bill to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales? If not, why not?
“The simple fact though is that bank robbers, cop killers and mass murderes are committing their crimes with GUNS and not hammers.”
AND, DO YOU REALLY THINK THAT THIS BILL WITH IT’S BACK GROUND CHECKS WOULD STOP CRIMINALS FROM GETTING GUNS?
You know the answer is no, so that is the first reason why I would not expand the checks. Criminals will always find ways to get guns.
This bill “punishes” law abiding citizens and loonies will always find a way to kill someone, be it by knives, hammers or explosives.
The second reason is that I don’t want the government building a national data base.
Signed,
Silence Dogood, Redux
@silence dogood…there is nothing in the background check bill that “punishes” law abiding citizens…that is the exact language that the NRA used though in one of their lies about the bill. Please tell everyone how you feel law abiding citizens are “punished” if background checks that are already in effect for gunshop purchases were extended to gunshows? I would think most honost citizens would favor those background checks since convicted felons would no longer be able to walk out of a gunshow with a weapon.
And while your at it please note that the bill had specific language added that specifically states that any data collected can not be used to build a national data base. Sen. McCain said he would not have supported the bill if those restrictions were not included.
The bill is selectively making law abiding citizens do something that criminals do not have to do. That is selective enforcement, prohibited under the law and thus PUNISHES law abiding people.
Again, explain to me how this bill would stop criminals from obtaining guns. You can’t and thus, the bill is useless.
Again, explain to me how this bill would stop crazies from killing people with knives and hammers. It can’t, thus this bill just penalizes good and law abiding citizens; making them jump through hoops that others who are the real problem don’t have to.
And if you don’t think that “Big Sis Napolitano” won’t figure out a way to retain information out of this, you are naive. After all, look at what happened with Obama care. No one knew what was in the bill and look at the “train wreck” it has developed into. By the way, the words train wreck were used by a Democrat senator. Not our words.
“Do Good” bills like this NEVER really do the good intended. We’re dead tired of trusting government. Enforce the laws already out there first. Lifetime incarceration for crimes committed with a gun would go a long way. More supervision of mentally ill people would do better than requiring good people to jump through hoops.
Please go back to sticking your head into the sand.
Signed,
Silence Dogood, Redux
Take this and smoke it…
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/Obamacare-incentive-immigrants/2013/04/18/id/500157
Hiring illegals over Americans????
This is the problem with bills, you don’t know what the frack is really in them, and again WE don’t trust the government to do right by us, not with health care, not with gun legislation like what is being proposed.
Silence. That’s what we want from people like you.
@Here Bob: Since you totally changed the subject I guess that means you are out of reasons as to why why convicted felons and those with severe mental illness should be allowed to purchase weapons at guns shows and online without a background check….not that there were any reasons that were actually true in the first place.
As for your link, if you read the last paragraph it sounds as if the group that is crafting the bipartisan immigration reform bill should deal with the issue raised within their bill.
I showed how phoney and devious bills are Bobby, that’s what the link is all about. It shows you crap that is buried deep down into bills and you find out later. Who knows what crap is in the gun bill that FAILED because of Democrats not voting for it.
If Obama had kept his DEMOCRATS in line, it would have passed the Senate.
But obviously, you don’t read too well. Let me repeat my case one more time. If you can’t get it a second time, you are hopeless
The bill is selectively making law abiding citizens do something that criminals do not have to do. That is selective enforcement, prohibited under the law and thus PUNISHES law abiding people.
Again, explain to me how this bill would stop criminals from obtaining guns. You can’t and thus, the bill is useless.
Again, explain to me how this bill would stop crazies from killing people with knives and hammers. It can’t, thus this bill just penalizes good and law abiding citizens; making them jump through hoops that others who are the real problem don’t have to.
And if you don’t think that “Big Sis Napolitano” won’t figure out a way to retain information out of this, you are naive. After all, look at what happened with Obama care. No one knew what was in the bill and look at the “train wreck” it has developed into. By the way, the words train wreck were used by a Democrat senator. Not our words.
“Do Good” bills like this NEVER really do the good intended. We’re dead tired of trusting government. Enforce the laws already out there first. Lifetime incarceration for crimes committed with a gun would go a long way. More supervision of mentally ill people would do better than requiring good people to jump through hoops.
Please go back to sticking your head into the sand because I am done playing with children today. Too tiring to have to repeat lessons time after time because YOU won’t explain how this bill really stops crazies.
Signed,
Silence Dogood, Redux
Register the knives!
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/ventura_county&id=9039301
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/orange_county&id=9022728
http://philadelphia.cbslocal.com/2013/04/18/elderly-food-vendor-stabbed-to-death-in-south-philadelphia/
http://www.nj.com/essex/index.ssf/2013/04/newark_man_stabs_mother_to_dea.html
http://www.13wmaz.com/news/article/228761/153/DA-Wont-Seek-Death-In-Stabbing-Deaths
@ Bobby Boy/Silence Dogood:
1) The bill is online. Read it and than back-up your claim by telling everyone the things are hidden in it that we should know about.
2) You claim that “The bill is selectively making law abiding citizens do something that criminals do not have to do.” Actually EVERYONE seeking to purchase a weapon at a gunshop already has to undergo a backgound check. Under the bill, EVERYONE seeking to purchase a weapon at a gun show or online would also have to undergo a background check. How is EVERYONE “selective” enforcement.
3) Nobody is claiming that the bill would stop all criminals or the mentally ill from obtaining guns. It would certainly make it a lot harder than those simply going online from home to buy a weapon or walking in and out of a gunshow with a weapon without having to undergo a background check.
4) Nobody is saying the bill stops people with hammers and knives from killing (fyi, that is the nuttiest reason I have heard yet though to be against the bill)…what it does do though is prevent SOME people (felons/mentally ill) from obtaining guns and than killing people.
5) You have beaten the registry issue to death and now you are saying what might happen. There was language specifically inserted into the bill that forbids the records from being used to build a registry. As mentioned, there are already background checks in place for purchases at gunshows and that information is NOT being used to make a naitonal registry.
Last question, since the background check bill which you are obviously against was just an extention of the the backgound checks that are already in place for purchases at gunshops, should I assume that you are also against those or are gunshop background checks okay in your book? Hard to be for one and against the other since your arguements would apply to both.
Typo on #5……2nd sentence should read:
As mentioned, there are already background checks in place for purchases at gunshops and that information is NOT being used to make a national registry.
“These guys had no permits. These guys had their guns. They violated existing law to get them. They had already violated gun law. There isn’t any new gun law that woulda stopped the Boston Marathon bombers from being armed.
(IN EASY TO UNDERSTAND LANGUAGE – CRIMINALS WILL ALWAYS FIND A WAY TO GET GUNS, BYPASSING BACKGROUND CHECKS)
And, I betcha plenty of people were comforted by having guns around with magazines larger than 10 rounds because at the shoot out that killed the older suspect, some 80 shots were fired by the suspects.
Imagine if some other poor soul (other than the car jack victim who wasn’t American) ran into them.
Oh, yeah; right a cop was killed and another wounded by these guys.
THIS LAW WILL NOT STOP VIOLENCE, IT WILL NOT STOP CRIMINALS FROM GETTING GUNS…
And thus, it punishes legal gun owners. Anything that treats one class of people differently than another, inherently punishes one class.
Signed,
Silence Dogood, Redux
Once again you are pointing to one particular crime and claiming that the background check bill would not have prevented the suspects from obtaining weapons and once again I will remind you that nobody is claiming that the expanded background check bill would prevent all crimes/killings committed with guns or stop all felons and those that are mentally ill from always obtianing weapons easilly…but you know what, it would sure stop some of those killings without violating anyones elses rights to obtain a weapon and for that reason Senators should have cast a YES vote.
And while I agree that current laws should be enforced, without the provisions of the background check bill becoming law, there is no law to stop convicted felons and those that are severly mentally ill from easilly purchasing weapons at a gun show or online.
Senator Al D’Amato telling it like it is. ‘You’ve Got To Be A Jackass To Be Voting Against Background Checks’
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/al-damato-background-checks_n_3122881.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000003&ir=Chicago
One particular crime? There are DOZENS AND DOZENS OF CRIMES ACROSS THE COUNTRY DAILY, committed by criminals who will always find a way to get guns. This bill will not stop them.
As to the mentally ill, there are other ways to get id done.
You quote Al D’Amato? He’s an ancient dinosaur, a fool.
If this criminal got his gun at a gun show or a gun shop. Or, was it a “Saturday Night Special?” Me thinks the later, and thus this stupid “universal background check,” would not have stopped this crime
http://www.app.com/article/20130424/NJNEWS14/304240099/Giulio-Poli-arrest?sf12060925=1
Signed,
Silence Dogood, Redux