On Monday, anti-gun lawmakers and lobbyists mounted one of their most coordinated attacks on gun owners.
And they failed spectacularly.
A divided Senate blocked rival election-year plans to curb guns Monday, eight days after the horror of Orlando’s mass shooting intensified pressure on lawmakers to act but knotted them in gridlock anyway.
In largely party-line votes, senators rejected one proposal from each side to keep extremists from acquiring guns and a second shoring up the government’s system of required background checks for many firearms purchases.
With the chamber’s visitors’ galleries unusually crowded for a Monday evening — including relatives of victims of past mass shootings and people wearing orange T-shirts saying #ENOUGH gun violence — each measure fell short of the 60 votes needed to progress. Democrats called the GOP proposals unacceptably weak while Republicans said the Democratic plans were too restrictive.
The stalemate underscored the pressure on each party to stand firm on the emotional gun issue going into November’s presidential and congressional elections. It also highlighted the potency of the National Rifle Association, which urged its huge and fiercely loyal membership to lobby senators to oppose the Democratic bills.
Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said the Orlando shootings — in which the FBI says the American-born gunman swore allegiance to a Islamic State group leader — show the best way to prevent extremists’ attacks here is to defeat them overseas.
“No one wants terrorists to be able to buy guns,” McConnell said. He suggested that Democrats used the day’s votes “to push a partisan agenda or craft the next 30-second campaign ad.”
That Monday’s four roll-call votes occurred at all was testament to the political currents buffeting lawmakers after gunman Omar Mateen’s June 12 attack on a gay nightclub. The 49 victims who died made it the largest mass shooting in recent U.S. history, topping a string of such incidents that have punctuated recent years.
The FBI said Mateen — a focus of two terror investigations that were dropped — described himself as an Islamic soldier in a 911 call during the shootings. That let gun control advocates add national security and the specter of terrorism to their arguments for firearms curbs.
After the votes, presumptive Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton issued a one-word statement, “Enough,” followed by the names and ages of Orlando’s victims.
On Fox News Channel’s “The O’Reilly Factor,” expected GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump said he “absolutely” agrees that people on the government’s terror watch list should be barred from owning guns. He did not say if he supported the Republican or Democratic versions of bills rejected Monday.
Only a handful of lawmakers changed positions from votes cast last December on similar proposals, highlighting each party’s enduring stances on guns. And there’s little sign that the House’s GOP leaders will allow votes.
Even so, GOP senators facing re-election this fall in swing states were under extraordinary pressure.
One vulnerable Republican, New Hampshire’s Sen. Kelly Ayotte, backed both bills blocking gun sales to terrorists, a switch from when she joined most Republicans in killing a similar Democratic plan last December. She expressed support for a narrower bipartisan plan, like one being crafted by Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine.
Collins was trying to fashion a bipartisan bill preventing people on the government’s no-fly list from getting guns. She expressed optimism the Senate would vote on her plan, and Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, said that according to McConnell, if Collins wants a vote on her proposal, “She’ll get one.”
Monday’s votes came after Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., led a near 15-hour filibuster last week demanding a Senate response to the Orlando killings. Murphy entered the Senate shortly after the December 2012 massacre of 20 first-graders and six educators in Newtown, Connecticut, but that slaughter and others have failed to spur Congress to tighten gun curbs. The last were enacted in 2007, when the background check system was strengthened after that year’s mass shooting at Virginia Tech.
With Mateen’s professed loyalty to extremist groups and his 10-month inclusion on a federal terrorism watch list, Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., proposed letting the government block many gun sales to known or suspected terrorists. People buying firearms from federally licensed gun dealers can currently be denied for several reasons, chiefly for serious crimes or mental problems, but there is no specific prohibition for those on the terrorist watch list.
That list currently contains around 1 million people — including fewer than 5,000 Americans or legal permanent residents, according to the latest government figures. The narrower no-fly list has just 81,000 names.
No background checks are required for anyone buying guns privately online or at gun shows.
The GOP response to Feinstein was an NRA-backed plan by Cornyn. It would let the government deny a sale to a known or suspected terrorist — but only if prosecutors could convince a judge within three days that the would-be buyer was involved in terrorism.
The Feinstein and Cornyn amendments would require notification of law enforcement officials if people, like Mateen, who’d been under a terrorism investigation within the past five years were seeking to buy firearms.
Republicans said Feinstein’s proposal gave the government too much power to deny people’s constitutional right to own a gun and noted that the terrorist watch list has mistakenly included some people. Democrats said the three-day window Cornyn’s measure gave prosecutors to prove their case made his plan ineffective.
Murphy’s rejected proposal would widely expand the requirement for background checks, even to many private gun transactions, leaving few loopholes.
The defeated plan by Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, increased money for the background check system. It also revamped language prohibiting some people with mental health issues from buying a gun, which Democrats claimed would reduce current protections.
Monday’s votes were 53-47 for Grassley’s plan, 44-56 for Murphy’s, 53-47 for Cornyn’s and 47-53 for Feinstein’s — all short of the 60 needed.
The Associated Press contributed to this article.
If Ms. Clinton is elected in November her coattails will probably elect a few Democrat Party Senators/Representatives. This will now be a major campaign issue. Even the Republicans in office now are very close to allowing major changes to anti-gun legislation. November will be very important.
THE RINO’S REALIZED THAT NOVEMBER IS COMING FAST! THE PEOPLE ARE STILL VOTING YOU OUT! YOU HAVE LET WAY TOO MUCH GET BY YOU WITHOUT A WHIMPER OF OBJECTION!
THE RINO’S LET THIS COME TO A VOTE SO THEY COULD MAKE A SHOW TO THE PEOPLE IN THE HOPES THEY WILL LET THEM KEEP LINING THEIR POCKETS WHILE DESTROYING OUR NATION! NOT GONNA HAPPEN, YOUR GIG IS UP!
“the liberals will be licking their wounds.” Yes. Maybe their heart was wounded, because they were not successful in passing bill to regulate guns, which means they will be expecting another mass shooting with deadly wounds.
You Are 100% Correct”!The RINOS…Collins,Ayotte….Etc..Need To Go’!
HAS ANYONE ELSE ASKED THEMSELVES “WHY IS IT THE SHOOTER IS KILLED ON THE SCENE AND NEVER CAPTURED”??? IS IT A MATTER OF SHOOTING FIRST AND ***NOT*** BEING ABLE TO ASK QUESTIONS LATER OR COULD IT BE THAT???
I hope she can bring some senator and congress seats. We sure need them. It’s a shame that they couldn’t come up with a bill that would give us some protection from mass murderers.
How many constitute a mass murder??? You need to get YOUR head out of the sand Connie.. In Chicago where they have the tightest gun control in our country 1600 people were murdered by guns this year!!!!! Who do you think those murderers were? Only the ones WITH GUNS. Look at this historically…. The worse crime exists when gun control was enacted because it leaves an ordinary citizen without a means to protect himself, home and family. Honduras did that and crime there far exceeds any other country in our world. There are good people and very bad people in every spot in this world. The bad will keep their guns (theirs are not registered and they know just who to go to in order to obtain an unregistered gun) the good will be at their mercy. Everyone who owns a gun is not a criminal or a murderer; just an everyday Joe trying to protect what is his and you know it is not these people that become the mass murderers. I know there is some kind of control needed who they allow to have guns but to disarm is only to bring about history once again when six million Jews were slaughtered because their entire country was disarmed in Germany. They were peace loving and contributed much to their economy as they do here but disarming allows dictatorship to surface and then the “controlled killing” begins. What you going to do? Give up your gun so the next rapist or murderer comes for YOU without any apprehension of not being able to carry out his evil? You need to own a gun, take a course on how to use it so you can always protect yourself against the evil that is never going away. Get real… quit living in Fantasyland.
Eliminate all ” GUN FREE ZONES” and your protection is increased greatly, PERIOD.
The lobbyists including the NRA should be thrown out as they seem to influence congress more than the eople who elect them. I imagine there were a lot of phone calls and emails to our senator but they seem to have listened to the money maker NRA.
True enough. According to recent polls, over 85% of American voters support tougher and more thorough background checks. But the NRA says “No” and Congress ducks the issue again.
85% laffing big time are you drunk ??
According to CBS News on June 20th, 85% of Dems and 90% of GOP voters who were polled support more extensive background checks. Just because no one on this blog does doesn’t mean that there are not some people out there who gave the issue some thought.
You use CBS as your resource? They have demonstrated their biased reporting in favor of the liberals by withholding information that is inconsistent with their agenda. Not to be trusted either with statistical information.
I subscribe to Rasmussen Reports, who are pretty reliable. They did a poll on this question in April of 2013, and reported “A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 75% of Likely U.S. voters believe a strict background check should be required for anyone to buy a gun in the United States. Only 16% disagree. ”
This is the latest poll I could find from them. I would imagine the numbers favoring background check have gone up since then. NB: I am personally not in favor of background checks for gun purchases.
Get your head out of the sand. Roseanne. Eighty-five percent of the the public want regulations on guns.
Connie-
Doesn’t matter if 100% of Americans want what is Unconstitutional; they won’t get it, and should NOT.
The ONLY lawful way to get what the gun-grabbers want is to repeal the 2nd Amendment – and since every single one of the general gov’t actors/officeholders swears an oath of fealty to the Constitution AS IS, any one of them proposing such an Unconstitutional Act would immediately provide primae facie evidence of felony perjury, that is, Oath-breaking.
Apparently, you fail to understand the most basic information about WHY the 2nd Amendment exists in the first place.
Besides, when has “legislation” EVER, EVER prevented a determined murderer from murdering? You know what can? Armed resistance to murderers. Passing such “laws” only makes the law-abiding into sheep, victims-in-waiting.
Have a gander at the following:
“False is the idea of utility that sacrifices a thousand real advantages for one imaginary or trifling inconvenience; that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils except destruction. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.
Can it be supposed that those who have the courage to violate the most sacred laws of humanity, the most important of the code, will respect the less important and arbitrary ones, which can be violated with ease and impunity, and which, if strictly obeyed, would put an end to personal liberty… and subject innocent persons to all the vexations that the guilty alone ought to suffer?
Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man. They ought to be designated as laws not preventive but fearful of crimes, produced by the tumultuous impression of a few isolated facts, and not by thoughtful consideration of the inconveniences and advantages of a universal decree.”
— Cesare Beccaria, (1735-1794) [Bonesana, Marchese di] Italian nobleman, criminologist, and penal reformer
Source: Dei delitti e delle pene, [On Crimes and Punishments] ch.38 (1764)
Translation is as quoted by Thomas Jefferson in his Commonplace Book.
This is one of the many reasons why Jefferson and the rest of the founders – freshly escaped from British tyranny – wanted to ensure that Americans would ALWAYS be able to defend themselves from bullies of all stripes: criminals in gangs or solo, criminals with badges, it doesn’t matter.
By aligning yourself with the gun-grabbers, you align yourself with the enemies of Liberty; you also set yourself against every officeholder in America – cops, firemen, army, navy, air force, Marines – who swore that oath of fealty. Sure you want to stand on the side of tyrants and tyranny? Sure you want to make enemies of the Oath-KEEPERS and stand instead with Oath-BREAKERS?
Background checks are the back-door to outright gun control. Sure, background checks sound harmless enough. Bad guys and the mentally unstable, as well as the under aged, people on no-fly lists, etc., ad nauseam, would be barred. Personally, I would never buy a gun where I had to have a background check. These so-called checks will be used to confiscate your guns when the time comes. The government will know who has a gun and what kind it is. When knocks are heard on your door, you had better have a good story for the authorities if you don’t have the gun to turn in, or it’s off to prison with you. What part of “shall not be infringed” do people not understand? Say, how about if I help you put a GUN FREE ZONE sign in your front yard?
Ollie – you are correct. When you put up a sign of being a “GUN FREE ZONE” , you are inviting a
outlaw gunner in because he knows he WILL NOT encounter any resistance just like that. club in Florida found out
Opponents of background checks always say they “will be used to confiscate your guns when the time comes”. That’s absurd since a federal registry of gun ownership is already prohibited under existing Federal law. Leave your paranoia at the door.
You’ve got be kidding! You sound like Obama, creating slippery slopes to instigate change. Be advised, don’t confuse lack of trust with paranoia.
Anyone one the street with the right connections can buy a gun and what good is a background check then ?
knuckle-dragger-guy:
since a federal registry of gun ownership is already prohibited under existing Federal law
*snork* Sprays coffee everywhere…
Really? You willy and twuly beweeve that gummint agents will NOT maintain a registry of who owns what firearms and ordinance? That they have, still do, and will continue to do so?
You must’ve been snoozin’ during Snowden’s revelations.
C’mon, knuckle-dragger; NO one can be that naive!
IF it were true that gov’t agents’ feet were routinely held to the fires of their oaths of office, and IF it were true that they were as routinely arrested and convicted as courtroom perjurers, then MAYBE i could countenance your assertion; however, since NO GOV’T AGENT HAS EVER BEEN HELD TO ACCOUNT for how well or poorly they’ve maintained their honor, integrity, and fealty to the Constitution, how much LESS will they be held to account for maintaining an unlawful registry of firearms and ordinance?
Do you have ANY idea how many FELONY offenses by USG agents were revealed by the Assange and Snowden releases?
Now, tell me how many of these CRIMINALS were prosecuted, let alone arrested. It’s not a large number. Wanna guess?
You must hate America. I certainly would if I believed what you are saying. No one is coming after your guns. You are repeating the paranoia that the weapon manufactures and other greedy people that would lose money are putting out there. We have a military. We don’t need militias.
China has an army; after they made owning guns illegal by their people in 1935, some 20 million of them were rounded up and exterminated between 1948 and 1952.
The USSR had an army; after they made owning firearms illegal by their people, between 1929 and 1953, some 20 million of THEM were rounded up and exterminated, too.
Turkey has an army; after they made the private ownership of firearms illegal in 1911, between 1915 and 1917, nearly 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.
And the beat goes on. And on. And on.
Idiots who refuse to learn from history are condemned to repeat it. Don’t be a dumbass.
OracleGuy,
YES 85% of “progressive LIBERAL Communists” polled say that they want more gun control…How else can you take over a country unless the law abiding “citizens” are DISARMED. That way “his” RADICAL MUSLIMES, Syrian “refugees” and Mexican “friends” that HE is being importing here and also sneaking in by the busloads, can rob, steal, rape and murder without fear of being SHOT. I would say without question the so-called “polling” is skewed. (no surprise from a LYING Lame -stream media), and the lying MUSLIME infesting OUR White House.
Shouldn’t we worry more about all these gun toting militia having a cache of war weapons taking over our government.
To Give you a Short Answer.. ”NO, ! ” A gun-toting militia who has a cache of war weapons Is NOT a BAD deterrent TO Keep Around IN This Country. IT May Well be The Citizens` Best Line of Defense Against What I see Coming. This GUVMT..The Direction it has Been Steadily Headed..In the Past Twenty Years IS Enough TO Make Anyone With A Brain..Think That Over REAL WELL. It IS Our Main line of Defense ..Should “Worst Come to Worst’…And IT Surely Could. We Will Always Need Our ”Militia’. AND Their Long-reaching ..ever-present observation to what is going on in our ”country”. Call it Our home guard of “”Preservation of The Peoples` Freedom.” YES, By all means..Keep your Weapons..And Never Turn them lose to No one,, NOT EVER. To Bear ARMS..is OUR Constitutional Right.. AND Will REMAIN SO. Screw GWB And ANYONE ELSE That MAY Try to Tell you Different !!
NRA protects our rights , lobbyist that suck demonrats should be thrown out they do nothing for the people except further demonrats agendas !!!!!
You are right…
Donald Drummer – Think about your comment. Had Mateen used any other method of killing all those souls in Orlando where would you place the blame? Had it been a sword, fire, bomb or deadly poison would you champion Washington to do away with such? Most of us know this has NOTHING to do with GUNS. It’s the typical replay by the Leftie Loons to do away with the 2ND Amendment. IT’S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!
GUNS DON’T KILL PEOPLE DO!!!!!!
You got that RIGHT!
It’s not ” GUN VIOLENCE “, it’s ” People ” violence.
You are the dumbest people in the world, when the Government you support on this issue starts their total control of your life and the bad people come at you for what you have earned you can hope someone will come to your assistance. It won’t be me.
Braindead fools like you should move your worthless ass to some African hell hole. And don’t come back.
You are all nut cases if you think you need assault weapons to go hunting. How many of the people killed in Orlando would have carried assault rifles into the club (they were going to have fun). So all the BS about needing these weapons to protect ourselves is just that BS. I have 3 legal weapons in my home. I don’t need an assault rifle.
The right to bear arms Shall NOT be infringed. Not that I would buy one, but if I want to purchase an Automatic weapon, the Constitution clearly states it IS MY right to do so and the US government does NOT have the power to change that Right. You should study the history regarding the 2nd Amendment and the States having to Ratify that Amendment along with the other 9. This argument is not over “hunting” so you should avoid the “nut case” statements lest they come back on you.
If 50 crazed moslems show up at your house you will wish you had assault rifles …….
YUP, you got that right!!!
I’m more concerned about a dozen federal agents showing up at my door than I am about 50 crazed Muslims. Either way, an assault weapon would be the tool of choice in dealing with them.
Joseph: Who in the hell are you to tell me what I need or don’t need. What part of “shall not be infringed” don’t you understand. How many lives would have been saved if several persons in the club had been armed?
What part of “well regulated militia” don’t you understand? The second amendment was intended to ensure that we had a well regulated militia in case the government was unable to protect us. It doesn’t mean that every person, crazy or not, has a right to any weapon he thinks it would be nice to have around the house.
You would be incorrect to believe the 2nd is only about a well regulated militia. When it was written, punctuation meant everything. So the people and the States have the right that the government cannot take away!
Knuckle-dragger guy:
What part of “well regulated militia” don’t you understand?
What part of “free State” don’t YOU understand?
The second amendment was intended to ensure that we had a well regulated militia in case the government was unable to protect us.
Bullshit…and i can prove it:
“Under every government, the dernier [Fr. last, or final] resort of the people, is an appeal to the sword; whether to defend themselves against the open attacks of a foreign enemy, or to check the insidious encroachments of domestic foes. Whenever a people… entrust the defence of their country to a regular, standing army, composed of mercenaries, the power of that country will remain under the direction of the most wealthy citizens.”
— A Framer, Anonymous ‘framer’ of the US Constitution
Source: Independent Gazetteer, January 29, 1791
“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.”
— Thomas Jefferson
“Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? It is feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man against his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American. …[T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
–A Pennsylvanian, The Pennsylvania Gazette, 20 February 1788
“Who are the militia, if they be not the people of this country…? I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers.”
— George Mason(1725-1792), drafted the Virginia Declaration of Rights, ally of James Madison and George Washington.
Source: in the Virginia Convention on the ratification of the Constitution, June 16, 1788, in Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, Jonathan Elliot, ed., v.3 p.425 (Philadelphia, 1836)
And on top of all that, SCOTUS ruled quite correctly in 1875 in re: the 2nd; read it, understand it, and cease from spreading lies, disinformation, and silly(if not pernicious) attempts to insert the word “reasonable” into the 2nd:
“[The Right to Keep and Bear Arms] is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed;… This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government,…”.
~U.S. v. Cruikshank Et Al. 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
“Res Adjudicata.” The thing has already been decided. If you say “Well, the Supreme Court has interpreted…”, i say bullshit again. Read Article 3 of the Constitution, which lists the powers of the Judicial branch of the Federal government. Show me the word “interpret.” Not there! If you say “implied powers,” i say “show me where the Constitution allows any gov’t agent, under any pretext whatsoever, to “imply” that a power exists which is not named.” Then i go on to say “Read and understand first, the Preamble to the Bill of Rights, then the 9th and 10th Amendments.”
It doesn’t mean that every person, crazy or not, has a right to any weapon he thinks it would be nice to have around the house.
Actually, it does. It is only when an individual like this commits a felony that his/her right may be modified – and by “felony,” here, i mean an act which causes damage to anyone else’s life, liberty, or property. And by “anyone,” i mean “anyone ALIVE.” It seems that American fools have put up with any number of gov’t officials making many “crimes against the State” felony offenses. i say “really?” The 5th Amendment that every officeholder swears an oath of fealty to guarantees each of us the right to confront our accuser. If “the State”(or the US, or the Monsanto Corporation, for examples) is my accuser, it cannot be cross-examined, as it is a FICTION and cannot take the stand to BE cross-examined, thus a denial of Due Process and a deliberate violation of the Constitution – which, btw, would be a felony violation of the Oath of Office any and every officeholder attempting to prosecute such an action would be liable for. After all, who’s to say who’s “crazy”? Most MEN i know swear that all WOMEN are crazy; does that make them so? Why should any gov’t “expert” in mental health be trusted, when there are LEGIONS of examples that these agents routinely LIE?
Even if some of the people in Orlando could’ve had an assault rifle at the event, I would bet he would have been dead long before he killed 49 people.
HELL YES!!!
If those in the Pulse had been in the military by the draft they would have known how to attack that asshole and stop him. A couple of them might have been shot but they would have been heros to the others by using chairs and tables
Joseph Adinolfi, there is NO such thing as an assault weapon. They are just rifles, shotguns, or pistols. The gun is NOT designated as “assault weapon” in the stores or in the manufacturing info with the gun. This is political jargon, only. Any firearm could be an “assault” item. So could a baseball bat. However, since the gun has no brain it does not have the ability to be used as an “assault weapon” on it’s own. The person using it does. That does not make the gun the problem. It’s the person using it. The policeman that was stabbed to death in France, does that make the knife an “assault knife”? No!! Politicians want to demonize a thing but not admit that they, the FBI, Homeland Security, etc. failed to do their jobs and protect the people. The FBI knew about this guy and should have put restraints on his ability to buy a gun. Obama has told the FBI to stand down on these issues so people can be killed and he then has a podium to try and take away our 2nd Amendment. It’s simple. Rifles that are large clip capacity, semi repeaters should have additional back ground checks on the person wanting to buy it. If there is anything that appears questionable then that person should be banned from buying the gun. Guns don’t kill. People do. Were the bomb pressure cookers used in bombing the people in Connecticut considered, “assault pressure cookers”? NO!! Our right as free and law abiding citizens have the right to own guns to protect ourselves and “should not be infringed”!!
In United States v. Miller (1939), the Supreme Court ruled that the federal government and the states could limit any weapon types not having a “reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia.” It’s about time we stopped tripping over ourselves to keep you nitwits happy and started to make it harder for crazies to kill huge numbers of people.
They are afraid to enforce that law for then they may be shot. Pluck, pluck, pluck for all the chickens we have in the government including CONGRESS
Mr. Adinolfi, The 2nd Amendment has absolutely nothing to do with hunting. It has everything to do with defending ourselves against hostile governments, terrorists, lawless criminals and OUR OWN GOVERNMENT. Of course, no one at The Pulse was carrying a rifle, however, no one seemed to stop, or even notice that the muslim terrorist brought one in. I have yet to hear how he got in with it. You can bet that every single democrat policy will be used against only right-wing conservatives. Terrorists, like muslims, will be free to do as they please. Much like they do now.
Too many people DO NOT know an assault gun from any other gun. SO, AN ASSAULT gun is a weapon which is a FULL AUTOMATIC weapon in which you only pull the trigger once and it will fire until you let up on the trigger. The other SEMI-AUTOMATIC is a weapon that when you pull the trigger ONLY fires once until you pull the trigger again and it fires only once again.
Joseph. A…. Wasn`t there a ‘ban’ Put against Assault Rifles..Some Time back ? What Was the OUTCome ? Was The Ban Enforced ? If SO.. Why Are we Going thru This Again ? In my Way of Thinking, That OLD Expression Comes to mind “” Give Some People An Inch..They End UP taking a Mile’ ( When you aren`t looking. ) Perhaps This ”Beginning “was not Big Enough to Suit These Creatures Who WANT To Kill The 2nd. Amendment All the WAY Past resuscitation > SO.. ”This ” Could Have BEEN another Grab AT “Getting THE Job Done’ Before November ?? In My way of Thinking ( Like Most RED=Blooded Patriots Of This Country…There IS NO WAY Our Weapons Will EVER BE Taken From US. What Ever Would BE OUR Protection >>>WHEN..( Not IF ) This Guvmt. we have now Come to distrust SO Much.. decides ” Now IS THE TIME” TO round us All up and Herd us Off To one of Their Hundreds Of “Camps of internment ”’ That are Already Built and Standing , just Waiting for us “Dissidents” to be disappeared into ?
Bad Dream ? Really ? It is far better to be SAFE than Sorry… So Be Vigilant.
I agree with Arthur. The Republicans lack fortitude in the gun control arena. We all need to do our part and call our reps and remind and encourage them to stand firm on blocking ANY attacks on our 2A rights, especially those driven by reactionary and emotionally charged freedom snatchers.
Finally a smart individual, bravo I agree with your sentiment completely
The 2nd Amendment is the Law of the land and only a 2/3 vote of the States can change the 2nd Amendment…PERIOD! I will not abide by any new Gun laws they goes against the 2nd Amendment. I hold a Juris Doctor and all Gun Laws are illegal on there FACE…PERIOD..!!! Anyone that attended Law School knows this to be fact..!!! God help us, PLEASE!
USPatriotOne, I shudder to think that you earned a J.D. and still don’t know the proper usage is ‘their’ face. Either you went to a poor school or have forgotten what you once knew.
For someone who has oral in their name I shudder to think that you think lolololol : )
Rosanna, you can’t even read my name apparently. USPatriotOne also needs to let go of that Juris Doctor.
Oracle Guy – O.K. let Hillary confiscate ALL THE GUNS IN AMERICA. Then what will you use to defend yourself from ISIS or any other foreign conquerer? Will you get Hillary to pass a law that says” The use of a gun in the commission of a crime in which a person is killed or injured, will result in an automatic death sentence for the perpetrator when found guilty by a jury.” Will that satisfy your peaceful intentions?
We need that now, rather than no death sentence because only a few people pushed to have everyone to have a right to life, but they did’t think of the ones that were killed until it is someone close to them.
USPatriotOne-
To ratify an Amendment to the Constitution requires 3/4’s of the majority votes of the representatives of the States. Removal of the 2nd Amendment would require another Amendment, just like making alcohol illegal, then legal again, did.
States themselves, much like corporations, are fictional entities. People are real.
Joseph, you are mislead. The 2nd Amendment is not about hunting. It never was. The Founders ensured our rights to protect ourselves against tyrannical governments and abuses of power by the same. They knew the first step in any power grabbing, bloated Big Govt would be to disarm the people. Once that is accomplished, then any infringement on your other freedoms (free speech, religion, due process, protection from warrentless searches, etc.) can be accomplished without resistance.
Hey! How’re all those drug laws working out for ya? Can’t find drugs anywhere right? You also can’t find the over 46,000 people who died in 2014 (the last year data was available) because of opioids and heroin. But we can ignore that. How’re all those gun laws working in Chicago…you know, that city with perhaps the most restrictive gun laws in the country? Here’s the tally:
Year to Date
Shot & Killed: 280
Shot & Wounded: 1530
Total Shot: 1810
Total Homicides: 311
2016 Stats
Now, tell us all how more laws will keep guns out of the hands of criminals. This is a ploy. Pass one restrictive measure, they’ll take a mile. No? Remember cigarettes? First it was the surgeon general warnings, then no advertising cigarettes, then age limits on cigarettes, then bans in restaurants, then all indoor facilities, now it’s spread to outdoors. See how that progressed?
ITS called NANNY STATE TOTALITARIANISM.
Don’t forget what the idiots in New York City came up with, where you can’t have more than 24 ounces of soda to buy in New York City, and they tried to have the sale of cigarettes where only those age 21 & up can buy them, anything to punish the 18 to 21 year olds for nothing, but yet they want men age 18 to 21 to sign up for selective service, join the military where they can go overseas, get half of their body blown away, but can’t in the states of Mexizona(Arizona), New Mexico buy a lousy lottery ticket, can’t drink, can’t smoke, but they can go and fight & die for the country. The only real winners when it comes to being 21 to drink, gamble, smoke pot are the drug cartels, the fake ID card makers, the booze & cigarette runners who are people over twenty one that will just buy the booze, cigarettes for those under 21.
Hawaii which is the most liberal state and most solid Democratic state in the union made the legal age to buy cigarettes 21, all that did was
Increase the number of fake ID cards, give the booze runners another avenue, cigarette running.
Bill: You hit a nerve with me. I don’t smoke and can’t stand the smoke from the cancer sticks. However, if you own a restaurant and want to allow smoking in it, there is no one dragging me in there. For a long time I would not go into a Waffle House because you could hardly see your table because of the cigarette smoke. If it were a government building where I had to enter, I could understand it, but not a private business.
Ollie Octopus-
I have been free of alcohol and cigarette slavery for over 22 years now, thanks and praise to God.
Here’s one you may find memorable, funny, and true:
“Having a smoking section in a restaurant is like having a peeing section in a pool.”
I watched this JOKE! This was nothing more than political theater. Nothing more. The democ-RATS do not give a damn about America, Americans or the United States Constitution. This was an theatrical act to ensure their mindless, slobbering Trolls were convinced they were doing something. Even if it was to INFRINGE on the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution.
The Vote was right down party lines. There was no attempt at give or take, THIS WAS A SHAM
Maybe you should read the decorations of independent where it says when the government no longer works for the people the people have the right to take back the government
WHERE IS THE OUTRAGE ABOUT GUNS AND THE HIGH MURDER RATE WHERE CHICAGO IS CONCERNED? I don’t hear any damn comments from the LEFT. Explain it to me all you HYPOCRITES.
I rest my case.
Amen with that!
You conservatives fail to realize guns jump off of closet shelves and shoot people all by themselves. It’s a proven fact by interviews of Huff Post readers. In Chicago, one .357 Magnum was known to have been sneaking around and shooting peace-loving Muslims while they were engaging in an act of love cutting off the head of a Christian preacher. This has got to stop!
I dont understand why those people had to be exposed to that terror for three hours in orlando .
Why couldent they have gathered up all the police dogs in orlando and surronding areas and send them in the club. They are trained to go for the guy with the weapon and one of them more than likely would have tore his ass up . Actually they probably feel the dogs are more valueable than human life . I love dogs but they are not humans !
Instead of four gun laws maybe the senators should set down and write a law that would prevent gun sales to criminals while protecting the rights of law abiding citizens. If the TV cameras get turned off some of these politicians might do less grandstanding and be more willing to actually work to accomplish something.
With that said, most of these proposals would have allowed Mateen to get a gun. If he had been barred from getting a gun he could have had his wife to purchase one. I don’t recall any mention made of her being on a terrorist watch list.
Justin W-
i think that the majority of these “anti-gun-law” proponents are merely grandstanding for votes.
After all, how do most criminals GET guns?
i’ll answer that: illegally.
Why?
I’ll answer that one, too:
They’re criminals. That’s what they DO.
There’s NO LAW, no matter HOW draconian, that will stop criminals from getting and using firearms in the commission of their crimes. Perhaps the ONLY way would be to raid every gun manufacturer or small shop that can make firearms, and blockade them, destroying their gun-making equipment and forbidding the purchase of any similar materials again; search every cargo container on every ship that comes to America, and do a house-to-house sweep (by air, too) with metal detectors, stealing that private property from everyone.
The politicians play at this “mollify the complainers” game, but they don’t really mean it; they CAN’T! Every officeholder swears allegiance to the Constitution AS IT IS, and it includes the 2nd Amendment. If they vocally oppose it or physically vote against it, they’ve just provided primae facie evidence of Felony Perjury, that is, lying under oath (of office).
It cracks me up that so many main-stream media articles say that the “evil NRA” is responsible for providing funding to defeat anti-gun laws when “90% of Americans” want to see the laws enacted. Where do they think the NRA gets their money? Answer: from a hell of a lot more than 90% of Americans, that’s for sure. To them, it’s a given that almost everybody wants to see Americans turned into a bunch of sitting ducks, but somehow a magic force is causing anti-gun laws to fail. It’s just a huge mystery.
Thank God. Thank you Republicans for standing firm.
I cannot believe it, somebody actually did their jobs in Congress.
There is Hope.
After Years of rubber stamping
If Mateen had real balls, he would have simply gone into the nite club and blown himself up like a good jihadi, and probably killed many more…..and we wouldn’t Evan be having a discussion on 2nd amendment rights. The real enigma for Obama would then be how to classify this. It wouldn’t have been guns or work place violence although I am quite sure he would somehow find a way to blame anything and everybody but Muslim extremist.
Only dictators, tyrants, or the New World Order rats worry about citizens who are armed. The NWO rats have been trying for nearly 300 yrs. to impose their tyranny on the world. With a little luck ‘Harry the Weed’ will re-irritate his kin and they will repeat last years fiasco with interest. Then he can, honestly, play blind man’s bluff.