Screen Shot 2013-04-17 at 12.15.27 PM

Click here to watch C-Span’s live coverage of the Senate debate and on S649 and amendments to same. There’s bloody shirt waving aplenty and lots of “we need to do something”s. No mention of Fort Hood, for some reason. And here’s news [via yahoo.com]: “Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, an NRA supporter, announced on Wednesday morning he will vote for bans on assault weapons and high-capacity magazines being offered as amendments one month after pulling those bans from a package of overall gun-reform legislation.” So Mr. Reid is retiring.

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

91 COMMENTS

  1. I fail to understand people who claim The Bill of Rights is subject to interpretation. It’s not written in Latin, Arabic or Russian. It’s plain English. Any adult with the minimum level of English reading comprehension required by the U.S. public school system can easily understand what it says. “Gun control” is illegal, period.

    • mark ur right! you do fail…. to read the first 3 words of the 2nd amend…therefore, gun ownership is a PUBLIC right not a PRIVATE one

      • It should not be easier to obtain a gun or assault weapon than it is to obtain a drivers license.

        • Driving is not an inalienable God given right that is given to every American citizen when they are born.

          The 2nd Amendment, and the rest of the Constitution, is.

  2. I am watching it now. http://www.c-span.org/Live-Video/C-SPAN2/

    Call YOUR SENATORS NOW! It’s not too late. I was able to get through easily and the phone lines should be so BUSY THAT THEY ARE SHUT DOWN. The media can lie easily about where the real votes are on this thing. So, don’t rest on what they say. Call and email your senators now!!

    • I so want a shirt with that on it, trademark and all.

      Maybe on the back it could say “Don’t just do something, stand there!”

      • +100000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000

    • I have always wondered about that…. “40% of guns are sold without a background check.” If Bob sells Joe his gun for cash, how does anyone else know Joe bought Bob’s gun? I mean we can guess because now Joe has one more gun and Bob has one less, but how can you know that enough times to get to a 40% number?

      • It’s bullshit, pure and simple. There’s absolutely no way to legitimately get such a figure. It comes from a dark, stinky place.

  6. Common Sense – Do Something – Military style weapons – High Capacity Magazine – Precious Seconds – I just won BS Propaganda Bingo!

  8. As much as I grieve with the families who lost children in the Sandy Hook massacre, they are not firearms experts.

    • I agree, and their desires don’t trump my rights… Sorry for their loss, but that is the cold hard truth…!!

  9. Letter I sent to Sherrod Brown.

    “I am a registered democrat and I voted for you in this past election.

    I am also a gun owner.

    If you vote for the passage of the Manchin-Toomey anti-gun bill, it will show me that the democratic party, my party. The party I have supported since the first election I was able to vote. That my party no longer holds individual liberty sacred.

    As you have done in the past, in voting against the Patriot Act. You hold many of the constitutional protections of the Bill of Rights dear. Why is it that you do not hold the second amendment in the same regard as the first and fourth?

    I understand that congress is charged with passing laws for the common good. Infringing on my second amendment rights is not in the common good. It is only good for criminals. Criminals already, by definition, do not follow the law.

    If you do not trust me. A law abiding gun owner to be able to purchase or sell my own property without government sanction. Then I can not trust you, or the party you represent, to represent me any longer.

      • Just the standard form letter. I also called his Cincinnati office. would not get through to the D.C. office. They were evacuated for a bomb scare according to the person answering the phone.

        • Which letter did you get? I got the one that basically avoided talking about guns at all and just went on a huge tangent on mental health. My father got an entirely different one.

    • Why would u send a leftist with an F rating from the NRA a letter demanding he support the 2A? Bored huh?

  10. All emotional trash on the left. The one thing they could do to save innocents(get rid of criminal safe zones) they won’t do. What a treat to listen to the mental hospital logic of the left, Randy

  11. Listening to Sen Blumenthal right now is a bit ridiculous. “We can choose love”. Explaining how all law enforcement officers support assault weapons bans and magazine capacity limits. Wasn’t there just a poll published by policeone a bit ago?

  12. Please keep up the commentary (those who can) for all those of us who can’t access the live video. Thanks.

  13. I just called my senators and asked that they oppose S649. When you guys call, are you trying to have a conversation with the interns on the phone, or are you just asking them to oppose the bill? I just kept it simple because I feel like they are just tallying up the number of calls for and against.

  14. Menendez just said that not banning “assault weapons” is asking for more “gun violence”.

    These fools are reading from the same book.

  15. When I call, the only person who will speak to me is whoever first answers the phone. I’m sure it is some low totem pole intern who is just tallying votes for and against the bill. NEVERTHELESS, call them anyway. They need to know that they will lose their seats if they vote in favor of the Manchin Toomey monstrosity.

  21. Coburn is freaking awesome. Of course every law abiding gun owner would comply with a smart phone app check before selling as long as there is no record kept. I’m cool with checks, I hate that registry that has to be kept by FFL’s.

    • and national reciprocity, and expanded mental health checks/input, and resepct for civil rights and veteran status

      character based, morally led leadership . . . . . Classic.

  22. Seriously. There IS middle ground, and there are things we (as gun owners) would be willing to do. My problem is, I’ve yet to see the opposition offer up a damn thing back to all of us law-abiding, non-murdering folks except blame and belittling.

    • The gun haters have a twisted concept of compromise. They think it means “You do whatever we want”.

  23. Oh goody, the other CT a$$hole senator speaks and has no clue. Actually, the worse of the two

  25. The Conn. Senators are clearly pandering to their idiot constituents. They are rehashing the old we have to do something because it makes us feel better arguments in favor of the S 649.

  26. Grassley just offered his amendment as a subsitute to Manchen Toomey. IIRC the senate rules, the senate has to vote on the substitute amendment first so they can pass the Grassley-Cruz amendment w/out having to deal with M-T amendment. SWEET JOB CHUCK!!!!!

      • You lost me. Grassley is offering a substitute to an amendment (M-T), which is an amendment to the underlying bill (S.649). As such, if Grassley’s amendment passes, the underlying bill is re-written. Help me understand what part of parliamentary procedure I am understanding incorrectly.

      • Any compromise on this issue is a failure. That being said, I do feel a little relieved that there’s at least one senator speaking who is using reason instead of relying purely on emotion as many of the prior speakers have.

  27. “So Mr. Reid is retiring.”

    Either that or Nevada is “evolving” on gun rights. He is known to calculate rather carefully.

    • Not up again until 2016. That should give the SEIU enough time to raise the necessary money, and Reid enough time to send plenty more pork to the good people of Nevada.

  30. Way to sell out again, McCain. You wouldn’t know what the “right thing” was if it bit you in the ass.

  31. So lets recap:
    1.) Today, Law enforcement rarely arrests individuals in violation of NICS law.
    2.) Today, Prosecution rarely advances cases against those individuals who ARE arrested.
    3.) The NICS system is incomplete because very few groups have the funding, resources, or will to submit names of individuals.
    BUT…
    1.) We assume expanding this program will lead to more arrests (without additional funding).
    2.) We assume we’ll catch the bad-guys, even though we don’t even prosecute the bad guys we DO catch (without additional funding).
    3.) We assume that data will be complete without violating innocent citizen’s rights, but NOT lead to a registry in order to complete such data.

    Riiiiight…

  33. I don’t think I’ve ever heard such an intelligent idea as “make the background check system open to citizen usage.” I was about to type, why would anyone be opposed to that.

    Then I remembered…it means the subjects would be able to govern themselves without the nanny state’s iron fist levying out privileges of who can exercise a “right.” Leftists simply can’t have that.

    It’s not about guns. It’s not about violence. It’s about control.

  37. ALERT via CSPAN2: Senate defeats background checks amendment 54-46!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Is this right? Is it finally over?? Until next time??

  40. 58-42 the you and your dad are now felons because he picked up a rifle for you amendment barely failed to pass. Good god. Voting on the national reciprocity amendment. My breath is not being held. It sickened me to hear Schumer mention Dallas out of his freedom hating mouth.

  41. As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:
    “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”

    So at the top of this thread mark says all you have to do is read english and you know what do with the 2nd amendment.

    “A well regulated militia” sounds like the government does have the authority to set regulations for gun ownership but that they cannot deny outright gun ownership. The second part about the “right to bear arms” is usually the part which I hear continuously quoted by gun advocates. I never hear them mention “A well regulated militia.” Please help me understand where in the 2nd amendment it says the government shall not regulate gun ownership. Yes it says your right to bear arms shall not be infringed, but this is after it mentions that gun ownership shall exist through “well regulated militias”. This brings another question to mind. Are gun owners supposed to be part of an organized militia in order to exercise their right to own a gun?
    I am not trying to be the bleeding heart lefty in this very right leaning thread, but I just need clarification. I just want to hear an explanation of how I may be misinterpreting the text of the 2nd amendment. I Do want to own a gun as soon as I can afford it . I have been shooting and it is a lot of fun and I like the idea of being able to protect my family. I just don’t see how government regulation,( universal background checks, restrictions on felons and mentals,) will infringe my right to own a gun. Please don’t give me any government conspiracy BS. They are not out to get you. Yes they suck often but the government has better things to waste their time on than trying to slowly take guns from americans. Please give clarification. Your input is less valid if you resort to troll type responses and only proves you’re an idiot.Lets have a constructive conversation.

    • I don’t think ‘well regulated’ means (in 1780) what you think it means. You seem to be having trouble with ‘shall not be infringed’ as well.

    • Okay, here you go. The sentence structure in the 2A was damn near archaic when they wrote it. Bear with me and this should make since…

      “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

      There are two important things in this sentence. The first is the structure itself. It starts with a dependent clause and is followed by the independent clause. The dependent clause is always an incomplete sentence if left alone. It is nothing more than a descriptor. “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”. It isn’t a complete thought by itself. The independent clause can stand alone: ” the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” It stands alone.

      The vocabulary has also changed since the 1780s. The big one that gets everyone, regulated. At this time in history, regulated meant (I’m paraphrasing), “well equipped, practiced, and trained.” The other big mix up is the use of “keep and bear.” Taking from the Heller decision (memory again) keep and bear would be very awkward if they wanted to say “own.” Keep would refer to ownership and bear would then have to refer to the practice of being armed.

      Lastly, the militia is defined in the Constitution as being made up of three parts. 1) Standing armies, 2) Organized militia (National Guard), and 3) unorganized. The unorganized militia consists of “all able bodied males age 18 (or 16) to 45(ish)” and all former members of the standing army until they hit something into their sixties.

      So, if you clean it up and modernize the structure, you get something along the lines of “In order to maintain a well prepared militia, a necessary part of a free state’s security measures, the right of the people to own and carry arms shall not be infringed.”

      Hope it helps.

Comments are closed.