S.649: Reid's Base Gun Control Bill

Thank you for keeping us posted on this, BR. I watched Sen. Murphy for a bit just now, and I couldn't take it. "Blood dance" is spot on.
 
Help me understand this: The senate voted to move forward with the debate of a bill that hasn't been published to them yet? And the authors of the bill say that its purpose is to remove exemptions to background checks for gun shows and internet sales - exemptions that never existed?

Am I more stupid than I was a couple of days ago, or is someone trying to slide something past me? When I started seeing the coverage of this "compromise legislation" yesterday, I could make no sense of it, and the cloud of confusion is getting darker rather than lifting.
 
Help me understand this: The senate voted to move forward with the debate of a bill that hasn't been published to them yet?
Click to expand...

I think the Background Check Bill being debated will be the Schumer Bill and the Manchin/Toomey Bill will end up being an Amendment. Am I correct?
 
A small suggestion

Above, I posted the names of who voted how. Now is the time to either: (1) send a quick email to your senators for doing the right thing; or (2) send an email to your senators, telling them to shape up.
 
Also, remember what was voted upon - not the measure itself, but the decision to bring the measure to the floor for limited debate and motions for amendments prefatory to a vote.
 
I think the Background Check Bill being debated will be the Schumer Bill and the Manchin/Toomey Bill will end up being an Amendment. Am I correct?
Click to expand...

They're discussing S.649 - a Bill from Harry Reid that swallowed up three smaller bills into one bigger package... school security, straw sales, and the Schumer bill we all know and hate. Current assumptions/expectations are the Toomey/Manchin bill/plan/whatever it is, will be offered as an amendment to the Schumer portion of the bill as regards background checks.
 
NRA scored the procedural vote for its 2013 ratings. So every Senator who voted "Yes" this morning just took a hit to their NRA grade. A little disturbing to see that many Republicans willing to buck the NRA already.

Also Reid is going to demand that any future filibusters on this bill meet the rules exactly and he is going to sweat them out.
 
I would like to take advantage of this pause, as we wait more news on this legislation, to thank all of you.

There are many fine people who take part in these discussions and you are the kind of people who make our country what it is. I suggest to you all that when we write to our representatives and speak with friends and coworkers we remember that it is Freedom, as gifted to us by our founding fathers and the brave people of our Nation's past, that we should keep in sight. Not just freedom in regards to the 2A, but all our freedoms.

We stand here,(yes I am sitting :rolleyes:), on the edge of what could be a defining moment for our nation's future. And we are living the dream of our forefathers. We are gathered in discussion and debate, taking part in the process, contributing to that future.

Thank You, my hat's off.
 
Yes. A rather surprising development, and one which one can only conclude is the result of backroom deal-brokering. My conclusion is they have probably received some sort of concession with respect to TVA.
 
A rather surprising development, and one which one can only conclude is the result of backroom deal-brokering. My conclusion is they have probably received some sort of concession with respect to TVA.
Click to expand...

It doesn't feel that way to me. I'm not sure the President has enough beanies to hand out to all these Senators to turn this many votes. People like Coburn that are just recently on record opposing this whole thing? I don't think it is because of something the Democrats did. I think it is being done by the Republican Party acting in a way they see as in their own self interest. Whether it is just a roll call vote on gun control or something else.

As long as we end up winning, not a bad idea. I get sick of the lies from some of the Democrats. They come home at election time and run "Sportsmen for XXX" commercials all over the state. They take pictures hunting. They talk the big talk... right up until they are back in D.C. and their party tells them "we need this vote." As I said.... "As long as we end up winning".... it can turn to our political benefit in 2014. If we really want to stop this second term President, we need to retain the House and take the Senate back. And the Senate needs to happen before Supreme Court members start to retire.

Gregg
 
@tulsamal - there are plenty of "beanies" in the 2014 budget submitted this week by President Obama - of particular note is the massive budget allocation to the Department of Energy - of particular concern to a state like Tennessee, with TVA and Oak Ridge within its borders accounting for such a disproportionate share of the state's economy.

I have little doubt but that quid pro quo has been exchanged in this case. You will simply never hear about it, as it is already buried in the middle of the spending request.
 
I have little doubt but that quid pro quo has been exchanged in this case.
Click to expand...

That may well be true in TN's case. I don't know their particular situation. But look at OK's Senator Coburn. He has been vilified in elections before for turning down programs that would put money into OK. He's a budget cutter. They couldn't buy him off by giving him/OK something. And he is such a serious conservative on the budget that I seriously doubt they could offer him spending concessions that would sway him. And he isn't running for reelection.

It feels to me like a coordinated effort. I think we agree on that. I just think some of the coordination is on the Republican side. Some of them think this is the exact issue to use to beat the Democrats. To show them as being in favor of an intrusive and larger type of government. One that all the libertarians will hate. Many libertarians are politically moderate. (At least by Moral Majority standards.) But they will swing 100% to the Republican side if the Democrats can be portrayed as Orwellian.

And this was just a motion to proceed. I seriously doubt the vast majority of these Republicans will actually vote for the bill. If they do.... well then we have a problem. I just don't see that though.

Gregg
 
They're just back from one quorum call, the guy talked about S.716 (not obviously related) and now they're on another quorum call.
 
Gregg, my earlier response was specific to TN. I have no knowledge of what my or may not have motivated Coburn to vote Yea, nor McCain/Flake in AZ or Chambliss and the other senator from Georgia (though I know exactly why Lindsey Graham from SC voted Yea).

Your point about it being some sort of concerted Republican leadership action would make every kind of sense, except...Mitch McConnell voted Nay. If this was a case of the traditional Republican senators trying to beat down the Rubios and Rands and Cruz's into supplication, McConnell would have to have been on board and he isn't. So, if it's some sort of concerted application by key Republican senators, it's very difficult to discern its edges or rationale.
 
Please correct me, but wasn't having a debate about the bill the only way to get its contents into the open?

I can see voting for debate for that reason, to flush the real facts of Democrat ambitions into the light.

That said, if Sandy Hook is supposed to be the excuse, how can a bill that has literally nothing to do with it be the answer?

There must be some seriously deranged people up there.
 
Please correct me, but wasn't having a debate about the bill the only way to get its contents into the open?
Click to expand...
Goodness, no. But...even were that the case, the cure is far worse than the disease. Far better to keep this bottled up in committee.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top