S.649 Live Debate Thread - CSPAN2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Having contacted both my Senators numerous times, I am seriously tired of getting the wishy washy form letters. That being said, I now send all my contacts to them with a couple of short sentences.
" Dear Senator,
Being that I have my doubts that my letters actually get read, I will happily vote against all who forward any schemes to infringe on the Second Amendment rights. I will non stop campaign to anyone I come in contact with to do likewise.
Thank-you for time."

Sending nice letters only gets bs replies, so I cut to the chase.
 
The problem is with mentally unstable people and our mental healthcare system and that is where the solution lies. But its way beyond "gun control". The "doctors" that treat these people often create or unleash these terribly troubled people. The cases where they have tried to notify people that their patients are dangerous, they werent listened to. But the gutless politicians have a hard time admitting that and focusing on that so they go after the firearms and the rights of those who haven't committed any crimes and have zero indication of perpetrating a horrible crime.

Anything else is just weakening the second amendment. Thanks to those of you who have been updating the proceedings.
 
In typical fashion our senate is going after the people who are not the problem. November can't get here fast enough, for me to vote my displeasure.
 
Getting the bill to the floor for debate may not be good single issue politics, but it is good party politics for both parties. Each party thinks this may be a critical issue in the 2014 elections and either want to get themselves on record or get the opposition on record.

Each party believes this issue can be leveraged to gain seats in both houses in 2014.

Parties aside, it is still in our interests to have this die ASAP. Just remember: There are 100 senators and 435 representitives. As individuals, our emails, letters and phone calls can influence 2% of the Senate, but only 0.35% of the House.
 
Before when things were looking grim for freedom we looked to the House to stop things, knowing they may well pass in the Senate. How does House opposition/support look for what the Senate is currently working on?
 
breakingcontact said:
Before when things were looking grim for freedom we looked to the House to stop things, knowing they may well pass in the Senate. How does House opposition/support look for what the Senate is currently working on?
Click to expand...

It is hard to assess since we really don't know what the Senate is currently working on, and what comes out may look totally different than what goes in.

Boehner said this morning that when something comes out of the Senate, IF something comes out of the Senate, he will send it to the House Judiciary Committee. Most people expect it to die there, but Boehner said he expects the House to act on whatever the Senate sends so that suggests he may force it out of committee and put it to a vote.

If it goes that far, there is a remote chance that Obama may deal on spending and taxes to get something passed on gun control.
 
JRH6856 said:
It is hard to assess since we really don't know what the Senate is currently working on, and what comes out may look totally different than what goes in.

Boehner said this morning that when something comes out of the Senate, IF something comes out of the Senate, he will send it to the House Judiciary Committee. Most people expect it to die there, but Boehner said he expects the House to act on whatever the Senate sends so that suggests he may force it out of committee and put it to a vote.

If it goes that far, there is a remote chance that Obama may deal on spending and taxes to get something passed on gun control.
Click to expand...
I've always thought that one of the main purposes (to the left) of any proposed gun control bill would be to have it die in the House. If it passed the Senate with "bipartisan support," all the better. That would give them a rallying cry for the 2014 election. I still think it would backfire on them, but I'd rather not take that chance.

Matt
 
morcey2 said:
I've always thought that one of the main purposes (to the left) of any proposed gun control bill would be to have it die in the House. If it passed the Senate with "bipartisan support," all the better. That would give them a rallying cry for the 2014 election. I still think it would backfire on them, but I'd rather not take that chance.

Matt
Click to expand...
If it dies in the House, they will certainly use it as an issue in 2014, but I don't really think the overall goal included having it die anywhere. I think Obama's plan was to hammer the House Republicans on budget and taxes and try to win the House back in 2014 on those issues. And, by that time he might also have the opportunity for another SCOTUS appt. Then after 2014, he would pursue gun control with both houses and maybe SCOTUS in hand.

But after Sandy Hook, they really thought they could get it done sooner rather than later. We can only hope they moved too soon and overplayed their hand.
 
Most people expect it to die there, but Boehner said he expects the House to act on whatever the Senate sends so that suggests he may force it out of committee and put it to a vote.

If it goes that far, there is a remote chance that Obama may deal on spending and taxes to get something passed on gun control.
Click to expand...
IMO this is all the more reason why everything possible should have been done to stop this foul piece of legislation from going anywhere. There is no guarantee this won't pass both houses of congress. No one in DC can be trusted. :fire:
 
First, the only way a Universal Background Check law could have prevented the Sandy Hook massacre would have been if, after Adam Lanza murdered his mother in her sleep to steal her guns, he would have been blocked from taking possession of the guns by failing a UBC.

Second, the big deal about UBCs was that "40%" of gun acquisitions were not through licensed dealers or stores, according to the National Survey on Private Ownership and use of Firearms, conducted in 1994, written up by Philip Cook and Jens Ludwig in 1997, and used by the Clinton Administration in justifying its gun control policies.

The 40% breakdown was:
13% private sales of used guns.
3% private swaps and trades of used guns.
19% gifts between family members and friends.
5% inheritances.

If the UBC bill as written exempts bona fide gifts between relatives and inheritances, 24% of gun acquisitions, that means that the UBC will only affect 16% of non-store firearms acquisitions: private sales and swaps and trades of used guns.
 
Any updates from the discussion on the floor???

Im on the other side of the world right now so I missed the second session.
 
Nothing of interest today. Mostly reruns of previous speeches and unrelated stuff. Looks like they are still working out what amendments will be offered. I would guess no major news until Monday or Tuesday; but there will be a lot of people watching just in case.

The text of the Toomey-Manchin Amendment was finally released:
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=712566
 
Senate gavelling in for this morning. Tenative schedule shows debate on gun bill will begin at 11:00am Eastern.

S.729 and S.730 (both gun bills) offered to be read into the calendar. Senator objects. Bills placed on the calendar (this means they will be delayed 30 hours until they can be considered by the Senate).

Reid says Schumer-Toomey-Manchin supported by 650,000 SAF/CCRKBA members :barf: and he hopes it gets a vote.
 
Last edited:
Oh joy.

Tim Kaine is up. :barf: GO AWAY KAINE! You don't represent Virginia!

Kaine talking about Va.Tech. Doesn't he know Cho passed his background checks, AND waited the then-law 1 gun a month rule? AND PRIMARILY USED 10rd MAGS!?

I guess not.
 
Tim Kaine up saying that that the Senate has lacked the courage to look at these issues for 20 years (i.e. 1994). Apparently he forgot this was thoroughly discussed and rejected by the Senate in 2004.
 
Warner is up talking about campus safety, school resource officers, etc.

AAAAAAND He says he supports Manchin-Toomey.

There goes my vote come next year. I know he knows it.
 
CSPAN announced that Obama will be giving a speech/distraction at 1130AM EST on the Boston bombings.

It seems they are trying to do everything to hide this stuff while the pass it. Tech anniversary debating gun control? This cant go well for us. Now the el Pres. is going to be speaking during the debate.
 
Senate resumes S.649 debate. Senator from Iowa slams STM and says gun control supporters do not have the votes despite all the arm-twisting.

Senator from IA rips them for voting to conduct debate on S.649 and then blocking all votes on all other amendments because they can't get support for Toomey-Manchin. Tells them the votes aren't going to be there.
 
Last edited:
Dick Durbin bellowing out 'FOR THE CHILDREN!'

Giffords was 'gunned down at point blank range'

'A semiautomatic gun firing off rounds as fast as the shooter could load them'

Nonsense.

Spouted off the 40% number
 
Durbin gives an example of murderer who bought through private sale. Durbin seems to think that because said murderer was denied under a NICS check and never prosecuted for it, it is a good example to sell background checks.

Durbin blames the NRA for blocking prosecutions of NICS denials because they won't approve the Administration's choice of ATF directors. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Toomey Folds - Joins Schumer, Manchin and Kirk on UBC Compromise
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Replies
206
Views
9K
msb45
M
B
  • Locked
Daily Highlights of S.397 Debate
Replies
4
Views
1K
Bartholomew Roberts
B
A
  • Locked
Pennsylvania voters take note, others too
Replies
0
Views
272
alan
A
O
  • Locked
Democrats block ban on felon aliens
Replies
4
Views
376
Destructo6
D
H
  • Locked
Another Example of Republicans doing NOTHING!!!!!!!
Replies
8
Views
992
hillbilly
H
Back
Top