Biden: “At Least” Five Senators Ready to Flip for Background Checks

How wrong can a politician be? If they’re pro gun control they’re as wrong as wrong can be. Unless, of course, being pro-gun control helps them get re-elected. According the Vice President Joe “Double Barrel” Biden “at least five senators” have made that calculus and called him “looking for a way to change their votes to support expanded background checks.” politico.com  tells us that the Veep made his claim at the U.S. Conference of Mayors in Las Vegas. “Biden said the 45 senators who voted to block the background checks deal brokered by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) have seen ‘the bottom fall out’ of their approval ratings.” So . . . your standard-issue reality-divorced WTF from the man who wants his wife to step outside the manse and fire two warning shots should intruders intrude when her Secret Service is out shagging Brazilian prostitutes. Still, watch this space.

comments

  1. avatar jwm says:

    Bullshit. Name them, slow joe, or you’re just stirring the pot and hoping for something to happen.

    1. avatar pk in AZ says:

      I agree with you…names or uncle joe is just smoking crack!

      1. avatar mtshootist1 says:

        It’s Crazy Uncle Joe, who let him out of the White House attic anyway? Stuff him back in before he hurts himself. Bring it on Cupcake..

    2. avatar janklow says:

      agreed. they would obviously HAVE to go public to vote that way and if he’s hinting at specific people (such as through talking about approval ratings), he should be able to name them.

    3. avatar BLAMMO says:

      Biden is a pathological bullshit artist.

      1. avatar Joke & Dagger says:

        A politician lie? Never!!!!!!!

        1. avatar BLAMMO says:

          I’m not talking about “spin” or “mischaracterizations”. I’m talking about one of those people we all encounter from time to time who like to tell “stories”. Who simply make shit up. Or take other people’s stories and make them their own. And no matter how many times they’re caught telling complete prevarications, they’re not the least bit embarrassed or ashamed. And they don’t stop, because they can’t. Quite simply, a common bullshit artist.

    4. avatar DDay says:

      If they had the votes, they would vote on it. Remember Joe thinks he’s really smart. Anything Joe says, go the other way and you’ll be right 100% of the time.

      1. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        Gotca. Torture our POWs so the enemy will treat theirs better. Glad that’s cleared up.

        ‘Course, a broken clock is right twice a day…

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Russ?

        2. avatar B says:

          A clock thats 5 minutes slow is wrong all the time.

        3. avatar Russ Bixby says:

          @JWM: I liked it when Biden tore up Alberto Gonzalez on “enhanced interrogation;” the above was my response to “Anything Joe says, go the other way and you’ll be right 100% of the time.” He’s right a good three recent of the time – but never on guns…

          @B: Excelent point.

      2. avatar DaveL says:

        That’s the bullshit-killer right there. I certainly don’t think they’re so confident in their support they’d just sit on the bill when they have the votes to pass it. They haven’t brought it up for a vote, ergo they don’t have the votes for it, QED.

    5. avatar Pat says:

      SOB is using libtard (democrat) tactic of farting in an elevator and pointing fingers at others.

  2. avatar Pyratemime says:

    Naturally there is no mention of how many senators have made the same calculus in reverse and would now vote against such a measure because they have seen their approval ratings plummet. Something tells me that Joe has lost more votes than he gained.

    1. avatar DisThunder says:

      Absolutely. Even the more left-leaning press has had to concede that the public outcry that flooded Senators’ emails and phonelines made plenty of them not want to even go near gun legislation again with an election next year. But that’s all the NRA’s fault, lest we forget.

  3. avatar Gtfoxy says:

    BATFE releases an article titled “Stop lying about Universal Back GroundChecks”.

    It’s being propogated on the occupy NRA facebook page.

    https://m.facebook.com/570721479608299/timeline/story?ut=3&hash=-8664158177079537312&wstart=0&wend=1372661999&pagefilter=1&ustart&__user=1221555764

    1. avatar Jeff says:

      Hmm. Wish I could comment on some of that, but Occupy The NRA banned my Facebook account a long time ago for daring to comment on some of their ridiculous timeline posts full of “gun owners are murderers” assertions.

      1. avatar Gtfoxy says:

        I will probably be next.

        Those people just don’t get it.

        Sad thing is they think the same way…

        1. avatar JeffR says:

          Yeah, I got banned too. Funny thing was that I had some good debates before the powers that be shut it down. People actually seemed interested in having a good, logical discussion. Then, no more.

  4. avatar Reyberto Colon says:

    Did somebody say brazilian prostitutes?

    1. avatar Matt Richardson says:

      Yea, I’m here for the hookers too. Big let down in here.

    2. avatar Chris Mallory says:

      According to a Merchant Marine sailor I knew, most Brazilian prostitutes were TG.

      1. avatar OldBenTurninginGrave says:

        TG? Do you mean transgendered? If so, please use more accurate and universally recognized terms like “tripods” or “chicks with d!cks.” Thanks, carry on.

    3. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

      I believe it started with Columbian prostitutes.. . . . just saying

  5. avatar RepubAnon says:

    We really need better (and more efficient) background checks to make sure that people that purchase firearms are “good guys” rather than “bad guys.” The Supreme Court has ruled that there’s an individualized right to own firearms – so the holdover scare language about gun-grabbers is no longer a realistic threat. Should straw purchasers be allowed to violate the laws regarding supplying guns to criminals with little, if any, chance of having their crimes detected – or would such laws pose such an extreme burden on legitimate purchasers that you’d rather see well-armed criminals walking the streets than pass any legislation regarding background checks?

    The larger question is: if people cannot tell the difference between an imagined threat and a real threat as reported in a newspaper, how will they react in a crisis shoot/don’t shoot situation? Will they panic and shoot the wrong person?

    1. avatar Dave357 says:

      The Supreme court ruled that handguns can be owned. But some say not with “large-capacity” magazines, with the allowed size getting smaller and smaller in some States. Others still expect to be able to ban the so-called “assault weapons”. California is aiming to ban all semi-auto rifles with detachable magazines altogether.

      It is simply not true that gun ownership is safe from encroachments because of that SCOTUS ruling.

    2. avatar OldBenTurninginGrave says:

      The gun grabber threat is still very real.

      Q: How many Progressives does it take to change a light bulb?
      A: MORE!

      As NJ, NY, CA, CT, etc. have clearly shown, no matter how strict the laws get, the grabbers will never be satisfied. Each law passed is merely as a step toward the final goal. Whether grabbers are evil (consciously scheme to incrementally disarm law-abiding citizens) or stupid (believe gun control can work and keep doubling down on failure) doesn’t matter. The end result will be the same unless they are stopped.

      1. avatar Roscoe says:

        Just sayin’…

      2. avatar Russ Bixby says:

        Q: How many Progressives does it take to change a light bulb?
        A: Well, since their eyes are closed and they’re in the dark…

    3. avatar Gtfoxy says:

      Get it straight, no modernization can be discriminated against in terms of a outright ban.

      It’s already illegal for illegals to buy guns, so how is that going to change?

      Individual urban areas can mandate registration, not on a national level. That is what SCOTUS really said in DC v Heller, not willy-nilly registration on a national level.

      1. avatar Gw says:

        Recently called into question is whether or not a relationship exists between the intent of those in the federal government to grant citizenship to millions of persons having entered the U.S. without inspection and the urgency to expand the federal background check system.

        1. avatar Jeff says:

          Never thought of that before. It makes sense when you think about it a little bit. If it were true, it speaks volumes about what the administration REALLY thinks about the immigrant population, despite the endless pandering to them as a group.

    4. avatar JeffR says:

      Wow. As noted above, the Supreme Court’s ruling was very narrow. When my liberal friends ask why I am so concerned about losing my 2d amendment rights considering Heller, I ask if their presidential votes for the last 40 years were impacted by their views on Roe. For each of them, the answer is always yes. The minute we get a complete change of the composition of the court and another decision in line with Heller, I’ll chill a bit.

    5. avatar CA.Ben says:

      RepubAnon, while I have seen you straight up trolling, you put up some good points. Straw purchasers, for example.

      However, there are real reasons to oppose UBCs.
      First, the US DOJ has already released a report stating that UBCs are next to useless without universal registration. Registration is also the only thing that would really hinder straw purchasers. Obviously though, I oppose registration. Coming from California, I know that registration leads to confiscation. They did it with the SKS’s in the 90’s, and this legislative session there was another introduced bill that would have confiscated all registered assault weapons. It was pulled by the author, but it will come back. They’ve showed their hand.

      Furthermore, UBC’s are conducted throug the NICS. Unless the NICS is opened to public use, mandating UBCs would end private to private selling of firearms, essentially saying that the trade of a commodity protected by the constitution is unlawful.

      Finally, the background check system as it is stands broken. Not only are only 1.1% of purchases flagged, but over 90% of all BC failures are false positives. The BC system is failing the public already, by unnecessary impeding lawful people from exercising their rights.

      Unless you can fix all those problems, i’m not even willing to come to the table to talk about UBCs. And there are more issues, but to me, those three are the big ones.

    6. avatar Gw says:

      Anyone have any idea how many GUNS are currently possessed — stolen, bought, sold and / or traded daily among ex-cons, gang bangers, turf warriors and illegal alien criminals…all without BGC’s?
      Anyone interested in hazarding a guess as to exactly what part of the expansion of federal BGC’s will have any effect whatsoever on actual criminals, future ‘transfers’ of guns among them, and actual criminal acts using GUNS?
      How about a prediction as to how many new criminals will be created out of otherwise law-abiding U.S. Citizens who unknowingly and unintentionally violate some portion of it, once enacted?
      Since in many States, it’s perfectly legal for adult-age Citizens to buy, sell, trade and gift firearms among themselves, wouldn’t an expanded federal BGC law be a violation of ‘Rights’ as specified in their State Constitutions?
      Just asking.

    7. avatar Will says:

      Ah… the troll speaks yet again. How much is Bloomie paying?

  6. avatar Dave357 says:

    In order to avoid underestimating the opposition, my natural inclination is to believe the Vice President’s claim. And yet, questions can be raised about it.

    First off, the “at least five Senators” wording is strange – surely, the VP can count and knows the exact number, or has the whole Senate called him begging for the revote so he ended up losing track of numbers?

    Secondly, except for Harry Reid’s procedural “No” vote on the Manchin-Toomey, isn’t the number of the Democratic Senators that voted “No” just four? Did all four of them change their mind and called the VP. Seems a bit odd, so presumably some Republican Senators would have called him to get the number up to five. Would a Republican Senator actually call the VP who is a Democrat in order to get the process of switching their vote rolling?

  7. avatar aruges says:

    I’d also note that any R senators seeing their approval ratings fall through the floor are probably involved in the current illegal immigration amnesty push…

  8. avatar cbpelto says:

    TO: All
    RE: Heh

    What did Biden do? Get access to NSA files on these guys? Blackmail? Extortion?

    Regards,

    Chuck(le)
    [The Truth will out…..this is the most corrupt administration in US history.]

  9. avatar Lance says:

    I agree Robert and others told me no evidence to support Slow Joe’s claims. he is full of it.

  10. avatar Sammy says:

    The only one “flipped” in this story isssssssssss Joey.

  11. avatar Paul53 says:

    Just proves my theory that Joe can’t count higher than 5.

  12. avatar AznMike says:

    Names or GTFO

  13. avatar Rambeast says:

    “Joe, do not take the cork off of the fork.”

  14. avatar Davis Thompson says:

    Then there’s this thing called the House…

    1. avatar Dave357 says:

      And they want to have a vote in the House to beat up the suburban Republicans with it in 2014. Best avoided, if possible.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email