imrs

After the humiliating defeat of their first “universal background check” bill, you’d think Senators Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey would have had enough of trying to impinge on Americans’ constitutional, natural, civil right to keep and bear arms. But in the wake of the Charleston church shooting the dynamic duo rides again. “In separate interviews Tuesday night, at a reception before a ceremony hosted by Sandy Hook families to honor Toomey’s effort to close background check loopholes, the senators discussed their desire to find a new way forward” . . .

“We want to make sure we have the votes. Pat’s going to have to, and I’ll work with him, to get some of our colleagues on the Republican side,” Manchin said, adding he hasn’t talked directly to Toomey about a revival.

Manchin specifically mentioned an effort aimed at keeping guns out of the hands of people diagnosed with mental illness.

The gluttons for punishment apparently have calculated that they’re still far enough out from their next reelection efforts that a second push for a gun control bill won’t be a factor when they again have to face their home state electorates.

“What I’m trying to figure out is there something that could get the support of the 60 votes that we would need in the Senate,” Toomey said. “Joe Manchin was and is a great partner and someone I will continue to work with and I’m open to exploring what is possible.”

He added that nothing was imminent “but if we stay at it I think we’ll find a way to make progress.”

Apparently Joe and Pat see the tragic deaths of nine blacks at the hand of an avowed racist white male as just the excuse they need to give it another go. Maybe it’s the racism angle that’s spurring them on, because the shooting deaths of nine blacks is otherwise known as “Saturday night” in places like Chicago.

Then again, no one in D.C. ever forgets that old maxim: never let a crisis go to waste.

Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said on Tuesday that something must be done to expand background checks.

“Is that asking too much? Couldn’t we at least do this little thing to stop people who are mentally ill, people who are criminals from purchasing guns?” Reid said on the Senate floor.

 

85 Responses to BREAKING: Manchin and Toomey Going Back to the Gun Control Well

  1. Their proposal would stop neither Sandy Hook nor Charleston. Sandy Hook, the gun was stolen after the owner murdered. Charleston, the guy already went through a background check and still passed!

    Literally jumping onto the back of the dead to push their agenda. It’s disgusting.

    • Pass an actual law that will save lives.

      Some version of the “Stop! Don’t touch it!”, etc. for the elementary school kids.

      Then in high school safe gun handling…

      I want to hear the Left’s excuse for not passing a law to teach kids something that will actually save their lives.

      They get sex ed because of the health risks involved, and driver’s ed since cars can kill you…

  2. Their solution to the Charleston shooter getting a gun, despite passing a background check? MORE background checks. For the children (TM).

    • The article above clearly states that they want to close background loopholes. Nowhere does Mr. Zimmerman say they want to expand them. Perhaps they really want to expand them, but this reporter doesn’t claim that. It’s obvious that this white racists mentally ill man passed a background check. So it’s a foregone conclusion that there must be holes in the checks that need to be plugged. Not necessarily expanded.

      • Roof may be a racist, but he is not apparently mentally ill, and he certainly passes the M’Naughten test. Having never been diagnosed or involuntarily detained, he qualifies under all federal and all state laws for background checks. Are we going to outlaw racists from owning guns? What is the “loophole” that they will “close”?

        • Information has been contradictory on whether he had been indicted and on what charges. Theoretically, if he was prohibited from buying a gun and had to lie on the form, one could require that this type of information be entered into the NICS database until the case is disposed, at which point it could be withdrawn or remain there.

          In practice, catching such borderline cases would likely require a prior approval permit system with a bit of discretion (soft shall-issue) given to the police/sheriffs to deny permits, sort of like the NJ and MA systems. Not sure if he would have been caught by the current CA background check system. Needless to say, the laws in NJ/MA/CA are not the best thing for freedom and will probably not fly nationally at this time. In the future, who knows.

        • @Dave357

          Oh, I see.

          So instead of an ostensibly objective system based on known facts, let’s have a “prior approval permit system with a bit of discretion (soft shall-issue) given to the police/sheriffs to deny permits, sort of like the NJ and MA systems”

          No opportunity for abuse there, huh!

          I for one sure hope that a type of ‘background check’ system based on the subjective whim of local law enforcement NEVER “flies”, period.

        • @Roscoe – I am not advocating such a system, but many Democrats will, if not immediately, then eventually. I wish one could be sure that it will not fly outside a couple of states like MA and NJ, but it’s hard to be optimistic about the long-term future.

        • What they’re not saying and what they actually want is to claim you’re mentally ill for simply wanting to purchase a gun. You know, since we’re all fanatics and crazies.

      • I’ve not heard him described as mentally ill anywhere. Moreover, I’m informed by lefty sites that it’s racist to call him mentally ill, because that excuses his racism.

      • There is no evidence that Roof is mentally ill. Being racist is not legitimate grounds to be denied one’s right to keep and bear arms.

        On the other hand, Roof lied on his form 4473 (a felony), and the background system failed to catch him in that lie. Should pertinent information (felony convictions, drug arrests, and other disqualifying matters) be entered into the system more expediently? Yes. But doing so doesn’t require more federal law.

        So, what loopholes do you propose closing? How would you propose using the background check to filter out people like Roof, without violating the natural, constitutionally protected rights of the many?

        • I agree racism is not necessarily a mental illness and should not bar anyone from having a gun. I didn’t mean to imply that. However, in South Carolina and many states there are two data bases for officials to use, the state and the FBI. Many times the FBI does not have local warrants, arrests, etc., and vica versa. Dylan Roof was charged and the case is still pending on drug charges which should have prevented him from purchasing a gun. The loophole? Many. First it was reported that his father gave him the gun which is legal and in S.C. does not require a background check. But about 20% of other states do. Then it was reported that he bought it from a gun shop. Either they didn’t do a check or the system of state or federal data was off. To me the loophole would be one database to go to for both federal and all states data. That doesn’t expand checks it only makes the ones done more accurate. The question of private sales is a joke. Why require them of business and not individuals. Kids go to bars and get some legal to buy them drinks all of the times. Close the loophole and make every sale subject to a background check. When you buy a car – which can be lethal – private sales and commercial sales require taxes and title. How would that infringe on the 2A? There will always be criminals, but if you want responsible gun ownership like I do, it’s no skin off my back and can only help, not hurt.

        • If your contention is that the database needs to be kept better up-to-date, then I agree wholeheartedly. But doing so does not and should not require new federal law. It’s not a “loophole”. It’s merely government inefficiency and incompetence. No laws will fix either of those issues.

          Of the very few (around 10%) of criminals who obtain firearms through commercial sales, almost none are ever prosecuted (round the number to zero, for all intents and purposes). Even when background checks catch a “prohibited person” attempting to purchase a firearm through an FFL, the government doesn’t take action.

          (Side note: the percentage of criminals who obtain firearms through non-FFL means today remains virtually unchanged from before the institution of Brady background checks. Background checks have had essentially no impact on criminal behavior.)

          As for expanding background checks to private sales: to what end? What good would it serve? Criminals aren’t going to do them for their guns, which they acquire through theft, friends/family, and black-market sales. Nobody involved in any of those is going to go through a background check. The only way anyone will know that they didn’t is after they’ve already committed a crime using that gun.

          So, there are several things upon which the efficacy of background checks depend, none of which can be controlled by the government, or new laws – i.e. the so-called “loopholes”: government inefficiency, government incompetence, government inaction, and the propensity of criminals to disregard law.

          The only thing that current background checks do is inconvenience law-abiding citizens. Expanding them to private transfers and sales would be even more pointless, while even further infringing upon the rights of the law-abiding.

          Back to Roof: he passed a background check at an FFL. Had that been a private transfer, it would have been just as illegal as his commercial purchase, because there’s no way his father could claim that he didn’t know that his son was prohibited, with or without a background check. Had the father purchased the gun for himself, and then given it to his son, that would have been an illegal transfer. had the father purchased the gun for his son, that would have been an illegal straw purchase.

          So, having a law requiring a background check for private transfers would have made exactly zero difference upon the outcome.

          When you buy a car – which can be lethal – private sales and commercial sales require taxes and title. How would that infringe on the 2A?

          The purchase of a car is not a constitutionally protected, natural right. The state is within its constitutional authority to tax the purchase of a car. A car is only required to be titled if it is used on public roads. The analogy really doesn’t fit.

          There will always be criminals, but if you want responsible gun ownership like I do, it’s no skin off my back and can only help, not hurt.

          I’ve demonstrated how background checks do not help. They are an abject failure at advancing their purported state interest – i.e. keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals. As for hurting the law-abiding: I’m sure all of the law-abiding people who have been wrongly denied the purchase of a firearm due to false-positive rejections from NICS would disagree with you.

          Anything that prevents or delays law-abiding people from obtaining firearms is an inherent harm. Just ask Carol Bowne.

        • To expand on the silliness of the car analogy.

          If I buy a car online, I can have it shipped directly to me, with no background check or taxes paid.

          If I build a race car, I never have to register it ever.

          If I buy a vehicle to use on my own property, I never have to register, pay taxes, or have insurance on that vehicle(save sales tax)

          I can sell or give that car to a known felon, and never worry about going to jail for it.

          IF I buy a car, register it, and have a legal license and insurance on it, I can drive that car on any public roads even New York and through DC with no fear of going to jail for owning certain parts for that car even if they are sitting in the trunk and not installed.

      • The only holes that need patched are the ones that reduce the effectiveness of the BG checks already in place.

        If we’re going to have them, then we need to *require* law enforcement and the courts to promptly report status change. The way it is currently set up it is essentially voluntary and optional. Someone can technically be a prohibited person and it won’t get reported to NICS. Worse, false-positives and rights restorations take forever to get corrected.

        We definitely don’t need to expand the pool of prohibited persons, we just need the system to be clear and up to date on the status of those who are, otherwise we may as well just trash all of it.

      • Don’t be daft and don’t get cute.

        “Closing loopholes” is a euphemism and you know it. The term frames what they want to do, i.e., expand an already failed background check system and burden law abiding gun buyers, in safely acceptable and easily digestible terms.

        Who wouldn’t want to “close a loophole?” By it’s very description, it’s an aberration that allows sneaky, weasel people to avoid the law, thwart its purpose and frustrate efforts to save the children. Oh for the love of God won’t somebody PLEASE think of the children???!!!

        So how do you go about closing these supposed loopholes in background checks? You increase their scale and scope, aka, expand background checks. This dastardly duo would get nowhere if they clearly said anything, especially not: “Hi, we know that none of this country’s decades of gun control failures worked to prevent this shooting and that more of the same will fail in like manner. However, we want to trade your God-given rights for our electoral security. Cool?”

        These two and their freshly spun language do not deserve the benefit of the doubt, particularly since we already know their records, but also since they are the very ones deliberately obscuring their position so as to invite such benefit. You cannot defend them by claiming “Well…….that’s not *exactly* what they said…..” when they’re the ones evading plain language.

        • Newspeak for Ingsoc from the Ministry of Truth. Expanded government bureaucracy and intrusion will not be expanded and the citizens of Oceania shall remain content while the government expands and intrudes.

      • “The article above clearly states that they want to close background loopholes. Nowhere does Mr. Zimmerman say they want to expand them.”

        Janet, just for giggles, could you please explain the actual difference between “closing loopholes” and expanding background checks? How is one possible without accomplishing the other? In reality the “closing loopholes” euphemism means expanding background checks by making most or all unregulated private party transfers illegal under Federal law. There is no need to split hairs or engage in tortured rationalizations unless you want to give Manchin and Toomey more credit then they deserve.

      • @ Janet stasktsi

        Not good to drink to much of that anti-gun Cool-Aid from the MDA stand. It’s hypnotic utopian affects will cause you to start making things up as you go.

        Hang out here for a while, and maybe you’ll acquire a more logically enlightened, fact based, truthful perspective.

  3. They just can’t let such a wonderfully irresistible tragedy go to waste.

    Poli = Greek for “Many”
    Tics = Blood sucking parasites known to transfer (s)Lyme disease.

    These people disgust me to no end.

  4. This has nothing to do with safety, and everything to do with having a nice plaque on their Senatorial libraries.

    “Gotta pave over the Constitution to build careers.”
    -Washington DC’s mission statement.

    • It’s sad to because I want to like Joe Manchin as he was a good, centrist Democratic governor in a sea of a die hard communist party. Then he goes off and makes these ridiculous statements and laughably stupid bills. The guy needs to fire all his advisers because they’re sure to get his ass tossed out and become the host of a new show on CNN with Anthony Weiner.

  5. Time to end their political careers and the careers of the ones like them. The NRA needs to get organized and focused like never before, same goes for GOA and NAGR. Educational videos, stories and demonstrations full of irrefutable logic and calm demeanor. No stupidity by those on our side, please. This is a real war for the hearts and minds of America

    • Agreed. No chance Manchin gets endorsed by NRA again (he better not!). If you’re not a member of NRA, GOA, SAF, etc..join. Not sure about the others but Ruger gives out a link for NRA membership with small discounts (every little bit helps) http://www.nra.org/ruger

  6. again bills thst will nevrr stop these crimes and would only block a few hundred people out of 400million. at best a couple thousand, near all are already blocked.

    many have firearms and most over 99% dont go nuts! how do you stop them? hmmm.

    ARMED CITIZENS STOP NUT JOBS. Cops fail 99% of the time, their number not ours. over 200k a year stop crimes with Legal firearms. Citizens stop crimes 95% of the time most without shots fired.

    you want to save lives and reduce crime?! allow everyone that want to…. conceal carry. yes it saves even liberals lives, its a 24/7 shield, the criminal has no who is carrying or not. if they think people might be carrying, they will move Gun Free Zones and states that restrict gun rights.

    as gun ownership has grown, crime has dropped. every blue city with lots of gun control is falling apart due to violent crime. every place with more gun rights, Violent crime is dropping or almost none existant

  7. “Is that asking too much? Couldn’t we at least do this little thing to stop people who are mentally ill, people who are criminals from purchasing guns?” Reid said on the Senate floor.

    What about background checks for people who buy smack, meth, coke and pot? Would that work?

    • I’ll give expanded background checks the slightest bit of consideration when they require exactly the same checks to run for political office, along with IQ tests and thorough financial investigations.

    • They say “little thing”, and then follow it up with “mentally ill” and “criminals”. Which could mean “had a bad breakup in 1982” and “has two speeding tickets”.

      If he’s going to qualify it as “little”, he better define his sweeping terms first.

    • hah initially i read the name as “Toonces” and all i could think of is the cat driving the car over the cliff time after time

      actually, Toonces is probably a pretty good nickname for Toomey!

  8. Each and everyone of these lying p̶i̶e̶c̶e̶s ̶o̶f̶ ̶s̶h̶i̶t̶ politicians know that lunatic passed a background check. How can so many scumbags be elected and be “representing” at the same time boggles my mind. This current bunch is what is known as a cluster fuck.

  9. Didn’t the shooter pass a background check? Oh, that’s right! He did. So how will the double secret background checks if they were to pass the bill?

  10. Someone needs to propose an amendment to the bill to repeal the Hughes Amendment or remove silencers from the NFA. We would get to see how bad they really want UBCs if they had to make a compromise.

  11. There is no sense in trying to understand these people, they don’t care. Part of their plan is to force pro side into a fact spouting tirade. Anti’s just repeat, it’s a broken-record method of communication, and guess what, it works. The pro-side must do the same. We know to survive an attacker with a firearm we need an equal or better firearm. Use this thought process with arguments against them.

  12. So they couldn’t get it through with a lib democrat majority in the Senate, but they think they could force it through now? And then what about the House?

    derp

  13. This is where the gun lobby comes in. Say what you will about the NRA but they have all the political levers in Washington wired. Since Sandy Hook the NRA has been stalwart in taking a no compromise stand on gun rights. This, no doubt, came as a surprise to the RINO political class who previously had reason to think the NRA was so establishment that it would support “sensible” gun controls. I supported NRA because of their up-front, take-no-prisoners defense of the 2nd amendment. Manchin and Toomey are snakes but I think another concerted effort by People Of The Gun can stop them. In contrast to Sandy Hook, there are now millions of committed pro-gun supporters who will speak clearly and directly to politicians. This is what it will take to stop them.

    • If not this time, there will be another mass shooting, and then another. Some day the background checks will stick, the question is when is the best time to get something meaningful in return.

      • “Background checks” = national gun registration. This kind of incrementalism had been a successful tactic of the gun control movement for decades. Each small “sensible” control reduced Americans RKABA which, of course, was the ultimate intent. This worked well until Sandy Hook when America underwent a surprising sea-change in opinion and the public turned to favoring gun ownership. Simply put, we’re winning and they’re losing. The NRA played a dramatically important role in this period (and I saw this with some misgivings). The “good guy with a gun” argument was a masterstroke. It will take something that good this time around.

      • That’s just the thing; they will never stop. If you close the background check “loophole,” they will be back for more next time. The Democrats completely squandered their chance to get a win after Sandy Hook. The media is so quick to blame the Republicans for their intransigence, but the Democrats are just as bad. They are not interested in a compromise. They just keep proposing curtailment of our rights when the blood is fresh, and they hope to be able to bite off bit by bit. Colburn offered them full background checks on all transfers. They refused and laughed him out of the room because that system entailed not keeping track of serial numbers. They want to kill the firearms culture. They do not care about background checks.

        • ” . . .but the Democrats are just as bad. They are not interested in a compromise. . .”

          Make no mistake: the gun-control movement is controlled by moral absolutists. There can be no compromise with people like this. For them “compromise” just means that we slowly abandon our gun-rights until they have invalidated the 2nd amendment. That’s not compromise: it’s surrender.

      • Some day the background checks will stick, the question is when is the best time to get something meaningful in return. Keep compromising with them and eventually over time they will take all of your rights. Why do you want to compromise when they had their big chance with Sandy Hook?

        • Because I don’t believe the status quo can be preserved forever. The antis’ idea of a compromise is, of course, that they take half your pie and you get to keep the other half, until the next time. I am talking about a trade, if they want half of your pie, they have to give you half of their pie. Now, if they are not willing to trade like that, there is no point conceding an inch.

      • One question says something about being under indictment or information for a Felony, which he was.

        Also lied, presumably, about not being an unlawful drug user.

  14. There was already a background check done on the shooter….which he should not have passed. Let’s ask these ass-wipes to fix the laws! He was charged with felony possession of narcotics and was disabled from purchasing a gun. So…what do those two screwball politicians think they can slide in the back door and we dumb Mericans will just say…..uh, OK! If he didn’t buy the gun and daddy gave it to him, that also was against the law. ENFORCE THE LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS!!!!

    • Some sources say they were felony charges, some say misdemeanor. Here’s the kicker, though: I took the liberty of running a court records search for Richland County, where the offense is supposed to have taken place, and no drug charge shows up. There’s his trespassing charge that he picked up later, but nothing from the older drug case. No bond hearing, nothing.

      If a case doesn’t show up in a public records search, does it show up in the NICS?

  15. National reciprocity for background checks? I doubts the Democrats will go for it, most likely their goal is simply to force a vote to help them in 2016.

    • Politics is compromise. Background check in exchange for what? Would I trade my guns on a national register for Consitutional Carry. My answer is YES. Kraft a bill that ensures shall issue, removes gun approve list, add CCW to your drivers license.

      • McConnell would trade a vote for Obumertrade bill votes. A horrible unconstitutional anti-American piece of steaming “legislation”. Vast new power for Obuma.

      • Any new gun legislation should have reciprocity. That said, the counter proposed system by Grassley (?) is a much better deal if we end up going down that road. If I recall correctly it allowed direct access to NICS checks by private citizens via web. It didn’t get much attention because the democrats were against it so it had no hope of passing.

  16. Anyone who’s proposing any new law that wouldn’t have stopped this shooting is just exploiting tragedy to get gun control laws they wanted anyway.

  17. It is a real puzzle to keep guns out of the hands of mentally ill citizens without affecting the rights of everyone else. Not sure how that would be done? Perhaps some kind of petition to a judge with some safeguards to protect those that are not mentally ill but have an ex-wife or someone else who thinks they should not have a gun. Could do some kind of Psych evaluation but probably way too time consuming and I don’t think that branch of “science” is really foolproof. More theories than facts. Try this potion or that and see what happens. Any ideas ? Or is this something that even needs to be done? Maybe more armed citizens is the answer ?

    • “Perhaps some kind of petition to a judge with some safeguards to protect those that are not mentally ill but have an ex-wife or someone else who thinks they should not have a gun.”
      We’ve got that sh!t here in Calif. Just waiting to see what other kinds of BS our “Democratic Dictatorship” can come up with.

  18. Hey Manchin I’m figuring some way to move back to WV so I can vote you out. Even my dead relative’s will do a Wayne county vote.

  19. “Mentally ill.” You can bet they’ll include PTSD in that. And depression. Took Prozac 15 years ago when your wife left you for a country singer? Bingo. Prohibited.

  20. Isn’t this the same two who tried to pass the failed 2013 AWB ban?

    And was’nt it true that they removed a clause in the bill that would do something concerning mental health and dangerous criminals?, Because I heard a few years back they both removed a clause in the bill that would target those with violent mentally ill people and violent repeat offenders.

    • The demtards are NOT going to return to the days when crazy people were institutionalized. Those are dem voters.

      • You know, that’s literally true. In fact, even if they ARE institutionalized they are Dem voters. We had a case here where Dem operatives herded in a group from the State School here, some of them in their “crash helmets”, and “assisted” them to vote during the Bush-Kerry election. One of the State school “clients” said that he was told to vote for Kerry because if Bush won, he wouldn’t be able to have ice cream anymore. Dems really have no shame.

    • No, it was the universal background checks bill. I’m sure there was an AWB bill floating around their somewhere, there usually is but that never even came up for a vote.

      I thought Toomey was smart enough to know he’d better not try this again, and would be crossing his fingers that he’d be lucky that enough would forget but he apparently is out of touch with the people that elected him. He needs to get primaried out.

  21. The ONLY gun law that would help save lives is one that says, in no uncertain terms, that ALL law-abiding American citizens can carry any gun they choose ANY place they have any business being in, so that if some nutjob pulls a gun he or she will have a dozen or more pointing in his or her direction within seconds. But unfortunately, if it’s intelligent or makes sense, it won’t happen if the political leftists (no matter what their avowed party affiliation is) can stop it…

  22. Manchin must not want to be reelected in WV.
    And Toomey might be vulnerable to a primary challenge in PA.

    Or maybe this is just their way of saying “F You” to all the 2A advocates who made their lives unpleasant the last time they did this.

  23. And let’s commence the great panic of 15′-16′. Hope ya’ll have been stocking up while prices were low because it looks like we’re not buying anything until 2018.

    • The obvious course of action is to learn how to make guns… But ‘Muricans are as unwilling to take care of themselves as their Libratd Occupy compatriots…

  24. Well, there was a tragedy and they can’t resist to take advantage of the bloody shirts. After all, look at what was able to be done with the confederate flag. Hey, Bloomberg has to get his money’s worth from these guys.

    I hope these guys eventually loose their jobs. This is pathetic.

  25. Of course the sudden tsunami of concern over the Confederate flag flying over so many homes and the capitol of SC has no buoying effect whatsoever on this and other methods of slapping down us uppity conservatives and coercing us to march to the liberal drum. “That flag is racist! Those who fly it are racist! The whole idea of remembering the Confederacy is racist! We are offended!!!!” Blah, blah, blah. Bad news, guys. That war was over 150 years ago. Slavery has been gone for seven generations. Frankly, the idea that you’re offended by the Confederate flag after all this time seems just a little too facile for me. And, just for the sake of full disclosure, I simply don’t care if you’re offended anymore. That account is overdrawn.

    Do you know what I haven’t seen? Not so much as a single article, anywhere, about what that flag means to the people who fly it today. There’s a whole bunch of those people, and a job lot more who wouldn’t hesitate to fly it if they thought it was important. Nikki Haley, establishment Republicans, lefty Liberals, you haven’t just offended them with your foolishness. You’ve pissed ’em off right good!

    Nikki Haley, up until now I’ve considered you a reasonably decent governor. Had high hopes for your administration. In siding with the moneyed statists of the party you’ve betrayed the promise of smaller government concerned with the good of all. The most disappointing part of the whole thing is the sheer trifling insignificant nature of the whole debate. The flag has flown in various minor places like a neighbors front yard or a business lawn for a hundred years, and nobody cared. It’s normally little more than a vanity thing. The left has just elevated it to a cause.

    The big question a bunch of us are starting to ask is, with all of the heavy emotional button pushing being expended on this “cause”, what is it you’re trying to distract us from?

    • The Battle Flag of Northern Virginia is an easy and available target for those who want to blame anyone but the murderer himself. It satisfies those who need to feel like they’ve got to DO SOMETHING and most gun control is thankfully a non-starter right now.

    • “We are offended!!!!” Blah, blah, blah.”

      I notice that absolutely NONE of the ‘protesters’ chanting and being interviewed by reporters have any sort of a South Carolina accent.

      I wonder why?

      What we’re seeing is the modern day version of “bussing”; from one protest to another, to create an image that does not comport with local custom and wishes, but is rather politically correct to outside interests.

      Haley is pandering to the PC crowd because of perceived threats to her political career. She would be better served to clarify cultural heritage versus fleeting political correctness and push back at the out of town puppet mob that is staging these protests, and the rest of the pandering politically correct pols.

  26. Another crisis that can’t be allowed to ‘go to waste.’
    As has been said so many times before, NONE of the proposed anti-gun legislative actions would have prevented this act of violence. Background checks? Nope, he passed the NICS check. Evil-black-rifle ban? Nope, he used a handgun. Eliminate ‘high-capacity’ standard magazines? Not if he bought a Glock 37. And he apparently changed magazines repeatedly.

    In other words, as always, every one of these proposals is one of two things…’feel good’ legislation designed to make a politician look like they did something or, as most of us know, the beginning of the slippery slope leading toward their ultimate goal, which is a UK-like utopia of civilian disarmament.

  27. Dumbasses are trying to be the Pierce Morgan of the political lefttards…. I hope they get what they deserve. Exit stage left, Joe! Just another attempt to make the headlines by some desperate crooks

  28. The AHC Act, Net Neutrality, TPP. We the people asked for none of this, nor did we want any of these things enacted into law. So while I am in full support of the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution, just as the rest of us here, our government sees guns as a threat to their power and authority. The government has replaced the people as the true 4th branch of government, that of consent, with the well being of corporations, banks, and those currently in office. It is only time until they contort public opinion against freedom of any kind.

  29. Being a proud West Virginian I think I can shed some light here . Joe Manchin had a nut for a dad ( A James ) and as far as I know he never shot up a school . The mob in Point Pleasant are a bunch of nuts and they don’t shoot up grade schools or movie theaters . Old Joe got elected by shootin a big gun in a TV ad and people just gobbled it all up and old Joe is a part of the Point Pleasant mob . I’m sure that the Dems all over this state will vote him in again , sorry FedUp , but that is how it works here . They can take our jobs ( coal mines ) and take our guns as long as we keep our unions . None of the proposals they try in Washington will stop one of these mass shootings , these are cultural ills now . Problems in the heart and soul and fabric in a Godless culture . Background checks won’t stop a nut that hasn’t been outed . I guess that may be why they want national health care , so they can find the nuts . Everyone sees a shrink for free and if you don’t believe in man made global warming or don’t believe in evolution or believe in God or believe you have a right to own a AR or Ak you become a nut job . They already are starting to remove guns from homes where someone lives with a mental deficiency so if my wife is a nut job they take my gun and I have to worry about getting hatcheted to death ( Lizzie Borden ) . Kudos to Chip Bennett and Sian for their carefully constructed insights and to Garrison Hall for his support of the NRA , agree completely . If someone shoots at me I’m going to shoot back , wherever I am and I will definitely hit my mark , this is still the best defense against mass shootings and I’ll believe this until someone shoots up a NRA convention . Catch my drift . Love and peace .

  30. Manchin and Toomey are just trying to become the two biggest names in modern fascism after Bloomberg and Obama.

  31. This is the leftist way, keep coming back. That is how they have had success in the past. For example, Banes pushed the 1968 GCA until he got it through. The Clinton Ban and Brady Crap was the same way. What we need to do is ban leftist crap from being re-submitted when it gets a beat down.

Leave a Reply

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