I’ve been watching over the course of the last day as the fallout from the Senate’s vote on the “no fly no buy” gun control proposals has started to appear. The Democrats are out in force claiming that the failure to pass anything is solely the fault of NRA influenced Republicans, going so far as to state that “Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.” That’s a convenient narrative, but it doesn’t really hold water. The real reason why nothing passed the other day is because the Democrats voted against their own common sense gun control proposal.

There were four proposals up for vote on Monday, including Senate Amendment 4749. That amendment, which was sponsored by Republicans and backed by the NRA, would have done exactly what the Democrats have been demanding for months: make it impossible for terrorists on the “terrorist watchlist” to purchase a firearm. Don’t take my word for it — read the raw text of the amendment for yourself.

[T]he Attorney General may delay the transfer of the firearm or explosive for a period not to exceed 3 business days and file an emergency petition in a court of competent jurisdiction to prevent the transfer of the firearm or explosive, and such emergency petition and subsequent hearing shall receive the highest possible priority on the docket of the court of competent jurisdiction and be subject to the Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.);

That’s exactly what the Democrats wanted, right? A law which would immediately prohibit known terrorists from purchasing firearms, and give the Attorney General discretion in who qualifies as a terrorist. The sole difference between this proposal and the ones the Democrats were backing is that in this version the Attorney General simply has to file a court order within three days to make the NICS denial permanent. Not obtain — file. That’s it. Any normal person would consider that to be a reasonable request.

When it came time for the vote, 53 members of the Senate agreed that this was a good idea. 47 disagreed. The full vote record is available here for the curious, but here’s the interesting fact:

Every single Democrat, with the exception of Donnelly (D-IN) and Manchin (D-WV), voted against this common sense gun control proposal.

This is one of those situations that really gets under my skin. The Democrats had an opportunity to get exactly what they wanted, impose stricter firearms regulations, and close the “terror gap” that they’ve been screaming about for well over a year. But when it came time to vote they decided that they would rather have another opportunity to blame the Republicans and the NRA than to enact something that was just slightly less than an identical proposal they wanted.

So Senator Murphy, when you say that the Republicans are “selling guns to ISIS” just remember who is actually to blame: yourself.

132 Responses to The Reason No Gun Control Passed the Senate? Democrats Voted it Down.

  1. Is it because the NRA and the Gun lobby own congress.

    It’s flat treason to deny Americans their constitutional right to life and safety.

    Not arming every man, woman and child like the brainwashed NRA zombies want.

    The NRA nor the Gun manufacturers give a crap about human life. Just money.

    The civilized world has’nt fallen for this heavily debunked more guns less crime crap.

    • Where in the constitution are the “right to life and safety” protected?
      And let’s keep your answers confined to the Constitution of the USA.

      • Remember the Constitution defines the power the people have allowed the government to have. If it’s not in the Constitution, it remains the peoples rights. To be even clearer, there’s the provision from the 9th Amendment: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.[1]

        • Constitution aside, you cannot claim as a Natural Right that which restricts the exercise of the Natural Rights of others. Being safe is a subjective state and appears to ONLY be definable by the limits it places on the RIghts of others – it is therefor untenable as a Natural Right.

        • Boys and girls, boys and girls, put down the remote, put away the game station. Pay attention:

          The constitution is a compilation of recommendations about how a government should work. It forms a baseline of standards from which to deviate. Nothing more, nothing less.

          Any longer.

        • The constitution LIMITS government power. That’s all it does. It gives power to nobody.
          When you volunteer to submit to powers the government does not have you have agreed to abide by what rules they have laid out for you to follow. Carry permits are a great example of this. The government has conditioned people to believe they must ask for permission and pay a fee to excercise a right they already have. This permit is a contract between the state corporation and yourself. Once you sign the contract you agree to abide by the stipulated rules the contract spells out.
          If you believe they have the right to do this or think it’s a good idea for “public safety” then your part of the problem.

        • Please re-read my comment. What is, and what can be dreamed are vastly different. What is, is generally known as reality.

        • Sam-I-Am, The constitution is not a series of recommendations. It is the highest law of the land, and can only be changed by constitutional amendment.

        • The original status of the constitution, and the status today are very different. Besides, the constitution is amended through ordinary legislation every year. The courts support legislation that effectively amends the constitution. Why bother with the impossible, onerous process of formal amendments.

          The constitution, today, is nothing more than a bundle of recommended theories. If it were otherwise, we would not see the number of lawsuits that attempt to make yesterday today.

          Look around, do you see overwhelming opinion (and legislation) that matches your idea that the constitution has any more meaning than what lawmakers and the court says it does?

      • You are absolutely correct. It was once said “it is better that 100 guilty men go free than one innocent man be convicted.” Clearly that is no longer the opinion of the government.

      • I’m positive that it doesn’t. But I know for a fact that it does say that the right to KEEP and BEAR arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

        • Back in the 1700s the situation was different. That situation is now obsolete or unachievable. Therefore, the ammendment is obsolete and needs to be brought to the reality of present times.

        • Obsolete and needs to be changed? Well guess what, there is a legal way to do just that. It’s just 5 easy steps. By the way the 5 easy steps are the only legal way to ban any firearm. Anything else is unconstitutional and I for one would ignore the law, as would millions of others.

          https://youtu.be/bnoFKskvSq4

        • An update is probably overdue, but there is a haven for mischief in the statement, “…needs to be brought to the reality of present times.”

      • First amendment. It give us the right to LIFE, liberty, and the persuit of happiness. My right to life is not outweighed by your right to to be in a well regulated militia

        • Better check out states rights to an organized militia. Militia Act of 1903. It has been watered down over the decades, by guess who? Yes, the government, that’s intent upon taking citizen’s rights away. Remember, the government is the taxpayers, not an all powerful entity.

        • You obviously we’re not a history major. You also don’t have the first clue about the actual meaning of the Second Amendment f you’re still clinging to the false flag of a well regulated militia. What it really meant was despite the need to have a standing army, that the people should have arms to defend themselves against their own government should it become tyrannical and Evil. You might want to read The Federalist Papers and some of the other writings of the founding fathers of the day.

        • You have the right to your opinion, but not to your own facts. “Life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” is from the Declaration of Independence and certainly not from the First Amendment. Yes, life is a natural right, bursary is not. If someone tries to kill me I have the right to preserve my life by stopping my attacker with equal force, up to and including the attacker’s death if necessary. I’m 5′ 3″ and 65 years old. My gun is one of the few tools that put me on an equal footing with a 230 lb. Attacker.

        • You must have done well in history class. Ummmm, not. The first amendment prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, impeding the free exercise of religion, abridging the freedom of speech, infringing on the freedom of the press, interfering with the right to peaceably assemble, or prohibiting the petitioning for a governmental redress of grievances.

          Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness is in the Declaration of Independence.
          “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

        • How can you expect to be taken seriously if you can’t be bothered to even read the document? Bill of rights doesn’t give us any rights. It restricts the government powers and protects our pre-existing natural rights.

          Your right to life and pursuit of happiness (mentioned in Declaration of Independence and not in first ammendment or anywhere else in BOR) does not trump my right to keep and bear arms. My keeping and bearing guns does not restrict any of your rights. USING guns (and other tools) to hurt and end innocent lifes is already very illegal.

        • The truth is there are several remarks made, “Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness. As you put it Life is more important than the other two. I disagree, you in your infinite wisdom would deny my right to all three and therefore since I believe in the complete wording. I am entitled to Life, my life is just as important as yours, Liberty, the freedom to do as the Constitution and the Bill of Rights allows me, And the Pursuit of Happiness, that which makes me happy under the same points. Some Lawyers like to paraphrase taking sections of law and reconstructing it to suit their needs. This is a blatant misconception of how the laws are written. You cannot ignore all the words, pick and choose the ones that suit your need or in this case a misconceived agenda. The reality of what our Founding Fathers proposed is quite clear and yes open to interpretation and change, but the Bill of Rights is not amendable. This has been made clear by virtue of recorded discussions, letters, memorandum. The 2nd Amendment is quite clear and if you had any education in punctuation, a comma is like a shortened version of the word “and”. It is also used to make additional comment on a subject. The two subjects being the topic of a “militia” and “the People”. Militias are not standing armies and therefore were regulated by the state, the right to keep and bear arms is put in the hands of “People”. Not the state, not the government, and not the militia! The right of the people, those are individuals. This is recorded in history through discussion and argument at the time of it’s inception. It’s intent has already been made perfectly clear and applies today as it did then. By the way Hillsdale College is giving free classes to anyone that wants to take their class on the Constitution. I suggest some of you need to take it. It is rather enlightening!!! If not, please keep your misguided misconceptions to yourself.

        • I grew up in a state that had “minute men.” So I know about states rights and militia. I believe there are only 22 states now that still take advantage. Individuals should always have the ability to protect themselves and others, without restriction, and that’s in every state, except the state of confusion!

        • Your right to life does not outweigh any of my rights neither. It goes both ways, and by the way you are safer and have more power to stay alive with the 2nd Amendment in place to protect the other Amendments.

        • I have been following this particular string for awhile, now. While your thinking results in passionate and robust declarations about the sanctity of your right to a gun, I believe you are conceiving things backward; reasoning from the dependent to the independent.

          The founders produced the Declaration Of Independence as a statement moral, natural and human rights (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness), and the proper relation between government and the population. The constitution was written as a “dependent clause”, if you will. If the natural rights of man did/do not exist, the basis of the constitution is bereft of meaning or utility.

          The right to life is superior to all other rights. What good are any natural rights, if your right to life is subordinate to any or all of them? From the right to life flows the right to liberty, and from liberty flows the right to pursue whatever (legal) might amount to, or increase your happiness. Without life, liberty and happiness are moot.

          The second amendment protects your right to life, not the other way around. If your right to life were/is subordinate to the right to life, why do we have a constitution and laws that protect the very right to live, and remind government that it exists because humans say it does, not that humans exist because government says they may. The second amendment is a reminder to government (president, congress, courts) that the basic, natural and human right to life subordinates government to a position subservient to the rights of people. The second amendment protects life and liberty. The amendment does not create the right to life and liberty.

          One need look no further than the four rules of safe gun handling to understand that the right to life is superior to all others. What is the purpose of those four rules? Save ammunition? Prevent negligent discharges? Harass gun owners? None of these. The four rules of gun handling protect the right to life and liberty of others. A person shot by a negligent gun owner may lose their right to life. If only wounded, may lose the right to liberties because physically the recipient of the bullet is so severely wounded that they can no longer feed, dress or maintain themselves. But to put a forceful point on it, you have a natural, civil right to defend your life, but having a gun is only one means of self-defense, defense of life.

          Our body of laws derive their legitimate efforts to protect life from the notion that there exists a right to life. So, if you act irresponsibly with a gun, you may find your right to a gun permanently removed, but your right to self-defense remains. Why, because you have a natural, civil and human right to life, thus the right to defend it. The right to self-defense is dependent on your independent right to life. Without a right to life, there is no right, indeed no need, to defend it. All other rights devolve from the right to life.

    • kapo bloomberg, who owns the anti gun crusade in America, has more money than god. If the only thing it took to own DC was money guns would be banned, period.

      But thanks for playing.

      • Fear sells, And gun-folk people like you were never reasonable to begin with.

        The laws that failed to pass would have actually prevented this…The laws if passed wouldn’t have affected the 2nd or 4th amendment.

        Why would you compare rare incidents like Paris or Brussels to prove that gun control doesn’t “work.”

        When there are hundreds of thousands of mass killings everyday in this country?

        Australia had no mass shootings or killings ever after the incident in 96.

        UK has suffered no mass killings ever after they enacted reasonable restricts on weapons.

        Japan has never suffered killings or suicides due to guns being hard to get.

        Europe rarely sees a tragedy.

        And yet I don’t see these countries turning into despotic hellholes.

        • That’s because Australia and other countries are not directly connected to a place like Mexico, whose major exports are illegal firearms and drugs.

        • You keep repeating these lies over and over. Every sentence a lie. How can you live with yourself?
          And if you don’t see the tyranny its time to get stronger prescription.

      • jwm,

        The pool of available money is much larger than what you characterized. The owners/CEOs of ALL of the largest technology companies are card-carrying gun-grabbers and their combined net worth is easily in the neighborhood of a QUARTER TRILLION dollars … enough money to buy off Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the President of the United States 100 times over.

        I can assure you that the NRA does NOT have anywhere near a $1 Billion dollar war chest, much less a $250 Billion war chest.

        In case anyone thinks the tech CEOs don’t have quite that much money, we can throw in Bloomberg and Soros’ piles of cash to easily reach the quarter Trillion dollar mark … and then some!

        • Wow, those guys sound like the REAL 1% I’ve heard so many bad things about. Who knew that they were gun grabbers all along!

        • In fact, any money handed out to senators comes from NRAs institute for legislative action. It’s entire budget isn’t close to what the liberals claim the NRA gave senators. So those figures are either made up or total received while in congress.

          But their budget is no where near bloombergs mad money he throws out to his minions to push his pet cause.

          If not following the constitution were the standard, he could pay them all off to do it and not even dig deep.

      • jwm,

        The pool of available money is much larger than what you characterized. The owners/CEOs of ALL of the largest technology companies are card-carrying gun-grabbers and their combined net worth is easily in the neighborhood of a QUARTER TRILLION dollars … enough money to buy off Congress, the U.S. Supreme Court, and the President of the United States 100 times over.

        I can assure you that the NRA does NOT have anywhere near a $1 Billion dollar war chest, much less a $250 Billion war chest.

    • Did you even read what was written here? I mean seriously… Go back and reread it. As it stands I doubt you’d pass a 6th grade reading comprehension test with your comment here.

      • Do you have any idea what a slob you are to expect (change, that, “demand’) that anyone, I mean anyone, should have 6th grade reading skills in this wonderful country, land of compassion, caring and cradle-to-grave government-provided support systems?

        What a pig. There are things in life more important than stupid reading skills. You demonstrate an elitism that must be eradicated from this society. Reading. Indeed. Have you no shame, sir? No compassion?

        • Obama’s Race/Class Warfare Program is reaping a horrific harvest.The Nation has become so divided in the last 7 years that it will never again be united on anything. It’s time for the US to be split up between those who want Freedom and those who want a Nanny State. Vote on it county by county and let folks live under the system they want.

          “People who would trade Liberty for Security deserve Neither” – Thomas Jefferson

        • Well, you overthought my comment a bit, but I like your idea. Oooopps, that was tried in 1860. But it is still a good idea.

          General Question: Has anyone figured out an international QWERTY keyboard symbol for snark, or tounge-in-cheek commentary?

    • I’m curious how you figure your comment is in any way relevant to the topic at hand. The NRA doesn’t “own” the Democrats that voted against those bills – Bloomberg and his rich liberal cronies do. This has nothing to do with the NRA or us gun owning zombies. It has everything to do with the fact that the liberal anti-gunners are blatant liars. They talk a great story about “having a national conversation on guns and gun violence,” but when the Republicans practically handed them gun control on a silver platter, they turned up their noses, because they really want to claim credit for sticking it to us zombies.

    • “arming every man, woman and child”
      What exactly is wrong with that?

      “The NRA nor the Gun manufacturers give a crap about human life.”
      Funny you finally found out about that. No one here on earth gives a crap about anyone other than family and friends. Now go and learn to take care of yourself instead of messing with our ability to defend ourselves.

    • Actually it’s treason to take away the second ammendment…you forget what happens when only the government has guns…look at what happened in Germany….Russia….or china…if you think it can’t happen here you need help

      • It has happened here, just chose to be forgotten.

        Just under 150 years ago the Federal Government was shooting Native Americans that refused to disarm at Wounded Knee Creek.

    • As a firearms manufacturer I resent your outlandish statement that for one the NRA has any control over my business and two that I want to arm terrorists. The every man or woman non felon or prohibited person who wants a firearm sure. Children? You must be stupid. Federal law sets age limits. However the age limits are pretty ridiculous in that I can’t sell a 22 rimfire target pistol to someone under 21 but I can sell them a Barret 50 rifle. Adult is adult. If you can die for your country at 18 you sure as hell should be able to buy whatever firearm you want.

      • Sorry to go all absolutist on you, JDS, but where exactly within “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.” do you find the authority for the government to infringe by setting age limits on keeping and bearing arms?

        The government has no such authority. If age limits on gun ownership are to be determined they must come from responsible parents and should the parents not be responsible they should come in the form of social pressure from their neighbors. Or ballistic response if that is called for.

        If you concede that the same government the Second Amendment was intended to protect us from has the authority to create, maintain and enforce a list of persons who, in the opinion of that government, may not exercise their natural, civil and Constitutionally protected right to keep and bear arms, how will you keep your name off of that list?

        In other words, if you think they have the authority to set an age limit, how will you prevent them from setting it at, say 35 years old? The Constitution seems to think that is the age at which you are mature enough to run for president, why not to own a gun?

        And once you allow that they may set ANY stipulation on who may keep and bear arms, how can you deny the authority to create more and more restrictions?

        This is not rocket science.

        • You have a valid point somewhat. I owned a 22 Winchester model 190 when I was 11years old. I received said rifle as a birthday present. I was allowed to hunt and plink all over the farm with friends or alone from day one. I learned gun safety using a bb gun from the age of 8.
          However even if there was no law setting the age requirement there would be no way in hell that as a dealer I would sell any firearm to a child. Liability in this lawsuit happy society being the main reason as well as legally a child is not responsible for their actions, the adult who enables that action is. If a parent wants to buy the kid a firearm I have no problem whatsoever. The liability is now the parents, not mine.
          The government nanny state has no business regulating a lot of things. Drugs, automatic weapons, magazine capacity, alcohol, fat and sugar content, land use, etc for example. However we the people have allowed stupid laws to be passed and have refused to do anything about infringement of many freedoms for so long, that chances we get them back without outright rebellion are slim to none.

        • Is there anybody to explain what this means; “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.”

    • Thank you for your opinion, Mr. Stalin. More propaganda from the ultra-Left. Talk about brainwashed.

      And while we’re at it, let’s blame the NRA and law abiding Americans for Orlando and let’s be sure we don;t mention the words Islamic or terrorist, so we’ll redact the 911 call to ensure revisionist Liberalism doesn’t have to admit the truth.

      It’s worms like you that will sell the USA down the same path Europe is going as they are stripped of all defenses and sold out to the Muslims.

      • Europe will be under Sharia Law within 20 years.
        Muslims are out-breeding everyone else by 2 to 4 times.
        Better go now if you want to see it before the mass destruction.

        • That’s right. In a few generations there will be no ethnic Germans or German culture. There will only be long beards, black burkas, and mosques. And not just in Germany – but all over Europe.

    • Your are literally incoherent. But I will mention that the U.K.and Australia both saw spikes in homicides and violent crime immediately following their gun control laws.

      So less guns certainly doesn’t equal less crime.

      And you have mischaracterized the desire of the NRA “zombies”.

      • Australia and the United States are different cultures. A gun buyout in America simply does not fit, as surely as a car tyre does not fit a truck rim.

    • How about a taste of reality?

      How many people in the USA? About 320 million
      How many own guns? About 123 million legally own guns
      How many are members of the NRA? About 5 million according to the NRA and that may be a bit of an exaggeration.

      Seems to me that there must be a very large number of gun owners who are not members but share a common view of the 2nd Amendment with the NRA. Either they simply do not belong to the NRA for financial reasons, or they belong to similar minded organizations nearer to their homes (like the California Rifle and Pistol Association). If you take the time to learn the history of the NRA you would see that the NRA has supported some gun control measures which not all members agree with.

      Now please explain to me how a 501 (C)(3) organization watched closely by political opponents (you have to know that Obama and friends had them investigated by the IRS along with other conservative groups and people) wields that much power over the members of the Hose and Senate when it reported in 2010, revenues of $227.8 million and expenses of $243.5 million, with revenue including roughly $115 million generated from fundraising, sales, advertising and royalties, and most of the rest from membership dues. Less than half of the NRA’s income is from membership dues and program fees; the majority is from contributions, grants, royalties, and advertising. The NRA has said that less than 5% of its funding comes from the firearms industry, with the majority coming from small donors. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association] The NRA does NOT sell guns or ammo or any other big ticket items. As a 501 (c)(3) organization, they do not lobby because that is forbidden by IRS regulations.

      You really should read the history of the NRA [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association] and understand all the good works they do to promote safety, land and game management, and such things. Even leftist organizations use their services and have joined with the ACLU in a number of litigations on behalf of the people such as restricting NSA, etc, from violating the peoples’ privacy rights post 9/11.

      • You really should read a bit more before posting. The NRA is one of the most powerful and aggressive lobbying groups in the U.S. It is NOT a 501(c)(3) organization, but a 501(c)(4), which permits UNLIMITED lobbying.

    • We have a right to “safety” to the extent that we have a right to determine how we conduct ourselves individually and what personal measures we implement in our lives to affect safety.

      We have no “right” beyond that.

      And before you claim that government compels “safety” on individual choices via vehicle speed limits, please show me where government bans the sale/ownership of all vehicles capable of exceeding speed limits … which just happens to be ALL vehicles by the way.

    • I would find it laughable, if it weren’t so sickening, that you want to disarm tens of MILLIONS of people for the actions of a tiny few. I support the NRA and I’m not a firearms manufacturer nor a lobbyist. YOU are either a simple-minded fool liberal who thinks that unicorns exist, or you are a troll for a statist group who wants the Americans disarmed so as to be able to more easily crush them. Either way, I oppose you, 100%.

    • I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you read and understood the article. By your own admission, congress and is bought and paid for by the NRA. That includes Democrats, who voted down the proposed gun control measures. Don’t tell me Bernie is the The Savior either. He was in favor of less gun restrictions until he tried to pick up primary votes by favoring more.

      If the civilized world hasn’t fallen for the pro gun crap that you hate so much, then the intelligent thing for you to do is to join them. After all, we have just proven that you have no chance of getting your way here. If you will make the appropriate arrangements to emigrate to the nation of your choosing, and renounce your US citizenship, then I will be glad to help you pack.

    • Murray aka “Mom in Tennis Shoes” is the most incompetent Senator around. I am ASHAMED that she comes from the States I live in, Washington. But this area is so pinko it went for the Communist with balding grey hair…aka Bernie.

    • NRA do not sell guns, they just represent USA people that believe in the 2nd Ammendment. This is a democracy, mayority wins. Do not blame Republicans (which I don’t like) when is the Democrats fault.

      • The USA is NOT a democracy. Do they not teach American Government anymore? I can’t believe some of the basic 4th grade level knowledge people get wrong all the time about the country they live in. We have a representative republic form of government and the way things are going I don’t know for how much longer we will maintain it. Majority rule DOES NOT decide how we do things and hopefully it never will. Every democracy throughout history has failed because as soon as 51% figure out they can vote themselves largesse from the treasury the government fails.
        As someone already pointed out to some liberal fool, life liberty and happiness isn’t in the constitution. The constitution gives none of us any rights, we were born with those. The constitution LIMITS the GOVERNMENT power. We have the right to bear arms. Its a natural right that we have as humans. The second amendment expressly FORBIDS the government from restrictions of that right. Therefore ALL limits via law since this country was founded concerning TRTKBA are unconstitutional from the second they are proposed.

        • You got the “representative republic” part right, but I am puzzled about how “the majority doesn’t rule” statement.

          The majority of those voting elect representatives: majority rules.

          The majority of those elected as representatives carry the day for legislation: majority rules.

          The majority of justices of the Supreme Court establish what is/is not permitted under law and the constitution: majority rules.

          If you mean the mob does not have final authority on national legislation, then the majority may, indeed, not actually rule. Representatives sometimes serve as “cooler heads”. But the larger question is the proper role of representatives. If the representatives do not represent the majority of voters who elected the representatives, where is the legitimacy of representation? If the representatives are supposed to strictly represent the majority of their voters, what is the effective difference between a democracy and a representative republic?

        • Most of the time it appears that yes the majority rules. But it doesn’t. Let’s say tomorrow that NYC decided to have a public vote to ban all firearms. If 50.1% vote yes then everyone has to turn them in. Since that would fly in the face of the 2nd amendment courts would say to bad that law can’t be enforced. Majority rule counts for zip. Majority rule is also known as mob rule and to prevent mob rule we elect representatives that vote on things their constituents want. However one group of constituents does not overrule another group even if group one is larger and and more people vote that way than in the other group. Each representative has an equal vote regardless of the number represented.
          We don’t even elect our president by majority of votes. Bush Gore is the most recent example.

        • Ok, saying the “mob rule” is not how the country works is very different from “the majority doesn’t rule”. But to follow your example, if the requisite majority of the states vote to ratify a constitutional amendment banning private holding of firearms for personal use of any kind, “the majority” would certainly rule. Using your example again, if the majority of the Supreme Court (assuming that court would accept the appeal) ruled that a state can ban all private guns inside the borders of the state, then, indeed, we have “majority rule”.

          Here’s a mental jungle for you: the requisite majority of the states ratify a constitutional amendment that permits indentured servitude. According to the constitution, that amendment is now law. Can such an amendment be overturned by a court?

        • the requisite majority of the states vote to ratify a constitutional amendment banning private holding of firearms for personal use of any kind, “the majority” would certainly rule.

          I don’t think so. In the case of United States v Cruikshank, the United States Supreme Court held that the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights were not granted by the Amendments and are not dependent upon the Constitution for their existence.

          One of the most definitive interpretations of the Second Amendment is found in the Court’s second holding:
          “The right there specified is that of ‘bearing arms for a lawful purpose.’ This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendment declares that it shall not be infringed: but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National [Federal] Government…”

          The Second Amendment did not create or grant any right to keep and bear arms. It placed an additional restraint on the powers of the federal government concerning the existing right to keep and bear arms. Thus, all a repeal could do, from a federal standpoint, is remove the secondary restraint imposed on federal power by the Amendment. And since many States have a right to keep and bear arms clause in their constitution, separate and apart from the Federal Constitution or the Second Amendment, the existence or non-existence of the Second Amendment would not affect the right because the federal government was not granted and does not have the general power to abolish a natural or individual right secured by a State Constitution.
          As I see it the antigun movement is just pissing into the wind. We have a natural individual right just by being living breathing humans. The government has no right to take our guns, period. Like abortion, slavery, or the right to exist, Its settled law. End of discussion, game over.

        • All of that consists of very interesting, but irrelevant musings and interpretations. The constitution is clear as to how an amendment is pursued, AND, there are no constitutional provisons setting aside the enumerated amendments as immune to amendment. If that were the case, there could be no court interpretation allowing for “compelling government interest” to be the basis for “reasonable regulation” of any of them. I’m afraid that where amendments are concerned, even the most radical leftist SC justice would be considered insane to attempt to argue/rule that any portion of the constitution is immune from the amendment process. But even it such were possible, such a ruling would only arise if a “majority” of the justices concurred. In the end, “majority rules”, but not “mob rule”. There is a very signficant and important difference.

        • I don’t believe the founding fathers would agree with a “compelling government interest” when it comes to regulating the 2nd amendment. That’s the reason its the only amendment that expressly forbids infringement. If let’s say the government went full on tyrannical or was planning on doing so. The compelling interest would be to disarm the people as fast as possible. The very thing the second amendment was put in place to prevent.

        • You arrived at the place you started. Yes, 2A seems plain enough to us today, but do we really understand it? Takes more than a thin awareness of what the amendment was for, and what it was not.

          The idea of “compelling interest” (making the people more safe, or society more tranquil, or you name it) is nowhere to be found in the papers, memos, articles, broadsides or newspapers of the time of the founding, nor in anything written by the founders after the ratification of the constitution. Once “compelling interest” was established, the constitution became modeling clay. That condition was reinforced by the judicial notion that there are three levels of review that can/must be applied to determine if constitutionally protected rights are being damaged. But the fact is, we as a nation submit to those notions, and it is way too late in the day to roll back those “principles”.

          Getting back on track, the founders apparently were not so genius, after all. They allowed the wording of the second amendment to not be inclusive enough in the range of restrictions not permitted. And they apparently were too inept to see the need to insert wording in the constitution that the so-called “bill of rights” stood alone in that those first 10 amendments were not subject to modification, repeal, or amendment via the established process for amending the constitution. Court reasoning that there is indeed prohibition against amending the “bill of rights” has no more authority than the notions of “compelling interest” or three levels of judicial scrutiny. However, to give you momentary credit for the idea that the BOR cannot be amended, later courts allowed the central government to amend the BOR through simple legislation, which courts have approved wholesale.

        • The founders allowed the wording of the second amendment to not be inclusive enough in the range of restrictions not permitted? Really? I don’t see how anyone could come to that conclusion. The founders used very simple language without a lot of legalise and fluff with just four words. “Shall Not Be Infringed” sums it up beautifully. When the ten commandments say “shall not” people pretty much understand it means no. When your mother said shall not you didn’t have a problem understanding what she meant.
          Your right that we have allowed the feds to modify and subvert the constitution for the last 175 or so years. I don’t know that it’s to late to roll it back. It wasn’t we the people who allowed it, more times than not it was activist judges who made law from the bench. Even with first stab of Federal gun control back in 1934 congress knew the courts wouldn’t allow the bill as outright gun control so they passed it under the guise of a tax bill. The 68 GCA and the 86 revision to the NFA laws are clearly unconstitutional.

        • I observe that one can talk to any number of people who claim to follow the Ten Commandments, and find more modifiers than even our constitution endures. More likely to encounter the Ten Whatevers.

          Since the early ’60s, the common thread of the society amounts to “Depends on what ‘is’ is. Thus, at least since then, “infringed” merely means, “absolute, but you gotta apply common sense”. Since the words, “under any and all circumstances, real or imagined, whatsoever and whensoever those should arise.” do not appear, Congress, the courts and the states are free to determine what “is” is. The first slat to fail is where communities decided RTKBA did not apply to criminals while incarcerated, 2A cannot be applied as an absolute. Any infringement that seems “common sense”, like the removal of 2A rights from the imprisoned, opens a never closable door that permits/authorized infringement to the level whoever holds political power decides. It is merely a matter of “whose ox is being gored”.

    • Some days ago Obama and Biden visited victims and family members in an Orlando hospital all victims of the shootings in the Pulse night club. After our elected by the people of America spoke to the nation. The one thing Obama mentioned and I happen to think is key is this. The families don’t care about the politics behind any of this they simply want you guys to do your job. We voteed for you guys and expect you to do your jobs VOTE. However you vote just vote. How many more American lives need to be lost? What do we pledge allegiance to justice for all which all does this speak to.

  2. A NEW ” Screw your Rights Now ….. You can ‘appeal’ after you get VIOLATED ” No – Fly no gun , Bi-partisan bill looks to come up for vote Wed. 6 / 22 / 16 in U.S. Senate as a rider to HR- 2578. C- Span quoted Pelosi as saying >
    ” Must pass anti gun laws before July recess “.. It AIN’T Over folks. And California has 5 bogus laws pending.
    Do NOT Blame – islam …. It’s teh gunz.

    Keep The Pressure ON ….. Call 202-225 – 3121

    • Five are how many have made it out of the Senate Appropriations Committee, and have been “conveniently” placed on the consent calendar to prevent any floor debate before they are passed. (I should say voted upon, but we already know the outcome). But there’s MORE. Six more, at last count, some of which are senate versions of these same assembly bills that are now pending in the assembly. No ARs after January 1, 2018, no internet ammo sales without being processed by a LGS (with processing fees and a background check adding $20 to the cost), ammo purchase registration, no loaning of firearms or ammo to nonfamily members, criminalization of failing to report lost or stolen firearms….And the beat(down goes on.

      • This is why many are fed up with NRA talk , by letting crap become law at state level , it paves the way for Federal intrusion on and elimination of Freedoms. Case in point , New Jersey has been using a NO -Fly list since 8 / 2013.
        No provision for ‘ Real ‘ before the fact , Due Process. It should have been challenged and removed.

        **** It’s not ” DUE PROCESS ” if you lose Rights first and must BEG to get them back. ******

        Is NRA or 2AF doing anything to STOP or Challenge Kalifornia bills / laws ?

  3. I’ve been thinking about this for a while.
    What matters in politics is the promise, not the result. The awb backfired on democrats because it promised to get assault weapons off the street, but it only exposed politicians ignorance about what assault weapons were.
    Here I think it was the due process infractions they wanted more than gun laws. The gun control was the selling point, but it would only cost them votes and wasn’t worth the price once due process was protected.
    Blaming republicans and the NRA was worth more.

    • +1000. Pay attention to this guy — he nailed it. Clearly they want to be able to put people on a list, NOT protect people.

    • Yep. You hit the nail right on the head. The only difference between the amendment they wanted and the one they voted down was the existence of due process. They wanted to legalize an all-purpose enemies list.

      • And we all saw what the Dems did once due process was added. This was a straight up post crisis power grab by the pols. Take notice people. This is a peek under the tent of tyranny. What shocks me is how so many don’t see this for what it is. Everyone should be pissed at the weasels but unfortunately the dumbing down of Americans over the past 50 years is paying off for the political class.

    • Yep! Because how many people are going to take the time to see in was the Ds that voted down their own bill. It is the emotion of the moment and the emotional base and talking heads to push the lies because few will seek the truth.

  4. Brass knuckles politics. Too bad Repubs are too timid to play like that. Honor and principles, donchaknow?

    In war, you don’t get to fight the war you want, but the war the otherside wants. What is total war for one side too often is met with “police action” by the other.

  5. I’m not the most informed but if 53 voted yea and 47 neigh, then why didn’t it pass? Is a majority not good enough?

  6. Clearly, neither political party cares about a few dead people… unless somehow they can be made to still vote for them.

  7. Oh you should’ve seen the outrage, nay righteous indignation today as he denounced republicans for his failure to vote for what he wanted. Yeah just a Jersey politician being himself. Or maybe it was his buddy tyrone the drug dealer that told him not to vote for it……

    • “Due process”, or otherwise known as Ruled Of Engagement (ROE), killed a bunch of us in Iraq and Af-stan.

      “Due process” is a problem, or not, depending on viewpoint and timing.

    • Everyone’s favorite Senator from CA was quoted (and recorded) this week saying that Americans who are on a watch list must “prove their innocence”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n98Urhcde_A

      I mean, Ted Kennedy was far from innocent, but he wasn’t technically a terrorist. I don’t believe that the dozen or so DHS employees on terror watch lists are actually terrorists either.

  8. All these political games and tricks make it really hard to care about much, since the individual has just about zero power to influence, or stop it.

    • True, but 100 million individuals armed with an average of 3 guns each CAN have an influence. That’s what has the Dems so scared and why they are trying so hard to take away that Constitutional protection, especially the right to own an effective deterrent weapon like an AR15 or AR10 or AK47.

  9. “arming every man, woman and child”
    What exactly is wrong with that?

    “The NRA nor the Gun manufacturers give a crap about human life.”
    Funny you finally found out about that. No one here on earth gives a crap about anyone other than family and friends. Now go and learn to take care of yourself

  10. As I’ve said before, this was never about passing a bill. it was all about the party getting behind Hillary and her anti-gun platform, to enable her to argue that it is “time for a change” in Washington, because the Republicans are supporting “terrorists.” That the Republicans want to arm terrorists that will attack Americans in their homes, businesses, and places of recreation and/or worship (which may be the same to some). (No mention of the Obama administration’s training and material support of various terrorist groups fighting in Syria mind you.)

    • Do you think the Repubs will have the nerve to challenge Hillarious on that “arming ISIS” thing, with a pounding about Obama directly shipping guns to drug cartels?

      No, probably not. Wouldn’t be fair to hit a woman…politically.

      • Trump will.

        He’s got plenty of dirt, and when it is just the two of them on the debate stage, with nowhere for her to hide, he will crucify her. He will get down and drag her into the gutter, where other Republicans fear to go, and he will leave Democrat voters so demoralized they will stay home.

        • “Trump will.”

          Maybe. If he survives the next circus in Cleveland. Making popcorn and hotdogs for that one.

      • Not to mention that Obama and Hillary provided arms to Syrian and Libyan rebels, who were also affiliated with al-Qaeda groups. Sure hope Trump mentions that in his speech about Hillary tomorrow.

  11. What a crock of $ H I T. 4749 was simply a watered down version of the democrats proposal that would close the loopholes allowing guns to be sold at shows w/o background checks. If background checks aren’t applied at every point of sale then what’s the point!?

    • Anyone who’s in the business of selling firearms without a license, and without requiring background checks, is already breaking existing laws. And the ATF loves cracking down on them.
      What’s the point of a background check if a criminal or terrorist just gets it from a straw purchaser (among other methods)?

  12. And no one-absolutely no media reports the truth… BTW here in IL we already got universal background checks. Nothing changed…

  13. People, we CANNOT let the Democrats and the squishy people in the middle continue to hear only one side. This article is very important. Tell your friends and neighbors that the Democrats voted down gun sale legislation. They won’t believe you, but I was watching C-SPAN and saw it with my own eyes. I’m sure there is video somewhere. Feinstein voted No (CA). Mikulski voted No (MD). Warren voted No (MA). Schumer voted No (NY). Murphy voted No (CT). These are the people who scream all the time about taking assault weapons and making guns flat-out illegal. They voted No. Don’t let them ever tell you anything again because they voted No.

    The only big gun grabber who voted yea was Manchin (WV). Not sure what to make of that. Maybe he decided to listen to his constituents. Maybe.

  14. The Dems objected to those nasty two words . . . “Due process.” If that’s what it takes to keep them in line, then fine by me.

  15. It’s immensely satisfying every time I get to vote against Chris Murphy (The senator that does nothing except run in the front of the line to the news cameras to feign righteous indignation every time a tragedy occurs) and all of the other totalitarians hailing from my state.

    As long as I maintain residence in the former Constitution State, I intend to continue doing so, as well.

    Alas, little seems to come of it.

  16. I wonder why the president and FBI and the attorney general don’t get all upset about the gun violence in Chicago this last weekend (about 12 dead and more than 50 wounded).

  17. What stands out to me in the amendment is the usage of the term “court of competent jurisdiction.” Are they talking about OUR court system? I sometimes wonder if we have a “court of competent jurisdiction.”

  18. This proves that Democrats are not only authoritarians (want to destroy due process), they are also liars (GOP wants terrorists to have guns).

    Note: their colleagues are fully complicit (press, minions, etc). It’s easy to understand this stuff. Lefty partisans want no part of that.

  19. “So Senator Murphy, when you say that the Republicans are “selling guns to ISIS” just remember who is actually to blame: yourself.”

    Name ONE person who had been proven by due process to be an ISIS member, who subsequently purchased a firearm through an FFL in the U.S.

    Nobody’s providing guns to terrorists except the U.S. government itself, to Mexican drug cartels and Syrian and Libyan factions.

    True, the U.S. government is allowing obvious terrorist members and sympathizers to run around the country committing murders, sometimes with firearms, and failing to charge and try them, but that’s more of a general federal incompetence thing rather than a sinister plot.

  20. It seems the proud lesbian white woman senator Tammy Baldwin from Wisconsin voted against this bill as well.
    She came out of the closet for gun control and against liberty. Link to follow.

  21. This article is a lie! I counted 51 republicans who voted NO and 42 Democrats voted YES. One Republican voted YES and only three Democrats voted NO.

    • You’re a mo-ron

      Grouped By Vote Position
      YEAs —53
      Alexander (R-TN)
      Ayotte (R-NH)
      Barrasso (R-WY)
      Blunt (R-MO)
      Boozman (R-AR)
      Burr (R-NC)
      Capito (R-WV)
      Cassidy (R-LA)
      Coats (R-IN)
      Cochran (R-MS)
      Corker (R-TN)
      Cornyn (R-TX)
      Cotton (R-AR)
      Crapo (R-ID)
      Cruz (R-TX)
      Daines (R-MT)
      Donnelly (D-IN)
      Enzi (R-WY)
      Ernst (R-IA)
      Fischer (R-NE)
      Gardner (R-CO)
      Graham (R-SC)
      Grassley (R-IA)
      Hatch (R-UT)
      Heller (R-NV)
      Hoeven (R-ND)
      Inhofe (R-OK)
      Isakson (R-GA)
      Johnson (R-WI)
      Lankford (R-OK)
      Lee (R-UT)
      Manchin (D-WV)
      McCain (R-AZ)
      McConnell (R-KY)
      Moran (R-KS)
      Murkowski (R-AK)
      Paul (R-KY)
      Perdue (R-GA)
      Portman (R-OH)
      Risch (R-ID)
      Roberts (R-KS)
      Rounds (R-SD)
      Rubio (R-FL)
      Sasse (R-NE)
      Scott (R-SC)
      Sessions (R-AL)
      Shelby (R-AL)
      Sullivan (R-AK)
      Thune (R-SD)
      Tillis (R-NC)
      Toomey (R-PA)
      Vitter (R-LA)
      Wicker (R-MS)
      NAYs —47
      Baldwin (D-WI)
      Bennet (D-CO)
      Blumenthal (D-CT)
      Booker (D-NJ)
      Boxer (D-CA)
      Brown (D-OH)
      Cantwell (D-WA)
      Cardin (D-MD)
      Carper (D-DE)
      Casey (D-PA)
      Collins (R-ME)
      Coons (D-DE)
      Durbin (D-IL)
      Feinstein (D-CA)
      Flake (R-AZ)
      Franken (D-MN)
      Gillibrand (D-NY)
      Heinrich (D-NM)
      Heitkamp (D-ND)
      Hirono (D-HI)
      Kaine (D-VA)
      King (I-ME)
      Kirk (R-IL)
      Klobuchar (D-MN)
      Leahy (D-VT)
      Markey (D-MA)
      McCaskill (D-MO)
      Menendez (D-NJ)
      Merkley (D-OR)
      Mikulski (D-MD)
      Murphy (D-CT)
      Murray (D-WA)
      Nelson (D-FL)
      Peters (D-MI)
      Reed (D-RI)
      Reid (D-NV)
      Sanders (I-VT)
      Schatz (D-HI)
      Schumer (D-NY)
      Shaheen (D-NH)
      Stabenow (D-MI)
      Tester (D-MT)
      Udall (D-NM)
      Warner (D-VA)
      Warren (D-MA)
      Whitehouse (D-RI)
      Wyden (D-OR)

  22. Why did they vote against it? C’mon, everybody who pays any attention at all knows that Congress is famous for attaching other bills or tricky language to a proposal to make it unacceptable to the other side. Your article is laughably short on details or an explanation as to why. You may fool those who gobble up everything you say without question, but it doesn’t fool informed people. Why did they vote it down?

    • Classified Information Procedures Act (18 U.S.C. App.);

      “The highest priority on th e docket” pursuant to application of he above law would require the FBI or Homeland Security to divulge that they had been watching the person and were investigating and tell the details. In other words, they would have to either take action against the petitioner or refuse to divulge—like they’re doing with Clinton now—and the person could then pick up his gun and walk after the case was dismissed. I’m thinking that would be it maybe.

  23. 26 gun owners who you should be afraid of

    • Rep. Ann Kirkpatrick
    • Rep. Bennie Thompson
    • Rep. Dina Titus
    • Rep. Dutch Ruppersberger
    • Rep. Jared Huffman
    • Rep. Jim Cooper
    • Rep. Jim Costa
    • Rep. John Carney
    • Rep. John Garamendi
    • Rep. Keith Ellison
    • Rep. Mike Thompson
    • Rep. Peter DeFazio
    • Rep. Peter Welch
    • Rep. Rick Nolan
    • Rep. Ron Kind
    • Rep. Steve Cohen
    • Rep. Tim Ryan
    • Sen. Gary Peters
    • Sen. Harry Reid
    • Sen. Mark Warner
    • Sen. Martin Heinrich
    • Sen. Patrick Leahy
    • Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse
    • Sen. Tammy Baldwin
    • Sen. Tim Kaine
    • Sen. Tom Carper

    But you should be even more concerned for they are in the House of Representative and they want to take your right to have a gun away.

  24. Your site should be called “aboutguns.com”, because it certainly isn’t the truth. Exactly what the Democrats wanted? You leave out the actual reason they voted against. The reason WAS the three-day time limit. Dishonest much?

Leave a Reply

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