Will Lindsey Graham Hold Senate Hearings on ‘Universal Background Checks’?

Federal red flag bill

Sen. Lindsey Graham (AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite, file)

Does Senator Graham know that “universal background checks” were shown to be utterly ineffective in the gun control utopia of California? Why waste the Senate’s valuable time? Shouldn’t the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body focus its efforts on more important things like the upcoming National Proofreading Day or the fact that March is National Cheerleading Safety Month?

Senate Democrats are ramping up their push for gun control, calling on a key GOP lawmaker to hold hearings on legislation to expand background check requirements for firearms purchases. In a letter to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, more than three dozen Dems said on Wednesday that “universal background checks save lives” and are supported by the vast majority of Americans. “We respectfully request that you hold a hearing on this critical legislation as soon as possible,” said the letter, which was spearheaded by Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), one of Congress’ most vocal gun reform advocates.

Last week, the House of Representatives passed legislation requiring background checks for every gun sale. Though the bill sailed through the Democrat-controlled House, it’s unlikely to pass the GOP-dominated Senate, where Republicans have long refused to hold votes on gun control measures. Today, Senate Democrats are beginning a push they hope will encourage their Republican colleagues to follow the House’s lead.

– Kara Voght at Mother Jones in Democrats Are Turning Up the Heat on Lindsey Graham Over Gun Control

comments

  1. avatar anarchyst says:

    No man’s life, liberty, or property are safe when the legislature is in session.

  2. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Congressional terms should be limited to one term. Congress should only be in session 2 months per year, one month in the spring and one month in the fall. Congressional candidates should be from everyday working class people and small business owners. The money to campaign with should come from a single superfund with money distributed equally between candidates. This should get rid of the political prostitutes we have in there now.

    1. avatar cgray says:

      Seriously, what’s the point of comments like yours? Every thing you wrote will never happen, and yet you still wrote it? WHY?

      1. avatar Ed Schrade says:

        Because it’s my opinion just like other posts on this and other sites and I have the right to do so, same as you do. I’m glad our founding fathers didn’t throw in the towel before they started. When was the last time you called your senator and representative and followed up with an e mail ?

        1. avatar cgray says:

          And then they’ll vote exactly as I tell them? Are you really that naive? So many people like you who are just pissing in the wind, and yet you genuinely believe your opinion is respected. Bizarre.

        2. avatar Gadsden says:

          Cgray, so in your opinion we should just give up?

        3. avatar 33Charlemagne says:

          With term limits Congress would be more susceptible to things like a temporary increase in popular support of gun control. Support for gun control is very unstable. It rises when there is some highly publicized shooting but usually falls very quickly. Pro-gun support is for more stable. Term limited legislators are more likely to ride a wave of gun control hysteria such as the post- Parkland rampage. At the same time they are less to have to worry about vindictive gun enthusiasts vote them out of office as happened in 1994.

    2. avatar Jay in Florida says:

      Ed if it helps I agree with you 100%. Realistically its never going to happen.

      1. avatar cgray says:

        Wow, a person commenting on TTAG who actually lives in the real world.

        1. avatar Gadsden says:

          Many of the commenters here are far smarter then the ones on your average social media swarm.

    3. avatar No one of consequence says:

      One problem with formal term limits is that power is transferred to the (unelected) bureaucracy that nominally is supposed to support the legislature. The fewer the allowed terms, the greater the transfer, because a legislator has less time to learn how to get things done, both procedurally and politically … and the more indifferent the bureaucrats become to their nominal superiors’ instructions, because they know those superiors will time out. So we wind up with an unelected bureaucracy making (even more of) the laws we have to live by and even less responsive to those we elect.

      And, of course, in an elective system, term limits can be in effect imposed at every single election. Most electorates don’t, however, exercise that option.

      1. avatar cheese4432 says:

        You make it sound like term limits mean a congress member is only around for 5 years tops. The senate has terms of six years, as it was intended (my understanding) that they be around longer than the president. If the get limited to three terms that’s still 18 years, PLENTY of time to become experienced. The house has terms of two years because they were meant to come and go, limit them to say 4 or five terms, that 8 or 10 years, this is still a faster rotation than the senate but 8 or 10 years is still enough time to become experienced. I don’t think the lobbyist gaining more power is as much of a problem as many make it to be.

    4. avatar GluteusMaximus says:

      At this point i think if we filled these political offices the way we do jury duty it couldn’t be worse

  3. avatar Ed Schrade says:

    Lindsey Graham never saw a microphone he could resist, he is a drama queen. Just a barking dog that barks at anything.

  4. avatar Green Mtn. Boy says:

    Senator Grahamnasty is a RINO,first,last and always,of course he will,anything to infringe on “We The People”.

    1. avatar tdiinva says:

      You are an idiot. Graham shot down gun control after Sandy Hook. He will do so again. I assume anybody who tosses around the term RINO is a dupe or a false flagger. Which one are you?

    2. avatar Gadsden says:

      While Graham hasn’t been perfect on many issues, he did fight hard for Kavannaugh when the rest of the GOP, even Trump, was looking like they were going to turn their back on him and throw in the towel on SCOTUS. That will have a lasting positive impact on our republic.

      1. avatar Wiregrass says:

        Yes, for some reason that Kavanaugh hearing really punched his buttons. That was completely unexpected. I’ve never seen Graham stand up for anything but defense appropriations.

  5. avatar 3 Percent Forever says:

    We will not comply with unconstitutional laws. Go ahead and pass it the honest citizens of this country will rise up and say HELL NO! We will not comply!

  6. avatar Soylent Green says:

    “Though the bill sailed through the Democrat-controlled House, it’s unlikely to pass the GOP-dominated Senate”

    now imagine a demo controlled house, and demo majority senate, and demo pres. We would be hate f*cked in an instant.

    Sadly, a very possible outcome in the near future

    1. avatar Omer says:

      While I agree in principle, they didn’t do it when they had the chance. Why? I’m unsure if the answer. Perhaps they are constrained by something other than R’s.

      1. avatar Geoff "I'm getting too old for this shit" PR says:

        “While I agree in principle, they didn’t do it when they had the chance. Why?”

        Obama chose to make ‘Health Care’ his legacy, so he blew most of his political capitol on that when he was elected.

        We got lucky. Had he focused on guns the way he did on ‘ObamaCare’, semi-auto firearms would have been history…

        1. avatar enuf says:

          We are also lucky that Romney lost. As the only candidate in the race to have actually succeeded at passing gun bans and laying increased taxes on gun owners, he’d of flipped to his anti-gun persona in the blink of an eye.

    2. avatar M1Lou says:

      I’ve said this on here a few times. We are only one bad election away from getting totally screwed. The Dems have shown they have no qualms about trashing the constitution. Look at a lot of super blue states as the model. They will pass law after law, year after year. The courts, even if they were to uphold the constitution, are too slow to effectively strike down unconstitutional laws. Look at how many gun rights cases the SCOTUS ignores that have split district court decisions.

  7. avatar Marcus says:

    Yes lets do it, lets have hours and hours and hours of non stop debate and discussion till there is a video record of every argument about “universal” background checks in the public sphere! This would make for some nice YouTube clips I bet too and maybe even save a lot of arguing against the Libtard by just using a link to a video.

    1. avatar Mark N. says:

      And be sure to introduce into the record the studies by the anti-gun activists Gary Wintemute and others that RECENTLY found no impact on “gun violence” rates when UBCs were imposed. California has had them for 18 years now–and still no effect. These folks admit that there is no impact, and that passing such laws is just a “first step,” prior to requiring registration. (“Just one more law…”) It would be great to fill the legislative record with FACTS like these, and not just the opinions of the uneducated that they want such laws “because. gunz”

    2. avatar Kenneth says:

      And I’m sure that googletube will not censor any positions, or edit anything to make someone they choose look stupid. Ohhh, or just pull funding from however they dislike. After all…Google/Youtube has a long, long history of fairness….. right? 🙂
      Pull the other leg, its got bells on.

  8. avatar Jay in Florida says:

    Hopefully he wont waste time on this. As said enough times only 3% of the voting public even cares about guns. Let the dimwits in the house look foolish.

    1. avatar SoCalJack says:

      Based on many face-to-face conversations (I have kids and so I talk to a lot of parents) I have with liberals and moderates, guns are not even on their minds. But, unfortunately these same folks only have the leftist media to go by for info. So I educate them if there’s interest.

  9. avatar million says:

    “universal background checks save lives”

    No, they don’t. There is no association between UBCs and firearm homicide and suicide rates. None. That should be pounded into the head of anyone listening. It should be the message that is repeated loud and often on CSPAN and every other media program.

  10. avatar GlockMeAmadeus says:

    Lisping Lindsey is on the record saying he owns AR15s and would never support banning them.

    If you can trust the hand puppet of John McCains ghost, rest easy knowing he has your back.

  11. avatar GS650G says:

    Buy guns and ammo now. Have a plan for hiding them in the future. Be prepared for questioning later.

    The rubber meets the road when guns are not just pulled from sale or controlled in transfer. It’s when they magically outlaw possession. Now they can approach a possession ban three ways.
    1. Require disposal or transfer out of state or even the country. This might be outlawed if a federal ban ever makes it into law.
    2. They can take guns discovered in searches, crimes, or other activities as a side affair. Charges are sure to follow.
    3. They can go get the guns. This is what the left craves but LEO isn’t too keen on. Sure, There are a lot of operators that want to go through doors and pretend it’s Mosul but that is going to get messy. Someone is going to get hurt or killed. Not good.

    So if Oz only got 650k guns out of 3.5 million in 20 years how many do they think will get turned in here? 100 million? Really?
    That ship sailed a long time ago. Confiscation isn’t doable because they don’t have the manpower they can’t lock millions of people up without destroying the country.
    But they will make it hard to buy things and transfer. So buy guns and ammo and be prepared to sit on stuff. Just like Oz and UK.

    1. avatar DaveP.. says:

      None of these is going to happen,. Instead they’ll wait until after Single Payer has been passed. Then they’ll simply list owning firearms as a ‘preventable lifestyle hazard”, limiting coverage and services for gun owners and their families until the guns are surrendered. Got a bad tooth? An infection? Daughter broke a leg falling off her bicycle? Oops, you’re redflagged in the database as a gun owner, your deductible is now $10K and you’ll have to wait three months for a seat in the waiting room. This is how the NHS does with smokers and other ‘antisocial types’ in England.
      The best part about it? It can all be done by bureaucratic fiat, no legislation required.

      1. avatar uncommon_sense says:

        DaveP.,

        I predict something along the same lines:
        Firearm owners and other people with the “wrong” politics will be on a widely disseminated list which will result in both public and private enterprises either seriously sandbagging you or outright refusing your business.

        Life gets quite ugly quite fast if all banks refuse you as a customer, if the electric utility refuses to provide electricity, if the natural gas provider refuses to provide natural gas, if the cell phone carriers refuse to provide cell phone service, if the local grocery stores refuse to sell you their products, etc., etc., etc. Similarly, your life is almost equally ugly if all those entities keep making “mistakes” that result in service disruptions, billing errors, false demerits on your credit report, errant referrals to collection agencies, “accidental” data breaches (effectively doxing you and/or facilitating identity theft), and all other manner of shenanigans that public and private entities can claim were inadvertent errors.

        I recommend that we start thinking ahead about countermeasures — if there even are any such countermeasures, whether those countermeasures be personal, public, and/or legal in nature.

  12. avatar former water walker says:

    Just when I think the “bro without a ho” is sort of OK…😩

  13. avatar pwrserge says:

    Oh I would LOVE to have a dead bill debated in an open committee… Getting all the gungrabbers on record in a public setting for the 2020 elections would be PRICELESS.

  14. avatar Mother Jones Sucks says:

    I just managed to get banned from those socialist circle jerkers at MoJo yesterday over this very topic. Joy!

  15. avatar possum says:

    Will Lindsey Graham,? So he’s related to William (Billy) Graham. I thought they were Republicans. He must be the black sheep of the family. Either way he’s one of those who’ve sworn to uphold the Constitution and are running amok infringing the Rights of the Constitution. The National Guard should do something about this.

    1. avatar Darkman says:

      Our Founding Fathers would be done shooting by now.

  16. avatar Patrick Hall says:

    Nothing would surprise me. Miss Lindsey doesn’t stand for anything anymore.

  17. avatar strych9 says:

    “Why waste the Senate’s valuable time? “

    Because, in the longer term, having a seat at the table means you have a voice at that table whereas walking away means the people at the table simply get to slander you in preparation for when they truly run the table and will do what they want regardless of your opinion because you walked away and never even bothered to voice an objection.

    Sunlight is the best disinfectant. Closing the blinds may feel better now but it’s counterproductive in the long run.

  18. avatar enuf says:

    There would be value in bringing our side to testify under oath as to all the fallacies in this legislation. Better still, to bring those anti-gunner’s who’s own studies support our side, and force them to answer hard questions. It could be a treasure trove of video footage for us to make use of for years to come.

Write a Comment

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

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