Senate rejects background checks on gun purchases in 54-46 vote

Hill [Washington ^ | Alexander Bolton

[Nachum]

The Senate delivered a devastating blow to President Obama’s agenda to regulate guns Wednesday by defeating a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks. It failed by a vote of 54 to 46, with 5 Democrats voting against it. Only 4 Republicans supported it. Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) voted against it. Reid supported the measure but voted against it to preserve his ability to bring the measure up again. GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Mark Kirk

[Billthedrill]

I love the spin.

They were caught off guard by the vigorous lobbying campaign waged by the NRA, which warned lawmakers that Manchin-Toomey would be a factor in its congressional scorecard.

Wrong. Everyone in DC over the age of 10 knew where the NRA would stand. What caught them off guard was the political firestorm from their constituents.

We tend to think that the media drum-beating is directed at the lumpenproletariat but in fact it's far more so toward the ruling class, who are stuck in the Beltway echo chamber and so are consistently surprised when an issue such as this evokes a wave of resistance from the home front that the media assured them wasn't going to happen. Toomey will, it is to be hoped, pay for his credulity with his political life.

Manchin said the gun-owners-rights’ group told members the bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms. “I don’t know how to put the words any plainer than this: that is a lie,” he said.

The straw man is a lie, the real objection is not. The bill absolutely would criminalize private transfers unless they were reported to the government in the form of background checks which are in every sense registration. Were that not the case such data as the type of firearm, its manufacturer, its caliber, etc, etc, would be irrelevant; yet, oddly, these seem to be part of the required information. Why? Yes, that's a rhetorical question.

We are told that this one isn't over, and I'm inclined to agree. This was a tiny setback for the gun prohibitionists, who are too stupid to recognize the warning signs of a political avalanche when they appear. This one is only beginning.

[Tucker39]

Toomey STILL has to GO!

[Squantos]

For sure .... ? Was this the mancin or whatever his name is bill ?

So many out there I’m confused as to what bills and or amendments are attached to “for the chillins” insertion efforts by the leftists .

Indeed stocking up, never be caught short on .22 again. Spare mags, EBR’s etc with fodder should be stashed in every real Americans home.

Stay safe ... Nice shotgun btw !

[from occupied ga]

It’s time to confront these so-called victims

Good point. I just heard on the radio this morning that zero flew these a..holes to Wash in Air force 1 (at OUR expense of $181,000 per HOUR there and back) to lobby against our freedom. I felt sorry for them initially, but they've shown they're not worthy of any emotion except contempt and disgust.

[from occupied ga]

We won this skirmish, but there are still an awful lot of stupid voters out there.

Roughly 51% of them. 81% in New York.

[0.E.O]

46 traitors in the United States Senate.

You're saying those who voted against the bill are traitors? How so?

[0.E.O]

He voted against it in an attempt to save his NRA rating.

He voted against it because as one of the votes on the winning side he can later bring the bill up again for reconsideration. A losing Senator can't do that.

[rarestia]

I understand that point of order, but Reid pushed this bill as a panacea. He wanted it to pass. That is evident. When it was clear that he lacked the votes to pass it, he voted against it to save face.

He knows damn well those Senators up for re-election in 2014 will have a tough road ahead. He didn’t want to be one of them.

[SampleMan]

You're saying those who voted against the bill are traitors? How so? I made a mistake reading the article. I presumed it was a vote for passage, but was instead a vote to bring it to a vote (requiring 60 votes). So, 54 traitors in the Senate. I stand corrected.

[0.E.O]

He knows damn well those Senators up for re-election in 2014 will have a tough road ahead. He didn’t want to be one of them.

He's not up again until 2016.

[rarestia]

I understand that, but his rating with the NRA and his re-election in 2016 hinge on his gun control votes. He knows he’s a dead duck unless he can push through whole-hog gun confiscation. At that point, it won’t matter what his affiliations are.

[Joe Brower]

You've been added to my private RKBA ping-list.