Gun Safety: ‘Shame On You!’

Gun Lobby

Tucson shooting survivor Patricia Maisch spoke for 90 percent of Americans today. After the Republicans stopped a weak firearm background check bill with a silent filibuster that required a 60-vote super-majority, she called out “Shame on you!” from the Senate gallery. The bill failed despite the support of 54 senators. Only four Republicans voted to break the filibuster (Utah senators Orrin Hatch and Mike Lee voted to kill the bill).

President Obama commented on the absurdity of this vote:

I’m going to speak plainly and honestly about what’s happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen. We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with “A” grades from the NRA — come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks. And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.

As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights. All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet.

Broadcast and cable networks interrupted regular programming to bring viewers Obama’s remarks, except for the Faux News Channel.

Four Democratic senators voted against the baby-step background check bill, but the filibuster was 100 percent Republican – so they get the blame. Must be used to wearing the black hats by now, anyway.

More info:
Gabrielle Giffords: A Senate in the Gun Lobby’s Grip

I watch TV and read the papers like everyone else. We know what we’re going to hear: vague platitudes like “tough vote” and “complicated issue.” I was elected six times to represent southern Arizona, in the State Legislature and then in Congress. I know what a complicated issue is; I know what it feels like to take a tough vote. This was neither. These senators made their decision based on political fear…

UPDATE: Gun Violence Victims Detained, Put Through Background Check For Yelling ‘Shame On You’ At Senators. Imagine that, a background check.

UPDATE: Gun Control Defeat Shows Washington Is Where Change Goes To Die

UPDATE: Heartless Right Wing Response to Gun Victims Demonstrates Emptiness of Their Arguments

  1. #1 by brewski on April 18, 2013 - 7:03 am

    Richard,
    You called this bill “a fake firearm background check bill that would have done almost nothing if it became law!”
    So why is voting against a fake bill that would have done nothing so shameful?
    Or are you now a kabuki actor?

  2. #2 by Richard Warnick on April 18, 2013 - 7:16 am

    Kabuki is a Washington art. The Gun Lobby put forth a fake substitute bill, and if it became law they would cite it as proof that background checks “don’t work.” But an effective background check system would work.

    Here’s what’s shameful. A minority of cowardly senators could not muster the courage even to vote for the largely-symbolic substitute bill, for the reason President Obama explained yesterday.

    [T]he gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of “big brother” gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter.

    And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners, and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators.

    The Gun Lobby outsmarted themselves, IMHO. The President was prepared to sign any bill he could call “gun safety” but they over-acted, always a danger with Kabuki theater.

  3. #3 by Shane on April 18, 2013 - 7:53 am

    It really amazes me that the majority of people voting can lose to a minority who will vote no on anything, in this case a bill that a vast majority of Americans support, and we can call it “government” without a trace of irony.

    By some polls 90% of voters support increased background checks. How is this a difficult vote? How can an entire party vote against the will of 9 out of 10 of theeople they “represent” and even pretend to have an interest in a representative democracy? Even the assault weapons ban has 58-60% behind it. How are these people representatives?

    Wasn’t there a time when we were proud as Americans that we showed the way for the world to move forward? Or is that all bullshit? What do we lead the world in today, aside from invading other countries and bombing them, and shooting and imprisoning more of our own citizens per capita than anyone else? Anything?

    How did the Romans who lived as the empire declined fell? Did they fell like this?

  4. #4 by Bob S. on April 18, 2013 - 9:17 am

    Richard,

    But an effective background check system would work.

    So tell us how you would design ‘an effective background check system’ please.

    Include in the details how you plan to stop straw purchasing, account for the hundreds of millions of unregistered firearms, eh.

  5. #6 by Bob S. on April 18, 2013 - 9:28 am

    Shane,

    It really amazes me that the majority of people voting can lose to a minority who will vote no on anything, in this case a bill that a vast majority of Americans support, and we can call it “government” without a trace of irony.

    Maybe that is why we aren’t a straight democracy but a Constitutional Republic. First, the purposed laws, despite Richard’s repeated patented foot stomping insistence, would have been “unconstitutional”.

    By some polls 90% of voters support increased background checks. How is this a difficult vote? How can an entire party vote against the will of 9 out of 10 of theeople they “represent” and even pretend to have an interest in a representative democracy?

    Second, we protect the rights of the minority from the tyranny of the majority. I realize that may be a foreign concept to some people but it is the way things work.

    ,blockquote> Even the assault weapons ban has 58-60% behind it. How are these people representatives?

    Define “Assault Weapon” in operational terms and not cosmetic features….then come back and we’ll talk.

    Wasn’t there a time when we were proud as Americans that we showed the way for the world to move forward? Or is that all bullshit? What do we lead the world in today, aside from invading other countries and bombing them, and shooting and imprisoning more of our own citizens per capita than anyone else? Anything?

    Well might have more people in prison per capita than anyone else but we definitely don’t have more shooting per capita than anyone else. That is a common lie from the Anti-Rights Cultists — just simply isn’t true.

    How did the Romans who lived as the empire declined fell? Did they fell like this?

    Hmm…how about something that echoes strongly today as an answer>

    Rome in the first two centuries A.D. faced a yawning gulf between rich and poor. The mighty empire built on tribute reached its geographic limits. Its economy created few exportable goods. Slaves acquired by conquest built most of its bridges, roads and aqueducts and took jobs in farming, mining and construction. As this cheaper labor replaced Roman citizens, idle, unemployed, hungry people filled the capital.

    The Caesars created make-work and part-time jobs, subsidized housing and doled out grain. Even more, they found, was needed. “A people that yawns is ripe for revolt,” wrote Jerome Carcopino in “Daily Life in Ancient Rome.”

    The emperors added holidays until, eventually, the Romans spent half their days attending gladiator games, public executions and chariot races. Disgusted, the satirist Juvenal accused his fellow citizens of selling out for bribes of “bread and circuses.” The Romans did nothing to prove him wrong, until two centuries later the empire was divided forever and Rome was sacked by Visigoths.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-02/the-danger-of-living-on-bread-and-circuses-alice-schroeder.html

    • #7 by Shane Smith on April 18, 2013 - 1:21 pm

      “Maybe that is why we aren’t a straight democracy but a Constitutional Republic. First, the purposed laws, despite Richard’s repeated patented foot stomping insistence, would have been “unconstitutional”.”

      If you believe this, there is no point in talking to you, as you have completely given in to you delusions and cognitive dissonance.

      More importantly, even if it where true, we also have the power to change the constitution. And 90-94% is a large enough majority to do just that. So you are wrong twice.

      In other words, fuck you, and fuck the horse you rode in on.

      • #8 by Bob S. on April 18, 2013 - 2:21 pm

        Shane,

        You are so cute when you resort to foul language. I know you have no reasonable argument to make.

        Passing an unconstitutional law isn’t the same as changing the constitution. You want to open up that can of worms, go ahead.

        Go ahead, think what you want — but the poll numbers also state only 4% of the population think Gun Control should be a priority.

        Pout, cuss, stomp your feet, do what you want but you can’t change the fact that we still have the Right to Keep and Bear Arms.

        Molon Labe :)

        • #9 by Larry Bergan on April 19, 2013 - 10:52 pm

          Oh, Bob S.

          What’s the old saying about people who use swear words?

          When eloquently used at the exact right time, they can be very effective.

          Orrin Hatch uses them, but with no eloquence.

          Whose side are you on?

          • #10 by Shane Smith on April 19, 2013 - 11:57 pm

            Should I tell that after I type a message in reply to his I go back and add swear words just so he can get his panties in a twist?

          • #11 by cav on April 20, 2013 - 7:54 am

            Somehow I had you pegged for a ‘Panty-Twister’

      • #12 by brewski on April 18, 2013 - 2:33 pm

        Bob, I don’t agree with you. But looks like you still won.

  6. #14 by cav on April 18, 2013 - 9:49 am

    Harry Reid voted against it.

    He changed his vote to “NO” at the last minute, so he can bring the bill up again later, presumably without starting over in committee.

  7. #15 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on April 18, 2013 - 10:04 am

    It’s never gonna pass. It’s done, and the damage to democrats will be hard felt. They took the risk, to violate our rights, and failed, make them pay America, make them PAY!!

    Stick a fork in obama’s ass, he’s dun…as for ried, him too..

    It does not matter if a majority wants an inalienable right removed, they do not get to change any inalienable right by plebiscite. The government has no right to know who possesses lethal force, as it is inevitable a government fall to corruption and evil, and as it turn upon it’s citizens, not knowing who can shoot back, is priceless to the citizen..

    • #16 by Richard Warnick on April 18, 2013 - 11:09 am

      Nobody even came within miles of violating anybody’s rights with gun safety legislation. Maybe we ought to talk USA PATRIOT Act, Military Commissions Act, FISA Amendments, or NDAA?

      • #17 by brewski on April 18, 2013 - 1:16 pm

        Gun safety legislation?

        Harry “I didn’t get enough oxygen at birth” Reid called it “anti-gun legislation”.

  8. #18 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on April 18, 2013 - 10:06 am

    Rome the Fascism lasted longer than Rome the Republic..the long slide down is paved with gimmees and circuses, illegal wars, pillage and murder..Look around, food stamps and the NFL..

  9. #19 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on April 18, 2013 - 10:10 am

    And Shane, ignorant children might want to vote the law away that establishes their bedtime, but they don’t get to…that is the way it is with inalienable rights in the Constitution, what the public wants, is IRRELEVANT! The 2nd is the 2nd and preserves lethal personal arming, as tyranny is always about destroying the 1st, the right to free assembly, religion, speech. If they are violated by any citizens, or the government, out comes the GUNS!! The beauty of the 2nd is that it will never be needed until traitors in governance and within the citizenry try to take it away..

    • #20 by Shane Smith on April 18, 2013 - 1:22 pm

      So you understand the constitution no better than the moron named Bob, huh?

  10. #21 by cav on April 18, 2013 - 10:55 am

    Well. it was something of a weak-sauce effort on the part of the legislature from the git go. To bad everybody is made to look like ineffective dorks, rather than empowered citizens.

    Feature, not a bug.

  11. #22 by cav on April 18, 2013 - 11:00 am

    Minnesota radio host Bob Davis last week said last Friday he would like to personally tell the families in Newtown, Connecticut whose children were murdered to “go to hell.”

    On his show Davis & Emmer, which is broadcast by Twin Cities News Talk AM 1130, he attacked the families of those killed in the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School for speaking in support of stricter gun laws.

    “I have something I want to say to the victims of Newtown, or any other shooting,” Davis said. “I don’t care if it’s here in Minneapolis or anyplace else. Just because a bad thing happened to you doesn’t mean that you get to put a king in charge of my life. I’m sorry that you suffered a tragedy, but you know what? Deal with it, and don’t force me to lose my liberty, which is a greater tragedy than your loss. I’m sick and tired of seeing these victims trotted out, given rides on Air Force One, hauled into the Senate well, and everyone is just afraid — they’re terrified of these victims.”

    “I would stand in front of them and tell them, ‘go to hell,’” he added.

    He should run for office.

    • #23 by Richard Warnick on April 18, 2013 - 11:07 am

      The worst part is, the number of mass shooting victims, and survivors of mass shootings keeps getting larger and larger.

      • #24 by Larry Bergan on April 19, 2013 - 10:41 pm

        Plus: They’re probably, sort of, angry at our disregard for them.

    • #25 by Larry Bergan on April 19, 2013 - 8:30 pm

      Bob Davis huh?

      Sounds like a guy you’d want to have a beer with.

      Way to go Twin Cities News Talk AM 1130. :(

    • #27 by Shane Smith on April 18, 2013 - 1:23 pm

      I assume they will be tried for violating his constitutional rights…. Jesus what a joke.

  12. #28 by obama's jack booted truncheon wielding goons on April 18, 2013 - 4:45 pm

    No one stopped them from their rants. They acted and were then vetted inside the government buildings. They suffered no consequences and their 1st amendment rights were completely respected.

    As for the Constitution, it is absurd on it’s face that after 11 years of starving, fighting, dying, freezing, in a battle with the world’s greatest power, that the men who actually fought would have representatives who would first thing make the cultural fact of personal gun ownership not a right they possessed upon their well earned victory.

    If such a declaration were made in 1787 upon ratification of the Constitution, you can be sure the vast majority of the contingents would have turned their personal arms onto their “representatives”.

    As well, as a matter of history, to be part of any militia in the Revolutionary War, you had to own your own gun. The militia did not provide them. Case closed, Shane is Dumb.

    All hail Dumb Shane!!

    You’re kinda stupid Shane Smith, and funny too, in a sorta self absorbed kind of way..

    • #29 by Richard Warnick on April 19, 2013 - 2:28 pm

      This is the 21st Century, and gun worshipers are a distinct minority. Deal with it.

  13. #31 by Shane Smith on April 20, 2013 - 7:57 am

    cav :
    Somehow I had you pegged for a ‘Panty-Twister’

    Left hand…. Blue!

  14. #33 by Larry Bergan on April 20, 2013 - 9:38 am

    At least we’re not reverent. And that’s a good thing.

    Methinks,

    And I don’t even know scripture.

(will not be published)


%d bloggers like this: