SENATE Gun Control 2016

[Tony-DarkGrave]

there's a vote right now on Gun Control in the Senate being voted on you can watch it now here.

Here's a step-by-step guide on what Monday's gun control votes mean and how to follow along.

The ground rules: The votes are expected to start at 5:30 p.m. Eastern time on Monday, and they'll be proposed as amendments to a larger spending bill for the Commerce and Justice departments.

All four amendments will need 60 votes to be included in the package, which will also need to gain final approval. But given the partisan makeup of the Senate (54 Republican, 46 Democrat), and how the gun debate tends to fall neatly along partisan lines, we don't expect any of the proposals to advance.

No. 1: Tighten up our background check system (Republican amendment)

(AP Photo/J. Scott Applewhite)
What it proposes: Tries to open the lines of communication between the background check agency that Congress set up in the 1990s, the federal courts, the states and Congress to better carry out background checks. More specifically, defines what it means to be found "mentally incompetent" to buy a gun. Also requires the attorney general to conduct a study on "various sources and causes of mass shootings, including psychological factors, the impact of violent video games, and other factors."

Sponsor: Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), chair of the Judiciary Committee

Amendment name to follow along on C-SPAN: S. Amdt 4751

How this fared in previous votes: Not well. A version of this that Grassley introduced in December failed to clear the 60-vote hurdle, 53-46.

Our prediction: It will fail this time too. Democrats don't think it does enough to expand background checks because, well, it doesn't expand background checks. It simply tries to improve the system we have now.

No. 2: Expand background checks (Democratic amendment)
Will Sen. Chris Murphy's gun control filibuster change anything? Embed Share Play Video2:25
The Fix's Amber Phillips breaks down why Congress is unlikely to pass major gun control legislation, despite Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) filibustering for 15 hours on June 15. (Peter Stevenson/The Washington Post)
What it does: Requires that a federal background check be conducted before every gun sale in the U.S., period. (The background check system Congress set up in the '90s only requires background checks by federally licensed firearm dealers, which means you can usually skip it if you try to buy a gun online, at a gun show or from your friend.)

Sponsor: Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), the senator who talked on the floor for nearly 15 hours Wednesday to demand these votes. (For what it's worth, Senate Republicans say that even before Murphy seized the Senate floor, they expected Democrats to force votes on gun control amendments.)

Amendment name to follow along on C-SPAN: S. Amdt 4750

How this fared in previous votes: Not well, although it got some bipartisan support. It failed to get the 60 needed to move on, 48-50, although four Republicans voted for it: Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine, John McCain of Arizona and Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania.

Our prediction: It will fail again. Most Republicans don't support expanding background checks to gun shows and other purchases -- or simply fear any additional gun laws are a slippery slope.

No. 3: Prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns (Republican version)

The FBI's Terrorist Watchlist, explained Embed Share Play Video3:23
The FBI's Terrorist Watchlist reportedly had over 800,000 names on it in 2014. Omar Mateen, who killed 49 people at an Orlando nightclub June 12, was once one of those names. Here's what you need to know about the Watchlist. (Monica Akhtar/The Washington Post)
What it does: Right now, anyone on the FBI's various terrorist watch lists -- including the no-fly list that prevents you from getting on a plane -- can legally buy a gun. Under this bill, if you're on that list and try to buy a gun, you'd have to wait 72 hours. The idea is to give federal officials time to convince a judge there's probable cause you have ties to terrorism while still protecting the 2nd Amendment rights of anyone who is mistakenly on a terrorist watch list -- like the late Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-Mass.) once was.

Sponsor: Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), Senate Republicans' No. 2 leader

Amendment name to follow along on C-SPAN: S. Amdt 4749

How this fared in previous votes: Not well. (Sensing a trend here?) A similar version failed in December on a 55-44 vote. Democrats -- and Attorney General Loretta Lynch -- say it's impossible to put together a case that a potential gun purchaser is a suspected terrorist in just three days, so they argue this bill would essentially allow anyone on the watch list to still be able to buy a gun.

Our prediction: It will fail again, for the reasons described above.

No. 4: Prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns (Democratic version)

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) (Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images)
What it does: Lets the attorney general ban anyone on FBI's various terrorist watch lists from being able to buy guns. If you feel like you're mistakenly on the list and you get denied a gun, you can challenge the FBI's decision in court.

Sponsor: Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.)

Amendment name to follow along on C-SPAN: S. Amdt. 4720

How this fared in previous votes: Not well, although it got some bipartisan support. A similar version of this failed in December, 45-54, with two senators voting on the other side: Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-N.D.) voted with Republicans against this bill, and Sen. Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) voted with Democrats for this bill.

Our prediction: It will fail again. Republicans think this bill takes away people's constitutional rights for due process because it bans them from buying a gun first, then allows them to challenge it in court later. And even as some Republicans have expressed a willingness to look at the no-fly list proposal -- up to and including Donald Trump -- they are more likely to favor the GOP proposal over this one.

I really hope none of these pass the NRA and the GOP have been at it like crazy in campaigning and lobbying.

[aviewaskewed]

As usual it all failed because the NRA and it's members and money rule all. The end.

See you all again at the next mass shooting.

[Feoric]

At 6/20/16 09:35 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: As usual it all failed because the NRA and it's members and money rule all. The end.

See you all again at the next mass shooting.

America wins again.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

well to be fair none of the legislation on either side were very good. the only good outcome was they all got shot down and burned and that Feinstein and the various gun control groups are losing their collective minds. people are shouting at the North Dakota dem about voting against all of them (voting party lines with the dems against the GOP legislation as well) and still getting crap for it and talking about voting her out in November when Heitkamp isn't up for reelection until mid 2018.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/21/16 10:50 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote: So, bipartisanship won in D.C.

apparently in order to do absolutely nothing on the issue. of course there were more dem defectors then there were more Dem defectors on the GOP side to stop the more effective democrat legislation.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/21/16 11:01 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: apparently in order to do absolutely nothing on the issue.

aka, business as usual. We will NEVER pass even the most basic of federal legislation in this country because the NRA is the most perfect lobby ever:

They are one issue
That issue can be summed up in one word "NO"
They have a shit ton of members and money they get from them
They are amazing at getting those members out there to vote for or against any candidate the NRA tells them to.

[Feoric]

The NRA is a cultural and political problem, and those sorts of problems can be fixed.

[Artist-Lost]

The NRA is nothing more then a group of American Citizens who hold the same view on gun ownership being a constitutional right and a means of protection. It's kind of like the minority saying, HEY majority of the population, you are all bad people because you vote against our agenda...

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/21/16 04:45 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

At 6/21/16 11:01 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: apparently in order to do absolutely nothing on the issue.

aka, business as usual. We will NEVER pass even the most basic of federal legislation in this country because the NRA is the most perfect lobby ever:

well a few carebears in the Senate are reintroducing a compromise bill containing the stuff that was previously voted down and fixing the concerns.

They are one issue

aren't most mega lobbies?

That issue can be summed up in one word "NO"

they supported one bill on the GOP side.

They have a shit ton of members and money they get from them

oh yeah I donated the day before the vote got an additional 4 years on my membership for $80.

They are amazing at getting those members out there to vote for or against any candidate the NRA tells them to.

well usually the assholes I vote out get reelected anyways.

[orangebomb]

At 6/21/16 08:19 PM, Artist-Lost wrote: The NRA is nothing more then a group of American Citizens who hold the same view on gun ownership being a constitutional right and a means of protection.

Technically, they're not wrong on that statement. The 2nd amendment does say that gun ownership shall not be infringed (in other words not taken away by government action) and guns are used for personal protection all the time. The problem is that the 2nd amendment doesn't say anything about guns other than what it says, and because of that, the Republicans interpret that as all guns being legal on some level.

This is one of the reasons why many anti-gun laws fail, and in turn why banning guns (either one type of gun or in general) is viewed as knee-jerk at best and outright heresy at worst. Polarization of politics certainly doesn't help at all, but that's a different topic.

It's kind of like the minority saying, HEY majority of the population, you are all bad people because you vote against our agenda...

It's a little more complicated than that.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/22/16 09:10 AM, X-Gary-Gigax-X wrote:

At 6/21/16 08:50 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: well a few carebears in the Senate are reintroducing a compromise bill containing the stuff that was previously voted down and fixing the concerns.

That may have some legs. Remember, that's the art of negotiation: put out the lowest/highest price you want for the deal. When that doesn't work, haggle down the price to make your first offer seem reasonable by comparison.

Not with the NRA lobbying and the GOP and the the few dems that are pro-2A I doubt they'll have the votes.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/21/16 08:50 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: well a few carebears in the Senate are reintroducing a compromise bill containing the stuff that was previously voted down and fixing the concerns.

Is that the bill that Senator Corwyn (I think that's her name) was introducing? Read something about that yesterday but the article seemed vague on what it actually said about what was in it, but long on whether or not a coalition can be formed.

they supported one bill on the GOP side.

Which one?

well usually the assholes I vote out get reelected anyways.

But is it not true that you periodically get calls or materials mailed to you about candidates that the NRA deems friendly or unfriendly and asks you to vote accordingly? I'm not saying they have a 100 percent success rate, but being able to bring big numbers to bear is enough to scare people who's careers depend on the public turning up to reaffirm them every few years.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/22/16 04:25 PM, aviewaskewed wrote:

Is that the bill that Senator Corwyn (I think that's her name) was introducing? Read something about that yesterday but the article seemed vague on what it actually said about what was in it, but long on whether or not a coalition can be formed.

Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine

Which one?

No. 3: Prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns (Republican version)

But is it not true that you periodically get calls or materials mailed to you about candidates that the NRA deems friendly or unfriendly and asks you to vote accordingly? I'm not saying they have a 100 percent success rate, but being able to bring big numbers to bear is enough to scare people who's careers depend on the public turning up to reaffirm them every few years.

about every week on shit I already know the intricate details or shit I know isn't going to pass I expect them to call again next week even though I donated and extended my membership this week because of the Fed votes, I just did it so I could extend now because it was a deal and for their numbers when Anti-gunners bitch about their fundraising and spending.
The NRA has a great track record on the Federal level but when it comes to the State level its mixed depending on the state whether its Blue or Red state and the 56 senators who voted down the Feinstein Amendment (HATE HER) got collectively $37 MILLION DOLLARS in campaign contributions from the NRA.

there's a reason why its a mega lobby they literally buy votes.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

Democrats are throwing a shit fit and performing a sit in due to their amendments being shot down and it can only be watched via stream since no cameras are on and are streaming via Facebook and Periscope.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/22/16 04:54 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: Republican Senator Susan Collins from Maine

Thanks for the correction.

No. 3: Prevent suspected terrorists from buying guns (Republican version)

Easier said then done no doubt. Personally I think we should be looking at other nations like Canada or Australia that have a federal control and low instances of mass shootings. Maybe not do a whole sale copy, but see what they do that we can apply here.

there's a reason why its a mega lobby they literally buy votes.

Yup, and the votes their buying is to make sure dangerous weapons (and guns ARE dangerous weapons) have as low a control or restriction as possible. That is scary to me.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/22/16 06:51 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Thanks for the correction.

no prob I was thinking did you mean Collins because it was pretty close.

Easier said then done no doubt. Personally I think we should be looking at other nations like Canada or Australia that have a federal control and low instances of mass shootings. Maybe not do a whole sale copy, but see what they do that we can apply here.

it still happens there not in the quantity like we have of course.

Yup, and the votes their buying is to make sure dangerous weapons (and guns ARE dangerous weapons) have as low a control or restriction as possible. That is scary to me.

the current system is actually very well done, sure there are a few kinks like what happened in Orlando but overall whats in place is fine but it depends on the states now thats its really a state issue.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/22/16 07:11 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: no prob I was thinking did you mean Collins because it was pretty close.

Yeah, it was something I read close to bed last night so I just sort of blanked on the name.

it still happens there not in the quantity like we have of course.

Which is rather the point and why I suggested we look at them. Clearly they're doing something right :)

the current system is actually very well done,

No, not really. Look at all the mass shootings we've had, pick any year you want to start from up to the current, and compare it against the rest of the world. We look like shite.

sure there are a few kinks like what happened in Orlando but overall whats in place is fine but it depends on the states now thats its really a state issue.

It's not a state issue though. Because making something this big a state issue has led us to wildly disparate situations like Nevada where there's almost no regulation, and then that same gun owner comes to say NJ, which has some of the strictest, and they wind up arrested and in heaps of trouble. That's the problem with the argument I think. There's too much emphasis on stopping bad people, but almost nothing is said about the flipside which is making sure legal, responsible gun owners, have the protections they deserve so they don't wind up in a situation like the one I laid out: Legal in one state, but by just crossing a border or two, they've now become illegal.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/22/16 08:02 PM, aviewaskewed wrote: Which is rather the point and why I suggested we look at them. Clearly they're doing something right :)

but it still happens and they still have violence they just get more creative look at the UK and China.

No, not really. Look at all the mass shootings we've had, pick any year you want to start from up to the current, and compare it against the rest of the world. We look like shite.

they still legally have to do background checks, what more is needed? Person to person, Check people you live with?

It's not a state issue though. Because making something this big a state issue has led us to wildly disparate situations like Nevada where there's almost no regulation, and then that same gun owner comes to say NJ, which has some of the strictest, and they wind up arrested and in heaps of trouble. That's the problem with the argument I think. There's too much emphasis on stopping bad people, but almost nothing is said about the flipside which is making sure legal, responsible gun owners, have the protections they deserve so they don't wind up in a situation like the one I laid out: Legal in one state, but by just crossing a border or two, they've now become illegal.

its a state issue now whats been passed federally is at its best and the states can adopt a policy at the state level what extreme they want lax or strict the Supreme Court just turned down by the Second Amendment lobby to determine the legality of a "assault weapons" ban at the state level and they turned it down citing current federal laws and how states adopt them.
now sure its not perfect state to state look at California has the strictest go to LA and its full of them, all you have to do is drive 4 hours over the border to Nevada and there's shops right passed the border.

[aviewaskewed]

At 6/23/16 08:37 AM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: but it still happens and they still have violence they just get more creative look at the UK and China.

That argument is ridiculous. Because the logical end point is "well, I guess we shouldn't have laws for anything because we can't prevent all the stuff we prohibit". You can't stop all the issues, but when we have this many, it clearly says we're doing something wrong.

they still legally have to do background checks, what more is needed? Person to person, Check people you live with?

The loopholes closed for one. A federal standard instead of the patchwork state standards I've mentioned that are NOT created equal. There's actually a lot more we could be doing.

its a state issue.....

Did you want to have a serious conversation about this? Because it seems like not so much since you don't really seem to be reading what I'm saying and just going for canned arguments from where I sit. I'm more then willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint, but if I'm not going to get the same courtesy in return and have my thoughts and points addressed, I'd rather just move on.

[Tony-DarkGrave]

At 6/23/16 11:38 AM, aviewaskewed wrote: That argument is ridiculous. Because the logical end point is "well, I guess we shouldn't have laws for anything because we can't prevent all the stuff we prohibit". You can't stop all the issues, but when we have this many, it clearly says we're doing something wrong.

Bad guys will get their hands on them regardless, Sandy Hook kid killed his mom with her own firearm, what do you think we could have done barred her rights because she had a son with Aspbergers? or the San Bardino guy who legally purchased all of his firearms no history what so ever. not to mention the 500 MILLION firearms already in the hands of private citizens.

The loopholes closed for one. A federal standard instead of the patchwork state standards I've mentioned that are NOT created equal. There's actually a lot more we could be doing.

and which loopholes? I know the Gun Show and Person to Person for two of them. You can't do Mental background checks because that means amending Federal health privacy laws (HIPPA) as we all know that's not going to happen.

Did you want to have a serious conversation about this? Because it seems like not so much since you don't really seem to be reading what I'm saying and just going for canned arguments from where I sit. I'm more then willing to listen to an opposing viewpoint, but if I'm not going to get the same courtesy in return and have my thoughts and points addressed, I'd rather just move on.

I'm on a fucked up schedule graveyard is literally killing me and I should be in bed. The Supreme court and what Congress have passed is more than enough its just states willing to use whats there and work with it, California Illinois and New York have some of the strictest gun laws in the country (Almost Draconian) and constantly update them with current trends and more restrictions yet they have the highest gun deaths in the US alone, and the majority of gun deaths are suicides and accidents with mass shootings being one of the lowest contributors.

[SmilezRoyale]

I'd be more favorable towards gun control measures if we were living in the 1940s or something and "Terrorist" was replaced with "Marxist" -- but the Feds have a severe anti-racism problem.

If I call the feds and tell them someone is planning on committing a massacre, and the person happens to be Muslim, the feds will ignore it out of principle. [As appeared to be the case with OM]

Meanwhile Millions of 'suspected terrorists' [that is to say, white people] Find they can't buy a gun at precisely the time when the most volatile election in a quarter century is going down.

[wildfire4461]

Speaking of the NRA:
http://www.campusreform.org/?ID=7808
Smooth move dipshit. Needless to say that would make them hypocrites if they tried (most of them wouldn't know how to shoot a gun anyway). He better get fired and charged with terroristic threat (and Facebook never took the post down despite people reporting it).

[Tony-DarkGrave]

I'm not worried about it. It's just some idealistic most likely liberal adjunct professor I checked him out myself the only person he's going to be hurting is himself by the shit he just talked.