Home Upgrade Search Memberlist Extras Hacker Tools Award Goals Help Wiki Contact

USA 

Congress Senate votes down gun control proposals in wake of Orlando shootings

Quote:The Senate on Monday voted down four competing gun control proposals, allowing Democrats and Republicans to stake out political turf around a controversial, emotional issue that promises to play big in a campaign year.

The votes, which fell mostly along party lines, came as the debate over gun laws has been reinvigorated following the recent mass shootings at an Orlando nightclub popular with the gay community.

Despite both parties presenting proposals to tighten certain restrictions on buying a firearm, attempts to craft any compromise ran aground last week leading to Monday’s series of votes that served as a way for both sides to send political messages.

[Everything lawmakers said (and didn’t say) after the Orlando mass shooting]

Variations of all four proposals considered Monday already failed to pass the Senate in December following the deadly mass shooting at the hands of Islamic State sympathizers in San Bernardino, Calif.

Democrats charged that Monday’s votes fit a pattern of Republicans giving in to the demands of the National Rifle Association following tragic shooting incidents despite polls showing support for stricter gun laws.

“Senate Republicans ought to be embarrassed, but they’re not, because the NRA is happy,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.).

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) accused Democrats of pushing a “partisan agenda.”

[Michael Bloomberg’s gun control group employes “Survivor Network" to change gun control debate]

In the week since the most recent mass shooting, both Democrats and Republicans have repeatedly stated that terrorists should not be able to purchase guns.

But there are substantive differences between the proposals offered by both sides – all of which required 60 votes to advance in the Senate.

The Senate voted 47 to 53 to reject a measure from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to let the attorney general deny firearms and explosives to any suspected terrorists. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota was the sole Democrat to vote against the measure, while Republican Sens. Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire and Mark Kirk of Illinois, both of whom face tough re-election contests, voted for it.

The Senate also rejected a Republican alternative from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas), that would allow authorities to delay a gun sale to a terrorism suspect for three days or longer if a judge ruled during that time that there is probable cause to deny the firearm outright. The vote was 53 to 47, falling short of the 60 votes needed.

Two Democrats, Sens. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Joe Donnelly of Indiana, backed the measure. But three Republicans – Sens. Jeff Flake of Arizona, Kirk and Susan Collins of Maine voted against Cornyn’s amendment.

[Despite Trump’s calls for action, Senate gun debate headed down familiar path]

Both provisions contained language to alert authorities if anyone who has been on a terror watch list in the last five years tries to buy a gun. Such a provision might not have prevented the Orlando shooter from buying the weapons he used in the nightclub massacre, but it would have let authorities know when he purchased the firearms.

Republicans argued Feinstein’s proposal doesn’t do enough to protect against situations where someone mistakenly on a terror watch list, or mistakenly suspected of links to terror groups, would be denied their Second Amendment rights.

Democrats countered that the time limitations in Cornyn’s alternative would make it functionally impossible to actually prevent suspicious individuals from purchasing firearms.

A handful of Republicans have also voiced their own criticism of Cornyn’s legislation. On Monday, Ayotte said that she would support the procedural votes on both the Cornyn and Feinstein measures – not because she thought either posed a satisfactory solution, but “to get to this debate, because I want a result,” she said.

Ayotte was working with Collins over the last week to try to come up with a compromise proposal. That proposal would prevent people on two subsets of the FBI’s database of suspected terrorists – the “No Fly List” and the “Selectee List” – from buying guns and alert the FBI if someone on those lists in the previous five years tried to purchase weapons.

On Monday, Sens. Manchin and Heitkamp said they were also participating in talks as well.

Sen. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.) tweeted that he is also with Collins to draft a compromise and expects “to get a vote this week.”

A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said there would be more information about plans for Collins’ proposal once it was formally filed.

But leading Democrats said that Collins’ proposal was too narrow and would allow too many potential terrorists to fall through the cracks.

“Her alternative is not enough to close the loophole that creates this terror gap,” Feinstein said Monday.

Other Democrats said they aren’t convinced Collins could bring enough Republicans along to win the needed support for her proposal.

Harry Reid said after the vote Monday that Democrats wanted to see if Collins could “drum up the 20 votes or so” from Republicans for the proposal, so a vote on her amendment would not be just “a gesture in futility.”

The Senate also rejected, on a 44 to 56 vote, a measure from Sens. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Cory Booker (D-N.J.) and Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) that would expand background checks for anyone trying to purchase a firearm, including at a gun show or online.

It was a more expansive version of a 2103 compromise measure from Sens. Manchin and Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) that sought to expand background checks after the mass shooting at the Sandy Hook school in Newtown, Conn. Their proposal never earned enough support to pass, but 54 senators supported it in 2013, and 48 senators backed it in the wake of the San Bernardino attack last year.

Both Manchin and Toomey refused to back Murphy’s more expansive measure. Democratic Sens. Heitkamp and Jon Tester (D-Mont.) – who is also running the Senate Democrats’ campaign operation this year – also voted against Murphy’s proposal.

Republicans objected to the breadth of the Murphy-Booker-Schumer proposal, which would require a background check for almost any sale or transfer of a firearm. Kirk was the only Republican to back the measure.

Most Republicans backed an alternative from Sen. Charles Grassley (R-Iowa) that would only increase funding for the government to run background checks without expanding them. It failed on a 53 to 47 vote, falling short of the 60 votes needed.

Democrats also objected to Grassley’s amendment they said it could give people involuntarily committed to a psychiatric institution for a mental illness the right to buy a gun once they are released.

Republican Sens. Kirk and Cory Gardner (R-Colo.) voted against the proposal; Sen. Joe Donnelly (D-Ind.) voted for it.

[Second Amendment and people who had been committed to a mental institution 28 years ago]

The Obama administration on Monday said it supported the Feinstein and Murphy-Booker-Schumer amendments.

Last week, Democrats took their frustrations to the Senate floor in a near 15-hour filibuster, led by Murphy, in which they demanded votes on their two proposals.

They credited the display with bringing about Monday’s votes. Republican leaders, meanwhile, derided them for staging a “campaign talk-athon” on the Senate floor that only slowed things down.

But Democrats are counting Monday’s votes as an incremental victory in their campaign to build a political movement to demand gun control measures.

At least three efforts to craft a compromise – two of them Republican-led – failed to produce a product Democrats were willing to endorse. But Murphy argued that those efforts “are another sign of significant cracking in the wall of opposition from the gun lobby.”

Monday’s votes came on the heels of the FBI releasing a partial transcript of the Orlando shooter’s 911 call to police during the attack, and of the Supreme Court’s decision not to hear a challenge to Connecticut’s assault weapons ban.

[Supreme Court refuses to hear challenge to Connecticut’s ban on ‘assault weapons’]

A federal ban on assault-style weapons expired in 2004, and while restoring it remains a part of the pro-gun control agenda, like-minded lawmakers aren’t demanding legislation be considered as forcefully as they are pushing for measures to expand background checks and keep suspected terrorists from purchasing firearms.

On Friday, Vice President Joe Biden responded to a petition demanding action on an assault weapons ban, saying: “The President and I agree with you. Assault weapons and high-capacity magazines should be banned from civilian ownership.”


Source

There definitely needs to be better background checks done in order to better help stop this madness.
[Image: Go9NL9v.png]
WE HAVE FEDERAL FUCKING BACKGROUND CHECKS U RETARD. They don't do anything. ALL FFL DEALERS HAVE U CHECK YOU IN THE NICS DATABASE.

Also fun fact if you try to buy guns quickly you will trigger a hold or delay on the nics background check but if the FBI doesn't get back to the dealer selling you the weapon in 2 days they are legally allowed to sell you the gun. Most people can just pass a check and get the gun.

This guy was being reported by his neighbors for being a terrorist & his dad is a fucking Islamist extremist as well.


One thing also this guy was on the FBI terrorist watch list, he was removed. Not sure if your aware or not but once oyur on the watchlist its nearly impossible. He was only removed because he was a muslim.

Weeks before the attack he went into a gun store asking for body armour & massive quantities of ammo and was speaking arabic on the phone the gun store reported him to the FBI. The FBI was following him previously anyways and was instructed to stop.

He was only able to do this because liberals kept killing investigations on muslims.

If he was white the FBI would have stopped him. over 85% of people on FBI watchlist are on by mistake & its impossible to get off if your white. but if your one of the 15% (Muslim terrorists mostly) then you can get off easily just say your discriminated against.


How could background checks have prevented this? He passed background checks they only check if you have previously commited crimes & shit like that. Its not like there is some magic that prevents u from causing crime.

Fun fact the shooter was a homosexual who was killing people to redeem himself for his sins & he did the shooting in a gun free zone.


Explain to me why the other 14,572 gun laws on the books did nothing to stop these crimes but the 14,573rd law would? Before Bill Clinton's gun free zones we never had mass shootings.
[Youtube]https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HCd6z0gVfJ8[/youtube]

Of course, the fbi is now releasing "redacted" transcripts of Omar Mateens phone call to police, conveniently leaving out the reason he gave for these shootings: he wanted the United States to stop bombing the fuck out of Afghanistan, his home country.

He had a legitimate reason for doing this. It was a horrible thing to do none the less, but a valid reason all the same. This was absolutely the United States governments doing, and they think you are stupid enough that they can just censor parts of his phone conversation, and you will believe anything they say.

What a joke.
If you're going to blame anything blame Islam. It has a violence problem and it needs to be dealt with. If this man didn't get a gun he would have just made a bomb or used a fucking butter knife if he had to. These people are fucked up and they will kill you any way they can. It doesn't matter if they have a gun or not. The real issue is islam.


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread / Author Replies Views Last Post
by The PactOct 30, 2025 02:19 PM 2 102 Oct 30, 2025 02:19 PM
Last Post: The Pact
[Legends] by DramaKingAug 25, 2025 02:43 PM 6 177 Aug 25, 2025 02:43 PM
Last Post: Lowkey
[USA] by justjack102Apr 21, 2025 02:06 AM 1 114 Apr 21, 2025 02:06 AM
Last Post: The Joker