Senate to vote on gun control, prospects dim for change WASHINGTON — Democrats get their long-sought votes on gun control a week after the massacre in Orlando, Florida, but election-year politics and the powerful National Rifle Association dim any prospects for changes in the nation's laws. The Senate will vote Monday night on four measures — two sponsored by Republicans, two by Democrats. All are expected to fail in a bitterly divided Congress. Gun control remains at a stalemate as few lawmakers are willing to challenge the NRA and no mass shooting the past five years — from Phoenix; to Aurora, Colorado; to Newtown, Connecticut; to Charleston, South Carolina; to San Bernardino, California — has led to new laws. Polls show large numbers of Americans agree with the need for at least some limited gun measures such as background checks. But Democrats have been unable to translate that into legislation because the NRA is able to mobilize and energize voters who will threaten to vote lawmakers out on the gun issue alone.... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/se...rospects-dim-for-change/ar-AAhjR3E?li=BBnb7Kz
Democrats Tanked Gun Control To Up Their Election Chances Apparently Democrats would rather have no gun sales ban than a sales ban that allows Americans due-process rights. JUNE 21, 2016 By Gabriel Malor On Monday evening, Senate Democrats put party over principle in rejecting common-sense, reasonable gun control measures. After the mass murder at Orlando gay club Pulse, Sen. Chris Murphy and his colleagues staged a flashy talk-a-thon in which they demanded that votes be taken on legislation strengthening gun control laws. The Senate Republicans agreed to the Democrats’ demand. Democrats got what they asked for, then blew it. Senate Republicans agreed to vote on four gun control proposals—two offered by Democrats and two offered by Republicans. The Democratic proposals included Sen. Dianne Feinstein’s bill linking a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban. On the Republican side, Sen. John Cornyn also offered legislation that would link a terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban, but his version added due process protections for Americans who are put on the list. The other two proposals expanded the National Instant Criminal Background Check System, although the Republican version did not go as far as the Democratic version. For a brief moment it seemed as if the Senate would take some kind of action. Then all four gun control proposals were voted down because of the Democrats. Rather than agree to the incremental gun control measures Republicans proposed, the Democrats chose to pass no gun control legislation at all. At some point after loudly demanding legislation for more than a week, Senate Democrats decided it would be better for their reelection prospects that no gun control bills pass the Senate during the election season. Their decision was hypocritical, unprincipled, and pure politics. Republicans were willing to link the terrorism watch list to a gun sales ban, as Democrats have demanded. The price of agreement was due-process protections for Americans placed on the list. But apparently due process is too much for the Democrats. They would rather have no sales ban than a sales ban that comports with the Fifth Amendment. The Democrats similarly rejected an incremental expansion of the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Apparently, some gun control is not worth sharing credit with the Republicans. Not content to merely vote against incremental gun control, Senate Democrats then decided to throw a tantrum about it. Murphy sleazed that Senate Republicans “have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.” Sen. Elizabeth Warren tweeted her agreement. Sen. Harry Reid nonsensically accused Republicans of blocking the very gun control measures Republicans had proposed. Make no mistake: Senate Democrats rejected two incremental gun control bills for no other reason than that Republicans were voting for them. Democrats’ hatred for Republicans was more important to them than the moral standards they claim to possess. http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/21/democrats-tanked-gun-control-to-up-their-election-chances/
On Guns, Democrats Have Lost Their Minds If Dems could destroy either ISIS or the NRA, which one would they pick? In an interview with The Washington Post, Sen. Chris Murphy, D-CT and star of Monday’s gun-control theater, explained: “We’ve got to make this clear, constant case that Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.” Wow. That’s a pretty big deal, if true. Progressive darling Elizabeth Warren also endorsed this tactic, alleging that Republicans — veterans, moms, dads — were willingly complicit in the murder of their neighbors on orders from the NRA. It’s common for the Left to direct absurd and histrionic accusations at the NRA, as if the organization printed its own money and derived awe-inspiring power from Mordor. It’s a lot easier than having to debate millions of American gun owners who cling to some reverence for the Second Amendment. Although it may be lost in all the coverage, both Warren and Murphy actually voted against “common sense” gun control bills last night — twice. While Republicans wouldn’t support bills that empower bureaucrats to act as judge and jury, Democrats voted against bills that expanded background checks without undermining constitutional rights. You can’t accuse the GOP of sedition if you compromise. We’ve come a long way since Hillary’s, “I’m sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic.” The idea that the other side might be debating in good faith is no longer entertained. Appeals to emotion make no room for such subtleties. With this, Warren is no better than Donald Trump. You will remember the media distress when Trump insinuated (and later denied) that Barack Obama was sympathetic to terrorists. You also might remember last week, when John McCain blamed the president for the rise of ISIS, and we discussed how terrible this was for an entire news cycle. ✔ .@ChrisMurphyCT said it right: The @SenateGOP have decided to sell weapons to ISIS. - 20 Jun 2016 Surely indicting a major political party — in Congress, this party represents the majority of the American people — of aiding Islamists should be an equally big deal? Surely someone will ask Clinton to denounce this incendiary rhetoric. Surely some melodramatic New York Times op-ed columnist will call out Warren for tossing “the truth around with the callous disdain of a spoiled child.” I can’t wait for the house editorials condemning attacks on decorum and cable news network break-out sessions lamenting the putrid state of civility in Washington. Can anyone remember a Republican, even in the height of the Patriot Act debate, questioning a Democrats’ loyalty in this explicit a manner? In contrast, Ari Fleischer’s “watch what you say” comment is a mild rebuke. These days, Republicans who disagree with the president can be accused of “betting against America,” “making common cause” with hardliners who chant “Death to America,” and being guilty of conventional treason. More consequentially, though, we’re also a long away from liberals opposing extra-judicial watchlists that adjudicate guilt without due process. On Monday, Democrats passionately argued that “potential” terrorists — a term used by more than one senator yesterday — should be denied constitutional rights. These days, Democrats refer to adherence of the Fifth Amendment as a way not to protect the innocent but as a “terror gap.” All of which can get a little confusing. Because while Democrats in the Senate were accusing the GOP of conspiring with Salafi jihadists, the administration was still acting as if the Orlando massacre had nothing to do with ISIS — at all. As counterproductive and absurd as the Obama administration’s initial ham-fisted release of Omar Mateen’s 911 call transcript was, it did offer us an illustration of how it wishes Americans would talk about Islamic terrorism. Which is to say, it wishes you were talking about the NRA. By Monday afternoon, the FBI had relented and released the transcript of Mateen — sans laughable redactions — though still far from complete or accurate. And, as many of you suspected, the omitted words from the transcript were about ISIS, jihad, and other subjects Islamic terrorists tend to touch on before slaughtering innocent people. Nothing about Mitch McConnell, as of yet. The Feds, according to NPR, were still claiming that Mateen didn’t “seem to have exhibited any of the warning signs often associated with radicalization,” and it’s possible that he was just saying the name ISIS “in hopes of getting more publicity for his attacks.” Fact is, Mateen referred to himself as a “soldier” of the caliphate and pledged allegiance to ISIS — a group that congratulated him on his success and took credit for the attack. As Rukmini Callimachi at The New York Times has extensively detailed, Mateen was well-acquainted with the goals of ISIS and animated by its specific ideas and political aims. His act, unlike other random, lone-wolf shooters, was driven by ideas that are shared by people around the world. And though they might be geographically compartmentalized, they act in ideological concert to achieve clear goals. If they can’t use guns, they use pressure cookers or an airplane. Rather than demanding the FBI explain its failure to protect the American people, Democrats used the attack to frame Republicans as terror sympathizers. Rather than demanding the FBI explain its failure to protect the American people from a known terror sympathizer, Senate Democrats used the attack to frame Republicans as terror sympathizers. Rather than apologizing to the nation, the FBI spent the day offering tortured justifications for redacting Mateen’s own words, claiming that anything less would “only inflame other people here that might be like-minded.” According to Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ronald Hopper, for example, censoring Mateen’s words would “prevent future action from happening” and “not give credence to individuals who have done terrorist acts in the past.” Islamic Radical 1: Did you see that Assistant Special Agent in Charge Ronald Hopper refused to say the name of our organization? Islamic Radical 2: I did! And, you know what, Omar? I hate America just a little bit less today. You know what I mean? In their campaign to ban guns, Senate Democrats have no compunction bestowing ISIS with all the credit for the Orlando massacre. So according to the administration, this rhetoric has the potential to “inflame” prospective terrorists — unless, that is, jihadists are only irritated when Republicans talk about them. Maybe Obama will explain how this works in his next televised scolding. In any event, if you don’t believe terrorism is an existential threat to our way of life, listen to Democrats insisting that we must circumvent constitutional protections to stay safe. Many Democrats who had previously refused to acknowledge “Islamic radicalism,” now exploit a massacre to accuse fellow Americans of abetting the worst mass shooting in American history. It’s debatable whether any of their proposals would stop terrorists, but this kind of emotional blackmail might seem like the most expedient way to pummel the opposition. It is, certainly, the most irrational. http://thefederalist.com/2016/06/21/on-guns-democrats-have-lost-their-minds/
Senators roll out bipartisan gun proposal Senators on Tuesday rolled out a bipartisan bill aimed at stopping suspected terrorists from buying a gun, as lawmakers try to overcome a stalemate on the issue. "Essentially we believe that if you are too dangerous to fly on an airplane, you are too dangerous to buy a gun," Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine) told reporters. The legislation would allow the attorney general to block the sale of a gun if an individual is on the "no-fly" list or the so-called "selectee" list, which requires additional screening at an airport. Collins said the two lists affect approximately 109,000 people, most of whom are foreigners... http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/senators-roll-out-bipartisan-gun-proposal/ar-AAhoNhu?li=BBnb7Kz
At one time, military-style assault rifles like the ones used at a nightclub in Orlando, Fla., and in other mass shootings represented a relatively small segment of sales for gun manufacturers. But in recent decades, such guns serve as one of the two financial pillars of the firearms industry, along with smaller handguns that are designed to be concealed, which have been the biggest driver of sales. Together, the popularity of the assault rifles and small handguns highlight how the industry has changed in recent decades, as people have increasingly turned to guns for self-defense and less for hunting. “The younger generations have fewer hunters,” said Thomas W. Smith, the director of the General Social Survey, an annual survey conducted by researchers at the University of Chicago. “Hunting is a traditional activity, and one that is declining in popularity.” Gun makers do not break out weapon sales other than in broad categories in which firearms like traditional hunting rifles are lumped in with assault rifles. When contacted, Smith & Wesson would not provide additional information, while Sturm Ruger did not respond to messages seeking comment. And an industry trade group, the National Shooting Sports Foundation, did not respond to emails or phone calls. Nonetheless, manufacturers, in presentations to analysts and investors, have acknowledged the central role that assault rifles and concealed handguns play in their financial health. They also often point out that sales frequently rise after mass shootings like the attacks over the last year in Paris, San Bernardino, Calif., and Orlando. The popularity of handguns and assault weapons, experts say, reflects a fundamental shift over recent decades in who in America is buying guns and their reason for doing so. Although about 50 percent of homes in the United States reported owning a firearm in the 1970s, that number by 2014 had fallen to 31 percent, according to the General Social Survey. Significantly for gun makers, the number of Americans who identified themselves as hunters fell sharply during that same period. While some 32 percent of survey respondents said in the late 1970s that they or their spouse hunted, that number had plummeted to 15.5 percent by 2014. The number of people who cite self-protection as the reason for owning a firearm has grown, said Mr. Smith, the social survey’s director... http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mark...-of-a-changing-industry/ar-AAhpHaa?li=BBnb7Kz
Washington (CNN)Georgia Rep. John Lewis is leading a sit-in on the House floor Wednesday to push Republicans to address gun violence in the legislative chamber. "Sometimes you have to do something out of the ordinary. Sometimes you have to make a way out of no way. We have been too quiet for too long," the Democratic civil rights leader said. "There comes a time when you have to say something, when you have to make a little noise, when you have to move your feet. This is the time. Now is the time to get in the way. The time to act is now. We will be silent no more." Lewis wrote a letter to House Speaker Paul Ryan demanding that he keep the House in session through its planned recess to debate and vote on gun control legislation. The move was the latest in a long string of failed attempts at enacting tighter curbs on firearms in the United States... http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/john-lewis-sit-in-gun-violence/index.html