SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
Democrat-Controlled Senate Fails to Pass Even 'Watered-Down, Over-Compromised' Gun Legislation
Apr 17, 2013
UPDATE (4:31 PM): By a vote of 54 to 46 and as expected, the US Senate failed to pass a gun safety bill on Wednesday.
The final vote showed five Democrats voting against it and only four Republican senators voting in supported.
As the The Hill reports, the proposed law
would have expanded checks to cover all firearms sales at gun shows and over the Internet but would have exempted sales between friends and acquaintances outside of commercial venues.
Democrats felt confident the compromise could pass once Toomey, a Republican with an A rating from the National Rifle Association, signed on. They were caught off guard by the vigorous lobbying campaign waged by the NRA, which warned lawmakers that Manchin-Toomey would be factored in its congressional scorecard.
What appeared to be a likely victory for Obama was resoundingly defeated by the Senate as jittery Democrats facing tough re-elections next year joined nearly the entire Republican conference.
EARLIER: Despite grand promises in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, which left a classroom full of child victims, the gun safety legislation currently in the US Senate--already described as both 'watered-down' and 'over-compromised'--appears to be on the verge of complete defeat.
"We will not get the votes today," Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), admitted to NBC News Wednesday morning.
Manchin and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) were the co-sponsors of the bill that would have required an expansion of the federal background check system.
As The Hill reports:
[The two senators] crafted a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales, but the measure is struggling to find the 60 votes needed in the face of gun lobby opposition.
Toomey echoed Manchin's statement Wednesday morning.
"As we sit here this morning, we don't have the votes," Toomey told National Review.
"Now, there are enough undecided people that it's still possible, but I'll be the first to admit that there is a very, very narrow path to get to 60 votes," Toomey said.
Earlier this week, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein characterized the legislation as weak, calling it "watered-down, over-compromised, possibly ineffective."
"This bill is already on the bubble of being too weak to really be worth it," he added.
Whether this development says more about the weakness of the US Senate, or the strength of the nation's gun lobbyists--with the NRA the supreme example--remains open to debate.
Mother Jones' Kevin Drum was blunt in his Wednesday headline: Gun Control Bill Is Dead.
Drum writes:
Keep in mind that this was (a) a very watered-down proposal, and (b) included a whole slew of goodies for gun owners. And it still couldn't get 60 votes. And while its failure is obviously partly the fault of the filibuster rule, any bill that can only get about 55 votes in the Senate never had any chance in the House anyway.
How did this happen even though, as liberals remind us endlessly, 90 percent of the American public supports background checks? Because about 80 percent of those Americans think it sounds like a reasonable idea but don't really care much. I doubt that one single senator will suffer at the polls in 2014 for voting against Manchin-Toomey.
Gun control proposals poll decently all the time. But the plain truth is that there are only a small number of people who feel really strongly about it, and they mostly live in urban blue districts already. Outside of that, pro-gun control opinion is about an inch deep. This is a classic case where poll literalism leads you completely astray. Without measuring intensity of feeling, that 90 percent number is meaningless.
_______________________________________
An Urgent Message From Our Co-Founder
Dear Common Dreams reader, It’s been nearly 30 years since I co-founded Common Dreams with my late wife, Lina Newhouser. We had the radical notion that journalism should serve the public good, not corporate profits. It was clear to us from the outset what it would take to build such a project. No paid advertisements. No corporate sponsors. No millionaire publisher telling us what to think or do. Many people said we wouldn't last a year, but we proved those doubters wrong. Together with a tremendous team of journalists and dedicated staff, we built an independent media outlet free from the constraints of profits and corporate control. Our mission has always been simple: To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. Building Common Dreams was not easy. Our survival was never guaranteed. When you take on the most powerful forces—Wall Street greed, fossil fuel industry destruction, Big Tech lobbyists, and uber-rich oligarchs who have spent billions upon billions rigging the economy and democracy in their favor—the only bulwark you have is supporters who believe in your work. But here’s the urgent message from me today. It's never been this bad out there. And it's never been this hard to keep us going. At the very moment Common Dreams is most needed, the threats we face are intensifying. We need your support now more than ever. We don't accept corporate advertising and never will. We don't have a paywall because we don't think people should be blocked from critical news based on their ability to pay. Everything we do is funded by the donations of readers like you. When everyone does the little they can afford, we are strong. But if that support retreats or dries up, so do we. Will you donate now to make sure Common Dreams not only survives but thrives? —Craig Brown, Co-founder |
Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.
UPDATE (4:31 PM): By a vote of 54 to 46 and as expected, the US Senate failed to pass a gun safety bill on Wednesday.
The final vote showed five Democrats voting against it and only four Republican senators voting in supported.
As the The Hill reports, the proposed law
would have expanded checks to cover all firearms sales at gun shows and over the Internet but would have exempted sales between friends and acquaintances outside of commercial venues.
Democrats felt confident the compromise could pass once Toomey, a Republican with an A rating from the National Rifle Association, signed on. They were caught off guard by the vigorous lobbying campaign waged by the NRA, which warned lawmakers that Manchin-Toomey would be factored in its congressional scorecard.
What appeared to be a likely victory for Obama was resoundingly defeated by the Senate as jittery Democrats facing tough re-elections next year joined nearly the entire Republican conference.
EARLIER: Despite grand promises in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, which left a classroom full of child victims, the gun safety legislation currently in the US Senate--already described as both 'watered-down' and 'over-compromised'--appears to be on the verge of complete defeat.
"We will not get the votes today," Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), admitted to NBC News Wednesday morning.
Manchin and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) were the co-sponsors of the bill that would have required an expansion of the federal background check system.
As The Hill reports:
[The two senators] crafted a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales, but the measure is struggling to find the 60 votes needed in the face of gun lobby opposition.
Toomey echoed Manchin's statement Wednesday morning.
"As we sit here this morning, we don't have the votes," Toomey told National Review.
"Now, there are enough undecided people that it's still possible, but I'll be the first to admit that there is a very, very narrow path to get to 60 votes," Toomey said.
Earlier this week, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein characterized the legislation as weak, calling it "watered-down, over-compromised, possibly ineffective."
"This bill is already on the bubble of being too weak to really be worth it," he added.
Whether this development says more about the weakness of the US Senate, or the strength of the nation's gun lobbyists--with the NRA the supreme example--remains open to debate.
Mother Jones' Kevin Drum was blunt in his Wednesday headline: Gun Control Bill Is Dead.
Drum writes:
Keep in mind that this was (a) a very watered-down proposal, and (b) included a whole slew of goodies for gun owners. And it still couldn't get 60 votes. And while its failure is obviously partly the fault of the filibuster rule, any bill that can only get about 55 votes in the Senate never had any chance in the House anyway.
How did this happen even though, as liberals remind us endlessly, 90 percent of the American public supports background checks? Because about 80 percent of those Americans think it sounds like a reasonable idea but don't really care much. I doubt that one single senator will suffer at the polls in 2014 for voting against Manchin-Toomey.
Gun control proposals poll decently all the time. But the plain truth is that there are only a small number of people who feel really strongly about it, and they mostly live in urban blue districts already. Outside of that, pro-gun control opinion is about an inch deep. This is a classic case where poll literalism leads you completely astray. Without measuring intensity of feeling, that 90 percent number is meaningless.
_______________________________________
UPDATE (4:31 PM): By a vote of 54 to 46 and as expected, the US Senate failed to pass a gun safety bill on Wednesday.
The final vote showed five Democrats voting against it and only four Republican senators voting in supported.
As the The Hill reports, the proposed law
would have expanded checks to cover all firearms sales at gun shows and over the Internet but would have exempted sales between friends and acquaintances outside of commercial venues.
Democrats felt confident the compromise could pass once Toomey, a Republican with an A rating from the National Rifle Association, signed on. They were caught off guard by the vigorous lobbying campaign waged by the NRA, which warned lawmakers that Manchin-Toomey would be factored in its congressional scorecard.
What appeared to be a likely victory for Obama was resoundingly defeated by the Senate as jittery Democrats facing tough re-elections next year joined nearly the entire Republican conference.
EARLIER: Despite grand promises in the wake of the Sandy Hook massacre, which left a classroom full of child victims, the gun safety legislation currently in the US Senate--already described as both 'watered-down' and 'over-compromised'--appears to be on the verge of complete defeat.
"We will not get the votes today," Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), admitted to NBC News Wednesday morning.
Manchin and Sen. Pat Toomey (R-PA) were the co-sponsors of the bill that would have required an expansion of the federal background check system.
As The Hill reports:
[The two senators] crafted a bipartisan compromise to expand background checks to gun shows and online sales, but the measure is struggling to find the 60 votes needed in the face of gun lobby opposition.
Toomey echoed Manchin's statement Wednesday morning.
"As we sit here this morning, we don't have the votes," Toomey told National Review.
"Now, there are enough undecided people that it's still possible, but I'll be the first to admit that there is a very, very narrow path to get to 60 votes," Toomey said.
Earlier this week, The Washington Post's Ezra Klein characterized the legislation as weak, calling it "watered-down, over-compromised, possibly ineffective."
"This bill is already on the bubble of being too weak to really be worth it," he added.
Whether this development says more about the weakness of the US Senate, or the strength of the nation's gun lobbyists--with the NRA the supreme example--remains open to debate.
Mother Jones' Kevin Drum was blunt in his Wednesday headline: Gun Control Bill Is Dead.
Drum writes:
Keep in mind that this was (a) a very watered-down proposal, and (b) included a whole slew of goodies for gun owners. And it still couldn't get 60 votes. And while its failure is obviously partly the fault of the filibuster rule, any bill that can only get about 55 votes in the Senate never had any chance in the House anyway.
How did this happen even though, as liberals remind us endlessly, 90 percent of the American public supports background checks? Because about 80 percent of those Americans think it sounds like a reasonable idea but don't really care much. I doubt that one single senator will suffer at the polls in 2014 for voting against Manchin-Toomey.
Gun control proposals poll decently all the time. But the plain truth is that there are only a small number of people who feel really strongly about it, and they mostly live in urban blue districts already. Outside of that, pro-gun control opinion is about an inch deep. This is a classic case where poll literalism leads you completely astray. Without measuring intensity of feeling, that 90 percent number is meaningless.
_______________________________________
We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.
To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good.
News & Opinion
Trending
Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit
Privacy Policy