#DisarmHate: Four Gun Control Measures Shot Down in the Senate

#DisarmHate: Four Gun Control Measures Shot Down in the Senate

#DisarmHate: Four Gun Control Measures Shot Down in the Senate
Obama and his gun-grabbing pen. (Photo credit: SodaHead)
Obama and his gun-grabbing pen. (Photo Credit: SodaHead)

Following the targeted murders of our fellow Americans—who just so happened to belong to the LGBT community, at the hands of a deranged Islamic terrorist who pledged his allegiance to ISIS—the Senate Democrats have spent their days screeching not about how to better secure our nation, but how to effectively disarm law-abiding citizens in the face of a growing threat. It’s their typical reaction every time a mass shooting occurs (let’s ignore Chicago, cough cough), and particularly when the mass shooting is conducted by one of their own: A radicalized Muslim jihadist-slash-Hillary supporter with a gun. So, in response, they filibustered their way to a Senate vote last evening on four gun control measures, none of which would have done a damned thing to stop this jihadist. But hey, never let a good crisis, yada yada yada. The good news is this: they all went down in flames, most importantly the two most egregious. In case you’re unfamiliar, let’s take a quick look at the four measures under consideration. But first, let’s start with the blanket of ignorance in a handy little nutshell:

Hmm. Let’s see:

  1. Dead Orlando terrorist had no criminal record that would deny him a gun purchase.
  2. While he was previously under investigation, the shooter was not currently a suspected terrorist and was not on a terror watch list. And…
  3. He purchased his guns legally, which included a background check.

So. How exactly would this have stopped Orlando? The answer is: It wouldn’t have. But, hey, feelings or something.

By the way, Mr. Pen and Phone’s mouthpiece is already threatening to enlist the mastery of the Congressional-Go-Around:

On to the proposals, of which the Democrats claim wide voter support (newsflash, Dems: fickle voters voting away our rights is precisely why we’re a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy!):

  • The first vote was on the amendment by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to enhance funding for an existing gun background check system which needed 60 votes to pass. The final vote tally was 53 to 47.
  • The second vote was on a measure by Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., to expand gun background checks and close the so-called gun show loophole where firearm purchases are not tracked. The final vote tally was 44 to 56.
  • Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas pushed a measure that would allow the government to delay a gun sale to a suspected terrorist for 72 hours, but require prosecutors to go to court to show probable cause to block the sale permanently. The National Rifle Associated backed the legislation, but it failed in a final vote of 53 to 47.

And lastly, the evil spawn of the perpetual gun-grabber, Senator Dianne Feinstein:

  • The Senate will still vote on a measure by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to keep people on a government terrorism watch list or other suspected terrorists from buying guns. The Justice Department has endorsed her legislation. [*vote also failed]

Funding? Ok. Probable cause? Maybe. But holy bejeezus. While they all have major flaws (who determines what constitutes a “terrorist;” military service, federal government criticism?), that last one is nothing short of a frontal assault on our right to due process. Imagine an administration lead by Hillary Clinton throwing people onto her super-secret list for political reasons (no doubt housed on her private server) and the ensuing nightmare getting yourself detached from it. Do I want terrorists armed? Of course not. But this proposed law is inherently backward, and also presupposes that terrorists will…follow laws. It’s not up to us to prove our innocence; it’s the responsibility of the federal government to prove probable cause via the court system. But that’s not the America we live in any longer; no, we’re in Obama’s America now, where free speech is crushed by the IRS, property rights are seized via the EPA, and due process is a thing of the past, at least at the frothing mouths of ignorant hypocrites like Dianne Feinstein, one-time holder of a concealed carry permit.

That’s one way to put it.

Alarmingly, people who call themselves American are fine with usurping our due process rights, like Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon:

Bingo. And add to that list the LGBT community the liberals wish to keep as sitting ducks. The irony is thick.

Of course, the true goal of this political theater is to paint the Senate GOP (heck, anyone who’s pro-Second Amendment) as “pro-terrorist.” In fact, it’s already started. Never mind Obama’s Fast-and-Furious that armed violent Mexican drug-lords, or that little gun-running op in Benghazi; it’s people like you and me who want Islamic terrorists armed because we—gasp!—demand that our rights to due process and self defense be upheld. Politics 101.

And finally, the ever-lucid Matt Walsh sums up the utter waste of time and taxpayer money of the past week in our Senate…

…and, in case you missed it:

So, gun-snatchers, here’s an idea: If you really want to “disarm hate,” how about take some action on combating the real problem: America-hating Islamic terrorist SOBs hell-bent on killing us all, including you, their bleeding-heart liberal enablers. Need direction? Start by eliminating these:

Gun free zone
Photo Credit: United Liberty

Your ludicrous gun-free zones are getting people killed. But then again, in order for you to change course, you’d have to admit you’re wrong, thereby blowing up your whole gun-free America agenda, reckless and ill-informed as it is. Until then, all that hot air coming out of D.C.? It’s not climate-change induced; it’s the Democrats’ intentional obfuscation aimed at burying the ever-increasing threats to our safety from ISIS-inspired lone wolves and worse, and the failure (refusal?) of the Obama Administration to combat it. We’re on to you, Dianne Feinstein and friends. And the message to all of my fellow Americans is this: Don’t be a victim. Shoot back.

Written by

  • GWB says:

    They won’t admit they’re wrong because it has NEVER been about safety – it has ALWAYS been about power.

  • GWB says:

    Something to consider (I’m going to bring in that Maine restaurateur’s FB silliness to this):
    People want safety, and people often feel inadequate to provide that safety (partly because you never truly can be 100% ‘safe’), so they want a “professional” to provide it, relinquishing their freedom to that “professional” in doing so.

    The political class exploits this. They spend their time and effort telling people that they (gov’t) are the “professionals” that should be trusted.

    After initially posting that anyone who owns an “assault” rifle wasn’t welcome in her restaurants, then posting that she really doesn’t want to take away regular guns – just the “weapons of war” (and it’s obvious she has no idea what makes these “weapons of war”) – the Maine restaurateur posted this, in part:

    I hope the larger issue of a safer America can become a bigger focus than this small facebook page.

    Well, yes, that is the larger issue: a safer America. It’s a cultural divide between those who believe that they are safer by taking care of their own needs (and the needs of those around them) and those who feel that someone official and professional should take care of their needs.
    While fully cognizant of the Scriptural command to rely upon God, I also know that in many places in the Bible people took care of their own needs by using the gifts God had given them. We are not ordered to passivity, but to action on the basis of those gifts. When the lion comes to rend the children, we are not ordered to merely go to our knees, but to stride forward against the lion – even if unarmed. That is faith.

    She speaks of teaching her children “love”. Yet, what is love except caring so much for your neighbor that you will treat him as you would yourself be treated? Why not then teach your children that love is stepping up to defend others? Why not teach them that maintaining an armed lifestyle (including the evil, scary, black, “assault” rifles) is one way to protect yourself and those around you?
    But, relying on someone else to step in and be your defender is NOT love. And particularly if you insist that certain effective tools be removed from the folks who would protect you simply because they’re scary to you.

  • GWB says:

    Here is a question to ponder:
    Under what authority does Congress try to regulate end-user sales of firearms at all? Since they have passed laws making it impossible to buy firearms interstate, every purchase is now a local purchase.

    (You cannot buy a firearm “on the internet”, nor can you buy one in a state in which you are not a resident, so “interstate commerce” has been regulated out of existence; the best you can do is pay someone to deliver a product to your local retailer, with whom you ultimately complete the purchase.)

    Admittedly, they have Fisher to fall back on. But didn’t Congress write themselves out of regulating firearms by making EVERY end-user purchase intrastate? Thereby meaning there is NO interstate, end-user commerce to regulate?

    Please make arguments that demonstrate otherwise.

    • Jodi says:

      Oh, I do believe you’ve hit the nail right on the head, GWB. In effect, it seems they’ve handed us local control and they don’t even realize it.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Become a Victory Girl!

Are you interested in writing for Victory Girls? If you’d like to blog about politics and current events from a conservative POV, send us a writing sample here.
Ava Gardner
Instagram has returned invalid data.