The Ninety-One Percent

Baucus weighs in on Obamachecks and Obamacare

by Cowgirl

Today Max Baucus today voted against Obama’s bill that would require background checks for gun purchases. The bill failed.  Federal law already requires these checks to take place, and they are run instantaneously at gun shops when people buy guns.  But sales at gun shows (which take place under tents or in gymnasiums and involve cash payments and resemble something akin to a ski swap) and certain types of other private guns sales are exempt from federal law. It is this loophole, this exemption, that president Obama was trying to close.

Jon Tester voted for the measure.

What is strange about Baucus’s vote–or anyone’s vote against tightening this law–is that 91% of Americans support background checks for gun purchases.  Numerous polls show this to be the case.  Even discounting that number to reflect Montana public opinion (which is usually more conservative than the national opinion and is certainly so on guns), we can posit that easily 65% of Montanans, and maybe as many as 75%, support background checks for gun sales.

Consider West Virginia, a big gun state.  Joe Manchin, the state’s democratic senator who won his senate seat with the help of a campaign ad in which he went to a gun range and shot Obama’s Cap and Trade Bill full of holes with an assault rifle, voted in favor of Obama’s background check legislation.  But the NRA is wayne lapierrestrongly against it, and so Baucus no doubt fears the wrath of the NRA and is not willing to risk making enemies with Wayne LaPierre, the group’s all-powerful demagogic president. Plus, Baucus probably figures that if he supports the bill, come election time he will be accused not of supporting background checks, but of supporting “Obama’s plan to take guns away from Americans,” as it would no doubt be cast by the NRA and local loons like Gary Marbut.  Nevertheless, I think Baucus should have done the right thing.  If it is revisited and a single vote can make a difference, he should vote for it.

The other piece of news about Baucus today is that he described the Obamacare implementation states are now required to undertake as a “train wreck.”  He made this remark during a hearing in which he was asking questions of Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius.  It’s not clear whether the remark was scripted and intended, or spontaneously blurted out.  We can forgive him if it was an accident; oratory is not lately his thing.

But if it was said deliberately and planned, we can infer that this signals a new political strategy by which Baucus will attempt to blame Obama for poor execution of what Baucus otherwise believes was a workable law as passed.

The remark does not do any favors to democrats in the Montana legislature who are trying, with the help of a few moderate Republicans, to pass a law that would allow the state to get more Medicaid funds–six billion more over the next seven years–from the federal government.  Obamacare’s shaky standing among Montana voters is the one hangup that could cause the House to balk at voting in favor of accepting the money (the Senate has voted to accept it).  This is funding is an aspect of Obamacare implementation.  So yes, if this fails and Montana has to forgo these funds, it would indeed be a train wreck.

Share

103 Comments on "The Ninety-One Percent"

  1. Tester has been a good Senator. He probably hates being stuck out there will all the sell-outs and scumbag lobbyists however. I don’t know how he does it but I’m thankful he’s there.
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/15/jon-tester-background-checks_n_3087272.html

    • Tester doesn’t need to worry about being reelected next year (note how he “evolved” on the gay marriage issue). Baucus is scrambling to distance himself from train wreck that is Obama Care, and trying to ingratiate himself with the low info voters to keep himself at the Government trough. If Tester was up for reelection, he would be down rooting in the mud with Baucus.

    • Yes. Montana is, in D.C., the equivalent of weird Cousin Al. YOU try to represent Montanans best interests. We hate regulations – until we don’t.

  2. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 17, 2013 10:14 PM at 10:14 PM |

    Sorry, but I simply do NOT believe that poll which shows that 91 percent support making criminals out of law abiding citizens. In fact, it’s wrong. That poll does NOT reflect popular support. I would suggest that you research just a wee bit more, Cowgirl. Gun control is pissing up the WRONG rope here. It’s wrong, and it ain’t gonna happen. Mini is right on this one.

    In any event, the Constitution is very clear about the Second Amendment AND protecting us from a tyrannical minority. Adding to the alREADY 2.2 MILLION people behind bars by making criminals out of aNOTHER group of people is pointless, senseless, and ill-advised. Sometimes, the wackos are correct. There will be NO gun control.

    Do I get an amen????

    • Larry sorry but gun control is even more popular than Kittens Bud!

    • Larry, the second amendment is about a well regulated militia. If you research the history of the amendment you will find that to be true. Read the amendment and notice how it is written. It is one sentence. It addresses a regulated Militia for the security of the State. Nowhere does it talk about the individual. I gladly submitted to background checks for my concealed weapon permits, I’m proud that I pass them. I’ve got my guns and I’ve been on a “list” for over 21 years, no problem. Checking to see if someone is nuts or a criminal before handing them a deadly weapon does not diminish my right to bear arms. But it makes me wonder if the folks who are against any background checks are afraid they can’t pass one?

      • Kevin, while your argument has merit and up till the Heller decision, you are right to point it out, the Heller decision made gun ownership an individual right. Regardless of how you (or I for that matter) interpret the second amendment, the law as it stands now is that gun ownership is an individual right.

        Your question about whether people fear background checks is also a valid question but I seriously doubt that it is the reason that most gun advocates dislike the Universal Background Check compromise. Most of the gun advocates I have talked to fear that if the Background check amendment had passed, it would have facilitated further laws to be passed that actually restricted gun rights. This is faulty logic, but it is the more likely reason they opposed it.

        • Heller also put sideboards on the 2nd amendment affirming restrictions by the Government on who and what types of weapons one can own. The right to bear arms can be restricted according to District of Columbia vs Heller. The 2nd amendment has limits. Here is section (2) of the courts decision: (2)
          Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

      • “Nowhere does it talk about the individual.”

        …the right of the people… ???

      • Sorry. A well regulated MILITIA is covered in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 16, which you conveniently ignore.

  3. Wayne LaPierre, the NRA’s pimp, looks ever like the proverbial constipated banker and shameless to no end. I joined the NRA when
    I was 14 years old in the junior marksmanship program. ‘Wayneboy’ used to be for broad background checks in 1999 and testified
    to that fact before Congress. Meanwhile, SHAME MAX for
    caving in to NRA phone-banks and ‘robo-calls’ and I QUIT the NRA last month, especially when they’ve been calling me every week for
    money, screw ’em!
    By the way, let nobody question my integrity please and service to this Nation, I’m a veteran and own an M1, 30-30, and many other numerous firearms and I’ve never been afraid to undergo background check when I’ve purchased weapons at Big R, Scheel’s, etc. The ‘gummint’ ain’t gonna come in the middle of the night and I would NOT
    put up with confiscation, but we must be sensible. The reason why
    Max is so keen on healthcare (I wonder, really friend of Big Pharma), is that he’s hoping advanced medical research will be able to provide
    him a SPINAL IMPLANT! Really, Max has been in the Senate this
    long and he can’t seem to leverage anything? Pathetic.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 6:13 AM at 6:13 AM |

      Pubbly, you think Wayne LaPierre is nuts! No way. You should read the comments from LIBRULS after any gun article. THEY are the ones that are truly nuts! And that is why the gun folks are so adamant! They fully understand that the libruls and gun control freaks will NOT be happy until we’re England! Or Australia! They even ADMIT that they want to do with guns what they did with cigarettes!

      And until libruls STOP attempting to enforce their bizarre beliefs on the country, there will be no meeting of the minds!

      Again, criminalizing LAW ABIDING citizens is NOT the way to introduce gun control! And the answers they suggest for gun violence in NO WAY affect gun violence. They’re pissin’ up the wrong rope! But then, that’s what libruls have always done best!

      Take a few moments to actually READ the librul assholes after any article. Here’s one for example. They do NOT want anything exCEPT the complete elimination of guns, which is the surest way that I know of to start a very REAL civil war! Gun owners will NOT go quietly into hippie, anti-ciggy, sandal-wearin’, feel good, fern bar good night!! And you can take that to the bank!

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 7:21 AM at 7:21 AM |

        Oops! Here it is. I forgot to include it.

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/17/chuck-schumer-ted-cruz_n_3104178.html

        SOME libruls are as insane as the wackjobs! They have NO perspective, nor a sense of history, nor an understanding of the Constitution. Ya just can’t wuss away the Second Amendment! Some states are trying with draconian gun laws. And guess what. There is NO decrease in gun violence! But then again, pissin’ up a rope FEELS so good. And we all know that feel good is what librulism is all about for some folks!

        • Sorry dude but thats bullshit too. Since California Years ago has enacted stricter gun safety laws, and gun laws barring automatic weapons… gun deaths have gone down in that state. And those that go hunting or fire for pleasure in that state have seen no one come to take their guns away if they are law abiding citizens.

          The NRA is promoting a police state. This treasonous organization will kill this countrys first amendment rights.

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 7:40 AM at 7:40 AM |

            THERE ya go! Hunting! Yep, THAT’S what the Second Amendment is all about! tee hee. Sorry, Norma, but Kalifornyeeha is NOT the rest of the country! And of course, we can make statistics say what we want to.

            • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 7:42 AM at 7:42 AM |

              Ya see, Norma, liburls are lazy. If ya truly want’a wussify the Second Amendment, do it CORRECTLY, with a constitutional amendment! Why not, right?! But that would require a leetle more effort than the liburls are willing to do. Whining about it is much easier! And if just FEELS so good to whine! Would you like a little whine while pissing up a rope???

      • Ah Larry, Wayne is actually certifiable!

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 7:37 AM at 7:37 AM |

          Nope. Not certifiable. You want certifiable? THIS librul fern is truly certifiable, and quite typical of the fern bar crowd. Hey, Norma, it’s like abortion. If you don’t like them, don’t have one. If you don’t like guns, don’t OWN one! And in that way, libruls can do their part to stop gun violence. And also, maybe they can wear a great big ol’ “L” on their shirt to show any mugger that they are a law abiding, fern bar attending, farmer’s market buying, Birkenstock wearing, NPR listening, certifiable LIBRUL! And hence, an easy target!! That way, it would make things MUCH easier for the bad guys, and safer for everyone else, because criminals would ONLY rob those who have no gun! I like it!

          Here, here’s a truthful Librul. And yes, it’s bullshit what he’s saying. This right from the comments on the article above.

          I do think it’s weird that the discourse is so far to the right that we are trying to convince the crazies that there won’t be a national gun registry instead of discussing whether a national gun registry might be very helpful to law enforcement. The Second Amendment says that citizens may own guns, not that we can’t write down who owns what gun somewhere – that seems consistent with the idea of a “well regulated militia”. What do law abiding gun owners have to fear from a national gun registry?

          “I do think it’s weird that the discourse is so far to the right that we are trying to convince the crazies that there won’t be a national gun registry instead of discussing whether a national gun registry might be very helpful to law enforcement. The Second Amendment says that citizens may own guns, not that we can’t write down who owns what gun somewhere – that seems consistent with the idea of a “well regulated militia”. What do law abiding gun owners have to fear from a national gun registry?”

          National gun registry??? I don’t THINK so! True that, this IS no country for old men, or REAL Americans! Let’s allow the Torries among us to make gun laws so that we can kiss the corporate ring! TIGHTEN that Prince Albert on your wingdings REAL good, for it’s gonna be a wild ride!

          • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 7:56 AM at 7:56 AM |

            “What do law abiding gun owners have to fear from a national gun registry?”

            From a liburl commenter above.

            You see, gun grabbers, THIS is exactly what scares the HELL outta law abiding gun owners! Hell, if ya want’a be a Torry, move your sorry ass to Canada! They LUV Torries up there! Heck, then you’ll even have a queen! Or you can move to Kalifornyeeha. LOTS of queens there too! Heck, nuthin’ wrong with royalty, if ya LIKE that sorta thing! It just ain’t for me!!

            • Larry, you are aware that the Universal Background Check compromise specifically prohibited a national gun ownership database as well as made ALL gun ownership records confidential so that news reporters like that idiot in New York couldn’t pull that stunt again, right? I guess not….

            • See now you’re gonna make all the natives mad at you Larry, and I know half of your BS on this subject is a lot like the Onion…. You’re in the shit now Mister.

    • Sorry. Where was all this progressive fervor when it was ‘The PIGS’ that were standing in the way of REAL progress. So – you let one president bypass some personal liberty for the public good. There a number of Amendments to the Constitution. When the feds saw the futility of the 18th, they simply repealed it. WHY? Because there was little money to be made in an ‘illegal’ substance? I scoff at your hypocrisy. To ‘lockdown’ a city and allow NO WARRANT searches goes beyond the pale. YOU CAN’T BEND THE RULES. We’re a Constitutional Republic. The right to keep and bear belongs to individuals with no equivocation.

      • No one had to follow those rules in Boston, and no One was arrested for not following those rules, Dave. What size tinfoil hat have you graduated too.

      • Wow, Dave. Wouldn’t a few facts help you out here? Let’s try that:

        1) The “Feds” didn’t repeal the 18th amendment. The 21st amendment was ratified by state conventions, in the same purely Constitutional manner as the 18th was passed.

        2) The Supreme Court has ruled multiple times that law enforcement can execute warrentless search in cases of extreme threat to public safety and probable cause, given that a judge signs off on such within 48 to 72 hours, depending on jurisdiction. Even the Godawful MCA kept that provision anywhere on American soil. The vast majority of ‘warrentless’ searches conducted in the Boston area over the last week were with voluntary approval of the site tenant. So what exactly are you caterwauling about, Dave?

        3) No one “locked down” a city in the manner your fear. It was voluntary, with a vast majority of Bostonian citizens and businesses complying. In case you didn’t notice, many people were still on the streets clowning for news cameras. Your cowardly fascist nightmare is just that, a dream.

        It kinda seems that you don’t understand the Constitution at all, Mr. Dube.

  4. Interesting to search @MaxBaucus on twitter and what’s on the man’s facebook page this morning….

  5. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 8:00 AM at 8:00 AM |

    p.s. Tester’s done. He’ll never get elected again from Montana. Guy just cut his own throat. Why? Who knows. It was political suicide. Guess he was just tired of bein’ a senator. But HEY, he’ll sure poll well with the fern bar crowd and the listeners of the Mizoo Lost Dog report radio! Hey, that’s it! Maybe Jon could introduce a nationwide lost dog and cat alert!

    bwhahahahahahaahahahahahahahahahaa!

    “We interRUPT this program to bring you a sally mockery lost dog alert!”

    bwhahahahahahahahaaaaa! Too funny!

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 8:08 AM at 8:08 AM |

      Save this post unTIL the next senate election and see who’s right.

      What damn GOOD is it to lose another senate seat? What do liburls gain by electing a Chump Edmunds type? Nutin’ I’d say.
      Stoopid is as stoopid does! Now THERE’S a delegation worthy of Montana Liburls! SENATOR Mini Barfus! SENATOR Chump Edmunds! And CONGRESSMAN Dipshit Daines! Finally, a red state fer sure! At LEAST we can still piss up a ROPE in style!!

      • I must admit, Larry, you scare me. And I say this as an owner of firearms. I can’t read the shit you spout off and even begin to take you seriously. Just thought you should know.

  6. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers, has anyone told you that you are perfect? As in asshole?

  7. Larry reveals quite a lot about himself in his tirades against those who favor sensible gun control. He really, really dislikes “libruls,” of course. But his preoccupation with their being somehow less manly than he is is especially interesting.
    Larry obviously equates gun ownership with hypermasculinity. He doesn’t want any legislation to “wussify the Second Amendment.” In California, where gun laws are tighter, Larry says there are “lots of queens.” Gun control advocates, in his mind “whine” rather than talk. They hang around in “fern bars” (whatever they are) instead of in bars where real gun-totin’ men like him spit on the floor.
    Maculinity, to guys like Larry, is inconsistent with caring about and working to prevent the gun- slaughter of innocent people in our country. Caring, being compassionate, are feminine characteristics. A real man, the parody of masculinity Larry carries around in his mind, just doesn’t give a shit.

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 10:17 AM at 10:17 AM |

      “Maculinity, to guys like Larry, is inconsistent with caring about and working to prevent the gun- slaughter of innocent people in our country”

      Oh really? How would gun control prevented Newtown, or ANY of the recent shootings? It wouldn’t have. Bullshit arguments you got there, pal.

      And really? Masculinity? That the best you got? Kind of a sexist argument. The Constitution is NOT designed for women too???? Interesting.

      Gun control treats a symptom, and NOT the disease, or I should say diseases affecting society. And you DON’T have to be living in a bus in Mizzola to figure THAT one out! BTW, just how long did YOU live a bus in Mizoola with JAYsus painted on the side??

      bwaahhwhahahahahahaahhaahhaaha!

      Sometimes I crack me up!

  8. I kind of doubt that there are any commenters on this site that don’t know about my support for our gun rights. I have been very vocal about how I feel about things like Feinstein’s AWB.

    That said, I felt (and still feel) that the Universal Background Check compromise was a gift to gun enthusiests and by pushing to have it defeated, the NRA and rapid gun activists have cut their own throat.

    The Universal Background Check compromise would have extended background checks to gun shows and internet sales. It would have stopped short of private gun transactions (a requirement for me…). Moreover, it strictly prohibited the formation of a national gun registry database and it would have guarenteed confidentiality of any gun ownership records. This doesn’t currently exist and it allowed the reporter in New York to print the names and addesses of all those owning guns in New York.

    In short, there was NOTHING in that bill that would have impacted gun sales to those that can legally purchase them. In fact, it would have put in place measures that would have further protected their privacy.

    By defeating this measure, the rapid gun advocates have set themselves up to get a much worse measure forced down their throats. The actions of the NRA have taught these people that to get gun control measures passed, they have to defeat the wingnuts and the corporate shills (like Baucus) and now they have cause to unite around. If the measure had been passed, it would have reduced the ferver to get “something” done to address gun crime.

    Larry, you can whine that you don’t believe the polls all you want. Given the number of times you quote polls when they support your position, it is somewhat non-sequeter. I have issues with polls too (and I have been pretty consistant in saying so) but when you have dozens to national polls conducted by groups ranging from the far right to the far left and they all are consistant, you have to start asking yourself whether you simply don’t want to accept reality.

    I applaud Senator Tester and I think he will have no problem getting reelected in five years. I remember the far left guys over at 4 & 20 saying that Tester wouldn’t get reelected in 2012. They were wrong…

    • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 10:22 AM at 10:22 AM |

      Not whining, Kenneth. Just simply stating a fact. You see, knee jerk polls are VERY unreliable. And that is what these are. Emotional polling at it’s worst. They don’t last, and they’re changing daily as we speak. It’s kinda like the 9-11. EVERYone insisted that we just HAD to do something, so we did. And it was wrong.

      When guns are outlawed, only eric prince and blackwater will have guns!

      How many folks did they kill after Katrina? I forget.

      • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 10:37 AM at 10:37 AM |

        Speaking of invading and slaughtering innocent countries, blowback is a BITCH! Thanks George, and all of you liburls that waved your teensy, tiny little flags! And thanks, npr, for cheerleading for georgie’s orgy of slaughter! And thanks, sally mockery, who actually INTERVIEWED a “contractor”, and didn’t even know he was a merc! Thanks to all for being dumb as dog shit!

        http://imgur.com/a/sUrnA

      • What makes a poll “knee jerk”, Larry? What evidence do you have that the national polls, conducted by reputable polling agencies over the last month were “knee jerk”? Are you disputing that the majority of voters polled answered that they wanted to see Universal Background Checks? Are you disputing their methodology? Are you saying that my answer when I was polled was “knee jerk”?

        Your responce to me was less than well reasoned and I would love to know your rational for dismissing over a dozen national polls taken by polling agencies you have defended before when they agreed with your opinion…

        Further, you comparison to the polls following 9-11 was flawed in a number of ways. Yes, the overwhelming majority of people wanted to see “something” done. Sadly, there were few polls taken on whether the Patriot Act was the “something” that people wanted. The fault was in the answer to that sentiment that was enacted by Congress – not in the polling. In this case, the polls were specific. They addressed the specific action that Congress was proposing (the Universal Background Check compromise). As such, your comparison fails miserably.

        What really surprises me – given your previous comments on how bad special interests are controlling our politics – is that you are no completely insensed by the idea that our Senators were more afraid of the NRA (a special interest group) than they were by obvious will of the voters. I would have thought that you would be all up in arms over that….

        • Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 11:00 AM at 11:00 AM |

          Well, Kenneth, knee jerk polls would be those taken right AFTER a massacre, and just before! For comparison. Do you have any?

          You see, if folks really believe that the Constitution should be changed, there ARE provisions for that! It’s called a Constitutional Amendment! Hey, I’m all for it! If the gun grabbers do it right, I think everyone will agree. So, the BIG question then becomes just WHY they can’t do it the right way? What are they afraid of? I dunno. I dunno. Help me out here.

          • Larry, how did you get from “universal background checks” to changing the constitution? Moreover, what about the legislation effects your constitutional right to own firearms? Have you even read the legislation proposed? This is the same question I asked my wife last night when we got into a discussion about it. After reading it, we actually did discuss it at length. Until then, she didn’t even know what questions to ask. I see you have the same problem. Quit letting the NRA think for you and actually read the legislation under discussion here. I have….

        • FACT: NRA supported background checks in 1999, so since we have President Obama, Wayne ‘draft deferred’ LaPierre has his new ‘whipping boy’ to keep up flagging NRA memberships.

          • Yes, it was a fact that the NRA supported legislation very similar to what was proposed. In fact, I was an advocate for that legislation (at that time I was a local NRA officer – I have since left the NRA and have no intention of ever giving them a dime in the future).

            Larry, the polls taken in the last month (and there have been over 16 national polls that I am personally aware of) are hardly “taken right after the massacre”. Those polls have shown a consistant increase in the support for Universal Background Checks and a consistant decrease in the support for another AWB (assault weapons ban). You are completely misrepresenting the situation and, by doing so, shown that the more recent polls are NOT knee jerk reactions.

      • ONly assault guns Larry, you keep misquoting the Facts. Not all guns!

        • Larry Montana is 13th in gun violent deaths California is 40th!

          http://www.scribd.com/doc/133035248/America-Under-the-Gun Page 5

          • There are quite a few problems with that report, Lynn (yes, I just read it). First and foremost, the report is generated with some misleading statistics – not the least of which is that gun injuries/fatalities does NOT equal gun violence. In fact, only approximately one out of five gun deaths/injuries are the result of a violent crime. The rest are accidental shootings and suicides. This is a common misrepresentation of the data used by organizations like the one that prepared that report to indicate a more serious problem than really exists. In point of fact, Montana does have one of the lowest instances of gun CRIME. Sadly, due to the prevelence of guns in our state, we also have a high instance of gun accidents and suicide.

            This should stand as a lesson, though. One of the key components of the Compromise legislation was the formation of a Gun Violence Study group. While I have some serious concerns about the political nature of the formation of that group, Gun violence SHOULD be studied on a national level, and it should be accomplished by an independant study organization.

        • The Only people afriad of Background checks are those you can’t pass them.

          “A well-regulated militia” needs to at least know who its members are …….and what kind of weapons they Have.

          “The Second Amendment should be understood, too, in the context of the follow-on Militia Acts enacted by the Second Congress. They mandated that white military-aged men obtain muskets and other military supplies for service in state militias. President George Washington then took command of several state militias to put down the Whiskey Rebellion in western Pennsylvania.

          So, contrary to the Tea Party’s desired “history,” the initial use of the Second Amendment and the Militia Acts was to crush an anti-tax revolt in rural Pennsylvania. A similar uprising in western Massachusetts – the Shays Rebellion – was also fresh in the minds of Washington and other Framers, since it was one reason they went to Philadelphia in 1787 to throw out the ineffective Articles of Confederation and start over with a new Constitution.

          The thinking of George Washington, James Madison and other key Framers was that an elected Republic operating under the rule of law as prescribed by the Constitution – with its intricate checks and balances – was the best way to protect American independence and liberties.

          Of course, the Framers had a rather distorted view of what constituted independence and liberty. They accepted slavery of African-Americans, excluded Native Americans and denied suffrage to women and some white men. (Indeed, putting down slave revolts became an important role for state militias in the South.)”

          http://consortiumnews.com/2013/04/11/the-rights-second-amendment-fraud/

          • The public school system let you down. As a taxpayer, I apologize for your lack of knowledge and misunderstanding of our constitutional roots.

          • Lynn –

            “The Only people afriad of Background checks are those you can’t pass them.”

            As I stated before, this is the type of hyperbole that makes it hard to discuss this issue. There are plenty of reasons to have issues with Federal legislation about background checks. I do not fear background checks (as I have passed many of them in just the last two years) but I had quite a few reservations about this law until I got a chance to read it. You have have to take into account the argument that the Universal Background Check compromise was just the first step in passing more restrictive legislation. I, personally, feel that the argument is flawed, but there are still plenty of pro-gun people that claim it was their reason for not wanting to see it pass.

            Further, while your history analysis is pretty spot on (you forgot to mention that up until the Heller decision, the Supreme Court interpreted the Second amendment the same way), the current situation is that ownership of guns is an individual right. The Supreme Court may change their mind again in the future, but as it stands today, we have deal with the facts as they are. Gun ownership is an individual right. Where the rabid progun people lose me is where they claim that ANY law regarding guns infringes on that right. It is obvious that they have not read the Heller decision and are unaware that the Supreme Court recognised that the right to gun ownership is subject to restrictions.

            • Read a SCOTUS decision? ARE YOU MAD!?!

              • 2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.

                http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

                • Nor was Heller unclear in giving the individual right to keep and bear arms that do not pose imminent threat to the state or well being of citizens. Kenneth was presenting much the same as you do here.

    • Ken, that’s really smart analysis.

      Larry is an example of the “intense minority”. He’s also, most of the time, lovably nuts. This time, not so lovable. That he’s repeating the NRA’s lies about the current bills is just really troubling.

      As a long time fan of Larry’s nuttiness, something tells me there’s a strong likelihood that he would have some difficulty passing a background check.

    • I would like to know how to find these internet firearm dealers that will sell and ship guns directly to my home allowing me to bypass the FFL transfer requirement. Going though the NICS is like asking a parent permission for an abortion and a major violation of my privacy and free choice.

      Just one web link will do, but the more the merrier since I like to do comparison shopping.

      Thank you

      • Ian, that is a careful mis-interpretation. While you are correct in that it requires an FFL holder to recieve a firearm purchased online, there is no FEDERAL requirement that the transaction has include a background check. Most FFL holders do one anyway, but the requirement doesn’t exist.Many states (like New York did after a major sting operation netted at least 16 FFL holders operating their “business” from home) have passed state legislation requiring a background check, but the federal requirement isn’t there.

        • I just bought a gun off the Internet Kennith last month. It was a IAC Hawk, the price was too good to pass up. I had spent months looking for an 870, or good knock off at gun shops in the state, even used they were almost a hundred dollars overpriced. the cost attributable to the extreme rights ridiculous “Obama is gonna take my gun” Meme

          Even though I paid at the website, I still had to go through a FFL Dealer, who can’t hand over any gun until a Background check is done. I had to file all the necessary paperwork with our mutual shop here. There is a federal process. My Guess is those FFL dealers you mentioned gave up the guns without that paperwork… that is not suppose to happen. Just another reason I like and do business with our mutual shop owner. A by the Book kind of guy!!!

          • Norma, you need to re-read the comments I made to Ian. Yes, if you went through JD, you had to fill out the paperwork. If you had gone through an FFL holder that didn’t have a storefront, you wouldn’t have had to do that – at least there is no federal requirement for it. In my experience, most FFL holders will require a background check, but the federal requirements only apply to retail shop owners. I have purchased firearms before and had them shipped to a private FFL holder (an old gunsmithing friend of mine) without having to do the paperwork. It was also something explained pretty clearly in my FFL study guide.

      • Ian, it occurs to me that my responce was somewhat unclear. Understand that gaining an FFL does not require that you have a retail storefront. Many FFL holders do not, in fact have a retail store front. Most professional gunsmiths have one as do many gunshow/swap meet merchants. Only retail store FFL holders are currently required to do a background check. Once I recieve my FFL for my gunsmithing, I could – theoretically – recieve an internet firearm for you and there is no Federal requirement that I have to run a background check on you. This is the loophole that would have been plugged by the Universal Background Check compromise.

    • Kenneth, as to background checks consider this: http://www.volokh.com/2013/04/15/the-pro-gun-provisions-of-manchin-toomey-are-actually-a-bonanza-of-gun-control/

      Rarely is federal legislation straight forward.

      • Neither is paranoia. Facebook probably has a better gun registry than HHS could come up with.

      • Craig, why do you insist on posting conspiracy theory as fact? Read the damn legislation yourself. It isn’t that hard. The compromise legislation that the Senate voted on explicitly forbids the creation of a national registration database. Period. You can try to twist it anyway you want but the ACTUAL legislation was straight forward. Quit making a fool of yourself.

        • Conspiracy theory? Attacking me does not make your case or make doubts disappear about the ambiguities and loopholes in the now defunct poorly drafted legislation. Your attempt to suppress critical inquiry and insist on dogmatic adherence to party talking points is rather transparent. I return you to your self important rant in a teapot.

          • Where to start….

            1) I did not attack you. I attacked the conspiracy theory website you posted. You might want to choose a source that doesn’t include the word “conspiracy” in the site title. It might give you more credibility.

            2) The Universal Background Check amendment was defeated in the Senate but it is hardly defunct. Senator Reid specifically voted “no” on the legislation with the stated intention of being able to bring it up again if more support could be garnered for the act. You must not be aware of the partlementary procedure that allows for someone on the “winning” side of an issue to bring a previously voted issue back up.

            3) I have not suppressed “critical inquiry” – you have simply failed to present any. You posted a link to a conspiracy website and I disregarded the convoluted and twisted scenario that the website presented. You have failed to actually address the legislation in question in any meaningful way. As usual, all you have done is what you always do – do a quick google search for some kind of off the wall site that presents some off the wall argument in the hopes of derailing meaningful discussion.

            4) Please explain to me what “dogmatic adherence to party talking points” I am adhering to. You make a blanket (and illogical) statement with no specific example and expect this to be taken seriously.

            • The Volokh website is NOT a conspiracy website. It’s name is just tongue in check. Most of the writers are active law professors. David Kopel who wrote the post I linked about is an adjunct professor at Denver University Law School. Here is Kopel’s senate hearing testimony earlier this year https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgkKKTtdkqE on a variety of gun matters. As to the bill itself he points to 2 areas in particular that are holes in it’s reach. Go back and read his post.

              • Craig is right. Volokh is a legit website. And, one I visit from time-to-time. It also leans right.

                • Volokh began as a wargarblerrhhh website. It doesn’t ‘lean right’. It is and has been as wingnut as they come. As a website, it began around the same time as:
                  Michelle Malkin, anchorbaby internment defender,
                  Professor Glenn Reynolds, greatest right-wing apologist in history save maybe for David Brooks,
                  The anti-idiotarian Chihuahua and
                  Kim DeTuit, both websites run by white immigrants to Texas terrified of brown folks, the MOOSLIMS, and the darkies that come an git yer guns,
                  Atlas Jugs, Islam hater extraordinaire,
                  The 3 lawyers from Minnesota, (Powerline), one of whom almost got fired because he couldn’t contain his stupid,
                  Captain Ed, favored fat guy at Malkin’s HotAir,
                  and Little Green Nutballs and Balloon Juice (though Charles and John Cole have thankfully come to their senses.)

                  All of those folk were thick as thieves, back in the day. Volokh has mellowed, but if you actually have read the site for any time, you will find no shortage of fear. That is, fear of La Raza, fear of ACORN, fear of the nigras gonna take yer guns, fear of the wetbacks gonna take yer healthcare, fear of the dark man in the White House who hates Israel ~that is his Kenyon way~, fear of the 2 million dollars a day Asia trip (which is a complete fantasy), and fear of FEMA reeducation camps.

                  James, I cut my blogging teeth reading wingnut websites. To claim that TVC “leans right” is like claiming that Democratic Underground ‘leans left’. They are a conspiracy website, and no more “legit” than any other, probably far less.

                  Still, Kenneth’s arguments against TVC’s fear mongering go unanswered. Small wonder.

                • yea according to their own poll 63% of the sites visitors watch FOX! Thats scary enough right there to keep me from visiting!

              • Be that as it may, the rational used in the article you link is extremely convoluted and, at best, is a reach. Further, if that is all you could find on that bill, then I remain confident that it was a gift to the pro-gun set. I also maintain that – because all the gun legislation was defeated, what will be pushed in the future will be far more invasive.

      • Actually the law senator Tooney put forward only puts teeth on an exicsting law already passed and on the books Craig… there is no bonanza of gun control here…really! It seems to mostly give some teeth to the brady act!

        • Norma, I have to admit to being completely confused by your reply to Craig. Even given the point that I think Craig is simply trying to derail the conversation, I don’t understand your reply.

          The proposed background check legislation doesn’t really give more “teeth” to existing legislation. What it does do is close loopholes in the existing background check legislation, provide for confidentiality to information supplied in background checks and ensure that a national registration database isn’t created. What extra “teeth” does the act give to existing legislation?

          I would also point out that “Brady Act” expired in 2004. The “Brady Act” was the so called Assault Weapons Ban that was passed in 1994. The background check compromise has nothing to do with the Brady Act. If it did, I certainly wouldn’t have supported it.

          • 18 USC Sec. 922 of the Brady bill is still enacted. The latest available data from the Justice Department show that during January 2013 the government reported 432 new prosecutions for these matters and 605 convicted. 2012.

            Convictions for September 2012 (Fiscal Year 2012)
            Lead Charge: 18 USC 922 – Firearms; Unlawful acts

            Also, the latest available data from the Justice Department shows that during 2012 the government reported 6,035 new convictions. of that part of the Brady act still enacted, according to the case-by-case information analyzed by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC), this estimate is up 2% over 2011.

            So the assault weapons ban and clip size has expired, of Brady Bill has expired, but not much else!

  9. As a Montana native (now living in Florida) I am deeply ashamed of Senator Baucus. Max has always valued his own political future more than doing what is right. Martin Luther KIng Jr. said “There comes a time when one must take a position that is neither safe, nor politic, nor popular, but he must take it because conscience tells him it is right.” Would he have had the courage of the main he defeated in his first Senate race primary –Senator Paul Hatfield who had the courage to vote for the Panama Canal Treaty even when he knew it was not in his own interest. Too bad Max has never grown to that stature–longevity is no proof of integrity and character.,

    • DITTO…..As I’ve said, the reason why Max is so interested (beside hefty campaign donations from Big Pharma) in health care, is that he hopes someday medical science can provide him a SPINAL implant!! Pathetic, and now he’s send out lame e-mails about his cowardly betrayal.

  10. Larry, if hijacking was a capital offense, you’d be deader than Rasputin by now.

  11. When is MTStreetfighter going to weigh in on this? All of this going on with Max and their top story is about how he is outraising Champ Edmunds and Corky Stapleton. Not that there is much difference between them im sure on this issue but I sure hope former governor BS will take a chance, step up to the plate and do everyone a favor and send Baucus home for good.

    • Well said! but on this issue B.S. would be with Baucus!

      • Not convinced. Evidence, please …

        • HOUSE BILL NO. 246 signed by Gov B.S. in 2009

          • Otherwise known as the “Montana
            Firearms Freedom Act”.

          • I am sorry if I am inserting myself in your discussion with Rob, but a few problems with that as proof that Schweitzer would not have voted for Universal Background Checks.

            The bill you list had nothing to do with Federal Firearms Rights. It was a commerce bill based on the legal argument that if a firearm, ammunition or accessory doesn’t leave the state, it is not subject to the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. Schweitzer did not advocate for this bill to be passed but he did sign it. This is not a clear indication of what he would have done relating to the Universal Background Check amendment.

            Further, Schweitzer has spoken often while in office of limiting access of firearms to those that should not have them. At one point, he suggested that the penalty for “straw sales” should be increased. Under his administration, reports to the Federal Firearms Restriction Database increased. Whether this was due to his administration pushing for more reporting or due to another reason is hard to determine.

            Again, I apologize for inserting myself in your discussion, but I have seen no real evidence that he would voted against it and the above things would lead me to believe that he would have voted for it. Moreover, Schweitzer has always been a politician that was in tune with the majority view here in Montana. His record suggests that he would have voted with the majority view.

  12. I often wonder the correlation between people supporting the vague notion of “background checks” versus supporting the exact wording of a specific bill. Virtually no one polled has read the exact wording of the bill. Heck, few law makers seem to read the wording of bills they vote on.

    • In this case, the two are not mutually exclusive. The actual wording of the bill is fairly represented by the title of the bill. Yes, I have read the actual wording of the bill (it isn’t all that long for Federal legislation) and while written in “legalease”, it is pretty easy to understand.

  13. Larry Kralj, Environmental Rangers. | April 18, 2013 7:27 PM at 7:27 PM |

    What the FAAAAAA???? Holy SHIT! I seen myself in that lineup!!

  14. Yes! Finally something about safety training.

  15. By the way, Gary Marbut claims he’s responsible for 58 gun bills in the Montana legislature while he was featured on Constitution USA on PBS tonight http://www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/home/ Interesting show, and if states had all the control, we’d probably see the ‘baggers’ reintroducing Slavery into the border states.

Comments are closed.