Ex-Obama chief of staff: Sen. Heidi Heitkamp betrayed me on gun control

I wrote recently about taking Dem senators to serious task for their pro-NRA gun control votes. That piece is here:

They’re bad on Keystone Pipeline, and they’re bad on guns – meet the worst Senate Democrats

Let’s be clear — the watered-down but still-an-improvement Manchin-Toomey background-checks amendment, the gun control bill with the best chance to pass, “lost” on an April 17 roll call vote by 54-46. It failed, in other words, to clear the permanent 60-vote bar (thanks, Mr. Reid).

One of the 46 No votes was Harry Reid, who favors the bill but was preserving his right to enter a Motion to Reconsider. Reid voted with the gun safety senators on all other NRA votes that day, and in fact, he was partly behind the Manchin-Toomey attempt to get something passed.

That means that five more senators voting Yes could have passed the bill (54 + Reid = 55 votes) — it needed only one more Republican and our four NRA Dems. Once more, those four NRA Dems are:

The worst Democratic pro-NRA, pro-Keystone senators

Score Last Name First State Party Phone Class Mar 23 Keystone Apr 17 Manchin
-5 Baucus Max MT D (202) 224-2651 2 -1 -1
-5 Begich Mark AK D (202) 224-3004 2 -1 -1
-5 Heitkamp Heidi ND D (202) 224-2043 1 -1 -1
-5 Pryor Mark AR D (202) 224-2353 2 -1 -1

“Score” is the sum of their four key gun control votes plus the Keystone vote. As you can see, these senators really are the worst of the worst on our side of the aisle. Their gun votes will get people killed, people in their own states, and if Keystone passes with their votes, they will extend their destruction literally across the planet. Nice work, folks.

Notice that of the four, three are in Senate Class 2, up for re-election in 2014.

The reaction has begun

This was a winnable fight, a win that was desired by the majority of voters in this country, and also the voters in each of their states. It was a win that the president, to his credit, both wanted and pushed for.

PEW gun controlFor the senators, this was not about pandering to red-state constituencies, as the article below explains. It was about pandering to the NRA against the national interest, and taking money for doing so.

These senators defied their party’s president and took the money. So I wondered, what would the administration do? Would the faithless NRA senators get a pass?

We have an answer. Note the source; Bill Daley was White House chief of staff in 2011–2012. The Wash Post has his op-ed (my emphasis):

Heidi Heitkamp betrayed me on gun control
By Bill Daley

I want my money back.

Last October, I gave $2,500 to support Heidi Heitkamp’s campaign to become North Dakota’s junior senator. A few weeks later, she won a surprise victory.

I have had a long career in government and politics, but I don’t donate heavily to political campaigns. When I contribute, it’s because I know the candidate well or am really impressed with the person. Heidi Heitkamp was one of the latter: She struck me as strong-willed, principled and an independent thinker.

But this week, Heitkamp betrayed those hopes.

She voted to block legislation to make gun background checks more comprehensive. Her vote — along with those of 41 Republicans and three other Democrats — was a key reason the measure fell short of the 60 votes needed for passage.

Polling has shown that nine in 10 Americans and eight in 10 gun owners support a law to require every buyer to go through a background check on every gun sale. In North Dakota, the support was even higher: 94 percent. Yet in explaining her vote, Heitkamp had the gall to say that she “heard overwhelmingly from the people of North Dakota” and had to listen to them and vote no. It seems more likely that she heard from the gun lobby and chose to listen to it instead.

That’s pushback. Five things to note:

■ It this isn’t the Obama administration talking, I don’t know what is. Bill Daley is son of Richard J. Daley (the legendary “hizzonor” of Chicago) and brother of ex-Mayor Richard M. Daley. He’s a former Obama chief of staff, former Clinton Commerce Secretary and a very big deal at JP Morgan Chase (whose CEO loves you and wants you to eat catfood).

Bill Daley is a boardroom member of the Obama–Clinton wing of the Democratic Party. He’s the real deal. I would bet everything I own he’s writing under instructions and with permission. Surrogate time.

■ This is in the Washington Post, Obama’s hometown paper (and Heitkamp’s when the Senate is in session). This counts as a shot across the bow.

■ Of the four senators listed above, Heitkamp is the only one not facing the voters in 2014. Also, she’s a freshman senator (along with Begich), a newbie with relatively less power. So this is a safe attack that doesn’t risk a Senate seat. Nice choice of target.

■ Nevertheless, this is an attack, and a personal one. Yes, it fights on the issue, but it also holds one senator’s named feet to the very hot fire of public opinion. “I want my money back” is pretty obvious code for “you no longer have our support.”

■ Bill Daley is not your friend and he’s not mine. Neither is President Obama on most issues. Both are Catfood fans and Keystone kings. They want you to be poor and your grandchildren to die on a hot planet while David Koch dies rich.

But in this case our enemies are fighting our enemies (the Faithless Four listed above), and we should thank our useful allies and help them. How can you help? Read on.

You can help Obama take out the NRA senators

The pro–gun safety forces (the real progressives, as opposed to the Bill Daleys of the world) are preparing to leverage this Dem-on-Dem fight and broaden it. When targets and actions are announced, I’ll let you know in this space.

In the meantime, while Obama may not want to take out all of the senators listed above, you can use his attack on Heitkamp to influence all four:

Are you a resident of Alaska, Arkansas, Montana or North Dakota? If so, call your senators early and often. Tell them you want gun safety laws passed, the rest of the state wants the same, and they have lost your vote in 2014 because it didn’t. (Would they ever have had your vote? Doesn’t matter.)

Are you not a resident of Alaska, Arkansas, Montana or North Dakota? Call anyway. Tell them you will donate to any campaign that opposes them. Any campaign. (Do you have to follow through? That’s not the request I’m making. The request is to tell them they have active and committed enemies in their own party.)

Then call Harry Reid (202-224-3542) and tell him to tell Baucus, Begich, Heitkamp and Pryor:

“You four are risking Democratic control of the Senate. The voters hate this vote and will turn you out of office. Your next employer is on K Street and Obama won’t be your friend. If I bring this bill up again, I expect your votes to be Yes.”

Tell him to say that. Tell him so he gets it and they get it. Reid really doesn’t want his party to lose the Senate. It’s our strongest leverage with that house of Congress. Let’s use it.

In other words, threaten their jobs and threaten their majority. If you’re successful, you’ll have the whole party’s attention. We could pass this bill yet.

Bottom line

I think Reid wants to bring this up again. As of this writing, the underlying bill (S. 649) has been withdrawn, and he voted No procedurally on the Manchin substitute amendment to preserve his right to reintroduce it. The way to a win is open.

Reid needs the wind at his back, and he has it. Public opinion hugely favors this, and the president really wants this win as well. It’s also the right thing to do.

There’s a special benefit to us for taking this on. This is one of the four important fights in Obama’s second term, and three, including this one, are very winnable. For reference, those four fights are benefit cuts, gun safety, Keystone, trade agreements. For those of us who want the world to be different, there’s leverage here that we don’t normally have.

Please help if you can, and if you do help, help forcefully. Five phone calls, once per week (the four NRA senators above plus Reid), is not a lot, but it can have a big effect if the calls don’t stop.

I’ll have more on other actions as they develop. Gun safety activists are planning as we speak.

And thanks!


To follow or send links: @Gaius_Publius

Gaius Publius is a professional writer living on the West Coast of the United States.

Share This Post

101 Responses to “Ex-Obama chief of staff: Sen. Heidi Heitkamp betrayed me on gun control”

  1. lynchie says:

    Glad to see you reached April on the blog. Must be tough reading because we tend to use more than one syllable in our words.
    As far as contributing the states on the coasts send back more money to the center than you contribute and you know that cretin.

  2. Marc Remillard says:

    Uh, yeah. Go read up on dicta. Do you ENJOY sounding ignorant?

  3. Marc Remillard says:

    Does the First Amendment say the right to free speech “shall not be infringed”? Why no, it doesn’t. Care to come up with another non sequitur?

  4. Marc Remillard says:

    Try caring about others with your own money and maybe you won’t get called a socialist. Just a thought.

  5. ckg1 says:

    Did you miss the word “seems” when I was referring to Scalia?

    Sir, you’re the person who’s coming off as ignorant.

  6. Marc Remillard says:

    Hypocrisy, thy name is liberal. I got called names coming out of the gate here and you want to complain about me returning the favor? And then you add profanity to it as well? I made my point with facts, you made yours by sticking your fingers in your ears.

  7. Marc Remillard says:

    Uh, yeah, like I said. Go learn about dicta. Do you enjoy looking ignorant?

  8. Marc Remillard says:

    And your leftist buddies actually want us to believe you’re not out to take away our guns. Here is Exhibit A, for the argument that the left IS trying to take away our guns, one increment at a time. Karma here is the only honest one among you, although I’m sure you all just wish he would shut up so you could keep lying about not wanting to take away all the guns.

  9. Marc Remillard says:

    No, I don’t have the intellectual dishonesty to admit that. When I’m the one arguing for an individual freedom, and you people are the ones arguing that it should be taken away, do tell me how it is I that fit the definition of “fascist” when your advocacy is far more akin to it?

  10. Marc Remillard says:

    I’m not the one looking to take away the people’s right to own guns. Why, you are. Repeat, rinse, repeat. You are.

  11. Marc Remillard says:

    Do tell, how does taking away my right to own an “assault weapon”, a type of gun that I am particularly well-trained at using thanks to the government you worship, equate to “some ground rules”? How does taking that gun away from me make anyone safe? Because some bad guys use it? Less than 500 gun murders a year are comitted with rifles of ALL kinds, including so-called assault weapons, while over 5K per year are comitted with handguns. You people want to take away my gun so you can prevent less than 500 homicides a year. On what planet does that even make sense, let alone establish any kind of reasonable ground rule?

  12. Marc Remillard says:

    At least you’re an honest communist.

  13. Marc Remillard says:

    My guns have protected many more people than your mouth has.

  14. Marc Remillard says:

    I don’t have anything that would stop me from getting a gun in my background. Ex-cop, ex-military here, pal. I’m the guy who you WANTED carrying a gun…as long as it was for you. When I want to do it to protect myself and my family, suddenly I’m not good enough own a gun.

  15. ckg1 says:

    I don’t need to learn about “dicta”…you see, all I have to do is click on your name and it links me to EVERY post you’ve put on any site that uses Disqus. And your history of posting-and your dicta-speaks for itself.

  16. ckg1 says:

    And we don’t give a shit about a TROLL…and that’s exactly what you are, a TROLL…who has to resort to name-calling to make his point.

    You STILL failed to prove your point.

    You’re done.

  17. renegadesix says:

    He didn’t. While you are learning about dependent and independent clauses, go learn about “dicta.”

  18. renegadesix says:

    Like I am concerned about the opinion of a gun grabbing leftist loon. I gave you an incontravertible fact that proves without a doubt that the polling is, at best, unreliable when it comes to the opinion of NRA members. Given that facts are to leftists as kryptonite is to Superman, it is no wonder you declare a fact a failure.

  19. ckg1 says:

    Then why did Scalia seem to undercut the 2nd Amendment in that decision?

    Are you going to call him anti-gun next?

  20. ckg1 says:

    You FAILED. I asked you to give me reputable sources to tell me where the polling is a lie and you couldn’t even do that.

    Please leave before the embarrassment gets worse for you.

  21. renegadesix says:

    The Supremes in Heller said it isn’t. Leaving that aside, it is English Comp 101, the dependent clause relies on the inedpendent clause, not the other way around.

  22. ckg1 says:

    Sorry, but the first half of the Second Amendment IS relevant to the discussion, despite all your denials otherwise.

  23. renegadesix says:

    You can start with the stone cold fact that the NRA does not release its member list to anyone. Therefore there is no way these polls could reflect the opinions of NRA members with any degree of reliability.

  24. renegadesix says:

    Oh, you mean like your reliance on a dependent clause to gut a right made explicit in the independent clause of the same sentence? That kind of reliance on a few words?

  25. renegadesix says:

    Did you bother learning the difference between a dependent and an independent clause in grade school? Did you bother reading Heller? Putting the irrelevent in all caps only highlights your ignorant reliance on the irrelevant.

  26. renegadesix says:

    Well regulated is part of a dependent clause and refers to the MILITIA. The PEOPLE are in the independent rights guaranteeing clause. It is the PEOPLE who are guaranteed a right that shall not be infringed. Haven’t any of you people read Heller?

  27. renegadesix says:

    None. I know what a dependent clause is. I would think someone playing typonazi would understand it as well, but apparently not.

  28. renegadesix says:

    Apparently, one of the benefits of a “liberal” education is not learning the difference between a dependent clause and an independent clause. We folks in the middle contribute far more than you welfare cretins on the coasts do.

  29. lynchie says:

    It is all you can cling to you barnacle on the ship of progress. It refers to local militias. Read the whole thing not one line. As far as being in the middle we are tired of sending our tax dollars to you folks who don’t contribute.

  30. lynchie says:

    Funny I am sure you said nothing about the loss of your freedom under the Patriot Act or the militarization of the police. Advocating Freedom–you have no clue. Get in your bunker and hunker down to prevent the coming Armageddon==asswipe

  31. lynchie says:

    You would know where that is.

  32. lynchie says:

    Pull the rock back over your hidey hole and hibernate.

  33. Jafafa Hots says:

    If we “leave the constitution alone” that means keeping your “god” OUT of our schools.
    And it also means we can have these gun regulations because they in no way interfere with the 2nd amendment.

  34. karmanot says:

    Hey down arrows, what about Herr Sheriff Arpaio doesn’t remind you of fascist brown shirts, or for that matter Gov. Jan Brewer, killer of transplant patients, that doesn’t remind you of Illse Koch?

  35. karmanot says:

    The second Amendment should be abolished. There should be no right to establish private or state militias that threaten the stability of the Federal Union. Guns should be a privilege not a right.

  36. karmanot says:

    It’s already here Eve. The Boston response and martial lock-down is evidence enough.

  37. karmanot says:

    “We do need to let god back in school .” Sorry dude, she graduated already.

  38. cole3244 says:

    if you don’t understand it that may mean its above your comprehension not beneath it, to make fun of just verifies that.

  39. if you don’t want to get shot, build a bunker and begin compiling your own arsenal. Price we pay for freedom. They keep screaming about a police state. How is turning our schools into fortresses not a police state? Funny how they don’t have a problem with that aspect. If the only answer to violence and guns is more violence and guns, this whole country will be a real police state in no time.

  40. um…what? Go back to the kids table.

  41. cole3244 says:

    yes but, the only reason to be afraid of the fringe on the left is if you are against the particular minority that is fighting for its rights at the time, because the fringe on the right believe no group has the rights the majority has already received and benefited from, this coming from a extreme left winger obviously.

  42. no, none of them do. It’s a waste trying to reason with them.

  43. Naja pallida says:

    Apparently not wanting to get shot is far too Liberal.

  44. you, sir, are a living bumper sticker.

  45. Naja pallida says:

    Uh… the bill that just failed was an attempt to fix an already existing law. Background checks are already federal law. All the bill was trying to do was fix one of the giant gaping holes in that law, which illegal gun buyers are laughing all the way to the bank at.

    Yeah, leave the Constitution alone, bring God back into it!

  46. robert denny says:

    There are plenty of gun laws in place already. They are not very well enforced, so why bother with new ones that will also be ignored by those with criminal intent. We dont need a big brother government . We do need to let god back in school . We need to retake control of our families. Fix your own house forst and leave the constitution alone.

  47. And it’s being pulled even more since Obama became president; care about anyone besides yourself and you’re a Socialist. What fascinates me is that a lot of the rhetoric being spouted by the Right today is extremely similar, or even identical, to that of the anarchists. Both see conspiracies everywhere and want to dismantle government. It’s one of those cases where the fringes on either side meet.

  48. they’re just conservatives who want to think that they’re renegades who “really know what’s going on.” It amazes me how clueless they are that the GOP is running them like remote control cars. Because of their egotism and zealous adherence to a simplistic extremist ideology, they are ridiculously easy to manipulate. Try explaining to them that one person’s individual rights can easily encroach on another’s and therefore some ground rules are necessary and they start screaming that you’re an Obama-worshiping sheep and tossing out mangled Orwell quotes. One of them actually told me that he doesn’t believe there’s any such thing as “the common good” and that in an event like the Boston manhunt he holds his own self-respect above his children’s safety and would not have obeyed authorities’ directives. Their ideals and worldview are identical to those of a five year-old who doesn’t want to share. So tired of them trolling.

  49. karmanot says:

    Love it or leave it? You sad old fossil.

  50. Bob Barker says:

    Let me help you out by saying your arguments not only are weak as can be, but it shows you are wanting this country to legislate on emotion. Do you know why our congress was setup the way it was? To let laws take a long time to develop and be in the best interest of the nation, not be passed on emotion haphazardly. If you don’y believe in that system of government, I suggest you move out of this country and to another nation that has strict gun control. It’s pretty easy really…

  51. Em Ma says:

    thats why you don’t yell fire you quietly pull the fire alarm. and walk away

  52. cole3244 says:

    its been going on unopposed since 1980, when bill clinton is considered a progressive the center is hopelessly broken.

  53. lynchie says:

    There are no leftists they are all right. Who cares if the GOP get control of the senate it hasn’t done a thing for years. And they weren’t voting for the constitution they were voting for background checks to keep guns away from people like you.

  54. karmanot says:

    OMG, we’ll have to resort to quiche.

  55. karmanot says:

    Libertarians are just fascists with smiley faces.

  56. JozefAL says:

    Well, I’d love to see you go into a crowded theater and falsely yell “Fire” and see how the police–and later, the judge–feel about your “free speech” rights when you’re arrested and tried.

  57. Jafafa Hots says:

    Which is it… socialist or communist?
    You do realize that those words are not synonyms, don’t you?

  58. you gotta pay the troll toll…nothing better to do than gloat on progressive news sites. Go clean your gun.

  59. Em Ma says:

    they control our guns one day. then they will attack our bows and arrows, crossbows the next then we will have no knives, so we cant eat in a civilised manner when we have to slice our steak.

  60. I’m sorry you think that any attempt to increase public safety equals your guns being taken away. Typical selfish libertarian response. You don’t care about anyone but yourselves.

  61. again with the sheep? Do you catch the irony of regurgitating Alex Jones talking points while calling others sheep?

  62. I’m afraid I have to agree. This country keeps getting pulled to the Right, redefining what the Center is.

  63. Naja pallida says:

    Sorry, but donating to political candidates, especially Senators, is buyer beware. The United States Congress no longer works for the people, it is merely a meeting club where people are introduced to money. It is a stepping stone to their real job, raking in millions while lobbying the next group of people who want to do the same thing. Those Senators who are career politicians are so jaded and so lost in the parliamentary procedure of it all, they don’t even know which way is up any more, and frankly, don’t seem to care.

  64. karmanot says:

    Are you a volunteer or are you on the local NRA troll payroll?

  65. karmanot says:

    That’s right Samizdat, Rip Van Bomb Bunker just came out and is not yet aware the world has changed.

  66. Naja pallida says:

    What part of ‘well regulated’ do you not understand? Why is it that you’re happy to laud one phrase as utterly sacrosanct, but are happy to ignore other parts?

    The bill didn’t advocate disarming anyone except those people who can’t pass a 5 minute background check, which I can understand why you’d be frustrated if you are one of those people and really want a gun… but background checks are already federal law, there is just a huge gaping hole in the law that the original writers were too stupid to foresee being exploited by anyone who wanted to sell a gun without having to do any paperwork.

  67. karmanot says:

    Very perceptive that you would call a fascist state, (AZ) a swamp.

  68. karmanot says:

    The only argument that I can detect is that weasel trolls are fascinated with sheep.

  69. karmanot says:

    OMG ‘self slurring’ ROTFL…..got a real live troll today. You seem to be an expert on sheep. I bet they run like hell when they see you coming.

  70. karmanot says:

    The 2nd Amendment should be abolished.

  71. karmanot says:

    That’s right: gun killing thugs for freedom. Once they get off the couch those potatoes might be dangerous.

  72. Naja pallida says:

    You can almost always tell when a poll is a lie, because the data is an outlier. There are many different polling companies, all with different political and corporate influences. For instance, when four polls have one result, and the Fox News poll is five points in the opposite direction, one of them is a lie. We learned this clearly during the last Presidential election. Karl Rove was completely stumped, because his own internal polling was only telling him what he wanted to hear, and didn’t look at the bigger picture. When all of the major pollsters agree, the chances of the polling being a lie is pretty slim. The numbers might vary some, but basic statistics are hard to argue with, unless you’re a conspiracy theorist who would find something to argue about no matter what the polls said.

  73. “I’ll take the Constitution.”

    Well, a few words of it anyway. I have a feeling you’re a bit weak on the rest.

  74. karmanot says:

    “Which one of us is the fascist again?” Why, you are. repeat, wash, rinse, repeat. You are.

  75. karmanot says:

    Said the weasel to the ram.

  76. What part of “well-regulated militia” do you you [sic] not understand?

    (Somehow I’m reminded of Attack of the The Eye Creatures.)

  77. Ford Prefect says:

    In which urban elite Dems act surprised at Blue Dog/ New Dems who turn out to be frothing, corrupt Right-Wingers….

    Please. Bill Daley knew precisely who he gave money to and why. He knew what kind of person she is. The DSCC selected her because of who and what she is.

    Heitkamp is the new face of the Democratic Party. Right-wing and hopelessly corrupt. For elites to pretend shock or dismay at this is beyond silly.

  78. Carl Gorney says:

    OK, smarty….WHERE?

    Show us. Use legitimate, reputable sources. NOT paid-for whore groups and sites.

  79. Carl Gorney says:

    Let me translate “Slanted” for everyone….”I don’t agree with it.”

  80. Carl Gorney says:

    Do you even bother to read the first half of the Second Amendment? Apparently not, because you had two chances to say it in full. Just for future clairty, I’ll put it up for you in capital letters so you can combine it with the second half that gives you such a warm, tingly feeling…”A WELL-REGULATED MILITIA BEING NECESSARY TO THE SECURITY OF A FREE STATE”. THEN you can blab all you want about the second part of it.

  81. Carl Gorney says:


    You just don’t have the balls to admit you’re a fascist.

  82. Em Ma says:

    The gov. is and was designed to serve the people not the otherway around if you want to serve your gov. go to china or cuba or some other communist and socialist country. democrats bring socialism to our country. you better believe it. research communism and socialism before you down vote this post. everything that the democrats are pushing for is communist. anybody with a half a brain can see that. an all powerfull government means a country were the citizens don’t have a say in their day to day lives.

  83. PeteWa says:

    more fail.

  84. cole3244 says:

    i thought the cons said free speech was money now you are saying fire power is free speech, the more the right is challenged the more they drift towards their real goal violence against those that disagree with their agenda, welcome aboard komrade you have come full circle without even realizing it.

  85. cole3244 says:

    the cons have control of the senate now regardless of political label, you just can’t see the forest for the trees yet.

  86. Marc Remillard says:

    Oh, yes, PLEASE nominate leftists to replace the four Democrats who voted for the Constitution last week. That will all but guarantee GOP control of the Senate in 2014.

  87. Marc Remillard says:

    I’m the one advocating freedom here. You’re the one that’s trying to take away the People’s right to defend themselves. Which one of us is the fascist again?

  88. cole3244 says:

    remove the dems in congress that are right of center then in 2016 nominate someone left of center to represent the liberal agenda that has served the 99% well for generations, that by the way eliminates the popular hillary, imho.

  89. Marc Remillard says:

    The poll is as much of a pre-determined lie as your claim that “shall not be infringed” means “the government can do whatever it wants.”

  90. Marc Remillard says:

    Oh, you mean like your attempt to gut the Second Amendment last week? BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!

  91. Marc Remillard says:

    The polling is a LIE.

  92. Marc Remillard says:

    If you believe those slanted polls by polsters who are on your side in this “debate”, then I have some swamp land in Arizona for sale. Let’s see, the Constitution or the people who told us “separate but equal” was also constitutionally within the government’s power despite clear language in the Constitution to the contrary. I’ll take the Constitution.

  93. Marc Remillard says:

    When the Amendment says “shall not be infringed” any infringement is per se unreasonable. If you want to do something reasonable, see Article V of the US Constitution. The poster slurred himself with his anti-constitution diatribe.
    Anyone who advocates disarming the People is a sheep. Period. You are a herd animal that has abandoned all notion of self-defense other than the law of averages.
    There is no attempt. The coastal states have abandoned the Constitution, those of us in the middle “cling” to it.
    What part of “shall not be infringed” do you you not understand?

  94. cole3244 says:

    ironic, a fascist calling a gun control advocate komrade, must be a new spelling for a new generation of ditto heads.

  95. PeteWa says:


  96. Kes says:

    * Attempts to slur a poster by associating a reasonable position with Soviet-style communism
    * References an “all-powerful” federal government
    * Uses the terms “sheep” or “sheeple”
    * Attempts to distinguish between “the coasts” versus “real America”
    * Frames the Second Amendment as mandating a complete prohibition on any legislation involving guns, including minor things like requirements for child safety locks or requiring background checks

    That’s a Bingo!

  97. Jafafa Hots says:

    Stop commenting without reading.
    You are in a tiny minority.

    The vast majority of the public IN EVERY STATE, and the vast majority of NRA members IN EVERY STATE support these background checks etc.

    And stop blathering about the 2nd amendment. That’s a dodge, a weasel, a misdirection, a red herring, a lie.
    The proposed regulations (much like the ones that used to be in effect until Bush II let the lapse) are fully within the rights of government under the 2nd amendment and do not infringe in any way on that amendment. The Supremes themselves have ruled so.

    Your entire argument is false. Not a shred of truth to it.
    Whether or not that is because you are a liar, or just ignorant, or delusional is beside the point – the statements you make, being the complete opposite of reality, would undermine any other argument you had…

    ,,,if you had any other argument beyond simply stating falsehoods.

  98. samizdat says:

    Komrade? You mean ‘tavarishche’, don’t you? The fifties are gone, Joe, and judging by the fact that you’ve ignored the polling on this (seriously, 90+% is hardly an anomaly), you’re reading of both the posting and reality are flawed.

  99. GaiusPublius says:

    From Bill Daley’s oped:

    Polling has shown that nine in 10 Americans and eight in 10 gun owners support a law to require every buyer to go through a background check on every gun sale. In North Dakota, the support was even higher: 94 percent.


  100. Marc Remillard says:

    Dream on, Komrade. You need to check out where those senators you are after are from. The rest of the country is not as fond of turning over our rights to an all-powerful federal government as you sheep on the coasts are.

© 2021 AMERICAblog Media, LLC. All rights reserved. · Entries RSS