search
top

More Evidence They are in Retreat

Via Syd of Front Sight, Press:

 By an overwhelming 81-10 vote, the Senate passed Sen. Vitter’s amendment to prevent any funding to foreign organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of lawful American citizens. Any organization that adopts a policy anathema to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment would no longer be eligible for U.S. financial assistance—including the U.N.

That’s quite a margin.   But this is still an entirely symbolic victory.  We’re still a ways off from being able to repeal the meaty chunks of federal gun control laws, unfortunately.

10 Responses to “More Evidence They are in Retreat”

  1. Jadegold says:

    Actually, it means absolutely nothing. It’s also kind of funny that the NRA thinks so poorly of its membership that it would mislead them so badly on the issue. Well, I guess it’s what PT Barnum always said…

    The legislation the Senate passed 81-12 (*note: all 12 ‘nay’ votes were by GOPers) was the Foreign Aid Appropriations Bill. The purpose of this bill was to cut off funding to the UN Human Rights Council, a group that was widely criticized for being both too political (toomany condemnations of Israel) and ineffective (virtual silence on Darfur, etc.)

    Vitter’s amendment is what is known in DC as a “drop in.” IOW, a congressman sees a bill that enjoys widespread support and “drops in” an unrelated amendment for some pet project or cause which will later be stripped out in committee. That way, Vitter can claim he sponsored an amendment but the reality is his amendment goes exactly nowhere.

  2. Jadegold says:

    BTW, those GOPer who voted ‘no’ were:

    Chambliss (R-GA)
    Isakson (R-GA)
    Brownback (R-KS)
    Ensign (R-NV)
    Coburn (R-OK)
    Inhofe (R-OK)
    DeMint (R-SC)
    Graham (R-SC)
    Corker (R-TN)
    Cornyn (R-TX)
    Barasso (R-WY)
    Enzi (R-WY)

    Are you seriously telling us these Senators are gun control advocates?

  3. Sebastian says:

    Except that was the vote count for the Amendment itself, not the bill:

    By 81 yeas and 10 nays (Vote No. 321), Vitter Amendment No. 2774, to prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.

    It just so happens that the overall vote was 81-12. Thats via Thomas, which doesn’t link properly, but you can look it up. So yes, a Democratic Congress voted overwhelmingly on a (admittedly only mildly so) gun rights measure.

  4. Sebastian says:

    Nays are the usual suspects:

    Durbin (D-IL)
    Feinstein (D-CA)
    Harkin (D-IA)
    Kennedy (D-MA)
    Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    Levin (D-MI)
    Menendez (D-NJ)
    Reed (D-RI)
    Schumer (D-NY)
    Whitehouse (D-RI)

  5. Jadegold says:

    Again, Sebastian, the amendment is so much vapor without the bill passing–right?

  6. thirdpower says:

    And? You have a point Jade?

    Doesn’t seem to be any “misrepresentation” here. The article was about the amendment. The usual suspects voted against it. It still passed.

    Pretty clear cut.

  7. Jadegold says:

    The point is simple, even for you, Third.

    First, take a look at the bill. There were 142 amendments proposed that got tacked on to it and over 100 approved–ranging from monies for tuberculosis and AIDS to assistance to the Bolivian police. The fact is virtually all these amendments will be stripped out in committee. Thus, your amendment is meaningless.

    Second, if you take alook at the language of the amendment (Sebastain’s comment above)–nowhere does it address the second amendment. What it says is that foreign organizations cannot require registrtion or the taxing of US-owned firearms. Well..duh. Foreign organizations can’t dictate our laws be it speed limits or the amount of property taxes.

  8. Sebastian says:

    What it says is that no funds may go to organizations that require a tax or registration of firearms for American citizens. Yes, it’s largely a symbolic gesture, but it still passed overwhelmingly in a Democratic congress. No one ever suggested that it addressed the second amendment. I think Thirdpower was talking about the amendment voted on.

  9. Jadegold says:

    What it says is that no funds may go to organizations that require a tax or registration of firearms for American citizens

    International organizations.

    No one ever suggested that it addressed the second amendment

    From your post:

    By an overwhelming 81-10 vote, the Senate passed Sen. Vitter’s amendment to prevent any funding to foreign organizations that infringe upon the Second Amendment rights of lawful American citizens. Any organization that adopts a policy anathema to the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment would no longer be eligible

  10. Sebastian says:

    I misunderstood you. I thought you were addressing comments, not the post.

top