|Wisconsin's dumbest lucky guy talks with the "press"|
New Hampshire Senator, Kelly Ayotte, saw a 15 point increase in her disapproval rating in a PPP poll since her "no" vote on background checks - a measure that is more popular among Americans than kittens.
Yes, freakin' kittens.
So what does the world's dumbest man who married himself a heiress who bought him a senate seat do to 'splain himself? Offer up an exclusive commentary to nasty bag o'shite, Charlie Sykes.
Of course! And Chuckie reprints it in his pay-per-view Breitbart-Blaze knock-off website. Everyone wins! So here is Our Dumb Senator's commentary...with notes from the Siren.
Ron Johnson: Why I Voted NoPublished: 6:18 AM April 25, 2013
I care deeply about preventing crime. But I also care about freedom. Apparently these two principals are mutually exclusive when you can only possess one thought at a time in your single brain-celled head. Poor, sad and lonely brain cell.
The images coming from Newtown last fall were nothing less than a nightmare come true. Every American was saddened and disturbed by the actions of a seriously disturbed young man who shot his way into a school and committed mass murder. Let us just take a moment to also mention that this young man fired over 150 bullets into the bodies of children and teachers in less than five minutes - and when the single time he paused to reload or his assault rifle jammed, eleven children escaped from being murdered. A fact that leave many of the bereaved parents wondering if he had needed to reload more often - might their children still be alive?
Immediately afterward, President Obama announced that Vice President Biden would lead a "comprehensive" review of the causes of this kind of senseless violence. Most Americans supported a complete conversation to determine the root causes. Yes, they do and not just a bizarre rant by Wayne LaPierre.
Unfortunately, what could have been a meaningful conversation possibly leading to effective measures designed to better protect Americans was quickly hijacked by the anti-gun lobby. The public generally refers to them as gun "safety" experts, law enforcement and gun violence victims. Instead of a comprehensive approach, they singularly focused on gun control and resurrected a call for the previously tried and failed banning of scary looking pistols, rifles, shotguns, and various forms of ammunition. Which is kinda the definition of "comprehensive." That sad, sad little brain cell.
Democrats in the Senate eventually realized that gun-grabbing legislation By "gun-grabbing" he means legislation in which not one person, including Joe Biden, mentioned taking away one single gun from anyone. was not going to pass, so they introduced a bill that would do little, or nothing, to reduce the violence According to no one - but would infringe the rights, increase the costs, and significantly inconvenience law-abiding citizens. Yes, let's not inconvenience anyone by all means - you know, it's not like a gun is a car or a dog a person has to license. Sheesh. Background checks are already required in most commercial gun sales. Fucking weasel. Johnson is perfectly aware of the massive loopholes in gun show sales - in which some speculate that nearly 40% of guns are purchased with no requirement for a background check. The bill from Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) would have extended them in a number of intrusive ways. Intrusive? Really? It makes one wonder if he understands the definition of the word.
For example, the bill would have made it a crime for you to give a gun to your nephew as a gift, No, it would not have - that's a flat-out lie or lend a rifle to your cousin for deer season, No it would not have - that's a flat out lie without first paying for a background check. Paying? Lying again. It also would have required a federal record of every firearm sale - recording who was the buyer and what was purchased. A measure that Democrats favored mostly because law-enforcement supports it - kind of a crime helper sort-of thing.
These are infringements on the rights of law-abiding gun owners Not really — rights so crucial to our freedom that the Founding Fathers put them in the Second Amendment to the Constitution. Who never imagined a rifle that could fire hundreds of bullets in a matter of seconds. The Manchin-Toomey amendment was also fatally flawed. A very random and creepy choice of wording considering the subject - don't you think?
More importantly – and after all the speeches and politicking by the anti-gun lobby - nothing in Senator Schumer’s bill, or the Manchin-Toomey alternative, would have prevented the tragedy in Newtown, nor prevent similar tragedies in the future. Perhaps not, but then again, this was to be a "comprehensive" and "complete discussion" wasn't it, Ron? Not just a discussion on Newtown. Let's take this opportunity, Senator, to discuss a former constituent of yours, Cary Robuck. Cary was murdered by a man with a restraining order preventing him from purchasing a gun from a licensed seller - so he bought if off of Armslist - a private online seller who does not have to perform a background check. A background check would have revealed to the seller that this man was forbidden from purchasing a firearm - which might have prevented him from killing three women in a spa in Brookfield, Wisconsin. Do you think there might have been something in that legislation that possibly could have prevented that tragedy, Ron?
I voted no on the Senate’s Motion to Proceed to this misguided federal intrusion into our lives. It is consistent with promises I made during my campaign to oppose legislation that steps on the people’s freedom, and consistent with my voting record on other legislation that would diminish our liberty as Americans. It is also consistent with the promises you made to the gun lobby worth over a $1.3 million - the most of any congressional delegate from Wisconsin - even more than Paul Ryan who has been photographed with all kinds of dead things he killed.
A better solution came from Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa. His bill would have improved our existing and problem-plagued background check system. Weasely. It desired more mental health records...but not have included checks for guns shows. It would have strengthened federal prosecution of criminals who lie to evade existing background checks. It also made it easier to purchase and transport guns out of state. WTF? It was a good bill, and I cosponsored it. So not to look like a complete NRA controlled douche-nozzel. 52 Senators voted for it – 9 Democrats and 43 Republicans. But it fell short of the 60 vote supermajority needed to amend the poorly written Schumer bill. Perhaps if you had not introduced it the day of the vote - you might have gotten more support, moron.
If the proponents of the Schumer bill were serious about reducing gun violence, they would have supported the Grassley bill once it was apparent their own plan would fail. They did not. This leads one to believe they cared more about scoring political points than finding a real solution. Right, 'cause introducing a bill with crazy pants, Ted Cruz, on the same day as the Schumer vote so you can say you "tried" to compromise isn't about scoring political points at all.
I care deeply about preventing crime. But I also care about freedom. Again with the "we can only have one thing" crap. I wish there was a magic wand that could prevent these senseless tragedies. But there isn’t – and there certainly isn’t one in Washington. I wish there was a magic wand too, Ron. Wanna guess what the Siren would do with it?
What we need is better enforcement of the laws we already have. Approximately 73,000 people failed our existing background checks in 2010 - and 48,000 of those individuals were felons or fugitives. Out of all those failed background checks, only 62 cases were sent to prosecutors - with only 44 actual prosecutions. This is the Siren's favorite NRA red herring. See, background check prosecutions are rare because guess who lobbied to defund the ATF? Also, failing a background check is kinda like a kid who is not 21 - but uses a fake ID. The store tells him to get lost - but rarely calls the police. Why? It's a hassle and the point of the law is to not sell underage people booze. It works very much the same way with background checks - the point is to not sell the person a gun - not necessarily to arrest someone who attempts to buy a gun. Johnson says background checks don't work because so few people get arrested - he's full of shit.