Jackson Jambalaya

You could be right; however, having watched and listened to Wicker for a decade, I'm not at all sure he's capable of this sort of in-depth reasoning.

Wicker has voted pro-gun and anti-gun-control since his days in the state senate. I know he is right on the issue. A number of conservatives want to create a "key vote" to use against Democrats on this issue. The legislation is going down to defeat sooner or later, so why not use this opportunity to create a vote to use in the future elections? Wicker, an astute politician, knows this.

In looking at the 30,00 view, this was a smart move. Make the Dems get on the record for gun control and make the red state Dems buck the President.

Sadly, the Facebook reactionary crowd can't see past the end of their nose, much less a 30,000 landscape.

The real sad part about all of this is that the real problem (mentally ill people) are not being taken care of as should be. This issue about controlling guns is totally out of the question, due to our Second Amendment Rights. The Liberals should look up the meaning of "infringe". If we were taking proper care of the mentally ill, they would never have an opportunity to obtain a weapon or harm anyone else.

Good article and information; however, with respoect to the 1994; we are NOT in 1994 any longer. Healthcare didn't pass back then. So don't be surprised if the Dems win some sort of gun control law.

Obama desperately wants to take back the House to attempt to kill the 2nd amendment. We are living in an age where thinking is obsolete and the media has power over the mindless. It could happen; don't be so certain that the Dems will have a big loss in 2014.

I think you've over-estimated Roger's intelligence and highly doubt he came up with this strategy. The junior senator should stick to obstructionism and important issues such as 'guns on a train'.
Honestly though, whatever his motive, I appreciate his vote to end the filibuster.

How low does the public approval rating of Congress have to get for those in both parties to realize the public has had it with partisan games?
That every issue is about one party or the other winning or losing rather than the best interest of the Nation IS the problem.
That those who have a position don't have the guts to be accountable for their vote and want to have it both ways IS the problem.
That a special interest group like the NRA can threaten our elected officials and make them fear the about of money spent on negative campaign ad will cost them their seat IS the problem.

As for me, I don't want my legally blind father or his friend with senile dementia driving a car OR owning a gun! I'd also like to the idiot who gave my mother,age 88, who'd never held a gun in her life, a loaded .22 with ammunition out of the trunk of his car to have been held accountable! Fortunately, mother's purse and counter top were the only casualities!
Get real...no one is trying to take your guns, just trying to make sure you know which end spits out the bullet and can tell that your neighbor isn't an invading Martian or elementary school children a threat!

Cave-in !! The limp wristed weeny. I'm in his district and will remember this in the next election.

Said sources have more faith in the Senate and House than I do. Methinks in their attempts to play three dimensional chess with the Democrats the GOP senators who voted for this bill are too clever by half. As Charles C.W. Cooke pointed out yesterday at National Review, today's exemptions will become tomorrow's loopholes. I, personally, find the risk too great, and would remind Senator Wicker, as he ruminates on the political machinations meant to trap the Democrats, of the observation attributed to Field Marshal von Moltke: "No battle plan survives first contact with the enemy."

I'm hearing from a lot of conservatives who are VERY disappointed with Wicker on this.


2nd Amendment supporters have a LONG memory, and they.. vote

A correction of terms: my earlier post should say "voted for cloture." That's what I get for not proofreading carefully enough.

I would have preferred the Republicans stand together and do the filibuster. Mainly, because they need to show the dems. that they DO have a pair. But, I would rather win the war than the battle and in D.C. nothing makes sense, so I'm withholding throwing Wicker under the bus for the time being.

Republicans need to win on this issue.

Wicker didnt need to vote for this for it to pass....the bill had enough votes already. So what was he trying to do? He surely didnt think he could EXPALIN his "ulterior motive" to everyone and they understand! So whats his explanation? Democrats want to put as many restrictions on guns as possible. Why? They want to control people. Its has nothing to do with safety. Why do democrats want nationalized health care? They dont really want people to have health care...they want people hooked on free govt and they want votes...they want control. Sen Wicker should have pulled a Michael Corleone and said, "I will give you my answer now Senator if you like, Nothing." Instead he voted with the Dems. Whatever his REAL reason is, be sure he wont give it. I didnt see Cochran voting for this. This vote tells me Wicker cant be trusted in the future. He has now set a baseline to predict future behaviour. Remember, Haley Barbour disappointed us in the end with his PARDONING MURDERERS....i have a bad feeling Wicker will disappoint us as well.

I am very glad that Wicker voted for cloture - let Harry Reid bring this bill to the floor. There is no doubt that Wicker is anti-gun control; only the mouthbreathers on FB and JT's crowd could think otherwise because as 7:54 noted, they cannot think at the 30000' level.

No gun control bill will ever pass the House; probably won't even get out of committee. So no way it could become law. It probably will not pass the Senate but if it does, so what?

Let the Senators get on record with a vote. Why in the world would Repubs want a filibuster? Frankly, a keen observer would note that it was the Dems that kept talking up the filibuster - many of them were the ones hoping that the Repubs would keep this off the floor.

9:08- Everyone should read Joseph response here. It is spot-on. Just because one is APPOINTED to the Senate doesnt not mean ONE SHOULD believe he needs to start thinking. Dont think senator...do as your supposed to...Haley started thinking and it didnt end well. Nothing is sadder than seeing someone who thinks they are smarter than they really are.

@7:53, I was with you until you called Wicker "an astute politician." Now I'm second-guessing myself.

As for @8:34, where to begin? You want to complain about extremism in Congress? Take your frustrations out on majority-minority districts and related gerrymandering. Most districts are drawn such that only an extremist can win, and more districts are tilted with each round of redistricting.

Your story about the .22 has more holes than your mom's purse and counter top. Why did an 88-year old lady who had never handled a gun (hard to believe) take the .22 that was handed to her? And somehow it just went off? Yeah, that happens all the time. Be happy it was "loaded . . . with ammunition" because you'd have had a real mess to clean up if the .22 was loaded with BS like the rest of your story.

As for your dad and his friend, take responsibility for them if you feel that strongly about it but don't bring on a nanny state because you can't take care of your family.

It's a dangerous world out there. The best I can offer you, I borrow from Billy Shakespeare: "Get thee to a nunnery!"

All anyone is going to get coming out of DC in regards to gun legislation might be something to extend background checks to close the loopholes at gun shows etc. Crap, you people apparently remain stuck in the 3rd world void of any information, 80% of NRA members support background check expansion. Quit showing us all your ignorance every day and get a damn job or something.

Wicker isn't capable of independent thought. He just affixes his lips to Lindsey "I ain't gay" Graham's ass and tags along.

"80% of NRA members support background check expansion."

Source?

Never mind, I'll source it for you.

The 80% figure comes from none other than Nanny Bloomberg's Mayors Against Illegal Guns, and financed by rabid anti-freedom control-freak Nanny Bloomberg himself.

Do you have a poll from someone other than a bunch of failed inner-city mayoral hucksters and a jackass billionaire elitist trying to buy policy?

Good one, Curt. Don't mind saying so and I'm not one of your big fans.

The same (80% figure) was said on Fox this morning by a republican senator. Can't think of his name.

Roger made the correct move here. Anyone who knows or who has worked with Roger understands he's a highly intelligent and understands the political games being played in DC. There is no question to me that Roger came up with the reasoning to vote yes on this issue. He's NEVER gotten sideways with the NRA or the voters in MS on second amendment issues, and he won't this time either - why, b/c he believes in the second amendment and won't do anything to harm it.

I would say personally if the bill only focuses on issues putting a protective layer between mentally ill people from getting a gun I hope he supports it. Anything else and he will vote against it.

Lastly, this vote could hepl the GOP take the senate back. There are three or four Dems up in 2014 from red or purple states who are in a NO WIN situation on this vote, and it will be used against them either way.

Ahem, 11:12 seems to have bought the "gun show loophole" argument. This, indeed, shows a clear lack of intellectual curiosity, as there are reams of paper (and the electronic equivalent) spent patiently explaining that the "gun show loophole" is merely a phrase ginned up by anti-gun folks who desire to infringe upon the rights of those private individuals who wish to buy and sell at said events. The "gun show loophole" could just as easily be called the "intra-office loophole," the "hunting camp loophole," or the "church small group loophole." It's private transactions between individuals, stud hoss, and as such I see no reason for them to be subjected to these background checks. Regarding those praising Wicker's astuteness and pish-poshing the idea that this will pass the house, please reread what Kingfish pointed out regarding the lack of willpower, as it were, from the Congressional leadership. One comment suggested we lose the battle and win the war; however, basic military science will tell you that if you lose enough engagements, your victory in the overall effort is most certainly in question. How's that for a high-level view from a mouthbreather such as myself?

Again, too clever by half, these senators, and I fear it'll bite them in their hindparts. If I am wrong (and I hope I am) I'll be the first to say so, but I'd prefer they not play fast and loose with my rights.

Response I received from an email I sent Senator Wicker about his vote. We will see.

Thank you for contacting me to express your support for the constitutional right of law-abiding Americans to keep and bear arms. I am glad to have the benefit of your views on this important issue.

Since coming to Congress in 1995, I have consistently voted to protect our Second Amendment freedoms and will continue to do so. On April 11, 2013, I supported, along with 15 other Republican Senators, a procedural motion on debating S. 649, the so-called Safe Schools Act.

I believe that S. 649 is deeply flawed legislation, and I oppose the measure. However, this vote signals the opening of a robust debate that will put the Senate on record regarding a basic constitutional right. Far from shrinking from it, I welcome such a discussion and believe it is long overdue.

The Founding Fathers conceived of the U.S. Senate as the proper forum for public deliberation of this kind. Law-abiding gun owners should not be put on the defensive when it comes to a fundamental American freedom.

In addition, contrary to the intent of the bill's authors, bringing this measure to the floor gives us the opportunity to vote to add provisions to strengthen gun rights, such as an amendment to protect veterans from unfair restrictions when purchasing a firearm. I would filibuster passage of a final bill that contained any increased, gun restrictions or a weapons ban.

I have worked to protect and preserve the Second Amendment. Rather than adding new laws and regulatory burdens, Congress should focus on ways to make existing laws more effective. The goal should be to increase safety and punish criminals – not unfairly hurt law-abiding gun owners.

Be assured that as Congress considers gun control legislation I will continue to defend our right to bear arms. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can ever be of assistance.

With best wishes, I am

Sincerely yours,

Roger F. Wicker
U.S. Senate

I don't think the 2nd Amendment should be subject to a popular vote in Harry Reid's Senate.

Ever.

No compromise. No accommodation.

I Ike Cochran way of thinking on this issue. Just vote NO. Simple, no explanation needed. No one is mad at you or trying to defend your vote. So why would Wicker vote for something that had the votes to pass anyway? Now he has to explain himself. Doesn't sound like an astute politician to me. Sounds like an idiot.

The lack of logic that " buys" into the notion that we should not close or tighten loopholes ( be it tax or guns) simply because some will still try to do wrong is astounding.
One may as well argue that we should have murder/rape laws because people will still murder and rape.
Responsible gun owners shouldn't mind requiring responsibility.
The GOP is becoming the party of the extremists and those so immature they will " take their marbles and go home" rather than try to reach solutions to real problems.
And, 12:37 pm, I don't want you doing private sales unless that person is licensed because you don't know as much about private lives of others as you arrogantly imagine!
Sen. Wicker, I appreciate that you commented, but be aware that not ALL of your constituents are hard headed nimcompoops that think all compromise is a sign of weakness.

2:45 PM --

"And, 12:37 pm, I don't want you doing private sales unless that person is licensed because you don't know as much about private lives of others as you arrogantly imagine!"

Fortunately, there's no "license" requirement for purchasing a firearm in the state of Mississippi, whether it's from a private individual or a FFL-holder. Perhaps you ought to be familiar with the existing firearm laws before you attempt to "fix" them?

Dear Mississippi NRA Member,

The U.S. Senate is going to consider anti-gun legislation as early as this Tuesday. Your U.S. Senator, Roger Wicker, has been a strong and consistent supporter of our Second Amendment freedoms and has committed to opposing any anti-gun amendments or proposals that come before the Senate, including the misguided "compromise" proposal by Senators Joe Manchin (D-WV) and Pat Toomey (R-PA) that would criminalize the private transfer of firearms between law-abiding citizens; Senator Dianne Feinstein's (D-CA) proposed ban on commonly owned firearms; and Senator Richard Blumenthal's (D-CT) proposed ban on commonly owned magazines. Please contact Senator Wicker and thank him for supporting our Right to Keep and Bear Arms and opposing all anti-gun proposals and amendments. SO I WANT TO KNOW IF THE NRA IS GOING TO SEND OUT A LETTER PRAISING SEN. COCHRAN FOR VOTING FOR THE FILIBUSTER. OBVIOUSLY THE NRA IS CONFUSED

Pray tell, 2:45, how am I arrogant in believing that I have the right to determine whether or not someone is fit to purchase property that I have put up for sale? It is, after all, already quite illegal for me (a private individual unengaged in the buying and selling of firearms as my primary business) to sell an arm to a person that I know or have reason to think is prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm. This law already being in place, what is the purpose of more laws, other than to assuage the conscience of those who demand (as the blogger Ace of Spades frequently mentions) Something Must Be Done?

It is worth pointing out, yet again, that this is not a "loophole." It is a basic right of property, a Lockean idea that heavily influenced the founders. The "loophole" does not exist, but is a figment of anti-gunners' imaginations. If you wish to argue for the disavowal of property rights, please do so, but this talk of "loopholes" is disingenuous.

Additionally, 2:45 (and I do wish more folks who wish to be anonymous on here would at least use a handle; doesn't have to be your real name, but something to identify you with better than a time stamp would be useful), I believe you misconstrue Wicker's position. From what I've been able to tell from statements regarding this bill, he is not planning on voting in favor of S.649. My criticism of the senator revolves around what I believe is a rather ill-conceived bit of political gamesmanship that can altogether too easily backfire on him and the rest of the senate GOP. Games are for children, I think; our rights should not be placed in such jeopardy.

Finally, 2:45, since you stand in such full-throated support of S.649, I would ask...why, exactly? The latest figures that I've been able to find from the Bureau of Justice Statistics point out that, among prisoners who carried a firearm during the offense for which they were serving time, nearly 80% had received said firearm through "friends or family" or illegal sources. Yet S.649 does nothing to curb transactions between friends and family that do not involve advertisement, nor can I logically see how it will make particular transactions that are already illegal somehow "more" illegal. I fail to see your logic here.

Have you read the bill? It is crap and so unnecessary. The bill will not do anything make anyone safer but you can bet that the demoncrats will attach so much to it, it will look like a New Year’s day float. It will pass the Senate and they will be that much closer to the control of the sheeple that they so desire. Don’t think for a minute that Boehner has the cojones to stand up to the machine!

4:06 pm
I simply appreciated Sen. Wicker's taking the time to respond. I don't expect him to ever vote for any gun control measures.
I also thought I made clear that, unlike you, I don't think this bill ( or any other) will end gun violence or illegal arms sales. Indeed, I thought I made clear that pointing out that no bill will is a poor argument.
However, if my roof is leaking and I can't afford a new roof, I will take measures to keep the leak from causing further damage. I'll put a bucket under the leak if nothing else. Your argument( and the NRAs) is that if one can't stop the leak completely, to let the water pour.
When you sell your house, you don't imagine yourself " fit" to decide if the person wanting to buy it is qualified!
You think you know the private life of all your friends? You will know if they become suicidal or are beating their wives or are at the early onset of senile dementia?
Don't be foolish!
You are FOR making it easier for gun traffickers and criminals to sell and trade guns. You are FOR making it easier for the mentally deranged and those with a history of abuse or stalking to obtain guns. You are FOR making it easier to kill more people in a shorter period of time ( NRAs reload test is a joke and any competent gun person should know it). Your argument is that if you won't stop all of them, you should stop none.

You ( and the NRA) attribute more organized thinking and planning ability to the mentally ill and criminals than most have.

You ignore all the other rights in the Constitution that have responsibilities and thus limits ( regulations and licensure) attached and pretend there is only a part of a sentence in the Second Amendment.

Worse, you have let yourself be duped who make their living by fear mongering misinformation to their members...the NRA! You see that other special interest groups use that tactic but you can't see it with the NRA.

The GOP is losing the woman's vote, not just on all the vaginal issues, but on this one...oh wait, maybe the vagina is involved as our children who one inhabited that space are being killed outside the womb too!

And, finally, your " more guns" will end gun violence ( the shoot them before they shoot us) isn't working. Again, ask the guys in Texas who KNEW they were targets and were armed why they are dead...oh you can't...here's a hint...ambush!

9:26 "And, finally, your " more guns" will end gun violence ( the shoot them before they shoot us) isn't working."

Worked pretty well for this guy.

"9:26 "And, finally, your " more guns" will end gun violence ( the shoot them before they shoot us) isn't working."

Worked pretty well for this guy. "

Video evidence is great for shutting up fools like 9:26.

The defender might run into trouble for shooting at their backs as they fled, but I doubt any jury would convict for that.

Well...yahoos...not surprised you will find the rare examples...but the fact is that the more guns and gun ownership we have in this nation, the higher the rates of crime and violence have become.

Gun ownership just simply hasn't deterred crime or violence. Your rationale is that if everyone has a gun , then they would be able to stop criminals. Just ain't happening.

One or ten or a hundred examples isn't convincing compared to number of successful crimes where a gun is used.

Math is hard for some.