Senate overcomes filibuster, votes to open debate on gun bill
April 11th, 2013
11:40 AM ET
5 years ago

Senate overcomes filibuster, votes to open debate on gun bill

Washington (CNN) - The U.S. Senate voted Thursday to overcome a Republican-led filibuster against tougher gun laws, clearing the way for a major congressional debate on a package of proposals sought by President Barack Obama in the aftermath of the Connecticut school massacre.

The procedural vote followed a breakthrough by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-West Virginia, and Pat Toomey, R-Pennsylvania, on broadening background checks to include private purchases at gun shows and on the Internet.


Filed under: Gun control • Gun rights • Senate
soundoff (188 Responses)
  1. Name lynn

    whatever it takes.

    April 11, 2013 01:46 pm at 1:46 pm |
  2. Webhoncho

    The head "Circus clown" at the NRA doesn't like background checks. The Circus Clown says "My name is LaPoop and I don't like background checks... Boo hoo.."

    April 11, 2013 01:46 pm at 1:46 pm |
  3. Matt

    As a gun owner and a southern conservative, I am all for universal background checks and quite frankly I'm fine with banning AKs and ARs. However I do draw the line at banning Shotguns, Hunting Rifles, and Pistols.

    April 11, 2013 01:47 pm at 1:47 pm |
  4. rs


    Cannot pass a budget over the course of 5 years but gun control is top priority? Why?

    The House does the budget, I'd suggest you ask Mr. Boehner and the TEA Party radicals why that hasn't happened.

    April 11, 2013 01:48 pm at 1:48 pm |
  5. Sean

    this is a first step, one of many to come, towards the inevitable truth that guns will be banned and this country (and hopefully others) will finally step bravely forward into the future and leave the stupidity of guns behind. I know many will deny this and will refuse to believe it but that doesn't change the fact that it will take place in the not too distant future.

    April 11, 2013 01:50 pm at 1:50 pm |
  6. Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

    common sense wrote:

    "Not one of child from Conn. would have been saved by the proposed gun laws. The mother of the killer was perfectly within the boundaries to own her gun."

    Well, with the history of mental illness that her son, the shooter had, I wonder if she would have been within legal boundaries to purchase those guns under the current laws being proposed, which would have also require that she had a mental health evaluation. I'd say that under the current law being proposed, this woman would have been deemed unfit or mentally unstable to purchase her guns and as a result, thosel 20 kids and the 6 educators would still be alive today. That is why we need these laws on the books.

    April 11, 2013 01:51 pm at 1:51 pm |
  7. rs

    "So some kids are killed here with a few guns and the million owners must pay some price? "
    Aside from being a heartless and stupid comment, the answer is "yes". It is called "responsibility". The NRA has none.

    April 11, 2013 01:52 pm at 1:52 pm |
  8. Patriot

    Tony, you may be right, "Blowing you way through a locked school security door is pretty difficult without a heavy caliber gun." although I doubt it, so now the sicko just waits until recess or targets the bus, before or after school. Can you come up with some form of an intelligent argument. No law will ever prevent a mass murder from happening, if there is a will there is a way. Criminals will just continue to buy the guns in the back alleys, break into gun stores in the middle of the night or break into home when nobody is around and knows where the guns are at. This is exactly what the liberals do, use false points so they do not have to use common sense.

    April 11, 2013 01:53 pm at 1:53 pm |
  9. Jason

    Hey Tony,
    The gun used in the Sandy hook tragedy was a .223. The lead in the round is .001 mm bigger than a .22. NOT a large caliber round. Get your facts straight before commenting.

    April 11, 2013 01:53 pm at 1:53 pm |
  10. Mike Texoma

    This is wonderful news. Now we have the arguments out in the open where we the people can evaluate them. And now we have the lawmakers individually on the record where they can be called to account for how they vote. Wonderful news!

    April 11, 2013 01:54 pm at 1:54 pm |
  11. mec

    Oh, and Biden thanked MSNBC for their role with these gun issues. When a politician thanks a media agency for helping, doesn't that strike anyone as wrong?

    April 11, 2013 01:55 pm at 1:55 pm |
  12. The REAL Truth...

    @jkweb – Cannot pass a budget over the course of 5 years but gun control is top priority? Why? More are killed with alchohol, hospital error, cigerrets, drunk drivers. There are tragedies in life. The Kymer Rouge killed over a million people and we stood by and watched it happen. I bet there were more than 20 kids killed there. So some kids are killed here with a few guns and the million owners must pay some price? There is more to this then gun control.
    As a law-abiding gun-owning citizen, I can't for the life of me understand folks who post stuff like this. I have to chalk it up to fear and ignorance. We have laws because people need to be controlled to prevent all kids of bad things from happening.. from felons getting weapons to Wall St. sharks relieving granny of her life's savings. Get over it.

    No civilian has any need for semi-automatic weapons, nor hand guns. They have one purpose. To Kill.
    Obama is NOT coming to take your guns, and our country is WAY too large for any real Gubmint tyranny, gun registry or not.
    If those intent on focusing on the slippery slope they say this becomes would stop and think (if they can) for a second, they would realize that a LARGE majority of the folks in the Gubmint who would be ordered to go get those registered weapons are GUN OWNERS themselves. It will therefore NEVER HAPPEN !!

    April 11, 2013 01:56 pm at 1:56 pm |
  13. Lovecrafty

    I mean, do we want merely a REGULATED militia...or a WELL REGULATED militia? Can I, an individual that does not belong to any militia, group, party or organization, be regulated the same as The Minutemen Militia of Arizona? And is background checks considered regulation or not? The second amendment clearly says that gun rights should not only be regulated, but WELL regulated. I don't think a background check is infringing on the second amendment. You have to register your car. Why not a gun?

    April 11, 2013 01:56 pm at 1:56 pm |
  14. Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

    @Dave in Houston

    What's wrong with the federal government knowing how many guns you have if you're a law abiding citizen? Perhaps you have something to hide? O' and by the way Dave. God forbid, but if one of your love ones becomes a victim of a mentally derranged shooter, don't forget to write to CNN and tell the world how you're dropping the charges against the criminal who shot your love one because he was simply exercizing his second amendment rights.

    April 11, 2013 01:58 pm at 1:58 pm |
  15. rs

    Okay I'm on board with background checks, but trying to ban semi-automatic assault weapons seems a bit hypocritical when you take "Fast and Furious" Into consideration. It seems like it's perfectly okay to give drug dealers these weapons in order to track them, but it's not okay to let us continue to buy them
    You clearly have no clue what Fast and Furious was about. Some facts:
    The program tracked guns bought (largely in Arizona) from "legal" gun dealers to individuals (who passed background checks), who were straw buyers for the cartels in mexico. The purpose of F & F(and other "gun-walking" programs begun during the Bush Administration) was to track the weapons back to their real buyers.The guns AT NO TIME were in the possesion of federal agents or law enforcement.

    Unfortunately for FOX News addled people, they somehow believe that Mr. Obama was standin' on the Corner in Nogales, AZ. handing weapons out, when facts are actually very, very different.

    April 11, 2013 01:59 pm at 1:59 pm |
  16. Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer


    Some states do allow the shipment of guns and ammo. I know for a fact that the Aurora shooter James Holmes was allowed to purchase 6,000 rounds of ammo on the internet.

    April 11, 2013 02:03 pm at 2:03 pm |
  17. KMPHX

    @Pipers son: Take away all guns huh? Ask our friends to the South how well that works. Maybe our friends in Britian, ban everything and violent crime skyrockets; coincidence? I think not.

    @tony: I like how you have used automobiles in your comment seeing that more people die in auto accidents than from firearms.

    Fact of the matter is we ALL know that the criminal will not comply or obey ANY law that is passed and we ALL know that the law-abiding will. As far as background checks, the mental health side needs to be shored up big time and enforement needs to be there.

    April 11, 2013 02:07 pm at 2:07 pm |
  18. Blah blah the wheel's off your trailer

    As far as limiting the magazines and amount of ammo one can purchase is concerned, I believe this is very critical simply because if you take the case of Jarred Loughner for example, he was able to use up his full round of ammo and was attempting to reload when bystanders restrained him, thereby saving countless lives. And had the magazine Loughner was carrying had lesser rounds, perhaps little Christana Green would still be alive today and Gabby Giffords won't be crippled for life.

    April 11, 2013 02:10 pm at 2:10 pm |
  19. Truth Hurts

    TONY...actually a car will do all those things, *rolling eyes*

    April 11, 2013 02:11 pm at 2:11 pm |
  20. John

    Sad that to just get to the point of talking about a bill it takes so much. It does speak volumes about the pro-gun lobby's actual strength though. To be as scared about a bill as they are hints at fear. Fear that if their mythical "anger" is put to the test in a general election it will be shown to amount to nothing outside of irrelevant areas where the real leeches of government welfare live.

    April 11, 2013 02:12 pm at 2:12 pm |
  21. jkane sfl the gop national disgrace party will be swept out like the trash they are in2014 ?

    Hey CNN ,why not name the gop fools that tried to filibuster this bill so that they will be kicked out of office in 2014 mifterms ,let me guess ,Rubio from Florida and peewee Cruz ,the other brain dead gop maggot .

    April 11, 2013 02:19 pm at 2:19 pm |
  22. Kevin

    Arguments that should be banned, because they are idiotic:
    "You don't need something that can do that!" – Completely irrelevant. I am not, have never been, and should not be restricted only to what I need. I don't need a car that can drive at 150 mph. I don't need to use as much water as I do. I don't need all of my income to sustain the lifestyle that I prefer. All of these are potentially detrimental to society at large, and yet they are not forbidden.
    "You are only against registration if you have something to hide!" – Are you seriously arguing against the right to privacy? Can you not think of any reason why having a list of people who own guns might be both invasive and dangerous depending on who has access to it? (Spoilers: It can make you a target.)
    "If only one child is saved..." Yeah, no. Gun violence is a tiny, tiny fraction of the causes of death, especially in young children. If you were worried about saving people's lives – because it doesn't matter how they die, a dead kid is a dead kid – you should be looking somewhere else.

    So many stupid liberals. And I AM a liberal. This is embarassing and if you really support this kind of tripe, you should really look at the FACTS – which is that all of this bluster is a pathetic, knee-jerk reaction to a fake problem.

    April 11, 2013 02:21 pm at 2:21 pm |
  23. bspurloc

    LaPoop was FOR background checks then against them...... fact

    April 11, 2013 02:24 pm at 2:24 pm |
  24. NameScott

    This is not about protecting children-period. Where was all the uproar prior to Sandy Hook? Kids in the inner cities have been murdering each for years but no uproar! Liberals are Knee Jerks and an emotional waste of space. Typical "we have to do something" thinking without realizing it will create a larger problem-the erosion of more personal freedom. Of course freedom to liberals is meaningless as they see the government as the solution to all problems.

    April 11, 2013 02:24 pm at 2:24 pm |
  25. James H

    @ Matt

    You really don't think if Feinstein anti the anti 2A nuts had their way with so-called "assault rifles" that they wouldn't label your scoped bolt action hunting rifle as a "sniper rifle" and ask why anyone needs a weapon capable of killing someone out past 1,000 meters? Please. Afterall, Charle Whitman killed 15 people and severly wounded another 32 with a scoped deer hunting rifle at the Univ of Texas in 1966.

    April 11, 2013 02:29 pm at 2:29 pm |
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8