A key problem with this debate is that the NYT knowingly and deliberately prints falsehoods on numerous facets of politics in which it has taken an editorial position.
With the accompanying quote: "on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives."
Well, the problem with this claim is that the amendment didn't fail because of anything to do with terrorism -- it's because that amendment would have overridden the language regarding the repeal of elements of Obamacare.
Now, if you look at the amendment in a vacuum, it looks sorta like what it claims (but it looks odd, to the experienced eye, because there is no mention of a specific criteria for "terrorist" or refer to the FBI watchlist by its proper statute name). So it wouldn't have any effect on its own, being unenforceable vague.
But that's not the point.
Now, note carefully how the legislation starts:
"In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following:"
See THAT: In LIEU OF the matter ("the matter" being ALL of SA 2874, the Obamacare repeal).
The parent bill is H.R.3762 - Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, which had NOTHING to do with terrorism, or guns. That's the first clue right there.
Congressional Democrats have used this tactic (overwriting legislation they oppose with unrelated content that sounds obviously beneficial in order to trick the media into carrying water for their politicking) clear back to the Tom Foley days, if not Tip O'Neill or beyond.
The ignorant media consumers have been duped, successfully, because few bother to look at the bills...
...which, in this case, took me all of about 8-10 clicks in total.
A key example is their reference to this story, as if it supports the editorial case: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/04/opinion/tough-talk-and-a-c...
With the accompanying quote: "on Thursday every Senate Republican except Mark Kirk of Illinois voted against legislation to prevent people on the F.B.I.’s consolidated terrorist watchlist from purchasing guns or explosives."
Well, the problem with this claim is that the amendment didn't fail because of anything to do with terrorism -- it's because that amendment would have overridden the language regarding the repeal of elements of Obamacare.
Here's the proposed language it is looking to overlay: https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2015/12/01/sen... (the Obamacare component repeal)
Now, here's the Feinstein amendment (scroll down to "SA 2910" portion, read it only): https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-ame...
Now, if you look at the amendment in a vacuum, it looks sorta like what it claims (but it looks odd, to the experienced eye, because there is no mention of a specific criteria for "terrorist" or refer to the FBI watchlist by its proper statute name). So it wouldn't have any effect on its own, being unenforceable vague.
But that's not the point.
Now, note carefully how the legislation starts: "In lieu of the matter proposed to be inserted, insert the following:"
See THAT: In LIEU OF the matter ("the matter" being ALL of SA 2874, the Obamacare repeal).
The parent bill is H.R.3762 - Restoring Americans' Healthcare Freedom Reconciliation Act of 2015, which had NOTHING to do with terrorism, or guns. That's the first clue right there.
Congressional Democrats have used this tactic (overwriting legislation they oppose with unrelated content that sounds obviously beneficial in order to trick the media into carrying water for their politicking) clear back to the Tom Foley days, if not Tip O'Neill or beyond.
The ignorant media consumers have been duped, successfully, because few bother to look at the bills...
...which, in this case, took me all of about 8-10 clicks in total.