Reporter’s Notebook: What was said by Mitch McConnell and did not say about weapons

closeVideoFox News Flash top headlines for August 13

Fox News Flash top headlines for August 13 are here. Check out what you click on

I learned a long time ago, pay attention to the exact wording of the Senate majority Leader, Mitch McConnell.

McConnell usually says what he means. It is the other, the divine meaning and interpretation in the language of the Kentucky Republican. But, without fail, McConnell says exactly what he means.

Think about what McConnell said during a recent appearance on WHAS Radio in Louisville on weapons.


To begin with, “we go to these discussions over the August break, and when we Sept again [. 9], hopefully, we will be able to agree on things on a bipartisan basis and go forward and make the law.”

So, let’s analyze what McConnell does not say.

Most of the leaders say, the Senate would have a formal “debate” in the Senate about firearms than at least a few news agencies reported. McConnell has said the Senate would even consider a bill.


“I want to have a law,” McConnell.

Such a statement would mean that the Senate is debating the current legislation. But McConnell has not committed. Most of the guide was vague on what candidates could be bill or bills to the right. He also stated that future legislation would have to overcome a score of 60 Yes, Yes, not one, but two rounds of the filibusters. And McConnell gave a potential exit from the entire company.

“It’s all over the house,” McConnell told WHAS, to be by it”, signed by President Trump.”

There is no special code in McConnell’s way of expression. Each bill requires passage by both the house and the Senate, as well as the signature of the President, to the right. But McConnell is at the same time, and appear to be suggesting something else. There may be no possibility of the house, the Senate and the President can come together on something. It’s hard enough to have all three on the same page with the garden-variety legislation.


So, you understand the difficulty of the task in the twilight of this month, the shooting in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio. The policy would have never been able to come together and make a Federal law about weapons, after all the other mass shootings. So why, oh why, would be the aftereffects of El Paso and Dayton in a different way?

This is not to say that McConnell open to deal with to try to make a statement. McConnell told WHAS is, “what happened after every single one of these shots, it is already a temptation in the political discourse rather than through something like this.”

After the counter-reaction of the GOP, Mitch McConnell’s campaign Twitter account is unlocked

Team Mitch claims victory after Twitter unlocks your account.

Some analysts consider could avoid such a remark as a Fig leaf for McConnell to actually do something on guns. Possibly. But McConnell certainly, you can blame then, the people try to politicize the shootings if the lawmakers stumble.

Things are not issued on the house to pass in the Senate. You could well imagine, to overcome a scenario in which the Senate is inhibited, the through all of the 60-vote requirement filibusters. In fact, as McConnell noted that the Senate is likely to Marshal 60 years would have to not once, but twice on gun-related legislation.

Therefore, it is not to see a piece, no Senate action on all of them, when the legislators return in September, or a scenario similar to the one that played in the spring of 2013.


The Senate did not, around the management of firearms after the December 2012 attack on Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. until April 2013, and if the Senate vote, senators cast their ballot with the understanding that nothing would happen.

In 2013, McConnell forged an agreement with then-Senate majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., A series of gun-related votes. It is a devil was a bargain’s. To make the Reid-McConnell Pact required a simple majority, the adjustments in connection with weapons, but 60 votes.


It is a conservative amendment, authored by Sens. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Lindsey Graham, R-S. C., and then-Sen. Dan Coats, R-Ind. This proposal achieved 52 “Yes” votes, but that is far from 60.

Reid did not seem to pass the Senate, the conservatives are planning – especially in the Senate, controlled by Democrats. President Obama (you don’t remember, this was in 2013), certainly you would sign such a plan. But Reid knew that the bill was able to score a simple majority, and it did. So, by the 60 “Yes” votes, Reid made the Senate put down the GOP plan.

Sens., Joe Manchin, D-W. Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., a party develops comprehensive compromise on background checks. The Senate has enough votes to adopt the Manchin-Toomey legislation. Still, many Republican senators are against this proposal. McConnell, the minority leader at the time, but he was not certainly to pass that Manchin-Toomey.

This is a bargain, why Reid and McConnell forged their devil’s. Both sides played defense. Various gun proposals, 51 were able to record “Yes” votes in the Senate, but none was able to overcome 60 votes, a filibuster. So, Reid and McConnell decided to kill a tuning sequence for all proposals. That would mean, under every change throws up a 60-vote requirement for the adoption.


Under the changes, which dries up on the 60-votes-vine: a plan by sen Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to bring the assault weapons ban that expired in 2004. Of course, defenders of the Second Amendment detested this proposal. Feinstein amendment failed 60-40 – to be so close to 51 “Yes” votes.

So, the sides of the weapon pre-baked vote the series in a way, that it was a fait accompli, it is not approve by the Senate, nothing about firearms. Some of the ideas that have had more than a majority in the Senate, but the 60-vote threshold doomed to fail all the plans.

There is a reason why Reid – as he is this week wrote in The New York Times wanted to eliminate the filibuster. To discard such a maneuver, the constant requirement of coughing up 60 votes to stop filibusters. And, in the present gun debate, McConnell and many others know that it is a challenge for the vaults of the 60-vote hurdle.

It may be impossible to pass the Senate, something on weapons, let alone finesse the legislation into law. You never know, if the legislature could come up with something that commands 60 votes in the Senate and has also been confirmed by the house and President of the Trump. There is a chance, McConnell may not like such legislation. But, if McConnell sticks to the parameters he laid, he could not explain much of a reason to why he allow a measure, to by the Senate.


Nevertheless, we are still far away from this scenario.

So, now, senators, and discussions have “,” as McConnell suggested, and it is a great breakthrough was could be discussions, the only postscript to the massacres in El Paso and Dayton.

Follow us

Don't be shy, get in touch. We love meeting interesting people and making new friends.

Most popular