Ayotte Responds To Critics, Defends Her Vote

by Categorized: Gun control, Newtown Date:

\"kellySen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH) defended her guns vote in an op-ed posted Monday. Ayotte has come under criticism for voting against the Manchin-Toomey amendment, a measure that would have expanded the background check requirement to gun shows and online sales. The defeat of that amendment led to the Senate\’s failure to pass new gun laws. Last week Erica Lafferty, the daughter of slain Sandy Hook Elementary school teacher Dawn Hochsprung, confronted Ayotte for her vote.

Ayotte defended herself in an op-ed titled \”I Voted To Improve Background Checks.\” In the article, Ayotte accuses special interests of attacking her and \”lying about my efforts to prevent gun-related violence.\”

\”I want to set the record straight: I support effective background checks and in fact voted recently to improve the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS),\” she wrote.

Ayotte was speaking not of the Manchin-Toomey amendment, but instead a substitute amendment introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA). That proposal would require states to submit more mental health data to NICS but would not touch the current federal policy of when a background check is required, which exempts purchases made at gun shows and on the Internet. \”Even if the proposed expansion of background checks had been in place, it wouldn’t have prevented the Sandy Hook tragedy – where the perpetrator obtained the firearms he used by killing his own mother, who owned them lawfully,\” said Ayotte, who described the current background check system as \”flawed.\” \”We shouldn’t be expanding a flawed system,\” she argued.

The Courant is using Facebook comments on stories. To comment on courant.com articles, sign into Facebook and enter your comment in the field below. Comments will appear in your Facebook News Feed unless you choose otherwise. To report spam or abuse, click the X next to the comment. For guidelines on commenting, click here.

13 thoughts on “Ayotte Responds To Critics, Defends Her Vote

  1. Kim

    Thanks for the courage and honesty, Senator. Washington (and CT) need more such behavior and less ‘special interests’ like the Newton families

  2. johngaltwhereru

    Hi Rick, Christopher, Jenny, Daniella, and the rest of Capitol Watch/Politcs.

    I am having trouble finding the Courant’s stories alerting readers to tomorrow’s hearings on Benghazi.

    The Washington Post, CBS, CNN and many other media sources on your end of the political spectrum have finally been shamed into ending their black-out of Benghazi coverage, yet your black-out seems to continue.

    Tomorrow, CIA and Military witnesses to Benghazi’s 9/11 attacks are expected to testify that pretty much everything the Obama Administration has said about this event was a blatant lie, that they knew they were lying when they were lying, and that Hillary Clinton has either repeatedly lied or is grossly incompetent.

    These witnesses are also expected to testify that they have been threatened by high ranking officials at State and CIA, and that their careers would be over if they testify. Further, the “probe” put together by the State Department to “investigate” themselves failed to include speaking to the vast majority of survivors and witnesses.

    I am confused as to why an alleged cover up of this magnitude, along with the likely 2016 Democrat Presidential Candidate allegedly repeatedly lying to Congress is not newsworthy.

    Perhaps there will be some coverage after tomorrow’s testimony? Perhaps the direct e-mail evidence of altered talking points will be discussed in lieu of framing this as a Republican witch hunt?

    I eagerly await gun control-like coverage of tomorrow’s testimony and evidence.

    1. Kim

      all good points, John. But the obvious answer is that these are not ‘reporters’, but apparatchiks for the liberal/democratic factions of government and they only ‘report’ on what aides that movement and its’ agenda. There is not an objective bone amongst them.

      They are big contributors to the downfall of the freedoms and ethics put in place by our founding fathers (you know, the same founding fathers that apparatchiks like gollum bill refer to as ‘anal founding fathers’) and will likely never give a hoot one way or the other unless and until their efforts result (as they will eventually) in the deprivation of their first amendment rights.

      However, the direction this country is heading because of shabby and non-existent ‘reporting’ by agenda-driven ‘reporters’ like these folks will likely continue unabated until we are all the losers. Then, when it becomes clear that it’s too late, it’s unlikely that they will take responsibility for their role in socializing this country and destroying it’s promise of freedom and individual responsibility.

      As with all liberals, shame is not part of their vocabulary so that can’t be used to wake them up or help them to see the light.

    2. Bill

      I will agree that response to this attack should have been automatic and swift even though by the time troops arrived, the whole attack would have ended and the same result would have occurred. if that was done, then hog feed would be denied to the political pig farm. Then the incident would not be turned into a political hot potato.

      1. Kim

        It would still be a hot potato because of the compulsive lying of the White House and Clinton. IF they had been truthful AND the response had been swift and sure, THEN there would be no issue here.

        1. johngaltwhereru

          Exactly Kim. The cover up is always what gets you.

          This is why Romney should have jumped ugly on Candy Crowley’s pig ass when she lied for Obama in the debate.

          Romney should have known Crowley was going to try to help Obama at some point, and should have had a reponse ready.

          And Bill, there will be testimony today that shows that there were multiple quick response teams that could have reached Benghazi in plenty of time to stop the second wave of attacks that were several hours after the initial attack.

          Libya is not Easter Island. There were military assets close enough to save lives and kill the attackers.

          This was incompetence combined with an attempt to continue the Obama narrative that AQ was on the run. And this was followed by lies and a cover up. And this was followed by threats against those who had the knowledge to expose the lies.

          This failure and cover-up should not only prevent POS Clinton from ever holding any office ever again, but she should be in jail for knowingly lying to Congress.

    3. Johngaltwhereru

      So the extent of the Benghazi coverage by the Courant is a Reuters article?

      An article that doesn’t even mention that Clinton, Obama and other administration officials immediately knew this was a terrorist attack, yet continued to lie for weeks that it was protest against a YouTube video?

      An article that doesn’t question the administrations defense of not sending help(that they could not have gotten there in time), despite the fact that there is absolutely no way the Administration could have known how long the fighting would last?

      Maybe the Courant will win a Pulitzer for it’s hard hitting Journalism.

  3. Brian C. Duffy

    “We shouldn’t be expanding a flawed system”.

    So Senator Ayotte, you voted for the Grassley amendment, instead?

    Grassley: Includes Mental Health data; excludes gun show/internet sales.

    Manchin/Toomey: Includes gun show/internet sales; excludes Mental health data.

    Aren’t they both flawed amendments in your mind?

    Please try again, Senator. You’re starting to sound like a politician.

    1. johngaltwhereru


      You are misrepresenting what Ayotte said. She stated she did not want to vote to expand a flawed background check system, not a flawed amendment.

      The amendment Ayotte supported would improve and increase data available to make the current system more effective.

      The amendment she voted against would expand a flawed system without addressing the major flaws.

      Internet gun sales are not the wild west the left would like us to believe. The vast majority of internet sales require a background check. Gun shows account for a tiny fraction of illegal purchases. Requiring background checks without a gun registry would only expand straw purchases.

      However, a background check system lacks information about whether you have a known mental illness or are a criminal is useless.

  4. mark nati

    All gun sales need to be checked period. Anything less makes it easy for the bad guys to get guns. They may still get them but it will be harder and if you also add penalty’s that would make you not want to sell guns to bad guys that will help. And at some point make it will make it real hard for bad guys to get guns illegally. I think we should SUE the lawmakers that make it EZ for crooks to get guns.

    1. Connecticut is Circling the Drain

      Knock yourself out. How about we sue the lawmakers who ignore current gun laws and let people shoot each other by the hundreds in our cities?


    2. Johngaltwhereru

      Who is “we”, and what are the lawmakers going to be sued based upon.

      I think we should sue uninformed morons that vote. That doesn’t mean I have any standing in any court.

      How about suing the Mayors of sanctuary cities. At least those people are obviously violating a law and aiding and abetting thousands of other people in violating the law.

    3. Kim

      there’s plenty of penalties already on the books mark – they need to enforce them

Comments are closed.