Gun Control Law shot down, Dems blame Republicans... What else is new?

Link

Democrats ripped Republicans on Monday evening, after lawmakers rejected gun control proposals approximately a week after the worst mass shooting in U.S. history.

"I'm mortified by today's vote, but I'm not surprised by it," Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), who lead a 15-hour filibuster on the Senate floor last week, told reporters. "We learned in the months of Sandy Hook that the [National Rifle Association] has a vice-like grip on this place."

Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) added that "the NRA won again."

Their comments come after senators rejected a Democratic proposal to expand background checks, as well as a measure from Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) to block individuals from buying a gun when there is a "reasonable suspicion" they have been or will be involved in a terrorist attack.

Republicans argued both of the Democratic proposals were too broad.

They offered a background check measure from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and a separate amendment from Sen. John Cornyn (R-Texas) to temporarily allow the attorney general to delay the sale of the gun and let a court decide if the sale should be permanently blocked.

Both of the GOP proposals also failed when Democrats - and some Republicans - voted against them.

So Trump gets blamed for "trying to take advantage of the Orlando Massacre." But it's okay for Hillary to list the names of those that died to push their agenda?

They're right of course about the NRA having congress's nuts in a vice.

Yes, apparently it is fine for Klinton to take advantage of a shooting but not o.k. when someone else does it.

My big problem is how the Democrats want to eliminate the rights of someone who hasn't been charged nor convicted of a crime. If you get put on a "list" how easy is it to be removed if the government makes an error and we know the government errors quite often. Even so though, if no charges are levied against you, how can it be constitutional to take away one's rights w/o due process?

Yeah...the guy that legally obtained an AR-15 and shot up a Florida nightclub killing nearly 50 people in the process hadn't been charged with, nor convicted of, a crime.

You still have the right to "bear arms". You don't have a constitutional right to own an AR-15. I see nowhere in the 2nd amendment that states what arms you have the right to keep and bear. These types of weapons have been banned once before without that being deemed unconstitutional. I want to bear thermonuclear arms. Are you okay with that, too?

You do know he didn't use an AR-15, right?

I think we have and have had (for a while now) a general idea of what is meant by "arms." Firearms, small arms, etc.., Going off on the bomb or nuclear weapon route is not helpful to your cause. Just as you don't see any wording specifying an arm, I don't see any wording suggesting you are limited to what type of firearm and small arms you can own and bear. I do see the "shall not be infringed" though. In some of the states where people were made into criminals for owning mythical "assault" weapons seems to be one hell of an infringement to me.

Assault weapon sales should be banned in the U.S. ....plain and simple. There is no need for them. We need to scale down guns. It's getting ridiculous.

Banning guns, or any kind of gun, will not stop mass slaughter of the innocent. If someone wants to kill a bunch of people in a tightly packed place but lacks access to firearms, they will just use bombs.

Building bombs isn't really a cake walk, buying a weapon in the US seems easier than getting a cat.

@kittennose:

Maybe it won't, but banning unnecessary assault weapons and keeping unhealthy people from buying guns is a great start in a positive direction. It would have a dramatic effect in tandem towards decreasing the violence. VERY tough penalties for breaking this law would be good. FBI could investigate the black market and take action as necessary.

Building bombs is also easier to do then buying a cat. You can just walk into many stores and buy a bunch of gunpowder. Killing lots of innocent unprepared people isn't hard. Making one method slightly more difficult isn't going to change that.

You seems to be conflating several different issues here. Are you advocating for prevention of anyone on the no fly list for or just an "assault weapons" ban for everyone? Pretty sure Solaryellow is referring to the topic of what Democrats have proposed which is the former, and Solar is correct in claiming it is unconstitutional. It's an issue that even ACLU sides with NRA on. The Use of Error-Prone and Unfair Watchlists Is Not the Way to Regulate Guns in America. Read that again, what the Democrats are suggesting is so unconstitutional that ACLU sided with NRA to oppose it.

What purpose would an "assault weapons ban" accomplish? DOJ's own study of effect of Assault Weapons Ban found no evidence that it was effective at preventing or even reduce gun violence. Columbine, along with many other mass shootings happened during the AWB and VA tech, now the second deadliest shooting were committed without "assault weapons". Of all gun homicides in the US every year, only small faction of a percent are committed with a legally obtained "assault weapon". The motivation here isn't to save lives (otherwise the debate would be focused on something else entirely), but merely moving the ball forward in the struggle of ideologies by exploiting the public sentiment at the time immediately after a tragedy. In fact, it is stated as much in the official guideline for Democrats: Exploiting Tragedies, Dem's Gun Grab Guidelines Emphasize Emotional Assaults Over Facts

This is completely ignoring the fact that the proposed measure is so unconstitutionally, even ACLU and Huffington Post are siding with NRA in opposing it.

The Use of Error-Prone and Unfair Watchlists Is Not the Way to Regulate Guns in America

The NRA Has Actually Got Something Right On Gun Control

Doesn't change the fact that the NRA basically owns congress.

It's not a cake walk? You kidding me? Building makeshift bombs is very easy following instructions online. I can't post them here, but this is one of those things I assume people talk about without doing the research.

There are lots of deadly things you can throw together with supplies you'd find at a local Home Depot. You don't have to be a genius, or even a smart individual to build something that will kill many people.

That will cause a lot of underground black markets to grow and crime will grow a lot for that.

That's not a fact. That's like me saying abortion doctors or big pharmaceutical own the executive and soon judicial branch simply because democrats are all pro choice or supported Obamacare. Politicians represent their constituents and republicans are predominately pro-2nd amendments so obviously a GOP majority will vote along the party line same reason democrats in office vote the way they do.

There's no need to ban them either. None of the features (pistol grip, flash hider, collapsible/foldable stock, bayonet lug etc) that turn a "regular" weapon into an "assault" weapon makes the weapon deadlier.

I would support not allowing gun sales to people on FBI watch lists, but I don't really believe people get put on those watch lists without having their 4th amendment rights or first amendment rights trampled on. I can't agree with the government taking away someone's constitutional right because of something they say, even if they say something supporting ISIS. Likewise, it's not constitutional to remove someone's right to bear arms because of information obtained by illegal search and seizure.

I really don't care at all about the second amendment, but I care greatly about our other rights, and as long as there is a right to bear arms, the only proper course should be to try to get 2/3 support in congress to repeal the 2nd amendment.

That is an idiotic comparison, because you are referring to getting pets from government funded shelters. As usual government bureaucracy has the tendency to tie everything down. If you want to compare apple to apple, then getting a weapon from the government then MUCH MUCH harder than getting a cat from the government. Likewise getting a cat from a private seller is often times MUCH MUCH easier than getting a gun from a private seller.

Great article by the NYPost: http://nypost.com/2016/06/21/why-banning-assault-weapons-is-nothing-but-symbolism/

For those who don't wanna read it, the Assault Weapons Ban is just a stepping stone for broader gun control, meaning it's intended goal is banning handguns and eventually all guns. I'm personally not cool with that, especially since the next Commander and Chief of the most powerful military in the world will either be a conman or a sketchy feminist.

Citizens United is still here. What's new? Hillary banks on Citizens United so she's also to be blamed for capitalizing on that. Don't be surprised when the NRA gets a one-up because of the undemocratic policies you hold dear of and take of advantage of don't work in your favor.

We need a lobbyist control so we don't have little demons like Bush's and Clinton's ever walk into the White House ever again.

@mordant221: Yep, this whole gun control will not solve anything, but create even more problems. How people can get a hold of these weapons isn't in any weapon shop but in black markets or weapons dealers in back alleys. This will create a new Al Capone of the underground gun world.

Except Hilary is trying to make political hay in order to accomplish gun regulation, Trump is making political hay, like everything else, to self aggrandize like the narcissist he is.

I wish the supreme court didn't pussyfoot around the issue and refuse to hear one of the state mandated AR ban cases.

All these proposals to ban guns has given me incentive to purchase more guns.

Looks like I'm not the only one either as sales are skyrocketing.

@bforrester420: when you start to ban one part it not far from ban everything.

I know how the dems are on this.

total ban.....

if the American people wanted a ban there be a ban.

they don't.

where would it end?

ban sodas...some dems want that.

and i am a social democrat...so I know who wants what better than most....

they risking the elections with this crap again.

how about we fix the real problem ...millions of americans with no free mental health..

how about we help those people who really need help and keep guns out there hand without tricks to pull a all out ban one step at a time.

the NRA know exactly what some dems wants and that UK,CANADA,FRANCE like state where you have no rights at all.

all this talk will do is help sell 1 million AR-15 in record time.

gun makers love this talk it drives sales.

infact the price of an AR 15 droped hard before this .....now with gun grab talk sales will be up again.

meanwhile it wont save 1 life...not one.....

it wont help one person who is sick and needs help.

it wont console 1 family who lost someone.

all it do is drive sales.

we need to talk about why people do this and how we can change that.

gun bans wont because the American people wont change that.

Obama knew this for 4 years.....he made gun carry in parks legal ...now he change his tune.

it wont help one lean democrat keep there seat.......

all it do is drive the GOP exactly where they want to go.

if you want bans just vote for the soda Nazi from new York.....he love to ban everything.

Hillary an idiot......bill try this before and it cost the dems the house.....there a chance the dems could win a lot of seats.....but gun ban talk is toxic as hell.

if the American people wanted this they would had asked for it after the other 10 shootings.

they don't.

they need to fix the problem.

why cant they just go to the GOP and ask them for free mental heath care added to heath care for EVERYONE.

you know why?

people don't care about people with mental illness.

there are millions of vets homeless in America some of them suffer from mental illness.

where is the love for those who served in viet nam who lost there way.

we don't want to look into the face of whats ugly in America.

what are we doing about all the young people on herion ...nothing.

not a dam thing and how many die from that.

gun grab talk is very toxic to the democrats just as anti gay or trans talk is with the GOP.......

the people want freedom of choice and not ban this or ban him or ban it........where is the difference between partys if they all about bans.

in one form or another.

this is the land of the free and home of the brave......

people die here just the same as some did in china when some guy stab 30 people with a steak knife.

do you see china banning steak knifes.

same thing happen in japan....

go live in a country like china if you want to feel the state keeps you safe.

@FireEmblem_Man:

You pretty much destroyed this thread.

@Serraph105: oh sure 100% prices of ammo will go up again and everyone will stock up....

for the coming ban that never comes.

this is toxic talk in America.

bill Clinton try this and all it did was cost the dems the house.

Hillary will try this 100% again.

and Iraq again.

she one big neo con just like bush.

more gun grab talk in America....

how many times need we have this topic come up only to find no one going to vote for it.

the America people vote for there elected voices to be heard and they spoken on this with there vote.

how about we fix the problem and help those metal ill people with free medical and not make them out to be freaks so they feel part of a nation.

this shooter has gay issues and he needed help but instead of helping people like this feel comfortable with themselves we allow the GOP to taint gays and ban trannys from bathrooms.

yet the dems want to ban another groups choices.......

ban ban ban.......

I so see this helping the GOP unseat some lean democrats......

I so see the some dems trying to LOOK BUSY.

I see NOTHING CHANGE from the 90's.

I wonder who blow bill this time.

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/paragraph?s=t

I actually agree with Republicans in this one. Not down with taking away a Constitutional right without due process. This watchlist are notorious for being inaccurate and difficult to clear your name and get off them (frankly even if it were easy I wouldn't support it either.)

That's already happening. Plenty of people in America can't legally buy guns, they still get them anyway. It was the same during the prohibition and now during the war on drugs.

Here's another article, this time by the Washington Post, saying the same thing: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/local/wp/2016/06/16/why-banning-ar-15s-and-other-assault-weapons-wont-stop-mass-shootings/#comments

The articles I've posted make another good point. That gun owners weren't just being paranoid, the government is seriously trying to take away their guns. The thing is, how? We have about 114 million handguns, 86 million shotguns, and 110 million rifles (4 million are "Assault weapons") owned between 80 million people. How the **** does the government expect to get all those guns? At least without violating, or getting rid of, the 4th Amendment as well. They sure as hell aren't gonna sit around waiting for all them guns to rust, if they are they'll be waiting a long ass time (my lovely Mosin Nagant is over hundred years old).

@AFBrat77: then if that happens what would keep you safe if the govt where to change and the rich took over.

how would the people prevent that?

there many places this happen in a country they all thought was safe.

i can name a dozen where they round up those who where doctors and such who they thought pose a risk.

they never where found.

what prevents any govt from doing anything?

what if some guy like ted cruz where to try to turn the usa into his own Christian like iran....complete with Christ like mulla's.

how would you stop that?

what if he decide you where an infindel and sent you off to some camp along with trans,gays,liberals,and anyone that not christen in his book.

you might think this is crazy talk right....it happens.

in argentina,laos,cambodia,burma,germany and a lot of countrys around it that after had the pleasure of the red army keeping them safe for decades along with secret police.

it happen in central America and even in Europe as late as a decade ago.

we they come for you what protection or risk will you offer such a force?

never happen in America you think.

people thought that in iran too in 1978.

look how fast isil spread.

like a plague.

I know your type.....you would trade liberty for security .....someone said something about that once.

I am not some GOP wanna be ...infact I am a social democrat who lives a stones throw from where the first shots rang out that made this nation free.

those who risked everything 240 years ago to grant you the rights you seem not to care about.

whats one less right......right.

if it prevents someone who is twisted from harming you.....

whats one less right for those who live in sinapore....they are real safe.

but thing about police states like Singapore is you cant run for election there......because if you say anything there they just drag you into court and thake everything you own till you and your family is out on the street.

look at Thailand where the army not just over throw 1 president but 2 even after the people elect both fair and free.

in Thailand if you speak out about the king or royal family your thrown in jail.

or step on any image of the king or make a simple like mistake we take for granted here.

Thailand a nice place to vacation sure....but how free is it.

in france they can arrest you and hold you for months as they build a case.

in japan they had a 99 % conviction rate.....how is that possible you may wonder..

japan looks safe.

are your freedoms not worth much.

your rights are protected not by some paper but by those who stand in harms way.......it allways been this way.

some even give up a heck of a lot of rights and freedom to serve this nation but in the end of the day it the people who made this land.

we the people.

freedom not free ever.

there a price.

a butchers bill sometimes.

be glad we not seen any price like in the past.

we not had any real costly war in a very long time.......other than Iraq we been very lucky.

I feel for the 49 people killed and there family but it is part of a much greater problem we need to fix.

we need to help those who are lost and free mental medical for everyone would go along way.

gun bans would do nothing to prevent that.

I know many people here today take freedom for granted because they never seen bad places.

I have and I can tell you overnight people can change.

anything can.

history is most clear on this.

The NRA wins again. What else is new?

@Serraph105: the NRA has a right to represent those who want them too and that's a heck of a lot of people.

if you want to get elected then the people have a right to know where you stand.

on gay rights.

on trangender rights.

on human rights.

on corp hand out and tax dodges.

and on guns.

you cant say I surport freedom of religion then go trash mormoms or any other group.

then claim gays violate your rights.

you cant say your about freedom them want to ban rights from others.

we either have freedom

or we don't have freedom.

I have a skin off my nose kinda stand on a lot of things...

I also surport human rights.

I don't say I surport human rights in Africa then go try and ban trans from bathrooms.

thing about freedom and America is we need to stand firm.

we need to stand up for any ban to freedom to any group that has a decent basic right to exist without interfearence.

how can some liberals say that are open minded and then go all in on a gun ban.

freedom don't work that way.

it not a fad.

or an armband your wear to impress people.

or something to get likes on facebook with.

it something real that can go goodbye over night.

a lot of people will never be the same after what happened but looking busy wont help.

it wont win seats in the house and it sure as heck wont make you safe.

there are 350 million people in America...bad things will happen.

we have bad days and wonder why .... we need to offer people surport and maybe help them deal with there issues.

I think this would been a great time to talk about gay rights or the silly bathroom bills but instead we talk of silly gun grabs that go nowhere help non one and do nothing.

and in the end we move on till the next event having only done nothing about anything.

Well, that's some disruptive posting by @wildaries

@wildaries: Dude, do you really expect users to read your posts when you structure them like that?

lol

Bolded: This is kind of how I feel. The watch list is governed by what exactly? People get put on it all the time mistakenly.

But it was unconstitutional?

Logic and reason won't win him over. NRA is the boogey man.

NRA wants chaos, they want guns in everyone's hands, including the bad guys. They're anarchists of sorts, plain and simple. More guns = more members = more sales (gun manufacturers always make a killing after a mass shooting, no pun intended) = more money to grease the political wheel.

And yeah, not sure what is meant by the title of "dems blame republicans - what else is new?" of course they blame them, they're the ones that voted it down.

The irony is that at least one of those bills was sponsored by a moderate Republican, and it was still shot down by the GoP. The rest of them were pretty reasonable; it wasn't back to the scare tactics of the '90s where "oooh that gun is black, ban it" or "oooooh pistol grips increase deadliness by over 9000%!!!"...those laws were dumb. No, the bills they wanted to pass were pretty simple, such as not allowing someone that was on the terrorist watchlist to purchase a gun for five years. That seems reasonable. They also wanted to close up some loopholes that criminals and those not allowed to buy guns use to purchase guns.

I want deserving people to own the guns they want to own, but I just think we need to revisit who, exactly, is "deserving" of gun ownership and make it a bit more difficult to acquire firearms; not more difficult by limited the kinds and amounts, but more difficult via licensing methods, background checks, and so forth. If you want to own an AR15, fine, but I believe you should need to pass a bit more than a background check to own it.

Again, I'm not anti-gun, I'm just anti-gun nut

That's the thing about the NRA, they have lobbied so much, and for so long, they now have the legal system they want. Since Wayne La Pierre has had power in that group, they have turned from an enthusiast club, into an anti democratic fetishist club that exerts enormous influence over our lawmakers. If small children cannot push our lawmakers into sensible regulation for weapons like this, what the hell else will? Both sides use children as props for their agendas, Stopping any sensible argument with "What about the children?!?!" and similar bs. Does any thinking person think a bunch of gay dudes getting shot is gonna do a damn thing? The left uses them as their own little outrage props, and the right doesn't even want them to have equal protection under the law!

Any thoughts on a Remington 750 and whether or not I should need more than a background check in order to buy one? Out of curiosity why did you focus on the AR type firearms but neglected to mention anything else?

What you are doing is effectively blaming NRA for defending gun rights for all of law abiding citizens, what it's created to do in the first place. That's akin to accusing police of increase in crimes when they are not the cause but are simply doing their job and reacting to the situation. And the claim that NRA somehow wants criminals to be armed is emphatically false. National Firearm Act was passed into law with NRA support and NRA lobbied Project Exile, a federal program that made firearm possession by a felon a federal crime which carried a harsh punishment and minimal sentencing.

The title is not correct and goes to highlight the discrepancy between what the Democrats are claiming and what really happened. The fact is the Democrat proposal had neither the full support of the left nor the right.

Gun Control So Unpopular Even Senator Manchin Voted Against It

The Use of Error-Prone and Unfair Watchlists Is Not the Way to Regulate Guns in America

The NRA Has Actually Got Something Right On Gun Control

Strangely Trump actually against NRA on this particular proposal: Donald Trump Sides With Democrats Over NRA In Gun Ban Debate

Your argument for more background checks sounds exactly like what Republican have been saying for voter id law. They are both just backdoor method of preventing people from exercising their right by bogging them down with tons of unnecessary government bureaucracy.

I'm not anti-gun control, I'm just know better than to trust the government to be efficient. Apparently both parties realize the same since they have both tried to exploit that ineptness to their own ends.

Hardly. First of all, NRA is a representative body of gun owners; they simply would not have the support they need if not for the people they represent. Second, what legal system are you referring to? Bit shortsighted are we? Sure, in the last 5 years, gun right advocates have been successful at maintaining the status quo (at least on the federal level, state level not so much). But before that, we have had our rights have been gradually eroded by gun control since 1934 and somehow you believe NRA (and by extension gun owners) "have the legal system they want"?

How exactly have NRA exploited death of children? That seems to be all coming from anti-gunners. So much so that it's literally in their guidelines: Exploiting Tragedies, Dem's Gun Grab Guidelines Emphasize Emotional Assaults Over Facts And where your evidence that regulations for "assault weapons" would prevent these type of tragedies from taking place? DOJ's own study found no evidence that AWB had any effect on gun violence DOJ Memo: Assault-Weapons Ban ‘Unlikely to Have an Impact on Gun Violence’

Mass shootings are terrible.. But they should not be used as some how "proof" that some thing needs to be done compared to the numerous other problems in the nation.. The chances of you getting killed in a mass shooting for instance is many times smaller than getting struck by lightning.. Meanwhile preventable things like heart disease, suicide, the flu, claim tremendously more lives in the United States each year.. I mean sure we could all agree that there needs to be some kind of reform with background checks or what not. Any regulation can be improved upon.... But the fact of the matter is the politicians are tooting their own horn in trying to promote themselves based around a emotional subject that has only been made bigger by the media.. FFS and people wonder why the United States is struggling as a nation.. We have people freaking out about things like Ebola, which infected a few dozen Americans, meanwhile the public and media basically ignore influenza which claims anywhere from 5k to 40k lives a year alone..

If your truly concerned about public safety, you might want to go down the list of the top 10 highest killers in the United States.. Because the majority of them are all preventable, yet we don't see sweeping reform in trying to address it.. In fact things like suicide, for instance, is largely ignored within media and the public sphere.. Yet it claims tremendously more lives than these rare tragic events.... Let me state, I am not pro nra, and I do not like the militant gun culture in the United States..

Furthermore this FBI watch list is a load of shit, they have accidentally put people on it with no legitimate reason.. If your still ok with that kind of policy, your than suggesting that the government has free reign of trampling over the Bill of rights in the name of "security"..

The real failing of these proposal isn't the design but the implementation. There's an implicit assumption that everyone on the list deserve to be there, but that's simply not true. There's no real transparency in terms of what qualifies one to be put on the list, nor even who is on the list (often times the only notifications of the individual is when they get pull off a flight). The distinct lack of due process and general secrecy mean it's a violation of our rights. Also there's no loopholes, since it's illegal for felons to buy or possess or even handle guns. Why don't you call ones ability to procure illegal drugs the "ghetto loophole"?

While the focus is on gun control, Chicago just celebrated its 300th shooting death over the weekend. Chicago has some of the strictest gun laws in the nation. Do you think the people who committed those murders went through a background check or bought them from a licensed vendor. The only people not able to get fire arms in Chicago are the honest people living there who need them for defense. Just about every major city across the country is plagued by gun violence which is a result of social problems created by government policy of the past.