So much for that mess

[Gilligan]

..down in flames...as should be.

A series of dueling gun control measures in the Senate were defeated Monday evening in the first proposed legislation in the wake of the Orlando terror attack.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/20/gun-control-measure-fails-to-clear-senate-hurdle.html

 

[Hijinx]

..down in flames...as should be.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/20/gun-control-measure-fails-to-clear-senate-hurdle.html

Why do these people always wait until people are killed before they make these proposals.
They are like Buzzards sitting around waiting for someone to die before swooping down on the bodies.

 

[vraiblonde]

Why do these people always wait until people are killed before they make these proposals.
They are like Buzzards sitting around waiting for someone to die before swooping down on the bodies.

Because it's a pure political reaction to We the Sheeple freaking out and DEMANDING! that somebody do something so nobody ever dies again.

Unfortunately, instead of getting tough on crime, deporting immigrants who break the law, and preventing terrorists from coming into this country (because that would be too hard not immediate enough to satisfy the masses), they go for stupid pointless gun control laws.

 

[littlelady]

..down in flames...as should be.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/20/gun-control-measure-fails-to-clear-senate-hurdle.html

Why do these people always wait until people are killed before they make these proposals.
They are like Buzzards sitting around waiting for someone to die before swooping down on the bodies.

Because it's a pure political reaction to We the Sheeple freaking out and DEMANDING! that somebody do something so nobody ever dies again.

Unfortunately, instead of getting tough on crime, deporting immigrants who break the law, and preventing terrorists from coming into this country (because that would be too hard not immediate enough to satisfy the masses), they go for stupid pointless gun control laws.

Yep, yep, and yep.

 

[Amused_despair]

I thought it funny that ABC news said 4 Democratic gun bills were defeated.

 

[DEEKAYPEE8569]

This sounds relevant to the conversation.....

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wire...iation-gun-control-answer-39973257?yptr=yahoo

NRA - More gun control not the answer.....well NO KIDDING.....

 

[PsyOps]

..down in flames...as should be.



http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/06/20/gun-control-measure-fails-to-clear-senate-hurdle.html

I don't think democrats actually did this with any belief it would pass. They did this, in an election year, to make a statement: "See, those republicans don't care about your safety. They want you to die." You will see it in their campaign ads.

 

[tommyjo]

Because it's a pure political reaction to We the Sheeple freaking out and DEMANDING! that somebody do something so nobody ever dies again.

Unfortunately, instead of getting tough on crime, deporting immigrants who break the law, and preventing terrorists from coming into this country (because that would be too hard not immediate enough to satisfy the masses), they go for stupid pointless gun control laws.

Really? Both proposals have been on the table for a long time. You and Hijinx really ought to read more. AND there were 2 proposals on each topic. One from the Dems and one from the Repubs. Both were worded so the other side would never vote for it. So our wonderful elected officials could LOOK like they were doing something without actually accomplishing anything.

And your points, as usual are rather stupid. Get tough on crime? How exactly? What "get tough on crime" would have stopped any of the mass shootings that have occurred in the past 15-20 years?

Deporting immigrants who break the law? Which laws? Which immigrants?

Prevent terrorists from getting in the country? Ok...the last two mass casualty terrorist actions inside the country and 3 of the last 4 (including Oklahoma City) were performed by US citizens who were born here.

So, once again, your points are really stupid, knee jerk political talking points. They are complete devoid of intelligent thought.

You can't explain why someone should be able to buy a gun at a gun show or online without going thru a background check.

You think it is quite ok for someone deemed unsafe to fly on a plane is safe enough to buy a weapon?

 

[GURPS]

You can't explain why someone should be able to buy a gun at a gun show or online without going thru a background check.

where can I purchase a firearm 'ONLINE' and not go through an FFL and a background check ?
which gun shows can I go to and not get a back ground check ?



or are you demanding individuals selling their private property have their sales processed by the Gov.
private party back ground checks are not going to stop criminals from getting guns from straw purchasers - that is already illegal

please show me a mass shooting where the weapons were illegally obtained

 

[This_person]

You think it is quite ok for someone deemed unsafe to fly on a plane is safe enough to buy a weapon?

"Deemed" by who? Under what authority? Under what oversight? Under what adjudication?


Like all rights, the second amendment is limited. I have no issue with laws that limit rights if there is a damned good reason. The public safety aspect of "fire in a crowded theater" theory makes sense. Libel/slander make sense.

So, if it makes sense to maintain a list of people who are so scary we won't let them travel (if and only if "travel" means commercial airliner), then why are they not locked up? If we know enough about them to say they can't fly, aren't they a danger - PERIOD? Why should they be allowed to buy fertilizer? Why should they be allowed to rent trucks? You bring up OK City, I don't recall guns used there. So, if you have a point (and, let's be clear, you do not), then you should be against these people being free to roam at all.

 

[Gilligan]

complete devoid of intelligent thought.

Sweet cheeks..you really need to get a grip on the concept of irony.

 

[PsyOps]

please show me a mass shooting where the weapons were illegally obtained

San Bernardino. Someone else bought those guns and illegally transferred (gave) them to Farook and Malik.

Adam Lanza: The firearms he used were his mother's. Technically they did not belong to Adam, so he illegally obtained (stole) them.

 

[Vince]

Why do these people always wait until people are killed before they make these proposals.
They are like Buzzards sitting around waiting for someone to die before swooping down on the bodies.

Obama waits for things like this to happen so he can go on TV and give his gun control speech.....again.

 

[ginwoman]

Yes that sounds right

I don't think democrats actually did this with any belief it would pass. They did this, in an election year, to make a statement: "See, those republicans don't care about your safety. They want you to die." You will see it in their campaign ads.

 

[PsyOps]

And your points, as usual are rather stupid.

Do you understand the health risks of harboring so much anger and hate?

 

[philibusters]

I don't think democrats actually did this with any belief it would pass. They did this, in an election year, to make a statement: "See, those republicans don't care about your safety. They want you to die." You will see it in their campaign ads.

In terms of the Presidential election, the Democrats are better off not passing any gun laws because it rallies their base and gets them excited about an issue. By contrast if gun control laws had passed then the NRA and the Republicans would have been use it to rally their base and get them out in higher numbers. As both parties put out candidates that a significant part of the party is lukewarm about, it does give the Democrats a small advantage in the 2016 election

 

[Larry Gude]

Gun dealers are gonna miss Obama, a lot.

 

[Chris0nllyn]

Gun dealers are gonna miss Obama, a lot.

Until Hillary comes along. Then it's the same old song and dance from the NRA.

 

[glhs837]

In terms of the Presidential election, the Democrats are better off not passing any gun laws because it rallies their base and gets them excited about an issue. By contrast if gun control laws had passed then the NRA and the Republicans would have been use it to rally their base and get them out in higher numbers. As both parties put out candidates that a significant part of the party is lukewarm about, it does give the Democrats a small advantage in the 2016 election

Exactly, they, exactly like their R counterparts, are not going to work on anything, I would say til after the election, but we all know damn well even after the election, nothing is going to get done. When do we begin to act on the idea that letting the same people do the same thing repeatedly will result in no change ever? "Ohmagerd!!!! Them evil Rs (Ds) will kill us all unless you elect X (y)!!!!!!!" "They are going to take away (give away) everything including XX (YY)!!!!!!"

 

[vraiblonde]

I don't think democrats actually did this with any belief it would pass. They did this, in an election year, to make a statement: "See, those republicans don't care about your safety. They want you to die." You will see it in their campaign ads.

Absolutely.