Senate Rejects Gun Control Measures

The Senate today failed to pass amendments to appropriation bills funding background checks on guns and sharing state mental health records with the feds.

Senators voted 53-47 on a proposal from Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) that would reauthorize funding for the National Criminal Instant Background Check System (NICS) and incentivize states to share mental health records with the federal system.

Then there was Sen. Diane Feinstein's amendment, also properly voted down:

Feinstein’s amendment would allow the attorney general to block the sale of a gun or explosive if there’s a “reasonable suspicion” an individual has or will be involved in a terrorist attack. It would allow the attorney general to block the sale of a gun to anyone under a terror investigation in the past five years.

There were four measures all together. The Senate failed to pass all of them. These kinds of laws will do nothing to reduce gun violence or stop terrorists. They will infringe on the privacy and liberty rights of the rest of us. Guns do not cause the rage. They are the means by which people express them. These laws are band-aids that fail to treat the infection.

< Supreme Court Weakens Protection Against Illegal Searches | DOJ and FBI Release Full Transcript of Orlando 911 Call >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Not only are the Senators (5.00 / 1) (#1)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 20, 2016 at 07:36:24 PM EST
    "not a scientist," but apparently they also don't understand simple arithmetic. I seem to recall learning, perhaps in junior high school, that 53 was a solid majority of 100, and would carry the vote. And the filibuster was an exceptional tactic reserved for issues that one or more senators felt deserved an extraordinary effort at opposition. Now, the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster is necessary to pass any legislation through the Senate. In other words, obstructionism against democracy is the norm.

    The difference this cycle I thnk (none / 0) (#13)
    by CaptHowdy on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 07:47:20 AM EST
    Is that democrats, well, most democrats - the usual suspects like Manchin and Hedi voted with the repeblicsns, but most democrats including our presidential nominee are no longer running from this issue.  They are running on it.  And it's going to work.  Republicans are going to lose because of these votes in November.  Don't know how many but the tide is turning.

    I don't know what the "perfect" law is (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 20, 2016 at 08:53:20 PM EST
    in the area of gun regulation in the U.S.  I am assuming, tho, that--unless one holds the position that the 2nd Amendment is an absolute guarantee to purchase, transfer, any manner of firearm and any manner of ammunition in this country--there must be some regulatory measure addressing the extraordinary violence in this country involving various firearms considered acceptable by those seriously concerned about undue restriction of constitutional rights.  

    Jeralyn: Those of us who more and more support a serious attempt to regulate gun usage to address gun-related mass violence (such as so-called army assault-modeled weaponry in urban areas) often hear a why-it-won't-work response or a general & immediate "no."  I understand, for the most part, what is opposed; but, I do think that there comes a time when it is fair to ask what those opposed support in gun regulation, what one would support, specifically.  

    Possessing a firearm is a constitutional right (5.00 / 5) (#5)
    by Peter G on Mon Jun 20, 2016 at 10:45:42 PM EST
    just like a pregnant woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion. On that basis, I suggest that any store that sells firearms be required to be equipped as a licensed emergency room, with a physician on call if not on the premises, and that no one in Texas should be allowed to purchase a firearm unless he drives five hours to one of the six locations in the State that can meet that requirement, receive counseling on any possible bad outcome of firearm use or possession that has a 1% risk of occurring, and then return at least 24 hours later to complete the purchase. That wouldn't be any kind of undue burden on exercise of the right, would it?

    "Possessing" the gun (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:19:56 PM EST
    is indeed, a constitutional right.  However, that constitutional right only extends to the end of a gun owner's arm, so to speak, as you know.  Gun owners do NOT have a right, constitutional or otherwise, to take the types of guns Mateen had, walk into a nightclub and start shooting.  They do NOT have a constitutional right to shoot those guns, under MOST circumstances.

    But let's talk about other constitutional rights.  Everyone in that club had constitutional rights too. Under the First Amendment, they had the right to freely associate, among others.  Why do gun owners around the country love to spout that the Orlando shooter had constitutional rights, but don't seem to give a rat's a$S that he violated all those other people's constitutional rights? Isn't getting shot and killed an "undue burden" on the exercise of those rights?


    I'm not surprised (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 07:37:34 AM EST
    I mean, a MEMBER OF CONGRESS and FEDERAL JUDGE were shot, not to mention TWENTY+ FIRST GRADERS, and Republicans and the NRA offered their thoughts and prayers, and then just yawned.

    Sorry Jeralyn, you're just completely wrong.  States with the strictest gun control laws have lower incidences of gun deaths, while states with looser gun laws have much higher incidences of death -think that's just a coincidence? And of course, one need look no further than Australia, who under a conservative government, passed strict gun control measures 20 years ago, which has resulted in ZERO mass shootings since then, but has reduced gun violence overall by 50 percent. Think that's a coincidence too?

    BTW, (5.00 / 3) (#21)
    by desertswine on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 01:41:31 PM EST
    Here's a list of the 10 states with the most firearm violence (via the Wall Street Journal), as expressed by deaths per 100,000 population.  I was a little surprised as I had expected to see maybe Illinois, New York, or California on the list, and did not.  All of the states, but one, are red states.  Most of the deaths are suicides.
    In fact, none of the states with the most gun violence require permits to purchase rifles, shotguns, or handguns. Gun owners are also not required to register their weapons in any of these states. Meanwhile, many of the states with the least gun violence require a permit or other form of identification to buy a gun.

    While federal gun laws are uniform across the country, state regulations vary, offering more lax or more strict approaches to firearm use. Seven of the 10 states with the most firearm deaths in 2013 have enacted stand your ground laws.

    The correlation between gun violence and poverty is undeniable.  But the poor do not start wars. Personaly, I think that all automatic, semi-automatic and military style weapons do not belong in private hands.


    Moving the definitions again, JB? (none / 0) (#12)
    by Mr Natural on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 07:45:30 AM EST
    The 2014 Hunt family murders in New South Wales resulted in five gun deaths.

    Ooh! You got me! (none / 0) (#15)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 09:49:21 AM EST
    1 mass shooting that was a murder-suicide


    It still doesn't change the fact that strict gun control measures WORK.

    Nice try, though.


    BTW, Mr. Natural (none / 0) (#17)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    Domestic incidences that take place in the home are not considered mass shootings.

    But like I said, nice try.  You'll have to do better than that, though.


    States and Gun Laws..." (none / 0) (#14)
    by NycNate on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 09:33:41 AM EST
    " States with the strictest gun control laws have lower incidences of gun deaths, while states with looser gun laws have much higher incidences of death"

    What about cities with strict gun laws?


    If the host's unbending attitude toward (none / 0) (#24)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 02:44:03 PM EST
    any form of gun control has anything to do with the influence of Hunter Thompson, one should keep in mind that rumour has it Hunter liked to make a show of flashing guns around in large part because he was worried that the Hells Angels were still pissed off at him.

    Jondee, that's not true at all. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 11:22:32 AM EST
    HST was not afraid of the Angels.  After he got beat up by them, he and the presidents of the five California chapters came to an agreement.  He could write about them as long as they got paid some of the book or magazine profits.

    He didn't make a show of flashing guns around Owl Farm, he just brought out a gun and shot it at different targets.  I was there many times and know what was going on.  He did like to shoot things that blew up, we all did.  Nothing was out of control, like many think.  He did get a bit upset when I out shot him almost every time on long distance targets.  My eyes were better than his, but he was a good shot.  I tried to talk him into getting a Barrett's sniper rifle so we could shoot even farther, but he wouldn't get one because he knew he couldn't outshoot me at long distances.

    BTW he had the artist, Ralph  Steadman, do a series of paintings that he shot with his 12 gauge shotgun, and sold for thousands of dollars each.  None of this matters now, because he's gone.


    Of all your celebrity encounters (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 11:28:17 AM EST
    HST and Ralph (especially Ralph) make me envious.   Stead an has been a god to me since the early 70s.

    Ralph Steadman was a quiet Englishman (5.00 / 2) (#40)
    by fishcamp on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 12:25:32 PM EST
    until he met HST and started the weird Gonzo drawings for Hunters books and magazine articles.  In fact he was a landscape artist, and studied design.  His studio in London is filled with Maxfield Parrish type paintings.  His hidden, but tiny, wild side popped out a few times at Owl Farm when the shooting started.  Steady is the one who came up with the idea of Hunter shooting his art and selling it.  They did it for the money.  Ralph has a website where you can buy his Gonzo art in the form of iPhone covers, bats and all.  His website is quite extensive.

    BTW my favorite celebrity encounter was with Angi Dickinson in Venice, Italy.


    And as a follow up.. (none / 0) (#25)
    by jondee on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 02:53:29 PM EST
    what route do the guns take to arrive in cities with strict gun laws?

    Guns to stores (none / 0) (#28)
    by fishcamp on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 08:01:38 PM EST
    probably travel in bond from one broker to another.  We had to send film that way from Europe to the U S so they could collect one and a half cents per foot tax on film exposed outside of this country, even if it was Kodak film made here.  The broker also guaranteed customs that the exposed film was not pornographic.  It's a different situation, but they do have brokers that handle guns.

    I was thinking of the guns (none / 0) (#57)
    by jondee on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 05:38:28 PM EST
    that start out in the hands of out-of-state "one time private sellers" and make their way onto the mean streets of Detroit and Chicago..

    We had a guy here last year who had a cache of AK47s in a gun safe, one of which found it's way into the hands of some young gangbangers who ended up mowing down three other young people in front of the Boys and Girls Club.


    Those guns... (none / 0) (#67)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 11:09:10 AM EST
    take the same route as the drugs and the bootleg cigarettes and the undocumented immigrants. What is the Interstate Highway System?

    Have we thought of ripping up the pavement? ;)


    Currently I cannot open a bottle of aspirin (5.00 / 3) (#16)
    by ruffian on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 09:58:54 AM EST
    or any other medication without a pair of scissors due to anti-tamper regulations that went in place after 7 (7! wow!) people were poisoned in 1982 by someone tampering with Tylenol bottles in stores. They did not even conclusively discover the perpetrator, much less fix the societal ills that created such a person -  they put a band-aid on the problem in the form of nearly impenetrable seals on the bottles. Was that overkill? Probably but I do not hear any protesting about it - it seems like common sense.

    So I don't see why basic common sense things like background checks at gun shows and stopping future sales of military grade weapons cannot be done in the meantime while we solve mental illness, poverty, religious hatred, bigotry, and all the rest (hint: never).

    Nor can you buy the only kind of (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by Peter G on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 11:34:49 AM EST
    nasal decongestant that actually works (pseudoephedrine) in cost-efficient quantity, nor at all without showing ID and going into a federal database. Because a few idiots like to melt it down it large quantities to make meth.

    Couple things (none / 0) (#49)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 03:33:17 PM EST
    First, seal-less bottles are not listed in the Constitution.

    Second, most (almost all) guns have been "military grade" since guns were invented.


    Right....our military today would love to use (none / 0) (#51)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 04:18:30 PM EST
    a musket. I am sick to death of these debates about the detailed tech specs of various guns when everyone knows the ones we are talking about that we want restricted. We mean the kind that can kill 17 people in five seconds. That's the kind I mean.

    they were also commonly used by civilians.

    When blunderbusses were commonly used by the military, they were commonly used by civilians as well.

    When revolvers were commonly used by the military, they were also commonly used by civilians.

    The guns citizens use are, and have always been based on military designs, and have been/are almost always manufactured to military quality.

    A big difference today is that while military rifles are largely capable of automatic fire, very few civilians legally own automatics.


    All right, you tell me (none / 0) (#58)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 06:05:34 PM EST
    How many people do civilian gun owners need to be able to kill per minute in order to feel their rights are intact and they are safe in their beds at night?  5? 10? That should cover a home invasion situation.  I'll let them set the limit.

    freedom (none / 0) (#66)
    by CaptHowdy on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 11:01:40 AM EST
    And what you leave out (none / 0) (#62)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 05:47:44 AM EST
    Is that weapons in many towns, had to be stored at the town armory - individuals did not have personal arsenals in their homes.

    Also, that while thing about the many peoplepeople who could not own guns in many towns - Catholics, Jews, Blacks, women, non landowners, etc. -despite what you see on TV and the movies.


    Sure, history is fascinating. (none / 0) (#63)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:37:01 AM EST
    Although colonial laws generally required militiamen (and sometimes all householders, too) to have their own firearm and a minimum quantity of powder, not everyone could afford it. Consequently, the government sometimes supplied "public arms" and powder to individual militiamen.

    Policies varied on whether militiamen who had been given public arms would keep them at home. Public arms would often be stored in a special armory, which might also be the powder house.

    "Policies varied." Kinda like how your very own 'burb of DC has its own specific gun laws.


    Yes, history is fun (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 10:58:52 AM EST

    When we think of settlers of colonial America and the 19th-century Wild West, we often picture fearless frontiersmen defending hearth and home from predators. But while gun possession is as old as the country, so is gun regulation.

    In 1619, the Virginia House of Burgesses passed a law making the transfer of guns to Native Americans punishable by death. Other laws across the colonies criminalized selling or giving firearms to slaves, indentured servants, Catholics, vagrants and those who refused to swear a loyalty oath to revolutionary forces. Guns could be confiscated or kept in central locations for the defense of the community. And in the late 1700s and early 1800s, the state and federal governments conducted several arms censuses. (Imagine what the NRA would say if government officials went door to door today asking people how many guns they owned and whether they were functional.)

    On the western frontier in the 19th century, to stave off violence, new towns and cities enacted laws to bar carrying guns. In fact, the typical western town had stricter gun laws than many 21st-century states. Today, four states have completely eliminated permits for handgun ownership and carrying.

    And of course, the NRA used to be sane too.


    I must admit I did not realize how much (none / 0) (#68)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 11:15:05 AM EST
    conflict there was between the Protestants and Catholics in early America.
    It is almost impossible to overstate the anti-Catholicism of colonial Americans. It was brought with them from England, of course.

    Much of the sense of being a Briton was tied up with being Protestant. "Rule Britannia" expresses the anti-French, anti-Catholic sentiments of the British people at this time: When the chorus of that song proclaims that "Britons never will be slaves" it did not indicate that Britons would never wake up as black men and women treated as chattel. It meant that Britons would not wake up subject to the absolute monarchy and priestcraft of France.

    In America, geography added to the prejudice. The French and Spanish settlements surrounded the English colonies, and the recurrent wars between them did little to quell the anti-Catholic prejudices of the English settlers.

    And if we end up... (none / 0) (#69)
    by kdog on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:03:35 PM EST
    with a "no gun" list of "suspects" at the sole discretion of the DOJ, I could see American Muslims finding themselves in the same boat as an Algonquian in 1619.  Especially under a future Republican administration.  

    Someone remind Feinstein... (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 05:51:05 AM EST
    We have these quaint notions of due process and innocence until proven guilty. "Reasonable suspicion"...what kinda bullish;t is that?

    I'm reasonably suspicious of the police...how bout we restrict their gun ownership Diane?

    I am not opposed to these measures (none / 0) (#3)
    by pitachips on Mon Jun 20, 2016 at 09:33:33 PM EST

    But at the end of the day they're mostly window dressing. In the same way that the drug war will always be a failure, any effort to meaningfully curtail the availability of guns in the US will also fail. It also gives cover to politicians who are unwilling to fight what is at the core of the country's gun violence crisis - the lack of any meaningful policy to address entrenched poverty.


    I subscribe to the "it wouldn't hurt" (none / 0) (#4)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 20, 2016 at 10:18:58 PM EST
    school of thought re closing the firearm registration loopholes and making possession of  automatic guns such as those used by mass murderers in the U.S. illegal.

    Thanks, oculus ...well said (none / 0) (#6)
    by christinep on Mon Jun 20, 2016 at 11:06:16 PM EST
    There are many areas in life & community that it helps to treat the symptoms as and until the actual root cause is clearly determined.  In medicine, e.g., there are often many paths taken on the way to the cure of particular afflictions ... analgesics, temporary treatments, etc. Most disciplines and work areas have transitions, in fact.  It is hard to think of any area where the "perfect" is discovered overnight; but, that doesn't mean that all actions addressing symptoms or their primary mechanisms should be abandoned or disregarded until the "perfect" appears.

    I understand the Supreme Court let stand Connecticut's ban on certain assault-style weaponry today.  (Also: NYC's? Is that accurate.)


    In Shew v. Malloy, SCOTUS decided not to hear (none / 0) (#7)
    by oculus on Mon Jun 20, 2016 at 11:59:02 PM EST
    a Second Amendment challenge to a Connecticut law "banning many semi automatic rifles."  And also decided not to hear a challenge to a similar NY law (Kampfer v. Cuomo). [NYT.]

    Semi automatic rifles are legal (none / 0) (#8)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:43:50 AM EST

    The 1994 assault weapons law banned semi-automatic rifles only if they had any two of the following five features in addition to a detachable magazine: a collapsible stock, a pistol grip, a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor, or a grenade launcher.

    That's it. Not one of those cosmetic features has anything whatsoever to do with how or what a gun fires. Note that under the 1994 law, the mere existence of a bayonet lug, not even the bayonet itself, somehow turned a garden-variety rifle into a bloodthirsty killing machine. Guns with fixed stocks? Very safe. But guns where a stock has more than one position? Obviously they're murder factories. A rifle with both a bayonet lug and a collapsible stock? Perish the thought.

    A collapsible stock does not make a rifle more deadly. Nor does a pistol grip. Nor does a bayonet mount. Nor does a flash suppressor.


    Know what else was illegal (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 07:19:37 AM EST
    Under the noe (unfortunately) expired Assault Weapons Ban?

    The AR-15.


    That is only partially true (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by coast on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 12:25:01 PM EST
    Only models with specific modifications were banned from sale to civilians under the law.

    Actually, (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 02:04:29 PM EST
    The AR-15 is a trademarked name to Colt Industries, and is the semi-automatic version of the M-16 rifle and absolutely was banned under AWB.

    There are clone variantions made by different manufacturers, and are erroneously called "AR-15s".


    Exactly (none / 0) (#26)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 07:09:48 PM EST
    The objected to "modifications" were all cosmetic ,  Made the rifle "look scary"

    It loojks scary (none / 0) (#29)
    by jbindc on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 08:02:17 PM EST
    Because it IS scary.

    And since you are 7btimes more likely to be killed by a right-wing zealot than Muslim terrorists,, or, more simply, white guys with guns, then yeah, we need limits on ALL these guns.


    to death by someone with a knife than shot by ANY kind of rifle, whether AR-style or not.

    I demand limits on all kinds of knives!


    False equivalency (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 07:31:55 AM EST
    Knives have a purpose that is not killing people, and then there's the fact you are much more likely to survive a knife attack than being shot.

    Kinda why you don't hear about drive by knifings....


    Or (5.00 / 2) (#34)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 08:01:00 AM EST
    Mass knifings

    I guess.

    According to estimates there are at least 3 million rifles in the US with AR-style aesthetics, and something like 10 billion rounds of ammo sold in the US every year.

    The Lucky Gunner says about 15% of their sales are common AR-style rifle caliber rounds (.223 & 5.56X45 NATO).

    So with a conservative estimate that 10% of the 10 billion rounds sold in the US every year are common AR-style rifle calibers, that's 1 billion AR-style rounds sold each year.

    Guesstimate 90% of those rounds are hoarded, that leaves 100 million AR-style rounds fired each year.

    FBI says 323 people killed in US in 2011 by all rifles, conservatively guesstimate 50% of them were killed by AR-style rifles, that's 165 people.

    100 million rounds fired by AR-style rifles and less than 200 people killed.

    Either the rifles owners are really, really, REALLY bad shots or they're using the guns for something other than killing people 100 Million/200 = 99.9998% of the time.

    ...and then there's the inconvenient truth that around 5x more people get killed by knifes than all styles of rifles combined...


    Very comforting. (none / 0) (#44)
    by oculus on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 02:20:04 PM EST
    And "AR-style aesthetics"!!!!  

    I read somewhere yesterday that at present the number of guns in the U.S. is equivalent to one per person.


    Forget knives (none / 0) (#45)
    by jbindc on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 02:40:24 PM EST
    five times more Americans have died from knives than in all the US wars combined...

    no (none / 0) (#52)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 04:41:41 PM EST
    roughly 5 times as many people are murdered by all firearms than knives. When you add in accidents and suicides you probably 10 X the fatalities.

    Actually, yes. The discussion was about (none / 0) (#54)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 04:51:05 PM EST
    AR-15 style/type rifles, not all guns in general.

    I don't argue with your different conversation about all gun deaths. Deaths by handguns are something like 20-30x, maybe more, than deaths by any/all types of rifles.


    to guns in general. I missed that and you are right, my comment to JB that you responded to is in error.

    Pink Pistols (none / 0) (#56)
    by TrevorBolder on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 05:33:32 PM EST

    Uses the exact same arguments that all law abiding citizens use.

    I'LL never forget the first piece of safety advice I got when I began my transition from the male body in which I was born to the female body I now occupy: Carry a whistle. If I was attacked, I was supposed to blow it in hopes it would alert some do-gooder to dash into a dark alley to break up a brutal hate crime.

    The idea was not only preposterous, it was also insulting. The implication was that I, being transgender, wouldn't be able to save myself. But I didn't need a whistle; I had a gun.


    In the days since Orlando, Facebook membership in my pro-gun L.G.B.T. group, Pink Pistols, has quadrupled, from around 1,500 to more than 6,500, and new chapters are starting across the country. Gun stores are reporting a spike in sales to L.G.B.T. buyers, and gun trainers are reaching out, offering free training or discounts.

    These are people who understand that if you're gay or transgender, you can't simply hope that laws will protect you. They won't. And you can't rely on the police. Orlando is proof you could bleed to death in the time it takes for them to stop the shooter.

    I get it (none / 0) (#48)
    by FlJoe on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 03:30:50 PM EST
    now, soldiers carry m-16's to scare their enemies, the actual fire power is irrelevant.

    Vox article (none / 0) (#27)
    by TrevorBolder on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 07:12:36 PM EST

    No, this article is for the genuinely curious -- those who assume that 5 million of their fellow Americans are not inhuman or insane, and who want to understand what set of rationales, no matter how flawed and confused they may ultimately turn out to be, could make an otherwise normal person walk out of a gun store with an "assault weapon."

    By the end of this piece, you probably still will not believe that I or any other civilian actually needs an AR-15. That's fine -- I wasn't really out to change your mind on that score anyway. I get that you still believe that no civilian should have such a gun. My only hope is that you'll go forth better equipped to talk about gun control based on an understanding of how real live people view and use these firearms.

    you do (none / 0) (#9)
    by Ga6thDem on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 05:52:32 AM EST
    Realize that the assault weapon ban expired under GeorgeW Bush.

    Agreed. Fire arm registration (none / 0) (#20)
    by KeysDan on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 12:35:25 PM EST
    reform would not hurt.  It might even help. A lot. The country is not starting from scratch on this, and reform along with a comprehensive evaluation during the restriction period would give a studied basis for its continuance or discontinuance.

     The 1994 Assault Weapons Ban (Title XI Violent Crimes Control and Law Enforcement Act) effective Sept 19, 1994 and repealed 10 years later included a provision for evaluation within 30 months of the effective date. (probably a premature timeline.)

     The evaluation was also updated in 2004.  The evaluations were contaminated by the pre-existing conditions and the criminal reach-arounds. All of which can be used to provide a basis for updated study design and serious discussion.  Of course, the biggest hump is to have a serious discussion.


    oculus, automatic guns ARE illegal. (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Tue Jun 21, 2016 at 01:41:35 PM EST
    Been that way since 1934.

    Wouldn't hurt me, (none / 0) (#31)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 05:46:05 AM EST
    Wouldn't hurt you...but it could infringe on others who like guns for whatever reason and don't shoot people. I'm hesitant to tread on others that way...not an end of the world infringement, but an infringement nonetheless.

    Can anyone tell me why (none / 0) (#35)
    by jimakaPPJ on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 08:53:44 AM EST
    the two proposed laws by  the Repubs were voted down?

    Because (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by CaptHowdy on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 08:55:25 AM EST
    A majority of congress is owned by gun manufacturers.

    Oh wait, you knew that and we're just trolling.

    Well, your welcome anyway.


    im not an expert but... (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by linea on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 11:37:38 PM EST
    ...i dont feel this is correct. i dont believe a "majority of congress is owned by gun manufacturers." i dont believe there are that many americam gun manufactuers or that they have the financial clout to buy off the majority of congress.

    im under the impression that republicans pander to the gun lobby because that's where the votes are. not because that's where the financial backing is. the whole gun ownership thing is popular. very popular.


    Why (none / 0) (#70)
    by FlJoe on Thu Jun 23, 2016 at 12:05:20 PM EST
    then do polls constantly show strong support for common sense gun regulations?

    I'd vote against (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by kdog on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 12:29:13 PM EST
    sharing medical records in regards to mental health with the feds...last thing we need is those struggling with mental illness who happen to like guns hesitating from seeking mental health treatment lest they end up on one of the feds sh;tlists.

    Where is the Free Confidential Mental Health and Anger Management Treatment on Demand Act? Surely no matter where you stand on gun rights we can all agree on that one, no?

    If we're hopelessly deadlocked on the supply side remedy, lets work on a demand side remedy instead of this endless circle&erk.


    You mean filbustered, right? (none / 0) (#42)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 01:42:15 PM EST
    because in my math 53 votes is a majority and they would have passed had they not been filibustered.

    Oh sorry, maybe the GOP proposed laws (none / 0) (#43)
    by ruffian on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 01:43:06 PM EST
    got an actual vote.

    First... (none / 0) (#47)
    by Jack E Lope on Wed Jun 22, 2016 at 03:02:33 PM EST
    First they imposed registration and taxation of sawed-off shotguns, and I did not speak out--
    Because I had no sawed-off shotgun.

    Then they came for the machine guns and bazookas, and I did not speak out--
    Because I had no machine gun or bazooka.

    Then they came for the destructive devices and expanded the definition of "machine gun", and I did not speak out--
    Because I had no destructive device or newly-defined machine gun.

    Then they came for my thirty-round magazines -- and there was no one left to speak for my thirty-round magazines.

    Actually I find J's stance on our constitutional rights - all of our constitutional rights - to be the model of logic and consistency.

    She supports all of our rights, and she supports them unconditionally.

    For example, as I'm pretty sure you and I have discussed before, she supports unfettered access to abortion up to the very second before childbirth.

    She supports all the rest of our rights, including our gun rights, the same way.

    I find her honesty and logic on this refreshing.

    Dadler's comment was (none / 0) (#75)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Jul 17, 2016 at 10:23:29 PM EST
    deleted for its personal attack and insult. A few others with jibberish and profanities were also deleted. Dadler, you'll be banned if you keep it up -- either express yourself coherently, without personal attacks or insults to anyone and without profanity or go elsewhere.

    He is (none / 0) (#73)
    by CaptHowdy on Fri Jun 24, 2016 at 07:56:48 PM EST
    Isn't he!!!