4 Guns Bills Fail in Senate; Democrats Trying to Blame Republicans

[BasicHumanUnit]

Yet today it’s republicans who are all about voter suppression and.

You confuse the rights of American CITIZENS with the non voting "rights" of NON American citizens.

That is not suppression....you are accusing Republicans of wanting to follow the Law.

You will ultimately end up in a Venezuela of your own if you get what you want.

You know this, so I cannot attribute your deception to anything other than your indoctrination or plain evil.

 

[protectionist]

I just took and passed the hunter safety class. I was grandfathered in and didn’t need to take it but technically I shouldn’t have been given a hunting license but you know Walmart. Now I’m legal. If you are born after 1959 you hav to take this course. It was a pretty long online test and then you go 8-4pm Saturday and take the class.

In the future every new gun owner should have to take the class. There were 8 dnr guys teaching the class. A nut should have to get by them. They would red flag any yahoos.

You guys are all idiots.

So if they've got all that going, then no need for more gun control ?

 

[M14 Shooter]

I just took and passed the hunter safety class. I was grandfathered in and didn’t need to take it but technically I shouldn’t have been given a hunting license but you know Walmart. Now I’m legal. If you are born after 1959 you hav to take this course. It was a pretty long online test and then you go 8-4pm Saturday and take the class.
In the future every new gun owner should have to take the class. There were 8 dnr guys teaching the class. A nut should have to get by them. They would red flag any yahoos.

Similarly, a woman should have to take a class a pass a sex-ed class - all at her own cost - before the has an abortion.
Right?

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

After 4 attempts to enact gun control legislation, to keep guns away from terrorists, some Democrat Senators (ex. Elizabeth Warren, Chris Murphy) have been blaming Republicans for the failure to get even one bill passed. There are gaping holes with their criticisms, which frankly look like nothing more than pure political bullshit.

1. A new CNN/ORC report shows more support among Republicans (90%) for new anti-terrorist gun control measures than among Democrats (85%).

2. Two of the defeated gun control bills were proposed by Republicans (Grassley and Cornyn), and these were opposed by Democrats.

Despite the pro-gun control efforts by Republicans (responding to the massive new gun control support among Republicans), and even new pro-gun control statements from the NRA, Democrats seem to still be clinging to a political posture that tries to paint Republicans as dangerous gun runners who even are friendly to ISIS.

Chris Murphy(D-CT) had told reporters for The Washington Post: "We've got to make this clear, constant case that Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS."

Outspoken liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren echoed his sentiment after the votes.
" @ChrisMurphyCT said it right: The @SenateGOP have decided to sell weapons to ISIS," she tweeted.

Harry Reid also chimed in saying >> "Senate Republicans should be embarrassed -- but they are not, because the NRA is happy." - a clear distortion of the truth, since the NRA has endorsed the position to stop gun sales to poeple on terrorist watch lists and no-fly lists.

Also some Republicans (ex. Kelly Ayotte and Mark Kirk) voted for the Democrat (se. Feinstein) sponsored bill.

It appears to me (IMO) that both sides are having trouble getting their bills passed (which even the NRA supports), simply because each side (Democrats & Republicans) don't want the other side's sponsored bill to pass, because they don't want them to get the credit for the reform, and thereby appear to be the heros of the post-Orlando Massacre condition, that we find ourselves in.

Now, a 5th vote attempting to stop terrorists from getting guns is on the horizon, sponsored by yet another Republican, Sen. Susan Collins of Maine. This would be a weaker aiming at people on no-fly lists, and it is said to not have a good chance to pass either.

Maybe they could just pull somebody in, off the street, who is an Independent, to propose the bill.

In any case, Democrats shouldn't be allowed to get away with pinning the blame on Republicans or the NRA, when they (the Democrats) are just as responsible for the bills' defeats. Democrats appear to be just trying to chip away at the national security edge that Republicans have held over them for quite some time.

Senate rejects series of gun measures - CNNPolitics.com

After a quick read of your little link I read this

The result was expected. A fifth option, set to be introduced and voted upon as early as Tuesday by moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins, has generated more optimism, but still faces long odds at passage.

So moderate Republicans were open to gun legislation but right wingers shot it down.

And then I read this: Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who sponsored one of the failed measures expanding background checks, reacted angrily after his provision was defeated.
"I'm mortified by today's vote but I'm not surprised by it," Murphy said Monday evening. "The NRA has a vice-like grip on this place."

I remember this bill last year. Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.

Outspoken liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren echoed his sentiment after the votes.
".@ChrisMurphyCT said it right: The @SenateGOP have decided to sell weapons to ISIS," she tweeted.

So you tell us why Republicans shot this down.

Collins, a moderate. What laugh.

So, why was the bill shot down? How about you go read it and tell Me if there were any poison pills in the bill, then get back to us.

We won't wait.

First Trump was for background checks now he's against them?

Democratic leaders assail Trump's apparent reversal on background checks

It is a stupid idea just like using the No-Fly list seeing criminals do not care about any of that!

Sandy Hook, Santa Fe, Texas and the Philadelphia mass shooting would still happen if you had the laws you want when it come to background check and using the No-Fly list...

I just took and passed the hunter safety class. I was grandfathered in and didn’t need to take it but technically I shouldn’t have been given a hunting license but you know Walmart. Now I’m legal. If you are born after 1959 you hav to take this course. It was a pretty long online test and then you go 8-4pm Saturday and take the class.

In the future every new gun owner should have to take the class. There were 8 dnr guys teaching the class. A nut should have to get by them. They would red flag any yahoos.

You guys are all idiots.

Well that is your opinion but still does not answer the question how that would prevent the next Sandy Hook, Santa Fe, Texas or Philadelphia Mass Shooting but hey tell me your opinion again.

Also you believe some idiot with no mental health training should be able to red flag someone and what if the person just hate the person they are training or feel you need to bribe them to get your license and if not you are red flagged!?!

Also how many criminals are going to say " Hey I better take that training before Sealyboo discovers and report me so I can be legal to mass shoot something " ?

The true idiot is those like you believing criminals obey the law and refusing to acknowledge that none of your laws that you want would prevented most mass shootings seeing Sandy Hook the son stole the guns from the mother house where he killed the mother and the Philadelphia Shooter should have never been on the streets and was never suppose to own or be in possession of the gun and the Santa Fe, Texas shooter used his father shotguns, so ummm how would that Hunter Training Class stopped them again?

Wait, you will now explain it matter not just pass those laws and when it does nothing to prevent another mass shooting well you will want more laws until you make it impossible for citizens to own firearms...

Oh, did you know the Orlando Nightclub shooter was on a watch list but because of the failure between agencies he slipped through?

But hey who cares if the LEO fail just as long as you have those new laws, right?

 

[sealybobo]

After a quick read of your little link I read this

The result was expected. A fifth option, set to be introduced and voted upon as early as Tuesday by moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins, has generated more optimism, but still faces long odds at passage.

So moderate Republicans were open to gun legislation but right wingers shot it down.

And then I read this: Sen. Chris Murphy, a Connecticut Democrat who sponsored one of the failed measures expanding background checks, reacted angrily after his provision was defeated.
"I'm mortified by today's vote but I'm not surprised by it," Murphy said Monday evening. "The NRA has a vice-like grip on this place."

I remember this bill last year. Republicans have decided to sell weapons to ISIS.

Outspoken liberal Sen. Elizabeth Warren echoed his sentiment after the votes.
".@ChrisMurphyCT said it right: The @SenateGOP have decided to sell weapons to ISIS," she tweeted.

So you tell us why Republicans shot this down.

Collins, a moderate. What laugh.

So, why was the bill shot down? How about you go read it and tell Me if there were any poison pills in the bill, then get back to us.

We won't wait.

First Trump was for background checks now he's against them?

Democratic leaders assail Trump's apparent reversal on background checks

It is a stupid idea just like using the No-Fly list seeing criminals do not care about any of that!

Sandy Hook, Santa Fe, Texas and the Philadelphia mass shooting would still happen if you had the laws you want when it come to background check and using the No-Fly list...

I just took and passed the hunter safety class. I was grandfathered in and didn’t need to take it but technically I shouldn’t have been given a hunting license but you know Walmart. Now I’m legal. If you are born after 1959 you hav to take this course. It was a pretty long online test and then you go 8-4pm Saturday and take the class.

In the future every new gun owner should have to take the class. There were 8 dnr guys teaching the class. A nut should have to get by them. They would red flag any yahoos.

You guys are all idiots.

Well that is your opinion but still does not answer the question how that would prevent the next Sandy Hook, Santa Fe, Texas or Philadelphia Mass Shooting but hey tell me your opinion again.

Also you believe some idiot with no mental health training should be able to red flag someone and what if the person just hate the person they are training or feel you need to bribe them to get your license and if not you are red flagged!?!

Also how many criminals are going to say " Hey I better take that training before Sealyboo discovers and report me so I can be legal to mass shoot something " ?

The true idiot is those like you believing criminals obey the law and refusing to acknowledge that none of your laws that you want would prevented most mass shootings seeing Sandy Hook the son stole the guns from the mother house where he killed the mother and the Philadelphia Shooter should have never been on the streets and was never suppose to own or be in possession of the gun and the Santa Fe, Texas shooter used his father shotguns, so ummm how would that Hunter Training Class stopped them again?

Wait, you will now explain it matter not just pass those laws and when it does nothing to prevent another mass shooting well you will want more laws until you make it impossible for citizens to own firearms...

Oh, did you know the Orlando Nightclub shooter was on a watch list but because of the failure between agencies he slipped through?

But hey who cares if the LEO fail just as long as you have those new laws, right?

Nothing will stop the next Sandy Hook. But maybe the next time the guy will only be able to kill 4 kids not 40.

Did you guys see the kid who got arrested for making threats? OMG I wanted to put a bullet in his moms head. She was defending the little shit. She said, "they all do it", referring to making threats that he was going to shoot up the school. WHAT? No they don't all do it mom. You ****! You bitch! You fucking loser!

This is why I'm scared to let just anyone/everyone own a gun. Her son is making crazy threats and the cops ask mom, "do you have a gun in the house?" I sure fucking do she says. Fucking bitch! They should kill her and her son. That will teach all the other bad parents and their kids who might think about shooting up a school.

Isn't that what Israel does? If a terrorists murders then Isreal goes and levels their families homes. So something like that to the parents.

The problem with America is anyone can be a parent or own a gun. And we all know half of America is fucked up. I may think your half is fucked up and you visa versa but fact is we agree half of America is stupid.

Florida mom insists her son who allegedly threatened mass shooting is 'just a little kid' making jokes

Can we all at least agree this kid and his mom should never own a gun?

Florida mom insists her son who allegedly threatened mass shooting is 'just a little kid' making jokes

 

[sealybobo]

Listen to the video of the stupid mom defending her fucked up kid.

 

[sealybobo]

Her kid wrote this: "I Dalton Barnhart vow to bring my fathers m15 to school and kill 7 people at a minimum."

 

[miketx]

That the RNC (known as the Republicans Nowadays Cave) had to schedule the vote is a major victory for gun control. Within the first 90 days of Clinton II, you’ll see something passed.

Yes indeed, more disarming of victims.

 

[sealybobo]

I just took and passed the hunter safety class. I was grandfathered in and didn’t need to take it but technically I shouldn’t have been given a hunting license but you know Walmart. Now I’m legal. If you are born after 1959 you hav to take this course. It was a pretty long online test and then you go 8-4pm Saturday and take the class.

In the future every new gun owner should have to take the class. There were 8 dnr guys teaching the class. A nut should have to get by them. They would red flag any yahoos.

You guys are all idiots.

So if they've got all that going, then no need for more gun control ?

This is great news

Fox News Poll: Most back gun restrictions after shootings, Trump ratings down

Fox News Poll: Most back gun restrictions after shootings, Trump ratings down

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing will stop the next Sandy Hook.

And so, you DO want to unnecessarily and ineffectively restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Why on EARTH should we agree to it?

 

[sealybobo]

That the RNC (known as the Republicans Nowadays Cave) had to schedule the vote is a major victory for gun control. Within the first 90 days of Clinton II, you’ll see something passed.

Yes indeed, more disarming of victims.

No one wants to disarm victims. We want to make sure crazies don't get guns. We are too loosy goosy with guns. They need to be more regulated. Relax, you victims can keep your guns. You just can't own a gun with a 20 magazine clip. Why? Because if/when you go nuts, we don't want you taking out everyone on your block.

Too many of you nuts take out everyone on your block. So your right to own a gun is infringing on our right to happiness. Ya dig?

 

[sealybobo]

Nothing will stop the next Sandy Hook.

And so, you DO want to unnecessarily and ineffectively restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Why on EARTH should we agree to it?

Because we the people pass a law saying you must.

It's not unnecessary. Let's say I invent a gun that cost $100 and I can take out 1/4th of a football stadium with one pull of the trigger. Would you like millions of Americans owning this gun?

 

[sealybobo]

Nothing will stop the next Sandy Hook.

And so, you DO want to unnecessarily and ineffectively restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Why on EARTH should we agree to it?

These restrictions or regulations are necessary and effective. I've shown you proof but you keep toeing the NRA's talking points.

 

[rightwinger]

What happened to Trumps repeated calls for “meaningful background checks”

Wayne LaPierre and the NRA got his mind right

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing will stop the next Sandy Hook.

And so, you DO want to unnecessarily and ineffectively restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Why on EARTH should we agree to it?

Because we the people pass a law saying you must.

So, you have no rational reason why we should accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights.
Thanks.
Why do you think unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights do not qualify as infringements on same?

It's not unnecessary.

You just said nothing will stop the next Sandyhook.
If nothing will stop the next Sandyhook, how is a law that is intended to stop it necessary?

 

[M14 Shooter]

And so, you DO want to unnecessarily and ineffectively restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Why on EARTH should we agree to it?

These restrictions or regulations are necessary and effective.

"Nothing will stop the next Sandy Hook."
How can you be right?

 

[sealybobo]

Nothing will stop the next Sandy Hook.

And so, you DO want to unnecessarily and ineffectively restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Why on EARTH should we agree to it?

Because we the people pass a law saying you must.

So, you have no rational reason why we should accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights.
Thanks.
Why do you think unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights do not qualify as infringements on same?

It's not unnecessary.

You just said nothing will stop the next Sandyhook.
If nothing will stop the next Sandyhook, how is a law that is intended to stop it necessary?

The goal is to limit the number of victims. There is no silver bullet but just like we don't allow automatic assault rifles, we need to go a little further with regulating this industry.

So you are saying that it's pointless that we heavily regulate automatic weapons? When's the last time an automatic was used in a rampage? It's been awhile. And that has saved lives.

Sure, someone can use a revolver and kill 5 people. Or they can use a glock and kill 10. But they can't get their hands on 20 round clips and that limits the carnage. Get it? Good.

 

[sealybobo]

Nothing will stop the next Sandy Hook.

And so, you DO want to unnecessarily and ineffectively restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Why on EARTH should we agree to it?

Because we the people pass a law saying you must.

So, you have no rational reason why we should accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights.
Thanks.
Why do you think unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights do not qualify as infringements on same?

It's not unnecessary.

You just said nothing will stop the next Sandyhook.
If nothing will stop the next Sandyhook, how is a law that is intended to stop it necessary?

I have a rifle that will shoot 4 shots. You can't stop me from going up to a bell tower and shooting 4 people but by the time I reload everyone else will have run for cover.

If my ruger 450 bushmaster held 20 rounds I'd be able to kill a lot more than 4.

And I don't need more than 4. The gun is meant for hunting. Why do you own a 20 round gun? Well, they are now illegal schmuck. But you can keep yours.

I heard someone say something about a buyback program. No. You let people keep their guns. You just don't make anymore. That'll make your gun more valuable. Maybe double the price. Don't be a baby.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing will stop the next Sandy Hook.

And so, you DO want to unnecessarily and ineffectively restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Why on EARTH should we agree to it?

Because we the people pass a law saying you must.

So, you have no rational reason why we should accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights.
Thanks.
Why do you think unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights do not qualify as infringements on same?

It's not unnecessary.

You just said nothing will stop the next Sandyhook.
If nothing will stop the next Sandyhook, how is a law that is intended to stop it necessary?

The goal is to limit the number of victims.

Nothing you want to do will accomplish this.
Why do you want to lay unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?
Why do you think said unnecessary and ineffective restrictions do not qualify as infringements?
What rational reason to the law abiding have to accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on their rights?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nothing will stop the next Sandy Hook.

And so, you DO want to unnecessarily and ineffectively restrict the rights of the law abiding.
Why on EARTH should we agree to it?

Because we the people pass a law saying you must.

So, you have no rational reason why we should accept unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights.
Thanks.
Why do you think unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on our rights do not qualify as infringements on same?

It's not unnecessary.

You just said nothing will stop the next Sandyhook.
If nothing will stop the next Sandyhook, how is a law that is intended to stop it necessary?

I have a rifle that will shoot 4 shots. You can't stop me from going up to a bell tower and shooting 4 people but by the time I reload everyone else will have run for cover.

If Adam Lanza had a pump-action shotgun that held just 4 rounds, he could and would have killed the same number of people.
Why do you support unnecessary and ineffective restrictions on the rights of the law abiding?