Quote :

" Yes, but the overwhelming majority of that isn't pushback to the background checks themselves, but to the firearms registry that would be required to effectively implement such a program."

Manchin-Toomey (2013 version) improved background checks while explicitly prohibiting a registry (even though it's already prohibited by federal law). Still couldn't make it through the senate.

Again, that bill was the low hanging fruit. Any effort to improve our system needs to start there and it seemed like a mostly agreeable policy, except to the true hardliners. But then groups started lying about what it contained (on both sides), the NRA decided it was going on "the scorecard", and all that bullshit rolled down hill to what ended up being a failed vote. Sad!

6/20/2016 10:10:03 AM

this no fly no buy stuff is pretty scary to think so many people, even trump, are ok with having lists of citizens with less rights with no due process.

considering the list would be mostly muslim sounding names its even obviously racist

6/20/2016 12:46:32 PM

^ yeah I've said it before but the no fly and terrorist watch lists have always been egregious unaccountable police state, seems like when you the add something that is perceived as an impact white people too, then suddenly there's opposition.

I hope the outcome is the end of the lack of due process with the lists.

6/20/2016 2:15:21 PM

^^ yeah I can't imagine it will pass

6/20/2016 2:57:12 PM

http://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/284092-high-court-wont-review-state-ban-on-assault-rifles

supreme-court-wont-review-state-ban-on-assault-rifles

Quote :

"In October, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the bans. It said the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment and provisions in the laws are not vague."

6/20/2016 3:15:08 PM

Quote :

"US Senate: Lawmakers Reject 4 Gun Control Measures Put Forth by Democrats and Republicans The Senate Monday blocked four proposals that would have reinforced background checks and prevented suspected terrorists from buying firearms. Each measure needed 60 of 100 votes to pass."

[Edited on June 20, 2016 at 9:34 PM. Reason : k]

6/20/2016 9:33:51 PM

I love that the narrative all day has been "GOP SHUTS DOWN GUN CONTROL, WANTS TERRORISTS TO HAVE ALL THE GUNS!!!1"

Dont worry about the GOP bills the dems voted against which were similar. This was, as usual, purely political show. Nobody wanted to allow the other side to get credit for passing something the public supports. I'm actually kind of glad because they were shitty bills.

6/20/2016 11:41:14 PM

Quote :

"I love that the narrative all day has been "GOP SHUTS DOWN GUN CONTROL, WANTS TERRORISTS TO HAVE ALL THE GUNS"

Where do you get your narratives?

6/20/2016 11:59:13 PM

This is sure to be meaningful

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/22/politics/john-lewis-sit-in-gun-violence/index.html

6/22/2016 3:04:32 PM

god damn, what a ridiculous ploy for votes

6/22/2016 3:08:45 PM

^^hah. how long did they sit there?

6/22/2016 3:13:11 PM

This is the most childish and ridiculous bullshit I've seen in politics. I mean, this is worse than Ted Cruz reading Green eggs and Ham during his anti-Obamacare "filibuster". Pretty disgraceful pandering and political gamesmanship. For a so called civil rights hero John Lewis doesn't seem to give a shit about he 4th or 5th amendment.

When Gawker, the ACLU, the NRA, Glenn Greenwald, and a coalition of many others are all against your ridiculous no-fly, no-buy horseshit maybe it's time to rethink it.

I mean, we all know the point of this wasn't ever to actually get any actual legislation done or there might have been some willingness from the minority party to compromise a bit and not vote along party lines on either of the Senate gun control legislation that they voted down a couple days ago.

6/22/2016 10:50:27 PM

Sit ins should be reserved to try to protect rights, not to try to take them away.

6/23/2016 4:55:28 AM

They probably take the silly viewpoint that they're trying to protect people's right to live. Ridiculous, right?

6/23/2016 7:40:41 AM

lol

6/23/2016 7:46:38 AM

For those of you who find the sit in to be so objectionable, can you please explain why their goal is so terrible? And please answer about their specific goal of simply allowing a vote, not the overall goal of "no fly, no buy"

6/23/2016 9:16:26 AM

Quote :

"For a so called civil rights hero John Lewis"

so-fucking-called???

seriously?

6/23/2016 9:19:57 AM

^^ personally I don't really give a damn but it is just pure political bullshit. Most everyone on here even agrees that the no fly list is bullshit. This is just something to show how the democrats are standing up for everyone while those meanie republicans are laughing all the way to the bank to deposit their NRA money soaked in the blood of dead children.

That said, the republicans have done their fair share of this type of activity so it's not like they are innocent in all this.

6/23/2016 9:28:10 AM

Quote :

"For a so called civil rights hero John Lewis"

GTFO with that stupidity. Fucking hack.

6/23/2016 9:37:10 AM

^^ I would say that continually not allowing a vote on something so that your inevitable "no" vote can't be used against you in an election is the more egregious case of political bullshit. Doing what you can do ensure the vote takes place so that people stances can be laid out on the table for all to see isn't so terrible

[Edited on June 23, 2016 at 9:41 AM. Reason : ad]

6/23/2016 9:41:30 AM

How about it is all fucking stupid?

6/23/2016 9:51:06 AM

No, in this case I don't accept the premise that there aren't varying levels of stupidity to which one party isn't more to blame than another

6/23/2016 9:53:28 AM

I guess we can just disagree on that point then. Proposing a shit bill and passing it off as common sense gun reform to keep terrorists from getting guns even though it would be completely unconstitutional given that there is no due process is fucking stupid. Sitting on the floor all night thinking it will accomplish something is fucking stupid.

Not to mention the bills have already been defeated in the senate making it an even bigger waste of time.

[Edited on June 23, 2016 at 10:07 AM. Reason : .]

6/23/2016 10:02:36 AM

So then just vote them down and move on if they're so bad

6/23/2016 10:08:41 AM

^ I don't think pelosi allowed Republicans to bring bills to floor either fwiw

6/23/2016 12:45:59 PM

^ got a link to support that?

Sounds like there will be a vote in the Senate

http://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na-democrats-sitin-guns-20160623-snap-story.html

6/23/2016 12:55:35 PM

^^ even if true in that case I would support a similar measure from republicans to force a vote

6/23/2016 1:04:16 PM

lol Republicans pull this kind of shit to shut down the government, force us to default on our debt and cause millions of people to lose their health insurance. Democrats are trying to stop the wanton slaughter of innocents by rampaging gun owners. Totally the same though!

6/23/2016 3:55:53 PM

Where was the sit in for a public healthcare option?

6/23/2016 4:47:20 PM

Democrats arent trying to stop shit. They are trying to pat themselves on the back for passing legislation that is at best meaningless and unconstitutional.

6/23/2016 6:15:32 PM

Quote :

"Democrats are trying to stop the wanton slaughter of innocents by rampaging gun owners. Totally the same though!"

How many of the past mass shooters were on the no-fly list, out of curiosity?

How much due process should be required before we remove rights from American citizens?

And I thought the liberals in the Chit Chat threads were oblivious...

6/24/2016 12:53:09 AM

Quote :

"^ got a link to support that?"

The speaker decides what bills make it to the floor, that's just how it works.

The Senate took 4 gun control votes and they all couldn't get to needed 60 votes the other day

[Edited on June 24, 2016 at 7:58 AM. Reason : R]

6/24/2016 7:44:07 AM

Can someone link me to the bill they want to vote on, is it another no-fly no-buy bill? If so this is all disgusting political theater.

6/24/2016 8:45:45 AM

http://www.vox.com/2016/6/22/12005864/democrats-sit-in-gun-proposals

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/06/22/house-democrats-are-staging-an-unprecedented-sit-in-to-protest-guns/

Yup, pretty much. No fly, no buy. No bill, no break! Good as a chant, but shit as a policy.

6/24/2016 1:02:30 PM

We need due process. Potential terrorists need to be convicted of terrorist acts before we can stop them from acquiring the tools with which to commit terrorist acts.

6/24/2016 1:16:16 PM

okay, here is the problem with that, define "potential terrorist" in a way that doesn't just trample all over civil rights

here is a good place to start reading:
https://www.aclu.org/issues/national-security/privacy-and-surveillance/watchlists

and here is an explanation of why the ACLU is against this specifically:
https://www.aclu.org/letter/aclu-letter-urging-senators-vote-no-cornyn-amendment-4749-and-feinstein-amendment-4720-hr
https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/use-error-prone-and-unfair-watchlists-not-way-regulate-guns-america

they should drop this terrorist watchlist thing and focus on the universal background checks

[Edited on June 24, 2016 at 1:26 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2016 1:20:50 PM

I'm not surprised that in all of that the ACLU fails to mention that less than 1,000 US citizens are on the no-fly list.

The government is not using the no-fly list as nonjudicial punishment. It's ridiculous to think this is some sort of slippery slope to "dey tuk er gunz." Besides, there are checks in place. Any law like this would obviously be sued over, and the Supreme Court would have to make a ruling. Which is who needs to decide that shit anyway, not some asshole randomly shouting "islamic terrorism" on the house floor at protesters.

And yes, there should be more of a focus on UBC, since 90% of the country agrees those need to be implemented.

I think it was stupid for the democrats to bring up the whole watchlist thing as it undermined their position. But given the opposing plans the republicans put forth, it's clear none of that shit mattered anyway. Like always, people will be slaughtered and nothing will get done, despite the demands of the public.

[Edited on June 24, 2016 at 1:43 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2016 1:37:43 PM

so its okay to trample on civil rights if its just a few people?

(and the feinstein amendment would involve a list much more broad than the no-fly list)

[Edited on June 24, 2016 at 1:53 PM. Reason : .]

6/24/2016 1:46:49 PM

^ pssh, obviously. Especially if they're scary and brown. We shouldn't even need a warrant to search your house if you're on one of those lists.

6/24/2016 2:18:17 PM

What would the legislation they were pushing have done to prevent any of the previous shooters from acquiring their weapons? Oh wait, here I am applying logic to a liberal position... I saw it framed as "common sense gun control" but there doesn't seem to be any common sense.

At the end of the day, it isn't about common sense, it's about liberals feeling good. It's about feel-good legislation and virtue signaling, because they care about the victims more than those evil NRA gun nut republicans. Get those liberals some blankets and selfie sticks so they can virtue-signal to the uninformed masses. #NoBillNoBreak

6/24/2016 3:53:17 PM

Bleep bloop beep

6/24/2016 5:14:10 PM

Quote :

"Oh look. A burro crawled out from under its rock, armed with dumb slippery slope arguments too!"

Too bad I didn't make a slippery slope argument. It just went right over your head.

6/27/2016 10:12:32 PM

BACK TO YOUR ROCK BURRO!!!

6/27/2016 10:19:31 PM

Still waiting for you to explain how what I said was a slippery slope fallacy. I'll even help you by giving you the general form of the fallacy: "If you allow X, Y will be the next thing to be allowed, which will lead to Z, and then to dogs and cats living together." I'll wait.

6/27/2016 11:01:08 PM

Quote :

" Not in my hands. I’ve shot pistols before, but never something like an AR-15. Squeeze lightly on the trigger and the resulting explosion of firepower is humbling and deafening (even with ear protection). The recoil bruised my shoulder, which can happen if you don't know what you're doing. The brass shell casings disoriented me as they flew past my face. The smell of sulfur and destruction made me sick. The explosions — loud like a bomb — gave me a temporary form of PTSD. For at least an hour after firing the gun just a few times, I was anxious and irritable."

omg, this pretty funny

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/firing-ar-15-horrifying-dangerous-loud-article-1.2673201?cid=bitly

6/28/2016 10:46:20 AM

^
@ that writer

6/28/2016 1:30:43 PM

What an idiot

6/28/2016 1:38:34 PM

Millions of bigger idiots will actually believe that shit

looks like he got some good feedback lol http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/gun-lovers-opinion-assault-rifles-article-1.2674555

[Edited on June 28, 2016 at 2:25 PM. Reason : .]

6/28/2016 2:17:12 PM

Quote :

"so its okay to trample on civil rights if its just a few people?"

owning a gun isn't an inalienable civil right

6/28/2016 2:25:21 PM

Neither is healthcare or food or shelter or a job.

6/28/2016 2:43:22 PM