Anonymous wrote:No I'm being realistic that if all these laws would have been passed

THE SHOOTINGS STILL WOULD HAVE OCCURRED

You know what the actual solution is. Actually talking with and caring about your neighbors something we all can do without any sort of government action which again is just window dressing

I do talk to and care about my neighbors. Guess what. The shooting still occurred.
I will no longer allow the NRA to speak on my behalf because I chose to go along. I am a mom and this is not the world I want my children to grow up in. I respect that we can disagree and have differing opinions, because we live in a great country that allows us to openly express our opinion and my opinion is that status quo is no longer acceptable. You can chose to do nothing- but I will not. I owe my children more than that.

Jesus, just because controls or regulation of gun ownership won't solve every crime, it is a step in the right direction. Baby steps is how sanity will prevail, not in a wholesale change in one swoop.

Is gun control the only answer here? No. We need better mental health treatment and reporting, for example. But, in my view there is absolutely no way any law abiding citizen should oppose:
-strict background checks with a waiting period;
-your on the watch list? Sorry, no gun until you go through process to show you should.
-criminal background (at some threshold TBD)- no gun
-gun related injuries should be studied, per the position of the AMA.
-there should be a complete ban on military style assault rifles and similar guns. Do not quibble with me on the technical differences between semi-automatic v. assault rifles, etc. We all knwo the guns we are talking about here. The ones you can fire off many rounds in a short period of time, at high forces, and are meant to kill. That's their purpose.
-All gun owners should be required to go through a training course, including safety, and be licensed.

No one is TAKING all your guns. So that boogeyman argument is bullshit. And, yes, there will be an illegal market (for now) in large part b/c of all the guns in circulation due to the lack of controls. That will gradually change.

The NRA and its supporters have had a stranglehold on this argument long enough. I'm sick of it. If I need to be a single issue voter to ensure that their hold on policymakers ends, so fucking be it.

No I'm being realistic that if all these laws would have been passed

THE SHOOTINGS STILL WOULD HAVE OCCURRED

You know what the actual solution is. Actually talking with and caring about your neighbors something we all can do without any sort of government action which again is just window dressing

Anonymous wrote:This won't accomplish anything

How many perpetrators of mass shootings have been on the terror list..... answer a big fat 0

Why waste precious capitol on a non-issue

So... we should continue to do nothing? Do you think this issue will solve itself?

Anonymous wrote:Has ANY control law proved to prevent crime?

We don't need gun "safety". We need criminal safety.

Take all guns away and criminals will still have them. That's because they're criminals, and criminals don't obey laws.

It is nice to see the NRA talking points have made their way here. Canada has gun control laws. They have had 8 mass shootings in 20 years. US has had 7 THIS Week. Continuing to REHASH NRA talking points is no longer an acceptable solution to me.

I think the fact that 2 of these shootings have now been perpetrated by terrorist sympathizers might be the tipping point. I sure hope so, at least, because if not, more of these will happen while people, no matter their motivation, flaunt our idiotic gun laws and culture.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:This is great! Finally!

yes but why the hell did it take so long! Where was the desire to do this after 20 5/6 yr olds were gunned down? Is it just because it was a Muslim that did it? Is the magic number 50? Because it sure wasn't 30 something which was the number of folks who died from the VTech shooter.

This.

Have you actually followed Chris Murphy at all? He has made NUMEROUS pleas and CONSISTANTLY highlights the issue - more so than any other member of the Senate. He has been highlighting the victims (not just Sandy Hook) but of other victims of gun violence that have taken place since Sandy Hook while the Senate has done NOTHING.

Anonymous wrote:Even if this stuff squeaks through the senate it won't make it through the house

Which speaks volumes about the assholes currently elected to congress

You can't even close a loophole to keep a terrorist from obtaining a gun? Are you fucking kidding me?

Fix the list if you're so worried about people being put on it in error. But seriously? Doing absolutely nothing after yet another mass shooting (which, according to Marco Rubio, is about taking turns now ;p), is being complicit in mass murder.

Even if this stuff squeaks through the senate it won't make it through the house

They did this before about six months ago

Don't see anything changing

Note there are going to be 4 proposals again 2 from the Ds and 2 from the Rs

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/gun-amendment-democrats-216389

Can I get a quick summary? What will the vote be on?

I understand Cornyn's previous proposal was for the gov't to show within 72 hrs why someone should be blocked from gun ownership, and I don't get that at all -- much of the watch list info is (and must be) classified. How would they get around that?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If someone is dangerous enough to be put on a no-fly list, doesn't it make sense to also stop that same person from buying guns? #NoFlyNoBuy

Right, but there's this tricky little matter of the Constitution. Either approach is fine with me, but civil libertarians (not just Second Amendment nut jobs) might differ.

1. Even the Libertarians will agree that someone who's an obvious danger - such as a suspected terrorist or enemy of the US - can be prohibited from obtaining a gun.

2. The Democratic proposal allows for anyone who wants to buy a gun to require the government to present evidence to a court, to show that the person should be prohibited. They specifically crafted it that way to avoid any Constitutional issue.

Even al-Qaida gloats about what's possible under U.S. gun laws. In June 2011, a senior al-Qaida operative, Adam Gadahn, released a video message (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpRQzTP8H1o) rallying people to take advantage of opportunities those laws provide. "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms," Gadahn says, explaining that "you can go down to a gun show at the local convention center" and buy a gun without a background check.

Then a faint smile crosses Gadahn's face. "So what are you waiting for?" he asks.

http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolitics/2013/04/24/178668578/people-on-terror-watch-list-not-blocked-from-buying-guns

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Bernie Sanders was noticeably absent. So weird.

If you look at his record on gun issues, maybe it's not so weird?

You're right. It's just a strong statement about his priorities and his overall approach to governing.

Anonymous wrote:This won't accomplish anything

How many perpetrators of mass shootings have been on the terror list..... answer a big fat 0

Why waste precious capitol on a non-issue

I don't disagree with you, but I do think this is a step in the right direction. Democracy moves slowly--sometimes too slowly--and it's encouraging to see members of Congress doing SOMETHING about this, however small it is.