And yet ANOTHER mass shooting... (San Bernardino)

[wustin]

Originally Posted by bob

In short, I'm sad and depressed.

You'll hurt yourself less with a pointy or blunt object than with a gun.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I think plenty of gun-owning conservatives would be OK with restricting gun ownership for people on no-fly lists and more general terrorist watch lists.

Until you learn more about the no-fly lists.

Note: the link I found is from FoxNews BUT the article appears to actually be from Yahoo Travel (looks like Yahoo bought the placement)

8 ways you can end up on the no-fly list | Fox News

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Until you learn more about the no-fly lists.

Note: the link I found is from FoxNews BUT the article appears to actually be from Yahoo Travel (looks like Yahoo bought the placement)

8 ways you can end up on the no-fly list | Fox News

If gun rights were actually tied to that list or another list, the process would have to be cleaned up.

But I'm pretty sure we could come up with a list of people even you would be OK with banning weapons from. The more moderate the conservative, and the more concessions are made in negotiations, the bigger the list could be. I bet you'd be OK with a longer list if we started say, executing drug dealers. (I'm not advocating for that one, just making a point). If the gun thing really is the most important issue when it comes to crime, than anything should be on the table. (I don't think it's close to the most important thing, but obviously that's where these threads always go).

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

But there are ways to tell the difference though and bridge those gaps of distrust. Just basic Jimmy Carter style-negotiation, Getting to Yes kind of stuff. Like Clinton did in the 90s. The way to convince people that you sincerely care about crime, and you're not just motivated by a general opportunistic hate of guns, gun owners, and conservatives or rural people generally, is to back that up with proposals that address crime in other ways in addition to the gun restrictions. Clinton got an assault gun ban by funding more police and more prisons, getting harsher drug laws, and restricting habeas relief with AEDPA (and the idea there was to also speed up executions, of course that part hasn't worked out, but AEDPA has still effectively eliminated habeas relief except in the most extraordinary circumstances).

That won't work with a GOP that won't compromise at all. What you are describing is basically exactly what Obama offered and he couldn't even get negotiations started.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

If gun rights were actually tied to that list or another list, the process would have to be cleaned up.

But I'm pretty sure we could come up with a list of people even you would be OK with banning weapons from. The more moderate the conservative, and the more concessions are made in negotiations, the bigger the list could be. I bet you'd be OK with a longer list if we started say, executing drug dealers. (I'm not advocating for that one, just making a point). If the gun thing really is the most important issue when it comes to crime, than anything should be on the table. (I don't think it's close to the most important thing, but obviously that's where these threads always go).

I picked on the flaws with using the no-fly mostly because I'd seen it mentioned 3-4 times -- not just here -- in the past 24 hours.

And sure you could come up with a list, several of them in fact, that I'd be perfectly fine with banning ... but finding a list that you can get 50% + 1 to agree on? I'm not sure that's doable.

And since I don't believe for one single remote second that the legal availability of guns is even on the list of top 1,000 problems in the country I'm really not all that bothered by the unlikely nature of the task.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by ISiddiqui

Do you believe that the US just has more lunatics than any other country? Is it something in our food? GMOs mutate us into killers?

Yes, I do. I think there is a culture problem in this country. We have a long history of serial killers, mass shootings and murder. Before the gun laws went into effect in England, they still didn't have as big of a problem with guns as we have with murders that don't use guns. (Percentage based)

Congrats on your pm's. You are all patting yourselves on the back against someone who agrees with your point of view. You all must be very proud.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That won't work with a GOP that won't compromise at all. What you are describing is basically exactly what Obama offered and he couldn't even get negotiations started.

Isn't this like when someone says that gun control measures aren't guaranteed to help anything so why bother?

If you're saying this can't be done with legislation, what else are you proposing? Unilateral executive orders? Unilateral military action?

Edit: Obviously there's better hope for legislation with a new savvy moderate president and a more moderate and less spiteful congress. But that's not impossible. We're not necessarily locked into the current government dynamic forever. And even if we are, than the strategy probably should be something different that proposing gun control laws and demonizing guns and people who value gun rights.

[CU Tiger]

Originally Posted by bob

Dumb question - if a gun legally belonging to person A is used by person B in a crime, is person A at all responsible? I ask because if my dog bites someone, I can be held responsible. Just curious about this.

Depends on the specific state laws and circumstances.
For example in SC if I allow you to use my gun knowingly to commit a felony I can be charged with the same felony you commit up to and including Murder 1 and capital punishment.

If I am negligent in preventing you access to my gun in a place where you otherwise have a legal right to be I can be found guilty of a crime. (The classic example is leaving it in a desk drawer or on a desk in an office)

If you commit a crime in the process of obtaining my gun (I.E. unlawfully enter my home and steal it) I am completely absolved.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

And sure you could come up with a list, several of them in fact, that I'd be perfectly fine with banning

I just want to point out that I got JIMGA to agree to gun control.

Molson in 2016.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

Isn't this like when someone says that gun control measures aren't guaranteed to help anything so why bother?

If you're saying this can't be done with legislation, what else are you proposing? Unilateral executive orders? Unilateral military action?

Edit: Obviously there's better hope for legislation with a new savvy moderate president and a more moderate and less spiteful congress. But that's not impossible. We're not necessarily locked into the current government dynamic forever. And even if we are, than the strategy probably should be something different that proposing gun control laws and demonizing guns and people who value gun rights.

No, I'm saying the problem doesn't lie with an inflexible group of gun control zealots, and hence pressure doesn't need to be put on them to compromise. They already are willing to compromise. The problem is the inflexibility of the gun rights side, so any change will only come after they are pressured and they change their ways.

[bob]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

Depends on the specific state laws and circumstances.
For example in SC if I allow you to use my gun knowingly to commit a felony I can be charged with the same felony you commit up to and including Murder 1 and capital punishment.

If I am negligent in preventing you access to my gun in a place where you otherwise have a legal right to be I can be found guilty of a crime. (The classic example is leaving it in a desk drawer or on a desk in an office)

If you commit a crime in the process of obtaining my gun (I.E. unlawfully enter my home and steal it) I am completely absolved.

Ok, so this seems similar to a dog then.

- If I let you take my dangerous dog, my fault.
- If I don't properly secure my dangerous dog, my fault but less than above.
- If you break in and steal my dog, not my fault.

Thanks

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

No, I'm saying the problem doesn't lie with an inflexible group of gun control zealots, and hence pressure doesn't need to be put on them to compromise. They already are willing to compromise. The problem is the inflexibility of the gun rights side, so any change will only come after they are pressured and they change their ways.

I'm not sure how many dems are really willing to compromise. You seemed to agree with ISiddiqui's post, so I'd say you're pretty extreme and inflexible on this. If someone disagrees with you they're evil and responsible for violence. That's the message of this thread that apparently earned ISiddiqui all this pm support. We need to get rid of that mindset too. If you don't have respect for people with other opinions, especially when they come from a very different place from you and have different values, it's really difficult to have negotiated change. Jimmy Carter and the like negotiated deals with very violent people by trying to understand where they're coming from, what their values are, and how those values can be acknowledged for some greater good. When you're staring position is, "this is all your fault and I'm morally superior," which seems to the Dem position now with a lot different topics, you're not going to have great results.

[JPhillips]

I'll sign on for Clinton's deal right now. I'll sign on for Obama's deal right now. I'll sign on for police officers and universal background checks right now. Of course the gun rights side won't go for any of those ideas.

I wouldn't say I consider myself morally superior, but the whole narrative of both sides are to blame is bullshit. One side won't give an inch and there's nothing objectionable about saying that.

I grew up with guns. I shot at home, at Boy Scouts, at college. I never hunted, but that was by personal choice more than anything else. My extended family is full of hunters and shooters, my wife's cousin is a national champion target shooter. In short, I have no problem with most guns and most gun owners. I also think some reasonable regulation that will ban some more weapons and make it somewhat more difficult to purchase others is a reasonable compromise in an attempt to combat gun crime.

That being said, I do think the guns are the only thing that will stop the tyrannical communist O-bots folks are nuts.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by molson

I just want to point out that I got JIMGA to agree to gun control.

Molson in 2016.

But is it a Trump-esque campaign "accomplishment"?

I mean, promises & performance ARE two different things y'know.

[Sun Tzu]

Pro-gun folks have a right to their guns, because they come from different backgrounds/live a different lifestyle. Regardless of the nauseating amount of data showing that owning a gun makes you exponentially more likely to kill another human being than if you didn't own a gun.

Non-Christian religious extremists, however, shouldn't even be allowed into the country. Why? Because they have a different background/live a different lifestyle.

[Kodos]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

That being said, I do think the guns are the only thing that will stop the tyrannical communist O-bots folks are nuts.

I had to read this several times before figuring out you probably meant:

That being said, I do think the "guns are the only thing that will stop the tyrannical communist O-bots" folks are nuts.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I had to read this several times before figuring out you probably meant:

That being said, I do think the "guns are the only thing that will stop the tyrannical communist O-bots" folks are nuts.

Yeah. That's the problem with one handed typing while on the phone.

[molson]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'll sign on for Clinton's deal right now. I'll sign on for Obama's deal right now. I'll sign on for police officers and universal background checks right now. Of course the gun rights side won't go for any of those ideas.

I wouldn't say I consider myself morally superior, but the whole narrative of both sides are to blame is bullshit. One side won't give an inch and there's nothing objectionable about saying that.

I grew up with guns. I shot at home, at Boy Scouts, at college. I never hunted, but that was by personal choice more than anything else. My extended family is full of hunters and shooters, my wife's cousin is a national champion target shooter. In short, I have no problem with most guns and most gun owners. I also think some reasonable regulation that will ban some more weapons and make it somewhat more difficult to purchase others is a reasonable compromise in an attempt to combat gun crime.

That being said, I do think the guns are the only thing that will stop the tyrannical communist O-bots folks are nuts.

If it really can't be done now, perhaps it can be done with a more savvy president and a more moderate legislature, and those things aren't impossible. And from there, finding common ground is key, and I'm not sure how many dems are interested in finding common ground based on the rhetoric I see in this thread and other places. Obviously, a lot of regular non-criminal gun owners think those views are VERY prominent and it makes them suspicious and very protective of their gun rights.

And if it just can't be done ever, then we should just learn to live in that reality I guess.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by molson

If it really can't be done now, perhaps it can be done with a more savvy president and a more moderate legislature, and those things aren't impossible. And from there, finding common ground is key, and I'm not sure how many dems are interested in finding common ground based on the rhetoric I see in this thread and other places. Obviously, a lot of regular non-criminal gun owners think those views are VERY prominent and it makes them suspicious and very protective of their gun rights.

And if it just can't be done ever, then we should just learn to live in that reality I guess.

Polling shows we've already reached common ground with large majorities of the public on several gun control initiatives. The problem is a legislature that for various reasons is far more intransigent than the country at large. I'll admit I'm very skeptical that that can be fixed in any way other than changing demographics and redistricting.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by bob

In short, I'm sad and depressed.

This is where I'm at. As an American citizen, I want this fixed. Whether it be through more stringent screenings for people buying guns, closing loopholes in gun laws or spending money on mental health, I want this fixed.

I don't want to see more fellow citizens laying in pools of their own blood because of continued inaction.

I wish my government was interested in getting this fixed.

[Kodos]

It always amazes me how willing people are to sell each other out for a buck.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Dutch: You keep coming back to that, but who here is saying we're going to repeal the 2nd amendment and come for the 270 million guns? (Maybe ISiddiqui?) You constantly retreat into claiming the gun control people in this thread are demanding something nobody (or at least almost nobody) is asking for to try to invalidate the gun control side.

WHY DO YOU WANT EVERYBODY TO DIE AT THE HANDS OF A GUN-WIELDING MANIAC?!?

See? We can do that too.

I keep coming back to it because some of y'all say there's an easy solution.

And I haven't said that, in fact I've said the biggest problem with guns are drug related gang violence and these mass shootings account for less than 1% of the violence related to guns.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by Dutch

And I haven't said that, in fact I've said the biggest problem with guns are drug related gang violence and these mass shootings account for less than 1% of the violence related to guns.

I don't think there is an easy solution - I think that better laws with regards to gun access in those states which don't have them (such as Florida where you can buy a gun from a trade show with NO checks at all) would help somewhat and there is a lot of data available to back that up (I can repost the comparison of gun deaths per 100,000 vs gun laws by state here if people are interested).

I agree with Dutch however that a lot of such violence is related to drug trade and its for that reason that I personally would like to see drug legalized (I'm expecting a few looks of shock on this one from the peanut gallery ) .... my reasoning is simply that the war on drugs has been about as effective as prohibition, its driven the trade and consumption away from the light, this has meant more risks involved in consuming them, the alienation of people who do so and also the loss of profit from them from mainstream society (and taxation) ... while stimulating violence as those involved in those areas defend their trade.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

I agree with Dutch however that a lot of such violence is related to drug trade and its for that reason that I personally would like to see drug legalized (I'm expecting a few looks of shock on this one from the peanut gallery ) .... my reasoning is simply that the war on drugs has been about as effective as prohibition, its driven the trade and consumption away from the light, this has meant more risks involved in consuming them, the alienation of people who do so and also the loss of profit from them from mainstream society (and taxation) ... while stimulating violence as those involved in those areas defend their trade.

I agree with this position. You take away drugs as this engine for crime and you'll see much of the violence decline.

[nol]

Originally Posted by Dutch

I keep coming back to it because some of y'all say there's an easy solution.

And I haven't said that, in fact I've said the biggest problem with guns are drug related gang violence and these mass shootings account for less than 1% of the violence related to guns.

Because you think solution = nobody dies at the hands of a gun ever again. What common-sense people are proposing are solutions that reduce marginal cases. As I said on the first page of the thread, mass shootings are discussed because they are on the rise; if something is getting worse, you want to try to fix that.

There are a variety of programs already in place that attempt to do something about drug- and gang-related violence. Many of them have been very successful at reducing murders and would be more even moreso with more funding. Cure Violence/CeaseFire in particular is one organization that makes the common "thugs in Chicago kill each other with guns so why should anything change anywhere else?" refrain ring especially hollow.

[Chief Rum]

This thread is in fair part a terrific representation why I avoid politics anymore, and why I kinda despise some of you even as I love all y'all. No one wants to be rational anymore. No one wants solutions. They just want to be the smartest peeps in the room and to prop their ego up by pointing to the other side and say "look how dumb those people are!"

It's sad and pathetic. Wish we were more reasonable than society in general, but clearly we're simply a direct reflection of that society, and powerless by choice to be different.

[CU Tiger]

[quote=nol;3069267 As I said on the first page of the thread, mass shootings are discussed because they are on the rise; if something is getting worse, you want to try to fix that.

[/QUOTE]

It is also fair to say that radical religious fueled attacks are on the rise IN THIS COUNTRY.

Should we ban religion?

I mean not all religion, just the bad religion that scares me.

Even though I dont even know what it is...

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

I'll sign on for Clinton's deal right now. I'll sign on for Obama's deal right now. I'll sign on for police officers and universal background checks right now. Of course the gun rights side won't go for any of those ideas.

I wouldn't say I consider myself morally superior, but the whole narrative of both sides are to blame is bullshit. One side won't give an inch and there's nothing objectionable about saying that.

+1000

[TroyF]

Getting this back on topic to talk about THIS shooting (which none of the gun laws talked about in this thread would have fixed, so maybe that should be moved somewhere else):

It looks like the wife radicalized the husband.

Reporters were able to talk the landlord into letting them into their house and proceeded to act like the rabid vampires they are, showing drivers licenses, social security cards and rummaging through their closets. (stay classy media, stay classy)

The media also keeps reporting that the damaged cell phones have hindered the investigation (ummm, no, just no)

I'm still having a tough time understanding how you can drop off your 6 month old child and go on a rampage. Unbelievable.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by Kodos

Okay, well, there are exceptions.

I view that as not realistic, so I don't consider it to be an option. If I could magically make all the guns disappear with the wave of a wand, yes, I'd do it. But we don't live in a world where magical wands work. So we have to try to find practical solutions that might help in the real world. We have to try to meet in the middle somewhere between no guns for anyone and all guns for everyone.


Kang: Abortions for all. [crowd boos]
Kang: Very well, no abortions for anyone. [crowd boos]
Kang: Hmm... Abortions for some, miniature American flags for others.

Kang was always the sensible one

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by CU Tiger

It is also fair to say that radical religious fueled attacks are on the rise IN THIS COUNTRY.

Should we ban religion?

I mean not all religion, just the bad religion that scares me.

Even though I dont even know what it is...

THB it's an elephant in the room, and as unrealistic as it is, the world would be a better place withouth the fervour that comes with religion

I should add that while I am an atheist, I see the Christian ethos, 10 commandments, etc as a decent guide to life, to being a decent person. Just don't believe in the big fella, heaven/hell, etc

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by AlexB

I should add that while I am an atheist, I see the Christian ethos, 10 commandments, etc as a decent guide to life, to being a decent person. Just don't believe in the big fella, heaven/hell, etc

Same here.

A side note: how fucked up was what God created that he had to hand down "Thou shalt not kill"? Seems like he could have just included that in the programming.

[RainMaker]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

Purchased from a CA gun shop though. At least what the news is saying. I'm guessing they were guns that were grandfathered in from the 1989 ban and were able to be owner transferred?

The rifles were modified to use a larger capacity magazine and I believe they tried to make it fire in fully automatic mode. Both are illegal in California. They likely purchased it in a legal form though.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by AlexB

THB it's an elephant in the room, and as unrealistic as it is, the world would be a better place withouth the fervour that comes with religion

I should add that while I am an atheist, I see the Christian ethos, 10 commandments, etc as a decent guide to life, to being a decent person. Just don't believe in the big fella, heaven/hell, etc

Don't ask me why I'm going here again, because by the time I'm finished asking the question I'll be a religious Bible thumper who thinks anyone who disagrees with him is going to hell. . . . but,

Would it? Would the world be a better place without religion? Wouldn't the people who use religion as a tool for money, power, fame, etc find something else if you took religion away from the equation? Religion certainly didn't drive Pol Pot or Stalin for example. I don't believe the priests who molested children would have chosen not to do it.

I think it's very similar to the gun debate. You have a very powerful belief system and those who are either mentally unstable or who have bad intentions will use what they have at their disposal to destruct.

I think the fervor would simply be placed in another bucket and it would be just about the same as it is now.

[CraigSca]

Ultimately religion is by its very nature people. And people, inherently, are fallible, greedy, and a great many of them are evil.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

This is where I'm at. As an American citizen, I want this fixed. Whether it be through more stringent screenings for people buying guns, closing loopholes in gun laws or spending money on mental health, I want this fixed.

As a gun owner (but not card carrying member), I agree with this. I don't want the right to bear/buy arms taken away but I am okay with stricter and more restrictive controls.

I don't think the answer is gun control solving the problem. i think its a combination of things but agree that more gun control is the first (or early) step.

Oh, I don't think it would have stopped this particular incident as somehow they would have gotten some sort of weapons. But in general, to address gun violence.

[TroyF]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

This is where I'm at. As an American citizen, I want this fixed. Whether it be through more stringent screenings for people buying guns, closing loopholes in gun laws or spending money on mental health, I want this fixed.

I don't want to see more fellow citizens laying in pools of their own blood because of continued inaction.

I wish my government was interested in getting this fixed.

This is something that virtually every person in the US can agree upon. The problem is with demonizing the enemy. I've been called out in this thread when I support gun laws, support mental health reform, and want to find MORE ways to tackle the problem than the "obvious" ones that may or may not work.

Part of that hatred comes from me saying "No, republicans don't have blood on their hands" Today I listened to the radio and heard the "blood on their hands" comments FIVE times. No, seriously, FIVE times.

Two times it was republicans saying Obama had it on his hands. 2 times it was a democrat saying it about the republicans and another time it was a person from outside the country saying it was all of our faults and we all had blood on our hands. When they weren't blaming each other for murdering US citizens, the two sides were busy yapping about if this was a "terror" investigation or "workplace violence" The Republican stations were all in on the terror and the democratic stations were falling all over themselves on the "hybrid" theory. Ugh. I finally gave up and listened to NFL talk.

How about: We all have the same goals, but we have different ideas to get there. If the voters truly want those laws, they will get passed. In fact, they would have gotten past in the last election cycle. Yet Republicans picked up more seats. it's been so long since we have had a president that reached out to both sides of the aisle to get support, we don't even know how to do it anymore.

One more thing that hasn't been discussed in this thread and very, very little on the mass media that I have listened to: there is another key trend in many of these Mass Murder items: An awful lot of them involve family members killing each other. Dad comes home and kills his wife, 2 children and shoots himself. Ex husband kills his former wife. Kids kill their parents and grandparents.

Some of those go in with the mental health thing, but others are just violent people who think it's ok to do it. There are plenty of those cases where the entire family is stabbed or tied up while the house is set ablaze. I haven't heard about a ton of those things going on in Europe, Australia or many other countries.

I still fully believe this is a culture thing. We want this to stop, we can (and should) go after some low hanging fruit. But we also had better start thinking outside the box.

[RainMaker]

I know the no-fly list gets brought up a lot recently but is there really an epidemic of people on it shooting others? And wouldn't it be really easy to just have someone else buy it for you who is not on the list? I mean if we're talking about terrorists I feel like this wouldn't hold them back much.

[AlexB]

Originally Posted by TroyF

Don't ask me why I'm going here again, because by the time I'm finished asking the question I'll be a religious Bible thumper who thinks anyone who disagrees with him is going to hell. . . . but,

Would it? Would the world be a better place without religion? Wouldn't the people who use religion as a tool for money, power, fame, etc find something else if you took religion away from the equation? Religion certainly didn't drive Pol Pot or Stalin for example. I don't believe the priests who molested children would have chosen not to do it.

I think it's very similar to the gun debate. You have a very powerful belief system and those who are either mentally unstable or who have bad intentions will use what they have at their disposal to destruct.

I think the fervor would simply be placed in another bucket and it would be just about the same as it is now.

Not Bible thumping at all, just posting a thought in the same way I did

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Same here.

A side note: how fucked up was what God created that he had to hand down "Thou shalt not kill"? Seems like he could have just included that in the programming.

Well, that's one thing we can agree on, murder isn't the work of God.

[Thomkal]

So all the Republicans say they want to do something with gun control. But can't even say yes to what sounds like reasonable restrictions:

GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns | MSNBC

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Well, that's one thing we can agree on, murder isn't the work of God.

Sure it is. He created a faulty product.

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So all the Republicans say they want to do something with gun control. But can't even say yes to what sounds like reasonable restrictions:

GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns | MSNBC

Terrorists are good for the gun business. It is as simple as that.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Sure it is. He created a faulty product.

If you believe, you know it's true. If you don't believe, you know it's true.

[flere-imsaho]

Originally Posted by molson

Isn't this like when someone says that gun control measures aren't guaranteed to help anything so why bother?

There you go again.

JPhillips pointed out that the President had put forth a solution and it was rebuffed. That's absolutely not the same thing as not trying. To be clear, the same thing as not trying would be if the President did not put forth a solution.

Which leads us to:

Originally Posted by molson

I'm not sure how many dems are really willing to compromise.

The President put forth a compromise solution in order to start negotiations/dialogue (sound familiar? it's the story of the entire Obama administration), only to be shut down (sound familiar? it's the story of the entire Obama administration).

On this issue and many others, Democrats are not the intractable ones. Having said that, I admire the tenacity with which you stick to your worldview.

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by BillJasper

Terrorists are good for the gun business. It is as simple as that.

Do you think the bill should've passed?

[Dutch]

Originally Posted by Thomkal

So all the Republicans say they want to do something with gun control. But can't even say yes to what sounds like reasonable restrictions:

GOP blocks bill to stop terrorists from buying guns | MSNBC

Who is on the terror watch list?

[RainMaker]

It would be ruled unconstitutional pretty quick.

[flere-imsaho]

Is that the same watch list that had Ted Kennedy on it at one point?

[BillJasper]

Originally Posted by Dutch

Do you think the bill should've passed?

Yes.

However, the bill would allow people to legally challenge a denial by the Justice Department to purchase a firearm, if they believe they were mistakenly placed on the terrorist watchlist.

So a mechanism exists for people to get their due process if denied a firearm.

Also on Thursday, the Senate failed to pass another bill that would have expanded background checks to gun show and online firearms sales. The measure would also prevents convicted felons and the mentally ill from having access to weapons.

What exactly is wrong with these people?