Bipartisan gun control amendment fails in the Senate

[Mr. Morden]

This would not have prevented Newton.

Gun control wouldn't have stopped him.  We would have needed fruit control to stop the apple from falling on his head.

[Sopranos Republican]

This would not have prevented Newton.

We know, America needs a full ban.

Right, because all know felons with connections, follow weapon bans.

Some would still find guns, just like some find or make bombs, but do you seriously believe there wouldn't be more violence through bombs if you sold them in stores?

No, and bombs are not what is being debated. Background checks are something I support, but seriously, a 10 round ammo limit, which was what was being debated, is completely restrictive, because while the saps like me who actually obey the law will follow it, I may find myself with 10 rounds fighting for my life against someone who doesn't obey the law and has 25 rounds.

[Knives]

This would not have prevented Newton.

We know, America needs a full ban.

Right, because all know felons with connections, follow weapon bans.

Of course but it eliminates the risk of someone having a sh**t day and massacring countless peoples or shooting up there families. Just look at Australia it's really only gangs who have guns, we rarely hear of people going on shooting sprees or shooting up their own families...

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Coburn's compromise sounds fine, assuming the concealed carry permit is immediately revoked upon committing a crime.  Does it stand a chance?

Hopefully.  It's that way here in PA......you have a ccw and you're on your way.  Commit a crime, lose it.

[Franzl]

The whole American perception that one should be armed to "fight back" is very odd. You'd think people would be more interested in actually solving the gun problem.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Forgive me for being an insensitive douche here.  I support the amendment that failed by the way.  But why does Obama need to glue himself to the Newtown parents?  The amendment would not have prevented a thing there, and yes what occurred was horrific, but flying them around on Air Force One and trotting them out to the Rose Garden with tears in their eyes isn't beneficial, in fact it's just adding to their pain.  It's a really bad idea in my view. 

Ok fire away. 

[Franzl]

Forgive me for being an insensitive douche here.  I support the amendment that failed by the way.  But why does Obama need to glue himself to the Newtown parents?  The amendment would not have prevented a thing there, and yes what occurred was horrific, but flying them around on Air Force One and trotting them out to the Rose Garden with tears in their eyes isn't beneficial, in fact it's just adding to their pain.  It's a really bad idea in my view. 

Ok fire away. 

I would agree with you, but abusing emotions is probably the only way to get Americans to care.

[Sopranos Republican]

This would not have prevented Newton.

We know, America needs a full ban.

Right, because all know felons with connections, follow weapon bans.

Of course but it eliminates the risk of someone having a sh**t day and massacring countless peoples or shooting up there families. Just look at Australia it's really only gangs who have guns, we rarely hear of people going on shooting sprees or shooting up their own families...

Here in Vermont we have all the guns we would ever need. And we have some of the lowest crime rates in the U.S.A. There are a lot of violent people in this world, and if no one has guns, then they find other ways to kill. And do you guys think that some random woman who is going to be raped and killed by some 6'5" man, is going to win a knife struggle, where it's all about muscle? At least with guns, everyone has a fair shot if they learn to use the thing. 

[tik 🪀✨]

This would not have prevented Newton.

We know, America needs a full ban.

Right, because all know felons with connections, follow weapon bans.

Some would still find guns, just like some find or make bombs, but do you seriously believe there wouldn't be more violence through bombs if you sold them in stores?

No, and bombs are not what is being debated. Background checks are something I support, but seriously, a 10 round ammo limit, which was what was being debated, is completely restrictive, because while the saps like me who actually obey the law will follow it, I may find myself with 10 rounds fighting for my life against someone who doesn't obey the law and has 25 rounds.

"I need to be able to protect myself with something at least as badass as my opponent!"

"Yes! And we need weapons in case we need to overthrow the government!"

I know you didn't say both of these things, but these arguments combined is just so, so adorable. God bless this nation of paranoid violence fetishists.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

Forgive me for being an insensitive douche here.  I support the amendment that failed by the way.  But why does Obama need to glue himself to the Newtown parents?  The amendment would not have prevented a thing there, and yes what occurred was horrific, but flying them around on Air Force One and trotting them out to the Rose Garden with tears in their eyes isn't beneficial, in fact it's just adding to their pain.  It's a really bad idea in my view. 

Ok fire away. 

I would agree with you, but abusing emotions is probably the only way to get Americans to care.

Yeah but Obama noted himself 90% of americans favored this so there is no need.....except for show. 

[Sbane]

I think one thing everyone is missing is that in these shooting sprees, usually the suspect buys the weapons legally, or steals them from a friend or family member who got them legally. They do not buy it from the black market, and probably wouldn't even know how to go about it. Magazine restrictions would actually work well in their case. Of course gang bangers might be able to get larger magazines, but gang bangers shoot each other, not law abiding civilians.

Also, this thought that one would need to defend oneself in an OK corral style shootout is a bizarre. These are paranoid thoughts, which apparently a majority of Americans share. It's pretty scary.

[Knives]

This would not have prevented Newton.

We know, America needs a full ban.

Right, because all know felons with connections, follow weapon bans.

Of course but it eliminates the risk of someone having a sh**t day and massacring countless peoples or shooting up there families. Just look at Australia it's really only gangs who have guns, we rarely hear of people going on shooting sprees or shooting up their own families...

Here in Vermont we have all the guns we would ever need. And we have some of the lowest crime rates in the U.S.A. There are a lot of violent people in this world, and if no one has guns, then they find other ways to kill. And do you guys think that some random woman who is going to be raped and killed by some 6'5" man, is going to win a knife struggle, where it's all about muscle? At least with guns, everyone has a fair shot if they learn to use the thing. 

But how many Americans are actually well trained at using their weapon? The statistics speak for themselves states with strong restrictions have less gun violence. Of course we want to see women protect but it shouldn't be up to the women to protect herself, there is a police force for a reason.

[Knives]

Also if you refuse to impose limits and restrictions background checks are a must as are mental health examinations and doctors approval that you're sane to own a gun.

[DrScholl]

This would not have prevented Newton.

It's not Newton, it's Newtown.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

This would not have prevented Newton.

How can you be so sure? Plus, Newtown wasn't the only tragedy we've had related to gun violence in recent years. What really disturbs me about the right/anyone who opposed this is that they're making it seem like this is some radical leftist attack on guns and that GUVMINT GON COME AND TAKE OUR GUNZ is a legitimate argument against this. It's not.

The two Senators that proposed the Amendment both have A ratings from the NRA. Stop spitting these talking points like "well this is the begin of the descent into an all-out ban on guns." Stop with your paranoia and your fear. It is only a deterrent in the way of progress.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

As one who supports background checks I still would have to oppose this legislation. I believe the state governments are better suited to handle this responsibility. Legislation like this nationally isn't likely to prevent more Columbines, Virginia Techs etc. The root of the problems with violence of this nature go deeper than what many are willing to admit and many on this site would criticize the reason(s) for my assessment. Our problems are of a moral and spiritual nature.When you have a divorce rate over 50%, when you have kids(like myself) who never knew what it was like to have an intact it causes repercussions they don't realize.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

As one who supports background checks I still would have to oppose this legislation. I believe the state governments are better suited to handle this responsibility. Legislation like this nationally isn't likely to prevent more Columbines, Virginia Techs etc. The root of the problems with violence of this nature go deeper than what many are willing to admit and many on this site would criticize the reason(s) for my assessment. Our problems are of a moral and spiritual nature.When you have a divorce rate over 50%, when you have kids(like myself) who never knew what it was like to have an intact it causes repercussions they don't realize.

The way you think it works is not the way it works in real life.

[Torie]

Forgive me for being an insensitive douche here.  I support the amendment that failed by the way.  But why does Obama need to glue himself to the Newtown parents?  The amendment would not have prevented a thing there, and yes what occurred was horrific, but flying them around on Air Force One and trotting them out to the Rose Garden with tears in their eyes isn't beneficial, in fact it's just adding to their pain.  It's a really bad idea in my view. 

Ok fire away. 

Hey you are perhaps as close to a "gun nut" as we have on this Forum, Grumps, so perhaps you can enlighten me as to what the arguments are against the Bill that are floating out there.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's a problem when a bill is voted down with a 54-46 majority. That's not how Democracy should work.

America is not a democracy.

At least not a particularly good one, yeah.

It was never designed to be.

That's not really an argument for the merits of the system.

Democracy really isn't desirable; you then have the problem of minorities getting ignored or discriminated against even more than they already do.

[Franzl]

It's a problem when a bill is voted down with a 54-46 majority. That's not how Democracy should work.

America is not a democracy.

At least not a particularly good one, yeah.

It was never designed to be.

That's not really an argument for the merits of the system.

Democracy really isn't desirable; you then have the problem of minorities getting ignored or discriminated against even more than they already do.

Not with proper constitutional protections. There's no reason minority protection should become a tyranny of the minority, as is basically true in the US.

[Okay, maybe Mike Johnson is a competent parliamentarian.]

Forgive me for being an insensitive douche here.  I support the amendment that failed by the way.  But why does Obama need to glue himself to the Newtown parents?  The amendment would not have prevented a thing there, and yes what occurred was horrific, but flying them around on Air Force One and trotting them out to the Rose Garden with tears in their eyes isn't beneficial, in fact it's just adding to their pain.  It's a really bad idea in my view.  

Ok fire away.  

I would agree with you, but abusing emotions is probably the only way to get Americans to care.

This.

It's a problem when a bill is voted down with a 54-46 majority. That's not how Democracy should work.

America is not a democracy.

At least not a particularly good one, yeah.

It was never designed to be.

That's not really an argument for the merits of the system.

Democracy really isn't desirable; you then have the problem of minorities getting ignored or discriminated against even more than they already do.

The argument is that what amounts to sclerosis is even less desirable.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

It's a problem when a bill is voted down with a 54-46 majority. That's not how Democracy should work.

America is not a democracy.

At least not a particularly good one, yeah.

It was never designed to be.

That's not really an argument for the merits of the system.

Democracy really isn't desirable; you then have the problem of minorities getting ignored or discriminated against even more than they already do.

Not with proper constitutional protections. There's no reason minority protection should become a tyranny of the minority, as is basically true in the US.

Well then if there are "constitutional protections", again, it's not really a democracy.

[Franzl]

To an extent, Inks, it is a restriction of democracy, but allowing a majority government unlimited legislative abilities within that frame is not the same as requiring a supermajority vote for everything in the name of "minority protection".

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Rand Paul: Newtown families being used as props

I guess that does it for the liberal love affair with Rand Paul.

[All Along The Watchtower]

It's a problem when a bill is voted down with a 54-46 majority. That's not how Democracy should work.

America is not a democracy.

At least not a particularly good one, yeah.

It was never designed to be.

That's the point a lot of people point to when the Congress does something pretty bloody awful/stupid... as this is.

But yes, it's a Representative Republic...

Representative of whom, one has to ask?