• #9
    The background check bill isn't even written yet! How can they know what they are debating?
  • #15
    @GvtMule seems with most things democrat you have to vote it before reading it. like all things done behind closed doors it is only going to be corrupt.
  • R Load more replies

  • #8
    Exactly. Their names will come out and then they will lose their re-election.

    I'm guessing the two dems didn't tow the party line because they are probably up for re-election against republicans and afraid they will lose their feudal chief status.
  • #61
    Seeing that they are still allowing a possible amendment to ban sports rifles any enthusiasm or willingness to compromise just went out the door.
  • #18
    Alcohol has only killed millions of people from drunk driving, alcoholism, spousal abuse, etc. Nah, lets talk about guns that kill a fraction of the people killed by other means.

    In 2011 here are some numbers of how people died.

    Assault rifles - 323
    Hammers - 496
    Knives - 650
    Drunk drivers - 12,000

    Yeh, the Democrats really care about how people are dying... NOT!
    Liberals have one goal, taking our guns and it has nothing to do with our safety.

    Do you Gun control fanatics care about how many children die each year from drowning? Why are you not making laws to prohibit swimming in rivers, lakes, ponds, oceans, or how about banning swimming pools deeper than two feet. That would save many lives right? Why not just ban any activity or any weapon that is capable of killing people.
  • #22
    We're talking very specifically about ways to stop random massacres from happening. As for the other issues? Actually people do care about them. For instance, why do you think most places have building regulations that require pools be properly fenced, for instance?

    We're never going to have a perfect world but gun "enthusiasts" have got to stop being so egocentric. It's about public safety and it's reasonable for people to discuss and address that.
  • #28
    @Zazziness Hogwash!!!!!!!!!! The issues that should be at the top of the list are those who take the most lives!!!!!! Only political extremists would single out the gun that has only killed less than 400 people compared to issues where thousands die. Hogwash to your pure bias. Do you drink? Do you want big Government banning alcohol to save lives? That would save many thousand more lives than assault rifles. Do you have a clue?
  • #43
    @Zazziness something to consider. With alcohol we address the people that actually abuse alcohol. Not responsible drinkers. With guns we focus on responsible gun owners and not the criminals. Why?
  • #44
    @GvtMule That's a good question. Now turn it around and ask yourself why people are focused on stopping the massacres *before* they happen, if at all possible, and limiting their damage if they do happen. Ask yourself if people are unreasonable because they are sick and tired of classrooms being a slaughterhouse. You may disagree with some proposed solutions but unless you understand what it is people are trying to prevent and why it is important to them, you're not talking about the real issue.
  • #47
    @Zazziness. Then why the reluctance to take a real step to protect the children? Armed guards are the most reliable way. Nobody is saying background checks will prevent this.
  • R Load more replies

  • #12
    Even if it passes through the senate it won't pass through the house. The bill would provide additional revenue for social security but the money has to come from somewhere. Where will this money come from. EXTRA TAXES on gun owners simply because they own guns
  • #10
    The senate needs to debate this issue and it is televised. We can watch the debates and make our own decisions regarding gun control. Good debate is healthy, when this moves to the floor for a vote, I will be watching closely and my votes will be heard in the next election. This is good for the country, we actually will know where every senator stands on gun control.
  • #7
    I don't see this as a BIG VICTORY, the Senate ran according to the rules, the democraps garnered sufficient votes to avoid a filibuster... SO? The stern "WARNING" from the prez is now nothing but an attempt to intimidate the Senate.

    This doesn't assure that the bill will pass, only that it will be debated. If the bill does manage to go through the Senate, it still has to pass through the House and then be signed by da prez.

    Even then it will face SCOTUS scrutiny.

    But I'm SURE our corps of Anti Bill of Rights Zealots will be celebrating as if the Detroit Lions won the Super Bowl... I'm glad to see the debate going on, fiction is one of my favorite forms of entertainment and the Anti Bill of Rights cast of characters ALWAYS put on an entertaining show.... not much substance but tons of rhetoric delivered with zeal and commitment.
  • #4
    Well nice to know our Senator voted against it being a democrat and all. Also Alaska intials are AK =]. Anyway it bad news none the less where are the bills of taking mental health precautions? Forgot what bill Senator Begich "told" me he was sponsoring but it was a bill that had to do with mental health services, no talks at all about that. Probably check website later so where it at in Congress. Probably just dead legislation no one talked about.
  • #95
    I'd like ALL involved in the debate to take an oath that they be prosecuted for Perjury, Conspiracy, and Fraud if they submit any false information. I'd also like for debates to be based on empirical findings and properly vetted research and statistics and not on teary-eyed testimony. Laws should be based on facts, not on emotion, and only after they've been fully read, and their implications fully considered.
  • #92
    From the survey of 15,995 "verified police professionals"
    Asked if mental health background checks by NICS would reduce mass shootings:
    44.8% No. 31.3% Yes. 23.9% Unsure (Question No. 10 on the survey)

    Asked about support a national gun registry to track LEGAL gun sales.
    70.0% No. 23.0% Yes. 7.1% Unsure (Question No. 11 on the survey)

    Asked if outlawing magazines that hold more than 10 rounds would reduce violent crime
    95.7% No. 2.7% Yes 1.6% Unsure (Question No. 6 on the survey)

    Asked if a law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms would reduce violent crime 79.7% No 11.5% Yes 8.8% Unsure (Question No. 7 on the survey)

    Asked if banning manufacture and sales of "assault weapons" would reduce violent crime 71.0% No 20.5% Negative (would increase violent crime) for a total of 91.5%
    6% Moderate effect on reducing violent crime 1.6% significant effect on reducing violent crime 0.9% Unsure (Question No. 5 on the survey)
  • #93
    Forgot the most important one! "Do you support arming teachers and/or school administrators who volunteer to carry...." a combined 81.3% answered Yes, if they are vetted, trained, and qualified annually (76.6%) Yes, if they pass a one-time police-level proficiency check (4.7%). 15.8% Answered No, only sworn school resource officers should be armed. 1.5% Answered No, our schools should be considered 'gun free zones' and 1.3% answered Unsure/No.(Question No. 23 on the survey).
  • #91
    Gun prohibition will work as well as drug prohibition (not at all.)
    Americans, you have something to learn from the cartels.
  • #89
    Now America will know, by their votes, who are the Anti-Americans who hate the Bill of Rights.

    Vote on it. Then come election day Americans can vote out the anti-gunners, just like in 1994!
  • #87
    Yes the debate is needed when the senate election is so important.It will say alot about those that support restrictions and those more concerned with re-election.Voters need to see that and vote accordingly.
  • #83
    "A man alleged to have shot and killed a West Virginia sheriff on April 3 should have been barred from owning a gun, but got his hands on a weapon after his background check was delayed by 'kinks in the chain'..."

    Yep, no need for background checks.
  • #86
    There is no point in pushing for background checks, unless they work. And so far, the federal government has not been committed to making them work.

    Why should we believe that the federal government will be committed to make an even larger background check system, which has not addressed the flaws in the original, work?

    One thing I think the NRA could do better is explain why the current background system doesn't work.

    Gun owners like me would be more supportive of an expanded background check system if we could be reassured that something is actually being done to fix the problems.
  • #90
    @AndrewMC One thing that I think that the NRA should explain is why they have been working to thwart the placement of a new director for the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives while simultaneously calling for more enforcement of existing gun laws.
  • #75
    Boy this has been a life saver year for Congress hasn't it? The Election took up most the time. Then Sandy Storm came and they got to put BILLIONS in pork spending attached to that bill and float it right by the public. Then they 'saved us from themselves" twice by passing short term spending bills "to keep the govt afloat" (translate that to keep paying THEM) and of course too the opportunity to load up those "saves" with pork barrel spending.

    While "all" this was going on, we had the right wing yelling "LOOK!" When someone said "what?" the right wing would say "That's disgusting, two gay guys holding hands".

    And the left wing got all worked up about some gay people in San Francisco preferring that other gay people in the Castro District to not waltz around the streets totally naked (or lose 50 lbs if they were going to insist on it) and started Yelling " LOOK A BIGOT DOESN'T WANT GAYS NAKED ON THE STREET"

    All this died down just in time for "the sequester" which cut ADDITIONAL spending from the coming year over the record spending of last year and all of sudden kids aren't eating, senior are eating dog food, soldiers are getting told forget it for their wounds. Of course Congress and the President are not hurting much. They still fly all over with impunity. And still cash 5,000 hot checks at the Senate Bank without being held accountable.

    The Gay rights was back at the Supreme Court and we all got distracted by that which is a good thing for Politicans except there is no way (yet) to attack pork spending to Supreme Court hearings. So just in time to save the D.C. Politicians from actually doing anything, we have the "gun debate". These jackasses can't do more than one thing at a time and we've been stalled for three months now on a yes or no on any aspect of gun reform. That's a quarter of a year.
    And now they're going to 'take their time" winding up on this. What the hell people? Seriously. What the hell?

    When is it going to be time to re-elect NOBODY? You could do a better job.
  • R Load more comments...