One thing that has become the "new normal," as Democrats and Obama like to call it, is Democrats pushing Constitutionally questionable proposals as "common sense gun control," losing, and then claiming Republicans want everybody to die at the hands of armed terrorists. The problem isn't that Republicans refused to pass your bills, the problem is that the bills are bad ones.
In the wake of the shootings, Democrats have advanced new gun control bills, many as amendments to other bills under consideration. The purpose of these bills is twofold. The first, and lesser, purpose is to be seen to be "doing something" about the problem of gun violence. They see this as a winning issue again, and want to capitalize on it. But they know the GOP won't pass most gun control proposals, so they go in expecting to lose. Which brings us to the major reason why they are bringing these bills up... to force the GOP to vote no, so that the Dems can lambast them on the campaign trail.
The first bill was written by Senator Dianne Feinstein, as well-known anti-gun nut who has, in the past, waved an assault weapon around WITH HER FINGER ON THE TRIGGER.
![]()
Her bill would have allowed the US Attorney General to block the sale of any gun or explosive to anybody on the terrorism watch list. The bill was defeated on a procedural vote, 45-54... as it should have been. Another bill, written by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), would have allowed the Attorney General to delay a gun purchase to anyone on the terrorism watch list for 72 hours, while they try to get a court to issue an order blocking the sale. This bill, too, was blocked.
The problem with both bills is that they focus on "known and suspected terrorists," i.e. the watch list. And the watch list is riddled with errors, as many, MANY people were placed on it by mistake, like the 8-year-old Mikey (Michael) Hicks. At some point, someone with that name got some murky official somewhere suspicious, so now this little kid is on the list. Apparently, the terror watch list is large and growing at a rate of almost half a million names a year. The Huffington Post published an article in 2014 showing that it's easy to get on the list. All you have to do is post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises "reasonable suspicion," have somebody drop your name as being a "potential terrorist threat," have somebody drop your name as being sorta, maybe terrorist-ish (even if you're determined in a court of law NOT to be associated with a terrorist group, this can still apply), or know somebody else who is on the list via these vague criteria. In 2013, 468,749 names were nominated to be added to the list, and only 1% of those names were rejected.
Anybody could be on this list. Even you. Or me. This makes the list unreliable, at best, and is therefore more likely to deny an innocent person their rights than it is to stop a real terrorist from buying a gun.
So, unbeknownst to you, you're on this list because someone you know is on the list and you got sucked in. Now you go to buy a gun, and what happens? With either bill, you are deprived of your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. The Feinstein bill does that proudly, with no apologies... if you're on the list, you can't buy a gun. Period. The Cornyn bill attempts to get around that by delaying the purchase and getting a court to buy off on it, but due process requirements cannot be met if the accused is not permitted to defend himself against the allegations, i.e. that he is a terrorist. And since due process requirements aren't met, then the measure would be unconstitutional.
Another bill, this one by Senators Manchin and Toomey (both D's), would have, among other things, required background checks for sales at gun shows and online. News flash, Senators, that is already required by law for all those who sell guns to make money. The "gun show loophole" that liberals love to prattle on about doesn't exist.
In any case, we're hearing the same old calls to "act now!" We must take immediate action, we're told, because (the cynical amongst us might suspect) the tactic of scaring people with images of more dead bodies doesn't work unless the newest set of victims that the left is hoping to exploit for their own political gain are still warm and bleeding. Any delay would harm their chances to pass a bill. The problem with that, apart from the moral qualms with exploiting victims for your own benefit, is that legislation passed in haste is bad legislation. Even if a Congress Critter agrees with the purpose of a bill, that PURPOSE doesn't become law, the TEXT does. The devil is in the details, and we must understand exactly what the text of the bill says before it is passed. Otherwise we get obscenities like the so-called stimulus bill (that was horribly abused and most of the money wasted) or Obamacare (which is currently in the early stages of a catastrophic failure). Haste makes waste, as the old adage goes, and we don't need any more of THAT.
So, is the GOP evil for blocking all these bills? No, absolutely not. The proposals being rushed through should be examined carefully, and those that won't work to reduce violence or that have constitutional problems should die in committee. The Dems are free to claim anything they like, but capitalizing on mass murders to pass your old wish-list of liberal gun control bills is despicable. Shame on you.
Dems, if you want my support for any bill intended to "reduce violent crime," then you must propose something that might actually succeed in that purpose. But as long as you trot out your old, worn out, gun control measures that won't work to reduce violent crime rates, then will I oppose your efforts. Fundamentally, you'll have to explain to ME how forcing ME, a non-terrorist and non-criminal who is unlikely to use my gun in anything except a defensive manner, to (pick one: undergo ANOTHER background check, store my guns unloaded in a safe with a trigger lock) will reduce violent crime. The same goes for how forcing me to purchase and load three 10-round magazines instead of one 30-round magazine makes the country safer. If applying the laws to ME won't work, then it likely won't work, because the vast majority of gun owners will never use their guns to commit a crime or a terrorist act.
Come back when you have something that might work. Until then, keep hawking your self-serving proposals and using dead people to sell them, and we'll see where that gets you.
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
![]()
In the wake of the shootings, Democrats have advanced new gun control bills, many as amendments to other bills under consideration. The purpose of these bills is twofold. The first, and lesser, purpose is to be seen to be "doing something" about the problem of gun violence. They see this as a winning issue again, and want to capitalize on it. But they know the GOP won't pass most gun control proposals, so they go in expecting to lose. Which brings us to the major reason why they are bringing these bills up... to force the GOP to vote no, so that the Dems can lambast them on the campaign trail.
The first bill was written by Senator Dianne Feinstein, as well-known anti-gun nut who has, in the past, waved an assault weapon around WITH HER FINGER ON THE TRIGGER.
Her bill would have allowed the US Attorney General to block the sale of any gun or explosive to anybody on the terrorism watch list. The bill was defeated on a procedural vote, 45-54... as it should have been. Another bill, written by Senator John Cornyn (R-Texas), would have allowed the Attorney General to delay a gun purchase to anyone on the terrorism watch list for 72 hours, while they try to get a court to issue an order blocking the sale. This bill, too, was blocked.
The problem with both bills is that they focus on "known and suspected terrorists," i.e. the watch list. And the watch list is riddled with errors, as many, MANY people were placed on it by mistake, like the 8-year-old Mikey (Michael) Hicks. At some point, someone with that name got some murky official somewhere suspicious, so now this little kid is on the list. Apparently, the terror watch list is large and growing at a rate of almost half a million names a year. The Huffington Post published an article in 2014 showing that it's easy to get on the list. All you have to do is post something on Facebook or Twitter that raises "reasonable suspicion," have somebody drop your name as being a "potential terrorist threat," have somebody drop your name as being sorta, maybe terrorist-ish (even if you're determined in a court of law NOT to be associated with a terrorist group, this can still apply), or know somebody else who is on the list via these vague criteria. In 2013, 468,749 names were nominated to be added to the list, and only 1% of those names were rejected.
Anybody could be on this list. Even you. Or me. This makes the list unreliable, at best, and is therefore more likely to deny an innocent person their rights than it is to stop a real terrorist from buying a gun.
So, unbeknownst to you, you're on this list because someone you know is on the list and you got sucked in. Now you go to buy a gun, and what happens? With either bill, you are deprived of your Constitutional right to keep and bear arms WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. The Feinstein bill does that proudly, with no apologies... if you're on the list, you can't buy a gun. Period. The Cornyn bill attempts to get around that by delaying the purchase and getting a court to buy off on it, but due process requirements cannot be met if the accused is not permitted to defend himself against the allegations, i.e. that he is a terrorist. And since due process requirements aren't met, then the measure would be unconstitutional.
Another bill, this one by Senators Manchin and Toomey (both D's), would have, among other things, required background checks for sales at gun shows and online. News flash, Senators, that is already required by law for all those who sell guns to make money. The "gun show loophole" that liberals love to prattle on about doesn't exist.
In any case, we're hearing the same old calls to "act now!" We must take immediate action, we're told, because (the cynical amongst us might suspect) the tactic of scaring people with images of more dead bodies doesn't work unless the newest set of victims that the left is hoping to exploit for their own political gain are still warm and bleeding. Any delay would harm their chances to pass a bill. The problem with that, apart from the moral qualms with exploiting victims for your own benefit, is that legislation passed in haste is bad legislation. Even if a Congress Critter agrees with the purpose of a bill, that PURPOSE doesn't become law, the TEXT does. The devil is in the details, and we must understand exactly what the text of the bill says before it is passed. Otherwise we get obscenities like the so-called stimulus bill (that was horribly abused and most of the money wasted) or Obamacare (which is currently in the early stages of a catastrophic failure). Haste makes waste, as the old adage goes, and we don't need any more of THAT.
So, is the GOP evil for blocking all these bills? No, absolutely not. The proposals being rushed through should be examined carefully, and those that won't work to reduce violence or that have constitutional problems should die in committee. The Dems are free to claim anything they like, but capitalizing on mass murders to pass your old wish-list of liberal gun control bills is despicable. Shame on you.
Dems, if you want my support for any bill intended to "reduce violent crime," then you must propose something that might actually succeed in that purpose. But as long as you trot out your old, worn out, gun control measures that won't work to reduce violent crime rates, then will I oppose your efforts. Fundamentally, you'll have to explain to ME how forcing ME, a non-terrorist and non-criminal who is unlikely to use my gun in anything except a defensive manner, to (pick one: undergo ANOTHER background check, store my guns unloaded in a safe with a trigger lock) will reduce violent crime. The same goes for how forcing me to purchase and load three 10-round magazines instead of one 30-round magazine makes the country safer. If applying the laws to ME won't work, then it likely won't work, because the vast majority of gun owners will never use their guns to commit a crime or a terrorist act.
Come back when you have something that might work. Until then, keep hawking your self-serving proposals and using dead people to sell them, and we'll see where that gets you.