Wednesday, June 15, 2016

Just a reminder that there was a bill which would have prevented the mass shooting in Orlando, Florida and the Republicans blocked it.

Courtesy of MSNBC from back in December of last year: 

Senate Republicans rejected a bill that aims to stop suspected terrorists from legally buying guns, on Thursday. The vote came a day after at least 14 people were killed during the San Bernardino massacre in California by two suspects, including a woman said to have pledged allegiance to ISIS. 

Forty-five senators voted for the bill and 54 voted against it. One Democrat, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, and one Republican, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois, crossed party lines. 

The measure would have denied people on the terrorist watch list the ability to buy guns. 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), who sponsored the legislation, argued that former President George W. Bush initially proposed the legislation in 2007, and the Obama administration also supports it. 

“If you need proof that Congress is a hostage to the gun lobby, look no further than today’s vote blocking a bill to prevent known or suspected terrorists from buying guns and explosives,” she said. “Congress has been paralyzed by the gun lobby for years, while more and more Americans are killed in mass shootings. The carnage won’t stop until Congress finds the courage to stand up to the gun lobby and protect the nation.”

President Obama addressed this very situation just a few days ago:

So despite what Bernie Sanders may have wanted people to believe, there IS a difference between the Democrats and the Republicans in Washington.

Democrats want to keep Americans safe and the Republicans want to help the gun manufacturers make money.

Does not get any simpler than that.

(H/T to the Democratic Underground.)


  1. Anonymous4:10 AM

    Unfortunately, the Orlando shooter was no longer on the terrorist watch-list, so this bill would have had no effect on the outcome.

    Sorry, but this is a poor example for the agenda.

    1. Anonymous5:09 AM

      But had his licence application gone to the FBI beforehand for vetting it's POSSIBLE that their system would have flagged him as a result of the previous investigation and his having been on a watch list.

      The system won't be perfect but it will be 100% better than what exists now.

    2. Leland5:14 AM

      It certainly wouldn't have HURT!

      Besides, nobody ever said there is a panacea answer to this problem. I'll take almost ANYTHING that will nibble away at this problem. And if it can take a huge bite out of the problem, I'm for that as well.

    3. Anonymous5:23 AM

      Why have ANY laws is they are not 100% guaranteed to be effective? Sorry ass argument and you know it.

    4. Anonymous5:32 AM

      He had already been vetted and was granted a conceal carry license, so no additional application was required.

      The problem with this article is that it implies that the No-Fly watch-list, which he wasn't on, would have changed the outcome.

      Twisted news stories don't help the cause.

    5. Anonymous5:37 AM

      Many innocent people, including politicians and celebrities, have errantly been placed on the watch-list and then later removed.

      Once cleared, should these mistakes be left on the list forever?

    6. Leland6:17 AM

      @ 5:23

      There are laws against murder. Are THEY 100% effective? How about the laws about rape? Or bank robbery. Or....

      YOURS is the sorry assed argument!

    7. Leland6:24 AM

      @ 5:37. Of course not! But don't believe everything you hear about things being wiped clean if the accusations are proven false. Yes, things SHOULD be deleted. That isn't always the case.

      The problem I see with the lists you're talking about - federal anti-terrorist, etc. - is those given responsibility to add to or eliminate names a.) don't have what is needed financially to properly do their job and b.) the basic law written to "protect" us from terrorism and c.) overzealous "protectors".

      Most of the time we can't even get an answer as to whether or not we are even ON such lists. Is THAT right?

    8. Anonymous8:30 AM

      5:23 here Leland

      Calm down. I was making the same point as you.

    9. Anonymous9:02 AM

  2. Anonymous4:18 AM

    The Republican party has lost the support of -
    and now LGBT voters.

    Guns laws will be put into effect when the Democrats win "bigly" in November.

  3. Anonymous4:55 AM

    Trump rally last night in NC - a sane man tweets insanity -

    1. Anonymous6:08 AM


    2. Anonymous9:02 AM

      This same reporter is filing a story on this today. Reading the Storify is shocking. Anyone who could vote for Trump and support this sort of mob violence, racial intolerance and MENTAL ILLNESS in a leader...

  4. Anonymous5:36 AM

    Thank you Rachel Maddow also for bringing this to national attention on her show last night.

    1. Thank you for mentioning Rachel Maddow. She nails it like no other.

  5. Anonymous5:37 AM

    Why are weapons designed for massacres allowed to be bought and sold in this country?

    What is the hell is wrong with those twisted people in the Congress to allow these massacres?

    1. Leland6:24 AM

      Answer? Gun lobby.

  6. Anonymous5:39 AM

    One massacre after another, and all the Congress has to offer is a moment of silence, after each massacre. The twisted bastards all need to be impeached.

  7. Anonymous5:56 AM

    Here comes the argument that that terrorists would obtain weapons illegally. In that case, however, law enforcement could arrest them for mere possession which would increase the likelihood of preventing shooting massacres.

    What we really need, in addition to that recently defeated bill, is a law to criminalize the sale and possession of high-capacity magazines for everone except the military and for everywhere except a declared battlefield.

    Then we'd only have to worry about massacre by explosives (Timothy McVeigh, Tsarnaev).

  8. Anonymous6:00 AM

    Toxic Mass This>"Toxic masculinity aspires to toughness but is, in fact, an ideology of living in fear:"
    and this>

    1. Anonymous8:42 AM

      dEFIANT> Today, June 14, is Flag Day.
      “I want to honor those who have served our country,” he said, “but we can’t lower it for every event like this that occurs. I do feel for those who were gunned down, but I don’t think it warrants lowering the flag.”

  9. Anonymous6:03 AM

    F'ing Trump just tweeted this -

    "I will be meeting with the NRA, who has endorsed me, about not allowing people on the terrorist watch list, or the no fly list, to buy guns."

    So you mean to tell me the f'ing NRA is the f'ing government? Geez, maybe you can check with women next about Planned Parenthood you big orange lump of shit.

    1. Anonymous9:03 AM

      Yes, because the NRA controls the GOP.

  10. Anonymous6:21 AM

    No Republican would vote for arming terrorists. What else was in the bill? Which bill, specifically are we citing? Isn't that an important part of the story? This is the Left's favorite "gotcha" story about evil Republicans. It was rejected for other provisions in the bill, more pork for Feinstein and insolvent California. By the way. 259 people were shot and killed in Chicago last year. You wouldn't know that unless you are paying attention. It is a democrat city in a democratic state. Obama's home state! But that's why it isn't reported. Sorry, I don't blame the guns for the shooting. A man on a jihad shot those people. Let's start blaming cars for speeding tickets and crashes. It's never your fault. This is the problem with letting feelings run your life, feelings change, facts and logic do not. Learn to tell the difference.

    1. Leland6:57 AM

      Okay, 6:21, I can understand from where you are coming. But what was wrong with the bill a few years ago which was before Congress that tightened the background checks on people wanting to buy guns at places like gun shows?

      And there is ALWAYS someone who will find fault with almost any bill. Ever hear of compromise? Votes to eliminate portions of a bill?

      My point? NOTHING really gets done now on gun control as long as the repubes are in control. And no single law fixes all the difficulties connected with a problem. Laws get modified because of that.

    2. Leland7:24 AM

      @ 6:21 again

      A couple of other things. First and foremost, it is NOT true that the number of deaths due to handguns in Chicago goes unnoticed unless one was paying attention. Besides, while Chicago is an important point, it is not the point of the discussion here. It IS important, but from a generality point of view, related to the whole gun problem.

      And second, who the hell cares if it's Obama's home town? How is that connected? Are you trying to imply it's HIS fault? Or that he is deliberately trying NOT to do anything about it? He is FROM there. He doesn't control what happens there.

      As for the "But that's why it isn't reported...." crap, it's just that: Crap. It IS reported and if you doubt it, Google the question and see how many sites are displayed concerning reporting about that and from how many different sources.

      Try to fix the overall problem. Don't try to USE one place as an argument against a president you obviously dislike, or an issue you want to have ignored.

    3. Anonymous 6:21 AM wrote: Let's start blaming cars for speeding tickets and crashes.

      Are you too young to remember the 1960-4 Corvair?

      Your apparent attempt at sarcasm is fifty-plus years behind the times.
      Note: the book—and the campaign—were about more than just that one car. Much more.

  11. Anonymous7:01 AM

    And the greedy greedy gun manufacturers not only market their assault weapons as the best things since sliced bread, they also make them concealable with folding stocks. You cannot make this crap up.

  12. Anonymous7:25 AM

    The killer was not on a terror watch list when he bought the guns.

    1. Anonymous9:04 AM

      No, but he had spoken to the FBI twice.

  13. Anonymous7:51 AM

    “There is too much gun crime in the USA, and high powered weaponry is too easy to get,” O’Reilly said. “That’s the fact. So let’s deal with it. We all have the right to bear arms, but we don’t have the right to buy and maintain mortars — even if you feel threatened by gangsters or a New World Order. No bazookas, no Sherman tanks, no hand grenades. That’s because the Second Amendment clearly states the government has a right to regulate militias, made up of individuals. They have that right in the name of public safety.”

  14. Anonymous7:52 AM

    Rep. Steve King backs full gun rights for terror suspects: It’s ‘their right to defend themselves’

    1. Anonymous8:49 AM

      Defend themselves against whom? Our first responders?

  15. Anonymous11:21 AM

    The GOP: people who are more concerned whether a person is packing a penis under a dress than whether a terrorist is packing heat in public.

  16. Anita Winecooler5:03 PM

    We need to take Donald's "immigration plan" and apply it to guns. A temporary ban on all guns until we can figure out how to stop illegal gun sales, straw purchases, and lax background checks.
    I'm sure Donald and the NRA would be fine with that, it's just temporary and they both wouldn't know their asses from their mouths or a hole in the ground.


Don't feed the trolls!
It just goes directly to their thighs.