The gun bill that was killed today was as lukewarm as can be imagined.

[Stinky The Clown]

It was "a step forward" but not much of one. In fact, to call it lukewarm is overstating how "good" it was. In fact, it was a watered down, insipid collection of near meaningless words. And yet, it was killed.

More than 90% of the country wanted this.

The Senate is peopled with COWARDS. Cowards who won't change the rules to be more truly democratic. Cowards who won't wipe their asses without permission from their owners.

FUCK THEM ALL.

[Laurian]

1. I would have taken it and hoped to move forward from there. These cretins

who voted against even this measure are beyond repulsive. Shame on them, and I'm including the coward Democrats who voted against it.

[Bay Boy]

3. What you just said is EXACTLY why the NRA

fights tooth and nail against any reasonable gun law. They know that there are people who want to 'take it and move forward from there'. I would have gladly taken the increased background checks with or without the nationwide reciprocity.

[derby378]

4. Precisely - and there would be no reason to drag Newtown into it

The bill could have prevented Virginia Tech and certain gray-market sales to the Zeta cartel in Mexico, for starters.

[Bay Boy]

6. Please explain...

...what law would have prevented the VT attack.

[derby378]

7. Didn't Cho buy his guns or at least the magazines online?

I thought the compromise background check bill would have applied to all online sales.

[Bay Boy]

12. The guns were purchased from a VA gun dealer

purchased one month apart. At that point it's immaterial where he bought the extra magazines from. The main problem was his mental health status not being reported to the NICS system.

[derby378]

15. This I definitely agree with

If we're going to have NICS, the watchmen have to be held accountable for screwups like this that cost innocent lives.

[Laurian]

11. Fuck the NRA.

[frazzled]

2. It's clear to me now ...

that the reason the gun lobby and Republicans opposed it was not because it wasn't entirely noncontroversial and sensible, and not because it wasn't supported by enough people. Not even because they didn't believe it was good. It was because they didn't want to cede that first INCH to gun safety/gun control efforts. They've drawn a bright line in the sand that says they will not allow any law whatsoever, even an itsy bitsy teeny weeny one to pass through. Just as the tax lobby has been successful in preventing Republicans from ceding even one INCH on tax revenues. Even for billionaires.

They know that one inch can lead to another ... and they're not going to let the first step happen at all, no matter how watered down, no matter how popular. I'm depressed.

[X_Digger]

8. They have reason..

A generation of politicians have made their strategy clear.. be it handguns or "assault weapons"..

"I think you have to do it a step at a time and I think that is what the NRA is most concerned about, is that it will happen one very small step at a time, so that by the time people have "woken up" to what's happened, it's gone farther than what they feel the consensus of American citizens would be. But it does have to go one step at a time and the beginning of the banning of semi-assault military weapons, that are military weapons, not "household" weapons, is the first step."

Stockton, California Mayor Barbara Fass


"We're going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily -- given the political realities -- going to be very modest. . . . We'll have to start working again to strengthen that law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again. Right now, though, we'd be satisfied not with half a loaf but with a slice. Our ultimate goal -- total control of handguns in the United States -- is going to take time. . . . The first problem is to slow down the number of handguns being produced and sold in this country. The second problem is to get handguns registered. The final problem is to make possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition-except for the military, police, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors-totally illegal."

Pete Shields, founder of Handgun Control, Inc. which is now the brady campaign

"We have to start with a ban on the manufacturing and import of handguns. From there we register the guns which are currently owned, and follow that with additional bans and acquisitions of handguns and rifles with no sporting purpose." Major Owens

"Waiting periods are only a step. Registration is only a step. The prohibition of private firearms is the goal." U.S. Attorney General Janet Reno

"We're bending the law as far as we can to ban an entirely new class of guns." Rahm Emmanuel

"Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe." Diane Feinstein

[frazzled]

13. No, they have blood on their hands

This was not controversial. This will not lead to anyone's guns being pried from their cold, dead hands. Stop stop stop with this nonsense, please.

[X_Digger]

14. I'm agreeing with your "that first INCH" statement..

.. though I'm giving you one explanation for where it comes from.

[BlueStreak]

5. It was not a step forward. We are far better off having this one go down.

Passing this POS bill would have done absolutely nothing to deal with any problem. The problem is the people who don't want to or cannot pass a background check. This bill did nothing to change that. If I don't want to use a BG check,under this bill, I simply have to make a private purchase. I could go to a gun show and agree to meet the seller outside to transact a private sale.

If this had passed, the NRA would have been in a position, after the next Sandy Hook to say "See, we told you gun control laws don't work. Now let's go ahead mandating ever many woman and child in America carry a loaded weapon."

And worse than that, this bill prohibited the creation of any national registration, which defeats the purpose of background checks.

So it is much better for this to go up in flames. That allows Obama and thinking Democrats to run hard on this issue in 2014. They cannot do that in every Congressional district, but are there 14 purple districts where that can make a difference? I bet there are.

I have been with others lately criticizing Obama's negotiating skills. And I stand by that. What he is doing on "the grand bargain" is abysmal. But that is a case where he really thinks he can get a deal.

It is clear from the tome and speed of Obama's reaction that he knew this bill would be defeated and that the strategy was all about creating a campaign issue. Now, are there any Democrats out there who can understand that 90% of Americans wanted this? This is your basic IQ test.

[DCBob]

9. 54 voted for it and a vast majority of them wanted a much stronger bill.

Your "F them all" should be directed at the Republican/conservatives.

[Cha]

10. The parents of Newtown and survivors of gun violence still

wanted it to pass.

[Llewlladdwr]

16. If 90% of the country truly supported this legislation then it would have passed.

Apparently the Senators have access to different information regarding what the public actually wants. But I guarantee you that if Senators were getting calls running 9 to 1 in support of this legislation it *would* have passed.

Politicians are by and large risk-averse. If you want this legislation to pass you're going to have convince your Senators that passing it isn't a career ender.