247

[Scuba]

[rhett o rick]

1. With the help of 5 Democrats. nm

[Wednesdays]

2. So, if there weren't any Republicans voting

The bill would have carried, 51-5.

If there weren't any Democrats voting, the bill would have...

[morningfog]

3. The point is that no one blocking it should get a pass.

[rhett o rick]

7. Your logic needs help. First of all you assume that all the Democrats

would vote in favor if there wasnt Republican to vote it down. That's not a valid assumption. Because 5 assured that the bill would be defeated, the remainder got to look good to their constituents and voted in favor. I am willing to bet that if 8 votes were needed the Dems would have coughed them up.

You assume that 51 Senators wanted the bill to pass. Bad assumption.

I dont know how many Democrats were influenced to favor the gun lobby but it only took 5.

The controlling votes were Democrats.

The Democrats have the power to control the Senate but they yield that power to the REpublicans so they can continue to look good to their constituents and still let the corporations rule.

I truly wish the Democrats were the good guys and REpublicans the bad guys. That makes life sooo easy. And some of us want the easy way. But the truth is that corporations own a good share of the Democratic Party as well as the complete Republican Party.

[enjoyingyourpeasyet]

6. !00% Correct which means the blocking enjoyed wide Bipartisan support!

President Obama finally got the Bipartisanship he has been wanting since day 1.

Where are the cheers for the big bipartisan win for the POTUS?

[rhett o rick]

8. I find that many cases like this there seem to be

just enough Democrats to scuttle the bill leaving the rest to look good to their constituents. The Democrats could control the Senate but seem to be happy letting the Repubs have control while they tell their constituents that they are helpless (hapless).

[treestar]

4. The legal issue with this is

being on the terrorist watch list may not mean a person has been convicted of anything.

[Scuba]

5. Also true of the mentally ill. What's your point?

[treestar]

9. that the terrorist watch list is not a list of people who can't buy guns

nor should it be, so long as everyone else can.

There is no list of the mentally ill to begin with.

In terms of reform, making the mentally ill ineligible makes more sense than making those on the terrorist watch list ineligible. Though it would have to be a court proceeding to make it fair. Those do exist. The mentally ill should have guardians appointed anyway.

[Scuba]

10. I don't understand what you're advocating ...

Is your position that someone on the FBI's terrorist watch list be allowed to purchase guns? Or that they should have a court hearing to determine if their gun rights should be revoked? Or what?

I agree that the mentally ill need much more help than they currently get.

I don't agree that "making the mentally ill ineligible makes more sense than making those on the terrorist watch list ineligible." Few mentally ill people are dangerous. By definition, someone on the terrorist watch list is considered dangerous.

[treestar]

11. I was merely pointing out something about the graphic, I think.

In reality, I think we should ban guns in a similar way as they did in Australia. The stats there seem to back it up.

The mentally ill can be dangerous, but it would have to be a matter of who. Obviously they are not all dangerous, and there would have to be a line drawn somewhere, with the knowledge that there cannot be 100% perfection.

Those on the terrorist watch list might have some right to challenge their being on it, and I suppose that would be fair. Mistakes happen there, too, and some of those individuals might not be dangerous. As of now, I don't know that they can argue that point.