US Congress stalemated on guns despite shooting, filibuster

[webfact]

Congress stalemated on guns despite shooting, filibuster
By ERICA WERNER

WASHINGTON (AP) — The slaughter in Florida and an attention-grabbing filibuster in the Senate did little to break the election-year stalemate in Congress over guns Thursday, with both sides unwilling to budge and Republicans standing firm against any new legislation opposed by the National Rifle Association.

Democrats renewed their call to action after Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., held the floor along with colleagues in a nearly 15-hour filibuster that lasted into the early hours Thursday.

"We can't just wait, we have to make something happen," said Sen. Cory Booker, D-N.J., at an emotional news conference where Democrats joined family members of people killed in recent mass shootings. "These are people bound by brutality, and their numbers are growing."

But Republicans were coolly dismissive of Democrats' demands. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., derided Murphy's filibuster as a "campaign talk-a-thon" that did nothing but delay potential votes.

Noting that a few Democrats had skipped a classified briefing on the Florida nightclub shooting to participate in the filibuster, McConnell chided: "It's hard to think of a clearer contrast for serious work for solutions on the one hand, and endless partisan campaigning on the other."

Democrats spoke of the need for new gun legislation. Republicans cited the threat posed by the Islamic State group, to which Orlando gunman Omar Mateen swore allegiance while killing 49 people in a gay nightclub early Sunday. But the two sides mostly talked past each other, and efforts to forge consensus quickly sputtered out. As a result, the Senate faced the prospect of taking dueling votes beginning Monday on Democratic and GOP bills, all of which looked destined to fail.

The back-and-forth came as President Barack Obama visited the victims' families in Orlando, and called on lawmakers to act.

"Those who defend the easy accessibility of assault weapons should meet these families and explain why that makes sense," Obama said.

Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton joined Senate Democrats' call for action. Presumptive GOP presidential nominee Donald Trump weighed in with a tweet suggesting he would meet with the NRA and support efforts to keep guns out of the hands of terrorists. Exactly what he would support was unclear.

It's the same exercise the Senate has engaged in time and again after mass shootings. Even after the Newtown, Connecticut, shootings of schoolchildren, the Senate could not pass a bipartisan background checks bill. Moderate Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine criticized the state of affairs as "Groundhog Day."

After the shooting in San Bernardino, California, last year, the effort was downgraded to trying to pass a bill by Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., to keep people on a government terrorism watch list or other suspected terrorists from buying guns, but that too failed.

This time, Feinstein is seeking a revote on her bill. Republicans will offer an alternative by Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, that would allow the government to delay a gun sale to a suspected terrorist for 72 hours, but require prosecutors to go to court to show probable cause to block the sale permanently.

Votes were also expected on dueling background check bills. All were expected to fail.

Collins said she was working with other Republicans, as well as talking to Democrats, on a bill that would prevent people on the no-fly list — a smaller universe than targeted by Democrats — from getting guns. But her bill had not been blessed by GOP leaders and it was unclear if it would get a vote.

Polls show large numbers of Americans agree with the need for at least some limited gun measures such as background checks. But Democrats have been unable to turn the tide of public opinion to their purpose because the NRA is able to mobilize and energize voters who will threaten to vote lawmakers out on the gun issue alone.

This past week, the NRA made robo-calls in Pennsylvania urging people to contact their senators and "express their strong opposition to any new gun control laws."

In the GOP-controlled House, Republicans had no plans to act on guns and Democrats were unable to force any action, given House rules less favorable to the minority party than in the Senate. Instead the House passed a bundle of previously approved counterterrorism bills and sent them to the Senate again.

"The question is, is going after the Second Amendment how you stop terrorism? No. That's not how you stop terrorism," said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

___

Associated Press writer Mary Clare Jalonick contributed to this report.

-- (c) Associated Press 2016-06-17

[OMGImInPattaya]

The Second Amendment is not up for debate!

[Pinot]

The Second Amendment is not up for debate!

The one where we can have a militia and muckets? That one? Or the one that gives the wingnuts automatic assault weapons?

Let's see how much being owned by the NRA is going to help Republicans this time around.

[malathione]

The Second Amendment is not up for debate!

The Second Amendment is not being debated. The types of weapons that one is permitted to purchase should be. Precedent exists: Class III weapons, for instance, or sawed of shotguns.

Where debate is concerned, let's wait until a reconstituted Supreme Court revisits United States v. Miller and D.C. v. Heller.

[Berkshire]

The Second Amendment is not up for debate!

The one where we can have a militia and muckets? That one? Or the one that gives the wingnuts automatic assault weapons?

Let's see how much being owned by the NRA is going to help Republicans this time around.

The Republican Party has long been owned by the NRA--that's not even in dispute. The question is how low can the GOP go to kiss-up to these gun-crazy nutbags. The answer is pretty darn low.

[OMGImInPattaya]

The Second Amendment is not up for debate!

The one where we can have a militia and muckets? That one? Or the one that gives the wingnuts automatic assault weapons?

Let's see how much being owned by the NRA is going to help Republicans this time around.

The Republican Party has long been owned by the NRA--that's not even in dispute. The question is how low can the GOP go to kiss-up to these gun-crazy nutbags. The answer is pretty darn low.

If the San Bernadino office, Oregon College, Charleston church, Chattanoga, Fort Hood Army Base (twice), Aurora Colorado theatre, Washington Navy Yard, Sandy Hook Elementary School, Columbine High School, and Pulse niteclub all hadn't been a "gun free zones" by law, hundreds of people might be alive today (or at least had a chance to defend themselves).

The problem is laws that restrict people from protecting themselves with legal firearms, if they choose to, and the proliferation of gun free zones which attract mentally unbalanced people like bears to honey.

[Berkshire]

The Second Amendment is not up for debate!

The one where we can have a militia and muckets? That one? Or the one that gives the wingnuts automatic assault weapons?

Let's see how much being owned by the NRA is going to help Republicans this time around.

The Republican Party has long been owned by the NRA--that's not even in dispute. The question is how low can the GOP go to kiss-up to these gun-crazy nutbags. The answer is pretty darn low.

If Pulse hadn't been a "gun free zone" by law, 49 people might be alive (or at least had a chance to defend themselves).

Cmon. There were discussions about this and it was suggested that more than 49 people would have died if more were armed. If you can imagine the chaotic scene, in semi-darkness, as gunfire lit up from all directions, you wouldn't know who was the bad guy in such a scenario.

[NumbNut]

The one where we can have a militia and muckets? That one? Or the one that gives the wingnuts automatic assault weapons?

Let's see how much being owned by the NRA is going to help Republicans this time around.

The Republican Party has long been owned by the NRA--that's not even in dispute. The question is how low can the GOP go to kiss-up to these gun-crazy nutbags. The answer is pretty darn low.

If Pulse hadn't been a "gun free zone" by law, 49 people might be alive (or at least had a chance to defend themselves).

Cmon. There were discussions about this and it was suggested that more than 49 people would have died if more were armed. If you can imagine the chaotic scene, in semi-darkness, as gunfire lit up from all directions, you wouldn't know who was the bad guy in such a scenario.

Exactly. And not even mentioning the alcohol/party drugs angle. Tooled-up folks packing heat on a dance floor with mind altering legal and illegal drugs flowing through their systems is a recipe for disaster. If you're enjoying yourself and you've partaken of legal and/or illegal substances your senses are impaired. END OF!

Look how many fistfights start in pubs and nightclubs because blokes think other blokes are merely looking at their girls! And still some Einsteins on this forum want to add firearms to the equation. Insanity!

[OMGImInPattaya]

The Republican Party has long been owned by the NRA--that's not even in dispute. The question is how low can the GOP go to kiss-up to these gun-crazy nutbags. The answer is pretty darn low.

If Pulse hadn't been a "gun free zone" by law, 49 people might be alive (or at least had a chance to defend themselves).

Cmon. There were discussions about this and it was suggested that more than 49 people would have died if more were armed. If you can imagine the chaotic scene, in semi-darkness, as gunfire lit up from all directions, you wouldn't know who was the bad guy in such a scenario.

Or maybe only 1...I'll trust my life to a Glock 9 rather than other people's suggestions.

[NumbNut]

The Republican Party has long been owned by the NRA--that's not even in dispute. The question is how low can the GOP go to kiss-up to these gun-crazy nutbags. The answer is pretty darn low.

If Pulse hadn't been a "gun free zone" by law, 49 people might be alive (or at least had a chance to defend themselves).

Cmon. There were discussions about this and it was suggested that more than 49 people would have died if more were armed. If you can imagine the chaotic scene, in semi-darkness, as gunfire lit up from all directions, you wouldn't know who was the bad guy in such a scenario.

Or maybe only 1...I'll trust my life to a Glock 9 rather than other people's suggestions.

I take it from your handle you live in Pattaya.

Do you miss your Glock much?

[up2u2]

If 20 dead little children are not 20 good reasons to restrict gun ownership absolutely nothing will change.

Massacres are just part of American culture and always will be.

[NanLaew]

"The question is, is going after the Second Amendment how you stop terrorism? No. That's not how you stop terrorism," said House Speaker Paul Ryan, R-Wis.

More obfuscation. Playing to the "my cold dead hands" crowd again.

[NanLaew]

The Second Amendment is not up for debate!

...as long as good, decent, law abiding citizens stand aside and continue to let the NRA wipe its arse with it.

[NanLaew]

... The problem is laws that restrict people from protecting themselves with legal firearms, if they choose to, and the proliferation of gun free zones which attract mentally unbalanced people like bears to honey.

Do you mean, "...gun free zones which attract mentally unbalanced people with assault weapons like bears to honey."?

The legislation that is repeatedly being proposed and repeatedly put down by the pro gun "don't mess with the 2nd" lobby has absolutely nothing to do with stopping good people "protecting themselves with legal firearms". There's hardly a need for a rifle these days unless you like hunting.

Maybe the NRA should be renamed the National Assault Rifle Association.

[pattjock]

The problem is laws that restrict people from protecting themselves with legal firearms, if they choose to, and the proliferation of gun free zones which attract mentally unbalanced people like bears to honey.

I guess this explains why USA, with no gun control, have more than one mass shooting per day and countries with strict gun control rarely have any mass shootings at all

[Scott]

An off-topic post has been removed.

[OMGImInPattaya]

The problem is laws that restrict people from protecting themselves with legal firearms, if they choose to, and the proliferation of gun free zones which attract mentally unbalanced people like bears to honey.

I guess this explains why USA, with no gun control, have more than one mass shooting per day and countries with strict gun control rarely have any mass shootings at all

Unfortunately there is allot of "gun control" already in many places in the United States. That's why you have many law-abiding citizens who can't buy or carry their guns getting killed by mentally ill people and garden variety criminals, who rarely comply with gun control laws.

[pattjock]

The problem is laws that restrict people from protecting themselves with legal firearms, if they choose to, and the proliferation of gun free zones which attract mentally unbalanced people like bears to honey.

I guess this explains why USA, with no gun control, have more than one mass shooting per day and countries with strict gun control rarely have any mass shootings at all

Unfortunately there is allot of "gun control" already in many places in the United States. That's why you have many law-abiding citizens who can't buy or carry their guns getting killed by mentally ill people and garden variety criminals, who rarely comply with gun control laws.

"gun control" already in many places in the United States

With 141 mass shootings and 1063!!! accidental shootings so far this year you certainly need more people with guns in the US