Both gun bills fail in the Senate

What makes you think common sense didn't prevail in this case?
Without knowing every aspect of the bill, maybe there was something in it that a bunch of senators saw would be overly restrictive, impossible to enforce, or flat-out unconstitutional. Maybe some of the debate revealed the bills to be more posturing than substance.
Just because something seems like a good idea on the surface doesn't always make it a good idea when you try to make it work. With bills and laws, that's especially the case. There can be 20 good ideas in a bill and 50 amendments that make it a complete and utter clusterfuck, and no way to separate the two.

 

Line-item veto? Too much power in one man's hands?

 

Not always the ultimate solution. You can have a good idea -- say, expanded background checks -- and then you start figuring out what that actually means and how to do it.
Do you red-flag the mentally ill? How do you do that without violating HIPPA? Or without turning them into pariahs?
How much new bureaucracy and added expense is needed to carry out all these checks? How much falls on gun shop owners and local and state police, and how much on the feds?
Who else gets red-flagged and why? If it's for belonging to certain groups, that could violate the Freedom of Assembly clause in the Constitution. You're already trying to work around one part of the Bill of Rights. Taking on two would almost certainly get it struck down upon any serious review.
And, I'm sure, a hundred other bullet points (no pun intended) that raise serious questions.

By the time you work through these issues, you end up with more problems than benefits, and something that probably isn't any better than what you have now. You might even end up with parts that contradict and weaken existing laws.
You can line item out the bad parts, but most of it is tied together on some level. As a result, the whole thing falls apart.

 

Gabby Giffords takes out the Senate in an NYT Times Op Ed

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/opinion/a-senate-in-the-gun-lobbys-grip.html?ref=opinion&_r=0

"Mark my words: if we cannot make our communities safer with the Congress we have now, we will use every means available to make sure we have a different Congress, one that puts communities’ interests ahead of the gun lobby’s. To do nothing while others are in danger is not the American way. "

 

What is it about "shall not be infringed" that confuses folks?

 

The "well-regulated" part?

 

quote author=TheSportsPredictor link=topic=95590.msg3591153#msg3591153 date=1366257188]

The "well-regulated" part?
[/quote]

Good try, but wrong on its face.

As understood at that time, the term "regulated" meant "disciplined" or "trained"

 

Has anyone published all 45 names and the amount of cash their campaigns received from the gun lobby?

 

Good try, but wrong on its face.

As understood at that time, the term "regulated" meant "disciplined" or "trained"
[/quote]

Don't recall seeing that explanation in the Bill of Rights. You do know a thing called judicial review that's been around a couple hundred years means the Constitution isn't a literalist bible, but a contextualist one.

 

If I can't have a machine gun or an RPG, my liberty is being infringed.

 

Outing Alert: Captain Obvious is my dad.