Both gun bills fail in the Senate

Don't know if this is too political or not, but I think Giffords (and others) overstate the monetary importance of the NRA. Per this interactive graphic:

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2012/12/19/us/politics/nra.html

the NRA gave very modest amounts (relatively speaking) to Republican Senators/Senate candidates in the last election cycle. The NRA gave Ted Cruz, of Texas, close to $10,000, but Cruz spent something like $10 million on his campaign. It appears that others who voted against these measures also received some money, but not all that much. Now it's almost certainly the case that the NRA made its influence known in other ways, but just how much more? It's hard for me to believe that a Senator would fear the NRA simply because of the dollars. I would think it much more likely that these Senators actually voted as they believed.

 

Yeah, and how much money did gun manufacturers and their SuperPACs donate directly? Same shit, different pile.

 

Take it up with Antonin Scalia, the liberal Supreme Court justice who wrote that "conditions" and "qualifications" would pass muster under the Second Amendment.

 

That's what issue advocacy groups do.

Is their a single "rational" restriction on abortion that NARAL Pro-Choice America would sign on to?

Is there a single new restriction to free speech that the ACLU would sign on to?

 

How would the proposed bill have prevented someone like James Holmes or Adam Lanza from purchasing a gun?

 

As soon as I hear "common sense" ("rational's" more frequently spotted-about-town first cousin) trotted out in any policy debate, I want to put my fingers in my ears and start shouting like a 3-year-old in full tantrum mode.

"Common sense" is like a road sign that shouts: "Empty rhetoric ahead. Drive safely."

 

Most Americans do not consider gun control to be a major issue:

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/gallup-only-4-americans-think-gun-control-important-problem

 

Only four Americans?!

 

I've heard of reading only the headline and not the story before.

But reading the URL and not even the headline?

 

The proposed bill would not have done much. It was more feel good crap.

I hear the liberals here tell me all the time how laws addressing voter fraud are solutions in search of a problem.

Isn't the "gun show loophole" the same thing? It's not the problem.

Why the huge focus?

 

C'mon. Common sense!

 

I don't think citizens should be allowed to have the types of weapons Adam Lanza had in their homes. How's that?

If you need a semi-automatic rifle for personal protection, you should probably save the money and skip town.