You think a responsible politician would get angry in public in the aftermath of a terrorist event? Or do you think they should act more like you, who gets angry at the drop of a hat?

Spoiled children throw fits when they don't get their way.

If you had paid any attention, you would have noticed that the Republicans used a filibuster to defeat it. The bill had 56 for and 44 against. But to break a filibuster, you need 60 votes. So the "Democrat-controlled Senate," which was voted in as the majority party by the people of the Unites States, were once again screwed by the minority party. That would piss me off too. In fact, it does.

@jimgov-Though I couldn't disagree with krellin and Gen. Lee more, it was not a filibuster that defeated it. The bill made it to a vote, but it was a bi-partisan effort both yea and nay...several rural Democrats voted against, while some Republicans (like McCain) voted in favor. It's not the minority party screwing the majority party--it's the special-interest group NRA screwing an initiative backed by an overwhelming majority of the population.

So the fillibuster did exactly what it was intended to do: prevent a slight majority from overiding the wishes of a major "minority". Sound like the machine did what it should.

Better just use an executive order.

You know he will.

@murray - That is incorrect. The Senate only requires 51 votes to pass. The 60 vote minimum is to defeat a fillibuster. Here is an article from the New Yorker that explains what happened. Of course, not being able to get to 60 is a problem, but the filibuster comment I made stands.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2013/04/four-reasons-why-the-gun-control-bills-failed.html

@Draugnar, that ignores the fact that there was still a majority in favour. Just because it wasn't a landslide in favour doesn't eliminate the fact that, democratically, the bill should have passed.

@Draug - P-lease. The filibuster isn't in the constitution. It was never meant to be something to prevent the slight majority from passing legislation. The founding fathers would turn over in their grave knowing that 51 votes in the Senate isn't good enough.

@jimgov-You're right...I was reading about it on msnbc and misunderstood.

""We won't sit around and let Congress drag its heels while Americans are coming together to demand action," said the spokesman. "We won't wait for the next Newtown.""
---------------------------------------------------------------------

Anybody else expecting another "Newtown" soon? I figure a false flag event will occur in the very near future. Just as pro-life extremists used to take life in clinic bombings, I expect anti-gun activists to eventually take up arms (or set up an incident using firearms) to "make their point".

Just one question.. not trying to start a flame war. How is it bad to require background checks on people before buying a gun?

If you can't even get 60% (1.5 for every 1 the other way)... I and the founding fathers didn't ask for a landslide, just 1.5 votes for every 1 on the other side.

Correct me I am wrong, but had the Dems voted theparty line, it woudl have been 60-40?

I hated the bill, not because of the background checks, but because of some other things they decided to put in there.

If it was a straight bill, JUST on background checks, I think this bill woudl pass without a hitch, but they had to muddy it up.

I just took a quick look at some polls and the percent of people polled who want background checks is between 84 and 90 percent. Allowing for error, etc., that is an enormous number of US that want it and got screwed by congress. Again.

Celtic, that is not what caused this bill to fail. Listening to the Democratic Senators who voted against it, you can see where the faults were at in the bill.

If they wanted to pass it JUST on Universal background checks, this bill would not have failed either side of congress, but they put other things in there, that made it hard to swallow.

Jimgov, that was NOT the only thing in the bill, so, stop it.

@stressed - You are correct. But if Republicans had done the same, it would have ended up the way it did. I think 4 Dems and 4 Repubs switched sides on the issue.

@jimgov - A little history (from wikipedia) for you:

"In 1789, the first U.S. Senate adopted rules allowing the Senate "to move the previous question", ending debate and proceeding to a vote. Aaron Burr argued that the motion regarding the previous question was redundant, had only been exercised once in the preceding four years, and should be eliminated.[2] In 1806, the Senate agreed, recodifying its rules, and thus the potential for a filibuster sprang into being.[2] Because the Senate created no alternative mechanism for terminating debate, the filibuster became an option for delay and blocking of floor votes."

1789 - Sure sounds like founding fathers were involved to me.

@stressed - My bad. I was responding to Celticfox's question above. I should have pointed that out.

And actually, pure party lines all across result in 53 , 45 R, 2 I (who probably go D)

I'd like to point out that Obama is always angry.

But I'm quite happy the gun control amendment went down (and faster than I thought, too). This is a very happy day.

jimgov, when they make these bilsl bigger than what the core of the bill is, this is when we get screwed. Adding so much fluff to it, makes it hard to pass, and THIS issue is delicate by itself. You need to tread very lightly on this issue.

@Draug - Actually, you are wrong. I really don't think that most people actually understand the filibuster. It is, plain and simply, the refusal to move forward by stalling. In the past, you had to keep the floor and continue talking. You could delay for as long as you could hold the floor. It was changed decades ago, but the way is it used now it a relatively new concept.

http://www.nolabels.org/newsroom/senate-filibuster-no-longer-requires-long-floor-speech

@Stressed - I need to tread lightly on this issue? Not damn likely. Screw the gun lobby. Screw everyone in Congress that could not come up with a way to make some kind of bill pass. This had nothing to do with anything but fear of the gun lobby.

Ah .. Well that's this fucked up process for you. No passing any bill without tons of shit in it that has nothing to do with the bill and no one can stand.

Gun Lobby has nothing to do with it Jimgov. This law would have done nothing to prevent Sandy hook, Columbine, or any of your other mass shootings that is the supposed result of this law. NOT ONE THING.

My biggest problem with the law was the transfer portion, where it would be virtually impossible to give my son a gun as a gift.

@jimgov - Forgive my ignorance (not being American, I'm not too familiar with the system). Was that actually a tactic that was ever used? Simply preparing a mind-blowingly long speech and talking for hours to stop a vote going through? If so, that's kind of embarrassing for democracies everywhere.