John Lewis leads sit-in on House Floor to pass gun control legislation.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Everyone knows my bias on this issue, but i'm finding it really hard to take the Dems seriously on this issue when they weren't willing to vote for the Cornyn bill. Yeah it wasn't the 5 steps forward that they wanted (all no-fly list people banned), but it was at least 1 step forward (all no-fly list people face a brief waiting period during which the Feds can get a court order I.E. minimal due process). The only real justification I've seen for the Dems to vote against it is so they can run ads saying "na na na na GOP luvs terristz". Why wouldn't the "do something anything" vote for the bill that could actually pass other than politics?

My thoughts exactly.  I'd love to see a Democrat actually rebut this.

Because the 72 hour waiting period is totally meaningless. What is the point of putting people on that list in the first place if they're deemed to be potentially dangerous enough to be banned from planes but not buy weapons? Buying a gun and shooting up a place is a hell of a lot easier than hijacking a plane and crashing it or getting past security with a bomb.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Everyone knows my bias on this issue, but i'm finding it really hard to take the Dems seriously on this issue when they weren't willing to vote for the Cornyn bill. Yeah it wasn't the 5 steps forward that they wanted (all no-fly list people banned), but it was at least 1 step forward (all no-fly list people face a brief waiting period during which the Feds can get a court order I.E. minimal due process). The only real justification I've seen for the Dems to vote against it is so they can run ads saying "na na na na GOP luvs terristz". Why wouldn't the "do something anything" vote for the bill that could actually pass other than politics?

My thoughts exactly.  I'd love to see a Democrat actually rebut this.

Because the 72 hour waiting period is totally meaningless. What is the point of putting people on that list in the first place if they're deemed to be potentially dangerous enough to be banned from planes but not buy weapons? Buying a gun and shooting up a place is a hell of a lot easier than hijacking a plane and crashing it or getting past security with a bomb.

Isn't 72 hours enough time for the government to put forward evidence as to why someone is too dangerous to buy a gun?  A lot of people on the No-Fly List are just unfortunate to share the same name as a terrorist.  Is that enough reason to punish them?

And anyways, isn't it a good thing that we are forcing the government to back up their No-Fly list with actual evidence?  Right now, what's the recourse if you get put on the list?  What evidence does the government have to put forward to support it?

What a cop-out. That's an issue with the no-fly list, and Cornyn's bill does nothing to address that.

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Yes it does...?  That's the whole point of the waiting period.  It allows the government to present proof that the person on the no fly list is too dangerous to purchase a gun.  It addresses exactly that.

Your answer was more of a cop-out.

The government presenting proof should occur when the person is initially put on the list. We need to improve the no-fly list; at the beginning. I think we can all agree on that. Cornyn's bill does not fix the initial mistakes.

This debate is about the ease of acquiring guns. It's ridiculously easy to the point that terrorists openly encouraged people to take advantage of it. Cornyn's bill and the other GOP bill did not go far enough. The defeat of these bills wasn't a "we need to do something, anything" because "something, anything" won't fix the easy access to guns.