Besides some sort of restriction on amassing gunpowder, I don't see how any sort of regulation could have prevented a random bombing. If this was a shooting, a reasonable restriction on large capacity magazines & assault rifles might be a reasonable response.
Why assume one would and the other wouldn't though. That's the inconsistency that some of us are trying to get folks to see. Most people grasp immediately that regulations on cookware wont prevent someone who wants to use cookware to kill people, but a whole bunch of people fail to grasp the exact same issue when it comes to gun control. Which is the point.
You won't even give us background checks.
Yes, I think before a father gives his son a gun they should make sure he's not crazy and/or an ex con.
Who's "they" though. That's the sticking point, isn't it?
Republicans and Democrats worried about re-election in conservative areas won't even give us that.
Which suggests that the claims of 90% supporting the amendment are wrong. If that were true. If that were remotely close to true, and your assumption of members voting in order to not **** of voters in the next election is also true, then the measure should have passed easily. Which means one of two things:
1. The estimates about how popular the measure is was greatly exaggerated.
2. A whole bunch of Senators know their own constituents less well than whoever is spouting that 90% figure.
I'm going with option 1 myself. So can we stop pretending that this was as overwhelmingly popular with "the people" as the media talking heads keep trying to make it out to be? Edited, Apr 18th 2013 7:37pm by gbaji