It is strange that I perceived this filibuster as such a brave, bold action when it was over such a minute addition to gun control. The fact that just seeing congress talk about this is so shocking is seriously disturbing to me. I hope that the NRA and Republicans will start to hear it from their constituents in such numbers that they cannot continue to support such idiotic 2nd amendment positions any longer.

That's an incredibly moving and powerful speech, and if the Dems can continue to show real leadership and a better vision for the country, then we'll all be better off.

After Sandy Hook though, it's hard to imagine what it would take to restore some modicum of sanity to this paranoid, hate-crazed country.

Sometimes we have to capitalize on tragedy to move the agenda. If the right can leverage the Patriot Act and two catastrophic wars out of 9/11, I think getting a tiny expansion in background checks out of this nightmare is far from exploitative.

@2:

My fear is that it will take a mass shooting of a room full of open-carry enthusiasts, or an NRA meeting, or something similar before they come to their senses. As Sen. Booker alluded: the guns-uber-alles crowd won't do anything about it until it becomes personal.

I’m fully in favor of using any one of the many watch lists the government keeps to delay gun sales to dangerous individuals, giving authorities time to make a case that the sale shouldn’t go through, but only if the purchaser would also have the right to challenge the decision in court. There must be full due process to address potential (likely) false, unjustified, political or erroneous listings that puts the burden on The State to defend the listing.

However, assuming we can make an accurate “Enemies of The People” list that’s subject to robust due process (which seems possible to me), and we use it to limit constitutional rights concerning gun ownership (much less air travel), then my question is, if someone is way too dangerous to ever fly on a plane (much less own a firearm) how in the hell are they not too dangerous to be living next door to us and walking our streets?

How is someone who is way too dangerous to fly coach not also way too dangerous to purchase incendiary agents (the gasoline used to try to burn down Neighbors on New Year’s Eve) or way too dangerous to purchase bomb making materials (the pressure cookers used in the Boston massacre) or way too dangerous to have access to the internet (the most powerful tool available to bad actors interested in radicalizing others)?

It is astonishing that after Sandy Hook, nothing was done—in fact, the NRA made gains. That a few years later, the massacre of a club full of gay men seems to have actually had more of an impact than a bunch of little kids getting slaughtered (I realize it's cumulative) drives home just how massively this country has changed in the past five years.

@4,
I honestly don't think even THAT would do it. Even if a room full of senator's and representative's families were gunned down (something I sincerely hope never happens!) it STILL wouldn't change anything.

I simply think this country is too far gone down the blood soaked rabbit hole. The 2nd amendment is too firmly entrenched. Too many people love too many guns. I really think this is an unsolvable problem.

Not that we should sit it out and do nothing... I mean, maybe I'm wrong... but man... it sure does look bleak.

@5- I think the argument is utility. What is gasoline, a pressure cooker, or the internet designed to do? What is a gun designed to do? Human lives have likely been ended with every object under the sun, but only a few of those objects were specifically designed for the task and serve no other legitimate purpose than taking life.

"I propose, first, the national registration of every gun in America. Registration will tell us how many guns there are, where they are, and in whose hands they are held. Nothing in these proposals will impair the legitimate ownership or use of guns in this country...Nor are they threats to the mystique of manhood or to the heritage of our people...The only heritage that is harmed is the record of violent death and destruction that shames our history."
-Lyndon Baines Johnson

@8
That's a popular argument for banning guns (as opposed to regulating them). But these lawmakers are saying they want to regulate guns to keep them out of the hands of dangerous people (a goal I can agree with). That necessitates identifying dangerous people (not items with dangerous utilities). My thought, and it's sincere, is, if we can identify dangerous people, shouldn't we be regulating them? I mean, if someone is too dangerous to allow to fly, is dangerous enough to be striped of a constitutional right, shouldn't we be doing more than keeping them off planes and out of gun shops?

@10 We'll get to stopping the Adam Lanzas of the world eventually. For now, lets start with the Omar Mateens.