So...why are Dems so focused on guns and NOT obvious FBI failures??

[bucs90]

Remember when Democrats RIPPED into the intelligence community?? Oh I do. CIA. FBI. All of em. Especially with the WMD fiasco.

Well....honestly...the FBI dropped the ball big time. It's obvious.

Why aren't Dems knocking them again??? ALL they do is mention guns now. Not a peep about obvious Intel failures.

Because....they really really REALLY don't want to upset the FBI right now...

 

[Slade3200]

Remember when Democrats RIPPED into the intelligence community?? Oh I do. CIA. FBI. All of em. Especially with the WMD fiasco.

Well....honestly...the FBI dropped the ball big time. It's obvious.

Why aren't Dems knocking them again??? ALL they do is mention guns now. Not a peep about obvious Intel failures.

Because....they really really REALLY don't want to upset the FBI right now...

I think people just want to do something other than bitch and complain. I don't think a gun law is going to make a huge difference but it is something that could make it harder for sketchy people to get a gun, and we could be smarter about selling weapons that can do a large amount of damage. Everything that is being discussed is pretty common sense and it shows our government responding and taking action. It is also a very valid discussion to explore what was missed in the FBI investigation.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I've seen countless liberals complain about the supposed "intel failures" that lead to Orlando.

There's no actual evidence of any "intel failures", though.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I've seen countless liberals complain about the supposed "intel failures" that lead to Orlando.

There's no actual evidence of any "intel failures", though.

It not the intel failure but the reality they knew the guy was a threat and did not keep him under surveillance or worked on busting him for the threat he was.

They investigated him at least three times, and his statements and pledges made it clear he was unstable and the fact he had contact with a known terrorist made him a possible threat.

When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.

The FBI need to do a better job and if the Congress has to allow the FBI to flag those people like the Orlando shooter while making sure the FBI has the resources and trained staff to investigate those like the Orlando shooter.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I've seen countless liberals complain about the supposed "intel failures" that lead to Orlando.

There's no actual evidence of any "intel failures", though.

It not the intel failure but the reality they knew the guy was a threat and did not keep him under surveillance or worked on busting him for the threat he was.

They investigated him at least three times, and his statements and pledges made it clear he was unstable and the fact he had contact with a known terrorist made him a possible threat.

When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.

The FBI need to do a better job and if the Congress has to allow the FBI to flag those people like the Orlando shooter while making sure the FBI has the resources and trained staff to investigate those like the Orlando shooter.

They investigated him 3 times - but they didn't find anything. Because he hadn't killed anyone yet.

He hadn't broken any laws at all until his first trigger pull.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I've seen countless liberals complain about the supposed "intel failures" that lead to Orlando.

There's no actual evidence of any "intel failures", though.

It not the intel failure but the reality they knew the guy was a threat and did not keep him under surveillance or worked on busting him for the threat he was.

They investigated him at least three times, and his statements and pledges made it clear he was unstable and the fact he had contact with a known terrorist made him a possible threat.

When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.

The FBI need to do a better job and if the Congress has to allow the FBI to flag those people like the Orlando shooter while making sure the FBI has the resources and trained staff to investigate those like the Orlando shooter.

They investigated him 3 times - but they didn't find anything. Because he hadn't killed anyone yet.

He hadn't broken any laws at all until his first trigger pull.

You better read what they have admitted to knowing about him and they failed to keep an eye on the potential threat.

He made threats, had contact with one known terrorist and pledge himself not only to Al Qaeda but to Hezbollah which make him a threat on the mental end of this game.

The FBI failed and there is no excuse and passing more laws will not stop the next lone wolf either, but let pass the laws so I can remind the Progressive that Terrorists and Criminals don't obey laws...

 

[Slade3200]

I've seen countless liberals complain about the supposed "intel failures" that lead to Orlando.

There's no actual evidence of any "intel failures", though.

It not the intel failure but the reality they knew the guy was a threat and did not keep him under surveillance or worked on busting him for the threat he was.

They investigated him at least three times, and his statements and pledges made it clear he was unstable and the fact he had contact with a known terrorist made him a possible threat.

When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.

The FBI need to do a better job and if the Congress has to allow the FBI to flag those people like the Orlando shooter while making sure the FBI has the resources and trained staff to investigate those like the Orlando shooter.

Has anybody analyzed the big picture? How many people are on the watch list? How many man hours go into surveillance for each person? What criteria is used to continue or stop an investigation? From what i've heard they tracked this guy for 10 months and came up with nothing... Perhaps because he didn't do anything to break the law when they were looking at him and then he snapped. It is easy to criticize in hindsight and I hope we learn from this and improve our surveillance however, we also need to understand that not everybody is going to be caught... Even people that we are watching.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

I've seen countless liberals complain about the supposed "intel failures" that lead to Orlando.

There's no actual evidence of any "intel failures", though.

It not the intel failure but the reality they knew the guy was a threat and did not keep him under surveillance or worked on busting him for the threat he was.

They investigated him at least three times, and his statements and pledges made it clear he was unstable and the fact he had contact with a known terrorist made him a possible threat.

When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.

The FBI need to do a better job and if the Congress has to allow the FBI to flag those people like the Orlando shooter while making sure the FBI has the resources and trained staff to investigate those like the Orlando shooter.

Has anybody analyzed the big picture? How many people are on the watch list? How many man hours go into surveillance for each person? What criteria is used to continue or stop an investigation? From what i've heard they tracked this guy for 10 months and came up with nothing... Perhaps because he didn't do anything to break the law when they were looking at him and then he snapped. It is easy to criticize in hindsight and I hope we learn from this and improve our surveillance however, we also need to understand that not everybody is going to be caught... Even people that we are watching.

There are more than a million people on the "watch list", and 20,000 or so are added every month.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I've seen countless liberals complain about the supposed "intel failures" that lead to Orlando.

There's no actual evidence of any "intel failures", though.

It not the intel failure but the reality they knew the guy was a threat and did not keep him under surveillance or worked on busting him for the threat he was.

They investigated him at least three times, and his statements and pledges made it clear he was unstable and the fact he had contact with a known terrorist made him a possible threat.

When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.

The FBI need to do a better job and if the Congress has to allow the FBI to flag those people like the Orlando shooter while making sure the FBI has the resources and trained staff to investigate those like the Orlando shooter.

Has anybody analyzed the big picture? How many people are on the watch list? How many man hours go into surveillance for each person? What criteria is used to continue or stop an investigation? From what i've heard they tracked this guy for 10 months and came up with nothing... Perhaps because he didn't do anything to break the law when they were looking at him and then he snapped. It is easy to criticize in hindsight and I hope we learn from this and improve our surveillance however, we also need to understand that not everybody is going to be caught... Even people that we are watching.

So what would a new Assault Weapon Ban do and seeing he was not on the No-Fly list how would the list had stopped him?

The reality is the FBI need to look over where they made the mistake and if they need money for resources and the House does not supply the money then the House need it balls kicked in.

Also if it is lack of training on the FBI part then hire and train more correctly.

If it is lack of communication between the States, The FBI and other agencies then figure out how to fix this.

Too much evidence pointing to the threat the man was and no reason why he was able to do what he did!

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've seen countless liberals complain about the supposed "intel failures" that lead to Orlando.

There's no actual evidence of any "intel failures", though.

It not the intel failure but the reality they knew the guy was a threat and did not keep him under surveillance or worked on busting him for the threat he was.

They investigated him at least three times, and his statements and pledges made it clear he was unstable and the fact he had contact with a known terrorist made him a possible threat.

When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.

The FBI need to do a better job and if the Congress has to allow the FBI to flag those people like the Orlando shooter while making sure the FBI has the resources and trained staff to investigate those like the Orlando shooter.

Wrong.

In the United States we have two fundamental legal principles: presumption of innocence and due process of law.

The FBI, as is the case with all other law enforcement entities, may investigate suspected criminal activity to the extent that the evidence warrants it.

When there is no evidence to justify an investigation, the investigation ends, and appropriately so.

“When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.”

This is known as presumption of guilt, contrary to our fundamental principles of law and justice.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I've seen countless liberals complain about the supposed "intel failures" that lead to Orlando.

There's no actual evidence of any "intel failures", though.

It not the intel failure but the reality they knew the guy was a threat and did not keep him under surveillance or worked on busting him for the threat he was.

They investigated him at least three times, and his statements and pledges made it clear he was unstable and the fact he had contact with a known terrorist made him a possible threat.

When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.

The FBI need to do a better job and if the Congress has to allow the FBI to flag those people like the Orlando shooter while making sure the FBI has the resources and trained staff to investigate those like the Orlando shooter.

They investigated him 3 times - but they didn't find anything. Because he hadn't killed anyone yet.

He hadn't broken any laws at all until his first trigger pull.

You better read what they have admitted to knowing about him and they failed to keep an eye on the potential threat.

He made threats, had contact with one known terrorist and pledge himself not only to Al Qaeda but to Hezbollah which make him a threat on the mental end of this game.

The FBI failed and there is no excuse and passing more laws will not stop the next lone wolf either, but let pass the laws so I can remind the Progressive that Terrorists and Criminals don't obey laws...

This is classic thought police mentality.

 

[Slade3200]

I've seen countless liberals complain about the supposed "intel failures" that lead to Orlando.

There's no actual evidence of any "intel failures", though.

It not the intel failure but the reality they knew the guy was a threat and did not keep him under surveillance or worked on busting him for the threat he was.

They investigated him at least three times, and his statements and pledges made it clear he was unstable and the fact he had contact with a known terrorist made him a possible threat.

When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.

The FBI need to do a better job and if the Congress has to allow the FBI to flag those people like the Orlando shooter while making sure the FBI has the resources and trained staff to investigate those like the Orlando shooter.

Has anybody analyzed the big picture? How many people are on the watch list? How many man hours go into surveillance for each person? What criteria is used to continue or stop an investigation? From what i've heard they tracked this guy for 10 months and came up with nothing... Perhaps because he didn't do anything to break the law when they were looking at him and then he snapped. It is easy to criticize in hindsight and I hope we learn from this and improve our surveillance however, we also need to understand that not everybody is going to be caught... Even people that we are watching.

So what would a new Assault Weapon Ban do and seeing he was not on the No-Fly list how would the list had stopped him?

The reality is the FBI need to look over where they made the mistake and if they need money for resources and the House does not supply the money then the House need it balls kicked in.

Also if it is lack of training on the FBI part then hire and train more correctly.

If it is lack of communication between the States, The FBI and other agencies then figure out how to fix this.

Too much evidence pointing to the threat the man was and no reason why he was able to do what he did!

An Assault weapon ban takes weapons capable of killing dozens of people in less than a minute off the streets. I don't see any reasons for weapons like that to be out there. I own handguns and riffles and thats all I or anybody else needs for hunting, sport, or protection. I don't understand the big pushback from banning these types of weapons.

I agree this situation needs to be analyzed and measures taken to plug up the cracks. If what the previous poster said is true and there are a Millions names on the watch list and 20,000 being added each month then that is a pretty hefty task to effectively track all those people.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

I've seen countless liberals complain about the supposed "intel failures" that lead to Orlando.

There's no actual evidence of any "intel failures", though.

It not the intel failure but the reality they knew the guy was a threat and did not keep him under surveillance or worked on busting him for the threat he was.

They investigated him at least three times, and his statements and pledges made it clear he was unstable and the fact he had contact with a known terrorist made him a possible threat.

When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.

The FBI need to do a better job and if the Congress has to allow the FBI to flag those people like the Orlando shooter while making sure the FBI has the resources and trained staff to investigate those like the Orlando shooter.

Has anybody analyzed the big picture? How many people are on the watch list? How many man hours go into surveillance for each person? What criteria is used to continue or stop an investigation? From what i've heard they tracked this guy for 10 months and came up with nothing... Perhaps because he didn't do anything to break the law when they were looking at him and then he snapped. It is easy to criticize in hindsight and I hope we learn from this and improve our surveillance however, we also need to understand that not everybody is going to be caught... Even people that we are watching.

So what would a new Assault Weapon Ban do and seeing he was not on the No-Fly list how would the list had stopped him?

The reality is the FBI need to look over where they made the mistake and if they need money for resources and the House does not supply the money then the House need it balls kicked in.

Also if it is lack of training on the FBI part then hire and train more correctly.

If it is lack of communication between the States, The FBI and other agencies then figure out how to fix this.

Too much evidence pointing to the threat the man was and no reason why he was able to do what he did!

An Assault weapon ban takes weapons capable of killing dozens of people in less than a minute off the streets. I don't see any reasons for weapons like that to be out there. I own handguns and riffles and thats all I or anybody else needs for hunting, sport, or protection. I don't understand the big pushback from banning these types of weapons.

I agree this situation needs to be analyzed and measures taken to plug up the cracks. If what the previous poster said is true and there are a Millions names on the watch list and 20,000 being added each month then that is a pretty hefty task to effectively track all those people.

Well when one of your bans actually stop mass killings then I will agree but the reality is it never does.

I don't get it how the Progressive Left sit there saying that the average American should be punished for the Government failure in this whole ordeal but they do.

I have pointed out the 1994 assault weapon ban did not stop mass shootings nor did it stop the lone wolf terrorist and if you need evidence then explain Jonesboro and Columbine mass shootings and The OKC and Atlanta bombings?

People will kill and the Progressive left is under the impression that banning certain guns or every gun ( some on the fringe left want every gun banned ) will stop acts of violence but the reality is the criminal and terrorist does not obey the law nor will they ever.

So focus on the FBI failure and let stop punishing those that are not a threat to this country.

 

[Slade3200]

I've seen countless liberals complain about the supposed "intel failures" that lead to Orlando.

There's no actual evidence of any "intel failures", though.

It not the intel failure but the reality they knew the guy was a threat and did not keep him under surveillance or worked on busting him for the threat he was.

They investigated him at least three times, and his statements and pledges made it clear he was unstable and the fact he had contact with a known terrorist made him a possible threat.

When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.

The FBI need to do a better job and if the Congress has to allow the FBI to flag those people like the Orlando shooter while making sure the FBI has the resources and trained staff to investigate those like the Orlando shooter.

Has anybody analyzed the big picture? How many people are on the watch list? How many man hours go into surveillance for each person? What criteria is used to continue or stop an investigation? From what i've heard they tracked this guy for 10 months and came up with nothing... Perhaps because he didn't do anything to break the law when they were looking at him and then he snapped. It is easy to criticize in hindsight and I hope we learn from this and improve our surveillance however, we also need to understand that not everybody is going to be caught... Even people that we are watching.

So what would a new Assault Weapon Ban do and seeing he was not on the No-Fly list how would the list had stopped him?

The reality is the FBI need to look over where they made the mistake and if they need money for resources and the House does not supply the money then the House need it balls kicked in.

Also if it is lack of training on the FBI part then hire and train more correctly.

If it is lack of communication between the States, The FBI and other agencies then figure out how to fix this.

Too much evidence pointing to the threat the man was and no reason why he was able to do what he did!

An Assault weapon ban takes weapons capable of killing dozens of people in less than a minute off the streets. I don't see any reasons for weapons like that to be out there. I own handguns and riffles and thats all I or anybody else needs for hunting, sport, or protection. I don't understand the big pushback from banning these types of weapons.

I agree this situation needs to be analyzed and measures taken to plug up the cracks. If what the previous poster said is true and there are a Millions names on the watch list and 20,000 being added each month then that is a pretty hefty task to effectively track all those people.

Well when one of your bans actually stop mass killings then I will agree but the reality is it never does.

I don't get it how the Progressive Left sit there saying that the average American should be punished for the Government failure in this whole ordeal but they do.

I have pointed out the 1994 assault weapon ban did not stop mass shootings nor did it stop the lone wolf terrorist and if you need evidence then explain Jonesboro and Columbine mass shootings and The OKC and Atlanta bombings?

People will kill and the Progressive left is under the impression that banning certain guns or every gun ( some on the fringe left want every gun banned ) will stop acts of violence but the reality is the criminal and terrorist does not obey the law nor will they ever.

So focus on the FBI failure and let stop punishing those that are not a threat to this country.

The average American is not getting punished by not being able to buy an assault rifle. There is no reason why we should have machine guns, bazookas, grenades, or any other weapon capable of mass destruction. We can still buy hand guns and riffles for protection. Making it harder for criminals to get weapons that can cause mass casualties in a short amount of time makes complete sense. It may not stop murders from happening but it decreases the body count. Any life saved is worth it

 

[Snouter]

The transgender qu33rs on MSNBC like Rachel "Blinky" Maddow and that weird fucking creature that hosts a show that follows that were smiling with glee because the democrats in the Hosue and Senate were using the dead bodies as a result of Islamic Terrorism to further their agenda. They do not care about intelligence failures because Mohammad Obama doesn't make mistakes, he has happy accidents.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

It not the intel failure but the reality they knew the guy was a threat and did not keep him under surveillance or worked on busting him for the threat he was.

They investigated him at least three times, and his statements and pledges made it clear he was unstable and the fact he had contact with a known terrorist made him a possible threat.

When there is smoke there most likely a blaze that could kill many.

The FBI need to do a better job and if the Congress has to allow the FBI to flag those people like the Orlando shooter while making sure the FBI has the resources and trained staff to investigate those like the Orlando shooter.

Has anybody analyzed the big picture? How many people are on the watch list? How many man hours go into surveillance for each person? What criteria is used to continue or stop an investigation? From what i've heard they tracked this guy for 10 months and came up with nothing... Perhaps because he didn't do anything to break the law when they were looking at him and then he snapped. It is easy to criticize in hindsight and I hope we learn from this and improve our surveillance however, we also need to understand that not everybody is going to be caught... Even people that we are watching.

So what would a new Assault Weapon Ban do and seeing he was not on the No-Fly list how would the list had stopped him?

The reality is the FBI need to look over where they made the mistake and if they need money for resources and the House does not supply the money then the House need it balls kicked in.

Also if it is lack of training on the FBI part then hire and train more correctly.

If it is lack of communication between the States, The FBI and other agencies then figure out how to fix this.

Too much evidence pointing to the threat the man was and no reason why he was able to do what he did!

An Assault weapon ban takes weapons capable of killing dozens of people in less than a minute off the streets. I don't see any reasons for weapons like that to be out there. I own handguns and riffles and thats all I or anybody else needs for hunting, sport, or protection. I don't understand the big pushback from banning these types of weapons.

I agree this situation needs to be analyzed and measures taken to plug up the cracks. If what the previous poster said is true and there are a Millions names on the watch list and 20,000 being added each month then that is a pretty hefty task to effectively track all those people.

Well when one of your bans actually stop mass killings then I will agree but the reality is it never does.

I don't get it how the Progressive Left sit there saying that the average American should be punished for the Government failure in this whole ordeal but they do.

I have pointed out the 1994 assault weapon ban did not stop mass shootings nor did it stop the lone wolf terrorist and if you need evidence then explain Jonesboro and Columbine mass shootings and The OKC and Atlanta bombings?

People will kill and the Progressive left is under the impression that banning certain guns or every gun ( some on the fringe left want every gun banned ) will stop acts of violence but the reality is the criminal and terrorist does not obey the law nor will they ever.

So focus on the FBI failure and let stop punishing those that are not a threat to this country.

The average American is not getting punished by not being able to buy an assault rifle. There is no reason why we should have machine guns, bazookas, grenades, or any other weapon capable of mass destruction. We can still buy hand guns and riffles for protection. Making it harder for criminals to get weapons that can cause mass casualties in a short amount of time makes complete sense. It may not stop murders from happening but it decreases the body count. Any life saved is worth it

Wrong!

As I have pointed out many times now those like McVeigh did not need assault weapons and used a truck bomb and did more damage than any AR-15 ever did.

So let stop with the nonsense about how banning something will make it harder and admit the criminal will kill no matter what weapon they have at their disposal.

Also the criminal and terrorist does not care about your No-Fly list or Assault Weapon Ban and the assault weapon ban from 1994 to 2004 did nothing to detour mass shooters nor did it stop terrorism.

Finally, and maybe you can answer this question:

In 2009 the Senate had a Democratic Majority along with the House and did nothing to pass another Assault Weapon Ban and after the Democratic Party lost power the President wanted the opposition party to pass legislation on Assault Weapons, so why didn't he ask his own political party to do this before they lost power?

Now someone already told me because the mass shooting were not happening like they are now, but let me state again the Assault Weapon Ban ended in 2004 and many in the Democratic Party wanted it extended and when they had the power to do so why did they fail to do what they thought was best for the Nation?

 

[Mac1958]

Why aren't Dems knocking them again??? ALL they do is mention guns now. Not a peep about obvious Intel failures. Because....they really really REALLY don't want to upset the FBI right now...

There is going to be a point at which it becomes clear that PC is playing a role in this.

We're not supposed to profile, if we criticize certain certified victim groups we're racist, on and on. At some point this is going to come to a head. I hope this is addressed before anyone else has to die.

Who knows, maybe it's starting now. Jake Tapper brought it up on CNN:

 

[Rozman]

So much for see something say something ....

 

[Mac1958]

So much for see something say something ....

Yes, it's obviously "if you see something say something, unless it involves certain people".

 

[Slade3200]

Has anybody analyzed the big picture? How many people are on the watch list? How many man hours go into surveillance for each person? What criteria is used to continue or stop an investigation? From what i've heard they tracked this guy for 10 months and came up with nothing... Perhaps because he didn't do anything to break the law when they were looking at him and then he snapped. It is easy to criticize in hindsight and I hope we learn from this and improve our surveillance however, we also need to understand that not everybody is going to be caught... Even people that we are watching.

So what would a new Assault Weapon Ban do and seeing he was not on the No-Fly list how would the list had stopped him?

The reality is the FBI need to look over where they made the mistake and if they need money for resources and the House does not supply the money then the House need it balls kicked in.

Also if it is lack of training on the FBI part then hire and train more correctly.

If it is lack of communication between the States, The FBI and other agencies then figure out how to fix this.

Too much evidence pointing to the threat the man was and no reason why he was able to do what he did!

An Assault weapon ban takes weapons capable of killing dozens of people in less than a minute off the streets. I don't see any reasons for weapons like that to be out there. I own handguns and riffles and thats all I or anybody else needs for hunting, sport, or protection. I don't understand the big pushback from banning these types of weapons.

I agree this situation needs to be analyzed and measures taken to plug up the cracks. If what the previous poster said is true and there are a Millions names on the watch list and 20,000 being added each month then that is a pretty hefty task to effectively track all those people.

Well when one of your bans actually stop mass killings then I will agree but the reality is it never does.

I don't get it how the Progressive Left sit there saying that the average American should be punished for the Government failure in this whole ordeal but they do.

I have pointed out the 1994 assault weapon ban did not stop mass shootings nor did it stop the lone wolf terrorist and if you need evidence then explain Jonesboro and Columbine mass shootings and The OKC and Atlanta bombings?

People will kill and the Progressive left is under the impression that banning certain guns or every gun ( some on the fringe left want every gun banned ) will stop acts of violence but the reality is the criminal and terrorist does not obey the law nor will they ever.

So focus on the FBI failure and let stop punishing those that are not a threat to this country.

The average American is not getting punished by not being able to buy an assault rifle. There is no reason why we should have machine guns, bazookas, grenades, or any other weapon capable of mass destruction. We can still buy hand guns and riffles for protection. Making it harder for criminals to get weapons that can cause mass casualties in a short amount of time makes complete sense. It may not stop murders from happening but it decreases the body count. Any life saved is worth it

Wrong!

As I have pointed out many times now those like McVeigh did not need assault weapons and used a truck bomb and did more damage than any AR-15 ever did.

So let stop with the nonsense about how banning something will make it harder and admit the criminal will kill no matter what weapon they have at their disposal.

Also the criminal and terrorist does not care about your No-Fly list or Assault Weapon Ban and the assault weapon ban from 1994 to 2004 did nothing to detour mass shooters nor did it stop terrorism.

Finally, and maybe you can answer this question:

In 2009 the Senate had a Democratic Majority along with the House and did nothing to pass another Assault Weapon Ban and after the Democratic Party lost power the President wanted the opposition party to pass legislation on Assault Weapons, so why didn't he ask his own political party to do this before they lost power?

Now someone already told me because the mass shooting were not happening like they are now, but let me state again the Assault Weapon Ban ended in 2004 and many in the Democratic Party wanted it extended and when they had the power to do so why did they fail to do what they thought was best for the Nation?

Haha... WRONG! Nice response
To answer you question... I don't know what their discussions and motives were behind not extending the ban... Perhaps they were picking and choosing their battles.
Here is a question for you... Why do you care about assault weapons and automatic weapons? Why would you want easy access to guns that can spray bullets around a room? I agree that it is the criminals that kill and they will continue to do so with whatever they can get. My point is why would we make these kind of weapons easy to get? I'd rather go up against a criminal with a hand gun in a crowd than one with a machine gun... Wouldn't you? Just use your brain man, this one isn't hard to understand.