The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues

I for one, didn't support it, but that isn't the real shame.

The real shame is that the national guilt monger (Obama) and his shills (national media) made this the lead story last night. 10 minutes of this junk before getting to the Boston story.

They don't get their way so now comes the national guilt trip? This is governing? Leading? Take your emotional hemorrhaging dog and pony show back to the progressive play book. I can't believe you libs stand behind this........what a joke....
 
Seggy said:
A great article about how it REALLY went down...

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/opinion/a-senate-in-the-gun-lobbys-grip.html?ref=opinion&_r=0
Click to expand...

Articles like this are part of the problem with this whole debate... Seggy, you can't possibly say that an article that contains statements such as "gave into fear" is unbiased. I understand the position of the author. However, to say this is how it "REALLY went down" is a stretch.

The majority of the polls conducted are in metropolitan areas, many of them blue areas, that support gun control.

I think the biggest hurdle for this "common sense" legislation will come from the fact the the MAJORITY of the states are red... Rep Giffords can threaten all she wants about using "every means available to make sure we have a different Congress" for the gun control bill. However, I think we'll be hard pressed to replace enough of the Representatives from these red states to pass anything through the House.
 
MercFE said:
Articles like this are part of the problem with this whole debate... Seggy, you can't possibly say that an article that contains statements such as "gave into fear" is unbiased. I understand the position of the author. However, to say this is how it "REALLY went down" is a stretch.

The majority of the polls conducted are in metropolitan areas, many of them blue areas, that support gun control.

I think the biggest hurdle for this "common sense" legislation will come from the fact the the MAJORITY of the states are red... Rep Giffords can threaten all she wants about using "every means available to make sure we have a different Congress" for the gun control bill. However, I think we'll be hard pressed to replace enough of the Representatives from these red states to pass anything through the House.
Click to expand...

Answer this question, when is a majority 46 out of 100? You and Hacker15e both are trying to debunk the polls, but we saw yesterday 54% of a sample supported this legislation.
 
I find it bizarre how so many people who are in favor of gun control demonize the NRA -- of which less than 10% of firearms owners are even a member of -- as the straw man responsible for countering any and all gun control initiatives. It is a vast over-representation of that organization's power and influence -- which is pretty funny in and of itself, since that is also exactly what many of those same gun control proponents (in the mass media, especially) have been saying for quite a long time, too, in trying to undermine/counter that perception of political power and influence.

But, when something like yesterday's vote occurs, the 'blame' is always hung around the neck of the NRA. Such attribution ignores the more simple truth that sometimes there are just plain ol' American citizens who oppose such measures, too. Those people vote, and want their representatives to vote on issues the way the majority of the constituents they represent feel on issues and in a way that is consistent with the Constitution and our republic's founding principle of liberty. The Senate is even the 'all states are equal' house of the Legislative branch, so the failure of these measures to proceed in that environment is more acute than in the House, where population density is represented and there is even less support for gun control measures.

But, if folks would rather believe it is a conspiracy theory wrought by a sinister organization, good for them.
 
Seggy said:
You call it guilt, I call it the truth.

Once again, how does 46 out of 100 make it a majority?
Click to expand...
I actually don't see the problem with the proposed legislation.
That being said you can't complain about the rules only if your bill doesn't pass. They needed 60 votes. They didn't get it. Move on, load it up with pork and get it to pass. That's the american way isn't?
 
Seggy said:
Answer this question, when is a majority 46 out of 100? You and Hacker15e both are trying to debunk the polls, but we saw yesterday 54% of a sample supported this legislation.
Click to expand...

Who is saying that 46 of 100 is a majority? I'm certainly not.

What I did say was that quoting public opinion polls is not the same as elected representatives voting on specific legislation using long-agreed-upon procedural rules of session. This is why the US government 3-branch system is set up the way it is -- to ensure that representation from all angles is part of the process.

I also said that the Constitution exists specifically to counter a "tyranny of the majority". We quite intentionally don't live in a simple Greek-style democracy where 50.1% get to impose their will on 49.9%.
 
mikecweb said:
I actually don't see the problem with the proposed legislation.
That being said you can't complain about the rules only if your bill doesn't pass. They needed 60 votes. They didn't get it. Move on, load it up with pork and get it to pass. That's the american way isn't?
Click to expand...
What he said. The system worked as it should. Emotional pandering from both sides, drive-by media blitz both left and right, lobbyists, PAC's did their thing, deal making ensued, a vote occurred, and one side lost.

NEXT!
 
BHO needs to get over his pity party. He lost and that's that. I'm also sick of him parading the Newtown families around as pawns in his game. Even the dad of one of the boys said that this legislation wouldn't have saved one child up there. As long as you continue to propose things that wouldn't have prevented Newtown, then you get a big fat hell no from me.

In stead of whining about loosing your "common sense" legislation, why don't you actually try and fix some real problems in this country, like unemployment, the economy, and hell...north Korea. This President sucks at life. It truly amazes me how he can continue to be reelected.
 
Hacker15e said:
Who is saying that 46 of 100 is a majority? I'm certainly not.
Click to expand...

You are being hypocritical here. You say "polls don't matter", yet when a sample was taken from people all across the country in a vote, a majority wanted this legislation passed.

What I did say was that quoting public opinion polls is not the same as elected representatives voting on specific legislation using long-agreed-upon procedural rules of session. This is why the US government 3-branch system is set up the way it is -- to ensure that representation from all angles is part of the process.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I know that. I'd argue that the checks and balance system of the 3-Branch system lost their way as well with all the private interests and lobbyists. Furthermore, you conservatives love to bitch and moan about the gridlock in DC prevents anything from getting done except a bloated government with a ton of red tape. That correlates to the growth to this system.

I also said that the Constitution exists specifically to counter a "tyranny of the majority". We quite intentionally don't live in a simple Greek-style democracy where 50.1% get to impose their will on 49.9%.
Click to expand...

That is a ridiculous argument.
 
Hacker15e said:
The idea that these measures were in any way methods of reducing violence committed with firearms.
Click to expand...

I don't have any illusions that more extensive background checks will dramatically reduce gun violence, and we can certainly disagree on the effectiveness/constitutionality of the measure--but calling the "idea" that increasing checks will reduce the number of guns that make it to people who shouldn't have them is a little extreme.
 
cezzna said:
I for one, didn't support it, but that isn't the real shame.

The real shame is that the national guilt monger (Obama) and his shills (national media) made this the lead story last night. 10 minutes of this junk before getting to the Boston story.

They don't get their way so now comes the national guilt trip? This is governing? Leading? Take your emotional hemorrhaging dog and pony show back to the progressive play book. I can't believe you libs stand behind this........what a joke....
Click to expand...
It's funny how you talk about "play books" yet half of what you've written here is out of the conservative one.
 
ryan1234 said:
You're joking right?
Click to expand...

No.

To further expand, a candidate can win 50.1% of the vote in an election and will be the elected representative to the 49.9% that didn't vote for him.

I know there are other avenues such as the electoral college were as the popular vote doesn't matter, but to say the whole picture is how Hacker15e paints it is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top