The Attack on the 2nd Amendment Continues
- Thread starter Hacker15e
- Start date
WacoFan
Bigly
60 is required. You can't support that limit on leftist, pinko bills but criticize it at other times.
WacoFan
Bigly
Am I the only one that truly enjoys the petulant scolding, lecturing and outrage from Obama? I'm being serious here - when he gets like that it makes me feel that something positive has happened for America, or at least something negative didn't happen. Either way, I do love it.
n57flyguy
Well-Known Member
I am in agreement with that. I often believe he is trying to alter the thinking from our democratic republic thinking, the legislation HE wanted to go through. Well the system found what HE wanted was not what THE PEOPLE wanted. The families have the same leverage we do, contacting our representatives in favor or denial of the proposed legislation. That is how our system works, that is our true voice. I find his speeches quite insulting at times, though.
I want to know what 90% he is referring to. I can't find any statistic or poll that inclines me to believe that such a majority was in favor of this legislation.
bunk22
Well-Known Member
WacoFan
Bigly
Looks very Presidential
One of my all time favorite movies is WestWorld with Yul Bryner. Do you ever get the feeling that at some point Obama's face-plate with fall off, like Yul in the movie, and he will be revealed to have nothing but robot circuitry? I'm thinking the people that program our President need to get a better handle on what to upload.
cezzna
Well-Known Member
Nothing like a scolding from the benevolent national patriarch. This isn't the Cosby show. Intellectual parsing and comedic buffoonery don't always lead to reaffirmation.
He reminds me of one of my high school teachers. We had a guy who would combat talking and horsing around with an emotional intellectual argument for good behavior. As soon as the lecture was over it was game on. Speeches don't change people, circumstances change people.
He reminds me of one of my high school teachers. We had a guy who would combat talking and horsing around with an emotional intellectual argument for good behavior. As soon as the lecture was over it was game on. Speeches don't change people, circumstances change people.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
pullup
Homewrecker
Hacker15e
Who am I? Where are my pants?
When refencing the phrase/concept "tyranny of the majority", and how it relates to the entire reason that our constitutional republic has been organized and structured the way it has been, references the lawmaking process that elected representatives operate in, not the process by which they are elected.
Significant difference between the two...and only one of these two concepts relates to why a topic with high popular polling numbers does not directly translate into the making/passing of legislation.
In addition, in a Greek-style democracy, there aren't elected representatives anyway, so it does not apply to your example regardless.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Once again this is ridiculous argument. Take a look at the Civil Rights history of this country, the majority always pushed the minority down. In a narrow sliver of time you had centuries of rights advanced because of a favorable political land scape and politicians pulled their heads out of their asses.
Where did I say anything comparing our system to the Greeks? You are the one comparing them, I just stated a fact on how our system works. You can have a someone representing you who didn't even win the popular vote or won by a slim margin? Don't put examples in my mouth.
Seggy
Well-Known Member
Answer this for me Hacker15e, states with the most gun violence have less stringent gun laws than states with stricter gun control. Makes sense, yet it's completely ignored and twisted by your side of the issue...
http://247wallst.com/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence
http://247wallst.com/2013/04/15/states-with-the-most-gun-violence
KSCessnaDriver
Well-Known Member
Yet you have Chicago, with some of the most restrictive gun policies anywhere and it doesn't work. A point that your side completely ignores.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/chicago-struggles-combat-gun-violence-article-1.1271786
ryan1234
Desensitized Member
Tocqueville, in "Democracy in America", raised a question of the tyranny of the majority in the early to mid 1800s, and specifically addressed things such as civil rights. The ending thought was that (pertaining to Quaker states and the freed blacks right to vote) they were never denied the right to vote by the law, rather the opposite... however the law's pragmatic authority is maintained by majority. The freed blacks did not vote in those states for fear of maltreatment from the majority, not because the law was made to prevent them. It is not a ridiculous argument to say that intent of the Constitution was protect the minority.
A Life Aloft
Well-Known Member
Same with Washington DC, Los Angeles and New York City. Those states have some of the strictest gun control laws in the country.
ryan1234
Desensitized Member
Nice try but no cigar...
There's no differentiation of defensive shootings, police shootings, no overall violent crime rate. The article's data comes from Center for American Progress..... seriously?
Not too mention Chicago had some 500 homicides by firearms last year... I think that's around 18 per 100,000.
darrenf
resident denizen
Does anyone really think that gun control in a small geographic area like Chicago is comparable to gun control throughout a region the size of the United States?
Love that you can make stats say anything you want... Best part of the article that you posted is the part where they admit, "But stricter gun control laws alone may not solve these states’ gun violence problems."
darrenf
resident denizen
Is anyone making the argument that gun violence would be that simple to solve? Is anyone even making an argument that gun violence is solvable. I think most people realize you might reduce it, but I know no one who thinks it can be eliminated entirely, unless of course all guns were removed from existence, an obvious impossibility.