New gun control thread!

[birdog1960]

Idiots like you are fortunate that the gun lobby, who receives tons of money from second amendment guys like many on this board, is as strong as it is. If it was weaker, you'd not only be exposed to a totalitarian regime, but you'd also have to live with the incredible loss of life that would occur when ideologes like yourself came for the guns.

yes, what would we do without lobbyists?

[Azalin]

conventional wisdom was that the nra and gun lobby were too strong.

that's because an awful lot of democrats are gun owners and members of the NRA. in fact, the NRA might be one of the most bipartisan lobbies out there.

[B-Man]

He challenged Congress: "If our democracy is working the way it's supposed to, and 90% of the American people agree on something, in the wake of a tragedy you'd think this would not be a heavy lift."

 

Turns out that our republic is working the way it's supposed to. A Gallup poll asking what's the most important problem facing the country shows why what the president is trying to do is indeed a "heavy lift" — only 4% in both April and March cited "guns/gun control," down from 6% in February.

 

The "economy in general" at 24%, "unemployment/jobs" at 18%, "dissatisfaction with government" at 16% and "federal budget deficit/federal debt" at 11% all dwarfed concerns about guns. And the problems of "health care," three years after ObamaCare was passed, and "ethical/moral/family decline" are both more worrisome to the public than gun control.

 

As moderate Democratic senators, especially those facing re-election next year, run away from gun-restriction legislation, it's no mystery what's happened.

 

As Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said on Wednesday, "in some cases" the president has used Newtown victims and their families as props. While still grieving, they were flown on Air Force One to lobby Congress, with the president repeatedly insisting -- yelling, in fact -- that "this is not about politics!"

 

There is something repugnant about the parents of murdered children being exploited several months later. It's especially distasteful when the victims' parents are hardly unanimous on gun control. Note Mark Mattioli, who compellingly called for well-trained, on-site armed guards to protect schoolchildren as a more effective alternative to new gun laws.

 

Even some of the most pro-gun control Democrats, notably Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, whose 1994 assault weapons ban failed ignominiously, admit as much. Intensified background checks, she conceded, "would not have prevented the tragedy in Newtown."

 

Well then, why should Newtown be the rationale to rush such a government power grab into law?

 

 

http://news.investors.com/ibd-editorials/041713-652315-politicization-of-newtown-shooting-victims-fails.htm#ixzz2Qps3AZHI

 

 

 

.

[birdog1960]

that's because an awful lot of democrats are gun owners and members of the NRA. in fact, the NRA might be one of the most bipartisan lobbies out there.

it represents a small proportion of the american people, overall. certainly disp[roportionate to it's influence.

[PearlHowardman]

...few others would have had the courage just like in health care reform...

 

We don't have health care reform. We have health care insurance reform. Health care has not been improved at all.

[Chef Jim]

what is untenable is any reasonable, defensible argument against backround checks http://www.washingto...kground-checks/ that i've heard including the "slippery slope" arguments made here. a vote against this bill was a vote to maintain gun votes and special interest money. simple as that.

 

Here's what I want you to do. I want you to list everything this bill would do, create or change. List it here so all can see and then we can debate whether or not the senate voted against background checks or something else.

[birdog1960]

<p>

Here's what I want you to do. I want you to list everything this bill would do, create or change. List it here so all can see and then we can debate whether or not the senate voted against background checks or something else.

here's what i want you to not do: be cryptic. cut to the chase and enlighten us all on what you believe the senate was really voting on.

[Chef Jim]

<p>

here's what i want you to not do: be cryptic. cut to the chase and enlighten us all on what you believe the senate was really voting on.

 

A hastily put together piece of reactionary legislation that would do very little to change anything.

[B-Man]

C'mon bd, you can do better than the "attack their motives", "they couldn't really have a different opinion" shallowness..............

 

 

.

[TakeYouToTasker]

yes, what would we do without lobbyists?

I've noticed that you, once again, have ignored the substance infavor of emotional claptrap. You're as predictable as a two headed quarter flip.

[birdog1960]

A hastily put together piece of reactionary legislation that would do very little to change anything.

possibly true. like many important issues, symbolism was involved. this bill passing crossed the line in the sand drawn by the nra against any, no matter how little it disrupts their membership, form of new gun regulation. it was a vote to test their until recently unquestioned absolute power on this issue. it was written by a highly rated nra senator. if it truly wasn't substantive then that's on him. to me that's what this vote was truly about...and the bad guys won.

[B-Large]

what is untenable is any reasonable, defensible argument against backround checks http://www.washingto...kground-checks/ that i've heard including the "slippery slope" arguments made here. a vote against this bill was a vote to maintain gun votes and special interest money. simple as that.

 

Don't they call Coburn Dr. No?

 

I don't always agree with Coburn, but he is a heck of a public servant, and tells **** the way it is.

 

We don't have health care reform. We have health care insurance reform. Health care has not been improved at all.

 

We already have the best Healthcare in the world, the Bill attempts to address three big issues, access, coverage and cost. The debate is in whether it will acheive those three goals, and at least make progress in addressing them.

[DC Tom]

Here's his little temper tantrum

 

http://www.washingto...057_video.html#

 

Whose the liar? How many times does he repeat that made up 90% figure?

 

The 90% figure is "true," in that it's an authentic finding from a Quinnepac poll on how many people support background checks.

 

But he uses some nice phrasing to point out how it's true in a very specific, narrow definition, then links it to a far larger issue and finds a bogeyman to blame for going against the will of the people. Sadly, his "populist" shtick plays.

[Azalin]

it represents a small proportion of the american people, overall. certainly disp[roportionate to it's influence.

I never said it was one of the biggest lobbies. I said it has bipartisan membership. besides, since it's an organization devoted to defending one of the original constitutional ammendments, they represent EVERYBODY in the united states, not just their own membership. if a constitutional ammendment is ever changed, it effects everyone, while helping to set a precedent for further modification of other constitutionally guaranteed rights at some other point in time.

[DC Tom]

I never said it was one of the biggest lobbies. I said it has bipartisan membership. besides, since it's an organization devoted to defending one of the original constitutional ammendments, they represent EVERYBODY in the united states, not just their own membership. if a constitutional ammendment is ever changed, it effects everyone, while helping to set a precedent for further modification of other constitutionally guaranteed rights at some other point in time.

 

But, but, but...Sandy Hook, you child killer!

[sodbuster]

Without lobbyists, nobody would actually read all of the bills going through congress. Being part of a lobbying group, such as the NRA or AARP, gives people strength on numbers. It's like a union. Lobbyists always get such a bad rap.

 

If it wasn't for them (or us I should say) a good number of us would probably be facedown in a big hole we all helped dig.

Edited April 18, 2013 by sodbuster

[Azalin]

But, but, but...Sandy Hook, you child killer!

people don't kill people......gun ownership advocates kill people!

[birdog1960]

I never said it was one of the biggest lobbies. I said it has bipartisan membership. besides, since it's an organization devoted to defending one of the original constitutional ammendments, they represent EVERYBODY in the united states, not just their own membership. if a constitutional ammendment is ever changed, it effects everyone, while helping to set a precedent for further modification of other constitutionally guaranteed rights at some other point in time.

wasn't your point that its bipartisan make up made it a more legitimate entity? mine is that it doesn't if it's only representative of a small minority.

[B-Man]

wasn't your point that its bipartisan make up made it a more legitimate entity? mine is that it doesn't if it's only representative of a small minority.

 

 

Its not a legitimate "entity" because percentage wise it's a minority ? ?

 

 

wow, talk about your slippery-slope arguments................................lol

 

 

 

.

[Chef Jim]

And these people vote.