New gun control thread!

[TakeYouToTasker]

btw, i have no idea if your contention there is true.

You know this means I win the argument, right?

[Adam]

Provide examples.

I'll see if I can dig up some old links- not today though. Busy weekend on tap.

[We Come In Peace]

Oh Jesus Christ the old if we let them have guns does that mean tanks should be legal argument. I know you're smart enough to see through that logic yet you still use it.

How many on the right use the same logic to defend against gay marriage? "if we let them get married then what about a guy marrying his horse or dog?"

 

 

[meazza]

How many on the right use the same logic to defend against gay marriage? "if we let them get married then what about a guy marrying his horse or dog?"

 

Yes, and they're both idiots.

 

Which means birdog is an idiot?

 

You said it not me.

[Azalin]

can you idiots not even understand that this is in reference to azalin's stupid post. he made the assertion that the nra was bipartisan and that this was somehow important to the debate. of course they contribute to both parties. how else would they remain so powerful?

since you feel my post was so stupid, allow me to try to clarify.....NRA membership is made up of (pay close attention here) republicans, democrats, liberatarians, independents, and anyone else who decides that they wish to join. you continually refer to the NRA as if they are some agressive, activist branch of the republican party. they are not. are you going to try to tell us all that all those gun-totin' country boys throughout the deep south that happen to also be democrats shun the NRA as some kind of republicans-only club? do you not recognize that their political power comes their ability to rally the vote and not nearly so much from what kind of cash contributions they make to representitives? at this particular point in time, republicans and liberatarians are the ones championing gun ownership rights & the 2nd ammendment, and the democrats are the ones trying to push legislation to control ownership and limit 2nd ammendment freedoms. the political left & right are clearly on different sides of the issue, but membership within the NRA is diverse.

[IDBillzFan]

you continually refer to the NRA as if they are some agressive, activist branch of the republican party. they are not

 

Allow me to save you the trouble. Birddog is a tried-and-true, get-out-the-message, Organizing for America echo chamber all unto himself.

 

As you noted in the president's hissy fit this week, his gun bill failed exclusively because of NRA lies. If you have any social media outlets you follow, you saw this echoed repeatedly. My Twitter timeline was, consequently, filled yesterday with the new liberal calling card: that the blood of the Boston police officer shot yesterday is on the hands of the NRA and all the senators they bought. It was all over Twitter, Facebook and comment sections of any article you could find.

 

This will be the new liberal cry every time someone gets shot: the victims' blood is on the hands of the NRA.

 

It doesn't work if liberals concede that the NRA is a bipartisan lobby.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Because everybody knows that Chechnyan terrorists respect US gun laws. It's central to their code of ethical terrorism practices.

[Jim in Anchorage]

 

How many on the right use the same logic to defend against gay marriage? "if we let them get married then what about a guy marrying his horse or dog?"

Damn you're big on this gay thing. Just do it. I don't care.

[Azalin]

It doesn't work if liberals concede that the NRA is a bipartisan lobby.

indeed. it's much easier to criticize something when you are able to define it the way you want.

[BringBackFergy]

Because everybody knows that Chechnyan terrorists respect US gun laws. It's central to their code of ethical terrorism practices.

Guns don't kill people...Chechnyan teenagers who come out of 7-11's after robbing the clerk do.

[Chef Jim]

Hey fellas - I haven't contributed to this thread yet so figured I'd pose a question (since this same question will probably be kicked from the OTW thread re. the bombings):

 

Has anyone heard or seen a news story or search that either of these two bombing suspects were licensed to carry handguns or firearms in Boston?? The MIT officer was shot and killed while sitting in his car. Just wondering if these guys were licensed to carry guns...if not, how on earth did they get ahold of guns??

 

The same way every other scumbag gets a gun which that legislation would not have done a goddamn thing to change.

[B-Man]

Wall Street Journal Eviscerates Liberal Media Memes on Gun Control, Explains Why Obama, Reid Are to Blame For Loss in Senate

 

When it comes to the failure of the Democratic gun control package in the U.S. Senate earlier this week, "[t]he media [have been] amplifying... with less subtlety" President Obama's gripes about the power of the NRA and a minority in the Senate supposedly scuttling the will of the American people on background checks, the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted today. But the truth of the matter, the board explained, is that Democrats have only themselves, and more specifically President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to blame.

 

 

The Journal editorial board explained how "[t]he White House demanded, and Mr. Reid agreed, that Congress should try to pass the [Manchin-Toomey background check] amendment without" the benefit of 30 hours of floor debate which "would have meant inspecting the details" of the legislation and "opened up the bill to pro-gun amendments that were likely to pass." A simple majority was needed for such a debate, the Journal notes, a threshold they could have cleared as Reid had 54 votes for his cloture motion. So why did Reid not go that route? Because it would "have boxed Mr. Reid into the embarrassing spectacle of having to later scotch a final bill because it also contained provisions that the White House loathes," the Journal argued, adding (emphases mine):

 

So Mr. Reid moved under "unanimous consent" to allow nine amendments, each with a 60-vote threshold.

The White House was right to worry. An amendment from John Cornyn of Texas that would have required all states to recognize every other state's concealed-carry permits earned 57 votes, 13 Democrats among them.

The nearby table has the list. On Thursday, Wyoming's John Barrasso offered an amendment to protect gun ownership privacy that passed 67-30.

 

The

media are attributing the demise of Manchin-Toomey to the clout of rural states, as if those voters don't count

; or claiming it would have passed under a secret ballot, as if democratic accountability is bad. Our guess is the amendment would have received fewer votes in a secret ballot. Many red-state Democrats wanted to avoid handing Mr. Obama a larger defeat on a bill that was about to fail anyway, but more might have parted company once the specifics were scrutinized.

Manchin-Toomey was rushed together on a political timetable, and a thorough scrub would have revealed that its finer legal points aren't as modest as liberals claim.

Tellingly, the White House blew up earlier negotiations with Tom Coburn on background checks. The Oklahoma Republican favored more and better checks across secondary firearms markets like gun shows and online, but liberals insisted that federally licensed dealers had to keep records.

In other words, keeping guns away from dangerous or unstable people was less important than defeating the NRA.

 

The Senate GOP offered an alternative background-checks amendment that failed 52-48. Nine Democrats were in favor, but their colleagues voted en masse to block it from moving forward. How's that for incoherent?

 

 

http://newsbusters.o...i#ixzz2QvX5jTMw

 

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324493704578430672176449846.html?KEYWORDS=the+gun+rights+consensus

Edited April 19, 2013 by B-Man

[We Come In Peace]

Damn you're big on this gay thing. Just do it. I don't care.

Clearly, you don't have any feelings at all about the matter.

[BringBackFergy]

The same way every other scumbag gets a gun which that legislation would not have done a goddamn thing to change.

Bingo...yet no "inquiry" or "panel discussion" on the cable news shows about how this kid could ever get a gun...after all, these laws should stop this type of thing from happening....NOT. Glad I got my permit when I did.

[birdog1960]

since you feel my post was so stupid, allow me to try to clarify.....NRA membership is made up of (pay close attention here) republicans, democrats, liberatarians, independents, and anyone else who decides that they wish to join. you continually refer to the NRA as if they are some agressive, activist branch of the republican party. they are not. are you going to try to tell us all that all those gun-totin' country boys throughout the deep south that happen to also be democrats shun the NRA as some kind of republicans-only club? do you not recognize that their political power comes their ability to rally the vote and not nearly so much from what kind of cash contributions they make to representitives? at this particular point in time, republicans and liberatarians are the ones championing gun ownership rights & the 2nd ammendment, and the democrats are the ones trying to push legislation to control ownership and limit 2nd ammendment freedoms. the political left & right are clearly on different sides of the issue, but membership within the NRA is diverse.

show me where i described the nra as such. clearly there was bipartisan support for the nra's position as evidence by the 4 dems i called out. none of this is debateable. i'm pretty sure manchin (D) is an nra member yet he wrote the bill that couldn't garner 60 votes. his membership or lack thereof is irrelevant. this isn't about rank and file nra members (although they certainly aren't helping). it's about the national media campaigns, political contributions and political power of the nra leadership.

 

You know this means I win the argument, right?

are you really this opaque or is it just an act?

[B-Large]

Wall Street Journal Eviscerates Liberal Media Memes on Gun Control, Explains Why Obama, Reid Are to Blame For Loss in Senate

 

When it comes to the failure of the Democratic gun control package in the U.S. Senate earlier this week, "[t]he media [have been] amplifying... with less subtlety" President Obama's gripes about the power of the NRA and a minority in the Senate supposedly scuttling the will of the American people on background checks, the Wall Street Journal editorial board noted today. But the truth of the matter, the board explained, is that Democrats have only themselves, and more specifically President Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to blame.

 

 

The Journal editorial board explained how "[t]he White House demanded, and Mr. Reid agreed, that Congress should try to pass the [Manchin-Toomey background check] amendment without" the benefit of 30 hours of floor debate which "would have meant inspecting the details" of the legislation and "opened up the bill to pro-gun amendments that were likely to pass." A simple majority was needed for such a debate, the Journal notes, a threshold they could have cleared as Reid had 54 votes for his cloture motion. So why did Reid not go that route? Because it would "have boxed Mr. Reid into the embarrassing spectacle of having to later scotch a final bill because it also contained provisions that the White House loathes," the Journal argued, adding (emphases mine):

 

 

So Mr. Reid moved under "unanimous consent" to allow nine amendments, each with a 60-vote threshold.

The White House was right to worry. An amendment from John Cornyn of Texas that would have required all states to recognize every other state's concealed-carry permits earned 57 votes, 13 Democrats among them.

The nearby table has the list. On Thursday, Wyoming's John Barrasso offered an amendment to protect gun ownership privacy that passed 67-30.

 

The

media are attributing the demise of Manchin-Toomey to the clout of rural states, as if those voters don't count

; or claiming it would have passed under a secret ballot, as if democratic accountability is bad. Our guess is the amendment would have received fewer votes in a secret ballot. Many red-state Democrats wanted to avoid handing Mr. Obama a larger defeat on a bill that was about to fail anyway, but more might have parted company once the specifics were scrutinized.

Manchin-Toomey was rushed together on a political timetable, and a thorough scrub would have revealed that its finer legal points aren't as modest as liberals claim.

Tellingly, the White House blew up earlier negotiations with Tom Coburn on background checks. The Oklahoma Republican favored more and better checks across secondary firearms markets like gun shows and online, but liberals insisted that federally licensed dealers had to keep records.

In other words, keeping guns away from dangerous or unstable people was less important than defeating the NRA.

 

The Senate GOP offered an alternative background-checks amendment that failed 52-48. Nine Democrats were in favor, but their colleagues voted en masse to block it from moving forward. How's that for incoherent?

 

 

http://newsbusters.o...i#ixzz2QvX5jTMw

 

 

http://online.wsj.co...ights consensus

 

they went all in and played the longshot, they lost.... what can you say?

[TakeYouToTasker]

are you really this opaque or is it just an act?

You gloriously stupid bastard. If you didn't actually exist, I'd create an account and post as you do, in order to create the perfect fool to argue against.

 

You are passionately arguing against a position you just admited you have no idea it is actually correct; which means you don't know the merits of your own argument.

Edited April 19, 2013 by TakeYouToTasker

[B-Man]

they went all in and played the longshot, they lost.... what can you say?

 

I can say.......................why are you blaming others for your mistakes........................it will fall on deaf ears, of course.

 

 

.

[Nanker]

It's all about defeating your political enemies. Pound them into submission.

[B-Large]

I can say.......................why are you blaming others for your mistakes........................it will fall on deaf ears, of course.

 

 

.

 

Its a political argument to get the people to change the complexion of the Congress so they can push through a Bills that is much more convoluted with more anti-gun goodies in it, and face little/less opposition. The mis caluculation is that most people when queried say they are for stonger guns laws in a sincere attempt to deter gun violence, really don't vote "gun issue", and as sad as it was to see that father on the stage with the President on Wednesday, most of those voter not really care although they empathize with the people who lost children.

 

Put a clean bill to vote and it gets through. Politics is a negotiation, as we all know... you never leave the tabel without leaving something you wanted behind, but the President had a lot to gain by getting something quality and impactful through. He has no one to blamce but himself and his allies in Congress who placed a bet with bad odds...