Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2013, 02:52:54 PM
The vote was 54-46, with supporters falling six votes short of the required 60-vote threshold.
The Senate is proceeding to several other amendments, but the failure of the background check proposal authored by Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., imperils the entire legislation. The proposal would have expanded background checks to gun shows and Internet sales while exempting personal transactions. The amendment was aimed at winning over reluctant conservatives, who were opposed to the more stringent background check plan in the existing bill.
It's unclear where supporters will go from here. They could try to vote again, or craft an alternative piece of legislation. Four Republicans voted for the amendment, but five Democrats voted against it. One of those Democrats was Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid -- who only switched his vote to oppose it because doing so allows Democrats to call up the measure again. Other Democrats who voted against the measure for non-procedural reasons were Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana.
The Obama administration has made the package, written in the wake of the Newtown school mass shooting, a top priority and along with its allies had applied heavy pressure to wavering lawmakers. Vice President Biden presided over the vote Wednesday.
Though the bill advanced on a key procedural vote last week, it would likely need to clear the 60-vote threshold once more -- a very heavy lift without the Manchin-Toomey amendment.
In the run-up to Wednesday's vote, Democratic leaders gave ever-changing assessments of where support stood.
Biden said Tuesday that Democrats would get the 60 votes, but then said later in the day that it could come down to one or two senators.
Manchin acknowledged early Wednesday that the bill was having trouble, but then released a statement saying he remained "optimistic and hopeful."
Opponents needed just 41 of the Senate's 100 votes to derail the Manchin-Toomey background check plan.
Thirty-one senators voted last week to completely block debate on overall gun legislation. Since last week, enough lawmakers who voted to allow debate switched to oppose Manchin-Toomey, in turn defeating the amendment.
Opponents, which included a few Democrats, voiced concern that the proposal would still infringe on Second Amendment rights by imposing a burden on those buying and selling guns. They claimed the proposed system would not have prevented Newtown, and would not stop criminals. They also voiced concern about the possibility that the expanded system could lead to a gun registry, though the amendment language prohibits this.
"I believe very strongly that our current background check system needs strengthening and improving, particularly in areas that could keep guns out of the hands of felons and the mentally ill. At the same time, I cannot support legislation that infringes upon the constitutional right to keep and bear arms," Sen. Dean Heller, R-Nev., one of those opposed, said in a statement.
Only four Republican senators committed to voting for the amendment ahead of time. The last was Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., who announced his support Wednesday afternoon. The other three were Toomey, Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois and Sen. Susan Collins of Maine.
The Senate gun bill would extend background checks to nearly all gun purchases, toughen penalties against illegal gun trafficking and add small sums to school safety programs.
Perhaps helping explain Democrats' problems, an AP-GfK poll this month showed that 49 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws. That was down from 58 percent who said so in January -- a month after the December killings of 20 children and six aides at a Newtown, Conn., elementary school propelled gun violence into a national issue.
In a climactic day, the Senate planned to hold eight other votes Wednesday besides the one on background checks, all of them amendments to a broad gun control measure.
They included Democratic proposals to ban assault weapons and high-capacity ammunition magazines, which are expected to lose; a Republican proposal requiring states to honor other states' permits allowing concealed weapons, which faces a close vote; and a GOP substitute for the overall gun measure.
The concealed weapons amendment, seen by advocates as protecting gun rights, was vehemently opposed by gun control groups, who say it would allow more guns into states with stricter firearms laws.
The votes were coming a day after former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, badly injured in a 2011 mass shooting in Tucson, Ariz., and her husband, Mark Kelly, tried galvanizing gun control support by visiting Capitol Hill and attending a private lunch with Democratic senators. Reid, D-Nev., called the lunch -- senators said it included emotional speeches from lawmakers -- "as moving as any" he has attended.
Post by: Curly on April 17, 2013, 02:58:14 PM
:)
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2013, 02:59:54 PM
Obama sure was pissed. 8)Its a real setback for him. :tup:
:)
Post by: magnanimous_j on April 17, 2013, 03:01:39 PM
Post by: C-Money on April 17, 2013, 03:03:30 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2013, 03:04:31 PM
Told'ja soyou also said Obumbles would never go after our guns. ;)
Post by: Bigshooter on April 17, 2013, 03:06:15 PM
Told'ja so
You should be proud that the the two idiots from WA that you voted for did support it.
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2013, 03:08:49 PM
Ouch!!! :chuckle:Told'ja so
You should be proud that the the two idiots from WA that you voted for did support it.
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2013, 03:13:10 PM
Post by: Bean Counter on April 17, 2013, 03:23:21 PM
Obama sure was pissed. 8)Its a real setback for him. :tup:
:)
perhaps he'll find some comfort reading the Communist Manifesto or some incantations from the Quran.
Post by: Bean Counter on April 17, 2013, 03:23:36 PM
Post by: whacker1 on April 17, 2013, 03:31:38 PM
Told'ja soyou also said Obumbles would never go after our guns. ;)
Told'ja so
You should be proud that the the two idiots from WA that you voted for did support it.
O.K. Mag as much as I like to see what side of a conversation you might come from......I do believe you did say that Obama would not go after gun control, didn't you? Are you willing to come clean on this one?
I also don't know if you supported Murray and Cantwell, but if you did......I hope this educated you a little bit about how simple it can be to water down the various amendments to the constitution.
Post by: shorthair15 on April 17, 2013, 03:35:15 PM
Post by: washelkhunter on April 17, 2013, 03:38:42 PM
Post by: Jingles on April 17, 2013, 03:51:15 PM
Post by: csaaphill on April 17, 2013, 05:40:24 PM
so lets hope this dies all together now and if it come up again kill it hen too.
Great stuff.
:IBCOOL: :IBCOOL: :IBCOOL: :tup: :tup: :tup: :tup:
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 17, 2013, 05:46:47 PM
Senator Johanns e-Update
April 17, 2013
Today, I cosponsored an amendment that is an alternative to Majority Leader Harry Reid's (D-Nev.) gun control legislation. This substitute amendment, introduced by Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), would have kept guns out of the hands of people who should not have them while respecting the Second Amendment right of law-abiding Americans.
The bill would have protected private firearms transfers from mandatory background checks by continuing the practice of allowing firearms to be transferred between family members, neighbors and close friends without the need for FBI approval. It also included commonsense provisions to address the causes of gun-related violence. One of those provisions was a bill
http://www.johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7659d149-735e-43e7-b133-e8d0698c7619&ContentType_id=bc82adff-27b4-4832-8fd6-aecbe3e7d8e3 (http://www.johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=PressReleases&ContentRecord_id=7659d149-735e-43e7-b133-e8d0698c7619&ContentType_id=bc82adff-27b4-4832-8fd6-aecbe3e7d8e3)
I introduced earlier this year that would improve current mental health laws by ensuring law enforcement officials are able to help those with mental illnesses receive the services they need.
We owe it to the victims of gun violence and their families to pursue policies that actually address the underlying causes of these atrocities. We also owe it to all Americans to protect the rights guaranteed by the Constitution. This amendment would have balanced both of these needs. Unfortunately, it failed to pass by a vote of 48-52.
Earlier today I spoke on the Senate floor. Click HERE to watch me discuss the amendment I cosponsored and Senator Reid's gun control bill before the Senate.
http://www.johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=VideoClips&ContentRecord_id=55e6d307-0da7-4585-bcf0-029bf24a2bcd&ContentType_id=d4f8bed8-f249-4640-b5b1-874dada9c4c8 (http://www.johanns.senate.gov/public/?p=VideoClips&ContentRecord_id=55e6d307-0da7-4585-bcf0-029bf24a2bcd&ContentType_id=d4f8bed8-f249-4640-b5b1-874dada9c4c8)
Post by: csaaphill on April 17, 2013, 05:54:09 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 17, 2013, 06:03:58 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We Won a Stunning Victory Today!
"Schumer's spokesman Brian Fallon took note of Gun Owners of America's role in the debate, tweeting a link to the [New York] Times profile and saying the group 'is making deal on even background checks extremely hard.'" - TPM Media, "Democrats Blame Gun Owners of America for Gun Control Setback," April 8, 2013
You guys did it. We all did it - together!
For four months, the laughing hyenas on MSNBC and in the White House have been cackling hysterically about the "bitter clingers" who actually own guns and value the Second Amendment.
Well, who's laughing now?
The TPM quote above indicated - more than a week ago - that things weren't going well for anti-gun Democrats. The New York Times also lamented on April 3 that:
The group [GOA] has already been successful in both freezing senators, particularly Republicans, who have appeared to be on the fence about supporting bills to expand background checks.
Have you ever wondered if your activism makes any difference at all? Well, today, you saw a dramatic answer to that question, as we won an incredible victory.
You guys scorched the Senate offices with phone calls. Many of you reported to us that their phones were ringing endlessly (as they were busy handling other calls) ... that in many cases your Senator's mailboxes were full ... and in some cases, that they even hung up on you.
Today was a textbook example of how grassroots activism makes a difference! But even still, you can be sure that the gun grabbers will be back soon, trying hard to resurrect this issue.
And that's why your GOA will remain ever vigilant and will alert you to any proposed infringements of your liberty.
Here are the highlights of what happened today:
(1) The most important vote was the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer national gun registry proposal. With 60 votes needed for passage, the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer amendment was shot down by a vote of 54-46.
GOA and NRA strongly opposed the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer amendment. But we were surprised to see that another gun group - not only said they supported the Toomey language, but - said they helped write the Toomey-Manchin-Schumer text. Thankfully, their support for this gun control language was not enough to get it passed.
(2) The Cornyn-Vitter-Thune amendment - pushed hard by Gun Owners of America - received a 57-43 vote (so we fell three votes short since 60 were needed). This provision would have allowed concealed carry holders and persons in constitutional carry states to carry nationwide. The overwhelming vote on this amendment sets the stage for bringing it up again and again on must-pass legislation.
(3) As predicted, the Feinstein gun ban lost by a vote of 40-60 - falling far short of a majority - and the magazine ban lost by a vote of 46-54.
Today is a day to celebrate! We thank God for all of you and for all the Help that we have received in this long struggle to stop infringements of our liberties.
Here's what is still left for tomorrow.
Harry Reid's bill (S. 649) is still on the floor of the Senate, and there are two scheduled votes that will take place tomorrow. Eventually, the Senate will vote on whether to end debate on the bill (known as cloture), but that vote won't necessarily take place tomorrow. The Senate will need 60 votes to end debate, but if they can't reach that threshold, the bill effectively dies.
So GOA is telling Senators to vote AGAINST cloture on the bill, whenever that vote comes.
ACTION: We think that we can defeat cloture on final passage of the bill. But, to be safe, GOA is encouraging activists to contact their Senators and urge them oppose cloture! You can reach them at 202-224-3121.
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2013, 06:11:16 PM
Post by: timberghost72 on April 17, 2013, 10:13:37 PM
What a little baby. I didnt get what I wanted so Im gonna cry about it and stomp off the playground. Instead of whining about it he should have said the process worked as it should have and it didnt go as he wanted.
Post by: Curly on April 17, 2013, 10:18:22 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2013, 10:20:05 PM
The pic of Biden with the clenched lips and folded arms is classic. :chuckle:He is pointing like that through the entire speach.
Post by: mulehunter on April 17, 2013, 10:20:41 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2013, 10:27:04 PM
Post by: Bob33 on April 17, 2013, 10:39:55 PM
Post by: snowpack on April 17, 2013, 10:42:40 PM
Post by: Greenhorn on April 17, 2013, 10:47:15 PM
Post by: silverdalesauer on April 17, 2013, 11:03:03 PM
"You need to do this..."
"You need to do that...."
"You NRA members need to tell your legislators how upset you are..." What? Is he serious? Don't try to brainwash me with your stupid progressive jedi mind-tricks...
Blah, blah, blah...
Post by: FisherKing on April 17, 2013, 11:37:06 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 17, 2013, 11:54:42 PM
Anybody hear Piers Morgans response?
Post by: csaaphill on April 17, 2013, 11:58:26 PM
Post by: huntnphool on April 18, 2013, 12:02:59 AM
We still need to defeat hearry Reids S 649 bill that would make it a feolony to not report to Eric holder and locals you lost or someon stole your firearm/s.What if you didn't know?
Post by: csaaphill on April 18, 2013, 12:08:53 AM
and guess you'd be a criminal so use that link in the diff topic I made for this and change the text when it lets you and write your legislaters.
Post by: Bean Counter on April 18, 2013, 12:11:57 AM
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00097 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00097)
banning modern sporting rifles:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00101 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00101)
standard capacity magazines:
http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00103 (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=113&session=1&vote=00103)
Post by: snowpack on April 18, 2013, 12:16:30 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 18, 2013, 07:33:08 AM
Post by: boneaddict on April 18, 2013, 07:42:36 AM
Post by: dontgetcrabs on April 18, 2013, 08:00:25 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on April 18, 2013, 08:11:48 AM
The pic of Biden with the clenched lips and folded arms is classic. :chuckle:The whole time I was watching this I kept thinking that Biden looked like Jeff Dunham's (the ventriloquist) puppet Walter. :chuckle:
Post by: whacker1 on April 18, 2013, 08:17:22 AM
The pic of Biden with the clenched lips and folded arms is classic. :chuckle:The whole time I was watching this I kept thinking that Biden looked like Jeff Dunham's (the ventriloquist) puppet Walter. :chuckle:
Sounds like a great photo shop opportunity
Post by: turkeyfeather on April 18, 2013, 08:26:37 AM
I see Mcain voted for it. What a tool! :bash:That guy is still trying to play on both sides of the fence in hopes of another shot at the White House.
Post by: turkeyfeather on April 18, 2013, 08:27:23 AM
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 18, 2013, 08:28:23 AM
Post by: turkeyfeather on April 18, 2013, 08:33:53 AM
Post by: Curly on April 18, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
I see Mcain voted for it. What a tool! :bash:
Tool and a fool. The guy makes me sick. I was really surprised when the good people of Arizona re-elected that Rino. :bash:
Post by: lokidog on April 18, 2013, 09:07:31 AM
Mz. Heitkamp, Though I am not from your state, I thought I would send a note of appreciation from a law-abiding gun owner. It took great integrity for you and the other Democratic Senators to stand up to your party in defense of the Constitution of the United States. Those of us in states where our legislators don't have the courage to stand up for what is right and to uphold the Oath of Office they swore should show appreciation for those of you who understand that without all of our Constitution being supported, none of it will be. There are many other avenues to help ensure these hideous acts of gun violence are not repeated by mentally unstable people in the future. These are the paths that need to be followed rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens of our country. Thank you!
Post by: buckfvr on April 18, 2013, 09:17:51 AM
We need a political purge......All these party line voters with no conscience of their own need to go along with the poison seed Reid.
I hope everyone here puts the mouth on Murray and Cantwell at every opportunity. They deserve to be unemployed.
I feel like we will be fighting this battle for ever now......it will raise its ugly head year aftere year in one form or another, with an end goal of disarming america. The powers to be will forever be sneaking around trying to make it happen....we need to be obsessed with getting this word out to anyone who'll listen.
Its not over, we've just turned the page.............. :twocents:
Post by: Fl0und3rz on April 18, 2013, 09:18:28 AM
Told'ja so
Perhaps your forgetting something?
Quote
mag·nan·i·mous
/magˈnanəməs/
Adjective
Very generous or forgiving, esp. toward a rival or someone less powerful than oneself.
Synonyms
generous - large-hearted - high-minded - noble-minded
Post by: whacker1 on April 18, 2013, 09:20:08 AM
I agree this is good news. However, instead of continuing to alienate those from the "other side", we should show appreciation to those who, against their party lines, upheld what is right. They are, I am sure, getting hit hard by the left for their decision to vote no. One of these mambers, who is not up for reelection next year (and therefore probably did this out of conviction not for campaigning) is the Senator from North Dakota, Heidi Heitkamp. I sent heer the following message on her Facebook page:
Mz. Heitkamp, Though I am not from your state, I thought I would send a note of appreciation from a law-abiding gun owner. It took great integrity for you and the other Democratic Senators to stand up to your party in defense of the Constitution of the United States. Those of us in states where our legislators don't have the courage to stand up for what is right and to uphold the Oath of Office they swore should show appreciation for those of you who understand that without all of our Constitution being supported, none of it will be. There are many other avenues to help ensure these hideous acts of gun violence are not repeated by mentally unstable people in the future. These are the paths that need to be followed rather than restricting the rights of law-abiding citizens of our country. Thank you!
:tup: Good job Loki...............
We need a political purge......All these party line voters with no conscience of their own need to go along with the poison seed Reid.
I hope everyone here puts the mouth on Murray and Cantwell at every opportunity. They deserve to be unemployed.
I feel like we will be fighting this battle for ever now......it will raise its ugly head year aftere year in one form or another, with an end goal of disarming america. The powers to be will forever be sneaking around trying to make it happen....we need to be obsessed with getting this word out to anyone who'll listen.
Its not over, we've just turned the page.............. :twocents:
You two are spot on with these comments: Thank those that voted for against it and send feedback to those that voted for it that you disapprove
Post by: bigdave on April 18, 2013, 09:28:24 AM
Post by: magnanimous_j on April 18, 2013, 09:35:47 AM
Minor victory......I expect Obumble to enact executive orders that will "punish" legal gun owners by restricting importation of full capacity magazines, military surplus gun parts, military surplus ammunition. They will not stop. They cannot accomplish their agenda with an armed populace.
What is their agenda, and why can’t they accomplish it with an armed populace?
Post by: huntnphool on April 18, 2013, 09:41:40 AM
Do you have any idea WHY Obama was so pissed during his speach yesterday or do you just pretend to follow politics?Minor victory......I expect Obumble to enact executive orders that will "punish" legal gun owners by restricting importation of full capacity magazines, military surplus gun parts, military surplus ammunition. They will not stop. They cannot accomplish their agenda with an armed populace.
What is their agenda, and why can’t they accomplish it with an armed populace?
Post by: magnanimous_j on April 18, 2013, 09:51:52 AM
Do you have any idea WHY Obama was so pissed during his speach yesterday or do you just pretend to follow politics?Minor victory......I expect Obumble to enact executive orders that will "punish" legal gun owners by restricting importation of full capacity magazines, military surplus gun parts, military surplus ammunition. They will not stop. They cannot accomplish their agenda with an armed populace.
What is their agenda, and why can’t they accomplish it with an armed populace?
Because he is an egomaniac and hates to lose? Because he truly believes that the bill would have made the country safer? Because he was fiending for a cigarette? I’m guessing mostly the first one.
Civilian gun ownership is, for most of us, a coal mine canary. If it’s threatened, its an indication that our fundamental liberties are in dire jeopardy. However, we need to remember that there are some poisons that won’t kill canaries, but are absolutely lethal to the miners.
Post by: pianoman9701 on April 18, 2013, 09:58:15 AM
Post by: huntnphool on April 18, 2013, 10:00:59 AM
Thanks Mags, I didn't think you did and this proves your clueless.Do you have any idea WHY Obama was so pissed during his speach yesterday or do you just pretend to follow politics?Minor victory......I expect Obumble to enact executive orders that will "punish" legal gun owners by restricting importation of full capacity magazines, military surplus gun parts, military surplus ammunition. They will not stop. They cannot accomplish their agenda with an armed populace.
What is their agenda, and why can’t they accomplish it with an armed populace?
Because he is an egomaniac and hates to lose? Because he truly believes that the bill would have made the country safer? Because he was fiending for a cigarette? I’m guessing mostly the first one.
Civilian gun ownership is, for most of us, a coal mine canary. If it’s threatened, its an indication that our fundamental liberties are in dire jeopardy. However, we need to remember that there are some poisons that won’t kill canaries, but are absolutely lethal to the miners.
Post by: magnanimous_j on April 18, 2013, 10:07:23 AM
Thanks Mags, I didn't think you did and this proves your clueless.Do you have any idea WHY Obama was so pissed during his speach yesterday or do you just pretend to follow politics?Minor victory......I expect Obumble to enact executive orders that will "punish" legal gun owners by restricting importation of full capacity magazines, military surplus gun parts, military surplus ammunition. They will not stop. They cannot accomplish their agenda with an armed populace.
What is their agenda, and why can’t they accomplish it with an armed populace?
Because he is an egomaniac and hates to lose? Because he truly believes that the bill would have made the country safer? Because he was fiending for a cigarette? I’m guessing mostly the first one.
Civilian gun ownership is, for most of us, a coal mine canary. If it’s threatened, its an indication that our fundamental liberties are in dire jeopardy. However, we need to remember that there are some poisons that won’t kill canaries, but are absolutely lethal to the miners.
Then consider this your opportunity to enlighten me. What is the agenda, and why can’t it be accomplished with an armed populace?
Cause to me, you just seem paranoid and delusional. But if you’re on to something here, please explain. I’ll listen with a completely open mind. I promise.
What is the agenda, and why can’t it be accomplished with an armed populace?
Post by: sirmissalot on April 18, 2013, 10:11:59 AM
Mag believes in Dear Leader no matter what he wants to do or does to this country. There's no reasoning with the followers.
But... he told us so! :chuckle:
Post by: magnanimous_j on April 18, 2013, 10:16:01 AM
Mag believes in Dear Leader no matter what he wants to do or does to this country. There's no reasoning with the followers.
But... he told us so! :chuckle:
I did! I said that this bill didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell, and that there would be no significant change to current gun laws. You guys need me, I’m the voice of reason when you all spin off the planet every time a politician says he doesn’t like guns. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
Post by: huntnphool on April 18, 2013, 10:19:23 AM
heading in for teeth cleaning. Although I don't for a second believe you have a open mind, I'll give you my opinion when I get out.Thanks Mags, I didn't think you did and this proves your clueless.Do you have any idea WHY Obama was so pissed during his speach yesterday or do you just pretend to follow politics?Minor victory......I expect Obumble to enact executive orders that will "punish" legal gun owners by restricting importation of full capacity magazines, military surplus gun parts, military surplus ammunition. They will not stop. They cannot accomplish their agenda with an armed populace.
What is their agenda, and why can’t they accomplish it with an armed populace?
Because he is an egomaniac and hates to lose? Because he truly believes that the bill would have made the country safer? Because he was fiending for a cigarette? I’m guessing mostly the first one.
Civilian gun ownership is, for most of us, a coal mine canary. If it’s threatened, its an indication that our fundamental liberties are in dire jeopardy. However, we need to remember that there are some poisons that won’t kill canaries, but are absolutely lethal to the miners.
Then consider this your opportunity to enlighten me. What is the agenda, and why can’t it be accomplished with an armed populace?
Cause to me, you just seem paranoid and delusional. But if you’re on to something here, please explain. I’ll listen with a completely open mind. I promise.
What is the agenda, and why can’t it be accomplished with an armed populace?
Post by: scoyoc5 on April 18, 2013, 10:31:59 AM
Post by: bigdave on April 18, 2013, 10:39:41 AM
Post by: Fl0und3rz on April 18, 2013, 10:43:34 AM
Because he is an egomaniac and hates to lose? Because he truly believes that the bill would have made the country safer? Because he was fiending for a cigarette? I’m guessing mostly the first one.
Civilian gun ownership is, for most of us, a coal mine canary. If it’s threatened, its an indication that our fundamental liberties are in dire jeopardy. However, we need to remember that there are some poisons that won’t kill canaries, but are absolutely lethal to the miners.
This is linear thinking. Individual liberties are under attack on all fronts (by both parties). It is the nature of government and of many who chose to govern, unfortunately. It just so happens that the guy in charge's favorite liberty to demonize happens to be the right to defend oneself.
It also happens that self defense is the last resort of a people suffering a long train of abuses. If a government did not have evil designs, and all do, eventually, when left unchecked, then that government would not have any issue with a healthy right of self-defense. 2A attacks that purport to effect public safety, against all common sense, while trampling the individual liberties of millions, run counter to that wisdom. Rather than give up a little liberty to gain a large measure of safety - still a dubious proposition - gun owners are being asked - no, attempted to be compelled - to give up a lot of liberty in exchange for what, exactly? Is it just the illusion of something being done in the name of safety? Nobody can say with a straight face that the proposals on the table will prevent another Newtown, Aurora, etc. It's not tinfoil hat domain to suspect that there may be an ulterior motive at play, when all the "facts," polls, "statistics," and other assorted lies don't add up to what they are purported to support. I don't care if you'll forgive me for not believing a word out of this guy's mouth after Fast and Furious, Benghazi, etc. (and other daily examples too numerous to mention).
So it's little wonder that people get worked up when that right to self defense is being threatened.
I believe you have a reputation for believing, paraphrasing, that the one would never come out for gun control. I'll pass on your wisdom. Tip: The attempt at redeeming (told you so) your presumed credibility probably serves more as a thumb in your adversaries' eyes than it does to bolster your position of authority.
ETA: As far as what the agenda is or may be, who knows? What is this fundamental change he speaks of? Can you define it? If it is Great Britain, I don't want it. If it is Cypress, I don't want it. How long do think the government of Cypress would stand after the rather unprecedented seizure of private wealth if the citizens of Cypress had a healthy right of self-defense? You seem to be conveniently obtuse in the face of inconvenient realizations.
If it is more identity politics, more division along racial and socioeconomic lines, more demonization of opponents, more unilateral anti- or extra-constitutional action, more taxpayer-funded or after-birth abortions, more compulsion from an ever-growing leviathan located thousands of miles from my concerns, etc. I don't want it.
If enough people don't want the fundamental change, and there is not a healthy right of self-defense, what is to stop them from forcing it anyway? We could go all Cypress on them?
Post by: huntnphool on April 18, 2013, 03:55:34 PM
This is along the lines of what I was getting at Mags.Mag believes in Dear Leader no matter what he wants to do or does to this country. There's no reasoning with the followers.
But... he told us so! :chuckle:
I did! I said that this bill didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell, and that there would be no significant change to current gun laws.
Who actually thought this had a chance of becoming law? Did it ever have a chance of getting through the house if the senate passed it?........NO!!!!........and don't you think Obama knew this?
I think Obama is evil, pure and simple, but I do believe he is a intelligent man and well versed in politics. This whole dog and pony show has little to do with guns, although if he could have gotten rid of them in the process then he'd take it. This is about the 2014 election, and taking over the house, where he and his administration could get through any regulation they wanted before he was gone.
The reason Obama is pissed is because this was supposed to pass the senate and get rejected by the house, where Obama could blame the republicans, the politicians that don't care about your kids or their safety. He is trying to get control of the house, and Supreme Court and this is a game he is playing, parading the parents of Sandy Hook around for the country to see is just part of it. He knew there was zero chance the bill would get to his desk, so he is playing politics and the blame game for the 2014 election. That was his plan and his own party stuck a monkey in his wrench.
I think anyone with truly a "open mind" can see what is actually happening here, its all about government control and keeping the Democratic party controlling the strings.
And by the way, I'm not the one that said it couldn't be accomplished with a armed populace. ;)
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on April 18, 2013, 04:58:57 PM
Mag believes in Dear Leader no matter what he wants to do or does to this country. There's no reasoning with the followers.
But... he told us so! :chuckle:
I did! I said that this bill didn’t have a snowball’s chance in hell, and that there would be no significant change to current gun laws. You guys need me, I’m the voice of reason when you all spin off the planet every time a politician says he doesn’t like guns. :chuckle: :chuckle: :chuckle:
:chuckle: :chuckle:
http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/biden-gun-bill-defeat/2013/04/18/id/500224 (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/biden-gun-bill-defeat/2013/04/18/id/500224)
Biden: Executive Actions Coming In Wake of Gun Bill Defeat
Read Latest Breaking News from Newsmax.com http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/biden-gun-bill-defeat/2013/04/18/id/500224#ixzz2QrXX57oK (http://www.newsmax.com/Newsfront/biden-gun-bill-defeat/2013/04/18/id/500224#ixzz2QrXX57oK)
Urgent: Should Obamacare Be Repealed? Vote Here Now!
Post by: snowpack on April 18, 2013, 05:15:44 PM
Post by: csaaphill on April 18, 2013, 09:52:06 PM