American Politics during the Obama Presidency

I have to agree with the characterization of the Senate vote on background checks as "shameful".

Amazing but true, the vote maintains the loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally ill to purchase guns, without having to undergo a background check. Now such checks don't outright stop such people from getting guns, but they make it more difficult. Why allow a background check system with holes in it? It's like building a dam with leaks. It's a farce.

Look at the polling numbers (Quinnipiac 4/4/2013):
Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
Total 91% Support
Republican 88% Support
Democrat 96% Support
Independent 90% Support
Northeast 92% Support
Midwest 91% Support
South 90% Support
West 91% Support
GunHsHld 88% Support

All political affiliations, geographic regions and even gun owners had overwhelming support for universal background checks. But 45 Senators defied the will of the American people. Instead, these Senators listened to the gun lobby. The NRA scored the vote, meaning they threatened to support or defeat Senators based on their vote. If the Founding Fathers were here today, I think they would be aghast at this perversion of our system of governance.

I think is a waste of resources, nothing but trying to rewrite history & paint brush inadequacies, miscalculations and bad policies. Pimping to the egos of the super rich donors for what? I guess legacy or in other words, saving face. Well, perhaps, we are fools.

Not just directed at the Bush Presidential Library.

[QUOTE=Esten;433253]I have to agree with the characterization of the Senate vote on background checks as "shameful".

Amazing but true, the vote maintains the loopholes that allow criminals and the mentally ill to purchase guns, without having to undergo a background check. Now such checks don't outright stop such people from getting guns, but they make it more difficult. Why allow a background check system with holes in it? It's like building a dam with leaks. It's a farce.

Look at the polling numbers (Quinnipiac 4/4/2013):
Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?
Total 91% Support
Republican 88% Support
Democrat 96% Support
Independent 90% Support
Northeast 92% Support
Midwest 91% Support
South 90% Support
West 91% Support
GunHsHld 88% Support

All political affiliations, geographic regions and even gun owners had overwhelming support for universal background checks. But 45 Senators defied the will of the American people. Instead, these Senators listened to the gun lobby. The NRA scored the vote, meaning they threatened to support or defeat Senators based on their vote. If the Founding Fathers were here today, I think they would be aghast at this perversion of our system of governance.[/QUOTE]Quoting large majority support as a fundamental reason why Americans ought or should not pass / keep a law is a losing proposition.

For good or bad, and admittedly there is number of bad situations that occur because of this, America has never been about simple majority rule. Most of the fundamental changes in our history has come about because of the push from what was at that point the small minority. E.g. Women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, etc.

There's also quite a difference between a Republic vs. A straight Democracy. Seems you are confusing which form of government we really have.

Esten, your claim of 90% support for gun registration / gun control is a fluke at best. Every poll taken through March and into April clearly indicates a steady decline in support since the pinnacle occurred just after the Sandy Hook tragedy December 20th. Assuming your 90% figure is correct, this "overwhelming support" in 90 days has dropped to less than 45% in the polls. This notwithstanding the nearly 24/7 drum beat of the liberal press on the issue.

A point lost in the hyperbole of the liberals is the fact that nothing being discussed for "gun control" would have prevented either the Aurora or Sandy Hook shootings.

Perhaps we should put this issue in perspective. The latest poll by Gallop asking Americans to list "the most important problem facing the country today", conducted from April 4 through April 7, provides us with very interesting data which is contrary to what the liberals and their allies in the press would like for us to believe. Granted, the website is conservative but the poll is what it is.

[URL]http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/17/poll-americans-dont-think-gun-control-is-important/[/URL]

Of the 16 issues listed which garnered greater than a 1% response, guns / gun control was 9th. Immigration fared better at 7th. Both issues only archived a 4% rating, interesting. With all the sound and fury from the liberals and the press you would think these two issues would be in at least the top 4.

Actually the top 4 problems were:

1. Economy in General 24%.

2. Unemployment / Jobs 18%.

3. Dissatisfaction with Government 16%.

4. Federal budget deficit / Federal debt 11% (I thought Obama told us not to worry about this?

Heck, even Ethical / Moral / Family decline came in at 5%, one point ahead of Immigration or guns.

Getting back to the gun control debate, anyone who does not agree with the liberals is now demonized, accused of not wishing to protect the children, are no longer considered Americans and their opinion no longer counts. Obama calls it a sad day because those who disagree with him prevailed. Is he not the president of ALL Americans or has the subset of American come to mean only Liberal Americans and those who do not fall in that subset are no longer his concern?

The gun control issue is moot on its face, should the Senate with its Democratic majority manage to cobble together something, to use Harry Reid's words, it is "dead on arrival" in the House.

Esten, I know you are not a fan of the requirement of 60 votes to move legislation forward in the Senate, but the Democrats who cry about the rule now, were its most ardent supporters when they were not in the majority. By the way, I believe it was the Democrats who came up with that.

Ever see a "poor" Congressman or Senator after they have been in a few terms? Even if only $700 k is the center line it still puts the people who govern us in the much hated "Rich / Elite" class the liberals and Obama love to demonize. See a problem here? What we need is term limits for the House and the Senate. If it's good enough for the President, it's good enough for the legislative branch. If you stagger it out every 2 years and limit each term to 4 years, they turn over too quickly to get too fat and it becomes prohibitively expensive for the power brokers to keep buying them.

Silver Star, please don't start your pitch about the Libertarians, they are human and just as susceptible to corruption as anyone. Power corrupts!

[QUOTE=Mpexy;433267]Quoting large majority support as a fundamental reason why Americans ought or should not pass / keep a law is a losing proposition.

For good or bad, and admittedly there is number of bad situations that occur because of this, America has never been about simple majority rule. Most of the fundamental changes in our history has come about because of the push from what was at that point the small minority. E.g. Women's suffrage, civil rights, gay rights, etc.[/QUOTE]
Of course our elected representatives don't always vote based on poll majorities. And that can be a good thing. But when 90% of their constituents support something, which by any measure is plain common sense, then you have to wonder where they get off essentially telling their own constituents, "Screw you, I'm voting for the 10%". You can't give the finger to the people who elected you and not expect some repercussion. The Senators who voted 'No' on universal background checks are hoping their constituents won't care enough about it come next election. It will be for their opponents, to remind people how their Senator failed to represent them.

Interesting comment about the influence of small minorities. Gun rights and gay rights are both examples. I don't support gay marriage (though I'm not against it either), and I think it gets way too much attention and importance. I like it when Republicans come out and say they support the traditional model of marriage. But the gay movement lobbied and has been successful.

Anyways, the background check issue is unique. How often do 90% of Americans agree on something - almost never. And closing loopholes in the background check system is just common sense. Last week's Senate vote was historic, in a bad way. I am intrigued by it. It isn't going to help Republicans, it will hurt them, the only question is how much.

Check this quote from former Republican Senator Al D'Amato:

[B]"By the way, I'm a Republican. I'm not always very proud of what our party has been doing, particularly lately on the national level," D'Amato said. "I think you've got to be a jackass to be voting against background checks for people buying guns."[/B]

And the audience applauded...

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/al-damato-background-checks_n_3122881.html[/URL]

[QUOTE=Esten;433280]Check this quote from former Republican Senator Al D'Amato:

[B]"By the way, I'm a Republican. I'm not always very proud of what our party has been doing, particularly lately on the national level," D'Amato said. "I think you've got to be a jackass to be voting against background checks for people buying guns."[/B]

And the audience applauded...

[URL]http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/20/al-damato-background-checks_n_3122881.html[/URL][/QUOTE]I've only been half-assed following this but read that Pat Toomey (Republican / Libertarian) and Joe Manchin (Democrat) came up with a bill that would have provided for background checks, and probably would have passed the Senate once amended. It initially only had 54 votes, but, again, would have probably passed with amendments. Harry Reid however invoked procedural rules to keep this from happening. Supposedly this was because of orders from his master in the White House. Supposedly Obama would rather have no gun bill instead of compromising, so he'd have something else to try to pin on the Republicans in the 2014 elections.

[QUOTE=Esten;433279]Of course our elected representatives don't always vote based on poll majorities. And that can be a good thing. But when 90% of their constituents support something, which by any measure is plain common sense, then you have to wonder where they get off essentially telling their own constituents, "Screw you, I'm voting for the 10%". You can't give the finger to the people who elected you and not expect some repercussion. The Senators who voted 'No' on universal background checks are hoping their constituents won't care enough about it come next election. It will be for their opponents, to remind people how their Senator failed to represent them.

Interesting comment about the influence of small minorities. Gun rights and gay rights are both examples. I don't support gay marriage (though I'm not against it either), and I think it gets way too much attention and importance. I like it when Republicans come out and say they support the traditional model of marriage. But the gay movement lobbied and has been successful.

Anyways, the background check issue is unique. How often do 90% of Americans agree on something - almost never. And closing loopholes in the background check system is just common sense. Last week's Senate vote was historic, in a bad way. I am intrigued by it. It isn't going to help Republicans, it will hurt them, the only question is how much.[/QUOTE]Esten, if the poll numbers were ever at 90%, which I doubt, they are without question below 45% and falling now. What part of as far as the IMPORTANT issues of the day for Americans as presented in the Gallop poll only 4% believe gun control is it? How is 4% a majority. The media is making such a fuss over the Senate vote when they know it is going no where in the House. It's moot. By the way the folks who belive in the 2nd Amendment far out number Gay folks, which comprise less than 1.5% of the population, yet liberal politicians are bending over backwards, no pun intended, to meet their demands.

See this is what I'm talking about. Conservatives are too stupid to know what is good for them so we don't count as far a liberals are concerned. Guess I will continue to cling to my guns and religion, to quote the Obamanation.

[B] [u]Boston Bombing Suspects Did Not Have Valid Handgun Licenses, [/u] [/B]

And in Massachusetts a Firearms Identification Card (FID) is required before buying, transporting, or possessing a firearm.

There is no record of Tamerlan Tsarnaev, 26 having a license to carry, and Dzhokhar Tsarnaev, 19 is to young to get a handgun license. Under Massachusetts law, residents under 21 may only apply for a FID card, which allows the holder to own only rifles that hold 10 rounds or less and shotguns.

[URL]http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/2013/04/21/us/21reuters-usa-explosions-boston-guns.html?hp&_r=2&[/URL]

This means the handguns and at least one rifle the brothers had with them were acquired and possessed in ways that broke laws already in existence.

This is a good example of how new gun control laws will not deter criminals, they've been ignoring the old laws for years, and they are seldom prosecuted.

[B] [u]Knee-jerk reactionary legislation! [/u] [/B]

Keeping with the tradition of never wanting a serious crisis to go to waste Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (D-God's Waiting Room) announced yesterday that he will reintroduce legislation to require background checks for the purchase of Gun powder.

[URL]http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/17/sen-lautenberg-wants-background-checks-t[/URL]

Senator Lautenberg seems to ignore that the Boston jihadist would have had little trouble with a background check considering one of them was interviewed by the FBI and found to not be a threat. So what purpose would a background check have served?

However I am curious as to why Lautenberg didn't include backpacks, steel pipe and pressure cookers as items requiring a background check, after all they were all used in the Boston crisis.



[B] [u]"You can't stop insane people from doing insane things by passing insane laws....[/u] [color=red][size=+1]THAT'S INSANE!!!"[/B][/size][/color]


[center][NOPARSE]ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ![/NOPARSE] [/center]

[URL]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424127887324874204578438913145965432.html[/URL]

Fuck the people and blame it on Republicans.

Some of the gun loving RepubliCONs may try to cast doubt on the 90% figure (support for broader background checks). I guess they think they can lie about the polls without people noticing. LOL

The evidence is irrefutable:
[URL]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/[/URL]
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
• CNN / Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7. 89% support
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1. 91% support
• CBS News poll, March 20-24. 90% support
• Washington Post-ABC News poll, March 7-10. 91% support
• Gallup poll, January 19-20. 91% support
• Fox News poll, January 15-17. 91% support
• USA Today / Gallup poll. December 19-22. 92% support

But what do you expect from the "say anything" gun lobby?
The same cadre that convinced many Senators to ignore their own constituents?

If you include 20+ points and then ask a basic question like "Do you support gun control?" you should expect a positive answer. Nearly everyone believes there is room for improvement. For example, most support reporting systems for mentally ill folks. Few states report and the Federal Gov rarely does anything when it is found that people lied. Most sane folks believe that if you lie on your papers when trying to get a gun you should go to jail. The number one reason denials occur is that the person lies about their criminal background yet they are not arrested and put in jail. I support making lying on the form a felony. I also contend that their are more deaths from guns due to suicide than from murder in especially the younger crowd and nearly all mass murders are crazy. If you prevented criminals from having guns but keeping them locked up after a single violent felony conviction and you provided better mental health services and limited their access, you would drastically lower the gun related violence. No sane person who has looked at the data, including the FBI, believes that the best way to reduce gun violence is to take guns from legal gun owners.

Esten since you like to bust on Republicans so much, could you tell my why there is a direct coorelation between being a mass murderer and being either a Democrat or the child of a Democrat? Nearly all those in recent history from Columbine to the most recent case have met this criteria. Can you explain why Joey be thinks everyone should own a shotgun despite the fact that far more murders are committed with shotguns than with "assault rifles." In fact, more than with all rifles combined.

I support broader imigration reform but it doesn't mean I support every crappy idea thrown out by our legislatures to achieve it. You can't ask a general question and then ascribe that means they agree with a specific bill. This type of rhetoric and smoke and mirrors is disgusting and belittles the great Democrats and Republicans in our history. If the only way you can use statistics is to mislead then you should not use them.

Example:

Someone is shown a Red and a Green Corvette and asked, "Would you prefer Red or Green?" They say, "Green.

The host then runs them over with the Green Corvette and claims they asked for it.

Pete.

[QUOTE=Esten;433329]Some of the gun loving RepubliCONs may try to cast doubt on the 90% figure (support for broader background checks). I guess they think they can lie about the polls without people noticing. LOL

The evidence is irrefutable:
[URL]http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/[/URL]
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
• CNN / Opinion Research Corp. poll, April 5-7. 89% support
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1. 91% support
• CBS News poll, March 20-24. 90% support
• Washington Post-ABC News poll, March 7-10. 91% support
• Gallup poll, January 19-20. 91% support
• Fox News poll, January 15-17. 91% support
• USA Today / Gallup poll. December 19-22. 92% support

But what do you expect from the "say anything" gun lobby?
The same cadre that convinced many Senators to ignore their own constituents?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433334] No sane person who has looked at the data, including the FBI, believes that the best way to reduce gun violence is to take guns from legal gun owners./QUOTE]

If you are a legal gun owner, is there proposed legislature to take all your guns away? Or is it only some type of guns?

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433335][QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433334] No sane person who has looked at the data, including the FBI, believes that the best way to reduce gun violence is to take guns from legal gun owners.[/QUOTE]

If you are a legal gun owner, is there proposed legislature to take all your guns away? Or is it only some type of guns?[/QUOTE]

[b]Just the Camel's Nose In The Tent,[/b] and you can bet his body will soon follow.

[quote=Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-CA)]Upon seeing her Clinton gun ban enacted in 1994, Feinstein said: “If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . .[b] ‘Mr. and Mrs. America, turn ‘em all in,’ [/b]...I would have done it.” [/quote]

And lets not forget what the bootlicking Obama lapdog said.
[QUOTE=Esten;430992] But it looks like they will address it around the edges, with a few fixes, while preserving ownership for the qualified masses. I am skeptical this will put much of a dent in the violent crime rate but willing to give it a try. Ultimately, I think there will still be too many cracks in preventing the "bad guys" from getting guns (whether through legal or illegal purchase, or theft). How do you identify a "bad guy" with an inclination for violence but no record ? How do you stop such a person from stealing a gun when there are so many guns out there, sometimes owned by a family member ? [highlight]So ultimately, a broad ban on guns may be needed, and I would strongly support it.[/highlight][snip][/QUOTE]

Why should we allow any guns to be banned, would the Constitution allow certain books to be banned? ... “The answer is obvious — NO”

Esten, if gun control and immigration reform are such hot topics then why do they fall so far down the curve in the poll I quoted at 4% and 5% respectively? I would submit to you they are not but are being pushed by the media. Americans are worried about the economy, jobs and the debt.

In case you have not noticed, we have gun control laws which are not being enforced by the federal government now. How is it that less than 1% of denials are prosecuted when the background check system shows the applicant lied about convictions? So your answer is more unenforceable laws?

The current legislation (most of it) is a slippery slope wanting to make illegal weapons that are commonly used for hunting and are less of risk than the weapons not included in the legislation. Big O has clearly stated many times his real intentions, while being surrounded by armed guards of course. The data does not support that large magazines or "assault rifles" are the problem at all. Interestingly, the murder rate by gun consistently dropped, by government statistics, AFTER the assault weapons ban went away. I am not suggesting there is cause and effect here. In fact, I am arguing the opposite. An assault weapons ban against what really are not assault weapons had no demonstrable effect and any intelligent person aware of the statistics would agree that they would not have any effect now. What you don't hear the gun haters say is that we should enforce laws, keep criminals in jail, provide better mental health, etc . Maybe that is because these things would all take a disproportionate number of their base out of the voting populus.
Pete


[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433335][QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433334] No sane person who has looked at the data, including the FBI, believes that the best way to reduce gun violence is to take guns from legal gun owners./QUOTE]

If you are a legal gun owner, is there proposed legislature to take all your guns away? Or is it only some type of guns?[/QUOTE]

The current legislation (most of it) is a slippery slope wanting to make illegal weapons that are commonly used for hunting and are less of risk than the weapons not included in the legislation. Big O has clearly stated many times his real intentions, while being surrounded by armed guards of course. The data does not support that large magazines or "assault rifles" are the problem at all. Interestingly, the murder rate by gun consistently dropped, by government statistics, AFTER the assault weapons ban went away. I am not suggesting there is cause and effect here. In fact, I am arguing the opposite. An assault weapons ban against what really are not assault weapons had no demonstrable effect and any intelligent person aware of the statistics would agree that they would not have any effect now. What you don't hear the gun haters say is that we should enforce laws, keep criminals in jail, provide better mental health, etc. Maybe that is because these things would all take a disproportionate number of their base out of the voting populus.

Pete.

Absolutely worth watching! It's the Annual White House Correspondent's Presidential Roast. (Conan O'Brian is the Roaster).

[URL]http://news.yahoo.com/event/conan-obrien-at-the-white-house-correspondents-dinner/?vp=1[/URL]

A few strong laughs from the Democratic crowd and a few heavy jokes that were maybe too strong.

Have Fun,

TL.

They really love the workers.

A library for Bush. What a joke.

[QUOTE=WorldTravel69;433355]They really love the workers.[/QUOTE]The hypocrisy of the Democrat party knows no bounds. Make 11 million illegal immigrants citizens ASAP because they're more likely to vote for Democrats. But, in order to protect their union paymasters, only grant 150,000 green cards a year to those who qualify for residence based on education and skills.

It is funny how fast they can work when it affects them.

[U]Tripe #1: The poll question was flawed.[/U] The poll questions on background checks weren't vague or general, they were quite specific: "Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows or online?" "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" etc.

First the gun-pushers tried to discredit the 90% support level. Then they try to discredit the poll question. LOL! Next thing you know they'll be claiming the polls greatly over-sampled liberals. That would be problematic though, because some of the polls broke down the response by political affiliation and showed even Republicans had near-90% support for background checks. It is true there are gaps in state reporting to NICS. But lately we've seen some states take steps to improve their reporting. If we are improving the database, doesn't it also make sense to improve the system which uses the database?

[U]Tripe #2: There is an effort to take guns from legal gun owners.[/U] False. There was no such proposal, bill or amendment.

[U]Tripe #3: We shouldn't bother trying to reduce gun violence since it isn't the most important issue.[/U] Laughable. Since when can / should we just work on one thing? A lot of people think gun violence is important enough to work on.

As some of the gun-pushers may have surmised, the background check issue isn't going away anytime soon. The reason is not mainly because one side "lost". The reason is because Americans just witnessed -- in plain daylight -- a blatantly corrupt vote in the Senate.

Esten.

First:

My point was not the poll questions were vague or misleading but ignored the fact we have gun control laws which are not being enforced now. I would like to know the actual demographics of the polls though. That notwithstanding, your answer is to pass more laws not to enforce. It is the liberals / democrats in control of Washington now ATF, FBI, Treasury, Homeland Security, so why aren't they using the laws they now have on the books?

Second:

If there is such an overwhelmingly majority supporting this issue why hasn't it passed the Senate? The democrats have the majority do they not? Why are even some democrats unwilling to support this bill? Could it be they are from states where the majority of their constituents don't support the bill? How could this be possible, a majority of folks against it even though your polls show 90% support?

Third:

Why is the media paying so much attention to this matter? They never paid any attention to all the bills passed by the House to balance the budget, shrink the deficit, and reduce spending. Oh I get it, those were Republican bills and this little circus in the Senate is a Democrat one. So the lovely little liberal news media again shows its left wing bias.

Fourth:

Nothing being discussed will reduce gun violence and what is being discussed would be just another unenforceable law. Criminals don't follow the law, that's why we call them criminals.

Last but not least, this is a tempest in a tea pot, sound and fury signifying nothing. The Dem's can't even get it out of the Senate they control and it is going nowhere in the House.

The billboard in Colorado says it all, it depicts three men in Indian, pardon me – Native American, costumes with the banner "give up your guns, the government will take care of you".

The only tripe I see here is you whining. Would you like some cheese with that whine?

WT69 if the best you can do is political cartoons, that's a pretty sad statement. They are a bit amusing though in a cockeyed sort of way.

One question, since the bill which passed the House and Senate regarding the air traffic controllers was bipartisan what is your gripe? It's a shame when the legislative branch has to tell folks to shift money from non-critical projects to critical projects, unless of course Obama only wanted to cause as much pain as possible to the American people in hopes of gaining a partisan advantage. It did not work, his poll numbers are headed down again.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433375]First:

My point was not the poll questions were vague or misleading but [/QUOTE]Heh, the first tripe was in response to Peter not you. But given that many gun owners think the gun issue is all about themselves, your response isn't surprising.

Hey Doppel, you're a businessman I have a question for you. Let's say you hired someone to represent your interests. And that person went and acted contrary to your interests. In other words, after you hired them they basically told you to phuck off. Would you keep them around?

Read Punter's quotes below or search your own. The goal is to become European and to remove all guns. Also, you don't start by taking away the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens to decrease criminal activity. It is just stupid. If you are correct then why didn't we see an increase in gun deaths after the assault rifle ban expired?

Pete.

[QUOTE=Esten;433384]Heh, the first tripe was in response to Peter not you. But given that many gun owners think the gun issue is all about themselves, your response isn't surprising.

Hey Doppel, you're a businessman I have a question for you. Let's say you hired someone to represent your interests. And that person went and acted contrary to your interests. In other words, after you hired them they basically told you to phuck off. Would you keep them around?[/QUOTE]

[QUOTE=Esten;433384]Hey Doppel, you're a businessman I have a question for you. Let's say you hired someone to represent your interests. And that person went and acted contrary to your interests. In other words, after you hired them they basically told you to phuck off. Would you keep them around?[/QUOTE]Esten.

First:

My business does not operate as a representative democracy, it is a dictatorship and it's good to be the king! So your comparison does not work; apples to artichokes – the artichokes being the government.

Second:

Elected representatives are responsible to the MAJORITY of their constituents not the LOUDEST minority. In case you have not noticed, the liberal media does not fall into the category of an elected representative's constituents no matter how much noise they make.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433386]Esten.

First:

My business does not operate as a representative democracy, it is a dictatorship and it's good to be the king! So your comparison does not work; apples to artichokes – the artichokes being the government.

Second:

Elected representatives are responsible to the MAJORITY of their constituents not the LOUDEST minority. In case you have not noticed, the liberal media does not fall into the category of an elected representative's constituents no matter how much noise they make.[/QUOTE]Unless the loudest minority (whoever they may be) bring at lot of $ to the table.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433386]Elected representatives are responsible to the MAJORITY of their constituents not the LOUDEST minority.[/QUOTE]We agree here. So you understand then, how elected representatives who voted "No" for broader background checks, who listened to a loud minority instead of a large majority of their constituents who support this measure, have put their jobs at risk.

NHDP - Backlash Over Ayotte Vote Against Bipartisan Background Check Legislation Continues to Grow
[URL]www.nhinsider.com/press-releases/2013/4/25/nhdp-backlash-over-ayotte-vote-against-bipartisan-background.html[/URL]

Esten is just smoke and mirrors.

Reciprocal concealed carry amendment got more yes votes than the background check amendment.

Background checks, yes votes 54, Reciprocal concealed carry, yes votes 57.

Esten instead of your knee-jerk reaction to always blame Republicans, did it ever occur to you to ask, Why didn't Harry Reid give Congress a better bill?

The Democrats in the Senate who voted "NO" did listen to the MAJORITY in their districts as well as the Republicans who voted NO. You just don't seem to get the point here.

Would you now argue since the "polls" show nearly 60% of American's want ObamaCare repealed the Democrats should now switch sides on the issue?

[QUOTE=PeterSideburn;433385]The goal is to become European and to remove all guns. Also, you don't start by taking away the constitutional rights of law abiding citizens to decrease criminal activity. It is just stupid. If you are correct then why didn't we see an increase in gun deaths after the assault rifle ban expired?[/QUOTE]Peter, I can assure you there is no goal to remove all guns (at least with any significant support). Comments some folks may make, including myself, about banning all guns, are entirely hypothetical. It's in the context of "as a last resort", after first trying to reduce gun violence through sensible approaches which also protect gun ownership. Even then, it's clear a ban is a near-impossibility based on gun support levels and the need to amend the Constitution. So it's 100% hypothetical.

I understand some politicians and lobbyists have made statements like "You and I are literally surrounded. The gun-grabbers in the Senate are about to launch an all-out-assault on the Second Amendment." and "They're coming for your guns." (words from Mitch McConnell). But these are simply ploys to get gun owners worked up, attempts to manipulate through lies and fear. The truth is there was no proposal whatsoever in the Senate to take away any legally owned guns.

BTW, background checks and an assault weapons ban don't take away one's constitutional right to own a gun. Mass shootings are up since the assault weapons ban expired, but support for this measure is arguably driven by mere common sense.

You should all read 'Inevitable Revolutions,' by Walter Lafeber.

[QUOTE=Doppelganger;433390]The Democrats in the Senate who voted "NO" did listen to the MAJORITY in their districts as well as the Republicans who voted NO. You just don't seem to get the point here.[/QUOTE]I am pretty sure there were Senators who voted NO on the background check amendment, from states where a MAJORITY supported expanded background checks.

Doppel if you disagree with this, how about let's put it to a test. I got $500 that says I am correct. Do we have a bet?

[QUOTE=Esten;433395]Peter, I can assure you there is no goal to remove all guns (at least with any significant support). Comments some folks may make, including myself, about banning all guns, are entirely hypothetical. It's in the context of "as a last resort", after first trying to reduce gun violence through sensible approaches which also protect gun ownership. Even then, it's clear a ban is a near-impossibility based on gun support levels and the need to amend the Constitution. So it's 100% hypothetical.

I understand some politicians and lobbyists have made statements like "You and I are literally surrounded. The gun-grabbers in the Senate are about to launch an all-out-assault on the Second Amendment." and "They're coming for your guns." (words from Mitch McConnell). But these are simply ploys to get gun owners worked up, attempts to manipulate through lies and fear. The truth is there was no proposal whatsoever in the Senate to take away any legally owned guns.

BTW, background checks and an assault weapons ban don't take away one's constitutional right to own a gun. Mass shootings are up since the assault weapons ban expired, but support for this measure is arguably driven by mere common sense.[/QUOTE]You know, you do make sense.

[QUOTE=BlackShirt;433400]Once in a while,

You know, you do make sense.[/QUOTE][B]ROFLMAO[/B]

My friend you are unbelievably naïve!

Don't fall for his wile, he's a skilled propagandist.