American Politics during the Obama Presidency

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.