Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 12 of 30
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,403

    All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames



    The Toomey / Manchin bill, Feinsteins Assault Weapons Ban, co-sponsored bills calling for high capacity magazine bans and the concealed carry reciprocity bill ....

    All DOA on their respective Senate votes.

    Gallup released a poll just this morning that only 4% of the public thinks gun control is a pressing problem. I think these votes prove that much.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  2. #2

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    id like to see how they came to that, 4% seems low, although id agree its not the biggest issue right now.

    Is it true the latest thing they voted down that was about "expanded background checks" also included a ban on AR like semi automatic rifles and larger magazines, or were they all separate voting issues? if they were all in the same, its no wonder it was shot down and rightfully.

    If they were all separate i think they missed the point with the background checks which even if you dont believe the 90% figure it would still be a large majority and not 46%. These are people here to represent their constituents. whether its pressing or not, were still asking them to vote for the people they represent. Have to agree with Obama when he said "who are we here to represent?".

    This is what most agree with and isnt really changing much at all to my knowledge, except making it national...
    The measure would have expanded rules that already apply to gun dealers' sales, preventing mentally ill people, convicted felons and people convicted of domestic violence from purchasing weapons.
    obviously im one of those that support a more nationalized standard for background checks and enforcing such laws more regularly even for private sales, and id say im not in the minority on that. In that aspect alone i think they werent really asking for too much and more along the lines of their creed, "common sense laws".
    -JAB




  3. #3
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    28,372
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Does this mean O'Malley's proposed MD State gun laws will be rejected as well?


    Unfortunately...probably not, huh?
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  4. #4
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,403

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    id like to see how they came to that, 4% seems low, although id agree its not the biggest issue right now
    Here you go ....

    http://www.gallup.com/poll/161813/fe...-problems.aspx

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    Is it true the latest thing they voted down that was about "expanded background checks" also included a ban on AR like semi automatic rifles and larger magazines, or were they all separate voting issues? if they were all in the same, its no wonder it was shot down and rightfully.
    No. Each were separate bills. The Toomey /Manchin bill was for expanded federal background checks. The Feinstein Bill called for a ban on so-called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines. The Cornyn Bill called for reciprocity on concealled carry permits. All failed and none of the votes were close.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    if they were all separate i think they missed the point with the background checks which even if you dont believe the 90% figure it would still be a large majority and not 46%. These are people here to represent their constituents. whether its pressing or not, were still asking them to vote for the people they represent. Have to agree with Obama when he said "who are we here to represent?".
    I, for one, am glad nobody bought the populism that you've seem to have bought into. "They" don't represent anyone as a whole. Each Seantor represents their particular constituents and if you look at those who voted "No", they come from gun friendly states. Thus, they are doing exactly what they were elected to do -- represent their states interests.

    As for the 90% poll, the problem is two fold. For one, the question in that poll that's at issue is:

    "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?"

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/120711121/...ork-Times-Poll

    Problem here is there's already in law in place for this. It's called The Brady Law and yes, a majority of Americans support this. Anyone who goes to a gun shop and buys a gun, they must submit to a background check.

    The Toomey / Manchin bill made this requirement federal. I think 2A supporters like myeslf saw this as redundent.

    Change the language of the question to "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all sales, including private sales of guns?" and support drops. A lot. The pollsters knew this when they asked the poll question. That's why they asked the original question, knwing that even the vast majority of NRA memebrs even agree with it. It's classic push polling and it happens all the time.

    Second, when you're the President and you decide to cloak yourself and this bill within the familes of Newtown by having them at your side, you better damn well make sure the law actually makes an attempt to stop another Newtown like tragedy. Toomey / Manchin doesn't come close to that. Lanza got the gun from his Mother, who made a legal purchase. Sadly, she made the fatal choice to give her unstable son access to her firearms. The bill should have been about mental health and access to firearms to those who suffer from his typ of mental health issues.

    Quote Originally Posted by JAB1985 View Post
    iand id say im not in the minority on that. In that aspect alone i think they werent really asking for too much and more along the lines of their creed, "common sense laws".
    The past 15 years of gun laws suggest you are indeed in the minority.

    Quote Originally Posted by wickedsolo View Post
    Does this mean O'Malley's proposed MD State gun laws will be rejected as well?


    Unfortunately...probably not, huh?
    MD is uneffected. Bu the NRA has already announced it's going after the MD laws via the courts.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  5. #5
    Join Date
    Feb 2009
    Location
    Frederick, MD
    Posts
    28,372
    Blog Entries
    3

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Well good. I hope the NRA gets Martin O'Taxey to back off.


    BTW - I can't tell you how hard it is to bite my tongue with a lot of folks I know because of how incredibly pissed off they are that the Senate didn't pass this bill. I mean, they're - in some cases - on the verge of being violently angry. A lot of them are saying shit like "I guess dead kids in Newtown don't matter to the government..." yadda yadda yadda.

    I wonder if those folks even know how difficult it actually is to purchase guns in Connecticut? And all of the laws they want to see passed are actually already enforced in Connecticut...and some.
    Milk is for babies. When you grow up, you have to drink beer.

    -Arnold Schwarzenegger


    My RSR Blog:
    http://russellstreetreport.com/author/paullukoskie/

    Check out Fatherhood Rules - a blog site dedicated to sports, food, music, movies, and politics.
    http://fatherhoodrules.com




  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,330
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    WH calls it shameful day in DC.

    Turns out DEMs bit off more than they could chew. They couldn't even get it thru their controlled Senate losing 56-46, so WH blames GOPs for caving in to the gun lobby.

    Fact is, they got their way with heath care because the country wants to be a nanny state
    but it also wants its guns too.

    Can't win em all Prez but it sure would be nice if you got this pissed when Americans are
    killed. You didn't even use the word terrorist in your speech the other day while your
    investigators did.

    http://washingtonexaminer.com/articl...480?slideout=1
    Last edited by AirFlacco; 04-19-2013 at 05:54 AM.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  7. #7

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Quote Originally Posted by HoustonRaven View Post
    No. Each were separate bills. The Toomey /Manchin bill was for expanded federal background checks. The Feinstein Bill called for a ban on so-called "assault weapons" and high capacity magazines. The Cornyn Bill called for reciprocity on concealled carry permits. All failed and none of the votes were close.
    I wouldnt say 4 votes wasnt close. Id say the others were rightfully shot down though. i think theres a debate for 10+ mags, but honestly as ive said from the beginning, as long as the right people are getting these things, i could not care less what they have.

    I, for one, am glad nobody bought the populism that you've seem to have bought into. "They" don't represent anyone as a whole. Each Seantor represents their particular constituents and if you look at those who voted "No", they come from gun friendly states. Thus, they are doing exactly what they were elected to do -- represent their states interests.
    its odd to me that popular vote doesnt determine what a states thoughts are. like i said, im not in belief that its 90% support expanded, but its going to be a lot more than 50% any way you slice by that large of support, even in a small sample. so saying a state is gun friendly or not, has nothing to do with background checks and popular opinion on this subject, imo. You can be pro-gun, and still believe in background checks, which youre saying most NRA members would support. but your problem is....

    As for the 90% poll, the problem is two fold. For one, the question in that poll that's at issue is:

    "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?"

    http://www.scribd.com/doc/120711121/...ork-Times-Poll

    Problem here is there's already in law in place for this. It's called The Brady Law and yes, a majority of Americans support this. Anyone who goes to a gun shop and buys a gun, they must submit to a background check.

    The Toomey / Manchin bill made this requirement federal. I think 2A supporters like myeslf saw this as redundent.

    Change the language of the question to "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all sales, including private sales of guns?" and support drops. A lot. The pollsters knew this when they asked the poll question. That's why they asked the original question, knwing that even the vast majority of NRA memebrs even agree with it. It's classic push polling and it happens all the time.
    redundancy.

    The link you posted the question was "do you support background checks on ALL potential gun sales." ALL being the key word. if people took that to mean non-private i dont understand why, and although it may drop, i doubt its below 50% that wouldnt include private in the original question. I do not understand how even the majority of NRA members agree with background checks but on private sales that changes. that makes little to no sense to me. understanding the importance of such for one and not the other, especially when the bill included exceptions for family "gifts", which would be one of the only reasons i can think of for a differing thought between the two. Redundancy is one thing, but "expanded" is another.

    Greater enforcing of the laws we have without a doubt would help, but i dont think making them national and expanding them to ALL gun sales wouldnt be even greater.

    Second, when you're the President and you decide to cloak yourself and this bill within the familes of Newtown by having them at your side, you better damn well make sure the law actually makes an attempt to stop another Newtown like tragedy. Toomey / Manchin doesn't come close to that. Lanza got the gun from his Mother, who made a legal purchase. Sadly, she made the fatal choice to give her unstable son access to her firearms. The bill should have been about mental health and access to firearms to those who suffer from his typ of mental health issues.
    Theres certainly some things that probably could have been added. Im not going to say i agree with using the newtown parents, but i dont think their support of the bill/s was fraudulent. Im sure they really believe that they would have helped stop what happened, even if others disagree. again this bill may not support this, but holding gun owners more responsible for their guns is something id support. not sure if youre saying you support such or just throwing out an option you feel would address the issue.

    The past 15 years of gun laws suggest you are indeed in the minority.
    lets not use political outcomes to determine popular opinion. I think we both know theres way more to it than that unfortunately.
    -JAB




  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Houston, TX Y'all
    Posts
    23,403
    Not sure why I can't quote JAB's post so I will just make some points ....

    My point about the Newtown families was to point out the subtle message the President was trying to make -- the laws bill would have prevented Newtown. It simply would not so the entire catalyst of this exercise was misused.

    The NRA, once again, is made the devil in all of this through deliberate mischaracterization by the President and the media. The NRA wanted mental health issues addressed and enforcement of already existing gun laws. They also wanted armed guards. Those three issues are very popular and would have been a win for the President.

    Instead, he used the Newtown tragedy as an excuse to push another agenda. And people for the most part saw through it.
    WARNING: This post may contain material offensive to those who lack wit, humor, common sense and/or supporting factual or anecdotal evidence. All statements and assertions contained herein may be subject to literary devices not limited to: irony, metaphor, allusion and dripping sarcasm.




  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Location
    Detroit Michigan
    Posts
    1,906
    When I heard the president mention his piece about Newtown, I reflexively blurted out, "what an asshole."

    It was weak. Very, very, weak.

    Not to mention small minded.
    Last edited by Sirdowski; 04-19-2013 at 07:58 AM.
    “Great minds discuss ideas. Average minds discuss events. Small minds discuss people.”

    –Eleanor Roosevelt




  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Posts
    12,330
    Blog Entries
    4

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Man has been killing since Caiin used a rock to kill Able.

    He'll always find something to do his dirty deed.
    UBER RAVENS FAN AND HISTORIAN GURU.




  11. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    Quote Originally Posted by Sirdowski View Post
    When I heard the president mention his piece about Newtown, I reflexively blurted out, "what an asshole."

    It was weak. Very, very, weak.

    Not to mention small minded.

    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




  12. #12
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Clayton,NC
    Posts
    7,358

    Re: All Versions of Gun Bill Go Down in Flames

    BTW - I don't think there is a debate to be had about magazine capacity. As you can see (or hear) here you need more than 10 shots.

    We are all born ignorant, but one must work hard to remain stupid. - Benjamin Franklin




Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Russell Street Report Website Design by D3Corp Ocean City Maryland