The American people were told to DROP DEAD yesterday.
Our lawmakers are cowards.
They voted for a more dangerous America yesterday.
And they will pay a price in the next election.
HERE ARE THE COWARDS (except for Harry Reid, who had to vote no in a procedural vote in order to be able to bring this issue up again for vote in the future).
I will now refer to these cowards as "PRO-GUN DEATH SENATORS."
I will now refer to these cowards as "PRO-GUN DEATH SENATORS."
"On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.
Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them." --Gabby Gifford
Coward McConnell shows his support for those yellow bellies who worked together to ensure that more murderers, rapists, mentally ill, and terrorists can continue to purchase guns and kill more Americans and perhaps another grammar school full of children.
Coward McConnell, Republican senators, and 4 Democratic senators are all gleeful that a majority of Americans AND a majority in the senate were defeated and told to shove it.
CHARLIE PIERCE:
"There is a strong, coherent bloc in this building that believes that a certain level of violence is so inherent in this country that it is shielded absolutely by the Constitution, and that it is so essential to who we are as a people that to try to control it -- let alone eliminate it -- weakens our national institutions and blights our national character.
There is nothing Machiavellian about this. It is what people believe is part of what makes America what it is. It is an essential article of faith. It is unshakable. It is implacable. And it is triumphant. Make no mistake.
That is what was determined down there this week among the bright, white buildings. There is a barbarism in the American soul and we must protect some of it by law. To root it out is to endanger our lives on the one hand, and our liberty on the other. We must tolerate the barbarism of the black sites to stay alive, and we must tolerate the occasional mass shooting in order to maintain our liberty.
We will find the barbarian who killed and maimed the people along Boylston Street in Boston because his barbarism was not sanctioned, nor was it sanctified by law. That is the simple basic equation of where we are right now."
49 comments:
cowards is right shaw...those rethuglicans and dems are hateful americans...a majority of us want background checks...and a majority of the nra members want it as well...btw...this was not a "defeat"...a majority in senate voted for it...we are living under the tyranny of the minority...conservatives...who prefer death to americans...over sensible background checks...
It is a shame it didn't pass because the majority of Americans wanted it. I don't believe it would have had any effect because we don't enforce the laws currently, but it is what Americans wanted.
Only one of the mass shooters owned a gun legally and he is never mentioned because he used a pistol and was a soldier. Guess he doesn't fit the profile of mass murderer so we just ignore him.
As to the NRA supporting convicted felons obtaining guns, that is bunk.
If we had term limits they elected elite could vote for what they felt was right instead of voting for reelection.
Put it up for a vote right next to Obamacare and see if they pass.
The reality is this legislation would not have a significant impact in reducing the amount of violence we see occurring in our society today. If we say the purpose is to minimize the occurances of violence and resulting death from firearms no matter how negligible the results may be it then becomes something that can reasonably be expected will occur.
The problem is societal and has more to do with a declining respect for individuals and the value placed on life than anything else, IMO. Think back a couple days.
Just exactly what gun laws are we currently not enforcing, skud?
RN: "The reality is this legislation would not have a significant impact in reducing the amount of violence we see occurring in our society today."
There is no way of proving that.
This was a minimal law to keep firearms out of the hands of murderers, rapists, the mentally ill, and terrorists.
If there are people who believe that is not a worthy goal, then I don't know where their values are.
BTW, it is true that a majority in the senate voted FOR this mild legislation. And almost 100% of Americans want it. Even the majority of NRA members are for it.
We live under a tyranny of the minority.
But the tyrants in the minority will not prevail.
"And they will pay a price in the next election."
No they won't. They voted the way they did because they don't want to pay a price the next election.
Only 4% of Americans think gun control is the most important issue facing our nation.
Once the government disarms the criminals, then we can talk...
JC
Background checks will not keep guns out of the hands of out of the hands of murderers, rapists, the mentally ill, and terrorists. They do not purchase guns from legal establishments. The elected elite should have passed the bill because that is what the people wanted not because it will do any good.
Lying on a firearm application is a criminal offense. 62 cases were referred for prosecution, but most were declined by prosecutors or dismissed by the court. Out of the original 73,000 denials, there emerge just 13 guilty pleas.
Take a lot of personnel to enforce these checks and the US doesn't have enough.
"We live under a tyranny of the minority." No, we vote in career politicians who's only concern is keeping their job.
In fact, all amendments except one went down to defeat
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2013/04/17/what-happened-with-gun-amendments-today-everything-failed/
Look at the numbers. That reflects America. We just ain't that liberal and anti-gun...
I would like to know the story behind some of these. Why didn't the anti-trafficking amendment pass?
This vote also dismantles the laws aimed at stopping the trafficking in illegal guns. That alone will cause more violence and death.
Shaw... the idea that a law prohibiting certain people from owning or purchasing a gun is a canard.
It has based on the fact that there are few, if any prosecutions for trying to purchase a gun illegally.
What is never taken into account are the many people who choose not to buy guns because they are illegal to them.
What is not taken in account are the people who currently try to buy guns, are denied in the background check phase, and then they leave without a gun!
If we extrapolate the thinking behind the type of thinking we see from the anti background check people, we would have to conclude that laws that prohibit buying beer before age 21 also never keep minors from buying beer, or cigarettes for that matter.
What the apologists for not doing anything need to answer is this...
Was there anything in this law that would have outlawed guns to law abiding people?
Did this law have a provision to make it illegal to make, keep and maintain a national registry of gun owners?
The answers are, if someone is truthful, are No and yes. Yet some have chosen to lie and obfuscate.
@RNU --- The reality is this legislation would not have a significant impact in reducing the amount of violence we see occurring in our society today.
-------------
Maybe so, your statement is conjecture but maybe so.
Then shall we do nothing and let anyone purchase high end weaponry at a gun show?
Shall we just sit on our hands and accept living in an armed camp created by people who pervert the idea of freedom?
Ducky: "Shall we just sit on our hands and accept living in an armed camp created by people who pervert the idea of freedom?"
It appears that's how our conservative friends look at this.
Dave Miller is correct. There is no way to measure how many crazies were denied the ability to purchase guns because they failed a background check.
And Silverfiddle is wrong. This law passed the Senate by a majority. It is the tyranny of the minority by way of the filibuster that defeated the measure.
And I've already heard that Mark Kelly, Gabby Giffords husband and retired astronaut may challenge Sen. Flake of Arizona. I hope he does and I hope he defeats him.
"The Senate voted 54-46 on Wednesday afternoon for bipartisan legislation to expand background checks to gun shows and Internet sales, falling short of the 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster."
President Obama was correct when he said the N.R.A. willfully lied when they suggested to weak minded people that there would be a gun registry.
Apparently there are enough people who swallow lies and misinformation and who are too lazy to seek the truth, and those are the people who helped defeat this sensible piece of legislation.
I cannot understand the thinking of the people who are against it.
Here's the simple equation of where Republicans have us now. You've got the Senate Republican Caucus with one, to them, completely unacceptable image sharply focused in their collective mind's eye.
This image is of President Obama seated at a table in the White House, surrounded by the Newtown victims' loved ones. Connecticut's senators, the mayor of Newtown and former Rep. Gabby Gifford and there husband are there. Obama makes a brief, thoughtful statement. He then signs the background check legislation a bit at a time, each time using a different pen. He hands each pen he's used to one of those gathered around him. After the signing there are handshakes and hugs, and a couple of the guests make statements about how meaningful this new law is to them and to the country.
For the next 24 hours, the signing ceremony is featured on broadcast news and rerun many times on C-SPAN. Those reports and newspaper editorials frame this as a remarkable legislative victory for the president and congressional Democrats.
THAT is what Republicans are really afraid of. That is what they will not tolerate. They will go to any lengths to deny what they consider an (N-word) "other" liberal Democrat from Chicago a political victory and the kudos that go with it. That has been their strategy and policy from Day 1 of Obama's presidency, and in all likelihood it will remain their strategy and policy until the last minute of the last day of his presidency.
For today's Republican politicians, it's all about them and what they do and don't want. They don't care about the country, the people, even children (except, of course, their own).
Here's the simple equation of where Republicans have us now. You've got the Senate Republican Caucus with one, to them, completely unacceptable image sharply focused in their collective mind's eye.
This image is of President Obama seated at a table in the White House, surrounded by the Newtown victims' loved ones. Connecticut's senators, the mayor of Newtown and former Rep. Gabby Gifford and there husband are there. Obama makes a brief, thoughtful statement. He then signs the background check legislation a bit at a time, each time using a different pen. He hands each pen he's used to one of those gathered around him. After the signing there are handshakes and hugs, and a couple of the guests make statements about how meaningful this new law is to them and to the country.
For the next 24 hours, the signing ceremony is featured on broadcast news and rerun many times on C-SPAN. Those reports and newspaper editorials frame this as a remarkable legislative victory for the president and congressional Democrats.
THAT is what Republicans are really afraid of. That is what they will not tolerate. They will go to any lengths to deny what they consider an (N-word) "other" liberal Democrat from Chicago a political victory and the kudos that go with it. That has been their strategy and policy from Day 1 of Obama's presidency, and in all likelihood it will remain their strategy and policy until the last minute of the last day of his presidency.
For today's Republican politicians, it's all about them and what they do and don't want. They don't care about the country, the people, even children (except, of course, their own).
Skud, how about a reference to your numbers?
And, SF, lets see your numbers too, because from what I have see, Americans overwhelmingly want more gun control and background checks, not what the Senate has given us.
The NRA owns the GOP. The NRA has
about 4 million members (as SF's
figures show, that is the 4% who's
sole concern is 'gun control').
It is irrational of the NRA/GOP to
continue to think Americans will go
on accepting unchecked gun show sales & straw purchases, actually
protecting the right to bear arms
of professional criminals, even
folks on the terrorist watchlist,
while we watch the 'collateral damage' to innocent fellow Americans continue to mount.
It cannot sustain.
"This law passed the Senate by a majority. It is the tyranny of the minority by way of the filibuster that defeated the measure."
No. You are wrong. It was not a law, it was an amendment, and it went down to defeat.
You can bleat on about "the tyranny of the minority," but those are the facts.
You can continue with your tinfoil hat conspiracies about how the NRA bribes politicians to go against their constituencies, but go ask Mark Pryor, Senator from Arkansas about that.
Go analyze the vote results. If anything, the brave ones were the ones like Manchin and Toomey who voted to support the amendment.
BB: Your math is horribly off. NRA does have 4 million members, but that is only 1.2% of the population.
And you're also wrong in your interpretation of the Gallup Poll results.
That 4% is the amount of people who think having government implement gun control is the most important issue.
If you would stay away from the push polls and agenda-driving surveys, you'll see that there is no overwhelming support for any of this stuff the Senate is debating. But when has that ever stopped progressives?
the american people are angry...and they see the rethugs...and the 4 conserv dems as enemies of the people...they denied what the 90% wanted...we won't forget...this was not...a radical piece of legislation...it was common sense...the rethugs and those 4 conserv dems have told the 90% that they support the terrorists', the murderers', the rapists" and the mentally ill people's right to buy firearms and kill americans...live with that for a while...
"And, SF, lets see your numbers too"
Glad you asked, Jerry! And happy to accomodate you.
http://www.nationaljournal.com/domesticpolicy/how-democrats-got-gun-control-polling-wrong-20130321?mrefid=mostViewed
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/poll-only-politicians-and-the-media-care-about-gun-control-and-immigration/
The bottom line on all of this is that other than a simple law (which the amendment that got shot down was not) calling for gun show background checks, the public is trending away from favoring gun control.
Suicide Risk, Gun Ownership, Political Conservatism And Church Membership
"Residents of states with the highest rates of gun ownership and political conservatism are at greater risk of suicide than those in states with less gun ownership and less politically conservative leanings, according to a study by University of California, Riverside sociology professor Augustine J. Kposowa.
The study, "Association of suicide rates, gun ownership, conservatism and individual suicide risk," was published online recently in the journal Social Psychiatry & Psychiatric Epidemiology in February.
Even modest efforts to reform gun laws are typically met with vehement opposition. There are also millions of Americans who continue to believe that keeping a gun at home protects them against intruders, even though research shows that when a gun is used in the home, it is often against household members in the commission of homicides or suicides," Kposowa said.
"Adding to the widespread misinformation about guns is that powerful pro-gun lobby groups, especially the National Rifle Association, seem to have a stranglehold on legislators and U.S. policy, and a politician who calls for gun control may be targeted for removal from office in a future election by a gun lobby," he added.
Although total suicide rates in the U.S. are not much higher than in other Western countries, without changes in gun-ownership policies "the United States is poised to remain a very armed and potentially dangerous nation for its inhabitants for years to come."
It's a week like this that makes it really hard not to hate people. All we can do is try to remember that more people than not are actually good, and this got blocked by the minority.
"A new NBC/WSJ poll finds President Obama's approval rating has fallen 6 points since his reelection to 47 percent."
http://www.politico.com/politico44/2013/04/poll-obama-approval-falls-points-161422.html
This is a big defeat for Obama, especially after the big emotional appeal. His bully pulpit don't work no more.
Obama is toast, a lame duck.
I love your headliner stuff, Shaw! The same logic on the background check-voter ID can be turned back on you liberals as well.
Only when you think about it, the logic is no good, unless you can identify a vast black market in vote selling...
Glib Progressive slogans sound catchy until you examine them. They break down under scrutiny.
Shame on you Silverfiddle for coming here and, like a junior high school mean girl, talk about popularity. It's demeaning.
I wouldn't be so quick to talk about a big defeat for the president.
Your triumphalism is unworthy.
I'd like to see you show off that sort of small-mindedness to the parents of the dead Sandy Hook children.
It appears that what S.W.Anderson wrote in the comments about this business is true.
The Congressional Republicans care nothing for the American people and care only about defying this president.
It turns my stomach.
And I'm shocked that SF would do a victory dance on the graves of the Sandy Hook children.
when will you learn silverfizzle is an extremist...he's not main stream...why deal with extremists like him...?they hate our way of life...
On his show Davis & Emmer, which is broadcast by Twin Cities News Talk AM 1130, he attacked the families of those killed in the mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School for speaking in support of stricter gun laws.
“I have something I want to say to the victims of Newtown, or any other shooting,” Davis said. “I don’t care if it’s here in Minneapolis or anyplace else. Just because a bad thing happened to you doesn’t mean that you get to put a king in charge of my life. I’m sorry that you suffered a tragedy, but you know what? Deal with it, and don’t force me to lose my liberty, which is a greater tragedy than your loss. I’m sick and tired of seeing these victims trotted out, given rides on Air Force One, hauled into the Senate well, and everyone is just afraid — they’re terrified of these victims.”
“I would stand in front of them and tell them, ‘go to hell,’” he added.
Sounds like a conservative manifesto. Just what we'd expect from them and their maniacal 2nd amendment fetishes.
"And I'm shocked that SF would do a victory dance on the graves of the Sandy Hook children."
Histrionics and gross false equivalencies.
Nothing the senate considered, other than the mental health amendment that was also defeated, would have even had a chance at keeping the Sandy Hook murders from happening.
Now, back to your main point. Go state-by-state and consider how each senator voted, and it makes sense. Anti-gun liberals from anti-gun liberal states voted for the measures, and liberty lovers from liberty loving states did not.
Name the politicians who went against their constituency in their state, besides Toomey and Manchin, and perhaps kookoo bird McCain.
Also, please read the links I provided at Jerry's request. Other than gun show background checks, the public is trending against more gun laws.
When you only plug into information fonts you agree with, it is easy to think that everybody agrees with you.
WASHINGTON -- Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his position on the board of the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a letter to NRA President David Keene, "I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable."
The resignation, first reported by KSDK, came a day after the Senate rejected a series of amendments to a gun control bill, including a bipartisan deal to expand background checks for gun sales. The NRA had vigorously opposed all those measures.
"The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established," wrote Busch, who also dropped his NRA membership. "Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."
RN: "The reality is this legislation would not have a significant impact in reducing the amount of violence we see occurring in our society today."
Shaw: There is no way of proving that.
Agreed Shaw. However, I point out that the operatives word in this statement are SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. I ask you now to disprove the validity of these words and the probability they are in fact more likely true than not.
Shaw: If there are people who believe that is not a worthy goal, then I don't know where their values are.
For clarification, I did not say the legislation would have NO impact, nor did I say that enhanced background checks were not worthy of enacting. Doing nothing is an option. One I did not advocate. On the other hand while any such law legislation will make us feel good over having done something THE CAUTIONARY NOTE IS TO EXPECT LESS THAN THE DESIRED RESULTS.
Further, as I read your statement I take great offense as you have impugned my grandfather and father, and likely millions of other law abiding citizens who own firearms that have never committed a firearm crime and value the sanctity of human life and respect the rights of others, simply because they have differing views from your own.
Shaw: BTW, it is true that a majority in the senate voted FOR this mild legislation. And almost 100% of Americans want it. Even the majority of NRA members are for it.
Really? Please provide substantiating linage in support of the “almost 100% of Americans want it” claim. I find it interesting the left is concerned with living under the tyranny of the minority yet the concept of living under the tyranny of a majority is lost on them. Or at least on some (the most rabid) who would rule by the iron fist they believe the majority gives them the right to do. My point is tyranny is tyranny no matter from whence it comes.
Shaw: But the tyrants in the minority will not prevail.
Agreed, and hopefully the tyrants of the majority will not prevail either.
Until such time as the reasonable left and the reasonable right start thinking outside the box and come together with realistic workable political solutions we will continue to see the division and gamesmanship we have witnesses these past several years. I know most will citizen me when I say both sides bear responsibility. The truth (IMO)is often denied while focusing on the justification for ones own position or else in the attempt to “save face.”
RN USA: The problem is societal and has more to do with a declining respect for individuals and the value placed on life than anything else, IMO. Think back a couple days.
This statement was as usual overlooked, possibly because it postulates a cause the left wishes not to discuss with respect to violence in society. So I ask you Shaw, if you would, to respond to the statement and offer your position. If you (or others on the left) believe it is incorrect I would ask you furnish reasons why you think is wrong.
Sometimes the desire to be “right” and defend ones thinking overshadows the more important issue of “doing the right thing.” Sadly this applies to both the left and the right. If you have followed my posts and comments you understand from where I’m coming. If not, Oh Well…
Have a marvelous evening and weekend…
If conclusion jumping, spinning poll results and bashing liberals were Olympic sports, Sliverdiddle would be a gold medalist.
"If you would stay away from the push polls and agenda-driving surveys, you'll see that there is no overwhelming support for any of this stuff the Senate is debating. But when has that ever stopped progressives?"
"Push polls" is your talking-point conclusion, not an established fact.
From "Poll: Only Politicians And The Media Care About Gun Control And Immigration" by Noah Rothman.
". . . Here, gun control advocates will find their fatal miscalculation. Congress appears unable to pass even a modest tightening of the nation’s gun laws in the wake of the Newtown massacre, and gun control advocates have turned to cursing Congress and wishing the Malocchio of the voters’ revenge on their ideological foes. Gun control advocates cite the sky-high public approval that an augmented background checking regime for gun purchasers receives in polls to support this claim. But gun control advocates refuse to reconcile the public support that some new proposals enjoy with the fact that they are simply not a priority for voters."
Ah, one conclusion jumper cites an article by another. And not surprisingly, the article supports the quoter's bias.
Where the conclusions of both fall apart, first, is that polling for priorities is among the iffiest of all polling. That's because more than most kinds of polling, the wording and circumstances of the survey can make a huge difference in results.
For example, most people want world peace. But if asked to name what they most want to see come about in, say, the coming year, most people won't say world peace. Why? Because they don't see it as a realistic option.
After more than 20 years of the most intense partisan warfare ever and especially after more than four years of all-out Republican obstruction, Congress' poll numbers are at their lowest ever. People are cynical about Congress and its ability to get anything substantive and worthwhile done. That includes passing the common-sense background check and other gun control measures President Obama wants and 90 percent of Senate Democrats voted for.
It's not that the overwhelming majority of Americans don't want universal background checks, limits on magazine capacity, a ban on any more semiautomatic rifles and the rest. It's that they look at Congress, at Republicans' filibustering of everything, at GOP control of the House, and conclude passing those measures is an unrealistic goal.
So, if you mix those things in with items that hit closer to home for people being surveyed; things that somehow register as perhaps more attainable, people will opt for the things they perceive as more personal and more possible.
More from our resident sage:
"The bottom line on all of this is that other than a simple law (which the amendment that got shot down was not) calling for gun show background checks, the public is trending away from favoring gun control."
No, what's happening is that public resolve is growing that something must be done about gun violence, just the way that from the late 1950's to the mid-1960's, aided by the nonviolent civil rights movement, public consensus formed and resolve grew that the promises of our democracy and guarantees of our Constitution should apply to all Americans.
I don't know how many more Auroras and Newtowns it's going to take, but there's a head of steam building behind this issue. When it finally blows, it could result in restrictions that make President Obama's few and surgically narrow suggestions look like Band-Aids placed on an evisceration.
Watch for it, SF; because it's on its way. It's only a matter of time and outrageous tragedies. The Buford Furrows, Jared Loughners, Wade Michael Pages, Jacob Tyler Robertses, James Holmeses and Adam Lanzas are unwittingly building that head of steam. So are those mass murderers' facilitators — the NRA and people like you.
And yet more logically challenged wisdom from Sliverdiddle:
"Nothing the senate considered, other than the mental health amendment that was also defeated, would have even had a chance at keeping the Sandy Hook murders from happening."
That begs the question, how many other mass-murder scenarios might one or more of those measure blunt or prevent? The issue is larger than the specifics of the Sandy Hook massacre of children and teachers. The idea (for the slow learners) is to tamp down the gun violence, including any and all kinds of gun-related killings.
Say you have a loved one suffering a 90 percent fatal disease and the doctor says an experimental treatment he could use would likely bring the odds of survival up to 50 percent. Would you tell your loved one to refuse the treatment because it could only increase his/her chance for survival by a measly 40 percent?
Only if you're dumber than dirt, SF.
Sometimes it's important to do the best you can do, imperfect though that might be, lacking in absolute guarantees though that might be. Most liberals get that. Most conservatives don't want to get that.
RN: Here is the evidence you asked for. From PolitiFact:
Our ruling
In her op-ed, Giffords said polls show that Americans "overwhelmingly" support "expanding background checks." Four independent polls taken in the previous month showed that some sort of expansion of background checks earned the support of between 83 percent and 91 percent of respondents, a level of backing we think qualifies as "overwhelming." We rate her statement True.
RN: "Further, as I read your statement I take great offense as you have impugned my grandfather and father, and likely millions of other law abiding citizens who own firearms that have never committed a firearm crime and value the sanctity of human life and respect the rights of others, simply because they have differing views from your own."
I doubt your father and grandfather and millions of others would have a problem with the idea of keeping firearms out of the hands of convicted felons, terrorists, and the mentally ill. THAT was what I referred to, and nothing more. Nothing whatsoever about law-abiding firearms owners was impugned. You need to read that statement again, because you got my meaning completely wrong.
And I stand by my statement that I don't understand anyone who would be agains background checks to keep firearms out of the hands of felons, terrorists, and the mentally ill.
The question of how significant the numbers would be in preventing more deaths is moot, since neither you nor I can extrapolate what doesn't happen. How many lives do you think were saved because of mandatory safety belts in automobiles? How many lives were saved by making smoking unattractive and emphasizing its danger to our health? How many lives have been saved by the safety caps on medicine bottles, preventing children from swallowing dangerous medications?
No one knows.
Not passing a sensible law because one doesn't know how many deaths it will prevent is not a reason to do nothing.
Universal background checks is a worthy and correct thing to do.
We are a nation that supposedly is governed by the majority that respects the rights of the minority.
You need to tell us all how on earth universal background checks would negatively impact the minority and be a tyrannical requirement imposed on it.
Not one person on the anti-background checks conservative side has answered that simple question.
All I've gotten here from you and SF is smoke and mirror-type answers that do not address that question.
S.W. OK, so you've shown us that you can selectively read and latch onto one insigificant point. Good job! That's what agenda-driven ideologues do best.
Now, go read this from Gallup and get back to us.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
Hint: Lines going down mean less support.
And your fatal disease analogy, like all progressive "logic," crumbles under closer analysis.
First off, you are talking about individuals taking individual action.
The gun control debate affects the liberty of everyone, even those who choose to not own firearms.
And no one can tell us what percentage "chance" any of these laws will have at stopping anything. This is not legislation. It is throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks.
You have a hard time facing reality. Go read the Gallup poll.
It is not I that fails to read and understand. One thing I learned in over30 years of management is the value of listening (reading) to a broad and often sweeping range of views. Logic is right more often than not.
Further I have no issue with enhanced background checks. IE: ones that actually work and are enforced. But I'm not agenda driven. As to smoke and mirrors, right Shaw. That claim can be leveled at both sides of the debate. Pointless, counter productive, and I'll leave it there. I know you are on a great mission. Enjoy the campaign.
"The gun control debate affects the liberty of everyone, even those who choose to not own firearms."
An overwrought statement of hyperbolic proportions. And it is not true.
Tell me EXACTLY how the debate on background checks affects the liberty of everyone.
Does debate threaten liberty?
We have restrictions on other freedoms. You gun people seem to think the right to bear arms is special. It isn't. There are millions who think unrestricted access to weapons of mass murder is nuts.
S.W.Anderson is correct. This will change. And we will see it happen.
The American people want it.
Please Shaw, studied ignorance does not become you, because we know you are not.
Any conversation that limns any human freedom does indeed affect us all. And all freedoms are equal.
Of course we can debate. It's just amusing to see people like you and SW pull yourselves up in high dudgeon at the *shock and horror!* that despite all the pathos, there are still people who disagree with you.
I strive to put things in context. I did not scream about how Obama stole the election last November. I acknowledged that the country is apparently trending liberal. What else would explain electing him twice?
I'm attempting to bring that same perspective to this debate. Look at Obama's approval rating. Look at public sentiment towards government.
There's no trust there. It's gone. They've blown it. Dems and Repubs. People have no confidence that a government that cannot control its borders, or it's preternatural insticts to invade other countries, or to control its own out-of-control spending, can control guns.
Would you trust republicans to redo health care? Of course not. The mistrust is palpable, the waters are poisoned.
The eternal scream of the progressive is "DO SOMETHING!"
You confuse action with progress.
So people like DW Anderson can pound on their keyboards, insult everyone too stupid to agree with them, and shake their little fists in defiant rage at the nefarious religiousrightwingchristiannragunlovingobamahaters, but you can't change human nature, and you can't change the fact that the whole nation does not agree with you, no matter what the leftwing propagandists at MSNBC tell you.
I again recomment the Gallup link to you.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
I agree with you that there is overwhelming support for enhanced background checks, but the Senate deal broke down over government recordkeeping. Again, a lack of trust.
On every other measure, public sentiment is going the other way.
You can speculate all day long, and your predictions may indeed come true. But right now, I am dealing in facts.
The eternal scream of the liberals is "DO SOMETHING!"
Which is why you've devoted an entire blog post on Western Hero to abortion and the Gosnell tragedy?
You and your fellow travelers have been wanting to DO SOMETHING! about abortion for decades haven't you.
What makes your causes more holy?
There were terrible tragedies going on there, so we need to stop ALL abortions for any reason? But when people apply that reasoning to gun control, even debating it, it's an attack on everyone's liberties?
If you and others can accept the fact that innocent children and pregnant women and their fetuses will be killed by negligent gun owners and crazy mass murdering gun owners, and that any legislation to cut down on those numbers, you need to look at your one-sided concern on the abortion issue. It appears you accept the one situation that is part of human failing, but not the other.
Can you explain to us why?
And to be morally consistent, you must be against war, ALL WARS, not just the ones that are optional, like Iraq.
If you're against abortion because it kills human life, you have to be against all wars for whatever reason because wars kill innocent life.
I have said this before, and you ignore it, or try to mangle the meaning. You can't get around this as an argument for moral consistency.
Which is why you've devoted an entire blog post on Western Hero to abortion and the Gosnell tragedy?
You and your fellow travelers have been wanting to DO SOMETHING! about abortion for decades haven't you.
You should go back and read my Gosnell post again. I issued no call for government to do anything. It was about examining the issue at a humanist level.
What makes your causes more holy?
Gun ownership is a benign activity. It only becomes dangerous when someone shoots someone else or himself.
Abortion is never benign. It always snuffs a life. Always. You can quibble over viability, or call her "tissue" or whatever, but abortion ends a human life. Every time.
And anyone who would philosophically temporize over what to do with a newborn baby who has survived an abortion is a stomach-turning ghoul who should engage in some serious self-reflection.
You want to discuss rights? The right to life, to be born, is the most fundamental right their is. Without a fundamental right to life, none of the other rights matter.
That is the fundamental difference between a gun and an abortion. It is a false equivalancy.
The true parallel is between someone who shoots someone else with a gun, and someone who performs an abortion. That is a comparison that cohereres.
Same for your war comment. War is always a tragedy and a large-scale human rights violation, but there are instances in which it is justified. Same goes for taking a life. Think of the Judaic distinction between killing and murdering.
Gun ownership is a benign activity. It only becomes dangerous when someone shoots someone else or himself.
Abortion is never benign. It always snuffs a life.
Not so. The morning-after pill snuffs out divided cells, for example, which are NOT babies, those cells are potential life. And BTW, you apparently accept 30,000 lost lives of living human beings per year, but are incensed over abortions? How do you accept one group of deaths--the deaths by firearms, but are indignant about the other?
You are not consistent on this at all.
I am. I accept that law-abiding people have the right to bear arms, but that terrorists, felons, and mentally distrubed do not.
You do not accept abortion on any level--IIRC.
Neither you nor anyone else not involved in the decision have no right to question why a woman, her partner, her doctor deem an abortion necessary.
Without the right to choose, we have state enforced pregnancies.
Which apparently you approve of.
Your need to protect human life is admirable, but somewhat selective when it comes to 30,000+ deaths by firearms in this country.
I can't make sense of your position.
"Not so. The morning-after pill snuffs out divided cells, for example, which are NOT babies, those cells are potential life."
I agree with that. It's a scientific fact, and I've never claimed otherwise.
"I accept that law-abiding people have the right to bear arms, but that terrorists, felons, and mentally distrubed do not."
Great! Welcome to the vast majority.
Until you can prove a connection between law-abiding gun ownership and senseless murder, you have no argument, and I can understand why what I am saying makes no sense to you.
Your logic is specious.
We know how to prevent abortions, but never in the recorded history of mankind has anyone figured out how to prevent a human being from killing another human being.
Again, you equate the mere ownership (or lack of government regulation) of guns with condoning 30,000 deaths per year. You have committed a logical non-sequitur.
If someone gets pregnant, and then cannot get an abortion because the government forbids it (something I never argued for) it is not a "state-enforced pregnancy." The pregnancy is the result of the actions of two human beings, not the government.
Is my small child, whom the state forbids me to kill, a "state-enforced" pain in teh ass?
"Neither you nor anyone else not involved in the decision have no right to question why a woman, her partner, her doctor deem an abortion necessary."
Your argument here is with the law, not with me. Roe v. Wade and subsequent rulings says you are wrong.
The state indeed does have the right to ban late term abortions. So take it up with the government.
Now, if the decision happens in a hospital with a qualified doctor, as opposed to a Planned Parenthood chop shop, then it is a medical decision, and those are a tiny sliver of overall abortions performed.
In the end, it is a matter of conscience.
SF: "The pregnancy is the result of the actions of two human beings, not the government."
The pregnancy is the result of a sperm fertilizing an egg; but stopping the abortion by law makes it a government enforced continuation of a pregnancy.
By taking away a woman's right to choose whether or not to continue with the pregnancy, it is government enforced continuation of the pregnancy, even if the reasons are for her physical or mental health, and it takes the woman's control of her body and her health out of her hands and places it in the hands of the government.
There's no way to parse that fact.
As someone who hates government in personal decisions/lives, I don't see how you defend that.
30,000+ Americans die every year from firearms. You say no one can prevent that, but we can prevent abortions, so they're not the same?
How do you prevent abortions without the involvement of government? And who in government will be available at all instances to determine which abortion is medically needed and which is not?
Either you ban all abortions for all reasons, or you leave government out of it. And if we were really civilized, we'd encourage birth control and make it readily available and affordable to sexually active people of all ages. But even that sensible idea is idea has its opposition.
SEE THIS.
"Employers in Oklahoma could opt not to include contraceptives and abortions in employee insurance plans under a measure that secured passage by a Senate committee Thursday.
The measure, Senate Bill 452 by Sen. Clark Jolley, R-Edmond, passed the Senate Business and Commerce Committee by a vote of 9-0 with no debate and now heads to the full Senate."
And this:
From Feb. 2012: "Following up on last week’s contraception hearing, the House Judiciary Committee held another hearing yesterday afternoon on the subject, which featured the rantings of Rep. Steve King (R-IA). In a lengthy screed against the Obama administration’s contraception rule, King scoffed at the progress made in women’s rights over the passed 60 years and suggested that Connecticut had a right to ban contraception in the landmark Griswold v. Connecticut:
KING: Why should I care about the conclusions that have been brought forward by the Supreme Court if we can race from 1965, Connecticut having a Tenth Amendment right to establish a policy, a Supreme Court that creates a right to privacy that’s the foundation for mandated abortion, and here were are discussing whether we’re going to mandate everybody in America fund and provide that contraceptives. … Why should I care?"
The conservatives in this country want to ban abortions AND contraception. Or are those nuts quoted above just trying to get headlines?
I don't think so. It's all part of their hope to control women's lives through the state.
What you avoid, Shaw, is that I am not arguing for the government to step in.
I am making a moral argument grounded in human rights.
You commit yet another false equivalency by equating making someone pay for something themselves with banning that activity.
This on top of your demonstrably false comparison of gun ownership to abortion.
I'll let the debate in this thread speak for itself. I have addressed you queries and my position is logically coherent.
When you stray into the territory of guns, yours is not.
And I let my views stand on their own as well.
You've posted on a abortion on your blog as a human rights issue?
I think the victims of gun violence is a human rights issue as well.
"I think the victims of gun violence is a human rights issue as well."
I agree.
Post a Comment