Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

Ted Cruz

7 (6.5%)

Rick Santorum

16 (14.8%)

Michelle Bachmann

13 (12%)

Chris Christie

23 (21.3%)

Rand Paul

49 (45.4%)

Total Members Voted: 107

[Nadaka]

Majority of Americans want increased gun restrictions (it wasn't a ban). In any case, there's 1.75 years left for the Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot over and over again, and they will.

The original proposal most certainly was a ban. And it wasn't until less than 24 hours before the final vote that the background check proposal was in a form that was acceptable to even the ACLU, so in the minds of the average poorly informed voter it might as well have been.

And yes, the republicans are likely to shoot themselves in the foot. But the single issue voters for the second amendment will be out in force, and people have become largely desensitized to conservative absurdity. Last year, it was looking like the end of the republican party was inevitable and fast aproachinh, the democrats could have done nothing and sailed into a clean victory. Now they will have to fight to regain an advantage.

[MetalSlimeHunt]

Majority of Americans want increased gun restrictions (it wasn't a ban). In any case, there's 1.75 years left for the Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot over and over again, and they will.

Not really. If the majority of Americans wanted increased gun restrictions, those senators wouldn't have voted against the bill, especially the moderate Republicans and the dissenting Democrats. Most of the "90% of Americans support this!" nonsense is from polls that ask if Americans believe in background checks, something that already exists. Going by the polls, even in the states where they do support some form of increased gun restriction, they didn't support the bill in question (see: the polls coming out of New Hampshire)

Way to assume something I didn't say. I said a majority of Americans wanted increased control, not 90%. And that's true.

[Mictlantecuhtli]

Since Nadaka and GJ will likely just ignore the actual facts to support Libertarian talking points, here's those stats for the rest of us:


I'm gonna bold that for you.
Require criminal background checks for all gun sales [I.e. universal background checks]: 91%

In any case, there's 1.75 years left for the Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot over and over again, and they will.

Probably with this line of thought:

Most of the "90% of Americans support this!" nonsense is from polls that ask if Americans believe in background checks, something that already exists. Going by the polls, even in the states where they do support some form of increased gun restriction, they didn't support the bill in question (see: the polls coming out of New Hampshire)

I.e. I will ignore 90% of people's wishes in a democracy if it doesn't pander to my preconceived notions of guv'ment kicking down your doors.

[Nadaka]

I don't actually oppose universal background checks. If you are going to have a class of people who are not legally allowed to own weapons due to their convictions for violent criminal acts, then background checks are necessary. And they can be done in a way that is effective, relatively convenient,  and does not infringe on legal gun owners privacy and self defense rights.

In fact, I actually emailed my representatives and senators asking them to pass a reasonable universal background check law (and to also NOT pass the AW ban and magazine capacity limits).

[Owlbread]

The assault weapons ban and the magazine capacity limits are only going to piss off gun nuts and keep idiots happy. They won't save you when a guy walks into a school with four handguns and shoots 14 kids.

Furthermore, the whole point of the second amendment is to allow civilians to form militias and overthrow, at worst, their own government by force. Not just "defend yourself" against a burglar or something. If you don't have access to military-grade weaponry, how can you overthrow the government? Never mind if you think that's silly or not, that's honestly the whole point of the amendment. The fact that it was made the "second amendment" not the fourth or fifth shows how important it was to the Founding Fathers.

[bulborbish]

The assault weapons ban and the magazine capacity limits are only going to piss off gun nuts and keep idiots happy. They won't save you when a guy walks into a school with four handguns and shoots 14 kids.

Furthermore, the whole point of the second amendment is to allow civilians to form militias and overthrow, at worst, their own government by force. Not just "defend yourself" against a burglar or something. If you don't have access to military-grade weaponry, how can you overthrow the government? Never mind if you think that's silly or not, that's honestly the whole point of the amendment. The fact that it was made the "second amendment" not the fourth or fifth shows how important it was to the Founding Fathers.

Well, not exactly. The second amendment is designed as a states rights measure to guarantee that the national government does not abuse the states by stating that state militias can still exist and can resist federal abuses. Even when the supreme court rules on a handgun ban, they indicated that the only reason it was legal was that so many people use handguns.

So in short, yes it is important, but for different people than what most people believe. Even then, the amendment was made in a time when weapon differentiation only was accuracy, with most other factors coming solely from the marksman. If they had to judge whether they wanted the common person to have modern military grade weaponry, who knows what they would say.

[misko27]

There is another brand of important stuff occurring, proving once again the gun issue is not all-consuming, despite evidence to the contrary.


Secretary cedes Sarin strike struck Syrian civilians.

That is to say, the White House says it now believes Assad has used chemical weapons against the opposition.

[Nadaka]

And: http://news.yahoo.com/why-ron-paul-institute-terrible-news-rand-paul-070000414.html

This is one of the most popular so called libertarians shooting himself and his sons political ambition in the foot by assembling a think tank full of conspiracy theorists, racists and fascists.


Oh... And then there is the blatant jaw dropping unapologetic racism of these two articles.

http://news.yahoo.com/dark-side-diversity-070000603.html

http://news.yahoo.com/hatred-heart-white-america-070000325.html

[Scoops Novel]

I've asked before, and i may have forgetten your reasons, but why do you read yahoo?

[palsch]

It's also worth pointing out, but Paul has started selling a homeschooling curriculum crafted with the help of Gary North and Thomas Woods.

North is the beauty responsible for this quote;

"So let us be blunt about it: we must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God."

Liberty!

[Nadaka]

I've asked before, and i may have forgetten your reasons, but why do you read yahoo?

I have a yahoo email account. And sometimes I go there to correct the misinformed. And sometimes I go there to troll conservatives. The line between those last two can get awful blurry.

[Owlbread]

I enjoyed this video. It was very reasonable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hR3t7j2tUec

[misko27]

Obama, he's a comedian!

“I know CNN has taken some knocks lately but the fact is, I admire their commitment to covering all sides of the story, just in case one of them happens to be accurate.”

[tryrar]

......ow! The ultimate BURN

[Reelya]

Majority of Americans want increased gun restrictions (it wasn't a ban). In any case, there's 1.75 years left for the Republicans to shoot themselves in the foot over and over again, and they will.

Not really. If the majority of Americans wanted increased gun restrictions, those senators wouldn't have voted against the bill, especially the moderate Republicans and the dissenting Democrats. Most of the "90% of Americans support this!" nonsense is from polls that ask if Americans believe in background checks, something that already exists. Going by the polls, even in the states where they do support some form of increased gun restriction, they didn't support the bill in question (see: the polls coming out of New Hampshire)

That's bullshit, plain and simple. This was the exact wording of the survey question:

Q: Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?

And funnily enough, it's the exact same thing the bill tried to implement. If someone is telling you otherwise about the details of the survey, or the details of the bill, they're blatantly lying to you and taking you for a fool.
 
---

Every article I've read on the matter says the main part of the recently-defeated bill is mostly about expanding background checks (reuters) - because there are currently no background checks if you buy guns online or at gun shows. Here's New York Times saying basically the same thing about the recently-defeated bill. And it's not nonsense that 90% of respondents supported it - the actual survey question (washington post) was whether Americans support expanding background checks to gun shows - the very same thing the bill was about. No "gun ban", no shifting the goalposts with false questions, just asking the same question as what the bill was promoting.