Senate rejects Universal Background Checks

[Incorruptible]

The difference, you moron, is that I can point to literally 100's of abortions laws that have been passed or attempted to be passed in multiple states and by many republicans. How many gun ban legislations have you seen? 1? 5? 20? Yeah, not even close.

Just stay out of the conversation since we are now dealing with numbers, something you are horrible with.

Then you should take your own advice.

 

[spidey07]

I can count 4 just in the last 2 months.

 

[ivwshane]

Then you should take your own advice.

Sorry I don't take advice from idiots. Hypocrite!

 

[ivwshane]

I can count 4 just in the last 2 months.

Well shit 4>100+ isn't it?


Idiots!

 

[spidey07]

Well shit 4>100+ isn't it?


Idiots!

Well if you want to count proposed then it's easy to come up with >100.

But keep up the deflection. It's the liberal play book when defeated by the constitution.

 

[ivwshane]

Well if you want to count proposed then it's easy to come up with >100.

But keep up the deflection. It's the liberal play book when defeated by the constitution.

Bullshit! You are lying and you know it.

 

[Incorruptible]

Sorry I don't take advice from idiots. Hypocrite!

I don`t listen to idiots and hypocrites like you!

You lost the debate which is why you resort to insults.

 

[buckshot24]

The difference, you moron, is that I can point to literally 100's of abortions laws that have been passed or attempted to be passed in multiple states and by many republicans. How many gun ban legislations have you seen? 1? 5? 20? Yeah, not even close.

You've demonstrated my point, and that is that you're a fucking hypocritical hack. Whatever "differences" you've constructed doesn't change that.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

I believe it was the onslaught of calls, e-mails and letters from their constituents that swayed them. Notice the few democrats that voted no.

Voting for gun control is political suicide.

So it's really lobbying that won. I get it that the Senate gives 2 to each state, so the population isn't really represented. States are, especially the small states. But given the public is 90% behind UBC, and even if you said just 80% or whatever lowass number, it's an overwhelming number.

It's kinda sad that democracy didn't prevail here. There's probably only a few things that have 80-90% support in this country, and to imagine the government doing a 180 from what the people support? That's pretty bad.

 

[schneiderguy]

It's kinda sad that democracy didn't prevail here. There's probably only a few things that have 80-90% support in this country, and to imagine the government doing a 180 from what the people support? That's pretty bad.

Democracy worked just fine. Those in the pro-gun camp (NRA, GOA, SAF, CGF, etc) are much more dedicated and organized and numerous than those in the anti-rights camp (Brady Campaign, VPC). They were able to get elected enough people who support them, plus put the fear of opposition in the next election in others who might not support them otherwise, to succeed.

99% of the people could support something, but it would not matter if only the other 1% voted. Public opinion polling means nothing if those people do not get out and vote for candidates that support their position.

 

[Suspicious-Teach8788]

Democracy worked just fine. Those in the pro-gun camp (NRA, GOA, SAF, CGF, etc) are much more dedicated and organized and numerous than those in the anti-rights camp (Brady Campaign, VPC). They were able to get elected enough people who support them, plus put the fear of opposition in the next election in others who might not support them otherwise, to succeed.

99% of the people could support something, but it would not matter if only the other 1% voted. Public opinion polling means nothing if those people do not get out and vote for candidates that support their position.

So with 90% support and 50% turnout for election, even if all the opposition to the 90% turned out and the rest was just the idiots, that means its still a 4:1 split for UBC. Even at 80% support, it's 3:2 in favor of UBC if ALL 20% came out to vote.

The point is democracy did not work fine. You just basically said that throwing money around did the trick. You think they voted the way they did because they felt that way? Because they wanted to go against their constituents? Or because they were backed in a corner by lobbyists. Sure, for those of you who submitted all the gun laws going down, that's great and all, but for the 90% that supported UBC for example? That's not so great.

But from a more objective standpoint and evaluating this country as a whole, yeah I'm disappointed. It's already pretty bad that lobbyists control legislation, but it's worse when Congress isn't representing the public.

The interesting part is that many bills have died in Congress. Yet this is the one where people say "Shame," when they talk about the death of the bill.

 

[Pr0d1gy]

That 90% number is complete bullshit trumped up from a bullshit poll. Let it go man. You lost and all this crying about it is only pushing people away from your party that helped you guys win the last election.

What you should be focusing on is why the guy we voted on for Pres, who promised us complete transparency, is trying to censor the Internet and gutting bills that would have forced Congresspersons to report any trading they did over $1000 to a database searchable by the public.

It is clear that Obama has betrayed the people who voted for him. I am very disappointed and feel like I got conned.

 

[spidey07]

So it's really lobbying that won. I get it that the Senate gives 2 to each state, so the population isn't really represented. States are, especially the small states. But given the public is 90% behind UBC, and even if you said just 80% or whatever lowass number, it's an overwhelming number.

It's kinda sad that democracy didn't prevail here. There's probably only a few things that have 80-90% support in this country, and to imagine the government doing a 180 from what the people support? That's pretty bad.

We're not a democracy. That's the purpose of the Senate, to represent the sovereignty of the states. Our representative republic worked just fine.

The Senate does NOT represent the public, they represent the states.

And only the gun grabbers are saying "shame", everybody else is cheering the vote.

 

[fskimospy]

Are the questions themselves "scientific"? Is it at least possible to skew your results by asking questions in certain ways?

Scientific polling isn't determining how people actually feel about something its determining how people respond to a given set of questions. If the questions are skewed then the results are going to be skewed.

Yes, of course question wording and question order matter. Regardless, numerous polls with numerous different question wordings all turned up utterly overwhelming support for universal background checks. The idea that question wording has skewed the result to an extent that support is not overwhelming is extremely dubious.

 

[fskimospy]

We're not a democracy. That's the purpose of the Senate, to represent the sovereignty of the states. Our representative republic worked just fine.

The Senate does NOT represent the public, they represent the states.

So did our representative republic work just fine when it passed the health care bill?

 

[nehalem256]

Yes, of course question wording and question order matter. Regardless, numerous polls with numerous different question wordings all turned up utterly overwhelming support for universal background checks. The idea that question wording has skewed the result to an extent that support is not overwhelming is extremely dubious.

How many people that they polled read the bill?

 

[irishScott]

So with 90% support and 50% turnout for election, even if all the opposition to the 90% turned out and the rest was just the idiots, that means its still a 4:1 split for UBC. Even at 80% support, it's 3:2 in favor of UBC if ALL 20% came out to vote.

The point is democracy did not work fine. You just basically said that throwing money around did the trick. You think they voted the way they did because they felt that way? Because they wanted to go against their constituents? Or because they were backed in a corner by lobbyists. Sure, for those of you who submitted all the gun laws going down, that's great and all, but for the 90% that supported UBC for example? That's not so great.

But from a more objective standpoint and evaluating this country as a whole, yeah I'm disappointed. It's already pretty bad that lobbyists control legislation, but it's worse when Congress isn't representing the public.

The interesting part is that many bills have died in Congress. Yet this is the one where people say "Shame," when they talk about the death of the bill.

Uh, have you watched the news in the last.. since TV was invented? "Shame" is always screamed at politicians by the losing side on big issues.

And lobbying is part of democracy. All of those polls should have asked a followup question: Are you determined to vote out your current representative if they do not vote to your liking?

Many gun owners are single issue voters, and would vote to expel their current representative. If they didn't, the NRA would have about as much clout as the anti-gun lobby (read: not much).

So I'd say democracy worked just fine. It represented the will of the voters, that being the slim segment of population that actually votes in midterm elections. It's not like everyone else is barred from voting, if they want a different outcome they can easily vote the NRA into irrelevance on this issue. But I think a year from now most will have moved on.

 

[irishScott]

So did our representative republic work just fine when it passed the health care bill?

Unfortunately, yes. "Worked just fine" doesn't mean "makes perfect decisions."

 

[Puddle Jumper]

Many gun owners are single issue voters, and would vote to expel their current representative. If they didn't, the NRA would have about as much clout as the anti-gun lobby (read: not much).

So I'd say democracy worked just fine. It represented the will of the voters, that being the slim segment of population that actually votes in midterm elections. It's not like everyone else is barred from voting, if they want a different outcome they can easily vote the NRA into irrelevance on this issue. But I think a year from now most will have moved on.

Exactly, I won't vote for a single Democrat until their party stops attacking the second amendment, I don't care who is running against them.

 

[thraashman]

Exactly, I won't vote for a single Democrat until their party stops attacking the second amendment, I don't care who is running against them.

And I won't vote for a single Republican until ... well ever. I'm simply too intelligent to think voting Republican is a good idea.

 

[irishScott]

And I won't vote for a single Republican until ... well ever. I'm simply too intelligent to think voting Republican is a good idea.

Right, you're too smart to see both sides of the issue. Your mentality is literally the stuff of comedy: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cbNyDqMuK6A&t=3m7s

 

[fskimospy]

Unfortunately, yes. "Worked just fine" doesn't mean "makes perfect decisions."

It made a pretty great decision with the health care bill, but that wasn't what I was getting at. My guess is that spidey's view of the effectiveness of a representative republic tracks pretty closely with that republic doing things that he likes.

 

[airdata]

I'm actually a bit surprised that right wingers seem so against this stuff in the first place.

This legislation wasn't obama taking anybodies guns... or preventing upstanding citizens from buying guys... So what's the big deal from all of the staunch opponents to this?

(and please, before flaming me go back a page or 2 and read my earlier post about how I feel bout this topic)

 

[Phanuel]

I'm actually a bit surprised that right wingers seem so against this stuff in the first place.

This legislation wasn't obama taking anybodies guns... or preventing upstanding citizens from buying guys... So what's the big deal from all of the staunch opponents to this?

(and please, before flaming me go back a page or 2 and read my earlier post about how I feel bout this topic)

Against what stuff in particular? Background checks? They already exist.

How do you propose we enforce private party transactions? They're illegal in CA without an FFL but how do you really know someone didn't just sell without going through an FFL anyhow?

 

[spacejamz]

I'm actually a bit surprised that right wingers seem so against this stuff in the first place.

This legislation wasn't obama taking anybodies guns... or preventing upstanding citizens from buying guys... So what's the big deal from all of the staunch opponents to this?

(and please, before flaming me go back a page or 2 and read my earlier post about how I feel bout this topic)

Please explain why you think a criminal would obey any new guns laws when they ignore current laws (hint: there is a reason why they are called criminals).