Reid determined to have vote on gun control measures, even if Republicans filibuster

reply to post by Galvatron


I tell you, any laws are to restrict private and abiding law citizens they have nothing to do for safety. Still the argument that is all for the good of the nation and that congress can do whatever it wants and the President is the law of the land goes without question when it comes with the believes that everything in America is all peachy and that our government is the best thing beside Apple pie.

We got one of the most privately owned whore congress in the world and their pimps rules America.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

Originally posted by Indigo5
What is the problem with a vote? The idea of allowing an actual vote being equal to dictatorship??? Do you realize how ironic and tyranical that sounds?

Absent the current issue, were you taking the same stand on other issues that you didn't agree with or did you agree with the Constitutional practice of Congress establishing their own rules. As it is now, there are rules in place to proceed to an "up or down" vote.

I am always in favor of a vote vs. filibuster...regardless of issue. I am also opposed to obstructionism and cowardice as well regardless of party. This issue DOES deserve a vote regardless of outcome. Each and every member of congress is obligated to go on record and vote on this issue...and whatever side of the debate you sit on, that is something we all should agree with.

Originally posted by ownbestenemy

"The deal would close the so-called gun show loophole, requiring that background checks are conducted on all commercial gun sales in the country. ... When a sale occurs, the buyer and seller would meet at a licensed dealer, who would conduct the check. ...

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
For clarification purposes, since we are dealing with 2nd Amendment; do I need to seek the OK of the Government before I sell you: a knife? a bat? a sling-shot? a baton? etc, etc.

First off...it would seem if you had not conveniently clipped the relevant part of my excerpt, your question would be answered?

person-to-person sales — the 'friends and neighbors exceptions' would not be subject to a check."

Originally posted by ownbestenemy
Why only firearms when there are a multitude of other "arms" that can be just as lethal?

You seem intelligent to me. Why on earth would you think that falsely equating a gun to a "knife? a bat? a sling-shot? a baton?" (false equivelancy) would survive any logical scrutiny??

OK...A knife, bat, sling-shot and baton are just as deadly as a gun...

Why not ban guns then? Plenty of equal substitutes! Why the fuss?
Why not eliminate the expense of arming our soldiers with guns and instead go with the much less expensive baseball bat?

A bat, a sling shot, a knife IS NOT "just as lethal" as a gun...nor are all guns equal in thier lethality, thus the multitude of models, features and specifications. Apart from anyone capable of independant logical thought..Gun Manufacturers themselves would be the first to disagree with your claim that a gun holds no advantage over a sling-shot.

reply to post by Indigo5


Why are they trying to ban ANYTHING?

Weapons are not the issue when it comes to violence.

Guns dont make people violent.

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Why are they trying to ban ANYTHING?

Weapons are not the issue when it comes to violence.

Guns dont make people violent.

Guns don't kill people...people kill people!...and so do monkeys if you give them a gun!

What makes you think that violent intent is the only factor in outcome? The tool matters...as any gun owner or manufacturer will attest to.

Furthermore why would you think that intent is even neccessary?

[two different] Four-year-old boys in different states were involved in two separate shooting incidents in the last four days, with tragic results.

On Saturday, a Tennessee boy discharged a pistol at a sheriff's deputy's wife, killing her instantly. On Monday, a New Jersey toddler killed a 6-year-old neighbor after a rifle was fired at his head.

usnews.nbcnews.com...

There are valid debates that need to be had centering on gun control and protecting the 2nd amendment, but the argument that guns offer no advantage in lethality or specific utility in killing is nonsense.

reply to post by Common Good

Weapons are not the issue when it comes to violence.

Guns dont make people violent.

You know, your right, guns don't make people violent, Conservative media makes people violent. j/k

But seriously people. We have had enough tragedies in this nation related to firearms. It's time to collectively reevaluate our need for weaponry.

Now it's true that criminals don't obey the laws and any new laws would just be ignored by these people anyway. But we need to do SOMETHING. What the pro gun crowd wants us to do is arm every man woman child and turtle and hope for the best.

Why do we think that only psychos and criminals use guns for violence?

Originally posted by Indigo5

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Indigo5

 

Why are they trying to ban ANYTHING?

Weapons are not the issue when it comes to violence.

Guns dont make people violent.

Guns don't kill people...people kill people!...and so do monkeys if you give them a gun!

What makes you think that violent intent is the only factor in outcome? The tool matters...as any gun owner or manufacturer will attest to.

Furthermore why would you think that intent is even neccessary?

[two different] Four-year-old boys in different states were involved in two separate shooting incidents in the last four days, with tragic results.

On Saturday, a Tennessee boy discharged a pistol at a sheriff's deputy's wife, killing her instantly. On Monday, a New Jersey toddler killed a 6-year-old neighbor after a rifle was fired at his head.

usnews.nbcnews.com...

There are valid debates that need to be had centering on gun control and protecting the 2nd amendment, but the argument that guns offer no advantage in lethality or specific utility in killing is nonsense.

Again....Guns are not the issue.

You bring up the children. How about a little bit of responsibility that comes with the right to own weapons by those who parent?

Its a gun/power grab- and its not about protecting anyone. We all know- all of these proposals wont do a damn thing to stop crime- only enhance them by stripping peoples rights away from protecting themselves or their families.

Of course guns have an advantage in lethality- thats what they are used for.


GUNS THEMSELVES do NOT make people commit violent crimes. Non responsible owners can be thanked for that.

Ever heard that saying "The harder you squeeze something- the more that slips through your fingers"

Its all one big smoke screen.

Originally posted by HauntWok
reply to post by Common Good

 

Weapons are not the issue when it comes to violence.

Guns dont make people violent.

You know, your right, guns don't make people violent, Conservative media makes people violent.

j/k

But seriously people. We have had enough tragedies in this nation related to firearms. It's time to collectively reevaluate our need for weaponry.

Now it's true that criminals don't obey the laws and any new laws would just be ignored by these people anyway. But we need to do SOMETHING. What the pro gun crowd wants us to do is arm every man woman child and turtle and hope for the best.

Why do we think that only psychos and criminals use guns for violence?

I personally think Americans would be safer if they had the means to protect themselves- rather than being stripped of their rights to do so.

I personally think that the Anti-Gun crowds priorities are very misplaced.

I personally think that Agenda goes farther than the actual 'problem".

As you say- Criminals(the people who commit these crimes) will just ignore any laws, and that
lawful gun owners will be more at risk because of them.

'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'.

Determined to pass more gun restrictions because the United nations and Mexico is GREATLY pressuring the executives to make it so.
The executives have got to pick a side.

Global pressure. Or U.S.A rights.

I guess we shall see what will win in the long run.

I see no reason why the Senate should not vote on each and every one of those gun control measures. Little, if any, of them will pass; however, I believe it is important that each and every one of the 100 senators should be on the record as to where they stand on the issues. What's so wrong with that? Hiding behind a filibuster to avoid going on the record is about as cowardly an act there is.

reply to post by LeatherNLace


I have to agree with everything you said. We elected these officials to vote on issues, whether they read them or not is their responsibility. Filibustering is just another example of how our representatives are not doing the job we elected them to do. Stop whining and go on the record and vote.

Originally posted by WeRpeons

I see no reason why the Senate should not vote on each and every one of those gun control measures. Little, if any, of them will pass; however, I believe it is important that each and every one of the 100 senators should be on the record as to where they stand on the issues. What's so wrong with that? Hiding behind a filibuster to avoid going on the record is about as cowardly an act there is.

reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

I have to agree with everything you said. We elected these officials to vote on issues, whether they read them or not is their responsibility. Filibustering is just another example of how our representatives are not doing the job we elected them to do. Stop whining and go on the record and vote.

So with that mentality, you think the filibuster against domestic drone use was an example of a congressman not doing his job?

So yeah, let them vote, so they pass some draconian measures, then we're stuck with them because nobody stood up and said NO. You say it's their responsibility to read these bills, well yeah, of course it is... but do they always read them? No.

Originally posted by eXia7
So with that mentality, you think the filibuster against domestic drone use was an example of a congressman not doing his job?

That filibuster was not against domestic drones; rather it was a filibuster against a presidential cabinet nominee. The filibuster was to bring awareness to the domestic drone issue.

In the case of gun control, the issues are well known by the American citizen. We don't need a one-sided argument (filibuster). What we need is to have a two-sided debate followed by an on the record vote. That is how congress is supposed to work.

Originally posted by marg6043
reply to post by Galvatron

 

I tell you, any laws are to restrict private and abiding law citizens they have nothing to do for safety. Still the argument that is all for the good of the nation and that congress can do whatever it wants and the President is the law of the land goes without question when it comes with the believes that everything in America is all peachy and that our government is the best thing beside Apple pie.

We got one of the most privately owned whore congress in the world and their pimps rules America.

LOL Ya think they are after the law abiding citizens?
I guess being on a conspiracy web-site you eventually start to believe everyone is out to get you.
The USA is governed more and more by CORPORATIONS....like the gun mfgs at the NRA. You do whatever the corporations want. Walmart wants to bust up Unions, well then dammit, that's what the conservatives will do. It is all about getting the money and keeping it. What they are taking from law abiding citizens is their VOICE, their money, their livelihood, their healthcare, their house...Giving their jobs to machines.

Originally posted by eXia7

Originally posted by WeRpeons

I see no reason why the Senate should not vote on each and every one of those gun control measures. Little, if any, of them will pass; however, I believe it is important that each and every one of the 100 senators should be on the record as to where they stand on the issues. What's so wrong with that? Hiding behind a filibuster to avoid going on the record is about as cowardly an act there is.

reply to post by LeatherNLace

 

I have to agree with everything you said. We elected these officials to vote on issues, whether they read them or not is their responsibility. Filibustering is just another example of how our representatives are not doing the job we elected them to do. Stop whining and go on the record and vote.

So with that mentality, you think the filibuster against domestic drone use was an example of a congressman not doing his job?

On rand Paul's filibuster with reagrds to drones....
(A) Many of his arguments were misinformed or misleading...that whole bit about Jane Fonda getting assasinated at a Starbucks was pretty dumb.
(B) Rand wants attention and press...he is going to run in 2016

Despite those factors...Kudo's to him...the virtue in his filibuster was getting people talking...to raise awareness of the issue.

Do you think the Gun Debate needs it's awareness raised amongst the American public? No one has been paying attention??? The only purpose of Filibuster in this scenario is cowardice of going on record with a vote or to pander to NRA lobbyists.

Originally posted by Common Good
reply to post by Hopechest

 

You are implying that the govt has the authority to tell people which kind of vehicles they can operate.

They cant.

Thats bloombergs way of thinking.

Oh really? Can you buy a car that's not equipped with a catalytic converter? Or how about a car without seat belts or air bags, can I get one of those? Let's say that I love burning gas and I want a vehicle that only gets 1 mpg on the highway, can I get one of those? By the way, I'd also like to have one that has no brake lights, blinkers or rear view mirrors, can I get one of those?

It's common knowledge that there are hundreds of ways that our government regulates the type of cars we are allowed to operate on our roads & highways.

No "Right" is absolute. Not even our 1st amendment right to free speech. ie; We're not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc...

On top of that, one might take notice to the fact that the first amendment right to free speech is indeed somewhat regulated despite the fact that it doesn't even mention the term "regulation," in the text of the amendment.

en.wikipedia.org...

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Whereas, the 2nd amendment actually begins with the words; "A well regulated militia being necessary";

en.wikipedia.org...

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Just saying.

Originally posted by Flatfish
No "Right" is absolute. Not even our 1st amendment right to free speech. ie; We're not allowed to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theatre, etc...

You are absolutely allowed to yell "fire" in a crowed theatre and I would if there was one. You are however, held accountable for "crying wolf" if there is no fire and causing injury or death because of it. Learn the difference.

Whereas, the 2nd amendment actually begins with the words; "A well regulated militia being necessary";
...Just saying.

"Just saying" what? You understand the use of a comma right? It recognizes the States' abilities to protect themselves along with the People. Or did you purposefully omit that portion of the amendment?