That’s a nice way to spin it, but how many corporate lobbying groups can scare Congressmen simply by promising to score a vote?
To put it more simply, how many corporate lobbying groups can scare Congressmen simply by promising to tell voters how they voted?
Liberal hatred of the NRA basically comes down to “they snitched on us!” There is no surer way to ensure that every red state Democrat goes down in 2016 and 2018. And sure enough, Democrats like Heidi Heitkamp weren’t going to fall on their sword. The NRA isn’t going to beat Heitkamp by funding her opponent. They’ll beat her simply by saying, “This Republican dude doesn’t support gun control. Heidi Heitkamp does.” That would be the end for her in a place like North Dakota, and Michael Bloomberg’s millions wouldn’t even make it close. So she did the smart thing.
I think it’s more likely that the effort to strip rights without due process will be more like the AUMF against Iraq. Wide spread support that is later regretted. How long should we wait before we draw a conclusion?
We shall see. I think the tide has turned. At one time, opposition to SSM was a sure fire winner for Republicans. That time is over. I predict at some time the support for guns may be an albatross rather than an asset.
Truly a proud moment for the Pubbies! But we should not be curt and surly about this, let us celebrate the Republican commitment to the health and well-being of the financial industry! Lets all be sure to point out this splendid example of Republican ethics! The business of America is business, as Calvin Coolidge pointed out, and the Republicans are going to make sure that Americans get the business, good and hard!
I would be willing to bet that if you asked Americans a couple years back if it was legal for their “financial advisor” to steer them away from fiscal prudence to investments that profit their advisor, they would have said “No, of course not!” After all, “fiduciary” means “trust”! Even to this day, most probably don’t know that it is perfectly legal for their trusted advisors to give them a jolly good rogering!
And its all due to the sternly righteous party of individual responsibility! “Fuck you, Jack, I’ve got mine, and it used to be yours!”
That’s nice, but it’s a total dodge on what I’m asking. Basically, are you good with other privileges, say, being taken away from anyone who is on the No Fly List? You don’t have a right, after all, to drive, or purchase anything that might be considered dangerous, nor a right to alcohol or myriad other things. You good with not allowing any of those other things to anyone on the list?
As for your assertion it’s not a right, well, it currently is, so even if you are correct and everyone comes to their senses and agrees with you down the road, there will still be precedence for having taken away a right using this process, which means it could be used to curtail other rights in the future.
People actually think it’s the five million members of the NRA that are scaring Congress into not passing common sense gun control legislation? You think five million people can control Congress-- and state legislatures-- that much? You think members of Congress are scared into voting a certain way because a bloc of people that represents less than 4% of registered voters nationally belong to the NRA?
Unions have three times that many members-- you think they have three times the amount of influence in Congress?
Its kinda like the “slippery slope” but its a slippery cliff. One toe over the line, and the entire Constitution is null and void, torn asunder, ripped to shreds! Dogs and cats in gay marriages…
Wait, its this another of those things where saying “taking away rights” means something different than “taking away rights”? That’s too subtle for me, a boor of little brain. I fold.
My argument has nothing to do with gay marriage, something I support. The fact you wanted to lump that in basically and strawman me by doing so. I’m sure your ‘boor little brain’ knew exactly what it was doing by trying to poison the well this way.
[QUOTE=BobLibDem]
As long as there’s an appeal process, I have no problem with it.
[/QUOTE]
Ok. At least you are honest. I think it’s pretty scary that you feel this way, but there you go.
The one thing I don’t like about this is the underhanded use of “common sense”. Appears to me, the “common sense” argument here is, well, of course, we don’t let suspected terrorists buy guns, that’s just plain common sense! And, of course, the crucial weakness of that is “suspected” terrorists. But that argument sells.
Its a lot like the way Republicans sold their “voter id” argument. Well, of course, you need ID to buy beer or cigarettes, why not to vote? Common sense!
Our fellow Americans are very vulnerable to that sort of argument, its political judo. But the fix is simple enough. Any American on the no-fly list should be able to challenge that standing. I imagine that very few of our actual enemies are dumb enough to call attention to themselves, but if that isn’t so, so much the better!
Let’s get one thing clear. There is no such animal as an inviolable constitutional right.
The First Amendment has been dinged hundreds of times in the country’s history. So has the Second Amendment. (How many machine guns do you own?) The Fourth Amendment? The Supreme Court has just ruled that an outstanding warrant may be used to arrest a person who was detained illegally. That same Supreme Court is the one responsible for the current interpretation of the Second Amendment. What happens after President Clinton gets a Democratic president to name five new justices over eight years? The Constitution is as living as Scalia is dead.
Why would the Democrats stage a sit-in now? It wasn’t to pass a certain bill, no matter how many times people in this thread falsely claim it as a “fact”. No bills will pass and they know that. It was because they read the tea leaves and saw that public revulsion over continued gun massacres has finally overridden gun acceptance. That the Supreme Court reads the election results is as true today as it was in Mr. Dooley’s time. The Justices may pretend otherwise, but if there’s a Democratic landslide in November, they will alter their decision-making, if only subtly at first.
I love my rights. More than you do, I suspect, because I’m older than most and remember more times they were violated. I was an adult under Nixon. But that also means I’m not about to get into an argument that states that rights are unchanging; I’ve also seen too many times when supposed rights proved to be evils and supposed wrongs are treated as obviously wonderful.
Somebody right here on the Dope said he’d take a Newtown massacre every day if that meant keeping his gun rights. That overreach was high tide. The water is going out from underneath you.
I’ll just take it that you got caught in your strawman, are now in full 'luci deflection mode while fanning the air frantically with your handwaving, and move on since it doesn’t look like you want to actually want to deal with the meat of the issue people are raising on this, and why people are concerned. Bob at least answered…he’s perfectly fine with the government arbitrarily taking away peoples privileges based on a list as long as they could appeal. So, can’t fly, buy a gun, drive your car or purchase certain other things, that’s cool…apply to the government for an appeal and, perhaps in a few years we will review that and maybe you will be able to get those privileges back. This doesn’t even get into the potential for slippery slopes wrt rights, since Bob doesn’t acknowledge that having a gun IS a right, or that it’s considered one now (and that any actual legislation wrt this today would be done without Bob’s interpretation being key).
Is anyone in this thread asserting that Constitutional Rights are ‘inviolable’? If so, they are wrong. But that’s, again, not the meat of the argument against this initiative. It’s a strawman argument that doesn’t address what most of the people who are taking issue with this are saying.
No right is inviolable, but it’s not as simple as passing a law violating it and having the courts rubber stamp it. It is actually very hard to get laws passed violating rights absent very specific precedent. Anytime Congress tries to push the envelope they get smacked down more often than not. Strict scrutiny is a bitch.
IT’s not just the membership of the NRA. No one with an F rating from the NRA is getting elected in many a red state. It really is that simple. Heck, that even goes for some blue states, like Vermont. The most socialist state in the country is well known for being NRA country. The only reason Democrats win is because they are pro-NRA there. If the party decided to limit 2nd amendment rights in Vermont, it would soon be a red state.
There are over 100 million gun owners who to some degree or another agree with NRA positions. And they make up a majority of the population in large swaths of the country.
