I suppose that senators from California support abortion rights because they are under the thrall of NARAL?
They don’t represent the country. They represent individual states like Wyoming, and Arkansas.
Like I said, if they had tried it in January, the Senate would have passed the background check. It was the AWB that gave them the political maneuvering room to shut down ALL gun control legislation. Your side did this to themselves.
Believe what you want. Keeping your own counsel has done your side of the debate a whole lot of good hasn’t it. Just stay in that echo chamber of yours and keep telling yourself that anything put forward by the gun rights side needs airtight proof to have any relevance while any half assed theory by the anti-gun side deserves deep consideration. Hows that working out for you?
I don’t think that background checks at gun shows and on internet sales standing alone are particularly useful. I don’t object to them but I can see why they went down in flames after the push for an AWB.
Without the filibuster you wouldn’t need the 60 votes so what makes you think I was arguing against a filibuster, you only need one senator named Ted Cruz for a filibuster.
I thought you asked me who I think,would have voted the other way. Were you asking me to provide indisputable proof of what would have happened if things had been different?
I think you’re making that up, you know, from your gut.
Or the irrational paranoid fear of guns that the anti-gun folks display.
How common is a child accidentally killed by a gun in the house? How many homes with children have guns?
How would you feel if you could have stopped cannibals from eating your wife and children if only you had a gun.:rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
That gun owners are rational people who, when found to be carrying loaded weapons in a place where they know that it’s a crime to do so, if they are asked to leave, they will do so peacefully, or if they are arrested, they will go quietly to jail.
Amazing how almost half the Senators represent states where any sort of regulation is unpopular, yet the national aggregate is still around 90%, huh? You do know, I hope, how strong the blowback has been toward Senators who voted No.
The annual death toll from gun proliferation is very real. The armed-revolt stuff is a ridiculous fantasy. Your argument is silly.
There’s one in the news almost every day, tragically. Go ahead and call that “irrational paranoia” if you must, while the innocents keep dying.
And yet more people trust Republicans about gun laws than Obama. Why is that? is it possible that you are misreading the significance of that one poll among many?
Read a few more facts, things may not be as lopsided as you think.
Really? The blowback for Ted Cruz hasn’t been very strong. Neither has the blowback for Marco Rubio. There has been blowback with a handful of senators. We will see how the gun issue affects the next election. I suspect that it will either be a non-issue or it will help the Republicans.
I don’t think you understand my argument. I don’t think I’ve ever subscribed to the armed revolt fantasy, I don’t think many of the posters on this board have.
I don’t think you understand very much about the gun issue other than the fact that you don’t like guns.
really?
About 700 accidental gun deaths per year.
About 100 accidental gun deaths of minors per year.
15 children under age of 5 per year.
15 children between 5 and 10 per year.
30 children between age 11 and 15 per year.
Almost every day?
You seem factually challenged. Are you a Republican?
Well I figured I’d save them the trouble of caricaturing the notion that there is a benefit for some people to having firearms in the home.
Is it possible you’re whistling past the graveyard? There’s a helluva lot more than one poll about the background check issue, even if you’d rather retreat to the comfort of simple Obama-hate.
More than a handful, but congratulations on admitting a fact, this time about the price Senators like Jeff Flake are paying for their irresponsibility. Recognizing facts is a good habit you need to reinforce.
Then there must be some reason you’re taking the cold, dead hands position other than that. Maybe you could share with the class.
[quote[I don’t think you understand very much about the gun issue other than the fact that you don’t like guns.[/quote] I don’t like people getting killed. :rolleyes: I’ve explained that to you multiple times. Your inability to comprehend any opposition to your views other than that childish one is your own problem, as is the destruction of any credibility that follows.
Congratulations on admitting even more facts. Now, take the next step and explain to the class how you can dismiss the desire to have fewer of those deaths as “irrational paranoia”.
You’re a sad, sick, twisted individual. And a dangerous one too. The fact that there are many others like you is not an excuse.
In a nation of three hundred million people, shit happens. As the master put it regarding radiation exposure, “Readers may find discussions of this sort heartless, but essentially the same sort of calculation goes into estimates of death from coal dust”. Fewer gun deaths would be desirable but not at the cost of lost utility (which you apparently think is zero).
Shit only happens if the conditions for it to happen exist. Those conditions can be eliminated. And fuck you sideways for calling the unnecessary, easily avoidable deaths of innocents “shit”. :rolleyes:
What is this “lost utility” you speak of as being more important than that? :dubious:
Minors are under the age of 18, not 16. There were 122 killed in firearms accidents in the last available year (2007) in Wisqars, so that’s one every three days.
On the “off” days by the way, there are about 9.6 youths under 18 who are non-fatally injured in firearms accidents.
I voted for Obama 3 times (primary and 2 general), I’m just pointing out that you’re not winning this debate hand over fist despite what you have convinced yourself. 90% of the public can support background checks and still feel that Democrats can’t be trusted on guns if their push for a background check was immediately preceded by a push for an AWB. If you had started with the background check I think you would have gotten it. Instead you pushed for an AWB because you thought your hand was strong enough to support stupid legislation. Don’t let Feinstein lead on stuff like this, she is irrational about guns and letting her push for an AWB undermined any credibility the Democrats had on gun control and reinforced arguments about incrementalism.
Lets see what happens next election cycle. Lets see if the next Democratic nominee for POTUS makes an AWB part of their platform. I bet dollars to donuts they run on something closer to background checks or licensing and registration.
In another thread i pointed out that Jeff Flake was one of the likely yes votes for background checks if it had not been preceded by an effort to pass an AWB.
I don’t know exactly what you mean by cold dead hands but I am not an absolutist. I think that there are plenty of permissible infringements on the 2nd amendment. I have long advocated for licensing and registration requirements. I think that banning particular types of guns is stupid and generally reflects an ignorance about guns their relationship with crime. I think that the non-ignorant people who try to ban gun would ban their way to a gun free society without having to go through the trouble of repealing the second amendment.
Don’t you think thats a bit rich coming from you? I mean, you have no credibility at all on this issue. You have other liberals specifically disowning you because you are so ignorant.
The desire is fine, doing it the way Feinstein tried to do it is retarded. Or are you under the impression that I am one of those 10% that don’t want universal background checks? I support universal background checks but I understand why it failed and a big part of it was the push for an AWB that preceded the push for background checks.
Well I think you’re a sad individual as well, I don’t think you’re dangerous just sad.
Compare the number of kids killed accidentally (or injured) in the home versus defensive gun uses. Or do you think guns are never used in self defense?
So we all agree that its not a kid dying every day. More like twice a week and if we are talking about the really young children that seems to really set people off more like once or twice a month. There are more kids that die of cancer than gunshots, thats how rare it is.
You really can’t grasp a desire to cut down the number of murders, can you? That just isn’t in your moral compass, if you even have one, is it? All you can do is revert to your favorite childish invective.
Do you know what a sociopath is?
Without the AWB, you still opposed the bill. You’re gloating over it, even neenering your guys’ current favorite demon. No, you don’t support them; you’re totally reflexive. Cut the shit.
We’ve been over those numbers too, as you know. Unfortunately, you don’t know enough to understand that they’re much, much smaller and it really isn’t wise of you to bring them up.
Wow. Just wow. You think that’s a *winning *point, don’t you? Only a sociopath could.
That is a tad disturbing, yes. Also, the analogy with cancer fails in that we spend vast amounts of time and money trying to reduce the amount of cancer. The closest you get to a “National Cancer Association” lobbying on behalf of products causing death by cancer is the tobacco industry, and that’s not targetted at kids (well, not much).
Those elements of his argument are disturbing and stupid. His political argument also bears no resemblance to reality, as I’ve argued above. But it also fails on its core premise. He argues that a proposal with 90% support failed because the Democrats pursued a proposal that has ~50% support.
Why should this be seen as a logical argument? It seems pretty fucking stupid to me. It seems to be based on the idea that compromise is offensive, and that gun advocates are such pussies that you can’t even mention something they really don’t like, or they have the right to say no to something that’s pretty benign.