yeah that direction being severe bansI believe many people in the US saw this bill as a step in the right direction and a compromise, from what I read no one was saying it was going to stop mass shootings but it would of got the ball moving in some peoples eyes. The fact that this bill was shot down just confirms to me that the right are unwilling to even to meet the left anywhere near the middle and nothing will ever change in the US. Its sad for people like my wife's family who's opinion and views get ignored under the weight of the NRA and their millions of dollars.
I was just wondering, has there been any project/issue that VP Biden has been put in charge of over the past 4 plus years that has actually been successful?
Easy...Big Money and the NRA is very good at slimeballing people in elections. A lot of the red state politicians are deathly afraid of the NRA even when their constituents support reasonable restrictions.
some recent murder stats....Keep spinning it mate.
In the US – population 311.5 million (1) – there were an estimated 13,756 murders in 2009 (2), a rate of about 5.0 per 100,000 (3). Of these 9,203 were carried out with a firearm.
In the UK – population 56.1 million (4) – there were an estimated 550 murders in 2011-12 (5), a rate of about 1.4 per 100,000. Of these 39 were carried out with a firearm
p.s our violent crime rate is measured very differently to Americas.
Never before had President Barack Obama put the moral force and political muscle of his presidency behind an issue quite this big — and lost quite this badly.
Giving or raising $500,000 or more puts donors on a national advisory board for Mr. Obama’s group and the privilege of attending quarterly meetings with the president, along with other meetings at the White House.
93% of Americans are in favor of background checks. Sad that 46 Senators lack a backbone to stand up to the NRA and the wacko gun lobby.
Defeated and angry — and surrounded by Newtown families and former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.) — President Barack Obama blamed a gun lobby that “willfully lied” and senators who “caved to the pressure” for the defeat of his effort to pass gun control through Congress.
Obama blasted the Senate’s voting down the Manchin-Toomey amendment — a bipartisan agreement on background checks that was itself a compromise on a fraction of the comprehensive gun control package the president called for after the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary.
“All in all this was a pretty shameful day for Washington,” Obama said in the Rose Garden, after walking to the podium with his arm around Giffords and hugged the relatives of victims of the December shooting.
Okay...
First I should point out that I am, in general, a centrist. I lean a little left on certain things, and a bit right on certain things, but overall I tend to oppose extremes of either sort.
Now when it comes to gun and self-defense issues, I am a strong defender of the 2A. I don't think it is a right/left issue so much as a freedom issue, and a self-defense issue, and a balance-of-power issue.
While I question whether mandated background checks are really Constitutional, strictly speaking, I accept the current NICS system as a middle-road compromise position since it is relatively non-burdensome to the honest citizen, and possibly does some tiny minescule amount of good (not a lot really, when you look at how very VERY few prosecutions there have been based on people lying on their form and getting caught at it).
As far as preventing crime, I doubt it has much effect, given the current lack of action on attempted violations, and the ready availability of firearms on the black market.
Therefore I have serious doubts that expanding it would have much positive impact. Criminals and the black market would ignore it as they do all laws, and it is not very enforceable.
Therefore, absent a significant positive impact, I see little reason to support same. As I've said I am not dead-set against some sort of expansion of background checks, as long as it is carefully structured and worded to minimize its impact on the law-abiding... but absent more vigorous and effective use of the EXISTING system to nail criminals, I see little point in it.
So, absent any likelihood of substantive positive impact, I see no reason to support increasing restrictions on a fundamental human right that is also enumerated in the Constitution. If you'd have me support such a thing, then I need to see that there is a strong benefit to be gained, and that impact on the law-abiding will be minimal.
Another reason to cheer its failure is that Harry Reid had already talked about trying to slip Feinstein's monsterous AWB back into it later as an amendment... hence my comment about keeping the camel's nose out of the tent in order to avoid ending up with camel droppings on the rug. :mrgreen:
So there ya have it in a nutshell...
93% of Americans are in favor of background checks. Sad that 46 Senators lack a backbone to stand up to the NRA and the wacko gun lobby.
If a psychologically unstable person, who would have been blocked by a background check, were allowed to buy a weapon and then harm people with it, would your perspective change?
If a psychologically unstable person, who would have been blocked by a background check, were allowed to buy a weapon and then harm people with it, would your perspective change?
don't forget, the awb and the magazines both went down today too
indeed, both crashed (significantly) harder
difi's awb, for example, died, 40 to 60
ie, only 40 democrats would assent to ban the ar15, et al
the 15 d's who departed were---baucus of montana, begich alaska, bennett colorado, udall colorado, udall new mexico, heinrich new mexico, pryor arkansas, donnelly indiana, heitkamp and tim johnson from the dakotas, tester montana, warner virginia, hagan north carolina and manchin
fyi
party on! progressives
better ten unstable people get guns than one person be improperly denied and then slain. you see, the people most likely to use a gun to commit murder or other intentional crimes are the people least likely to be deterred by gun legislation
gun control tends to restrict GOOD gun owners far more than BAD gun owners
if you had been beaten and raped because you were disarmed would you be more likely to carry a gun next time out?
I highly doubt it. Single issue elections are rare and 2014 is still a while away.
And this issue will not die.
How would a good person be blocked from getting a gun?
While I'm not really dead-set against expanding background checks to some degree, on the whole I'm glad this went down in flames.... if you let the camel's nose in the tent, pretty soon the whole camel will be trying to come in.
WOOT!! :mrgreen:
Article. V
The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments,
which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article*; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.
well lets see
how did Ted KENNEDY get on a no fly list (Especially since it did not involve him flying the plane)
Is he still on the no fly list or was he able to clear that up?
On Tuesday, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid read from a prepared statement that “On the anti-gun legislation before the Senate, we are making good progress on the effort to schedule a series of votes on amendments to the anti-gun-violence legislation before the Senate.”
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?