'The' Gun Thread (Page 34)

Since we're all pretty sure what side everyone is on here, I'll say this....this is exactly how the system is BROKEN.  This wasn't a vote for/against background checks; it was partisian politics and re-election money coming from the lobbyists.  Pro-gun AND Anti-gun money.  Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty. 

Those who choose to wrap themselves in the constitution while proclaiming the founding fathers insisted their 2A rights are god-given should bow their heads in shame at the MANNER in which this decision was reached.  This was a glaring example of just how broken our Democracy really is.  This is NOT what the founding fathers intended.

So, yeah, I'm disappointed in the outcome.  If the decision went YOUR way; then congratulations to you.  But if you think for a minute this vote was not based soley upon the money and politics of re-election, then I have some land I'd like to sell you.

Since we're all pretty sure what side everyone is on here, I'll say this....this is exactly how the system is BROKEN.  This wasn't a vote for/against background checks; it was partisian politics and re-election money coming from the lobbyists.  Pro-gun AND Anti-gun money.  Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty. 

Those who choose to wrap themselves in the constitution while proclaiming the founding fathers insisted their 2A rights are god-given should bow their heads in shame at the MANNER in which this decision was reached.  This was a glaring example of just how broken our Democracy really is.  This is NOT what the founding fathers intended.

So, yeah, I'm disappointed in the outcome.  If the decision went YOUR way; then congratulations to you.  But if you think for a minute this vote was not based soley upon the money and politics of re-election, then I have some land I'd like to sell you.

Since we're all pretty sure what side everyone is on here, I'll say this....this is exactly how the system is BROKEN.  This wasn't a vote for/against background checks; it was partisian politics and re-election money coming from the lobbyists.  Pro-gun AND Anti-gun money.  Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty. 

Those who choose to wrap themselves in the constitution while proclaiming the founding fathers insisted their 2A rights are god-given should bow their heads in shame at the MANNER in which this decision was reached.  This was a glaring example of just how broken our Democracy really is.  This is NOT what the founding fathers intended.

So, yeah, I'm disappointed in the outcome.  If the decision went YOUR way; then congratulations to you.  But if you think for a minute this vote was not based soley upon the money and politics of re-election, then I have some land I'd like to sell you.

I keep hearing that 90% of Americans are in favor of stricter background checks.

Where does that number come from. I'm suspicious of it. Kind of like when the President said 40% of all gun purchases are completed without one.

I will just say I was happy with the outcome and glad to see our system work. Our government was set up so that the white house couldn't do anything or get everything that it wants. The system worked yesterday and for that I am glad.

That's my bad. I read past it. Carry on.

Here's an idea...let's create fair and just geographic boundries on a map, we'll call them Districts.  Then invite all eligible individuals in said District, granting them all equal and unfettered access to the polls, to cast a single vote for an individual they wish to be their "Representative".  This person will have the sole function of 'representing' (i.e. voting) the wishes of the majority of the people in their district without prejudice or outside influence.   When that person's term is up, they will return to their home district and again solicit the support of the eligible voters.  Monetary donations to offset the cost of re-election will be minimal and closely regulated. 

It comes from asking a group of people if they are in favor of background checks, keeping track of how many said "yes," then dividing that number by the total number of people they asked, multiplying by 100, and adding a percent sign to it.

But that's probably not what you meant.

http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

ABC News/Washington Post Poll. April 11-14, 2013. N=1,003 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 3.5.

Morning Joe/Marist Poll. March 25-27, 2013. N=1,219 adults nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.8.

Quinnipiac University. March 26-April 1, 2013. N=1,711 registered voters nationwide. Margin of error ± 2.4.

Since we're all pretty sure what side everyone is on here, I'll say this....this is exactly how the system is BROKEN.  This wasn't a vote for/against background checks; it was partisian politics and re-election money coming from the lobbyists.  Pro-gun AND Anti-gun money.  Democrats and Republicans alike are guilty. 

Those who choose to wrap themselves in the constitution while proclaiming the founding fathers insisted their 2A rights are god-given should bow their heads in shame at the MANNER in which this decision was reached.  This was a glaring example of just how broken our Democracy really is.  This is NOT what the founding fathers intended.

So, yeah, I'm disappointed in the outcome.  If the decision went YOUR way; then congratulations to you.  But if you think for a minute this vote was not based soley upon the money and politics of re-election, then I have some land I'd like to sell you.

So then Jeff, what was intended by our founding father's?

And I agree with the spirit of your post. That politics are extremely partisan, and that "The People" have lost their voice over the money that flows to Washington and the parties. And that yes there are a lot of bills passed on party lines and it is all one long election cycle.

But I do not understand how this vote was "broken". It was debated, it did not pass committee. Those that voted (R) did not want it to. A couple of (D)s agreed. There was questionable things in the bill, and it did not pass muster. There was a vote, the vote was recorded... just like every other piece of legislation.

What the Founding Fathers did intend was that fleeting whims and fads not become law... that you actually had to work at changing things. The House could move quicker, but the Senate was designed with feet of clay to keep stability in the system. You need a really good reason to change things in the Senate... they did not have one. It is how it is supposed to work.

Those that voted (Rep and Dem alike) are suppossed to Represent the wishes of their constituents, not their $$$ donors.   It's not about Those...it's about US! 

So then Jeff, what was intended by our founding father's?

And I agree with the spirit of your post. That politics are extremely partisan, and that "The People" have lost their voice over the money that flows to Washington and the parties. And that yes there are a lot of bills passed on party lines and it is all one long election cycle.

But I do not understand how this vote was "broken". It was debated, it did not pass committee. Those that voted (R) did not want it to. A couple of (D)s agreed. There was questionable things in the bill, and it did not pass muster. There was a vote, the vote was recorded... just like every other piece of legislation.

What the Founding Fathers did intend was that fleeting whims and fads not become law... that you actually had to work at changing things. The House could move quicker, but the Senate was designed with feet of clay to keep stability in the system. You need a really good reason to change things in the Senate... they did not have one. It is how it is supposed to work.

So then it is not possible that the bill had some very questionable language, and that the entire bill was not worth progressing further. Again, just like Tony said... if 90% of everyone everywhere wanted it... then it is is a serious slam dunk for reelection, and flat out suicide to go against 90% of the electorate.

So then it is not possible that the bill had some very questionable language, and that the entire bill was not worth progressing further. Again, just like Tony said... if 90% of everyone everywhere wanted the l was... then it is is a serious slam dunk for reelection, and flat out suicide to go against 90% of the electorate.

Not necessarily... it's possible that for many people, their vote doesn't come down to the rep's stance on gun control. However, it is very possible, a virtual certainty in many cases, that big money-donations from groups such as the NRA do come down to the rep's vote on gun control.