"Savor the Richly Deserved Defeat of Feinstein's 'Assault Weapon' Ban"

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 19, 2013 11:47 PM GMT
    http://reason.com/blog/2013/03/19/savor-the-richly-deserved-defeat-of-fein

    Not even 40 votes for the assault weapons ban:
    http://hotair.com/archives/2013/03/19/holy-cow-not-even-40-votes-in-the-senate-for-the-assault-weapons-ban-says-reid/
  • conservativej...

    Posts: 2465

    Mar 20, 2013 4:27 PM GMT
    Perhaps the time has come for Senator Feinstein to retire. icon_wink.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2013 7:27 PM GMT
    Perhaps we just need a few hundred more school children murdered until balls begin to grow on members of the senate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 20, 2013 8:52 PM GMT
    Only 6 Democrats voted against renewing the ban in 2004, so this claim that 16 Democrats are going to vote against it seems like "hot air". How about wait until the vote occurs to declare defeat? Because a vote is still apparently going to occur, as an amendment, but Feinstein's proposed bans in 1994 and 2004 were also amendments, so I don't see what the big deal is.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 1:29 AM GMT
    Stan24 saidOnly 6 Democrats voted against renewing the ban in 2004, so this claim that 16 Democrats are going to vote against it seems like "hot air". How about wait until the vote occurs to declare defeat? Because a vote is still apparently going to occur, as an amendment, but Feinstein's proposed bans in 1994 and 2004 were also amendments, so I don't see what the big deal is.

    Many Senate Democrats up for re-election next year come from red states or conservative-leaning purple states. They know that such states have many gun owners, and said gun owners will come to the polls to vote them out solely on voting for an AWB.

    They aren't stupid.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 5:27 AM GMT
    libertpaulian said
    Stan24 saidOnly 6 Democrats voted against renewing the ban in 2004, so this claim that 16 Democrats are going to vote against it seems like "hot air". How about wait until the vote occurs to declare defeat? Because a vote is still apparently going to occur, as an amendment, but Feinstein's proposed bans in 1994 and 2004 were also amendments, so I don't see what the big deal is.

    Many Senate Democrats up for re-election next year come from red states or conservative-leaning purple states. They know that such states have many gun owners, and said gun owners will come to the polls to vote them out solely on voting for an AWB.

    They aren't stupid.


    Even though everyone in the media is calling it "doomed", my point is that they should wait until it's actually been voted down to call it "defeated".

    Some in the media are also acting like 60 votes is the amount needed for passage, when that's just the amount needed for cloture, to prevent filibuster. When Reid says "We don't have 60" the media somehow interprets that to mean that a bill needs 60 votes to pass. No, it only needs a majority. 51 or 50 (assuming the VP casts a tie-breaking vote in favor).
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 21, 2013 1:46 PM GMT
    It's not dead
    it'll be going in as an amendment later on because the Larger bill wouldn't have survived .... again .... the inevitable republican filibuster
    where Once again the republican party is going against American majority polling on an important issue

    Wait .... didn't we Just get a post mortem study on why the republicans did so BADLY on the last election?
    Do you THINK maybe .... just maybe like on abortion ... like rape ... like gay rights and marriage .... like immigration reform .... like Climate control .... like tax reform of the wealthy ......maybe just maybe they might need to change their .... Their words not mine.... Scary policies on this subject ?

    Let them vote on this as an amendment .... and after let them wear it as the yoke that it is around their necks in the next election cycle
  • mybud

    Posts: 11838

    Mar 21, 2013 6:46 PM GMT
    Why would you savor a thing like this? The small amount of respect I had for ya has evaporated into thin air....
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 21, 2013 10:19 PM GMT
    This just goes to show a huge disconnect between policymakers and the general public. 55% of Americans, according to a Pew Research poll, favored an assault weapons ban.

    We don't need such weapons. It's not infringing on gun ownership. You can still own a gun or 20.

    The idea that people need weapons like the AR-15 comes from the belief that the government is trying to harm them in some way. Let's not have such fringe beliefs dictate policy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2013 12:13 AM GMT
    If democrats cared about principles, they would vote for it. If they were really worried about "the children", they would vote for it.The fact that they are much more concerned with their own re-elections is kinda telling, no?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2013 12:14 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidIf democrats cared about principles, they would vote for it. If they were really worried about "the children", they would vote for it.The fact that they are much more concerned with their own re-elections is kinda telling, no?


    So you are not worried about the children then?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2013 12:18 AM GMT
    We've been over this. Stopping the sale of a particular gun doesn't make the ones already owned vanish. Or any other gun. Protecting schools with armed guards seems like a better idea than announcing that a large group of people are unprotected by posting a sign nearby. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean a criminal will follow the new law. Do you really want to go over all this again?
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 22, 2013 1:35 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidWe've been over this. Stopping the sale of a particular gun doesn't make the ones already owned vanish. Or any other gun. Protecting schools with armed guards seems like a better idea than announcing that a large group of people are unprotected by posting a sign nearby. Just because a law is passed doesn't mean a criminal will follow the new law. Do you really want to go over all this again?


    No dude

    We have been over and over and over this
    again and again and again
    No the weapons that would be banned ... you know the ones that there are absolutely no reason for except to exclusively kill other people in the shortest period of time possible
    ... yeah those weapons ... they wouldn't disappear right away but they would slowly go away by attrition instead of being stock piled like they are now

    ......... oh and one last time dude? There was a guard at Columbine

    So your whole argument was kinda for nothing
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2013 2:21 AM GMT
    Yeah, guns retire and eventually die as they get old.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2013 2:48 AM GMT
    TigerTim said
    Blakes7 saidIf democrats cared about principles, they would vote for it. If they were really worried about "the children", they would vote for it.The fact that they are much more concerned with their own re-elections is kinda telling, no?


    So you are not worried about the children then?

    Shit happens. It's sad to say, but it does.

    It's like getting on an airplane. There's a 99% likelihood it won't crash or be hijacked, but there's that 1% risk you're taking by getting on flight anyway.

    And school shootings are a rare occurrence. You're likelier to die in a plane crash or a terrorist hijacking of a plane, as mentioned above, than you are to be shot up in a school (elementary, junior high, high, college, or post-grad).
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2013 2:33 PM GMT
    ...perhaps some of the Sandy Hook families will see this and make a post.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2013 2:52 PM GMT
    libertpaulian said
    TigerTim said
    Blakes7 saidIf democrats cared about principles, they would vote for it. If they were really worried about "the children", they would vote for it.The fact that they are much more concerned with their own re-elections is kinda telling, no?


    So you are not worried about the children then?

    Shit happens. It's sad to say, but it does.

    It's like getting on an airplane. There's a 99% likelihood it won't crash or be hijacked, but there's that 1% risk you're taking by getting on flight anyway.

    And school shootings are a rare occurrence. You're likelier to die in a plane crash or a terrorist hijacking of a plane, as mentioned above, than you are to be shot up in a school (elementary, junior high, high, college, or post-grad).


    It's certainly true that school shootings are relatively rare, although they are much less rare than in other countries, e.g. the UK.

    However, your analogy is deeply flawed:

    Roughly 100 americans die per year due to airplane accidents.
    Roughly 10,000 americans die per year due to gun homicide.

    [not to mention a much higher number of suicides]

    So the numbers are not actually comparable.

    Even if you were correct, the frequency of such matters is not an argument for inaction. This is a classic example of a non sequitur.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2013 3:28 PM GMT
    Accidents are just that, accidents. They are not done intentionally We have, however, legislated ways to decrease the death rates from accidents.

    So why isn't it possible to legislate ways to decrease the death rates from intentional deaths? A ban on high capacity weapons would have actually decreased the number of people murdered at Sandy Hook.

    The few murders in Seoul have made national headlines. There is roughly 25 million people in the greater metro area vs. the 19 million in NYC where there are countless shootings. Tokyo is just as safe, if not safer with a larger population than Seoul.

    The point is that there is correlation between the number guns and the amount of murders.

    Should we ban all guns? Of course not. I feel that is not in the spirit of the USA. I think that there is a compromise to be had that could somehow buck the current correlations. I personally like shooting and would like to someday, possible own a gun (if my boyfriend and I agree). Not for self defense, but just to target practice.

    With the American public being 90 some odd percent in favor with background checks to being more than 50 percent in favor with a ban on assault weapons. I think that there is a disconnect between the American people and the gun lobbies.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 22, 2013 9:00 PM GMT
    TigerTim said
    libertpaulian said
    TigerTim said
    Blakes7 saidIf democrats cared about principles, they would vote for it. If they were really worried about "the children", they would vote for it.The fact that they are much more concerned with their own re-elections is kinda telling, no?


    So you are not worried about the children then?

    Shit happens. It's sad to say, but it does.

    It's like getting on an airplane. There's a 99% likelihood it won't crash or be hijacked, but there's that 1% risk you're taking by getting on flight anyway.

    And school shootings are a rare occurrence. You're likelier to die in a plane crash or a terrorist hijacking of a plane, as mentioned above, than you are to be shot up in a school (elementary, junior high, high, college, or post-grad).


    It's certainly true that school shootings are relatively rare, although they are much less rare than in other countries, e.g. the UK.

    However, your analogy is deeply flawed:

    Roughly 100 americans die per year due to airplane accidents.
    Roughly 10,000 americans die per year due to gun homicide.

    [not to mention a much higher number of suicides]

    So the numbers are not actually comparable.

    Even if you were correct, the frequency of such matters is not an argument for inaction. This is a classic example of a non sequitur.


    Again, legislating doesn't make existing guns disappear. IF your numbers are correct, simply making certain guns or clips illegal won't stop drug gangs from murdering all over the place. Just like posting a sign that makes liberals feel good doesn't protect school children from the evil acts of others. Good intentions do not always equal good results. For example, I'd like to meet with David Wright of the NY Mets and provide him with an orgasm using my mouth. We all agree that providing someone with an orgasm is a good thing, right? However, he probably wouldn't see it that way, and run off to be sick. icon_wink.gif
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Mar 23, 2013 11:07 AM GMT
    Again, legislating doesn't make existing guns disappear. IF your numbers are correct, simply making certain guns or clips illegal won't stop drug gangs from murdering all over the place. Just like posting a sign that makes liberals feel good doesn't protect school children from the evil acts of others.

    You're completely missing the point of this legislation
    Banning assault weaponry and these multiple round clips
    is not going to stop violence
    its not going to stop drug wars
    or gang violence either
    .... and people who bring that up are just trying to put up a smoke screen over the real problem

    Advanced high capacity killing tools are readily accessible to people who should not have it and are not needed by anyone except military and police personnel

    The man who shot Gaby Giffords was stopped when he was attempting to reload ..... had he NOT had one of these high capacity clips or rifles there would be more people alive right now in all likelihood
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2013 8:31 PM GMT
    You should get together with Mike Bloomberg, you'd make a good pair. Next we won't need drano, fatty meats, fertilizers, fireworks, large bottles of alcohol, fried chicken, plastic bags, large bundles of toilet paper, loud music, cars capable of speeds over 55 mph, or more than one vacation per year. Need?!? Who the hell are you to say what anyone else needs? Principles still matter, and we still have constitutional rights. Evil exists, we take our chances all the time. You obviously don't care about the slippery slope argument. Lock up the maniacs, and let people who choose to arm themselves (I do not), this world will never be the utopia you fantasize about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2013 8:48 PM GMT
    The Second Amendment was written when the guns around were muskets that took about 15 - 20 seconds to reload when trained soldiers used them. But these assault weapons can unload tons of rounds in seconds. Someone with a musket could only mass murder over if everyone they were shooting stood still for minutes and nobody tackled them while they were reloading and pouring gunpowder in.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 23, 2013 8:55 PM GMT
    The constitution does not have an expiration date. Sorry.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2013 6:56 AM GMT
    Blakes7 saidYou should get together with Mike Bloomberg, you'd make a good pair. Next we won't need drano, fatty meats, fertilizers, fireworks, large bottles of alcohol, fried chicken, plastic bags, large bundles of toilet paper, loud music, cars capable of speeds over 55 mph, or more than one vacation per year. Need?!? Who the hell are you to say what anyone else needs? Principles still matter, and we still have constitutional rights. Evil exists, we take our chances all the time. You obviously don't care about the slippery slope argument. Lock up the maniacs, and let people who choose to arm themselves (I do not), this world will never be the utopia you fantasize about.


    You do know that the Slippery Slope is a logical fallacy, right?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Mar 24, 2013 2:07 PM GMT
    Obviously I do not believe that.