12
   

Senator Chris Murphy's Gun Control Filibuster Leads To Vote

 
 
Baldimo
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2016 10:43 am
@RABEL222,
You mean using the correct terms and sizes for gun related things is BS? What's BS is your inability to admit you know nothing about guns except what you find on the internet on anti-gun websites.
snood
 
  6  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2016 11:47 am
@Baldimo,
What's bullshit is your bovine inflexibility and inability to think for yourself. So what if you know more about guns than I do? You can't see the need to regulate a deadly machine.
Baldimo
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2016 11:58 am
@snood,
You don't mean regulate, you mean ban AR type files. We already have a whole host of regulations on guns. You can't buy a gun online and have it sent to your house, you can't go to a gun store and buy a fully automatic rifle and you can't own a gun if you have been found guilty of domestic violence. Background checks are already in place and many states require a licence to carry a weapon concealed.

I'm against the no-fly list because it offers no protections against being placed on a secret list.
0 Replies
 
roger
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2016 12:07 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sbb6SKvlP70[/youtube]


There you go. It's not Gun Control at all. It's GUN SAFETY. Well done!
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2016 12:15 pm
@snood,
snood wrote:
What's bullshit is your bovine inflexibility and inability to think for yourself.

It is good when Conservatives inflexibly adhere to facts and reality. Reality and facts are not flexible, no matter how much Liberals wish they could get away with making up nonsense to support their demented ideology.

Thinking for oneself is good. "Liberals making up nonsense" does not count as thinking for oneself.


snood wrote:
So what if you know more about guns than I do?

The problem with Liberals making laws when they don't have the slightest idea what they are doing is, they come up with screwball laws that are not only unconstitutional, they don't actually achieve anything.


snood wrote:
You can't see the need to regulate a deadly machine.

I doubt that is the case. More likely he doesn't see the need for pointless hysteria that is driven only by Liberal ignorance.
0 Replies
 
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2016 07:04 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
What is essential to the heroic is the willingness to sacrifice all to achieve a goal from which their personal gain is far overshadowed by the gain of the whole.

For example, Gandhi's supporters in India who engaged in civil disobedience put themselves at great personal peril from a British Raj that had demonstrated time and time again that it was prepared to be brutal with supporters of independence. Obviously, if they survived they would have benefited from independence but their actions were based on a desire to see their nation independent and their people free. Most of them, I feel quite sure, understood that they were in great jeopardy and might very well not survive.

Likewise the American Civil Rights leaders and activists. They had a very good understanding of the very real dangers they faced and still they took their actions to further a goal in which they believed, wholeheartedly, was for the best.

I agree. Excellent points. I am sold on your argument.







Quote:
What is essential, is whether or not the hero truly believes they are worthy.

Heroes generally don't see themselves as worthy. They generally believe the cause is much greater than themselves. Heroes generally are not looking for praises or awards.








Quote:
As much as I am a cynic about progressive goals (and the goals of all politicians) I don't believe these Dems are pushing for something they don't think is ultimately beneficial to Americans, and if you are at all fair minded you should be able to concede the same for Republican "obstructionists

I don't agree with this particular argument. I believe these Dems are pushing for reasonable gun control/safety laws because they truly believe that it will be beneficial to Americans. Yes I suspect that virtually all politicians want to be re-elected, but that's not necessarily the reason they are fighting for this cause. Of course their could be some exceptions to the rule. I do think most of these dems are fighting for this cause because they truly believe that it would be good for the country. I disagree that the Republican obstructionists is in any way comparable or equal to the dems protesting to have a vote on reasonable gun control/safety legislation. The republicans are not just obstructing one, two, or a few pieces of Obama/Dems legislation. The Republicans fought tooth and nail against virtually every single legislation proposed by Obama and the Dems. In some cases they fought against legislation that were originally proposed by the republicans. As soon as Obama would move closer to what the republicans wanted, the republicans would constantly move the goal post.








Quote:
Instead they both (as is the nature of politics) pursue their goals because of a perceived promise of personal benefit: They will get re-elected

I don't see anything particular wrong with trying to fulfill promises. On the surface, I don't see anything particular wrong with wanting to get re-elected. Now, when politicians become stubborn and refused to compromise and work together, I see that as a problem. When politicians demand to get everything they want without any compromises, I see that as a problem.
Finn dAbuzz
 
  -2  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2016 07:32 pm
@Real Music,
I didn't mean that the heroes should consider themselves worthy, rather that it is essential that they think the cause for which they are prepared to sacrifice themselves for is.

I guess trying to get you to understand or admit that Republicans are no more or less venal or noble than Democrats was a bridge too far. It's true though.

There is nothing wrong with trying to fulfill promises...believe it or not that is precisely what the Republican legislators were doing. In the context of the House of Representatives though, it's called doing what you told the voters you would do and not heroics.
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2016 08:19 pm
@Real Music,
Real Music wrote:
I believe these Dems are pushing for reasonable gun control/safety laws because they truly believe that it will be beneficial to Americans.

They know very well that this has nothing to do with benefiting people. Democrats violate civil rights solely because they enjoy violating civil rights.

In this, the Democrats and the KKK have much in common.
Real Music
 
  1  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2016 08:25 pm
@Finn dAbuzz,
Quote:
There is nothing wrong with trying to fulfill promises...believe it or not that is precisely what the Republican legislators were doing. In the context of the House of Representatives though, it's called doing what you told the voters you would do and not heroics

I am already sold on your argument of what makes a hero. You made good points regarding that issue. I have no problem with republicans or democrats trying to fulfill their promises. I don't equate TRYING to fulfill promises as being the same as not compromising. When governing, all involved have to work with both parties within the Senate, the House, and the White House. That ultimately means compromising. If a politician achieve 50% of what was promise while making compromises, that can be looked at as success. No matter what promises are made to the constituents, it is not realistic to think that any politician is ever going to get everything they want. If the constituents expects to get everything they want, our government will be in a permanent gridlock. That can be destructive and counter productive to our entire political system and quite harmful to the country that we all share.
0 Replies
 
RABEL222
 
  5  
Reply Mon 27 Jun, 2016 10:46 pm
@oralloy,
Spout this bullshyt at the 49 who died at Orlando and the 20 children six and seven years old, and the 6 adults killed at Sandy Hook you mindless jerk.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  5  
Reply Mon 4 Jul, 2016 05:44 pm
https://playingintheworldgame.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/936470fac8bbc03a24a9c46fc4b5dbff.jpg?w=538
Real Music
 
  5  
Reply Tue 5 Jul, 2016 09:03 pm
@snood,
Thanks for the insight. I was not aware of any of this. I further researched what you posted. Here is a link and article that further supports what you posted. Thanks. I will continue to research more.
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/supcourt/stories/courtguns051095.htm

Guns: A Second (Amendment) Look
By Joan Biskupic
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, May 10, 1995; Page A20

President Clinton promotes it. The National Rifle Association preaches it. And pollsters say the public believes in it.

But the judges who interpret the nation's laws say the Second Amendment to the Constitution does not guarantee an individual's right to bear arms. In fact, no federal court has ever ruled that the Constitution guarantees Americans the right to own a gun.

In few areas of law is there such a vast gulf between what people think the Constitution protects and what the nation's judges say it protects. The difference between belief and reality infects the country's perennial gun control debates and exacerbates tensions after incidents like the 1993 shootout near Waco, Tex., and the Oklahoma City bombing last month, which put new attention on citizen paramilitary groups.

The Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud,' on the American public," former chief justice Warren E. Burger said in a 1991 interview on PBS's "MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour." Burger has said often that the "right to bear arms" belongs to the states, and he has attacked the NRA for fostering the opposite view.

The Second Amendment says, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The widespread legal and judicial view is that the Second Amendment guarantees a state's right to be armed – for example, in today's National Guard.

When the Supreme Court has spoken in this area – and it has done so infrequently – it has begun with the idea that the Second Amendment protects a state's right to keep arms for a militia. In a nationally watched 1983 case, the justices let the town of Morton Grove, Ill., ban handguns. Without comment or dissent, they left intact a lower court decision rejecting the contention that Americans have a constitutional right to be armed.

In that case, the 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the Second Amendment restricts federal authority in this area, not that of state and local governments. The court stated, "We conclude that the right to keep and bear handguns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment."

Yet, the "right to bear arms" is such a part of the American lexicon that in 1991, on the 200th anniversary of the Bill of Rights, a Los Angeles Times poll found that 62 percent of those surveyed believed their right to own a gun or rifle was guaranteed by the Constitution.

The gap between the prevailing legal view and public understanding is widened by an atmosphere of growing public distrust of government and an increasingly political conflict over gun control.

"The aftermath of Oklahoma City is certainly provoking a national political debate about the Second Amendment," said University of Texas law professor Sanford Levinson, one of the few academics who argue that individuals have a right to guns. He said "the legal academy and elite bar" reject a constitutional right to own guns because of their own opposition to private ownership of firearms.

Lawyers like himself who argue that the Second Amendment protects gun ownership "are kind of dismissed with a supercilious giggle," said Levinson, adding that he has become "the perfect poster boy for the NRA. I'm a liberal Democrat and haven't held a gun in my arms since I went to camp when I was 13."

After the Oklahoma City bombing, Clinton appeared on CBS's "60 Minutes" and said people have a right to guns. He drew a contrast between lawful conduct and terrorist violence: "They have a right to believe whatever they want, they have a right to say whatever they want, they have a right to keep and bear arms, they have a right to put on uniforms and go out on the weekend. They do not have the right to kill innocent Americans."

Harvard law professor Laurence H. Tribe, whose writings have influenced how many law professors and judges understand the Constitution, said popular notions of fundamental American law sometimes conflict with what is on the books.

"I think there are at least two constitutions of the United States," he said. "There is a kind of mythic constitution that reflects widely held beliefs, slogans. And then there is the one that starts with a piece of paper at the Archives and has an extensive history."

Tribe asserts that the Second Amendment's history and text demonstrate it was intended to prevent federal interference with a state militia. He stresses the importance of the opening clause referring to a "well regulated Militia."

Former chief justice Burger wrote in Parade magazine in 1990 that the Second Amendment grew out of the Founding Fathers' belief that a state military force was necessary to protect the security of the state. He quotes Elbridge Gerry, one of the founders and eventually James Madison's vice president, as arguing that a state militia was necessary "to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty."

Burger acknowledges that in the past 200 years national defense has eclipsed the role played by state militias, but says, "A state militia, like a rifle and powder horn, was as much a part of life as the automobile is today; pistols were largely for officers, aristocrats – and dueling."

Countering this view, Levinson quotes other founding statesmen in an article in the Yale Law Journal and notes that George Mason asked: "Who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people."

Levinson says the 18th century culture and America's frontier spirit should be considered. He quotes James Madison referring to "the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation." Said Levinson, "The advantage in question was not merely the defense of American borders; a standing army might well accomplish that. Rather, an armed public was advantageous in protecting political liberty."

Stephen P. Halbrook, who often represents the NRA in court, said the Founding Fathers wanted to allow people guns for personal use but also so they would be ready if called upon to defend their state against an oppressive federal government. He said the prevailing view of history is not necessarily the correct view.

While the NRA vigorously advocates a personal right to guns, it rarely has relied on the Second Amendment in its legal challenges to gun control. The NRA has won trial court rejections of the Brady bill handgun waiting period based on the 10th Amendment's limits on federal power.

Dennis A. Henigan, general counsel to Handgun Control Inc., scoffs at the NRA's failure to press its Second Amendment stance in court cases. "When it comes to vindicating this supposedly fundamental right, the NRA is all talk and no action," he said. "The NRA knows that every time the arguments about the history and meaning of the Second Amendment are put before a court of law, its version of an absolute, inalienable right' is shown to be nothing but an illusion."

No matter how one views the Second Amendment, scholars on both sides say, it is not the last word on gun ownership. Regardless of what the Constitution says about the right to bear arms, such ownership can still be permitted, just as states permit all sorts of conduct not mentioned in the Constitution.

However, scholars note, even if the Constitution did guarantee a right to keep guns, it would not stop government from regulating possession and use in the name of public safety. In this vein, the right to free speech in the First Amendment is not absolute, and governments have been able to restrict, for example, obscenity and words that provoke violence.

© 1995 The Washington Post Company

0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Wed 6 Jul, 2016 01:41 am
@snood,
snood wrote:
http://playingintheworldgame.files.wordpress.com/2015/10/936470fac8bbc03a24a9c46fc4b5dbff.jpg?w=538

Usually it is liberals who hate freedom and democracy and want to overthrow our Constitution. However, there are a few conservatives who agree with the Left's Fascist agenda.

I trust that all the logical and factual fallacies in his comment are readily apparent by now. I've already pointed out the very same fallacies in other arguments approximately 100,000 times in recent weeks.

It is a good reminder though on how important it is to vote for freedom-loving conservatives like Donald Trump. The Democrats are filled with deceit, and they mean to topple our Constitution.
0 Replies
 
giujohn
 
  0  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2016 02:13 pm
I always find a discussion of the Bill of Rights particularly, the Second Amendment and the back and forth on whether or not it's an individual write or a right guaranteed to the state or the federal government, to be comical. It's not in the least difficult to figure out the framers intent. All you have to do is ask yourself this one question... Why in a catalog of individual rights that is the first 10 amendments, ie. the Bill of Rights, would the framers insert one that guarantees the rights of government? And if you're still confused all, you have to do is read the plain language in the ninth and Tenth Amendment. If that doesn't settle the argument then your reasoning is patently specious.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2016 03:42 pm
@giujohn,
You mean the plain language in the 9th amendment that makes it clear there are rights not listed such as privacy between a doctor and patient?

Or are you referring to the 10th amendment which lists the states first as retaining rights? Do states not have governments in your version of reality?

Let me point you to the 2nd amendment -
A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

giujohn
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 14 Jul, 2016 05:44 pm
@parados,
The problem you have is that you are using terms such as plain language as it applies to the twentieth-first century... If you read the writings of the framers and the people who they read you would understand the contemporaneous meaning of the words they used. For instance regulated in those times did not mean the use a lot of rules and laws it's simply meant well supplied as in a regulation issue. A free state did not refer to the state of New York or the state of Virginia it simply meant the State of the Union or the body of free people. In the 10th Amendment where it says the state or the people the word or doesn't mean either, it means rather as in one in the same. That's the way they spoke and wrote when the Constitution was written.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/20/2019 at 12:44:51