Let Democracy Work

  1. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Let Democracy Work

    I was heartened to hear the news this morning that an attempt to block a vote on the "gun issues" was blocked in the Senate by both Republicans and Democrats.

     

    While I have a respect for the old fashioned filibuster...I believe that the kind of obstructionism that we've seen from those in Congress has gotten out of control. The group of 16 GOP Senators who attempted to block a vote on gun control measures yesterday didn't really even have the support of their own party..which for me was the most promising thing to come out of this...so far.

    I believe that there are certain things that deserve a vote. Gun control is one of them. I know there will never be 100 percent agreement on this issue but the kinds of things proposed in the latest bill do nothing to infringe on a law abiding citizen's right to bear arms.

     


    But..I digress. This post isn't about the merits of the legislation..it's about allowing to conversation ( debate) to happen. It's about politician making  a choice and creating a record on which they stand or fall. It's about politicians actually representing American instead of simply preserving their jobs.

     
  2. You have chosen to ignore posts from massmoderateJoe. Show massmoderateJoe's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    I agree bringing it to the floor is the best thing.  Especially for the Great Opportunity Party, as they now avoid a Dem obstructionist talking point.

    The Legislation as I understand it, has to do with closing the background checks at gun shows loophole.  Now this has always been a great talking point for control advocates; but it has nothing to do with any of the high profile shootings over the past few years.  What matters is the need to have mental health problems reported so they are discoverable during a background check.  This databasing is what the left doesn't like, while the potential of the background check and records keeping requirement of licensed gun dealers, which easily becomes the national gun registry (NGR) is what the right doesn't like.

    The european socialist model that many on the left ascribe to eventually heads to dramatic restrictions or or confiscation through use of a NGR.  That has been the history and that is a reasonable.

    The Newtown shooter had access to the legal guns of his mother.  His mother by all indications was in some level of denial concerning his mental health.  His mental health never had an adjucated finding that would have prevented him from buying a gun or ammo, but his mother knew better and in the end bears the responsibility.  There are no prooposed laws that would have altered this tragedy.

    The Aurora shooter had gone down a rabbit hole of mental degradation.  His school had notified authorities and his parents we trying to deal with him, but nothing was in place to prevent him from buying his guns.  A backgrond check might have helped here, if his mental status was some how uploaded, but this only happens after a legal finding and he had none against him.

    Giffords shooter had a history of mental problems and I believe I read, that if his condition had been reported it would have prevented the purchase of guns, but it wasn't.

    VA Tech shooter had a history of mental problems but VA like MA and 18 states doesn't pass this information on; so background checks wouldn't help.

    The most notable crimes in this fully connected 24 hour news cycle are the horrific mass shootings by unstable people.  It seems like we have one of these horrific incidents a few times a year, every year.  These 4-6 people out out of 350,000,000 plus create the horrific story lines.  But what about the rights of the 100,000,000 plus legal responsible gun owners.

    Our real problem is inner city crime where hundreds are killed in major cities around the country.

    So we need to get the illegal guns off the street not the legal ones.  So that's why I am for closing the gun show loophole with a required background check and the 18 states that don't provide mental health data to the registry must be required to do so.  The better answer would be to have a nationwide recognized fire arms ID.  Similar to a pilots license with requirements for training and medical exam for renewal at say 5 year cycle.  If you have the valid ID you can buy guns and ammo to your certified level.  If you are endorsed to carry then you can carry across statelines.  You can gift guns provided that person also has an ID. 

     
  3. This post has been removed.

     
  4. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to GreginMeffa's comment:

    Anyone see Glee last night?




    Never watch it, why?

     
  5. You have chosen to ignore posts from FaolanofEssex. Show FaolanofEssex's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    I agree bringing it to the floor is the best thing.  Especially for the Great Opportunity Party, as they now avoid a Dem obstructionist talking point.

    The Legislation as I understand it, has to do with closing the background checks at gun shows loophole.  Now this has always been a great talking point for control advocates; but it has nothing to do with any of the high profile shootings over the past few years.  What matters is the need to have mental health problems reported so they are discoverable during a background check.  This databasing is what the left doesn't like, while the potential of the background check and records keeping requirement of licensed gun dealers, which easily becomes the national gun registry (NGR) is what the right doesn't like.

    The european socialist model that many on the left ascribe to eventually heads to dramatic restrictions or or confiscation through use of a NGR.  That has been the history and that is a reasonable.

    The Newtown shooter had access to the legal guns of his mother.  His mother by all indications was in some level of denial concerning his mental health.  His mental health never had an adjucated finding that would have prevented him from buying a gun or ammo, but his mother knew better and in the end bears the responsibility.  There are no prooposed laws that would have altered this tragedy.

    The Aurora shooter had gone down a rabbit hole of mental degradation.  His school had notified authorities and his parents we trying to deal with him, but nothing was in place to prevent him from buying his guns.  A backgrond check might have helped here, if his mental status was some how uploaded, but this only happens after a legal finding and he had none against him.

    Giffords shooter had a history of mental problems and I believe I read, that if his condition had been reported it would have prevented the purchase of guns, but it wasn't.

    VA Tech shooter had a history of mental problems but VA like MA and 18 states doesn't pass this information on; so background checks wouldn't help.

    The most notable crimes in this fully connected 24 hour news cycle are the horrific mass shootings by unstable people.  It seems like we have one of these horrific incidents a few times a year, every year.  These 4-6 people out out of 350,000,000 plus create the horrific story lines.  But what about the rights of the 100,000,000 plus legal responsible gun owners.

    Our real problem is inner city crime where hundreds are killed in major cities around the country.

    So we need to get the illegal guns off the street not the legal ones.  So that's why I am for closing the gun show loophole with a required background check and the 18 states that don't provide mental health data to the registry must be required to do so.  The better answer would be to have a nationwide recognized fire arms ID.  Similar to a pilots license with requirements for training and medical exam for renewal at say 5 year cycle.  If you have the valid ID you can buy guns and ammo to your certified level.  If you are endorsed to carry then you can carry across statelines.  You can gift guns provided that person also has an ID. 



    Heya cricket!

    Massmodjoe agree - but background checks are a start.

     
  6. This post has been removed.

     
  7. This post has been removed.

     
  8. This post has been removed.

     
  9. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to massmoderateJoe's comment:

    I agree bringing it to the floor is the best thing.  Especially for the Great Opportunity Party, as they now avoid a Dem obstructionist talking point.

    The Legislation as I understand it, has to do with closing the background checks at gun shows loophole.  Now this has always been a great talking point for control advocates; but it has nothing to do with any of the high profile shootings over the past few years.  What matters is the need to have mental health problems reported so they are discoverable during a background check.  This databasing is what the left doesn't like, while the potential of the background check and records keeping requirement of licensed gun dealers, which easily becomes the national gun registry (NGR) is what the right doesn't like.

    The european socialist model that many on the left ascribe to eventually heads to dramatic restrictions or or confiscation through use of a NGR.  That has been the history and that is a reasonable.

    The Newtown shooter had access to the legal guns of his mother.  His mother by all indications was in some level of denial concerning his mental health.  His mental health never had an adjucated finding that would have prevented him from buying a gun or ammo, but his mother knew better and in the end bears the responsibility.  There are no prooposed laws that would have altered this tragedy.

    The Aurora shooter had gone down a rabbit hole of mental degradation.  His school had notified authorities and his parents we trying to deal with him, but nothing was in place to prevent him from buying his guns.  A backgrond check might have helped here, if his mental status was some how uploaded, but this only happens after a legal finding and he had none against him.

    Giffords shooter had a history of mental problems and I believe I read, that if his condition had been reported it would have prevented the purchase of guns, but it wasn't.

    VA Tech shooter had a history of mental problems but VA like MA and 18 states doesn't pass this information on; so background checks wouldn't help.

    It should be noted that the same people who cry about privacy rights re: medical info are the same people proposing the collecting and standardization of this data.

    None of this speaks to the larger issues: health care is too expensive, nobody wants to pay for it and mental health conditions often go undiagnosed (much less untreated).

    Mental illness is much more likely to affect the poor and the indigent and itself covers such a broad range of conditions and behaviors that it's very difficult to legislate and control.  Add in our practices of modern chemistry, and the problem gets even more complex.

    Even if one could do it, why does it makes sense to keep a registry of people with mental illness and not a registry of people with potentially dangerous weapons...??

     

     
  10. This post has been removed.

     
  11. You have chosen to ignore posts from tvoter. Show tvoter's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    None of this speaks to the larger issues: health care is too expensive, nobody wants to pay for it and mental health conditions often go undiagnosed (much less untreated).

    Mental illness is much more likely to affect the poor and the indigent and itself covers such a broad range of conditions and behaviors that it's very difficult to legislate and control.  Add in our practices of modern chemistry, and the problem gets even more complex.

    Even if one could do it, why does it makes sense to keep a registry of people with mental illness and not a registry of people with potentially dangerous weapons...?? 

     



    Because mental illness is the problem. Only non-criminals will register their guns. Why harass law abiding citizens who are responsible gun owners?

    They are not the problem!!!

     

     
  12. You have chosen to ignore posts from MattyScornD. Show MattyScornD's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    None of this speaks to the larger issues: health care is too expensive, nobody wants to pay for it and mental health conditions often go undiagnosed (much less untreated).

    Mental illness is much more likely to affect the poor and the indigent and itself covers such a broad range of conditions and behaviors that it's very difficult to legislate and control.  Add in our practices of modern chemistry, and the problem gets even more complex.

    Even if one could do it, why does it makes sense to keep a registry of people with mental illness and not a registry of people with potentially dangerous weapons...?? 

     



    Because mental illness is the problem. Only non-criminals will register their guns. Why harass law abiding citizens who are responsible gun owners?

    They are not the problem!!!

     



    A person can be law-abiding AND mentally ill at the same time.  Obeying the law is simply the bare minimum.  Beyond that are myriad gray areas of the law and healthcare.

     

    "Mental illness is the problem" - this statement requires some serious qualification.  Any headshrinkers in the house...?  (The NRA doesn't count, even though this is their excuse for opposing ANY gun regulation out-of-hand.)

    Is "road rage" a mental illness?  Maybe not, but it could be symptomatic of larger anger issues that could manifest in violence.

    Is "stress" a mental illness?  We all get stressed out and need to relax at times; some people fire guns; others hit the batting cage; others smoke a harmless-but-illegal herb.

    Are "cuckolded" or "loneliness" mental illnesses?  Maybe not, but a person can feel slighted and highly emotional if their mate leaves them for someone else.  Crimes of passion can be executed by perfectly rational people in moments of distress.

    How about alcoholism?  A majority of crimes are committed while people are under the influence.  Should alcoholics be allowed to carry dangerous weapons?

     

     
  13. This post has been removed.

     
  14. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    I was heartened to hear the news this morning that an attempt to block a vote on the "gun issues" was blocked in the Senate by both Republicans and Democrats.

     

    While I have a respect for the old fashioned filibuster...I believe that the kind of obstructionism that we've seen from those in Congress has gotten out of control. The group of 16 GOP Senators who attempted to block a vote on gun control measures yesterday didn't really even have the support of their own party..which for me was the most promising thing to come out of this...so far.

    I believe that there are certain things that deserve a vote. Gun control is one of them. I know there will never be 100 percent agreement on this issue but the kinds of things proposed in the latest bill do nothing to infringe on a law abiding citizen's right to bear arms.

     


    But..I digress. This post isn't about the merits of the legislation..it's about allowing to conversation ( debate) to happen. It's about politician making  a choice and creating a record on which they stand or fall. It's about politicians actually representing American instead of simply preserving their jobs.



    Let's have that conversation (debate).  I'll start.

    Why do progressives focus on further limiting law abiding gun owners rights, and offer nothing in the way of further limiting illegal gun owners rights?

     
  15. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    This is a bit awkward, Al-Qaeda appears to side with the repub position on guns.

    It should be self-evident that the argument for civilians owning military-grade assualt weapon cuts both ways. The idea that armed Americans could overthrow or even defend themselves gainst an overbearing gov't also allows for terrorists to do the same.

    Even Al-Qaeda was arguing that America's background check system was weak and made guns easily obtainable. In a video released in 2011, Adam Gadahn an American-born spokesman for Al Qaeda argued guns could be easily obtained by buying guns at a gun shows where there would not be a background check.

    Gadahn was calling on Muslims living in the United States to carry out terrorist acts similar to the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks in India.

    "Let's take America as an example," Gadahn said. "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"

     

    OK.  Here's my part of the conversation/dialouge on guns:

    According to our government, there has never been a terrorist attack on our soil involving a gun.

    So, I would say that Gadahn, and by extension, you, are wrong.

    But, by all means, let's take terrorists at their word, as they are so honerable, and would never use disinformation, as that would be dishonerable.

     
  16. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to tvoter's comment:

    In response to MattyScornD's comment:

     

    None of this speaks to the larger issues: health care is too expensive, nobody wants to pay for it and mental health conditions often go undiagnosed (much less untreated).

    Mental illness is much more likely to affect the poor and the indigent and itself covers such a broad range of conditions and behaviors that it's very difficult to legislate and control.  Add in our practices of modern chemistry, and the problem gets even more complex.

    Even if one could do it, why does it makes sense to keep a registry of people with mental illness and not a registry of people with potentially dangerous weapons...?? 

     



    Because mental illness is the problem. Only non-criminals will register their guns. Why harass law abiding citizens who are responsible gun owners?

    They are not the problem!!!

     




    It's not just one thing that is the problem..it's everything. It's the lack of regulation..the lack of sufficient mental health care..the kinds of guns available for purchase without thought...etc..etc. Anyone who only looks at one part of the equation is fooling themselves. You have to address this on every level.

     
  17. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    I was heartened to hear the news this morning that an attempt to block a vote on the "gun issues" was blocked in the Senate by both Republicans and Democrats.

     

    While I have a respect for the old fashioned filibuster...I believe that the kind of obstructionism that we've seen from those in Congress has gotten out of control. The group of 16 GOP Senators who attempted to block a vote on gun control measures yesterday didn't really even have the support of their own party..which for me was the most promising thing to come out of this...so far.

    I believe that there are certain things that deserve a vote. Gun control is one of them. I know there will never be 100 percent agreement on this issue but the kinds of things proposed in the latest bill do nothing to infringe on a law abiding citizen's right to bear arms.

     


    But..I digress. This post isn't about the merits of the legislation..it's about allowing to conversation ( debate) to happen. It's about politician making  a choice and creating a record on which they stand or fall. It's about politicians actually representing American instead of simply preserving their jobs.

     



    Let's have that conversation (debate).  I'll start.

     

    Why do progressives focus on further limiting law abiding gun owners rights, and offer nothing in the way of further limiting illegal gun owners rights?




    How is requiring background checks and criminal records checks infringing on anyone's rights? No right in this country is absolute..even free speech. I'm sorry..but I don't want my baby niece to grow up in a world where her school needs armed guards. Adding more guns to the equation does not solve the gun violence problem. More guns= more gun violence. The numbers and statistics don't lie..no matter what people choose to see.

     

     
  18. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    If Congress ever passed legislation targeting "mental health" requirements for gun permits, you can bet the farm that the NRA and certain elected officials they sponsor would complain it was unfair to everyone. Probably because most of the NRA corporate officers and many Congresspeople would be banned from ever going near a gun due to mental health issues.

    Like MattyScornd points out, what kind of tests would be required?

    An in depth psychiatric evaluation or a 5 question take home test?

    Do you take the person at their word if they say they're 'sane'?

    Is any incident of a past mental health issues a disqualifier?

    Who pays for and administers the tests?




    You are exactly right...all valid questions.

     
  19. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    I was heartened to hear the news this morning that an attempt to block a vote on the "gun issues" was blocked in the Senate by both Republicans and Democrats.

     

    While I have a respect for the old fashioned filibuster...I believe that the kind of obstructionism that we've seen from those in Congress has gotten out of control. The group of 16 GOP Senators who attempted to block a vote on gun control measures yesterday didn't really even have the support of their own party..which for me was the most promising thing to come out of this...so far.

    I believe that there are certain things that deserve a vote. Gun control is one of them. I know there will never be 100 percent agreement on this issue but the kinds of things proposed in the latest bill do nothing to infringe on a law abiding citizen's right to bear arms.

     


    But..I digress. This post isn't about the merits of the legislation..it's about allowing to conversation ( debate) to happen. It's about politician making  a choice and creating a record on which they stand or fall. It's about politicians actually representing American instead of simply preserving their jobs.

     



    Let's have that conversation (debate).  I'll start.

     

    Why do progressives focus on further limiting law abiding gun owners rights, and offer nothing in the way of further limiting illegal gun owners rights?

     




    How is requiring background checks and criminal records checks infringing on anyone's rights? No right in this country is absolute..even free speech. I'm sorry..but I don't want my baby niece to grow up in a world where her school needs armed guards. Adding more guns to the equation does not solve the gun violence problem. More guns= more gun violence. The numbers and statistics don't lie..no matter what people choose to see.

     

     




    You sailed right by my question, pretty much proving that you are all about limiting the rights of legal, law abiding gun owners, and care not a wit about the real problem.

    When you are really ready to have a real conversation about gun violence, i.e. all the illegal guns in the inner cities, deranged people gettign guns, and what rights you are willing to infringe to stop that problem, let me know.

     

     
  20. You have chosen to ignore posts from Reubenhop. Show Reubenhop's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    I was heartened to hear the news this morning that an attempt to block a vote on the "gun issues" was blocked in the Senate by both Republicans and Democrats.

     

    While I have a respect for the old fashioned filibuster...I believe that the kind of obstructionism that we've seen from those in Congress has gotten out of control. The group of 16 GOP Senators who attempted to block a vote on gun control measures yesterday didn't really even have the support of their own party..which for me was the most promising thing to come out of this...so far.

    I believe that there are certain things that deserve a vote. Gun control is one of them. I know there will never be 100 percent agreement on this issue but the kinds of things proposed in the latest bill do nothing to infringe on a law abiding citizen's right to bear arms.

     


    But..I digress. This post isn't about the merits of the legislation..it's about allowing to conversation ( debate) to happen. It's about politician making  a choice and creating a record on which they stand or fall. It's about politicians actually representing American instead of simply preserving their jobs.

     



    Let's have that conversation (debate).  I'll start.

     

    Why do progressives focus on further limiting law abiding gun owners rights, and offer nothing in the way of further limiting illegal gun owners rights?

     




    How is requiring background checks and criminal records checks infringing on anyone's rights? No right in this country is absolute..even free speech. I'm sorry..but I don't want my baby niece to grow up in a world where her school needs armed guards. Adding more guns to the equation does not solve the gun violence problem. More guns= more gun violence. The numbers and statistics don't lie..no matter what people choose to see.

     

     

     




    You sailed right by my question, pretty much proving that you are all about limiting the rights of legal, law abiding gun owners, and care not a wit about the real problem.

     

    When you are really ready to have a real conversation about gun violence, i.e. all the illegal guns in the inner cities, deranged people gettign guns, and what rights you are willing to infringe to stop that problem, let me know.

     

     



    What is the "real problem" of gun violence?  You are the one that does not seem to care about the problem as all you do is shoot down other solutions while passively watching people getting killed.  That is immoral.  But here is your chance to prove me wrong: establish what the problem is and how you would actually solve it.  Be sure to show some evidence about how your "plan" would actually work.  You know, facts, the thing that ideologues like to run away from...

     

     
  21. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to Reubenhop's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    In response to skeeter20's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    I was heartened to hear the news this morning that an attempt to block a vote on the "gun issues" was blocked in the Senate by both Republicans and Democrats.

     

    While I have a respect for the old fashioned filibuster...I believe that the kind of obstructionism that we've seen from those in Congress has gotten out of control. The group of 16 GOP Senators who attempted to block a vote on gun control measures yesterday didn't really even have the support of their own party..which for me was the most promising thing to come out of this...so far.

    I believe that there are certain things that deserve a vote. Gun control is one of them. I know there will never be 100 percent agreement on this issue but the kinds of things proposed in the latest bill do nothing to infringe on a law abiding citizen's right to bear arms.

     


    But..I digress. This post isn't about the merits of the legislation..it's about allowing to conversation ( debate) to happen. It's about politician making  a choice and creating a record on which they stand or fall. It's about politicians actually representing American instead of simply preserving their jobs.

     



    Let's have that conversation (debate).  I'll start.

     

    Why do progressives focus on further limiting law abiding gun owners rights, and offer nothing in the way of further limiting illegal gun owners rights?

     




    How is requiring background checks and criminal records checks infringing on anyone's rights? No right in this country is absolute..even free speech. I'm sorry..but I don't want my baby niece to grow up in a world where her school needs armed guards. Adding more guns to the equation does not solve the gun violence problem. More guns= more gun violence. The numbers and statistics don't lie..no matter what people choose to see.

     

     

     




    You sailed right by my question, pretty much proving that you are all about limiting the rights of legal, law abiding gun owners, and care not a wit about the real problem.

     

    When you are really ready to have a real conversation about gun violence, i.e. all the illegal guns in the inner cities, deranged people gettign guns, and what rights you are willing to infringe to stop that problem, let me know.

     

     



    What is the "real problem" of gun violence?  You are the one that does not seem to care about the problem as all you do is shoot down other solutions while passively watching people getting killed.  That is immoral.  But here is your chance to prove me wrong: establish what the problem is and how you would actually solve it.  Be sure to show some evidence about how your "plan" would actually work.  You know, facts, the thing that ideologues like to run away from...

     

     




    So, limiting the rights, infringing, if you will, millions of legal, law abiding gun owners is your solution to stopping illegal, non-law abiding gun "posessors" in, say, Chicago?

     

     

    My solution would be to line up the national guard on on end of Chicago, and move sytematically through the city confiscating every illegal gun, arresting and detaining every person found without a gun permit, and then setting up a permanent, visible, national guard presence in every neighborhood, with orders to shoot to kill anyone brandishing a firearm.

    After all, guns are illegal in Chicago.

    and, the immoral stance is disarming law abiding citizens, and infringing on their rights to bear arms.

     

    How's that?

     
  22. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to A_Concerned_Citizen's comment:

    This is a bit awkward, Al-Qaeda appears to side with the repub position on guns.

    It should be self-evident that the argument for civilians owning military-grade assualt weapon cuts both ways. The idea that armed Americans could overthrow or even defend themselves gainst an overbearing gov't also allows for terrorists to do the same.

    Even Al-Qaeda was arguing that America's background check system was weak and made guns easily obtainable. In a video released in 2011, Adam Gadahn an American-born spokesman for Al Qaeda argued guns could be easily obtained by buying guns at a gun shows where there would not be a background check.

    Gadahn was calling on Muslims living in the United States to carry out terrorist acts similar to the 2008 Mumbai terrorist attacks in India.

    "Let's take America as an example," Gadahn said. "America is absolutely awash with easily obtainable firearms. You can go down to a gun show at the local convention center and come away with a fully automatic assault rifle, without a background check, and most likely without having to show an identification card. So what are you waiting for?"



    After all, the republicans are the American Taliban..............

     
  23. You have chosen to ignore posts from AlleyCatBruin. Show AlleyCatBruin's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to miscricket's comment:

    I was heartened to hear the news this morning that an attempt to block a vote on the "gun issues" was blocked in the Senate by both Republicans and Democrats.

     

    While I have a respect for the old fashioned filibuster...I believe that the kind of obstructionism that we've seen from those in Congress has gotten out of control. The group of 16 GOP Senators who attempted to block a vote on gun control measures yesterday didn't really even have the support of their own party..which for me was the most promising thing to come out of this...so far.

    I believe that there are certain things that deserve a vote. Gun control is one of them. I know there will never be 100 percent agreement on this issue but the kinds of things proposed in the latest bill do nothing to infringe on a law abiding citizen's right to bear arms.

     


    But..I digress. This post isn't about the merits of the legislation..it's about allowing to conversation ( debate) to happen. It's about politician making  a choice and creating a record on which they stand or fall. It's about politicians actually representing American instead of simply preserving their jobs.



    Another well written and thoughtful post, miscricket:).............

     
  24. You have chosen to ignore posts from miscricket. Show miscricket's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    I was heartened to hear the news this morning that an attempt to block a vote on the "gun issues" was blocked in the Senate by both Republicans and Democrats.

     

    While I have a respect for the old fashioned filibuster...I believe that the kind of obstructionism that we've seen from those in Congress has gotten out of control. The group of 16 GOP Senators who attempted to block a vote on gun control measures yesterday didn't really even have the support of their own party..which for me was the most promising thing to come out of this...so far.

    I believe that there are certain things that deserve a vote. Gun control is one of them. I know there will never be 100 percent agreement on this issue but the kinds of things proposed in the latest bill do nothing to infringe on a law abiding citizen's right to bear arms.

     


    But..I digress. This post isn't about the merits of the legislation..it's about allowing to conversation ( debate) to happen. It's about politician making  a choice and creating a record on which they stand or fall. It's about politicians actually representing American instead of simply preserving their jobs.

     



    Another well written and thoughtful post, miscricket:).............

     




    Thanks Al :-)

     
  25. You have chosen to ignore posts from skeeter20. Show skeeter20's posts

    Re: Let Democracy Work

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    In response to AlleyCatBruin's comment:

     

    In response to miscricket's comment:

     

    I was heartened to hear the news this morning that an attempt to block a vote on the "gun issues" was blocked in the Senate by both Republicans and Democrats.

     

    While I have a respect for the old fashioned filibuster...I believe that the kind of obstructionism that we've seen from those in Congress has gotten out of control. The group of 16 GOP Senators who attempted to block a vote on gun control measures yesterday didn't really even have the support of their own party..which for me was the most promising thing to come out of this...so far.

    I believe that there are certain things that deserve a vote. Gun control is one of them. I know there will never be 100 percent agreement on this issue but the kinds of things proposed in the latest bill do nothing to infringe on a law abiding citizen's right to bear arms.

     


    But..I digress. This post isn't about the merits of the legislation..it's about allowing to conversation ( debate) to happen. It's about politician making  a choice and creating a record on which they stand or fall. It's about politicians actually representing American instead of simply preserving their jobs.

     



    Another well written and thoughtful post, miscricket:).............

     

     




    Thanks Al :-)

     

     

     

    So, I take it that neither you or Alley cares to answer my very legitimate question?

    Why is it the left asks for a discussion, a dialog, on gun control, and then when someone engages them is such a conversation they run?

     

     

Share