jump to last post 1-10 of 10 discussions (116 posts)

Congressmen who voted against background checks - cowards or amoral?

  1. LauraGT profile image87
    LauraGTposted 4 years ago

    A lot of people are saying that the congressmen (and women?) who voted against background checks are cowards, cowing down to NRA pressure.  I don't believe they are cowards.  I think you have to have a basic core of humanity first and some sense of of moral/ethical compass.

    1. Clint Ward profile image59
      Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      The liberal narrative is that they are cowards, that is what they do, whine when they lose and try and place blame instead of trying to come to a sensible agreement.

      1. LauraGT profile image87
        LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        And, what's the "sensible" agreement?  Doing exactly what the NRA wants, rather than what is rationale, ethically defensible, and the will of the American people?  I believe the congressmen who have allowed themselves to be intimidated by the NRA over this will find themselves jobless soon.

        1. Clint Ward profile image59
          Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          If you want universal background checks don't try and slip in bans on certain firearms. You are mistaken on what the majority of Americans want, we want freedom, not an expansive overreaching government hell bent on making us less free! The NRA is not just some small group of people sitting around a table, we are large and we vote!

          1. ChristinS profile image93
            ChristinSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Those of us who believe in common sense and that creating across the board background checks infringes no one's rights are more pervasive and we also vote.  Many of my family members are avid NRA members and they do NOT agree with the NRA on this.  The NRA are there to line their own pockets and serve an agenda, those who can't see that are too blinded by fear or lack of genuine information.

            1. Clint Ward profile image59
              Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, they are there to support my constitutional rights, can't leave it to government.

              1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
                Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Please suggest a solution then if background checks will do nothing.

                1. Clint Ward profile image59
                  Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  How about enforcing the existing laws, that would be a start.

              2. ChristinS profile image93
                ChristinSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                They aren't there for your constitutional rights - they are there for their own monetary interests.  They distort and twist the constitution and use fear tactics and outright lies and propaganda for their agenda - an agenda that is solely about making gun manufacturers richer.  Every time they start their shenanigans about guns being taken away blah blah blah - people run and gobble up all the guns.  NRA are masters of propaganda and fear.  They are profiteers plain and simple - who cares if more people get killed so long as they get to keep lining their pockets by manipulating the naive.  It has nothing to do with the constitution - NO ONE is trying to take guns away but fear keeps people blind.

                1. LauraGT profile image87
                  LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  well said

                2. Clint Ward profile image59
                  Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  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

                  Background checks=infringement
                  Banning weapons=infringement
                  The only people who have distorted the 2nd amendment are people like you!

                  1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
                    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Not according to the Supreme Court. And... how do you explain "well regulated militia?"

                  2. Josak profile image59
                    Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Supreme court says otherwise and the constitution itself says they get to decide what that means so you are, as usual, wrong. By the constitution, neither of those things are infringement.

                  3. ChristinS profile image93
                    ChristinSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Go join the military if you want to be part of the "well regulated" <<see that term REGULATED militia. 

                    The average joe does not need to buy firearms without a thorough background check, period.  A background check is not a gun ban - it is a common sense procedure.

                    You take a written and driving test to get a driver's license - do you complain about that?  Shall we just had a driver's license to anyone who wants one? 

                    When does responsibility come in when we are screaming about rights?  I have the right to live in a safe society - how about that right?

                3. Superkev profile image85
                  Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Gun sales skyrocketed with Obama's first election. No crisis or legislation you can blame on that. People knew his agenda from the get-go. Long before Newtown and Aurora Obama was already being called "Gun Salesman of the Year"

                  1. ChristinS profile image93
                    ChristinSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Yes, proof positive that the NRA and gun manufacturers are laughing all the way to the bank.  You've made my point for me.  No one has tried to ban all guns in the US EVER - perhaps it's you who needs to learn some history.

                  2. proudlib profile image59
                    proudlibposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Gun sales skyrocketed because you and the NRA lied to the American people about the president.  He never pushed for strict gun legislation and he is still only talking about mild reforms that even Saint Ronald Reagan was in favor of.

                4. rebekahELLE profile image90
                  rebekahELLEposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  +

                  A background check takes a few minutes.  It has nothing to do with constitutional rights. The argument is weak.  Anyone who can't see this doesn't want to see it.

                  1. Seth Winter profile image81
                    Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Nothing to do with constitutional rights....so if the background check is denied you still get to have your constitutionally protected gun right?

    2. LauraGT profile image87
      LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Never thought I'd be cheering on Anheuser-Busch!
      http://www.salon.com/2013/04/19/anheuse … embership/

  2. wilderness profile image95
    wildernessposted 4 years ago

    How about thinking politicians trying to do the best for the country?  As opposed to cowards that cave to emotional demands that something, effective or not, be done?  Or the amoral ones that voted for it because it will "buy" them votes to retain their job, perks and power?

    Point is, there are many points of view here, and to declare anyone that disagrees with your particular stance on the subject to be either amoral or a coward is foolish in the extreme.

    1. LauraGT profile image87
      LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wait, you just did!  You just said that saying people were amoral was foolish, just after calling the people who voted for  it amoral!  Wow!

      I generally agree with you that there is too much name calling and jumping to conclusions. And, I agree that it is very complicated.  However, background checks are supported by almost ALL Americans, and is only a very small part of what should be done to address gun violence, in many people's opinions. I don't want to get into the entire gun debate here (there are plenty of other posts about it), but voting against this bill is akin to personally opening the door for the next Adam Lanza.

      1. Clint Ward profile image59
        Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Really? Adam Lanza stole the weapons used! Criminals and killers wont submit to back ground checks so how exactly is that going to stop the next Adam Lanza?

        1. Josak profile image59
          Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          No he didn't at all they were his mother's guns which is why any non child in the household needs to be subject to background check when a household gets a weapon.

          1. Clint Ward profile image59
            Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            He murdered his mother and STOLE her guns! Just because he lived there does not mean they are his. What wont you people stoop to to control us?

            1. Josak profile image59
              Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              He was part of her household and he should have received a fall background check, it's very simple.

              1. Clint Ward profile image59
                Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Its simple alright. You would subject all adults in a household to a back ground check and then what deny the person who passes the back ground check because someone else did not? That is not America, we have rights, you will not subvert them that easily.

                1. Josak profile image59
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  If they have an unstable person in the household then yes, when you bring a gun to to a place where someone unstable or criminal lives you are committing a gross act of negligence and that is why people died at Sandy Hook.

                  1. Clint Ward profile image59
                    Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Like I said, you will not subvert our rights that easily.

          2. ChristinS profile image93
            ChristinSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Agreed

          3. GA Anderson profile image85
            GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            ROFLMAO!

            Sorry, I couldn't think of anything more appropriate.

            GA

        2. Uninvited Writer profile image81
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Background checks did stop him from purchasing a weapon. If his mother did not have those weapons, where would he have stolen them from?

          No one believes that more background checks will stop every crime, but it will cut down on the number of mentally ill people who can buy weapons. And before you say it, the president also called for more investment in mental health...

          1. Clint Ward profile image59
            Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Somebody else. What kind of question is that. This kid wanted to kill, he would have found a way to do it.

            1. LauraGT profile image87
              LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Right, but we can make it a little more difficult for people who are trying to kill others to get access to guns.

              1. Clint Ward profile image59
                Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Nobody wants to touch this?

                There is a total and complete ban on explosive devices so how do you explain the Boston bombing?

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
                  Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Yes, but it is still difficult to obtain all the pieces and it takes a lot more time to put a bomb together...

                  1. Clint Ward profile image59
                    Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    It isn't hard at all and takes very little time to manufacture an explosive.

                2. Josak profile image59
                  Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  No one is suggesting any measure will stop all gun crime but it will reduce it. Myself I only favor complete backgrounds checks and that is a responsibility as I see it.

                  Anyone with a criminal history should not buy guns, anyone unstable should not own guns and no one should bring guns into a household where criminal or unstable people live because that is asking for what has happened.

        3. LauraGT profile image87
          LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          There are lots of ways people get guns to kill people.  No, there is no way to stop every single murder in our country (committed with guns or other weapons), but the gun rights folks seem to be hiding under this illusion that that guns have nothing to do with violence our country and that the problem is so insurmountable that there's no point in doing anything.  Multiple factors contribute to gun violence - guns are one of them.

        4. ChristinS profile image93
          ChristinSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          background checks won't stop ALL gun violence any more than seatbelts stop all deaths in car accidents. 

          The point is across the board background checks do NOTHING to infringe anyone's rights while making it more difficult for people who should not have guns to get them from the internet and gun shows - Why is that such a difficult concept? 

          If it makes it harder and can save some lives and doesn't take anyone's weapons away what is the problem exactly?   The only problem is for those who unscrupulously sell weapons to anyone for a profit.

          1. Superkev profile image85
            Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            The mentally ill are not the problem with gun violence in this country. It's the gangs fighting over territory, drugs or just because someone walked through their "territory" wearing the wrong hat. Funny how no one is addressing this, and these people do not go to the local gun store to get their weapons.

            Obama wants to address gun violence in the country? How about he starts with Chicago???

            1. Clint Ward profile image59
              Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              This woman addressed it but not surprisingly she had a different take on it. And they wonder why we fear our government.

              http://frontpagemag.com/2013/dgreenfiel … -the-guns/

        5. proudlib profile image59
          proudlibposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Adam Lanza did not steal the weapons.  He got them from his mother, who knew he was unstable.  If it were illegal to allow access to your guns to unstable people, then maybe she would have had enough sense to keep them away from him.  All gun owners should be responsible for the crimes their guns are used to commit.

      2. GA Anderson profile image85
        GA Andersonposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Luara, where do you get that information?
        Is it something you heard on the news?
        Is it something you researched?
        Is it something "everybody" knows?

        There is a point of perspective here.
        Pro-gun control folks say "ALL Americans" (or at least 90%) support universal background checks....
        Anti-gun control folks say, whoa! wait a minute... explain the legislation behind the concept, and suddenly more than a few people are no longer for it.

        So as "fact" - that statement is very much still subject to debate. Yet you state it as an accepted fact. So how did you conclude this fact to be true?

        But it doesn't matter, because it won't affect the issues it's touted to address. So why bother?

        Because it's pandering to the public mood, that's why. Politicians are good at it.

        Gun crimes aren't committed by people that failed background checks, and "everybody knows"  that criminals don't submit to them smile So why the need for that legislation - except to make folks "feel good?"

        GA

      3. wilderness profile image95
        wildernessposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Actually, those comments were intended to make a point, not to give my personal opinion.

        But.  However many people want tough registration laws, there are extremely few that base that opinion on anything more than the "common sense" idea that it will prevent crazies from having them.

        There is absolutely no evidence to support that opinion, and indeed it is well known to be false.  Anyone that wants a gun bad enough to kill someone with it will get one, and has.  We just don't want to acknowledge that, particularly if we don't like guns anyway.  So we cry for tougher regulations, as long as we don't have to cover the cost, forgetting that the real cost of the problem isn't money.  It's lost lives, lives that will NOT be saved by any misguided effort to regulate guns any further.

        Having said that, I would probably support background checks simply as a sop to keep those unwilling to examine the problem quiet.

  3. Clint Ward profile image59
    Clint Wardposted 4 years ago

    There is a total and complete ban on explosive devices so how do you explain the Boston bombing? Outlaw guns and you will still have killing by guns, so this isn't about that at all. It is about controlling the American people.

    1. LauraGT profile image87
      LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      No one is proposing to outlaw guns. Background checks are a far cry from that.  And, yes, there will always be people out there who will build their own gun/bombs in order to hurt others. I rather that someone have to build a bomb or gun to use one that to be able to walk into Walmart and get guns that can kill dozens in an instant.

      1. Clint Ward profile image59
        Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        You cant walk in to wal-mart and buy guns that will kill dozens in an instant. You cant walk into a gun store and buy guns that will kill dozens in an instant. Those guns are completely prohibited with the exception of those licensed to own them.

        1. ChristinS profile image93
          ChristinSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          You can get them on the internet and via gun shows however in an instant - and they should be subject to the same laws as gun stores.

    2. ChristinS profile image93
      ChristinSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Nonsense.  I suppose we shouldn't have any kind of laws then and just have anarchy because someone will always find a way to break them.  Let's just take down all the speed limit signs - I mean after all, not every speeder will get caught and get a ticket so let's just say the hell with it all and let everyone go nuts....
      The argument that it isn't worth doing because it won't stop all acts of violence is just lame.  Anything that helps curb violence and make it a more difficult choice should be simple common sense.

      1. Clint Ward profile image59
        Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Naivete abounds.

        1. ChristinS profile image93
          ChristinSposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes it does, mostly among the rabid, blind followers of the NRA who are so blinded by fear and propaganda they can't exercise common sense.

  4. Clint Ward profile image59
    Clint Wardposted 4 years ago

    Latest Gallup  poll shows you people are a stunningly small minority!

    http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/17/p … important/

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Do you have a link to the actual poll?

      Actually, here you go. Here is a posting form the Gallup site


      http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

    2. Josak profile image59
      Josakposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

      58% of Americans want tighter gun laws. Well done man tongue

      1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
        Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        smile Have to hand it to RG, he sure tries smile

      2. Clint Ward profile image59
        Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        That is one question among many.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Yes, but 58% of the population still believed in gun control. It may not have been a top priority for them, but those are the facts.

          1. Clint Ward profile image59
            Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            We have gun control, what you want is gun prohibition. And the facts are the Democrats will not get what they want and that is a good thing.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
              Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I am not in favor of banning all guns, no one has said that.

              It's interesting that according to the poll 78% of the population was in favor of all gun control in 1990.

              1. Clint Ward profile image59
                Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I hope you will forgive me if I say I don't believe you.

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
                  Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Fine. I don't care if you have a gun or not just keep it away from me.  I will never have one.

                  1. Superkev profile image85
                    Superkevposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    That's because you live in Canada

  5. Clint Ward profile image59
    Clint Wardposted 4 years ago

    The military is not a militia. You cannot buy any gun that will kill dozens instantly they are prohibited which is an infringement. The second amendment does not restrict what I can own government has done that.

    1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
      Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So, how do you define well regulated?

      1. Clint Ward profile image59
        Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        The supreme court has ruled on this my input is not necessary.

        1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
          Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          The Supreme Court that says background checks are okay?

          1. Clint Ward profile image59
            Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            As I have said, we have enough laws on gun control. I believe that any law is an infringement by reading the second amendment and what it says. The supreme court has ruled that my right to own a weapon is irrefutable. But you dare to infringe on that right. You, josak, Obama will not be successful.

            1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
              Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              And meanwhile, people will continue to die because of less background checks than it takes to buy Sudafed.

              The NRA used to be in favor of background checks and even banning assault-type weapons that are not necessary. I guess they are more interested in politics now.

              1. Clint Ward profile image59
                Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                You cannot buy a firearm in this country without a background check. It has been the law for quite sometime. And it only takes an ID to purchase Sudafed no background check at all, what did you hope to accomplish with that bit of misinformation?

                1. Uninvited Writer profile image81
                  Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  But you can.... didn't you say you could sell a gun to whoever you want with no background check?

                  1. Clint Ward profile image59
                    Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Sure I can, it is possible to buy a gun from any private individual without a background check, and it will remain legal to do so in spite of the lefts efforts!

                2. Uninvited Writer profile image81
                  Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Okay, I was wrong about that. That was left over from my voter ID argument smile

            2. LauraGT profile image87
              LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Again, you may have a right to own a gun, but it is not absolute.

              1. Clint Ward profile image59
                Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Its absolute while its in my hand, you can try and take it but you will be met with resistance.

                1. LauraGT profile image87
                  LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Wow, you really are scared about someone taking away your gun!

                  1. Clint Ward profile image59
                    Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    No I'm not scared, anybody who wants to can attempt it. Are you scared to try?

  6. Uninvited Writer profile image81
    Uninvited Writerposted 4 years ago

    Stroll down to the question about better background checks at gun shows.... 92% want those.

  7. innersmiff profile image72
    innersmiffposted 4 years ago

    Heroes in my eyes. Any resistance to extensions of state power must be cheered!

    1. LauraGT profile image87
      LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      So, anarchy is the desired solution?

      1. Clint Ward profile image59
        Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Praising those who voted against this bad law does not equal anarchy, resisting government efforts to restrict freedom does not equal anarchy!

        1. LauraGT profile image87
          LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          Innersmiff said, "Any resistance to extensions of state power must be cheered!"   i guess that could mean that perhaps she is happy with current state powers, but I assumed she (and others) would prefer as little "government? as possible.  No government = anarchy.  Of course, this is forgetting that government creates jobs, builds roads and infrastructures, protects parks, makes sure our water is clean and our air is breathable, that people are safe (well, they try), and that our country is protected. But, besides those little things, who needs it?

          1. Clint Ward profile image59
            Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Yes, as little government as possible. And that also does not =Anarchy! While you are singing the praises of mostly local government why don't you tell us about the bad things the Federal Government does?

            1. LauraGT profile image87
              LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Yes, there is good and bad (depending on your perspective).  Believe me, there are plenty of things our government does that I'm not fan of. But, I think we would be much worse off with no government.  I'm simply reminding those that bemoan government that there are many, many functions of government that  *everyone* benefits from, whether or not they'd like to admit it.

              Incidentally, anarchy is defined as the absence of government.

              1. Clint Ward profile image59
                Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Is war good in your "perspective" our government seems to be in perpetual war! How about detaining people who are not charged with a crime? must be good to you? Don't preach to me about the greatness of government.

                1. LauraGT profile image87
                  LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  Finally, we agree on something!  smile  But, just because I don't like everything the government does, doesn't mean I can't see the benefits, or that I think we'd be better off without it.  There's no way on earth that everyone will always be pleased by everything the government does/decides. That's why we have representational government, so the people have a say and can change who is calling the shots if they are not happy with the decisions of those in power.

                  That's why I will be fighting to replace the elected officials who voted against the background check bill.

                  1. Clint Ward profile image59
                    Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    The ones who voted against it represented their constituents and to you that's amoral, you can try and remove them but you will fail.

      2. innersmiff profile image72
        innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Yes, anarchy is the desired solution.

  8. Cody Hodge5 profile image61
    Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago

    Lol, I love how the right/NRA has twisted this argument into something it's not.

    Background checks are not an infringement of your rights....

    No One Is Banning/Taking Away Your Guns

    The Second Amendment Isn't Being "Eroded"

    The Government Isn't Coming To Get You....


    Although, I suppose fear sells easier than common sense and logic...

    1. Clint Ward profile image59
      Clint Wardposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      "Background checks are not an infringement of your rights...."

      Nowhere in the second amendment does it say that people convicted of certain crimes,the insane, and people convicted of drug offenses cannot own a firearm. So yes, background checks that prevent those people from purchasing a firearm is an infringement. I just happen to agree with that infringement.

      "No One Is Banning/Taking Away Your Guns"

      Many types of firearms are banned, so that statement is inaccurate.

      "The Second Amendment Isn't Being "Eroded"

      From the very first gun control bill ever introduced the Second Amendment has been eroded. Another inaccuracy!

      "The Government Isn't Coming To Get You...."

      You never know, they went after David Koresh!

  9. Clint Ward profile image59
    Clint Wardposted 4 years ago

    Question just needs to be asked


    http://s1.hubimg.com/u/7905344_f248.jpg

    1. Seth Winter profile image81
      Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      I think gun advocates can learn something from Obama honestly. Maybe we should start using props like he did. Instead of Newton families we can use puppies.

      And nice picture Clint Ward.

      1. LauraGT profile image87
        LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Have you ever loved a person in your life?  If you have or ever had a child - consider their tiny body riddled with 11 bullets, their body shattered and unrecognizable. Does it have to happen to YOU, for you to care?? 

        Those families are not props, their lives are forever ruined, and your statement shows at best your lack of empathy, at worst a complete lack of humanity.  No matter what your political affiliation or stance on guns, belittling the suffering of those parents in any way, or suggesting that they are props, is just horrible and plain wrong.

        1. Seth Winter profile image81
          Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          (Approaches Keyboard holding a puppy)

          Careful LauraGT your upsetting my puppy.

          A prop is something that gives support/assistance. Having a bunch of grieving family members behind a guy trying to pass a gun control agenda would make them what exactly in your eyes?

          jdsalfjasdlkfjkljahsdfjhasdkjfhaskjdhfashsd

          (sorry about that last bit of typing the puppy tried running across my keyboard...silly thing)

          1. LauraGT profile image87
            LauraGTposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            I think they are people who are suffering deeply and are trying to make a positive difference so that as few people as possible have to suffer what they have suffered. I doubt it took much convincing for them to show up in Washington. They, and many Americans alongside them, will fight tirelessly until there is change.

            I don't know you, and I know you are trying to get a rise (congrats).  I believe in lively discussion and arguing through different viewpoints, but speaking negatively about and demeaning those families demonstrates an extreme lack of character and honor.

            1. Seth Winter profile image81
              Seth Winterposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              I didn't demean the families only their actions....or rather the actions of the President. Using the family members as props....background support. If you really think about it Obama's probably happy in a sense their children died..can you think of a better prop then grieving families to support his gun control agenda?

              The puppies was to get a rise...but the prop comment is an honest one.

              He used the grieving families in some speeches and cops is others....

              http://twitchy.com/2013/04/03/another-p … prop-this/

  10. Levellandmike profile image82
    Levellandmikeposted 4 years ago

    Has anyone actually seen the bill as it was written? It is my understanding their were problems with the language in the bill that left too much undetermined and undefined, leaving it more or less unenforceable.
    This is what happens when you try to get laws passed based on pure emotion. We call it "feel-good legislation." We pass it just to get something- ANYTHING- passed so we'll feel good about ourselves and we never seem to proofread it before we sign it into law.
    And yeah, I know: Nobody's trying to take my guns away...not right now, anyway. Just like I said in my hub, "The Science of Incrementalism."
    Nice try, though. You can go back to your name-calling, hysterical wailing, and NRA conspiracy theories now.

 
working