Congressmen who voted against background checks - cowards or amoral?

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (116 posts)

88
LauraGTposted 10 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.
reply report
1. 62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  39
  ChristinSposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, they are there to support my constitutional rights, can't leave it to government.
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Please suggest a solution then if background checks will do nothing.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  How about enforcing the existing laws, that would be a start.
  reply report
  39
  ChristinSposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  well said
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Not according to the Supreme Court. And... how do you explain "well regulated militia?"
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  39
  ChristinSposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  60
  Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  In the parlance of 1787 "well regulated" meant well-equipped, not regulated by the government. We are ALL the militia.
  
  "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people except for a few public officials."
  -George Mason
  
  Perhaps it might do you well to study the Constitution and the Founders a little more closely.
  reply report
  39
  ChristinSposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Perhaps it might do you some good to stop buying into all the NRA propaganda designed to get frightened people to part with their money for excess guns they don't need.
  reply report
  60
  Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Curiously no one is being forced to buy anything (unlike Obamacare) they are making the choice to purchase them. And who are you to say they don't need them? Whether they 'need' or simply want them for whatever reason, it remains their absolute right to own them. Bummer for you but those are the rules.
  
  I love how you term one of our founding fathers quotes as some how being NRA propaganda LOL. I weep for public education.
  reply report
  60
  Superkevposted 10 years agoin 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"
  reply report
  39
  ChristinSposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Oh, really now?
  
  "If I could have gotten 51 votes in the Senate of the United States for an outright ban, picking up every one of them . . . Mr. and Mrs. America, turn 'em all in, I would have done it. I could not do that. The votes weren't here."
  
  Sen. Diane Feinstein 1995
  reply report
  61
  proudlibposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  85
  rebekahELLEposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  70
  Seth Winterposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  67
  Cody Hodge5posted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So you support the mentally unstable having guns? What about people who have been convicted of violent crimes in the past? What about people who have been convicted of crimes using guns having easy access to guns?
  reply report
  70
  Seth Winterposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Define mentally unstable. I know various soldiers that are getting back from the war that have PTSD, do you think our boy's and girls who have sacrificed for our country shouldn't own gun?
  
  As for violent crimes (IMO) it could be a based on a case by case scenario. Not all felon's are violent crime felonies and not all violent crimes warrant a person never being able to own a gun again.
  
  Let's take the recent trouble we've been having (school shootings etc) you realize background checks wouldn't of saved a single life...so really anti-gun folks are just using a tragedy to push their agenda.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  If a soldier has PTSD which can lead to violent behavior then by no means should be be able to own a gun, we have plenty of shootings committed by veterans in our past and they need to be cleared professionally before they can own a gun again.
  
  Background checks as they are introduced in several countries would absolutely have stopped Sandy Hook (for example) as they entail that everyone in the household should be subject to a background check, if anyone fails the guns cannot be kept in the household.
  reply report
  70
  Seth Winterposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  A friend of mine has PTSD from the military because she was raped by a fellow soldier..it's interesting to hear that you think women should be unprotected from possible future rapes because their original rape might of angered them.
  
  As for Adam Lanza (Sandy Hook) the boy was recently diagnosed with Aspergers, which is not a violent mental issue...in fact some studies suggest that people with AS (high functioning autism) tend to be the victims more then the victimizers....so actually your again.
  
  A background check would NOT of prevented Sandy Hook.
  report
2. 88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Never thought I'd be cheering on Anheuser-Busch!
  http://www.salon.com/2013/04/19/anheuse … embership/
  reply report
95
wildernessposted 10 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.
reply report
1. 88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  He was part of her household and he should have received a fall background check, it's very simple.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Like I said, you will not subvert our rights that easily.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Then you will continue to see these massacres and eventually Americans will take radical and excessive steps much worse than background checks and we will all lose for the stubborn dumb attitude of those who refused to keep guns away from the unstable.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The unstable will find a way to get guns.
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It looks like you have a very narrow focus on your rights. Citizens have many, sometimes conflicting rights. Despite the propoganda the NRA feeds its constituents, there are no absolute rights - individual rights must be balanced with public safety. This is an example.
  reply report
  39
  ChristinSposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Agreed
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  ROFLMAO!
  
  Sorry, I couldn't think of anything more appropriate.
  
  GA
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin 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...
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  It isn't hard at all and takes very little time to manufacture an explosive.
  reply report
  59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  39
  ChristinSposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Superkevposted 10 years agoin 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???
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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/
  reply report
  61
  proudlibposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  89
  GA Andersonposted 10 years agoin 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 So why the need for that legislation - except to make folks "feel good?"
  
  GA
  reply report
  95
  wildernessposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
62
Clint Wardposted 10 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.
reply report
1. 88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  39
  ChristinSposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
2. 39
  ChristinSposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Naivete abounds.
  reply report
  39
  ChristinSposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
62
Clint Wardposted 10 years ago
Latest Gallup poll shows you people are a stunningly small minority!

http://www.humanevents.com/2013/04/17/p … important/
reply report
1. 75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin 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
  reply report
2. 59
  Josakposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  http://www.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx
  
  58% of Americans want tighter gun laws. Well done man
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Have to hand it to RG, he sure tries
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That is one question among many.
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I hope you will forgive me if I say I don't believe you.
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  60
  Superkevposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That's because you live in Canada
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  I thought Canadians were supposed to be nice?
  reply report
62
Clint Wardposted 10 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.
reply report
1. 75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So, how do you define well regulated?
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The supreme court has ruled on this my input is not necessary.
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  The Supreme Court that says background checks are okay?
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  But you can.... didn't you say you could sell a gun to whoever you want with no background check?
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Too bad, because the main way criminals get guns is by buying them from others or from stealing them...
  
  Whatever, I just don't want those guns to find there way into this country through the backdoor more than happens now.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Where is the proof of your first statement, stealing them I believe. I have never bought a gun without having a background check done.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  What country?
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Okay, I was wrong about that. That was left over from my voter ID argument
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Again, you may have a right to own a gun, but it is not absolute.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Its absolute while its in my hand, you can try and take it but you will be met with resistance.
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Wow, you really are scared about someone taking away your gun!
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  No I'm not scared, anybody who wants to can attempt it. Are you scared to try?
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  That's such a strange comment/question that i really don't know how to respond. Is your goal to have everyone be scared of you?
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Sure if you say so.
  reply report
75
Uninvited Writerposted 10 years ago
Stroll down to the question about better background checks at gun shows.... 92% want those.
reply report
65
innersmiffposted 10 years ago
Heroes in my eyes. Any resistance to extensions of state power must be cheered!
reply report
1. 88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  So, anarchy is the desired solution?
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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!
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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?
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Finally, we agree on something! 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.
  reply report
  62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  We'll see... I think this is another one of those issues that in 20-50 years we'll all look back, wondering how in the world this was even up for discussion. Time will tell.
  reply report
  75
  Uninvited Writerposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  You don't know that...
  reply report
  65
  innersmiffposted 10 years agoin reply to this
  Yes, anarchy is the desired solution.
  reply report
67
Cody Hodge5posted 10 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...
reply report
1. 62
  Clint Wardposted 10 years agoin 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!
  reply report
62
Clint Wardposted 10 years ago
Question just needs to be asked

reply report
1. 70
  Seth Winterposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  70
  Seth Winterposted 10 years agoin 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)
  reply report
  88
  LauraGTposted 10 years agoin 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.
  reply report
  70
  Seth Winterposted 10 years agoin 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/
  reply report
79
Levellandmikeposted 10 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.
reply report

Post a Reply

jump to first post

Necessary
HubPages Device ID	This is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
Login	This is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
Google Recaptcha	This is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
Akismet	This is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Google Analytics	This is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
HubPages Traffic Pixel	This is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
Amazon Web Services	This is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
Cloudflare	This is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
Google Hosted Libraries	Javascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)

Features
Google Custom Search	This is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
Google Maps	Some articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Google Charts	This is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
Google AdSense Host API	This service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Google YouTube	Some articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Vimeo	Some articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
Paypal	This is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Login	You can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
Maven	This supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)

Marketing
Google AdSense	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Google DoubleClick	Google provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Index Exchange	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Sovrn	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Facebook Ads	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Unified Ad Marketplace	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
AppNexus	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Openx	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Rubicon Project	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
TripleLift	This is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
Say Media	We partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
Remarketing Pixels	We may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
Conversion Tracking Pixels	We may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.

Statistics
Author Google Analytics	This is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
Comscore	ComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
Amazon Tracking Pixel	Some articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
Clicksco	This is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)

Congressmen who voted against background checks - cowards or amoral?

Arts and Design

Autos

Books, Literature, and Writing

Business and Employment

Education and Science

Entertainment and Media

Family and Parenting

Fashion and Beauty

Food and Cooking

Games, Toys, and Hobbies

Gender and Relationships

Health

Holidays and Celebrations

Home and Garden

HubPages Tutorials and Community

Personal Finance

Pets and Animals

Politics and Social Issues

Religion and Philosophy

Sports and Recreation

Technology

Travel and Places

About Us

This website uses cookies

Congressmen who voted against background checks - cowards or amoral?

Related Discussions

This website uses cookies