It's a polarizing issue because, like the Civil Rights Movement of the 50s and 60s, it's an either-or issue. Those people back then said they were entitled to certain rights that could not be restricted or taken away merely because they were the wrong color, so it is with us today.
The gun grabbers are turning up the heat: confidence or desperation?
- Thread starter breakingcontact
- Start date
Bartholomew Roberts
Moderator
People have many day-to-day concerns and being informed on legislation isn't one of them. As a result, many voters have little or no information even on legislation they are interested in and those that do have information often get the majority or all of it from a single biased source.
I've been reading the WaPo's account of Toomey's role in gun control and it basically boils down to he needs suburban soccer moms who will only know what they read in the Philadelphia Inquirer to win. Most of those voters couldn't tell you anything about firearms or even what existing gun laws are; but now they may well determine the law for all 300 million of us.
I've been reading the WaPo's account of Toomey's role in gun control and it basically boils down to he needs suburban soccer moms who will only know what they read in the Philadelphia Inquirer to win. Most of those voters couldn't tell you anything about firearms or even what existing gun laws are; but now they may well determine the law for all 300 million of us.
Double Naught Spy
New member
http://www.statisticbrain.com/presidential-election-voter-statistics/
Well in the last Presidential election, we had the highest turnout since 1968 with an estimated 57.5% of the voting age population voting. That is pretty good, but still leaves a huge chunk of the population NOT voting.
What amazes me is that some of the biggest loudmouths, the guys who rant and rave about politics at work, don't vote - they say our votes don't count, or that the system is rigged, or that they don't like either candidate.
Sometimes they are so hard right or left that nobody can pass their purity test.
Other non-voters are just lazy, but that should come as no surprise.
Sometimes they are so hard right or left that nobody can pass their purity test.
Other non-voters are just lazy, but that should come as no surprise.
breakingcontact
Moderator
That is a common retort. If none of the politicians line up with their views 100% then they aren't worth voting for.
That's pretty small minded and short sighted.
That's pretty small minded and short sighted.
Cascade1911
New member
I've never been an advocate of making voting or registration easier to increase the percentage of voter turnout. If people are to lazy to register or go to their polling place then you KNOW they are too lazy to educate themselves on the issues. We don't need more voters, we need more voters who understand what they are voting for.
As bad as it is to lose anything in this eternal battle with the Left, I'm wondering what the 14 Republicans, many with A and B ratings from the NRA, will do when they actually have to vote on the bill itself, whatever that may be, rather than just cloture ... Can we hope they will return to their 2A support of the past, or will they actually vote to support the bill?
I have to say I'm very pessimistic about the future of our gun rights. They won't get everything they want, but they'll get something ... and they have 3 1/2 years for another crisis -- another mass shooting -- to give them a chance to say, "see, if we'd just banned assault weapons or if we'd just been able to get rid of those blasted 15-round magazines or if only we'd taken guns away from anybody who's ever taken a prescription sleeping pill, none of this would have happened." With each disaster comes a little more control, a little less freedom ... And if Obama gets to replace a Supreme Court justice or two -- or Hillary is elected in '16, I think the gun freedoms we have enjoyed will be history ... and as somebody wiser than me once said, "freedom, once lost, is lost forever."
I have to say I'm very pessimistic about the future of our gun rights. They won't get everything they want, but they'll get something ... and they have 3 1/2 years for another crisis -- another mass shooting -- to give them a chance to say, "see, if we'd just banned assault weapons or if we'd just been able to get rid of those blasted 15-round magazines or if only we'd taken guns away from anybody who's ever taken a prescription sleeping pill, none of this would have happened." With each disaster comes a little more control, a little less freedom ... And if Obama gets to replace a Supreme Court justice or two -- or Hillary is elected in '16, I think the gun freedoms we have enjoyed will be history ... and as somebody wiser than me once said, "freedom, once lost, is lost forever."
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Maine senator says she is voting for.
I will bite back my comments in regards to those 14 republicans, lest I go off on an emotionally filled tangent, filled with adjectives and nouns that are not entirely appropriate for this board about what I think of our representatives.
In light of the latest CNN "news" article/report about "illegal" gun purchases that so conveniently lacked any reprecussions from LEO' against the reporters, I too find it extremely difficult to remain positive right now in regards to the future of our gun rights.
I've already sent another wave of messages to my senator, McCain and Flake, urging them to resist. Needless to say, "disappointed" doesn't even cover half of my feelings when I heard that the both of them voted against the filibuster.
I'll continue my usual campaign to try and urge them not to vote for the bill, but in the end, I feel it's falling on deaf ears.
In light of the latest CNN "news" article/report about "illegal" gun purchases that so conveniently lacked any reprecussions from LEO' against the reporters, I too find it extremely difficult to remain positive right now in regards to the future of our gun rights.
I've already sent another wave of messages to my senator, McCain and Flake, urging them to resist. Needless to say, "disappointed" doesn't even cover half of my feelings when I heard that the both of them voted against the filibuster.
I'll continue my usual campaign to try and urge them not to vote for the bill, but in the end, I feel it's falling on deaf ears.
So far, Collins and McCain have gone to the dark side; this is not surprising. I will not be surprised if Lindsey Graham does the same.
Be prepared to put a lot of focus on reps in the House, as this flaming bag of poo may just pass the Senate - so the House may have to stomp it out.
Be prepared to put a lot of focus on reps in the House, as this flaming bag of poo may just pass the Senate - so the House may have to stomp it out.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
The problem (I'm so insightful 
) is the precedent. If the current A and B folks fold on this (and it looks like it) - I don't think the House is guaranteed to stand against it. Maybe the bill isn't that bad (you might think) - Gottlieb likes it - but it is a victory and sets a precedent for more. Given another EBR rampage and an AWB will already have the skids greased.
Since the SCOTUS has not used Heller and McDonald to expand rights (as predicted by some) in today's NY failure to take the case - don't expect them to move against the various draconian state laws. Don't expect a future court to move against a reasonable and common use AWB. I was wrong before that the Administration would just BS on gun control.
Unless, the gun world can convince the general and uninformed public about how banning such and such is unreasonable and why that is - expect more losses and the SCOTUS to go along.
) is the precedent. If the current A and B folks fold on this (and it looks like it) - I don't think the House is guaranteed to stand against it. Maybe the bill isn't that bad (you might think) - Gottlieb likes it - but it is a victory and sets a precedent for more. Given another EBR rampage and an AWB will already have the skids greased.Since the SCOTUS has not used Heller and McDonald to expand rights (as predicted by some) in today's NY failure to take the case - don't expect them to move against the various draconian state laws. Don't expect a future court to move against a reasonable and common use AWB. I was wrong before that the Administration would just BS on gun control.
Unless, the gun world can convince the general and uninformed public about how banning such and such is unreasonable and why that is - expect more losses and the SCOTUS to go along.
Well, at least you can't say not everyone's on board: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...ign-students-scared-of-guns-in-u-s/?hpt=hp_t2
Probably not a factor in the current discussion, but a likely glimpse into things a little further down the road like the UN arms trade treaty. I think it quite likely that every gun control measure is going to be attended with its own full court press.
Probably not a factor in the current discussion, but a likely glimpse into things a little further down the road like the UN arms trade treaty. I think it quite likely that every gun control measure is going to be attended with its own full court press.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
I'm afraid you are correct, MLeake.
Banning so many things can be made to seem sensible. I'm afraid we haven't been able to fight on those grounds very effectively. We've tried to hold the position with the available troops from the choir. That may not work anymore.
Banning so many things can be made to seem sensible. I'm afraid we haven't been able to fight on those grounds very effectively. We've tried to hold the position with the available troops from the choir. That may not work anymore.
breakingcontact
Moderator
Why aren't the people focused on, not the guns?
Is it because disabled people (mentally disturbed/disabled) are a protected class?
The real issue is the criminal justice and mental health system. I understand why the government doesn't focus on that, because they would have to admit that government has failed us, but why are the people on the left so up in arms (see you at the pun-off) regarding gun control.
Gun control is about people control. But the sane/law abiding people don't need to be controlled. It needs to be about protecting society from the disturbed and getting those people help if possible, if not, whatever restrictions on them are needed to keep us safe.
It's about people and society dammits not guns.
Is it because disabled people (mentally disturbed/disabled) are a protected class?
The real issue is the criminal justice and mental health system. I understand why the government doesn't focus on that, because they would have to admit that government has failed us, but why are the people on the left so up in arms (see you at the pun-off) regarding gun control.
Gun control is about people control. But the sane/law abiding people don't need to be controlled. It needs to be about protecting society from the disturbed and getting those people help if possible, if not, whatever restrictions on them are needed to keep us safe.
It's about people and society dammits not guns.
breakingcontact, some reasons to ponder:
1) It is difficult to fix societal woes such as a broken education system; chronic unemployment; decreasing numbers of positive male role models; amazing levels of immaturity in today's adults. It is much easier to pass legislation than it is to correct serious flaws, and so the public flows to the path of least resistance.
2) Legislators don't get press if they don't legislate, aside from issues such as sequestration. They get PR by advancing bills; PR = voter recognition, and the ability to draw more funds for the next campaign.
3) Gun control is a guaranteed way to get the bases energized at both ends of the political spectrum; it is also a good way to distract those same bases from other areas where the respective parties might not be performing so well. Gun control is also one of those issues where the losing side can use a loss to build up more support from its base - "We tried, but those guys are just nuts!"
4) To those of us who mistrust large government, regardless of which party holds power, it's not hard to think that those who favor the Leviathan concept of government are a bit nervous about all those armed serfs - I mean citizens - who might resist seizures of property, etc.
1) It is difficult to fix societal woes such as a broken education system; chronic unemployment; decreasing numbers of positive male role models; amazing levels of immaturity in today's adults. It is much easier to pass legislation than it is to correct serious flaws, and so the public flows to the path of least resistance.
2) Legislators don't get press if they don't legislate, aside from issues such as sequestration. They get PR by advancing bills; PR = voter recognition, and the ability to draw more funds for the next campaign.
3) Gun control is a guaranteed way to get the bases energized at both ends of the political spectrum; it is also a good way to distract those same bases from other areas where the respective parties might not be performing so well. Gun control is also one of those issues where the losing side can use a loss to build up more support from its base - "We tried, but those guys are just nuts!"
4) To those of us who mistrust large government, regardless of which party holds power, it's not hard to think that those who favor the Leviathan concept of government are a bit nervous about all those armed serfs - I mean citizens - who might resist seizures of property, etc.
breakingcontact
Moderator
MLeake, I agree with most of your post.
What I'm getting at though, is why are the people OK with this?
Is the population that numb, mis-educated and distracted?
Now we have John Kerry telling us that foreign students are afraid to visit here, due to all the gun violence.
I suppose I feel that overall, the statists are just so much more organized and unified than those who seek and believe in liberty. And...why is that?
More questions, than answers I know. Shaking my head.
What I'm getting at though, is why are the people OK with this?
Is the population that numb, mis-educated and distracted?
Now we have John Kerry telling us that foreign students are afraid to visit here, due to all the gun violence.
I suppose I feel that overall, the statists are just so much more organized and unified than those who seek and believe in liberty. And...why is that?
More questions, than answers I know. Shaking my head.
The statists have deep pockets, for one thing. See Soros, Bloomberg, Peter Lewis, et al. (Failure to consider patrons such as these guys in the background has lulled a lot of pro-RKBA folks into false complacency, due to such things as low funding levels at BCAV... Brady doesn't need much money in the bank when Bloomberg is willing to spend $12M out of pocket for anti-gun ads this year.)
Also, people who believe in a strong government tend to be the types who want the team to handle everything; many of us who do not want a strong government may not be the best of team players, since we have a tendency to go our own way.
Those two things combine to make the statists very dangerous in the long term.
Also, people who believe in a strong government tend to be the types who want the team to handle everything; many of us who do not want a strong government may not be the best of team players, since we have a tendency to go our own way.
Those two things combine to make the statists very dangerous in the long term.