Next you're gonna tell me that Y2K isn't really gonna destroy modern society after all!!
I'm sure the hysterical nuts are just deeply confused at the moment - while intently waiting for the moment where "Obama comes after my gun," It ain't gonna happen - it never was. The "gun control" (aka those morons who oppose constitutional rights they feel are "unnecessary") movement has been dead for a long time - even within the Democratic Party itself.
And then there is
this article -
Quote:
A decade ago, the calculus was simple: Those who wanted greater gun control aligned with the Democrats. And those who wanted fewer restrictions on guns turned to the Republicans.
No longer.
Though an amendment to mandate that states recognize concealed weapons permits issued by other states, effectively allowing people to carry concealed weapons across state lines, narrowly failed on Wednesday, it garnered 58 votes in the Democrat-dominated Senate. (It needed 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.)
On Tuesday, New York City mayor Michael Bloomberg called the amendment, sponsored by South Dakota Republican John Thune, "about as anti-police, pro-gun trafficker piece of legislation that has ever come before the United States Senate."
Among those who backed the amendment was Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, who was joined by Southern and Midwestern Democrats in voting yes. Other Democrats who backed the amendment included Virginia Sens. Jim Webb and Mark Warner, Montana Sens. Jon Tester and Max Baucus and Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh. The New York Times has a full breakdown here.
In fact, it fell to two Republicans, George Voinovich of Ohio and Dick Lugar of Indiana, to effectively prevent the amendment from passing.
Despite the fact that Democrats control both the executive branch and Congress, supporters of gun control have had few opportunities to celebrate this year. The Senate moved to weaken the District of Columbia's strong gun laws (though the House stalled the legislation, which was attached to the D.C. Voting Rights bill) and Congress voted to allow individuals to carry guns in national parks.
"It's been a very difficult period," Peter Hamm, of the Brady Campaign To Prevent Gun Violence, told Hotsheet. "It's been frustrating that in the first six months of a Democratic administration with a Democratic Congress, that Congress hasn't seen fit to go in the right direction on the gun issue."
Hamm said there was "an awful lot of political gamesmanship" going on around Wednesday's vote. He said the amendment was put forth in part "to force Democrats from certain states to register what they consider a difficult vote" and called its defeat the first major victory of the year from the perspective of gun control advocates.
Indeed, for many Democrats a vote for gun control is a losing proposition. Reid, who is facing a potentially difficult 2010 reelection campaign in Nevada, knew his decision to vote for the amendment would help insulate him from charges that he is insufficiently committed to the second amendment. As Glenn Thrush notes, Arkansas Democratic Sen. Mark Pryor initially voted no on the amendment but changed that vote to yes when it became clear that it would be defeated, presumably to protect himself against similar charges.
Voters have generally moved away from pro-gun control positions in recent years, despite high-profile shootings at Columbine, Virginia Tech and elsewhere. In April, a NBC News/Wall Street Journal Poll found that just 53 percent of Americans favored a law to ban the sale of assault weapons and semiautomatic rifles. In 1991, that figure was 75 percent.
An ABC News/Washington Post Poll found that same month that 51 percent of Americans favor tougher gun control laws, down from 61 percent in 2007 and 67 percent in 1999.
Shortly after the vote on the amendment, the National Rifle Association sent out a celebratory statement stating that, despite the loss, the vote "shows that a bipartisan majority agrees with the NRA." Among the senators the NRA thanked for their efforts to pass the amendment was Democrat Jim Webb, who the group hailed along with "all senators who voted in favor of this amendment on both sides of the aisle."
But I don't expect that the right's elite to praise (or even admit) the left's departure from being anti-2nd amendment. I expect the same type of "They want to take your guns" fear mongering propaganda as ever. Much like the Y2K fears (among the ignorant at least) - it is not and never was gonna happen to start with.
As per usual - Obama can do no good, so let another I hate Obama "revolution"(LOL at the notion) thread begin. I'm expecting comments as to how this whole thing is one big elaborate deception/conspiracy to take all your guns anyways, Socialist this, Socialist that, destroying the American way of life, etc, etc.
Funny indeed ^. To boot I lol'ed when I saw protesters show up to the Town Hall Meetings with assault rifles... Whining about their gun rights.... YET he just passed this bill. IT goes to show you how informed the average supporter is...
-Also note, Stuart made a brilliant comparison when he showed how 2 Anti-Bush protesters were not aloud to a town hall meeting simply for wearing t-shirts that had an X over Bush's name.. Yet these people were granted full rights to bring a loaded assault rifle... Jebus !
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
These people COULD at least post here and say "well I was wrong about that" at least. They could, but they won't.
They probably won't post anything until their media tells them what to think about this - some sort of retort that while not mak9p5
actual sense, it should satisfy die-hard Conservative logic. I could actually think of a few (nonsense) things they might say - but I have a feeling that if I post them then within hours I'll see it posted on every Conservative site on the web(and I do lurk at a few of them as well as a few lefty sites too - gotta know what the fanatics on both sides are thinking). The Conservative Biosphere is especially reminiscent of an echo chamber.
this bill was first proposed under Bush.
J03Y wrote:this bill was first proposed under Bush.
Yes, but obama passed it. He could have done a veto and stopped it.
Hm, well I did not know that. However, my original point still stands. Obama passed a law that allows for less 'control' on gun laws.
If he has an agenda to disarm America that so many people have claimed he does, why would he pass this?
Maybe some of us just saw this...or maybe we dont care, because as said, bush passed it...
And this means nothing....most of us weren't worried about our rights in parks....its the other areas of gun contoll he is against that bother us...If you read all the stories about this...its not like Obama brought this up on his own. The dem's just decided not to fight it..and he signed...
if anything, its a placebo.
but i suppose thats probably just fox news or something else from the right speaking, correct?
Quote:
Obama passed a law that allows for less 'control' on gun laws.
This is why I don't care....kinda a oxymoron hey?
I like what AK dose.. If there is not a law saying you can't, you CAN.
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Well with his approval rate dropping to new lows, he has to gain some kind of positive from the American people right? Its too early in his term to be a failure so get brownie points while you can!!!! Good job OBAMA!!! Only good thing you have done while in office! Does that make you Obama nut swingers happy now?
ThatGuy85 wrote:Hm, well I did not know that. However, my original point still stands. Obama passed a law that allows for less 'control' on gun laws.
If he has an agenda to disarm America that so many people have claimed he does, why would he pass this?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the judge ruled against it 3 months after it was passed(while Obama was already in office), so Obama could turn around and pass it in his name to make it appear he's not anti-guns?
sounds plausible to me.
J03Y wrote:ThatGuy85 wrote:Hm, well I did not know that. However, my original point still stands. Obama passed a law that allows for less 'control' on gun laws.
If he has an agenda to disarm America that so many people have claimed he does, why would he pass this?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the judge ruled against it 3 months after it was passed(while Obama was already in office), so Obama could turn around and pass it in his name to make it appear he's not anti-guns?
sounds plausible to me.
I really hope you're joking.
Tin foil anyone?
not joking, and not trying to say that's actually what happened.
Merely pointing out how odd it would be that it could get retracted when Bush did it, yet no one is opposing it now.
Either way, it doesn't affect me one bit. I don't intend or have a need to carry a gun into state parks. Just strikes me as odd how it all played out. I do however give Obama credit for doing it, while going against those staunch anti-gun dems.
Isn't caring a gun in STATE parks a STATE issue? and there for, makes this a NON-issue?
The Tenth seems to be coming in to play a lot lately....
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Just an opportunity for Dear Leader to appear centrist on the issue. Do you think hed sign a bill denying cities the ability to sue gun companies for crimes committed with their product? Would he sign a bill that prevented states from refusing ccw permits to law abided? He's not soft on guns. He wants the diet vernors of soft on guns
“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart
He appeases, and you guys are still upset. This just shows how the hate goes beyond his ideals. It helps illustrate the insecurities of many.
My Cav
I give up...
i'm buying a VW those people love trees, so they should love eachother too... "Andy"
ThatGuy85 wrote:J03Y wrote:ThatGuy85 wrote:Hm, well I did not know that. However, my original point still stands. Obama passed a law that allows for less 'control' on gun laws.
If he has an agenda to disarm America that so many people have claimed he does, why would he pass this?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the judge ruled against it 3 months after it was passed(while Obama was already in office), so Obama could turn around and pass it in his name to make it appear he's not anti-guns?
sounds plausible to me.
I really hope you're joking.
Tin foil anyone?
There is no tin foil hat here. I am smart enough not to take anything a politician does at face value. Every move a politician makes is extremely calculated. Political gain is always top priority.
FORGET GIRLS GONE WILD WE HAVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING GONE WILD!
Quote:
appeases
That's the problem....
WHY THE FU-CK DO YOU NEED A FUC-KING LAW, TO MAKE IT KNOWN THAT OUR SECOND AMENDMENT IS PROCTORING THIS.
23498590q34829054
hodgie!
Chris
"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."
Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry
Wade Jarvis wrote:ThatGuy85 wrote:J03Y wrote:ThatGuy85 wrote:Hm, well I did not know that. However, my original point still stands. Obama passed a law that allows for less 'control' on gun laws.
If he has an agenda to disarm America that so many people have claimed he does, why would he pass this?
Did it ever occur to you that maybe the judge ruled against it 3 months after it was passed(while Obama was already in office), so Obama could turn around and pass it in his name to make it appear he's not anti-guns?
sounds plausible to me.
I really hope you're joking.
Tin foil anyone?
There is no tin foil hat here. I am smart enough not to take anything a politician does at face value. Every move a politician makes is extremely calculated. Political gain is always top priority.
And bush orchestrated 9/11 right?
JO3Y wrote:I do however give Obama credit for doing it, while going against those staunch anti-gun dems.
This is the only point I was trying to make.
Short Hand wrote:This just shows how the hate goes beyond his ideals. It helps illustrate the insecurities of many.
lemme guess......the race card is being played again, right? i seriously get tired of hearing that thrown around every time a person disagrees with him or his mechanisms. "youre against socialized health care/gun laws/stimulus packages/etc----you must hate black people!!!"
he tossed the right wing a small scrap to try and placate them long enough for him to pass this damned health care bill. and we are supposed to jump up and down and think he is suddenly on our side or the savior of the second amendment? sure, its great he passed it. now lets get back to the real issues instead of dicking around with stuff that could wait.
Taetsch Z-24 wrote:Isn't caring a gun in STATE parks a STATE issue? and there for, makes this a NON-issue?
The Tenth seems to be coming in to play a lot lately....
Chris
You didn't read the article. The OP should have said NATIONAL parks, which are federal property, and don't fall under state laws. Just like the Post Office.
I, for one, don't really see this as a huge thing. Many National parks already had some sort of regulations regarding carrying firearms in them. Limits on caliber, magazine capacity, number of weapons at a time, etc. Some parks even have firing ranges set up specifically for the public to use, whether free or for a donation. Some, of course had no carry policies in place.
This really isn't a huge step in any direction, good, bad or indifferent (depending on what side you're on). If Obama really wants to make the American people happy, maybe instead of creating more or removing gun laws, his administration should focus on upholding the laws already in place, which are more than adequate to ensure proper accountability and safety of the people. The problem is not the administrative or legislative branch here, its the judicial branch.
