Angry liberal calls out Democrats for being so stupid about guns and gun control

[IndyBeerman]

Tagged for further discussion

 

[Ironhippie]

One question - how does any politician know who "actually voted for them" - if they do they most certainly have violated almost all of my rights!!

Unfortunately my impression and experience indicates that basically 99% of all politicians tend to vote the "party line" most of the time, unless it is known that they are voting for something that will prevent them from being re-elected.

Yes, I am a very conservative voter. My opinion was just reinforced by Todd Rokita's vote in the Senate regarding the "Universal background check". While he was outspoken in defense of the 2nd, his vote was 180 degree away!

It is quite well known and publicized that the Democratic party believes in and supports "Gun Control" - meaning they believe that no one but the Government, Police and Military should possess firearms! The flip-flop vote like Rokita's has happened so many times that I refuse to vote for any Democratic candidate ever! I do and have voted in every election for the last 50 years (may have missed once - but not in the last 40 years).

The other issue regarding the Presidential position is that they appoint the Supreme court justices. Guess how much credence the Liberal judges they appoint give the constitution? The Liberals have already said the constitution is a "living document" and should be interpreted or changed as they believe is fit for today's environment. Therefore I could never vote for a Democrat even if the other contender was a blithering idiot!

My sons also vote and in my opinion (and theirs) the one thing that is paramount is that the 2nd amendment be not restricted in any manner. Any other issue can be changed but when the populace is disarmed we then have no recourse - as History has proven!

I think you mean J. Donnelly. He voted yea. T. Rokita never had a chance to vote on S649 or any of its amendments.
Donnelly-Democrat-Senate
Rokita-Republican-House

 

[LP1]

Democrats writing gun laws is about as misguided as Republicans writing laws that affect "lady parts".

 

[OWGEM]

What LP1 said!!!

 

[gunowner930]

The left thought this was the golden opportunity that they have been waiting for years for. They lied, they had the mainstream media on their side, children and grieving parents were used as props, and yet they still failed. Feinswine, Schumer, Lautenberg, McCarthy and others: YOU FAILED. How many pro-gun democrats actually vote for the other guy when the Democrat candidate is clearly anti-gun?

 

[GNRPowdeR]

Thank you for posting... I'm floored!

 

[2cool9031]

It doesn't matter if you are left..or ..right. The truth is the truth.

 

[Ironhippie]

Democrats writing gun laws is about as misguided as Republicans writing laws that affect "lady parts".

Ya Right...That's not even in the same ballpark. The Kansas legislation is a good start but doesn't go far enough. If you think that trying to prevent the murder of the most innocent of us all equates somehow to the Dems trying to disarm the American people......Give me a break.

 

[9mmfan]

That is one of the best, well written articles I ever read on this subject. It should be required reading for all members of Congress.
Trouble is, the Dems that are true anti-gunners know that exposing their true feeling would never (in most cases) get them elected.

 

[searpinski]

Excellent read. This woman needs to get out there and educate others on how to not make emotional decisions.

 

[wpmason]

Another thing to remember is that by and large politicians don't actually care about gun control. They all have a stated position, sure, but there are only a select few of them that actually make any effort to craft legislation. Gun control is a very dangerous issue for politicians on all sides, they don't want it to come up because it forces them to pick a side, and either way it costs them votes. This time around it was at such a fever pitch that they couldn't ignore it, but very few of them were happy that it came to a vote. The politicians care more about reelection than they do about the safety of the average citizen. Those that voted for the bill did so because that's the direction the wind (the people screaming at them) was blowing, same for those that voted against it.

I'm pretty sure in an off the record conversation 90% of the Senators would admit that they don't ever want to do anything involving gun control, but every now and then they're forced to.

 

[huntall50]

LP1, "Democrats writing gun laws is about as misguided as Republicans writing laws that affect "lady parts".

What "lady parts"? Do you mean a "baby"?. Looks like your thought process ,logic and here comes the scary word, belief system, is just as confused as the democrats you speak of.

 

[VikingWarlord]

Ya Right...That's not even in the same ballpark. The Kansas legislation is a good start but doesn't go far enough. If you think that trying to prevent the murder of the most innocent of us all equates somehow to the Dems trying to disarm the American people......Give me a break.

LP1, "Democrats writing gun laws is about as misguided as Republicans writing laws that affect "lady parts".

What "lady parts"? Do you mean a "baby"?. Looks like your thought process ,logic and here comes the scary word, belief system, is just as confused as the democrats you speak of.

You're both absolutely incorrect. The laws he is talking about do not only cover abortion but also accessibility to contraception and other female specific medical care. Beyond that, I remember male lawmakers who tried to silence a female legislator for using the word "vagina".

People who are disturbed by medical terminology, specifically when they don't even own the parts being discussed, shouldn't be allowed to make laws about them. Laws requiring trans-vaginal ultrasounds? That is an extremely invasive procedure. Not a problem, the guys who made the law don't have to worry about it.

Remember Todd Akin's legitimate rape? His comments about how the body can "shut that whole thing down" is just as ****ing ignorant and stupid as Carolyn McCarthy thinking a barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up.

If you are unable to speak intelligently on a topic, you should not be allowed to make the rules that govern others. There is zero difference between the anti-gun crowd and the anti-abortion crowd. Both groups know precisely dick about what they're talking about. Interestingly enough, each group claims a moral superiority and believes themselves to be above that other scum.

It's stupid and it's exactly the reason we have such a sad excuse for political discourse in this country. You want to know why politics has become such a cluster****? I'm sure the refusal to listen to the other side and the copious amounts of sarcasm people are trying to pass for intelligent discussion are probably contributing factors.

 

[OWGEM]

You're both absolutely incorrect. The laws he is talking about do not only cover abortion but also accessibility to contraception and other female specific medical care. Beyond that, I remember male lawmakers who tried to silence a female legislator for using the word "vagina".

People who are disturbed by medical terminology, specifically when they don't even own the parts being discussed, shouldn't be allowed to make laws about them. Laws requiring trans-vaginal ultrasounds? That is an extremely invasive procedure. Not a problem, the guys who made the law don't have to worry about it.

Remember Todd Akin's legitimate rape? His comments about how the body can "shut that whole thing down" is just as ****ing ignorant and stupid as Carolyn McCarthy thinking a barrel shroud is the shoulder thing that goes up.

If you are unable to speak intelligently on a topic, you should not be allowed to make the rules that govern others. There is zero difference between the anti-gun crowd and the anti-abortion crowd. Both groups know precisely dick about what they're talking about. Interestingly enough, each group claims a moral superiority and believes themselves to be above that other scum.

It's stupid and it's exactly the reason we have such a sad excuse for political discourse in this country. You want to know why politics has become such a cluster****? I'm sure the refusal to listen to the other side and the copious amounts of sarcasm people are trying to pass for intelligent discussion are probably contributing factors.

Big +1. May I quote you?

 

[Kirkd]

Good read

 

[throttletony]

Good post. Thanks.

 

[LP1]

LP1, "Democrats writing gun laws is about as misguided as Republicans writing laws that affect "lady parts".

What "lady parts"? Do you mean a "baby"?. Looks like your thought process ,logic and here comes the scary word, belief system, is just as confused as the democrats you speak of.

If you're referring to a woman's right to control her own body, then you're the one who is trying to legislate based on a belief system. My belief system is "the facts", and the fact is that from a legislative standpoint it's not a child until it can survive outside of the womb.

Are you saying that you support the boneheads like Akin (who said that a woman's body knows when to prevent pregnancy!) and Mourdock? You want them making decisions for you? This is being a conservative that stands for minimal gov't intrusion into our lives? Seriously?

 

[gunworks321]

Thanks for the post. A good read and all the facts are on the table. She articulates them better than most on the 2A side.

 

[Beemer]

Thanks for that, I really hope my liberal friends will read it. Unfortunately, they probably don't have as open of a mind as they think.

 

[canav844]

After those 6 points are gone, what's left of their argument?

Point 1: I think is mislabeled, the message has been very clear, they want to remove guns from the US entirely, either through "drying up the supply" or banning everything outright, or making them cost prohibitive or using healthcare to ban them.

Point 2: Fully agreed, however I do feel it makes it easier for those who don't understand guns to vote against guns, it's much easier for Biden to get away with the shotgun story if we're not talking about guns factually, because those ignorant of guns will take his statements at face value.

Point 3: When it's about saving just one child, I do point out that the same day a gun in the hands of a madman that broke 41 existing laws (41 Laws Did Not Protect The Innocent | partneringwitheagles) and killed 26 people in Newton, statistically speaking doctors with the full blessing of laws made in the last 40 years killed 3,200 babies ( Life Issues Institute - Abortion Stats ) or ( Facts About Abortion: U.S. Abortion Statistics where the numbers average out a little higher per day); sources both link back to CDC statistics and are incomplete self report surveys, indicating actual numbers may be higher. Such inconsistencies tend to blow their sound-bytes out of the water when again that pesky thing called reality gets involved.

Point 4: Largely agreed, and I'll add that criminals will seek other avenues such as assault (Yahoo!) and/or murder ( PJ Media » Attacking Police to Steal Duty Weapons: A Gun-Control Conundrum » Print ), in order to obtain more or better weapons; so background checks do nothing to keep guns from the hands of criminals, they just may make it take longer or require another avenue. Here is a case from Indiana where a felon possessed a firearm, who then sold it to another felon (knowingly violating two laws) who then used the firearm to kill a police officer (FBI — Hogsett Announces Sentencing of Man Who Possessed Gun Used to Kill Officer Brent Long) a third felony would not have stopped that sale; for those intent upon murder, a little paperwork is but a small hiccup. And I'll reiterate, when the ACLU, NRA and democratic DOJ agree something is a bad idea, it's probably worth looking at to see if it's really a bad idea. Furthermore the ACLU, NRA, DOJ Congress and now the Senate agree that such proposals were a bad idea.

Point 5: In agreement here again, but the same goes for GOA, there is a reason these ranks are growing. It's not that democrats were counting on the money from the NRA to get re-elected when they return home to campaign next summer, it's that they feared their actions would result in their being out of work. Dollar bills don't vote (except in Chicago and Florida) people do.

Point 6: The first thing Obama did in his rose garden hissy fit was chastise those in his party who had a dissenting view, then he went on to talk about how the bill had bipartisan support. Bipartisan is ok, for Obama as long as it conforms to his monotheistic ideas of government. The second people dissent they get pushed under the bus, as mentioned earlier in this thread, sucks to be the blog writer.

All of this has come up due to the actions of those who were mentally ill and taking prescription medication that was designed to alter their thoughts, who then sought out areas with large numbers of victims, who by law where defenseless to protect themselves because of restrictions on where the right to keep and bear arms existed. Then credit was given to these individuals for the quantity of people they attacked and their name and photo was run over and over again on every news media outlet until just about every single person in the country, and much of the western world knew exactly who they were. This in a world that makes heroes and idols out of Hollywood celebrities, these madmen find a ticket to instant fame. All of the guns in recent high profile cases, were bought with background checks. Nothing in this legislation or any legislation I've seen this year has come close to dealing with the situation that created and encouraged such incidents from happening, let alone being a step toward preventing them from happening again.