Return to the Hot Topics Forum | Post a Follow-Up

 o
Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for ya?

Posted by david52 z5CO (My Page) on
Mon, Apr 29, 13 at 12:41

"New PPP polls in Alaska, Arizona, Nevada, and Ohio find serious backlash against the 5 Senators who voted against background checks in those states. Each of them has seen their approval numbers decline, and voters say they're less likely to support them the next time they're up for reelection. That's no surprise given that we continue to find overwhelming, bipartisan support for background checks in these states.

Here's the state by state rundown:

-After just 3 months in office Jeff Flake has already become one of the most unpopular Senators in the country. Just 32% of voters approve of him to 51% who disapprove and that -19 net approval rating makes him the most unpopular sitting Senator we've polled on, taking that label from Mitch McConnell.

70% of Arizona voters support background checks to only 26% who are opposed to them. That includes 92/6 favor from Democrats, 71/24 from independents, and 50/44 from Republicans. 52% of voters say they're less likely to support Flake in a future election because of this vote, compared to only 19% who say they're more likely to. Additionally voters say by a 21 point margin, 45/24, that they trust senior colleague John McCain more than Flake when it comes to gun issues.

-When we polled Alaska in February Lisa Murkowski was one of the most popular Senators in the country with a 54% approval rating and only 33% of voters disapproving of her. She's seen a precipitous decline in the wake of her background checks vote though. Her approval is down a net 16 points from that +21 standing to +5 with 46% of voters approving and 41% now disapproving of her. Murkowski has lost most of her appeal to Democrats in the wake of her vote, with her numbers with them going from 59/25 to 44/44. And the vote hasn't increased her credibility with Republican either- she was at 51/38 with them in February and she's at 50/39 now.

Mark Begich is down following his no vote as well. He was at 49/39 in February and now he's at 41/37. His popularity has declined with Democrats (from 76/17 to 59/24) and with independents (from 54/32 to 43/35), and there has been no corresponding improvement with Republicans. He had a 24% approval rating with them two months ago and he has a 24% approval rating with them now. "snip end quote

more polling data at the link

Here is a link that might be useful: link


Follow-Up Postings:

 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Apr 29, 13 at 12:51

From link: 72% of Ohio voters support background checks, including 87% of Democrats, 73% of independents, and 56% of Republicans. 36% of voters in the state say they're less likely to support Portman in a future election because of this vote to only 19% who consider it to be a reason to support him.

....36% of voters who are less likely to support Portman, has squat to do with his gun stance and everything to do with his gay stance.

1/2 penny


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Yea, there is that aspect - there are other factors as well that play into support/don't support, approval/disapproval that this poll didn't adequately address.

But at the end of the day, they're still losing support.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

It's kind of a no-brainer. If 90% of the voters are in favor of background checks, then truly how dare these legislators give more importance to their own opinion rather than listening to what the people want? I can understand if it's 50/50, but this isn't even close. The people are overwhelmingly in favor of checks.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by momj47 7A..was 6B (My Page) on
    Mon, Apr 29, 13 at 15:06

Because we don't give them enough money.

If 100,000 voters each sent $1 to their representative and asked him/her to vote for background checks, and the NRA gave that same representative $100,000 and told him/her to vote against background checks - guess which way the representative would vote.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Ohiomom, I'm not sure you read the poll issue correctly.

36% of voters in the state say they're less likely to support Portman in a future election because of this vote .

Evidently the poll asked if "this vote" would influence voters to NOT vote for the lawmaker, and evidently 36% said YES!

I would say that combining their objections to his gun check vote and to his stand on gay issues, the voters have doubly decided that this lawmaker doesn't have much of a future in D.C.!!!!!!!

Kate : )


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Apr 29, 13 at 16:13

Dublinbay I am not sure you understand, I live here and when Portman "came out" about his son quite a few of his base said he would not receive their vote "next time around", so the gun issue is secondary to the gay issue ... just another nail in the coffin for Porty.

However .... do not believe for one minute that republicans will suddenly cast a vote to the left side. At least I don't see that happening.

And of course all of this is just my wee 1/2 penny ...


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

I love David Letterman. Always have watched him in the many years he's been on the air, but lately in the last few years, he has become vocally liberal which makes me like him more. He wasn't political in his early days.

Recently he has a segment on called STOOGE of the night where Paul plays 'Still of the Night' in the background. He's featuring everyone one of the congressmen/women who voted against this legislation that 91% of their constituents want. It's been mostly Republicans but there was a Democrat on last week. I hope he continues doing this. He keeps their picture on the screen for a whole minute while he recites a nasty statistic about each one. Love it.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Ohiomom, if the poll is simply reporting what the surveyed voters said, who are we to argue with them?

But I am very glad to hear that Ohio voters object so strongly to Repub. anti-gay positions.

Not meaning to argue. Have a good day. : )

Kate


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Mon, Apr 29, 13 at 17:41

Not arguing LOL ... and I probably did not explain myself properly, republican voters are not happy with Portman's about face on gay rights. He was against em' and now (because of his gay son) he is for them. That is what they are not happy about. Clear as mud? :)


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

A perfect example of my position that conservatives have no imagination-in order to support the rights of gays they must 'own' one. As to gun laws, they have to have some one dear to them dead but gun fire. Sad but true.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Marco Rubio was stooge of the night on Letterman tonight. While his picture stayed on the screen , interspersed with Rubio drinking from his tiny bottle of water, Letterman said Rubio said he hadn't read the bill.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Not worth yet another gun thread, but I thought this was kinda funny.

snip "Oklahoma Sen. Jim Inhofe and Rep. Frank Lucas have introduced a bill that would prohibit every government agency - except the military - from buying more ammunition each month, than the monthly average it purchased from 2001 to 2009.
The lawmakers say the Obama administration is buying up exceedingly high levels of ammunition in an attempt to limit the number of bullets the American public have access to on the open marketplace.
"President Obama has been adamant about curbing law-abiding Americans’ access and opportunities to exercise their Second Amendment rights," said Inhofe.
"One way the Obama Administration is able to do this is by limiting what’s available in the market with federal agencies purchasing unnecessary stockpiles of ammunition.”

snip

The National Rifle Association (NRA) agreed with Tierney, telling its members last year that the high number of bullet purchases was normal for law enforcement agencies and that people should not be paranoid about the government’s intention on this area.
“Skepticism of government is healthy. But today, there are more than enough actual threats to the Second Amendment to keep gun owners busy… there is no need to invent additional threats to our rights,” the gun group wrote.
But lawmakers in conservative states have been hearing from their constituents on the issue relentlessly. So much so that House Appropriations subcommittee chairman John Carter (R-Texas) pressed Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano on the issue earlier this month.

-snip

In fiscal year 2012, DHS says it bought about 103 million bullets for $36.5 million, giving the department a total of about 246 million rounds stockpiled for training and operational use. The bulk of the ammunition - about 80 percent - is used for training purposes, according to DHS.
With about 70,000 DHS agents who carry guns, Republicans argue the department has amassed too many rounds of ammunition. In a letter to Sen. Tom Coburn, DHS said it planned to spend about $37.2 million on ammunition in fiscal year 2013.
Lucas said the Ammunition Management for More Obtainability (AMMO) Act of 2013 would help curb the rate at which agencies bought up ammunition. He argued that the bill would help preserve the rights of American gun owners.
“After hearing from my constituents about the shortage of ammunition in Oklahoma and the Department of Homeland Security’s profligate purchases of ammunition, we have introduced the AMMO Act of 2013 to curtail these purchases so Americans can exercise their Second Amendment rights without being encumbered by the federal government,” said Lucas. end quote

Right. Its the gub'mint thats gone and bought up all the .22 rounds, shot gun shells, hunting rounds, etc. and is stockpiling them in their basement.

Here is a link that might be useful: When even the NRA tells you you're paranoid


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

I live in a semi-rural area. There is a "store" that I pass on the main road. They have handmade signs that lead up to it from each direction: "AMMO, 1/2 mile" and "AR-15 1 mile on right" and others.

Personally, I don't understand why they need that type of "advertising" and I find the signs offensive.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

OMom,

Some...some Republican voters are not happy with Portman, but not all. Delaware County is not disappointed with Portman, and neither are the other 85 Republican counties.

Perhaps just the Cuyahoga ones are unhappy, but that's expected. :)


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Funny isnt it. We hear there is such high support for this or that but when ya talk directly to the congressman, he is getting 10 to 1 phone calls asking them to support gun owners and the 2nd amendment. Most of the callers are against any more gun bills?? go figure.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

The NRA has the most mobilized group out there. They border on militant.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Yep, seems the only truly motivated people out there trying for back ground checks and magazine limits are the ones who've had a loved one killed by a crazy.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by ohiomom 3rdrockfromthesun (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 30, 13 at 15:52

Actually Brush I was referring to "readers comments" after Portman "changed his stance" and the comments were from republicans, not democrats. Why would democrats say he "lost their vote" or they "would not vote for him again"??


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

It might help if some states would catch up with others... we've had background checks ever since I can remember!

I don't think anyone has a problem with it... not that I know of, anyway.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by vgkg 7-Va Tidewater (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 30, 13 at 17:36

These senators should welcome more gun control, then maybe they wouldn't shoot themselves in the foot so often.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 30, 13 at 18:24

The extremely/obviously biased media claims overwhelming support for more gun control, but whenever I read the comments following ANY article having ANYTHING to do with gun control, including background checks, the comments run at least 8-10:1 against gun control in any form. That's why the bills couldn't gain any traction.

Almost everyone I know who was formerly ambivalent about the whole gun control thing has come down on the side of the constitution and against any further restrictions on the free ownership of arms by the law abiding. Reasonable people understand that it would be necessary to ungun the lawless before restricting the rights of the law abiding, and any further restrictions on the law abiding population would be nothing but feel-good pandering to those that would see emotion prevail over reason.

Al


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

well, the leftists are losing the battle in favor of saving the constitution. What they have to fight with are flat out lies, mis information, personal attacks on those they dis- favor. They spout these percentages yet when ever you talk to any gun owner, and many non gun owners, you never hear of their gross predictions? But when the NRA comissions a poll of its members, which no one else has the access to, the polls read overwhelmingly in favor of no more gun control. yet the keep up with thier spiels.

Every state has background checks already. BUT, when a cheat shows up, they are very rarely prosecuted. The Holder justice dept has little interest in persuing criminal intent. They prefer to go after those who break no laws and follow the rules. Ane then they wonder why we wont cave in to their anti gun baloney??? duh!


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Tue, Apr 30, 13 at 20:58

From an internal DOJ memo dated 1/4/13 from the deputy director of the National Institute of Justice:

* "Fatalities from mass shootings (those with 4 or more victims in a particular place and time) account on average for 35 fatalities per year. Policies that address the larger firearm homicide issue will have a far greater impact even if they do not address the particular issues of mass shootings."

* "In order to have an impact, large capacity magazine regulation needs to sharply curtail their availability to include restrictions on importation, manufacture, sale, and possession. An exemption for previously owned magazines would nearly eliminate any impact. The program would need to be coupled with an extensive buyback [confiscation] of existing large capacity magazines. With an exemption the impact of the restrictions would only be felt when the magazines degrade or when they no longer are compatible with guns in circulation. This would take decades to realize."

* "Effectiveness [of universal background checks] depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration [my emphasis] and an easy gun transfer process"

* "Assault weapons are not a major contributor to gun crime. The existing stock of assault weapons is large, undercutting the effectiveness of bans with exemptions." "A complete elimination of assault weapons would not have a large impact on gun homicides." "Since assault weapons are not a major contributor to US gun homicide and the existing stock of guns is large, an assault weapon ban is unlikely to have an impact on gun violence. If coupled with a gun buyback and no exemptions [confiscation] then it could be effective."

It's no wonder those who feel the inclination to vocally protect their rights by contacting their representatives are digging in their heels.

Al

Here is a link that might be useful: The complete memo ..........


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Gun owners got the messsage loud and clear, the gun grabbers are goin for the whole enchilada, even as their hacks, like those lefties here, try to persuade each other that gun owners have no worries. Yeh, right.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Letterman's Stooge of the Night is Kelly Ayotte...Am loving this segment.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Lily, you are interrupting the dialogue Tampa and FF are having with each other, under the illusion that if they keep agreeing with each other, post after post, then they must constitute a majority.

Illusions!

Kate


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

jodik: I don't think anyone has a problem with it... not that I know of, anyway

Why do you continue to state this when right here people have voiced their opposition to background checks. You say nobody opposes. Someone (often me) points out you're wrong. You ignore and then state it again.

You're wrong. There are people, including some right here on HT, that do not want background checks at gun shows or private sales. Our government just voted it down (the entire point of this OP). Yet you continue to say nobody is against it.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

It is well known that the NRA has its members writing and phoning to the media and elected officials (this was discussed today on Morning Joe). In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Tapla was the "NRA representative" for this forum.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Read my whole post, Jill... then you might understand what I meant.

Once more... the state I live in has had background checks for as long as I can remember. I don't think anyone has issue with it... not anyone that I know, anyway.

Let me put it a second way for you...

No one I know has an issue going through the process of applying for and receiving a FOID card, which is a background check, or producing that valid identification card should they be asked to show it.

In fact, a valid FOID card can be used as an additional piece of identification, along with a driver's license or state ID.

Actually, Jerzee, Tapla is a bonsai master and speaks publicly on plants/growing/soils. etc... he may have strong opinions, as many of us do, but I do not think he is secretly in league with the NRA.

When one looks at the bigger picture of everything going on within our world today, and especially within our own nation, and adds in the recent upheaval and media screaming, most of which is repeated by listeners, one comes to the conclusion that disarming a citizenry that is sinking slowly, deeper and deeper into poverty, is the only way to control that citizenry and keep them from rising up against all the corruption, the greed, the continuing ruination of our planet, the abandonment of our internal systems and infrastructures, the austerity that isn't working elsewhere, and on and on...

I, for one, do not want to live in a country in which the only armed persons are either criminal, or a heavily armed military-like police force... do you?


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

I did read your entire post. Perhaps you don't know anyone in your state that is opposed to background checks. Do you know every person in your state? How many NRA members reside in your state? What is their stance on the NRA's position of no background checks at gun shows and private sales?

Does your state require background checks at gun shows and for private sales?

My point is you have on several occassions stated that nobody is against background checks. Did you only mean the people you know in your state? I certainly didn't get that from your postings.

My point is the NRA and its members are against background checks at gun shows and private sales. In fact, from what I can see, the NRA is against any reasonable restriction on guns. The only people talking about "disarming a citizenry" are the NRA. And its followers.

You continually claim that those of us that want some restrictions on guns are just repeating the media hype. The way I see it you are just repeating the NRA propaganda. I suggest you take your own advice.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Sen. Pat Toomey (R-Pa.) revealed that some members of his party opposed expanding background checks for gun sales recently because they didn't want to "be seen helping the president."

"In the end it didn’t pass because we're so politicized. There were some on my side who did not want to be seen helping the president do something he wanted to get done, just because the president wanted to do it,” Toomey admitted on Tuesday in an interview with Digital First Media editors in the offices of the Times Herald newspaper in Norristown, Pa.

What great representatives we have. NOT.

Here is a link that might be useful: source of course


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

esh - that is amazing. Amazingly stupid.

As we've said before, let's hope they keep on talking. I'm glad they are not trying to hide their stupidity. Thankfully, some of them are too stupid to know how stupid they are and sound. Let their consituents and everyone else hear what they really think.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Jill... think of it in a reasonable way... please.

Of the people I know who have FOID cards, whether they target shoot, or hunt, or have weapons for protection, or have a valid FOID card for whatever reason... none of them are screaming and jumping up and down because they had to apply for one.

Why are you so determined to put the meaning of my words into a blender?

You know perfectly well what I meant the first time I posted. Good grief!


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Wed, May 1, 13 at 14:28

If you wonder why so many oppose background checks, you have only to understand the part in bold, from the DOJ memo:

"Effectiveness [of universal background checks] depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration [my emphasis] and an easy gun transfer process."

Registration has historically/repeatedly been the precursor to confiscation, so any gun owner who wishes to remain a gun owner would be ill advised to support universal background checks. Keep in mind the DOJ KNOWS that UBCs cannot work w/o gun registration.

Al


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Actually, Jerzee, Tapla is a bonsai master and speaks publicly on plants/growing/soils. etc... he may have strong opinions, as many of us do, but I do not think he is secretly in league with the NRA.

So he can't be a bonsai master AND a member of the NRA? It is a membership organization you know.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Registration has historically/repeatedly been the precursor to confiscation

Confiscation of what? Do you have any example of where people were required to register something and then later had it confiscated?


 o
Five-year-old boy accidentally kills sister with his own rifle

Hmmmm.............

The five year old probably wouldn't have passed the background check, and neither should his father. What an idiot.

And a two year old child had to die. It sickens me.

Here is a link that might be useful: Five-year-old boy accidentally kills sister with his own rifle


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

"If you wonder why so many oppose background checks, you have only to understand the part in bold, from the DOJ memo:
"Effectiveness [of universal background checks] depends on the ability to reduce straw purchasing, requiring gun registration [my emphasis] and an easy gun transfer process."

Registration has historically/repeatedly been the precursor to confiscation, so any gun owner who wishes to remain a gun owner would be ill advised to support universal background checks. Keep in mind the DOJ KNOWS that UBCs cannot work w/o gun registration.

Al"

Thats what some memo from the DOJ said. A memo isn't law.

But the point is, did the legislation (they wouldn't even vote on) include universal, national registration of guns?

Did it repeal the Federal law that requires that all records of gun purchases be destroyed with a week or what ever it is?

And how can the NRA complain about not prosecuting the crimes with stolen guns if nobody has any registry of who owns what?


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Registration has historically/repeatedly been the precursor to confiscation...

Where'd you get this information? You speak of it as fact. Show me the data. This smacks so much of the uber-patriot mentality who doesn't trust their own government.

-Ron-


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

At the link is a story about some TV guy doing the black market for guns, buys 6 semi-automatic weapons and a thousand rounds of ammo out of the trunks of cars in suburban shopping malls. This is entirely legal.

Now, see, if the state, or the feds, had a law that said these sellers had to conduct a back ground check, then you could bust them for illegally selling guns.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Link?

What, exactly, in the US, has been confiscated, whether registered or unregistered?


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

It's all just more propagandistic NRA mumbo-jumbo--mindlessly repeated by the NRA minions who think it "sounds good"--so let's see how many times we can say it again and again.

Kate


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Jodi, look on facebook in the comments section of any news story about FOID cards. There will eventually be someone calling FOID cards unconstitutional.

Good lord, just do a google search of "foid card unconstitutional".


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Of the people I know who have FOID cards, whether they target shoot, or hunt, or have weapons for protection, or have a valid FOID card for whatever reason... none of them are screaming and jumping up and down because they had to apply for one.

Why are you so determined to put the meaning of my words into a blender?

Talk about putting works into a blender...

Where did I say the people you know with those cards are complaining about having to get them?

Try to understand...the legislation that was just voted down was to have background checks at gun shows and private sales. The NRA does not want background checks at gun shows or private sales. The majority of people want that. But the NRA buys the representatives and nothing gets done. Or, the representatives won't vote for it just because Obama wants it (how stupid is that!?).

An OP is started about that and you claim nobody is against background checks.

If you don't agree with the NRA's position on this, then state that. You don't say that, you just criticize people for wanting some regulation on who can buy what.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

All NRA members are NRA representatives, we are members. Our goal is preserve our rights even while many try to take them away.

There is just so much bad info put out by anti gun types, many ignorant sould eat it up because they dont know any better. saying the same lies over and over will never make them true. But, keep at it, it keeps your fingers busy!

There is only 1 reason for gun registration, it aint a good reason.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

There is only 1 reason for gun registration, it aint a good reason.

Well, except for tracking stolen weapons, helping enforce federal, state, and local laws with back ground checks.

But since most states never have had mandatory registration, and there isn't any federal legislation proposed that would do it, the argument gets pretty silly.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Wed, May 1, 13 at 18:37

What's silly is thinking that confiscation won't follow on the heels of registration when there is a plethora of historical examples that illustrate it typically (always?) has ...... and that going through the trouble of passing another feel-good law (UBCs) that the DOJ admits won't work w/o registration. That is total folly.


Below find information on deaths following gun confiscation. Listed are the Gov't, Dates, Targets/ Civilians Killed, "Gun Control" Laws enacted, and the "Features" of the Over-all "Gun Control" scheme - in that order. It's sobering, but of course YOU don't think it could ever happen in the US. A lot of wise men have admonished those that would ignore the lessons taught by history because they think they know better.

Ottoman Turkey

1915-1917

Armenians
(mostly Christians)

1-1.5 million murdered

Art. 166, Pen. Code, 1866
& 1911 Proclamation, 1915

� Permits required �Government list of owners
�Ban on possession

*****************************************************

Soviet Union

1929-1945

Political opponents;
farming communities

20 million murdered

Resolutions, 1918
Decree, July 12, 1920
Art. 59 & 182, Pen. code, 1926

�Licensing of owners
�Ban on possession
�Severe penalties

**************************************************

Nazi Germany
& Occupied Europe

1933-1945

Political opponents;
Jews; Gypsies;
critics; "examples"

20 million murdered

Law on Firearms & Ammun., 1928
Weapon Law, March 18, 1938
Regulations against Jews, 1938

�Registration & Licensing
�Stricter handgun laws
�Ban on possession

**********************************************************

China, Nationalist

1927-1949

Political opponents;
army conscripts; others

10 million murdered

Art. 205, Crim. Code, 1914
Art. 186-87, Crim. Code, 1935

�Government permit system
�Ban on private ownership

******************************************************

China, Red

1949-1952
1957-1960
1966-1976

Political opponents;
Rural populations
Enemies of the state

20-35 million murdered

Act of Feb. 20, 1951
Act of Oct. 22, 1957

�Prison or death to "counter-revolutionary criminals" and anyone resisting any government program
�Death penalty for supply guns to such "criminals"

*****************************************************

Guatemala

1960-1981

Mayans & other Indians;
political enemies

100,000- 200,000 murdered

Decree 36, Nov 25 �Act of 1932
Decree 386, 1947
Decree 283, 1964

�Register guns & owners �Licensing with high fees
�Prohibit carrying guns
�Bans on guns, sharp tools
�Confiscation powers

********************************************************

Uganda

1971-1979

Christians
Political enemies

300,000 murdered

Firearms Ordinance, 1955
Firearms Act, 1970

�Register all guns & owners �Licenses for transactions
�Warrantless searches �Confiscation powers

*****************************************************

Cambodia
(Khmer Rouge)

1975-1979

Educated Persons;
Political enemies

2 million murdered

Art. 322-328, Penal Code
Royal Ordinance 55, 1938

�Licenses for guns, owners, ammunition & transactions
�Photo ID with fingerprints
�License inspected quarterly

********************************************************

Rwanda

1994

Tutsi people

800,000 murdered

Decree-Law No. 12, 1979

�Register guns, owners, ammunition �Owners must justify need �Concealable guns illegal �Confiscating powers

1921) New Zealand, registration of revolvers required ��" ownership allowed in the name of personal defense. In 1974, this list was used to confiscate all revolvers.
(1921) The United Kingdom instituted handgun registration. About every 10 years or so, they further restrict what can be owned and use the registration rolls to collect what is illegal.
(1967) In New York City, a registration system enacted for long guns was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as “assault weapons.”
(1989) California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and prohibited certain semiautomatic long-rifles and pistols. Upon the death of the owner, they are either to be surrendered or moved out of state.
(1990) Chicago enacted registration of long guns and used that same registration to confiscate semi-auto long guns.
(1995) Canada prohibited previously legal and registered small-caliber handguns. The guns are to be forfeited upon death of the owner with no compensation to the estate.
(1996) Australia banned most semiautomatic rifles and semiautomatic and pump shotguns, then used its list of registered semi-auto hunting rifles to confiscate all those weapons.

Al


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Well, if you think we're on the same footing as Rwanda and Colonial Uganda, then I see why you're worried.

OTOH, Why not list all the countries in the world that have registered guns and nobody came and took them all away. Which is just about everywhere else in the world except your list. I've lived in three countries, Ivory Coast, Zambia, and Kenya, where I had to register my guns. I even had to go in once a year to the local police station and show them I still had them. And nobody ever took them away. How about that.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

What a lot of work for nothing. Let us know when you have some examples that pertain to this country.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Read what the banners have said in the past 20 years in THIS country, you'll have a better understanding of why a gun owner should NOT trust any democrat.
There would be no legal handguns, there would be no legal "sniper rifles??)(any rifle with a scope I guess??,again, the banners have no clue what they are talking about) there would be roughly 2 kinds of legal ammunition, there would be NO American gun manufacturers, there would be a huge tax on what ever ammo still existed. dont ask me for proof, if youd paid attention since the Clintoon regime, you'd be plenty aware.
How bout Australia, England, Germany and more. Ya know whats happened(ing) there right? Never trust anything a democrat says about guns xcept they want em gone.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

So, by saying NO! to everything, we end up with this dramatic drop in support for the politicians who voted down back ground checks.

Does the thought ever occur to you that by refusing even something as basic as back ground checks that have 90% support, that there might be enough fed up people for a backlash and the country ends up electing people who will pass far stricter rules?


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

I get the idea Al. You're equating the US with Nazi Germany, Guatemala, Rwanda, Cambodia, Soviet Union, Nationalist and Red China....good for you! About time someone saw the light...we can finally equate our country in its proper perspective!

-Ron-


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Thje 90% thing is a lie David, you know it, so why do you continue to post the lie?

I think the last bill, Toomey/Manchin was OK. But, where would that have led in another 6 months, you know as well as I, they want more and arent gonna stop. Some times ya just gotta do whats right and stand for something. I dont think most gun owners are gonna be concerned about any more damned anti gun bills. They are NOT gouing to abide them, just as in New York and other states. I think gun owners know whats up, you people who are willing to sacrifice rights are spitting in the wind. Sorry but we just arent buying it any mo5re.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Wed, May 1, 13 at 22:05

It can't happen here - right? How utterly naive that is - it already has. It's far better to be vigilant and ultra protective of hard won freedoms than to be so presumptuous as to give away the rights of others for nothing more than a politically proffered sense of security that is only illusion.

In my mind, there is a very large difference between the type of person who would stand up for their rights and work hard to retain them, and those who would arbitrarily try to strip others of their rights. That fact, or that difference if you will, speaks directly to the person. If I don't like what you say, you don't see me suggesting you not be allowed to an opinion. Instead, I would work hard to see you always have that right - no matter how misguided I think (the collective) you might be. You may not like the fact that gun owners fight to retain their rights ...... but that's just how it is. Keep in mind that a LOT of fence sitters came down very hard on the side of the second amendment because of the nonsensical nature of what the cabal of anti-gunners were trying to stuff down the throat of America. That's no one's fault but your own, and now you'll also have that backlash to deal with for a while; so keep up the keening and hand wringing, name calling and marginalizing. How's that been working out for you?

Al


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

You don't see me suggesting that you not be allowed an opinion either. Speak all you want. You have that freedom.

I don't want to take away your gun either. You have the right to own a gun (unless maybe you're a felon). Gun owners are welcome to fight to retain the right to own a gun. Have at it.

But I also think that other people have a right to make laws around your right. Laws that don't take away your right. But a law that says people that buy guns should have a background check performed to ensure that they meet the criteria (e.g., not a felon, not mentally ill, etc). A law that says if you own a weapon, someone should know that (e.g., it should be registered) just like your car is registered, your house is registered, your right to vote is registered, your boat is registered, and your trailer is registered.

That way when guns are sold from one person to another, the information can be tracked. For everyone's safety. Do you want to marginalize someone else's safety just because you don't want to register YOUR guns? So in order to protect you, all the rest of the guns in the country can stay unregistered? Sounds selfish.

I'm honestly not here to marginalize you or call you names. But you throw around as much nonsense as you claim the other side does. You presented a point. Registration leads to confiscation. But you can't back up that it has happened in the United States. Instead you'd rather try to make us seem small: and those who would arbitrarily try to strip others of their rights. That fact, or that difference if you will, speaks directly to the person.

A good sensible debate is all we want. And so far, you're not carrying your weight.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Wed, May 1, 13 at 22:43

Perhaps you missed this? >

(1967) In New York City, a registration system enacted for long guns was used in the early 1990s to confiscate lawfully owned semiautomatic rifles and shotguns. The New York City Council banned firearms that had been classified by the city as “assault weapons.”
(1989) California revoked a grace period for the registration of certain rifles (SKS Sporters) and prohibited certain semiautomatic long-rifles and pistols. Upon the death of the owner, they are either to be surrendered or moved out of state.
(1990) Chicago enacted registration of long guns and used that same registration to confiscate semi-auto long guns.


Al


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

You're right I did miss that.
What are "long guns"?


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Thje 90% thing is a lie David, you know it, so why do you continue to post the lie?

"By a margin of 92 percent to 7 percent, voters supported background checks, the Quinnipiac University telephone poll showed. In households with a gun, 91 percent were in favor, while 8 percent were opposed, Quinnipiac said."

Take it up with them.

I think the last bill, Toomey/Manchin was OK. But, where would that have led in another 6 months, you know as well as I, they want more and arent gonna stop.

Well, I don't buy that. I think that the majority of gun owners want to do what they can to keep guns out of the hands of crazies, and that back ground checks are one effective tool of doing that.

The Columbine shooters got their guns from gun shows. So Colorado closed that loophole, and now deny 3.6 percent of people who try to buy guns via shows or licensed dealers. Those would be felons and people who have been involuntarily hospitalized with mental issues.

But - anyone can still buy them quite legally out of somebody's trunk in a parking lot, what with it being a 'private sale' without any back ground checks. As I posted elsewhere: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/undercover-reporter-buys-privately-sold-semiautomatic-guns-hours-article-1.1331658

Which I don't think should be legal.

Here is a link that might be useful: Reuters


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

"snip - Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ) has an interesting take on a recent poll by Democratic Public Policy Polling that showed his approval rating imploding after his recent vote against expanded backround checks for gun purchases: It's probably right.

"Nothing like waking up to a poll saying you're the nation's least popular senator," Flake wrote on his Facebook page late Monday night. "Given the public's dim view of Congress in general, that probably puts me somewhere just below pond scum."

The poll by PPP concluded Flake is one of the least popular senators in America less than six months after his election, with only 32 percent approval and 51 percent disapproval among Arizona respondents. 52 percent said they were less likely to vote for him as a result of his vote against the Manchin-Toomey amendment, which enjoyed 70 percent backing in the same poll.

Flake, who is taking heat in the press for telling a constituent he supported background checks before voting against the measure, acknowledged that gun legislation was the likely cause of his apparently dismal polls numbers.

"Now, notwithstanding the polling firm's leftist bent, I would assume that my poll numbers have indeed taken a southerly turn since my vote against the Manchin-Toomey background check proposal," he said. "It was a popular amendment, and I voted against it." snip

And Arizona is one of the most pro-gun states out there, recently passing "shall issue" laws for concealed carry, no exam or training for CC required. They've got a law that says any guns turned in during 'buy back' programs must be resold to the public.

So I'll go back to my OP point - voting against this may turn out to seriously damage the Senators who did so.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Letterman's Stooge of the Night is Dick Burr, R.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Thu, May 2, 13 at 8:01

Esh - long guns can also refer to artillery (cannon, howitzer ....) but for the purposes of forum intercourse they would generally be guns designed to be fired from the shoulder (rifles) as opposed to hand held weapons (like pistols).

Al


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

snip -

According to Toomey, what doomed Manchin-Toomey is that Repulicans across the country opposed it only because the president supported it.

-snip -

Toomey is in a good position to address this, too. He took a very big political risk by entering into negotiations on a proposal to expand background checks that he knew would rile up the “gun rights” portion of the GOP base. Toomey and Joe Manchin - both Senators from states with deep gun cultures - negotiated a compromise that went to great lengths to show deference to gun culture and gun owners. It exempted private transfers through non-commercial portals, so transfers among family members, friends, gun hobbyists and hunters would be untouched, and strengthened prohibitions against the national gun registry conservatives claimed to fear. The idea underlying the proposal was backed by over eight in 10 Americans. It had the support of a majority of the Senate - including Republicans like John McCain.
Toomey spent weeks trying to talk fellow Republicans - officials and voters alike - into accepting this compromise. It didn’t work - virtually all Republican Senators said No. And there’s no mystery as to why. By Toomey’s own telling, Republican voters across the country wouldn’t support this common sense effort to address a problem that’s killing thousands of Americans per year, simply because Obama supported it. snip end quote

So I guess we'll see how this works out next election. People interested in universal back ground checks are going to need to keep the subject going. Might not be too hard if the spate of gun massacres continues.

/Or maybe elect a Republican majority so they'll pass it.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

People interested in universal back ground checks are going to need to keep the subject going.

Oh don't worry, I think the anti-background check folks will keep it going pretty well on their own.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

At the link is an article about the increasing chances that another vote on the subject will be held. There are a couple of interesting graphs from a poll conducted last week -

There are signs - like the scene Ayotte faced this week - that constituents and proponents are getting louder. A new poll released by Quinnipiac University outlines the breadth and forcefulness of support for background checks - the latter of which appears to have broadened since last month's vote.

As always, support for expansions of background checks is broad. Even among Republicans, more than half of respondents in the Quinnipiac poll strongly support expanding checks. In every region of the country, in every type of community, more than three-quarters of respondents support the idea - the majority of them, adamantly.

And people are mad about the last vote. Only among Republicans is the split between those happy with the vote and those unhappy even close. Seventy-one percent of Americans didn't like the outcome - a full third indicated they were "angry" about how it turned out. Even people from homes where someone owns a gun overwhelmingly expressed a desire that the vote had turned out differently.

Scroll down a bit for the graphs

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

This will be great fodder for the next few election cycles....

Republicans=weak on crime

-Ron-


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Thu, May 2, 13 at 15:48

Mmhmmm - and Dems are strong on hindering the law abiding, and in doing so empowering criminals ..... should be interesting.

Any laws that pass are going to have essentially NO impact on the criminal element - they will ONLY impact the law-abiding citizens who are no measurable threat to anyone. Restricting a law-abiding citizen's ability to defend himself and innocents removes a potential obstacle to anyone committing a crime. To visualize - take away a cop's gun and leave the hoods armed. In doing so, the criminal is indeed empowered and emboldened. Does anyone think the crime rate in Chicago would go UP, if IL suddenly became a shall issue state and eased up on laws restricting the ability of the law-abiding to defend themselves? Without question, it would go down; almost certainly accompanied by a reduction in the lives of innocents taken that would be demonstrably relative to an increase in the number of criminals who find themselves on the unexpected end of a pistol or long gun.

As law-abiding citizens, we SHOULD be able to walk through the worst part of town with $100 bills taped to our clothing - or at least walk through the worst part of town unmolested. Instead, we prefer to be "reasonable" and avoid walking through the worst part of town, conceding a position of dominance to the criminal element. "Lets give them their side of town and we'll be safe over here." But what happens when they want BOTH sides of town? The less empowered the law abiding are, cops and citizens included, the more aggressive the predators will become - logic 101, and something we can see happening on a daily basis. It's NEVER a good thing when any one element has a monopoly on force. This is especially true when "the element" is criminal OR a coterie historically known to be susceptible to the temptation to use it for gain.

Al


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

If they pass laws on mandatory back ground checks, that will make it illegal for the guy who sells guns out of the trunk of his car to anybody with cash. Because he didn't carry out a back ground check.

Along the same lines, if some hood sells a gun to another hood, the same the new law would apply.

Several states have pretty strong background check laws that cover gun shows - other states do not. Colorado refuses some 3% of potential gun buyers.

Those would be the criminals or potential criminals that now find it much harder to get a weapon.

You can't prove that this stopped a crime, but then you can't prove that it didn't. It would be logical to conclude that if you make it harder for criminals to get guns, it would help.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

"It's NEVER a good thing when any one element has a monopoly on force. This is especially true when "the element" is criminal OR a coterie historically known to be susceptible to the temptation to use it for gain."

That's the way I see it too, Al. And the gun-fearers think they're the cynical ones. ;-)


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Any laws that pass are going to have essentially NO impact on the criminal element - they will ONLY impact the law-abiding citizens who are no measurable threat to anyone.

So we should do nothing?


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

"So we should do nothing?"

About what specifically? There are many facets to gun violence. It's a complicated issue.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Actually, Jerzee, Tapla is a bonsai master and speaks publicly on plants/growing/soils. etc... he may have strong opinions, as many of us do, but I do not think he is secretly in league with the NRA.

Jodi, The master, not secretly in league with NRA thing. You know this info how? Question is not meant as a disagreement. I am just curious if you have inside proof of this statement. or Is it something you were told?


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Boy, i had to go a long way back to find out what you were talking about here:

•Posted by jerzeegirl 9 (My Page) on Wed, May 1, 13 at 8:51

"It is well known that the NRA has its members writing and phoning to the media and elected officials (this was discussed today on Morning Joe). In fact, it wouldn't surprise me if Tapla was the "NRA representative" for this forum."

Well, if it was on "Morning joe", it must be true. ;-) Whatever; it makes sense that any cause which wishes to be heard would use various public forums to get their word out. Why not? I figure there are probably representatives of all sorts of lobbies here and elsewhere on the net.

If Tapla does represent the NRA in some capacity, fine by me. That would make Tapla a source of reliable info, which is more than one can say about most here on HT when it comes to the NRA. What's not to like about that? If it's true.

----

Jodi: ***Actually, Jerzee, Tapla is a bonsai master and speaks publicly on plants/growing/soils. etc... he may have strong opinions, as many of us do, but I do not think he is secretly in league with the NRA.***

marquest: "Jodi, The master, not secretly in league with NRA thing. You know this info how? Question is not meant as a disagreement. I am just curious if you have inside proof of this statement. or Is it something you were told?"

What difference does it make? Your question is irrelevant. IMO, of course.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Fri, May 3, 13 at 23:07

I wasn't aware that this forum had an NRA representative - how did you find out that it did .... and where are they hiding?

FWIW, I'm an endowment level member of the NRA, but that doesn't make me a spokesman. I've never received coaching from the NRA insofar as what I should or shouldn't say, though I am encouraged frequently by the NRA and GOA to contact my representatives, which I do anyway - on a regular basis on a wide variety of issues - not just gun-related legislation. Anything I say about issues related to gun control are my own thoughts. If they parallel the ideas of others or a particular organization, it would only be because I can't find fault in the reasoning behind what they say, and not because I can't think for myself.

The extent of my intercourse with the NRA centers almost exclusively around education, training, and keeping certifications current. I'm certified as a concealed weapons instructor, as a range officer, and as an instructor for several other firearms-related disciplines. I am also qualified to teach hunter's safety courses and lead 'Refuse to be a Victim' seminars.

I believe in maximizing an individual's freedoms, yours and mine, and I fully understand that with freedoms come responsibilities. We have rights that do not emanate from governmental bureaucrats or edicts - rights that belong to man and are set apart from privileges too often arbitrarily stripped for someone's ill thought chimerical illusions. I believe it's only when the individual fails himself and society by exhibiting an inability or unwillingness to accept the responsibilities from which his freedom arises that his freedoms should be disallowed.

Our constitution is unique in all the world because it recognizes and enumerates those certain freedoms that belong to man, and guarantees our government to be enjoined from any interdiction in our enjoyment of those rights. Each of us is free to enjoy those rights or not avail ourselves of them. All of us are prevented by the supreme law of the land from acting democratically (mob rule) to usurp the rights of others for our own selfish reasons. I won't ask you to fill in your swimming pool or backyard pond because I think a child might drown in it ..... so don't ask me to give up my rights or agree to legislation I have good reason to believe is likely to facilitate the incremental destruction of one or more of the freedoms I cherish .... unless I fail to meet my responsibilities. Found guilty, I deserve reasonable punishment and to suffer the loss of rights most closely related to my offence.

Esh asks about my statement that 'Any laws that pass are going to have essentially NO impact on the criminal element - they will ONLY impact the law-abiding citizens who are no measurable threat to anyone."
"So we should do nothing?" If you apply a little logic, it's easy to see that doing anything that restricts the ability of the law-abiding citizenry to defend themselves and innocents w/o doing something that has a very significant impact on disarming criminals or getting more criminals off the street would be counterproductive and ADD to the violent crime problem by creating another group of victims where before there were none. One or 2 more laws that only the law-abiding will pay any attention to while the criminals ignore might make you FEEL like 'something is being done', but it would be nonsense. If you really want to see something done, petition your representatives to pass laws with mandatory long and harsh sentences for violent offenders ..... and particularly violent offenders for those who commit a crime using a firearm.

It's insanity to focus on passing laws that hamper the people who don't commit crimes while virtually ignoring those that do - or slapping their wrist for their transgressions.

Al




 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Letterman's Stooge of the Night was Max Baucus, Montana.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

I read your post, Tapla, and it was a good one, IMO.

"All of us are prevented by the supreme law of the land from acting democratically (mob rule) to usurp the rights of others for our own selfish reasons."

Wonder how many readers will "get that." And how long it will take for someone to say that you mean "to usurp the rights of others for (your) own selfish reasons."


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Here we go again--the Right equating "democracy" with "mob rule." I hate to tell you, but we live in a "representative democracy"--which you call a "representative republic"--which both mean the same thing--except to people on the Right who prefer getting "orders" from above. If a majority vote has ever won an election, then it is a "democratic" process.

Certain Righties can't bear to have a word that names their oppositional party (the Democrats) be a "good" word--so they even demonize the most basic concept of our country: democracy. Bad, bad thing to a Rightie--they instantly visualize angry mobs carrying torches and storming the castle when you mention the word "democracy." No matter that no election in our country has every had that happen--they still imagine it happening.

No, righties--that is not what "democracy" means--we have a majority-rule democracy which is constitutionally limited by a recognition of "minority rights"--but not everything pertaining to a democratic/majority vote involves minority rights.

Interesting that it is the T-party that periodically threatens to grab their pitchforks and storm the citadel--and FORCE the governement to do what they--a minority--want done. You know--watering the tree of liberty with blood, etc. But the T-partiers are some of the ones who imagine that only Democrats, by a majority vote, can be called "mob rule"--T-partiers threatening to function like a "mob" are the true Americans (who reject any word that sounds like the name of the opposition party).

Kate


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Saw that California legislature passed and the Governor signed a law that funds law enforcement agencies to go pick up the guns from owners who have been convicted of felonies and/or been declared dangerously mentally ill.

The bill gives $24 million from the Dealers' Record of Sale fund - fees paid by gun owners at the time of purchase - to the state's Department of Justice to help clear the backlog of individuals who once purchased a gun but are now barred from possessing firearms.


The state's Bureau of Firearms has identified about 20,000 Californians who illegally hold an estimated 40,000 handguns and assault weapons, with the list growing by 15 to 20 every day.

The money will fund 36 additional agents to increase enforcement of the operation that confiscates such weapons.

Some people have a problem with this.
And some people don't.

Here is a link that might be useful: link


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

I was amused by the couple of posters here that said they didn't trust Democrats as we are all anti-gun. I'm registered as one and have had multiple guns since my teenage years. I went on the NRA website and got the impression that if I wanted to ante up the money my political affiliation wouldn't prevent me from getting a membership. I worked in a prison for seven years where we handled guns daily in the gun towers on the perimeter. Totally comfortable with them.
If I suddenly feel a desire to own another gun, I hope the law of the land says that I have to pass a background check to get it, with whatever waiting period that entails. I am concerned with anyone who isn't willing to be checked out thoroughly and cleared to buy a weapon.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Sat, May 4, 13 at 14:19

"It's a republic ma'am - if you can keep it." (Ben Franklin upon affixing his signature to the constitution.

"Hence it is that democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and in general have been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their deaths... A Republic, by which I mean a government in which a scheme of representation takes place, opens a different prospect and promises the cure for which we are seeking." (James Madison/Federalist Papers)

We have a republican form of government, a constitutional republic set in place to ensure that even a majority cannot infringe upon the rights of others. I realize that some lefties can't bear to acknowledge we have a republican form of government, even if the word has nothing to do with Rep vs Dem.

I don't visualize angry mobs, but now that you mention it, the behavior of the anti gun cabal has surely appeared as such recently, what with all the strident keening and hand wringing. It is entirely proper that mobs be restrained by the rule of law from trampling on the rights of others, which is what our constitution does.

Republics operate within the limits of a Constitution or Charter, a code of laws that cannot be changed on a whim by a majority (or even a vocal minority) whenever they wish, which is exactly what can and does happen in democracies. Republics enforce laws like: no killing, no stealing, no assaulting ......

If you professed to operated under the auspices of the 10 commandments (a really good idea because they are based on 'The Golden Rule'), which is actually a set of laws many try to live by, a democracy would be incompatible. Try to envision taking a vote to see if we can kill, steal, lie, and covet this week.

Recognize that the Bill of Rights does not GIVE us any rights. In fact, kit would probably have been more accurate to call it the "Bill of Limitations" (on the powers of the government), because that's what it DOES. Specifically, it states and enumerates the rights that descend from God, or if that offends you, it states that certain rights are inherently man's, enumerates the limited powers of your government, and enjoins the government and the governed from infringing on anyone's inherent rights - no matter how large the majority or how vocal the minority.

By the way, you might THINK we have a "majority rule democracy", but we don't. If that were so, and you have the majority you all claim to have, we wouldn't be debating gun control - it would already be a done deal. The fact is, it ain't a done deal ..... and the REASON it ain't a done deal is that pesky constitution and the number of people who still believe it's better to NOT let the mob rule and to protect the rights we recognize as manifest in the the individual.

Wanting to retain a right is never a selfish thing. I don't pick & choose the rights I want to keep for myself and then work to strip the rights I think I'll never need or want from others because in a fit of fancy I think I'll be safer and feel better if only I do "something". Any right I try to prevent from being taken. Any freedom I fight to keep is a freedom anyone can choose to enjoy.

The gun grabbers already had tired bills waiting to be brought up again with even more stringent restrictions on the law-abiding. They were only waiting to introduce them when a suitable tragedy arose, so they could exploit the wave of public sentiment before reason was restored. Once it became clear that there was united front aimed squarely at the second amendment, the resistance was galvanized, which is why all the bills went down in flames. Schumer, Feinstein, et al, are still conniving and wheeling/dealing behind the scenes (can't be denied) with political promises (and threats). Wouldn't that ACTUALLY be the very definition of a conspiracy?

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule [my emphasis], where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. ~ Thomas Jefferson

Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! - " Benjamin Franklin

Democracy is the road to socialism. - " Karl Marx

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. - " John Adams

The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter. - Winston Churchill

Democracy substitutes election by the incompetent many for appointment by the corrupt few. George Bernard Shaw

Al


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule [my emphasis], where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%. ~ Thomas Jefferson"
"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote! - " Benjamin Franklin"
"Democracy is the road to socialism. - " Karl Marx"

I looked up your quotes there. It seems that none of them are correct. I always get nervous when people start quoting people from 200 years ago.
I suggest you go to wikiquote.

****addition- I only checked the first three that I actually quoted. I went back and checked the other three. The fourth was misquoted and taken out of context. The 5th and 6th were correct from what I could tell.

This post was edited by frank_il on Sat, May 4, 13 at 15:43


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Once it became clear that there was united front aimed squarely at the second amendment, the resistance was galvanized, which is why all the bills went down in flames.

There is no reason that there can't be restrictions on the second amendment. As you pointed out, the Bill of Rights is about limitations.

This post was edited by jerzeegirl on Sat, May 4, 13 at 15:39


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

"I was amused by the couple of posters here that said they didn't trust Democrats as we are all anti-gun."

I'm not seeing those posts,Steve. Where can I find them?


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Thankyou for the excellent posts tapla(Al). Reason only gets so far here tho, but we who cherish ALL of our rights appreciate those who work so hard to preserve them. I doubt that all NRA members agree totally with everything the NRA says and does. But we also recognized where we would be without their untiring efforts.

I dont think Ive ever read where all dems are anti gun? But we do know it is the democrats who strive so hard to take away rights. I know dems who are NRA members, but I do have to question what it is they suppost as they vote for the people who would make owning their guns more difficult.


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

  • Posted by tapla z5b-6a mid-MI (My Page) on
    Sat, May 4, 13 at 19:44

Jerzee - the restrictions the Bill of Rights levies are on our government - to prevent it from restricting the freedoms of the people - not on the individual. The constitution is all about protecting the inherent rights and freedom of man, and restraining the government. Additionally, I never said there couldn't be restrictions on the second amendment. There are already thousands of laws that are summarily ignored by criminals. It certainly makes much more sense to focus on restraining the criminal element than those of us who have never committed a crime and likely never will.

Frank - Let me temper my offer of quotations with the observation that all the quotes are very widely attributed to the individual named after the quote. If there is a question about the validity of the quote, I'm not the only one who deserves blame. Many of them came from a site called "the Quote Garden". Is there really a question that the founders preferred a a constitutional republic to a democracy? or that they WANTED the citizenry to be armed well enough to resist their government should it become oppressive? or that Marx believed a democracy to be a springboard to socialism?

The fact is, a pure democracy IS nothing more than rule by majority, or mob rule. In a pure democracy, the majority could vote themselves a wide variety of perks and enslave the minority to ensure they get them. The founders feared a democracy as much as or more than the oppressive monarchy they threw off.

The similarity between our constitutional republic and a democracy lies in the fact that the we happen to use the democratic processes to elect our representatives. The critical difference lies in the fact that our republic has a constitution that limits governmental oppression.

Al


 o
RE: Hows that voting against back ground checks workin' out for y

Al, our government is generally referred to as a Democratic Republic. At least that is what all of the Civics books that I have taught out of have said. So, no we do not have a pure democracy, but we do have a form of democracy.

Trust me, your quote site has flaws.


 o Post a Follow-Up

Please Note: Only registered members are able to post messages to this forum.

    If you are a member, please log in.

    If you aren't yet a member, join now!


Return to the Hot Topics Forum

Information about Posting

  • You must be logged in to post a message. Once you are logged in, a posting window will appear at the bottom of the messages. If you are not a member, please register for an account.
  • Please review our Rules of Play before posting.
  • Posting is a two-step process. Once you have composed your message, you will be taken to the preview page. You will then have a chance to review your post, make changes and upload photos.
  • After posting your message, you may need to refresh the forum page in order to see it.
  • Before posting copyrighted material, please read about Copyright and Fair Use.
  • We have a strict no-advertising policy!
  • If you would like to practice posting or uploading photos, please visit our Test forum.
  • If you need assistance, please Contact Us and we will be happy to help.


Learn more about in-text links on this page here