Bang! Senate shoots down gun control

[47iscool]

By WND

The Democrat-controlled U.S. Senate today shot down President Obama’s effort to control guns in a series of votes.

The votes were on amendments to a bill by Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., advanced last week, 68-31, to the Senate floor for debate.

The first, and key, amendment was to expand background checks widely. It failed 54-46 under a requirement of 60 votes for adoption.

The White House has lobbied intensely across the country, including using emotional pleas from the families of victims of the Newtown school shooting. Obama administration officials had confirmed the president’s agenda was sinking. Reuters reported the frustration level was so high that press secretary Jay Carney took to the podium of the briefing room to urge senators to back Obama.

Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, told the assembled body that Congress should be focused on “stopping violent criminals” but not “targeting law-abiding citizens.”

“The approach that is effective is targeting violent criminals while safeguarding the constitutional rights of law-abiding citizens,” he said.

Cruz blamed the Obama Justice Department for failing to prosecute gun criminals, noting that of 48,000 felons or fugitives who tried to obtain weapons, only 44 were prosecuted.

The support just wasn’t there. Among the legislation that senators scheduled for vote was:

The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act by Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and others. It expands background checks to gun shows and Internet sales. It also authorizes $400 million to upgrade the national background check database. It failed 54-46 under a requirement of 60 votes for adoption.
A proposal by Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, to swap the background check provisions of the existing bill. It would target those who lie on background check applications and raise access to information about those who have been found mentally impaired by a court. This failed 52-48.
The Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act from Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and others. Addressed those who purchase guns for others, to avoid a background check. It failed 58-42.
Concealed-carry reciprocity from Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, and others. It would treat state-sponsored concealed carry permits to driver’s licenses in that they would be valid across state lines. It failed 57-43
The Assault Weapons Ban from Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., and others. Targets hundreds of types of weapons for a complete ban. It failed, 40 to 60.
A plan from Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., to require a court order finding a person a danger to himself or herself or others before that person is banned from buying a gun.
The Large-Capacity Magazine Feeding Devices Amendment from Sen. Frank Lautenberg, D-N.J.. It bans devices holding more than 10 rounds, but creates a special class of citizen – the off-duty police officer – for exemption.
A plan from Sen. John Barrasso, R-Wy., to penalize a state financially if officials publicly release gun ownership information.
And Sen. Tom Harkin’s plan to encourage suicide prevention and mental health awareness.

Far-left television personality Piers Morgan said, “Imagine those Newtown family members at the Senate today – suddenly realizing their lawmakers don’t give a stuff about their dead children.”

The Democrats were unable even to corral their own for the key vote on background checks, losing the support of Sens. Heidi Heitkamp, D-N.D., Mark Begich, D-Alaska, Max Baucus, D-Mont., and Mark Pryor, D-Ark.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg’s “Mayors Against Illegal Guns” called the vote a “damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington.”

The National Rifle Association said that the plan would have failed to reduce violent crime or keep kids safe in schools, but that it would continue to work on ways to prosecute violent criminals, fix a broken mental health system and protect children.

Fox News had reported on a list of senators who, while they might have agreed to discuss the issues, were not willing to support them.

“I supported having a debate on the issue of violent crime, but as I made clear from the outset, I will oppose any legislation that chips away at our constitutional rights,” Sen. Richard Burr, R-N.C., said.

Democrats need to retain all of their 55 members, and that was doubtful because several are up for re-election next year, plus get five Republicans to join them to reach a 60-vote threshold.

And even if the over-arching bill, which seeks stiffer penalties for gun trafficking and more spending on school safety, is passed by the Senate in some form, the Republicans hold the majority in the House and still hold veto power over it.

Democrats on many levels have been trying to advance Obama’s rules, restrictions, regulations and requirements strategy across the nation.

WND has reported that in Colorado, where Democrats control the House, Senate and governor’s office, many of the ideas being pushed at the federal level already have been approved. And the state’s sheriffs are launching a lawsuit over what they see as unconstitutional demands.

Weld County Sheriff John Cooke said, “The legislators ignored the will of the people and passed these unconstitutional gun laws, and they need to be held accountable for their decision.”

Colorado was a test case for the Obama administration, which dispatched Vice President Joe Biden to lobby for the state limits – to be used as an example for others.

David Kopel, an attorney with the Independence Institute, which will handle the case, said the brief is still being prepared, but he expects to file it in the next few weeks.

“We are still working out the details, but there is a very solid case here. We are still working on some of the specifics, however we do feel we have a variety of strong legal claims that are worth bringing to court,” he said.

State officials admitted they were doing the bidding of the White House. In February, Biden flew to the state to strong-arm Democratic lawmakers who were feeling pressure from their constituents to vote against the bills.

“He (Biden) said it would send a strong message to the rest of the country that a Western state had passed gun-control bills,” Tony Exhum, a Democratic lawmaker from Colorado Springs, told the Denver Post.

House Majority Leader Mark Ferrandino, an open homosexual who also pursued a “civil unions” agenda this year, admitted the gun-control bills introduced by fellow Democrats had national implications.

“I was shocked that he called. He said he thought the bills could help them on a national level,” Ferrandino said.

The Colorado gun battle also created a number of opportunities for Democrat gaffes. U.S. Rep. Diana DeGette, D-Colo., for example, displayed her ignorance of ammunition magazines.

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them; so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot, and there won’t be any more available,” she said.

The Denver Post said DeGette didn’t appear to understand that a firearm magazine can be reloaded with more bullets.

Another notable comment came from state Sen. Evie Hudak, D-Westminster, who scolded a witness opposing one of the gun restrictions.

Amanda Collins, 27, of Reno, Nev., was telling her story of being assaulted and explained that had she been carrying a concealed weapon, the incident might have ended differently.

“I just want to say that, actually statistics are not on your side even if you had a gun,” Hudak scolded. “And, chances are that if you would have had a gun, then he would have been able to get that from you and possibly use it against you.”

Hudak continued, speaking over the committee witness, “The Colorado Coalition Against Gun Violence says that every one woman who used a handgun in self-defense, 83 here are killed by them.”

Finally able to resume her testimony, Collins said, “Senator, you weren’t there. I know without a doubt [the outcome would have been different with a gun].

“He already had a weapon,” she told the meeting of the Senate State, Veterans and Military Affairs Committee. “He didn’t need mine.”

Then there was the comment from state Rep. Joe Salazar.

He said that a woman who feels threatened by rape on a college campus doesn’t need to be armed because she can use a call box to get help.

Salazar’s statement came in a debate over a proposal to ban citizens possessing a concealed-carry permit from being armed on university campuses.

“It’s why we have call boxes,” said Salazar, “it’s why we have safe zones, it’s why we have the whistles. Because you just don’t know who you’re gonna be shooting at.

“And you don’t know if you feel like you’re gonna be raped, or if you feel like someone’s been following you around, or if you feel like you’re in trouble when you may actually not be, that you pop out that gun and you pop … pop a round at somebody.”

WND also has reported that Jim Sitton, who lost multiple family members to a shooting, delivered a message to lawmakers and citizens who advocate restricting the Second Amendment rights of law-abiding Americans:

“[I understand] what it’s like to be completely helpless and powerless when someone attacks your family with a gun. … For me, it comes down very simply to, when someone bursts into your home with murderous intent in their heart, wanting to kill you and your family, you have a choice: You either choose to be armed and trained to protect yourself – or you choose not to arm and protect yourself and your family.”

He said congressional plans for more limits are not foolproof. He notes the government had five opportunities to rein in the man who eventually shot and killed his family members, and failed.

[Lazy Bastard]

I'm very curious as to what exactly the liberal agenda with guns really is. The average citizen may be uninformed enough to really believe the propaganda, but there's no way the educated politician is really this stupid. Gun control advocates seem to think criminals think like this:

"Well, I was going to go on a killing spree at a school, or do a drive-by on a rival gang who's dealing drugs where I usually deal drugs...and multiple murder charges are no big deal...but a couple extra years for breaking an anti-gun law? Forget it!"

In reality, making it illegal for people to own guns isn't going to deter violent crime significantly at all. What it will do is disarm citizens who don't want to break the law (you know, the good guys), while criminals will still keep their guns, making it much easier for bad guys to rape, rob, and kill good guys. If you're a pasty little dandy who's never lived in a bad neighborhood and had neighbors who were home invaded and raped, you might not understand the need to defend yourself or your wife, kids, etc. What I suggest is, go spend a year in the real world where bad guys do bad things even if you politely ask them not to, and then decide whether you think it's OK for the good guys to defend themselves.

If the counter-argument is that eventually, gun control will result in a general reduction in guns even amongst the bad guys, and that we just need to weather the storm for a few decades until that happens (while they off the good guys in record numbers), I would remind everyone that the firearm is the great equalizer. It allows an 80-year-old woman to defend herself against three large men who'd like to rob her house, or for a skinny guy who can't fight to defend himself against an evil Mike Tyson or Dolph Lundgren. Even if gun control could be accomplished seamlessly without a horrible disparity between good guys with guns and bad guys with guns, I wouldn't want it to be, because the very concept of gun ownership is a great deterrent against home invaders and robbers.

I realize that, among those with a technical background (video game hackers, many of whom are also in IT professionally), I'm in the minority when suggesting anything that doesn't follow the Democratic Party line. But I'm also in the minority in that I've served in the armed forces, I've been in combat, I've lived in neighborhoods rife with crime, and I actually know what a gun is and how to use (and not misuse) it. Incidentally, I keep my guns locked in a safe until I'm ready to sleep, at which point the safe, in arm's reach from where I sleep, is left slightly ajar for quick access in case of emergency (and locked again in the morning). I can access the weapons therein during the day within a few seconds, which is enough time to react to everything but a highly disciplined group with prior knowledge of the layout of my home and intent to immediately kill me before I can access my firearms...which isn't that likely.

Finally, many will mention that the 2nd Amendment to the US Constitution (which provides for "the right of the people to keep and bear arms") was initially intended for use only to defend in case of an invasion by the British, and that it is therefore dated and unnecessary. However, as Supreme Court Justice and noted Constitutional historian Joseph Story summarized, "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them." - in other words, the right to keep and bear arms is not only a safeguard against invasion from without, but also against tyranny from within. Whether or not such tyranny is imminent is immaterial to the argument; preparedness is a necessity in any case. In such contexts it is emphasized that the militia is the peoples' defense against such abuses, and while militia participation is great in theory, modern life dictates that the majority of citizens in the modern United States will not be able to regularly organize in militias, and that thus they must defend themselves as individuals and households.

There isn't a solid argument of any kind to the contrary, and yet this topic keeps being drudged up whenever some lunatic goes on a killing spree, as if tacking on a few years along with his multiple life sentences would have finally been enough to deter him from murdering all those people. If anything, such a murderer will be heartened and emboldened by the knowledge that none of his honest, law-abiding victims will be able to do a thing while he kills them at his leisure and turns the gun on himself. At least such cowards may feel a bit of apprehension at the thought that they might be shot down before they can end a slew of innocent lives and die at their own hands and in their own time, and in any case, the prospect of stopping the killer literally dead in his tracks before he can wreak more havoc is worth the effort by itself.

While it's cute and chic to side with those who aren't acquainted with the real world or who lie intentionally for one agenda or another, and one certainly doesn't make many friends in the media when speaking the truth or referring to common sense and reality, it's about time the average Joe woke up and saw his rights crumbling around him. Or, we can see how things turn out when, in 50 or 100 or 200 years, this or that totalitarian regime seizes control and we have to rise up with rocks and knives less than three inches in length because our voter base thought it cosmopolitan to rid ourselves of such petty things as measures of self defense.

[47iscool]

I for one strongly disagree with liberals ideas, they are one, if not the #1 of the the USA's biggest problems. I'm not going to get too deep into what I'm saying, but the whole point of a liberal is to destroy/toss out tradition of a country. The worst part is most Americans are not aware of whats really going on in the world. I am a Christian, but even if I wasn't I still wouldn't support them, they are trying to destroy everything this country stands for. And our "president" is not happy that he lost on gun control, I got an email yesterday from WND saying that 2 hospitals in Hawaii are saying that his birth certificate was forged & they have no record of it, check WND if you want more info. If anyone gets upset, take it out on WND & not me.

[Pyriel]

Why does the discussion always have to take the express train to insurrections and dictators, though? I mean, of the measures they voted on yesterday, only two were anything close to banning/seizing guns (the assault weapons ban and magazine size restriction). Of the others, two of the measures were a change to what constitutes a "record" that has to be reported to the NICS system for background checks, and at least one of those also placed greater restrictions on sales and transfers being carried out by people not licensed to deal in firearms. Another other two were concealed-carry reciprocity, which makes your permit work a bit like a driver's license when you go to another state that permits concealed-carry, and something about protecting the 2nd amendment rights of veterans and their families. I couldn't even figure out the point of that one from the Senate records. Neither of those were gun control in the sense of reducing access.

Are the expanded background checks and strictures on sales part of the "government overreach" package, or can those be honestly discussed? Or are you saying we shouldn't have any checks or restrictions on gun ownership because those barriers are too much of a deterrent to the law-abiding, and no deterrent at all to people who are disturbed or criminal? I sort of get that putting up barriers only stops people who don't know how to tunnel past them, but that doesn't mean the barriers are completely useless and only stop or slow down honest people.

My big problem with this whole debate is that most of the data you can get for it is either suspect from the beginning (Kleck and most of the other Defensive Gun Use surveys), or doesn't really cover our situation well (look at Britain's gun violence statistics!).

[Lazy Bastard]

I have no problem with gun registration (why have gun shows been exempt from these laws in the first place?), and indeed several of the topics of discussion are legitimate topics to discuss. The problem comes when we begin to restrict the capacity of magazines, restrict gun ownership to one or two firearms per person, restrict concealed carry (not on the table in this case), and so forth. The majority of politicians pushing gun control in these limited senses are also the same politicians pushing much harsher gun control laws in other discussions and venues. These are merely stepping stones for them.

As for the comparison with Britain, which is always dragged out and dusted off as an argument, Britain had very few firearms to begin with and instituted such laws early in the history of widespread personal gun ownership, not after the entire nation was awash with weapons, as the United States is. Moreover, their history has been one of their rulers imposing tyranny on other nations, and only occasionally on the people of Britain itself, whereas our short history, especially if one includes that of North America in general, has until recently been a sequence of one imperial power or another imposing or attempting to impose its will, either via external channels or internal subversion (not to mention the fairly recent massive Soviet infiltration of our federal government in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, and 60s). Britain hasn't had even the hint of a sudden, unwanted regime change since almost 100 years before the United States was born (although Trotsky admittedly met with mild success in convincing a bunch of British sailors to turn Communist and attempt an overthrow, which was fortunately cut short when Stalin convinced fellow Communists in Russia that Trotsky was a traitor, forcing Trotsky to return and defend himself in Russia). Thus the people of Britain don't suffer the same nagging reminder that one day, they may need to have some leverage with their leadership.

[Pyriel]

I tend to only care what's on the table at present. If somebody wants to expand background checks, and I think that's worthwhile, it doesn't matter much to me if they're talking confiscation elsewhere. I'll be wary of them, but it legitimately pisses me off that we can't seem to accomplish anything, even something the bulk of gun owners are OK with, because Dianne Feinstein is kind of bonkers.

My parenthetical on Britain was an example of an argument that doesn't really track, in case that wasn't clear. I appreciate the history lesson, but I wasn't trotting out or anything.

In general I agree with the pro-gun side. My problem is that I know a lot of people who are a bit, well, nuts who can pass a background check and a concealed carry examination (whatever that entails in a given state). I mean I know one guy who stockpiles ammo and guns, and thinks he'll be the Duke of the Eastern Seaboard when Obama inevitably crashes the country, because he has a generator. Naturally everyone will bow down and pay tribute to him and his militia so they can charge their cell phones or something. I only had a brief association with him years ago, in person anyway, so I can't claim to know what goes on in his head. I guess the pro-gun side has its Feinstein's too. They disturb me in sort of the way someone trying to legislate background checks, but who talks handgun restrictions in interviews, probably bugs you.

[Lazy Bastard]

Reasonable enough. Apologies for misunderstanding your mention of Britain as apparently the exact opposite of your intention

As I mentioned above, I agree with legitimate background checks for firearm purchases and concealed carry permits (if you're legally insane or have a history of violence, you shouldn't be allowed to carry around a gun), and yes, there are nutcases on both sides, just as there are on both sides disingenuous people with other agendas in mind than merely the welfare of the people.

All that said, while proper documentation and verification of sanity and legality are certainly called for, these measures must not impede gun ownership for sane, law-abiding citizens, and the concept of reducing or removing gun ownership in general is completely out of the question. Since such a path will not lead to any improvement alluded to, it's either being used as an issue because there are too few legitimate issues for the far-left to rally to, or because disarming law-abiding citizens is desirable for some other reason. While I don't have any concerns that the Obama administration is going to turn into an actual analogue of Soviet Russia (it would take a longer, slower process to accomplish such a thing in the United States), claims by a few far-right demagogues to that effect notwithstanding, it is worth noting that the Democratic Party traditionally aims for more and more reliance by the people on large government, and less and less self-reliance by citizens. Taking away any means by the citizenry to defend itself is certainly along those lines, and albeit far-fetched at the moment, the thought of self-reliant citizens able to assert themselves with force if necessary is likely none too comforting to those intent on trampling the Constitution whenever possible. Several Democratic Supreme Court Justices of late have made it clear that they have no interest in the Constitution or the Bills of Rights, and consider them dated documents that should be revised to meet the times (in other words, that citizens' rights should be reduced).

It bears pointing out that I hold no personal malice toward liberals or democrats in general, with regard to non-politicians (and even many politicians); they are usually well-meaning people who are merely misguided. However, the leading elements in far-left politics are not misguided; they're generally highly intelligent, Ivy League intellectuals. The right-wing assertion that such men and women are merely out of touch with the real world and thus simply naive is not sufficient to explain their actions (up until the 1960's, the "left" nearly bodily supported Communism and the Soviet Union, sheltering known spies while smearing their accusers in the press, etc). In my book, many of them are plainly treasonous.

To round out this post, I'll add that I'm unimpressed with the majority of Republican politicians as well, particularly the neocons and their ilk. Big government Republicans and those who prostrate themselves and the people to whatever makes Israel happy at a given moment are making even the alternative to the Democratic party uninviting. With the exception of a few good men and women representing the true cause of the people, the only thing the Republic Party has going for it is, "We're not as bad as the Democrats".

[Pyriel]

It bears pointing out that I hold no personal malice toward liberals or democrats in general, with regard to non-politicians (and even many politicians); they are usually well-meaning people who are merely misguided.

I assume you have specific issues in mind, or you mean certain people on this particular topic. As a generalization, this is the kind of condescending statement that sets people off rather than easing their minds. I hear that kind of thing a lot from people who worry about Ivory Tower Intellectuals looking down on them for their lack of PhDs, and then they just as easily dismiss everyone who disagrees with them for similarly shaky reasons. "Good-hearted, water-head liberal", isn't much of an improvement on "traitorous pinko", if you ask me.

[Lazy Bastard]

"Misguided" does not mean "water-head". Moreover, what you are describing is the essence of any debate: if Person A believes he is right, and Person B holds the opposite belief, then Person A inescapably believes that Person B is misguided (unless he believes that Person B is being outright deceptive). Saying that one who holds an opposite belief to yours is misguided is not insulting; it is an extension of the statement that you disagree with that person. The reason it is even enunciated above is to provide contrast to the alternative, namely that the average (Democrat) Joe is intentionally being deceptive (which does not apply to the vast majority, as far as I'm aware).

As you mentioned, my statement is a generalization, and like all generalizations, is concerned with the majority, bearing implicitly that there are always exceptions. For example, there are many Republicans who are nearly Democrats, but hold one or two views that would not be acceptable in the Democratic Party, or vice versa. Party lines are annoying in this regard, and I certainly don't view politics as a partisan all-or-nothing affair. If I did, I would completely shun both parties. I'm certainly not proud of anyone's inability to pronounce "nuclear", and I'm not at all a religious man (although I'm glad most other people are, because it seems many are incapable of common decency without the threat of punishment looming overhead).

[Pyriel]

I tend to exaggerate at times. Although, using "misguided" as a sweeping generalization seems insulting to me. You might mean it as "mistaken", but I'm accustomed to seeing it used in ways that connote more than that. Besides which, the way you casually threw it out was a bit odd. You say it like there's no reason you can think that a person would be liberal, except when they're mistaken or misled about enough things that they're drawn away from conservatism. I don't think that's actually what you're saying, but I've been surprised enough times in the past that I feel compelled to check.

There's also a difference between being misguided on particular topics, and being misguided in general. I don't know which you mean, but it sounds like the latter. Honestly, many of the people I talk to on both sides are somehow misinformed about some of the things they like to argue about, but I don't think of them as generally misguided because they're wrong about certain topics. They might be misguided on a particular issue, and sweet geniuses everywhere else.

I'm not trying to attack you here. I just like to try to figure out people's perspectives and processes. This is more like an interview for me than anything else. You said something I didn't expect you to say, and now I'm trying to figure out how to fit something new into my concept of you.

[Lazy Bastard]

I tend to exaggerate at times. Although, using "misguided" as a sweeping generalization seems insulting to me. You might mean it as "mistaken", but I'm accustomed to seeing it used in ways that connote more than that.

Actually, I meant "misguided" in that their representative leadership and favorite media personalities had guided them incorrectly. So, "mistaken" would apply, but then I'd also have to specify that in general, they didn't get there independently, but were led there, for the most part by people who didn't really have their best interests in mind.

There's also a difference between being misguided on particular topics, and being misguided in general. I don't know which you mean, but it sounds like the latter. Honestly, many of the people I talk to on both sides are somehow misinformed about some of the things they like to argue about, but I don't think of them as generally misguided because they're wrong about certain topics. They might be misguided on a particular issue, and sweet geniuses everywhere else.

Yes, I certainly meant "misguided on particular topics". In my opinion, however, the majority of what would be considered pillars of liberal political concerns are incorrect. Hence, though I'm not implying liberal citizens are bad at carpentry or math, I am implying that they're uninformed when it comes to the government, military, economy, and other politically-driven components of life.

One particular problem concerned with this is that most people don't even really know what falls under "liberal" and what falls under "conservative" political viewpoints, as the media in general tends to over-simplify and generalize (if not outright falsify) their respective tenets. For example, you may read that liberals are strongly interested in racial and ethnic equality, and conservatives are insensitive to such issues, when in fact Republicans freed the slaves and Democrats instituted racist laws to keep them down after losing the battle to keep them enslaved. Long after slavery was abolished, the far left was virtually disinterested in racial issues until Communists keyed in to the fact that one way to cause social unrest and break down the existing ruling class in a nation is to stir up racial and ethnic discord (you may find it informative to look up the origins of the NAACP in this regard), after which the entire left gradually assumed racial equality as a cornerstone as if they had invented the idea. If that sounds incorrect, crack open a history book and really read the details.

I'm not trying to attack you here. I just like to try to figure out people's perspectives and processes. This is more like an interview for me than anything else. You said something I didn't expect you to say, and now I'm trying to figure out how to fit something new into my concept of you.

Oh, I know I wasn't attacking you (or anyone) either. I find such discussions quite enjoyable, especially when the person on the other end is highly intelligent (such as yourself).

[OldSchoolGamer]

I have a lot to say on the matter, but I've noticed that talking politics and religion online causes many arguments. So much so, that on some forums it is not allowed. So unless somebody is really curious as to what I think on the matter, I'm going to bite my tongue.

I got interested in politics a few years ago and I never would have thought that the most watched type of television programs that I watch would be cable news. I remember whenever my dad would watch such things when I was a kid, I thought it was the most boring thing in the world. Now, I find it very interesting. I only wish more people would feel the same. There are way too many Americans who are either misinformed or just don't care and that causes many problems for all of us.

[Pyriel]

One particular problem concerned with this is that most people don't even really know what falls under "liberal" and what falls under "conservative" political viewpoints, as the media in general tends to over-simplify and generalize (if not outright falsify) their respective tenets. For example, you may read that liberals are strongly interested in racial and ethnic equality, and conservatives are insensitive to such issues, when in fact Republicans freed the slaves and Democrats instituted racist laws to keep them down after losing the battle to keep them enslaved. Long after slavery was abolished, the far left was virtually disinterested in racial issues until Communists keyed in to the fact that one way to cause social unrest and break down the existing ruling class in a nation is to stir up racial and ethnic discord (you may find it informative to look up the origins of the NAACP in this regard), after which the entire left gradually assumed racial equality as a cornerstone as if they had invented the idea. If that sounds incorrect, crack open a history book and really read the details.

I am aware that this is generally an accurate picture from a historical perspective. I'm not really interested in quibbling over finer points, and I've never paid much attention to the NAACP at all. If people are talking about now, then the roles have mostly switched. You're right that a lot of people just assume that the current order has always been, so I guess they reckon Lincoln was some kind of aberration.

Maybe it's because I've been an Independent my whole life, but I don't really think either party has a bead on the issues. Nor do the collections of people who call themselves liberal or conservative or something else, but don't align with a party. Likewise, I've never met anybody who just follows a party's ideas in lockstep if they're remotely informed. I see people picking a party as wandering in a rotting desert, finding two pools, and picking the one they believe has the fewest parasites. Maybe to the uninformed, or the less cynical it looks like two lush oases.

My biggest concern is that people be right on the objective facts. If it seems like they have good facts, then I want to know their reasoning. If we disagree at that point, I just figure it's a matter of perspective (assuming they're not duplicitous). The misguided are people making decisions and concocting solutions based on bunk, or something else faulty. Like my brother complaining that the mint took the "In God We Trust" off the latest dollar coin and we had to lynch all the Demonrats come next election. "Look around the edge", I told him, and he sheepishly wandered off.

As an example, my perspective on guns is informed by my personal experience with them, which was not good. I spent my teen years in a bad neighborhood, worried about getting shot. A lot of kids I knew were the last idiots you want to give a gun. My father was the quintessential irresponsible gun owner. When I was a teenager living with him, he would talk gleefully about shooting anyone who walked up our driveway. When I was little, before he walked out, I would occasionally "play" with his guns because he left them lying around. I hate guns. I'm aware my experiences aren't the norm, so I try not to let them color my policy opinions too much. However, I'm sure they make me somewhat more sympathetic to certain ideas about gun control than I might otherwise be. On occasions where things like that factor into my opinions, it's not a matter of being misguided, unless you're using the term very loosely. A lot of my old friends are big on guns, and believe they need them to protect themselves and their families, as they remain in that neighborhood, or move to others just like it. I figure they'd have been better off going to college, or finding a trade that wasn't selling meth, and to hell with the guns.

[Lazy Bastard]

I am aware that this is generally an accurate picture from a historical perspective. I'm not really interested in quibbling over finer points, and I've never paid much attention to the NAACP at all. If people are talking about now, then the roles have mostly switched. You're right that a lot of people just assume that the current order has always been, so I guess they reckon Lincoln was some kind of aberration.

The problem is, the roles haven't switched. We're experiencing the same Democratic party that was crawling with men who virtually attempted to hand us on a platter to the Soviets at every turn half a century ago (some of them intentionally, many of them unwittingly), and they've never cared about minorities or the oppressed. These issues are tools to them, and nothing more. That is not to say that the common Democrat citizen is anything like the politicians he supports; I don't for a moment believe that. The average Republican politician is only slightly, if at all, more concerned with the welfare of ethnic minorities than his Democrat politician counterpart, but then he makes no qualms about picking favorites in the first place, which is after all the point of representing the people (as in, all the people, not just a few specific groups for a corner on their votes). In any case, as I mentioned earlier, I'm not impressed by most Republican politicians of today either, but there might not be a single current Democratic politician I approve of...there are certainly none that come to mind.

My biggest concern is that people be right on the objective facts. If it seems like they have good facts, then I want to know their reasoning. If we disagree at that point, I just figure it's a matter of perspective (assuming they're not duplicitous). The misguided are people making decisions and concocting solutions based on bunk, or something else faulty. Like my brother complaining that the mint took the "In God We Trust" off the latest dollar coin and we had to lynch all the Demonrats come next election. "Look around the edge", I told him, and he sheepishly wandered off.

I agree. The majority of the populace, regardless of political creed, is not well educated nor well informed. The solution would tend to be to inform them, but first we'd have to make them care in the first place.

As an example, my perspective on guns is informed by my personal experience with them, which was not good. I spent my teen years in a bad neighborhood, worried about getting shot. A lot of kids I knew were the last idiots you want to give a gun. My father was the quintessential irresponsible gun owner. When I was a teenager living with him, he would talk gleefully about shooting anyone who walked up our driveway. When I was little, before he walked out, I would occasionally "play" with his guns because he left them lying around. I hate guns. I'm aware my experiences aren't the norm, so I try not to let them color my policy opinions too much. However, I'm sure they make me somewhat more sympathetic to certain ideas about gun control than I might otherwise be. On occasions where things like that factor into my opinions, it's not a matter of being misguided, unless you're using the term very loosely. A lot of my old friends are big on guns, and believe they need them to protect themselves and their families, as they remain in that neighborhood, or move to others just like it. I figure they'd have been better off going to college, or finding a trade that wasn't selling meth, and to hell with the guns.

Or, they could improve their lives, get an education, secure a good job in a promising career field, and also retain their firearms. Your father, as you mentioned, was irresponsible with his guns. This really has nothing to do with whether guns should be restricted or outlawed in general, in the same way that drunk drivers don't make a good case for restricting or outlawing car ownership. We have laws against driving drunk, and we have laws against recklessly leaving firearms within reach of unsupervised children.

As a closing note (for tonight, not the discussion in entirety), since my sweeping generalizations excite you (heh, I'm just giving you a hard time, you know), I'll leave you with a few:

The overwhelming majority of white males votes Republican, and has done so almost without fail for over a century. 3/4 of all white males voted for Romney rather than Obama, despite the fact that Romney was not a particularly favored choice himself (he did have the fact that he wasn't Obama going for him, though). Incidentally, 93% of blacks voted for Obama. 71% of Hispanics voted for Obama. 73% of Asians voted for Obama. In general, Hispanics tend to vote slightly in favor of Democrats (notable exceptions being Cuban immigrants who understand how leftist regimes tend to turn out), and Asians do so as well but vary heavily according to location (Asians in LA vote majority Democrat, while those in Dallas vote majority Republican). White females, as all females, tend to vote Democrat (one sweeping generalization I can concoct is that this has something to do with Democrats fielding young, good-looking men as politicians as often as possible, and using flowery language and appealing to feelings rather than facts, but this is downright stereo-typing and thus probably only 95% correct).

Despite what the majority-leftist media will lead one to believe, it would be ridiculous to really assert that white males in general are less educated or less intelligent than their voting counterparts. To say that would be to say that the people who brought us virtually every innovation we're enjoying today suddenly became ignorant hicks within the latest 0.001% of their existence. I have pride for my people just as any man or woman of any race should have pride for his or hers, and I have no interest in short-selling our accomplishments to avoid hurting anyone's feelings. The fact that such an overwhelming majority of white males votes Republican despite the unrelenting pro-Democrat media barrage of the last few decades or more should be a wake-up call.

Democratic policies tend to hurt the position of whites while enhancing the relative positions of other racial groups. Phrases such as "Equal opportunity", and "affirmative action", are distorted to mean, "Despite the fact that you as much as anyone else are both loyal and hard-working, we're going to go beyond treating everyone equally and actually treat you unfairly, because it means we get to retain the votes of those groups we temporarily enhance, and to destroy the last bastion of resistance to the slow annihilation of what the Founding Fathers had in mind". This is accomplished more expediently by skipping the wait for whites to be outnumbered and turning white females against their own interests through whatever methods necessary. You'll notice I added "temporarily", because once whites have lost their portion of this fight, whatever is the next largest, most organized group that's interested in true freedom and accomplishment will be targeted for the same treatment (that's right Hispanics, or possibly Asians, you're voting in the people that will probably crush you in a half-century or so just as they're crushing us now). Hey, a parasitic system must have some host to suck the blood from, especially if it's going to pretend to support a slew of disparate groups and needs to find a way to throw them a bone while not actually making any money or running a legitimate economy on its own. Of course, such a thing can't last forever in that form, so once the nation has fallen apart, the whole house of cards comes crashing down, and whoever's currently holding the remaining assets quickly jumps ship to another nation. If anyone's thinking, "America could never fall", do keep in mind that our nation is very young, that many empires (essentially all) similar to ours have indeed fallen (some after nearly a millennium of operation), and that they usually fell due to either internecine strife, decadence and unwillingness to face reality and fight for existence, or both (sound familiar?). Of course, such a statement is too dramatic for the time being (since we aren't being toppled at this very moment), but it's not at all out of the question if we destroy the very reasons we created our nation in the first place, and run our government in ways that defy the very laws of human nature.

Before I fall asleep, I'll clarify that I don't believe the majority of Democratic politicians has a true interest in destroying the nation, or that there is a conscious, conspiratorial plan to do so. There are indeed various undercurrents, special interest groups, and cornucopias of agendas being pandered to and left relatively unmentioned, which could potentially be termed "conspiracies" in one way or another, but I wouldn't call them that. Democratic politicians for the most part simply think of re-election, and individual benefits of doing the bidding of this or that group in exchange for favors. This in general sounds like a good description of most Republican politicians as well, only there are a few Republicans who stand outside of this description, and in any case even the corrupt Republicans must toe a party line that demands they be at least mostly responsible, logical public servants. There is less and less difference between the two parties in terms of genuine merit as time goes by, but for the moment the Republicans still have my vote (though point in fact I do not vote simply along party lines).

[47iscool]

More from WND:

Left goes ballistic after gun defeat
'A bad day for anybody tired of watching innocent children die'

President Obama has tasted defeat, and he doesn’t like it – but he’s just one of many on the left lashing out in anger and anguish after a series of gun-control measures went down to defeat Wednesday.

The president was not exactly gracious in defeat after experiencing what Politico called his “biggest loss.”

“The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill,” Obama proclaimed shortly after the Senate vote.

“They claimed that it would create some sort of Big Brother gun registry, even though it did the opposite,” Obama insisted.

The ACLU had joined the NRA in condemning the original version of a background check bill because of fears it could lead to a national registry.

Many still harbored those fears because of a record-keeping requirement in the version of the amendment that went down to defeat Wednesday by a vote of 54 to 46. The amendment needed 60 votes to pass. It would have expanded checks to cover all firearms sales at gun shows and online.

Democrats had pinned their hopes on the background check bill because they knew measures to ban so-called assault weapons and limit ammunition magazines had no chance of success, and, indeed, those amendments also failed Wednesday.

Some liberals were inconsolable, while others were seething with rage – before, during and after the votes.

Sen. Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., scoffed, “It shows us the cowardice of the Senate.”

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., mocked supporters of Second Amendment rights by saying they were “preventing imagined tyranny.”

Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., scolded colleagues by telling senators to “show some guts,” adding, “I am really chagrined and concerned.”

It looked like Vice President Joe Biden wiped away tears after a father of a Newtown victim spoke in the Rose Garden following the defeat of the amendment.

New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg blamed “extremists.” He said, “More than 40 U.S. senators would rather turn their backs on the 90 percent of Americans who support comprehensive background checks than buck the increasingly extremist wing of the gun lobby.”

New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo blamed the same culprit, proclaiming, “The Senate’s failure to pass a bipartisan measure that is supported by the vast majority of American people is a sad statement on the power of extremists to stand in the way of reason and common sense.”

Editorial writers also saw themselves on the side of reason and common sense.

The editors at Bloomberg titled their piece, “Rural America vs. Sensible Gun Control.”

The New York Times editorial, “The Senate Fails Americans,” basically accuses senators of not caring about the deaths of Americans because “the only thing that mattered to these lawmakers was a blind and unthinking fealty to the whims of the gun lobby.”

It reads, “For 45 senators, the carnage at Sandy Hook Elementary School is a forgotten tragedy. The toll of 270 Americans who are shot every day is not a problem requiring action. The easy access to guns on the Internet, and the inevitability of the next massacre, is not worth preventing.”

The Chicago Tribune not-so-subtly called its editorial, “A Vote for Violence.”

It suggests gun-rights supporters are mentally ill, stating, “A national conversation that began with the slaughter of 20 first-graders all but ended with a paranoid debate about whether requiring background checks on gun buyers would somehow lead to the government going door to door confiscating weapons.”

Editors at the Chicago Sun Times also found poor mental health lurking behind the vote, insisting the measure was “a centerpiece of President Barack Obama’s efforts to bring sanity to the nation’s gun laws” and that it was “a bad day for anybody tired of watching innocent children die.”

The Sun Times agreed with the president in finding opponents of the measure less than truthful, opining, “Senate opponents — almost all Republicans — defended their obstinacy by saying anti-crime efforts should focus on criminals. But that was just a cover. Truth is, they were kissing the ring of the absurdly powerful National Rifle Association.”

The Los Angeles Times editors wrote, “It’s a bitter disappointment for those who thought that the nation’s collective outrage might at last bring sense to Congress.”

Dana Milbank of the Washington Post proclaimed, “Courage was in short supply at the Capitol” because “too many cowered in the face of fierce opposition.”

And an article in Rolling Stone claimed, “The victims of Tuscon (sic) and Aurora and Newtown were betrayed today. Despite having the backing of 90 percent of Americans, the push to prevent felons, cartels and the mentally ill from easily buying guns in this country was foiled by the National Rifle Association and its allies in the Senate.”

As have many others, Obama has repeatedly referred to that 90 percent statistic. It comes from a broadly worded poll in the Washington Post that asks, “Would you support or oppose a law requiring background checks on people buying guns at gun shows?” But the question did not mention anything about a record-keeping requirement of those sales, one of the main points of contention in the defeated amendment.

The Post found 90 percent of registered voters would support the proposition as worded. That poll has been used by gun-rights opponents to suggest they had the overwhelming support of Americans for stricter gun-control measures, only to be thwarted by the NRA and the gun lobby.

Obama himself claimed, ”The American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen.”

However, the most recent poll from the Associated Press, taken just days ago, found only 49 percent of Americans support stricter gun laws. That’s not far from the 46 percent of senators who voted for the background check amendment.

An article in Politico by Glenn Thrush and Reid J. Epstein suggests blame for the measure’s defeat might actually belong to Obama.

The president, they write, “broke his own informal ‘Obama Rule’ — of never leaning into an issue without a clear path to victory — first by pushing for a massive gun control package no one expected to pass, and then sticking through it even as he retrenched to a relatively modest bipartisan bill mandating national background checks on gun purchases.”

They also cite his “less-than-Johnsonian powers of personal persuasion” in trying to woo votes in the Senate.