Archive

The CT shooting and gun control

  • FatHobbit
    Is there any way we can see who voted for it and who voted against it?
  • wkfan
    FatHobbit;1427992 wrote:Is there any way we can see who voted for it and who voted against it?
    http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gun-control-amendment-votes-041713

    [LEFT]For:
    • Baldwin (D-WI)
    • Bennet (D-CO)
    • Blumenthal (D-CT)
    • Boxer (D-CA)
    • Brown (D-OH)
    • Cantwell (D-WA)
    • Cardin (D-MD)
    • Carper (D-DE)
    • Casey (D-PA)
    • Collins (R-ME)
    • Coons (D-DE)
    • Cowan (D-MA)
    • Donnelly (D-IN)
    • Durbin (D-IL)
    • Feinstein (D-CA)
    • Franken (D-MN)
    • Gillibrand (D-NY)
    • Hagan (D-NC)
    • Harkin (D-IA)
    • Heinrich (D-NM)
    • Hirono (D-HI)
    • Johnson (D-SD)
    • Kaine (D-VA)
    • King (I-ME)
    • Kirk (R-IL)
    • Klobuchar (D-MN)
    • Landrieu (D-LA)
    • Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    • Leahy (D-VT)
    • Levin (D-MI)
    • Manchin (D-WV)
    • McCain (R-AZ)
    • McCaskill (D-MO)
    • Menendez (D-NJ)
    • Merkley (D-OR)
    • Mikulski (D-MD)
    • Murphy (D-CT)
    • Murray (D-WA)
    • Nelson (D-FL)
    • Reed (D-RI)
    • Rockefeller (D-WV)
    • Sanders (I-VT)
    • Schatz (D-HI)
    • Schumer (D-NY)
    • Shaheen (D-NH)
    • Stabenow (D-MI)
    • Tester (D-MT)
    • Toomey (R-PA)
    • Udall (D-CO)
    • Udall (D-NM)
    • Warner (D-VA)
    • Warren (D-MA)
    • Whitehouse (D-RI)
    • Wyden (D-OR)
    Against:
    • Alexander (R-TN)
    • Ayotte (R-NH)
    • Barrasso (R-WY)
    • Baucus (D-MT)
    • Begich (D-AK)
    • Blunt (R-MO)
    • Boozman (R-AR)
    • Burr (R-NC)
    • Chambliss (R-GA)
    • Coats (R-IN)
    • Coburn (R-OK)
    • Cochran (R-MS)
    • Corker (R-TN)
    • Cornyn (R-TX)
    • Crapo (R-ID)
    • Cruz (R-TX)
    • Enzi (R-WY)
    • Fischer (R-NE)
    • Flake (R-AZ)
    • Graham (R-SC)
    • Grassley (R-IA)
    • Hatch (R-UT)
    • Heitkamp (D-ND)
    • Heller (R-NV)
    • Hoeven (R-ND)
    • Inhofe (R-OK)
    • Isakson (R-GA)
    • Johanns (R-NE)
    • Johnson (R-WI)
    • Lee (R-UT)
    • McConnell (R-KY)
    • Moran (R-KS)
    • Murkowski (R-AK)
    • Paul (R-KY)
    • Portman (R-OH)
    • Pryor (D-AR)
    • Reid (D-NV)
    • Risch (R-ID)
    • Roberts (R-KS)
    • Rubio (R-FL)
    • Scott (R-SC)
    • Sessions (R-AL)
    • Shelby (R-AL)
    • Thune (R-SD)
    • Vitter (R-LA)
    • Wicker (R-MS)
    [/LEFT]
  • fish82
    gut;1427681 wrote:CNN headline: "Obama: Opponents willfully lied"

    Said Mitt Romney: "that sucks, bro"
    LOL. Reppage.

    Once again, Obie's go-to combo of leadership fail/cry & blame others shines brightly.
  • FatHobbit
    wkfan;1428006 wrote:http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gun-control-amendment-votes-041713

    [LEFT]For:
    • Baldwin (D-WI)
    • Bennet (D-CO)
    • Blumenthal (D-CT)
    • Boxer (D-CA)
    • Brown (D-OH)
    • Cantwell (D-WA)
    • Cardin (D-MD)
    • Carper (D-DE)
    • Casey (D-PA)
    • Collins (R-ME)
    • Coons (D-DE)
    • Cowan (D-MA)
    • Donnelly (D-IN)
    • Durbin (D-IL)
    • Feinstein (D-CA)
    • Franken (D-MN)
    • Gillibrand (D-NY)
    • Hagan (D-NC)
    • Harkin (D-IA)
    • Heinrich (D-NM)
    • Hirono (D-HI)
    • Johnson (D-SD)
    • Kaine (D-VA)
    • King (I-ME)
    • Kirk (R-IL)
    • Klobuchar (D-MN)
    • Landrieu (D-LA)
    • Lautenberg (D-NJ)
    • Leahy (D-VT)
    • Levin (D-MI)
    • Manchin (D-WV)
    • McCain (R-AZ)
    • McCaskill (D-MO)
    • Menendez (D-NJ)
    • Merkley (D-OR)
    • Mikulski (D-MD)
    • Murphy (D-CT)
    • Murray (D-WA)
    • Nelson (D-FL)
    • Reed (D-RI)
    • Rockefeller (D-WV)
    • Sanders (I-VT)
    • Schatz (D-HI)
    • Schumer (D-NY)
    • Shaheen (D-NH)
    • Stabenow (D-MI)
    • Tester (D-MT)
    • Toomey (R-PA)
    • Udall (D-CO)
    • Udall (D-NM)
    • Warner (D-VA)
    • Warren (D-MA)
    • Whitehouse (D-RI)
    • Wyden (D-OR)
    Against:
    • Alexander (R-TN)
    • Ayotte (R-NH)
    • Barrasso (R-WY)
    • Baucus (D-MT)
    • Begich (D-AK)
    • Blunt (R-MO)
    • Boozman (R-AR)
    • Burr (R-NC)
    • Chambliss (R-GA)
    • Coats (R-IN)
    • Coburn (R-OK)
    • Cochran (R-MS)
    • Corker (R-TN)
    • Cornyn (R-TX)
    • Crapo (R-ID)
    • Cruz (R-TX)
    • Enzi (R-WY)
    • Fischer (R-NE)
    • Flake (R-AZ)
    • Graham (R-SC)
    • Grassley (R-IA)
    • Hatch (R-UT)
    • Heitkamp (D-ND)
    • Heller (R-NV)
    • Hoeven (R-ND)
    • Inhofe (R-OK)
    • Isakson (R-GA)
    • Johanns (R-NE)
    • Johnson (R-WI)
    • Lee (R-UT)
    • McConnell (R-KY)
    • Moran (R-KS)
    • Murkowski (R-AK)
    • Paul (R-KY)
    • Portman (R-OH)
    • Pryor (D-AR)
    • Reid (D-NV)
    • Risch (R-ID)
    • Roberts (R-KS)
    • Rubio (R-FL)
    • Scott (R-SC)
    • Sessions (R-AL)
    • Shelby (R-AL)
    • Thune (R-SD)
    • Vitter (R-LA)
    • Wicker (R-MS)
    [/LEFT]
    thank you
  • gut
    Admit it...you want to grab a gun and drive to Boston
  • tk421
    gut;1428925 wrote:Admit it...you want to grab a gun and drive to Boston
    No, but I would damn sure want a gun in my house at a time like now. People always ask why you need to be armed, this is the reason. Shelter in place, armed, and don't open the door unless it is an IDed police officer.
  • gut
    tk421;1428929 wrote:No, but I would damn sure want a gun in my house at a time like now. People always ask why you need to be armed, this is the reason. Shelter in place, armed, and don't open the door unless it is an IDed police officer.
    Basically. My comment was more political ;)
  • WebFire
    tk421;1428929 wrote:No, but I would damn sure want a gun in my house at a time like now. People always ask why you need to be armed, this is the reason. Shelter in place, armed, and don't open the door unless it is an IDed police officer.
    Reps.
  • justincredible
    tk421;1428929 wrote:No, but I would damn sure want a gun in my house at a time like now. People always ask why you need to be armed, this is the reason. Shelter in place, armed, and don't open the door unless it is an IDed police officer.
    Abso-fucking-lutely.
  • QuakerOats
    tk421;1428929 wrote:No, but I would damn sure want a gun in my house at a time like now. People always ask why you need to be armed, this is the reason. Shelter in place, armed, and don't open the door unless it is an IDed police officer.


    Wait, you think that is better than calling a dumba$$ bureaucrat at 911?
  • O-Trap
    QuakerOats;1429142 wrote:Wait, you think that is better than calling a dumba$$ bureaucrat at 911?
    Now, that's kind of harsh. Some cops are genuinely good cops.

    But even still, if you had to choose between the two options below, it's a slam dunk:

    - You with a gun present in 0 seconds.
    - Someone else with a gun there in 5-10 minutes.
  • justincredible
    Seriously, though. Just use scissors.

    http://www.nypost.com/p/news/national/shear_bravery_beats_guns_feds_d9BanDpupuVezePd6trYoM
  • HitsRus
    No, but I would damn sure want a gun in my house at a time like now. People always ask why you need to be armed, this is the reason. Shelter in place, armed, and don't open the door unless it is an IDed police officer.
    yep.

    We were talking about the very same thing in the office this AM.
  • WebFire
    Obama don't need no Senate.

    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/19/obama-taking-executive-action-on-guns-after-senate-vote/
  • FatHobbit
    I'm actually ok with making the background checks mean something. If they want to get the mental health records up to date then more power to them.
  • gut
    ccrunner609;1430321 wrote:unreal. How is this tard still in office? Just ignore the constitution and the body of elected officials that protect it.
    Disagree with it all you want, but Obama didn't invent legislating by executive order and I don't believe he's done more or less of it than his predecessors
  • WebFire
    gut;1430345 wrote:Disagree with it all you want, but Obama didn't invent legislating by executive order and I don't believe he's done more or less of it than his predecessors
    Which makes it no less wrong.
  • QuakerOats
    ccrunner609;1430321 wrote:unreal. How is this tard still in office? Just ignore the constitution and the body of elected officials that protect it.

    Yes, it is [almost] unreal. The government forbids The People from sharing health information (Hippa), but will demand it themselves when attempting to control you and exert government force. The Constitutional wall built around The People to protect The People from government tyranny is being attacked on all fronts by the radicals in this administration. It is [almost] unreal what is happening to The People by the radicals who crave complete power and control over The People. We have seen this play out on the world stage before; the masses can be fooled.
  • O-Trap
    WebFire;1430383 wrote:Which makes it no less wrong.
    Agreed, but it also shows that doing it is apparently not enough to keep someone out of office (or get the removed).

    The precedect was set before he got there.
  • WebFire
    O-Trap;1430425 wrote:Agreed, but it also shows that doing it is apparently not enough to keep someone out of office (or get the removed).

    The precedect was set before he got there.
    So you are ok with it? We should just keep letting Presidents doing this since the previous ones did?
  • Devils Advocate
    Break out the "signing statements!!!!"
  • O-Trap
    WebFire;1430431 wrote:So you are ok with it? We should just keep letting Presidents doing this since the previous ones did?
    Not at all. I'm just saying that it's not unreal. This is the status quo ... the precedent. There is nothing any more outlandish about his behavior than there has been about prior presidents' behaviors in this regard.

    So it should come as no surprise. Neither should we be blind-sided by it. In fact, we should expect it with each administration until such time as something is done to change it.
  • gut
    O-Trap;1430470 wrote:Not at all. I'm just saying that it's not unreal. This is the status quo ... the precedent. There is nothing any more outlandish about his behavior than there has been about prior presidents' behaviors in this regard.

    So it should come as no surprise. Neither should we be blind-sided by it. In fact, we should expect it with each administration until such time as something is done to change it.
    But help me out here. Executive Orders are intended to lay out/organize, or whatever you want to call it, how the POTUS will enforce the laws passed by Congress. Every LEGAL executive order must therefore have it's roots in existing law, and they do (as do Obama's). The issue, obviously, is how much leeway they take in doing so, and whether it amounts to setting new law.

    Is Obama doing and end-around here? Obviously. Is it illegal or an abuse of power? That's much more uncertain.
  • O-Trap
    gut;1430577 wrote:But help me out here. Executive Orders are intended to lay out/organize, or whatever you want to call it, how the POTUS will enforce the laws passed by Congress. Every LEGAL executive order must therefore have it's roots in existing law, and they do (as do Obama's). The issue, obviously, is how much leeway they take in doing so, and whether it amounts to setting new law.

    Is Obama doing and end-around here? Obviously. Is it illegal or an abuse of power? That's much more uncertain.
    I don't disagree with anything you've said here.
  • WebFire
    And people wonder why pro-gun people fight so hard against ANY legistation. Most anti-gun people have NO clue what they are evening trying to ban. :rolleyes:
    In an odd display of ignorance during a Denver Post forum on gun control, CO Rep. Diana DeGette (D)didn’t seem to understand the obvious basics of how firearms work, all the while being a lead sponsor on a federal ban of high-capacity magazines. As you can see in the video above, the Congresswomen seems to think magazines and ammunition are somehow one and the same and that after their initial use will no longer exist.

    “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.”
    http://www.guns.com/2013/04/03/lead-sponsor-of-federal-high-capacity-ban-was-unaware-magazines-could-be-reloaded-video/