Have these elitists ever heard of balance, of letting all sides get a voice? This is a circle jerk of control freaks, and it will be fun to listen to their moaning in 2014 when politicians who voted for gun rights will be re-elected.
I thought they made a good point that some of these Republicans are in safe places where they will be reelected, but not all. I can't wait to see. I think your side will lose some ground in the next two elections over this issue and then things will change.
Mikeb, what you fail to realize is that the people who care about the issue of guns are primarily those who support gun rights. Can't you see that Bloomingbutt and the whole gun control circus tried to stir up a hue and cry for a bill, but their efforts failed? I'm saying that happened because voters flooded the offices of senators with demands to vote against gun control. I certainly did that with Mark Pryor. He's a Democrat and was being squishy on the question. I doubt I was alone in what I sent.
The primary motivation of a politician is to remain in power. The senators who voted against gun control want to be re-elected. If they got a majority of messages in favor of new restrictions, many of them would have voted that way. Their votes, by and large, tell us what the mood of citizens is.
I talked to folks at one of my Senators' office today. Apparently, their phones rang off the hook for the past few months, overwhelmingly in support of the Second Amendment. Only after the vote did the pro gun control people get riled up enough to make calls for a day or two, but it's already dying off.
If you couldn't get people riled up enough to call and support the bills before they came up for a vote, then you're not going to be able to motivate them to vote, based on this issue, over a year down the road.
Either these lazy folks will have forgotten by then, or the media and president will make it a big issue, declare the Republican defeat inevitable, and they'll be too lazy to go vote, just as they were too lazy to call when it would have made a difference; after all, it's inevitable--other folks will go to the polls and carry the day.
Greg, I agree the primary goal of a politician is to remain in power. But, some of these guys faced a dilemma: do the bidding of the gun lobby or do what the majority of their constituents wanted. For some it was a close call to determine which is the best way to remain in power.
T., Apathy is the enemy of the gun control movement, no question.
Mikeb, again you repeat your error. Their constituents want gun rights protected. I recognize that a majority of voters in a handful of states want to be controlled. Why can't you recognize that a majority of voters in the rest of the country don't? And don't give me any bullshit about some poll that claims 90% or whatever the current number is. Polls like that leave out a lot of detail, and the results fluctuate wildly.
If it was so patently wrong or offensive to vote "no", why didn't anyone ask those senators why they voted no? It was a golden opportunity to illustrate how "backwards" they are ... unless their explanation illustrates that the bill was a really bad idea.
Here is one reason why several senators voted "no". If that bill had become law, the following activity would be criminal: two friends share their guns at a target range. That's correct. Each would be guilty of a felony for "transferring" their firearm to the other person without a background check. There were other, equally asinine scenarios as well that would have made felons out of people in common situations where no one intends to harm anyone or commit any crimes.
Have these elitists ever heard of balance, of letting all sides get a voice? This is a circle jerk of control freaks, and it will be fun to listen to their moaning in 2014 when politicians who voted for gun rights will be re-elected.
ReplyDeleteI thought they made a good point that some of these Republicans are in safe places where they will be reelected, but not all. I can't wait to see. I think your side will lose some ground in the next two elections over this issue and then things will change.
DeleteMikeb, what you fail to realize is that the people who care about the issue of guns are primarily those who support gun rights. Can't you see that Bloomingbutt and the whole gun control circus tried to stir up a hue and cry for a bill, but their efforts failed? I'm saying that happened because voters flooded the offices of senators with demands to vote against gun control. I certainly did that with Mark Pryor. He's a Democrat and was being squishy on the question. I doubt I was alone in what I sent.
DeleteThe primary motivation of a politician is to remain in power. The senators who voted against gun control want to be re-elected. If they got a majority of messages in favor of new restrictions, many of them would have voted that way. Their votes, by and large, tell us what the mood of citizens is.
I talked to folks at one of my Senators' office today. Apparently, their phones rang off the hook for the past few months, overwhelmingly in support of the Second Amendment. Only after the vote did the pro gun control people get riled up enough to make calls for a day or two, but it's already dying off.
DeleteIf you couldn't get people riled up enough to call and support the bills before they came up for a vote, then you're not going to be able to motivate them to vote, based on this issue, over a year down the road.
Either these lazy folks will have forgotten by then, or the media and president will make it a big issue, declare the Republican defeat inevitable, and they'll be too lazy to go vote, just as they were too lazy to call when it would have made a difference; after all, it's inevitable--other folks will go to the polls and carry the day.
Greg, I agree the primary goal of a politician is to remain in power. But, some of these guys faced a dilemma: do the bidding of the gun lobby or do what the majority of their constituents wanted. For some it was a close call to determine which is the best way to remain in power.
DeleteT., Apathy is the enemy of the gun control movement, no question.
Mikeb, again you repeat your error. Their constituents want gun rights protected. I recognize that a majority of voters in a handful of states want to be controlled. Why can't you recognize that a majority of voters in the rest of the country don't? And don't give me any bullshit about some poll that claims 90% or whatever the current number is. Polls like that leave out a lot of detail, and the results fluctuate wildly.
DeleteYes, because responding to what your constituents demand is the first step toward extinction.
ReplyDeleteYou really have turned sarcastic.
DeleteIf telling the truth is sarcasm, let's have lots more.
DeleteIf it was so patently wrong or offensive to vote "no", why didn't anyone ask those senators why they voted no? It was a golden opportunity to illustrate how "backwards" they are ... unless their explanation illustrates that the bill was a really bad idea.
ReplyDeleteHere is one reason why several senators voted "no". If that bill had become law, the following activity would be criminal: two friends share their guns at a target range. That's correct. Each would be guilty of a felony for "transferring" their firearm to the other person without a background check. There were other, equally asinine scenarios as well that would have made felons out of people in common situations where no one intends to harm anyone or commit any crimes.
Of course no one talks about the actual details.
Where have you been? Everyone's been talking about the actual details.
DeleteBut, that's not why they voted no. Greg said it above. Their only concern was to stay in power. Some may have miscalculated.
In this case, doing what's right and doing what their constituents want is the same thing, and the majority in the Senate did just that.
Delete