You mean that Senator Flake realized that supporting basic rights will let him keep his job. Mikeb, you go on and on about public opinion, except when it disagrees with you.
Since the flake comes from a flakey state, I suppose he'll be re-elected no problem. But don't you find that letter he wrote a bit troublesome? Or is your allegiance to pro-gun politicians completely blind.
No, I don't, and no, it isn't. A person can agree that the background check system needs to be improved without supporting the proposed bill. Supporting a good background check system doesn't mean having to support every ill-conceived, knee-jerk idea that pops up.
[Puerile name jokes and regional bigotry], I suppose he'll be re-elected no problem. But don't you find that letter he wrote a bit troublesome?
It's "troublesome" for me in that I don't believe Congress should be in favor of "strengthening background checks" (or even keeping them in existence at all).
I am intelligent enough to know, though, that no evidence has been provided that he lied. Supporting the general idea of "strengthening background checks" does not mean one supports any one particular approach to it--and the Manchin-Toomey legislation was badly flawed, even beyond the irreparable problems of the very principle of background check requirements.
That will be the true test of the 90% figure that the pro-gun control side keeps repeating. Just as every constituient has the right to let their senator know where they stand, and if he breaks a promise he made, they can vote for the other guy, or perhaps just not vote for him. An honorable man, though maybe not a politician would be obligated to explain his vote to his constituents. Keep in mind that the bill would have no effect on the shooting in Aurora since James Holmes purchased all three guns used legally from gun stores and underwent the required background checks.
You mean that Senator Flake realized that supporting basic rights will let him keep his job. Mikeb, you go on and on about public opinion, except when it disagrees with you.
ReplyDeleteSince the flake comes from a flakey state, I suppose he'll be re-elected no problem. But don't you find that letter he wrote a bit troublesome? Or is your allegiance to pro-gun politicians completely blind.
DeleteNo, I don't, and no, it isn't. A person can agree that the background check system needs to be improved without supporting the proposed bill. Supporting a good background check system doesn't mean having to support every ill-conceived, knee-jerk idea that pops up.
Delete[Puerile name jokes and regional bigotry], I suppose he'll be re-elected no problem. But don't you find that letter he wrote a bit troublesome?
DeleteIt's "troublesome" for me in that I don't believe Congress should be in favor of "strengthening background checks" (or even keeping them in existence at all).
I am intelligent enough to know, though, that no evidence has been provided that he lied. Supporting the general idea of "strengthening background checks" does not mean one supports any one particular approach to it--and the Manchin-Toomey legislation was badly flawed, even beyond the irreparable problems of the very principle of background check requirements.
That will be the true test of the 90% figure that the pro-gun control side keeps repeating. Just as every constituient has the right to let their senator know where they stand, and if he breaks a promise he made, they can vote for the other guy, or perhaps just not vote for him. An honorable man, though maybe not a politician would be obligated to explain his vote to his constituents.
DeleteKeep in mind that the bill would have no effect on the shooting in Aurora since James Holmes purchased all three guns used legally from gun stores and underwent the required background checks.