Saturday, June 1, 2013

Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) Responds to Bloomberg's Attack Ads


The good senator is doing what a lot of defensive gun-nuts have been doing during this debate. He's pretending that the gun control folks have said expanded background checks would have prevented "Newtown, Aurora, Tucson or even Jonesboro."

What we actually do say is that expanded background checks would make it harder for unfit people to get guns. It's that simple and that's why the vast majority of people agree with it.

These superficial tricks will fool no one except the already fooled (fools).

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

25 comments:

  1. Ten Thousand YearsJune 1, 2013 at 10:40 AM

    Did you miss the letter in front of his name?

    In these uncertain times, The Party needs your continued support and much appreciated loyalty more than ever, Mikeb. We have to make do with whatever the local constituent rabble demands, regardless of what we know is right. It is better to return to fight another day, and when the moment is right -and for some states that moment was Newtown- to act decisively and end this silly debate with a right and proper solution.

    ReplyDelete
  2. So the Jade monster returns for another inane comment and sockpuppet.

    But on to the point of the article:

    We've shown you time and again how your proposals would only violate the rights of good citizens without solving the problem of gun violence. Sen. Pryor is either smart enough to know that or willing enough to keep his job to recognize that the residents of Arkansas don't want him doing what Bloomingbutt tells him to do. The same is true in most of the country.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You may be right. The backwater state of Arkansas may very well reward him for his attitude.

      Delete
    2. Backwater state? You hear that joke about New Jersey? It goes like this: Why does New Jersey have so many toxic waste dumps and Washington, D.C. so many politicians. It's because New Jersey got to pick first.

      Rimshot, crash.

      Seriously, Mikeb, this bigotry of yours gets old.

      Delete
    3. Call it bigotry if you like, but any state that would re-elect this guy merits that name. Let's see what happens in the next election. I may owe Arkansas an apology. If Pryor loses, I'm sure you'll remind me to beg forgiveness of your (hillbilly - or is it hic) state.

      Delete
    4. Pryor is a centrist Democrat, someone your side needs desperately. To assert that the rest of the country is hick or hillbilly just because we won't do what Hizzoner from New York tells us to do only shows how deeply bigoted you are.

      Delete
    5. And while we're at it, you should realize that anyone who replaces Pryor would be a Republican and thereby one seat toward having that party regain control of the Senate. In addition, you'd be hard-pressed to find a Republican in Arkansas who favors gun control.

      Delete
  3. Except you didn't try and "expand" background checks. You only tried to make selling a gun a federal felony.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Or letting your buddy handle it anywhere except Inside your home.

      Or leaving it at home for more than 7 days if you have a house sitter or roommate.

      Or...

      Delete
  4. Bloomberg's actions are quite likely to benefit Pryor. As for your proposals, it's interesting that the only ones really affected are the law abiding. Nice try, though.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. What are you talking about? Background checks prevent the unfit from buying guns legally. How is that only affecting the law abiding?

      Delete
    2. Because only the law-abiding bother with the checks. Those checks don't prevent criminals or wackos.

      Delete
    3. By creating so many new crimes around guns, you reduce the pool of law-abiding.

      Delete
    4. "Because only the law-abiding bother with the checks. Those checks don't prevent criminals or wackos."

      When reports of the millions who failed the background check came out, you jumped on the bandwagon about how so few prosecutions happened. This, you all claimed, proved the system doesn't work, while actually it proved exactly the opposite.

      Now, what are you saying, no unqualified people submit to the check?

      Make up your mind, Greg.

      Delete
    5. Are you confusing me with TS? As far as I'm concerned, the background check system is a concession to your side. I don't care if it works or not. What I am saying is that no matter how strict the check or the subsequent prosecutions are, bad people will still get guns.

      Delete
    6. "bad people will still get guns." But, not as many as do now. Why can't you concede that point and stop carefully wording your responses?

      Delete
    7. Why can't you concede that point and stop carefully wording your responses?

      Wait a second. You're criticizing Greg for "carefully wording [his] responses"? Being careful to say what you mean is somehow wrong now?

      You know what kind of person carefully words his responses? The kind of person who knows he owns his words. The kind of person who knows that when he says something unpardonably, unforgivably stupid and/or offensive, the "Well it was just hyperbole, to make a point" defense is a contemptible attempt to shirk responsibility for one's words..

      I think Greg is that kind of person, thus explaining the care he takes in what he says. There's a lesson for you in this, Mikeb, but I don't imagine you'll absorb it.

      Delete
    8. The carefully worded response in question left out something. But you knew what I meant, you were just playing dumb again, right Kurt?

      Delete
    9. The carefully worded response in question left out something. But you knew what I meant, you were just playing dumb again, right Kurt?

      Actually, I still have no idea what the hell you're talking about, and I'm starting to think that that speaks well of my intelligence and character.

      What I do know is that you demonstrate a very strong tendency to not be careful of what you say--to not wait for evidence before you draw conclusions, including conclusions that would send people to jail. I know you to say things so unpardonably offensive that when your position eventually becomes untenable, you duck it by saying it was just a "joke," or "exaggerated hyperbole to make a point" (begging the question, if the point can't be made without exaggeration, how valid a point can it be?). I've seen you complain about being confronted about what you say, instead of what you "obviously" mean (as if the vast gulf between what you said and what you meant is our fault).

      It even extends to how you apparently think about the way gun legislation is written. When you refer to bump-fire stocks, "bullet buttons," or the chunk of metal in the "Liberator" (so it won't be "undetectable"), as "sneaky ways to circumvent the law," you transfer responsibility from the legislators who are too ignorant or too careless with their wording to write laws that regulate something as completely as they want, to the people who figure out how to comply with the law without giving up as much as you and the legislators want them to.

      All of this reinforces my conclusion that you simply do not adequately respect the value of taking some care in what you say.

      Delete
    10. Kurt, I've asked you before to stop writing lengthy comments about ME. I know how you feel about me, but that's not the topic in spite of your frequent attempts at hijacking the threads to make it so.

      Delete
  5. "Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR) Responds to Bloomberg's Attack Ads"

    How is what Bloomberg doing with his ads trying to effect the upcoming election any different or more noble than what the NRA is doing with their ads?

    The Senator's job is to represent his state, and his constituients. As a politician, if he votes for an issue they oppose he deserves to be defeated in the next election. If he cant do that, he should resign.
    You can spout the 90% number all you want, but a more accurate figure would be the direct feedback he receives from the citizens in his state.

    ReplyDelete
  6. If we are to attribute loved ones of those killed at Sandy Hook, Aurora, Tucson, etc., by virtue of their tragic loss, with some kind of special authority, unique to them, regarding background checks, how could it be unfair to ask what background checks have to do with that loss?

    Only fools would object to that question.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sorry, Kurt, but I don't follow. I'm sure you're making some kind of tenuous connection to something I've said in order to slip the "fool" remark in there, but you lost me.

      Try to explain yourself without calling anybody a fool.

      Delete
    2. I'm sure you're making some kind of tenuous connection to something I've said in order to slip the "fool" remark in there, but you lost me.

      Good Lord, Mikeb, are you not aware that you, in this very blog post on which I commented, used various forms of the word "fool" three times, in one sentence?

      These superficial tricks will fool no one except the already fooled (fools).

      That's a "tenuous connection," in your version of reality?

      As for "explain[ing] [my]self," what is there to explain? If the word "fool" throws you off so much (perhaps as a consequence of your recent overuse of it?), just read the first paragraph--it's fool-free.

      Delete