PDA

View Full Version : MHC reneges on no AWB pledge


yellowfin
04-07-2009, 9:41 AM
http://briefingroom.thehill.com/2009/04/07/pelosi-pledges-compromise-on-assault-weapons-ban/
April 7, 2009
Pelosi pledges compromise on assault weapons ban
@ 10:29 am by Michael O'Brien

The ball is in Congress's court to craft a compromise in reinstating regulations on assault weapons, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) acknowledged Tuesday.

During an interview on ABC's "Good Morning America," Pelosi said that the Congress will work to find some middle ground between the previous ban, which expired in 2004, and the precedent laid by the Supreme Court in a ruling enumerating more concrete gunowners' rights last term.

"We have to find some level of compromise," Pelosi said, citing 53 victims of gun violence nationwide in less than a month. "And we have to rid the debate of the misconceptions people have about what gun safety means."

"Yes, it is," the Speaker said when asked if the ball is in Congress's court now that Democrats control the White House. "And we are just going to have to work together to come to some resolution."

Pelosi indicated that new regulations might entail registration and prohibitions on transporting some firearms across state lines.

The Speaker also expressed displeasure at the attachment of a gun rights provision to legislation that would grant Washington, D.C. a voting member of Congress.

"Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That's a civil rights issue," she said, pledging to find "middle ground" on the issue. "And, yet, they want to put a gun…bill, attach that to that. I don't — I don't think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House."

AJAX22
04-07-2009, 9:55 AM
so much for prices coming down

burl broderick
04-07-2009, 10:54 AM
.

"That's a civil rights issue", she said.

That's right, Nancy, just like the Second Amendment.

deleted by PC police
04-07-2009, 10:59 AM
That woman makes me sick. Tieing a gun bill to something is horrible but what kindof crap has she and her clan tied to bills.

bwiese
04-07-2009, 11:06 AM
It won't happen.
This is just puff drama.
Little thing called Heller getting in the way.

deleted by PC police
04-07-2009, 11:08 AM
It won't happen.
This is just puff drama.
Little thing called Heller getting in the way.

There's a whole lot of people that don't share your confidence.

kermit315
04-07-2009, 11:10 AM
"Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That's a civil rights issue," she said, pledging to find "middle ground" on the issue. "And, yet, they want to put a gun…bill, attach that to that. I don't — I don't think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House."

lets see: DC isnt a state, so they dont get a vote, as per the Constitution.

She is right, she shouldnt attatch a gun bill to that, because there shouldnt be a gun bill in the first place.

Hopefully this gets smacked down quicker than the shamwow guys hooker.

Trader Jack
04-07-2009, 11:13 AM
It won't happen.
This is just puff drama.
Little thing called Heller getting in the way.

Yeh Bill Two weeks, just Two more weeks:mad:

shooting4life
04-07-2009, 11:14 AM
There's a whole lot of people that don't share your confidence.

Like me.

The middle ground she talks about is having a national AWB that is just like our current one. Time to buy stock in MM grips and bullet buttons.

trashman
04-07-2009, 11:22 AM
There's a whole lot of people that don't share your confidence.

I think the longer view is what's needed here. Even if a new AWB is passed by Congress and signed by the President, don't you think it will be immediately challenged in court?

If you were the anti-gun lobby, would you really want to risk your anti-gun legislation being thumped by the SCOTUS in its current makeup?

--Neill

yellowfin
04-07-2009, 11:24 AM
It won't happen.
This is just puff drama.
Little thing called Heller getting in the way.
When you get an indication they care about the limitations put upon them by Constitution itself, let alone a recent interpretation of its meaning that halfway retracts itself, let me know. I won't hold my breath for even a fraction of a second.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-07-2009, 11:26 AM
It's just good timing for Pelosi to build her poitical capital due to all the news lately on the shootings. She knows in all truthfulness that trying for even AW registration and limits on transportation will get her little to no where, an dif anything, in this economy, the general public is more worried about their own safety and thus owning a gun than letting her get her way with bans and such.

deleted by PC police
04-07-2009, 11:26 AM
I think the longer view is what's needed here. Even if a new AWB is passed by Congress and signed by the President, don't you think it will be immediately challenged in court?

If you were the anti-gun lobby, would you really want to risk your anti-gun legislation being thumped by the SCOTUS in its current makeup?

--Neill

I don't think they think that far ahead.

scottj
04-07-2009, 11:28 AM
Who is MHC?

yellowfin
04-07-2009, 11:30 AM
Who is MHC?
Madame Hell Creature, more frequently referred to as Pelosi.

w55
04-07-2009, 11:33 AM
56 dead from shootings, anyone know what the death rate per day is in the US from all causes? Maybe put that number in perspective a bit.

Untamed1972
04-07-2009, 11:46 AM
56 dead from shootings, anyone know what the death rate per day is in the US from all causes? Maybe put that number in perspective a bit.


I would hazard a guess that more people get stabbed or beaten to death every month then get shot.

And even though the AWB was a dismal failure.....hey lets do it again cuz it makes it look we're trying to do something! Gotta love the political mindset....don't just stand there, do something even if you already tried it and it didn't work.....try it again! :thumbsup:

Insanity = doing the same over and over again each time expecting a different result.

Hmmmm lets do the math: If disarming people and making gun laws stricter has increased crime, then wouldn't the logical thing to try be arm people and loosen gun laws for law abiding people?

It seems so simple!

Pvt. Cowboy
04-07-2009, 11:54 AM
It won't happen.
This is just puff drama.
Little thing called Heller getting in the way.

Well, if the case is revisited at SCOTUS -- and it undoubtedly will be -- at least the 'common usage' phrase in Scalia's majority opinion should protect AR15s specifically.

I don't see how the AR can be in more common usage than it already is, what with every AR manufacturer running three shifts trying to get merchandise out the door to fulfill a backlog of hundreds of thousands of customer orders totaling tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

Pretty soon, the AR15 platform will be in more common usage than the lever-action .30-30, if it's not already. I can't see how it could be argued otherwise, but the anti-gunners will say anything to the contrary no matter how stupid it sounds under any level of scrutiny.

Basically, the modern AR has become the Winchester Model 1894. There are so many ARs out there now that even if a complete ban were to take place, perfectly functional ARs will be turning up in the next century long after everyone reading this post will be dead and gone.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-07-2009, 11:58 AM
Well, if the case is revisited at SCOTUS -- and it undoubtedly will be -- at least the 'common usage' phrase in Scalia's majority opinion should protect AR15s specifically.

I don't see how the AR can be in more common usage than it already is, what with every AR manufacturer running three shifts trying to get merchandise out the door to fulfill a backlog of hundreds of thousands of customer orders totaling tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars.

Pretty soon, the AR15 platform will be in more common usage than the lever-action .30-30, if it's not already. I can't see how it could be argued otherwise, but the anti-gunners will say anything to the contrary no matter how stupid it sounds under any level of scrutiny.

Basically, the modern AR has become the Winchester Model 1894. There are so many ARs out there now that even if a complete ban were to take place, perfectly functional ARs will be turning up in the next century long after everyone reading this post will be dead and gone.

Good observation. I like the comparison to the Win 94, a long time standard of a "common usage" gun.

gd-bh
04-07-2009, 12:06 PM
56 dead from shootings, anyone know what the death rate per day is in the US from all causes? Maybe put that number in perspective a bit.

Don't know about all causes, but they released the 2008 auto fatality rates yesterday..about 100 people a DAY are killed by those evil cars (of all colors, but I'm sure the black ones are especially bad).

Thus more people die in 12 hours from cars than did all month from a couple high visibility incidents by some very insane people.

But why confuse any politician with facts when they have a personal crusade to mount?

7x57
04-07-2009, 12:54 PM
Basically, the modern AR has become the Winchester Model 1894.

What I find most amusing about that is that I think quite a bit of the popularity is directly attributable to the original AW ban. Books get sold by banning them too.

7x57

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 1:51 PM
What I find most amusing about that is that I think quite a bit of the popularity is directly attributable to the original AW ban. Books get sold by banning them too.

7x57

Like Huckleberry Finn?

IGOTDIRT4U
04-07-2009, 1:52 PM
Like Huckleberry Finn?

I was hoping it wasn't Mein Kampf!

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 2:01 PM
I was hoping it wasn't Mein Kampf!

that book is pretty cool read it in high school for AP History.

X-NewYawker
04-07-2009, 2:10 PM
It won't happen.
This is just puff drama.
Little thing called Heller getting in the way.

Heller will only stop a complete gun prohibition (until a NEW ruling) these people have been working on this for 50 years. They will not stop trying because of one ruling --
they'll ban every black plastic stocked rifle and let us keep M1-Garands -
"see? We didn't ban all Military semi-autos."


next time lets not vote for the people who hate us, okay?

G17GUY
04-07-2009, 2:26 PM
If DC gets a vote on the house floor does that mean the calguns foundation gets one as well??

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 2:47 PM
If DC gets a vote on the house floor does that mean the calguns foundation gets one as well??

what about guam and puerto rico. OH and don't forget the virgiin isles.

7x57
04-07-2009, 2:55 PM
If DC gets a vote on the house floor does that mean the calguns foundation gets one as well??

"There is no native American criminal class--except for congress." -- Mark Twain

If we accept that criminals who break laws professionally will not be stopped by *another* law (i.e. gun control), then why would we believe that congressmen who break the supreme law of the land professionally will be stopped by *another* constitutional provision?

DC voting is unconstitutional, period, end of story, but frankly congress doesn't care a bit and I'm not entirely sure the courts do either.

7x57

b.faust
04-07-2009, 2:58 PM
For a quick comparison I went over to NHTSA and checked their stats on how many people are killed by drunk drivers per year.

The most recent stats are from 2007
12,998 people killed in "alcohol-impaired driving crashes"
42,708 Total traffic fatalities.

[Link: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811016.PDF ]

If someone could find firearm related deaths for that year to compare, that'd be interesting.

B.

CHS
04-07-2009, 3:12 PM
"Right now, we have the debate in Congress over the District of Columbia wanting a vote on the floor of the House, something we all want. That's a civil rights issue," she said, pledging to find "middle ground" on the issue. "And, yet, they want to put a gun…bill, attach that to that. I don't — I don't think that that should be the price to pay to have a vote on the floor of the House."

Wow.. A right enshrined into the Bill of Rights by the Constitution isn't a civil rights issue?

chris
04-07-2009, 3:17 PM
It won't happen.
This is just puff drama.
Little thing called Heller getting in the way.

i call BS it will happen. i have no faith in the Congress nor any so called Pro Gun Democrats so far they have proven nothing to me other than to bend over for Pelosi. AWB 2.0 is coming thank you gun owners who voted for BHO.:mad:

sorry bill i do not share your optomism on this.

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 3:30 PM
i call BS it will happen. i have no faith in the Congress nor any so called Pro Gun Democrats so far they have proven nothing to me other than to bend over for Pelosi. AWB 2.0 is coming thank you gun owners who voted for BHO.:mad:

sorry bill i do not share your optomism on this.

do you really think that if ALL Gun owners had vote form Mccain he would have won? Were you up on Nov. 4 it was a landslide.

deleted by PC police
04-07-2009, 3:30 PM
For a quick comparison I went over to NHTSA and checked their stats on how many people are killed by drunk drivers per year.

The most recent stats are from 2007
12,998 people killed in "alcohol-impaired driving crashes"
42,708 Total traffic fatalities.

[Link: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/Pubs/811016.PDF ]

If someone could find firearm related deaths for that year to compare, that'd be interesting.

B.

I don't have them here but the CDC publishes a death statistics. Firearm deaths are around 30k a year including suicides, justifiable homicides, murders and terroist actions.

7x57
04-07-2009, 3:37 PM
Wow.. A right enshrined into the Bill of Rights by the Constitution isn't a civil rights issue?

There is no contradiction--it is precisely the same reasoning. You simply have to work out what the reasoning is to see the consistency. The left believes that texts do not have enduring, objective meanings, only reader responses (or, often, that such meanings may exist but are entirely opaque and unknowable, and thus of no practical significance). Which readers? The leading edge of the antithesis, of course, the philosopher kings. The philosopher kings respond well to DC representation, a case which is illegal, so the Constitution must not stand in the way of their response no matter what words it might contain. They respond poorly to the Second Amendment, so once again the Constitution must not stand in the way of their response no matter what words it might contain. The pattern is the same: the textual meaning is to be ignored, the consensual preference of the left is to be obeyed.

That is why gun rights is significant far beyond simply guns. It just happens to be the front line of the cultural war between people who believe that there is no reality beyond an evolving consensus (which always ends up being the consensus of the kind of intellectual oligarchy Plato described, not the people whom socialists regard as not fit for anything beyond mindless obedience) and those who believe along with the authors of the Constitution and in fact every thinker up until (perhaps) the nineteenth century that texts have enduring, objective meanings which can be determined.

In other words: if we lose on the 2A the Constitution will have no meaning at all. If we win, then we at least have a license to continue fighting for the *full* meaning of the Constitution.

7x57

X-NewYawker
04-07-2009, 3:42 PM
I tell you, people don't realize, or are too stupid to admit:

the left doesn't want us to have ANY guns. none. They'll be happy to take them one at a time. They want us BROKE and defenseless because they are so guilty that we have such a great life in America and so many places in the world SUCK.

yellowfin
04-07-2009, 4:08 PM
do you really think that if ALL Gun owners had vote form Mccain he would have won? Were you up on Nov. 4 it was a landslide. 4% is a landslide? A pile of grass clippings must be Mount Everest from your perspective.

IGOTDIRT4U
04-07-2009, 4:11 PM
4% is a landslide? A pile of grass clippings must be Mount Everest from your perspective.

I was just gonna say...

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 5:02 PM
I was just gonna say...

365-173 Electoral? i believe 375 is the "official landslide" but who's counting.

And yess 4% is a lot even presidents projected to win get less than that.

oh and did 3rd party voters and Democrat Gun owners make up that 4%?

7x57
04-07-2009, 5:02 PM
do you really think that if ALL Gun owners had vote form Mccain he would have won? Were you up on Nov. 4 it was a landslide.

That's not what I recall, though the Democratic-party media sure tried to portray it that way (because they were already campaigning for the Democratic platform before the new congress was even seated). In fact Republican turnout was down, and if it had been normal I seem to remember it would have been just about a dead heat. The winner-take-all system can make a very narrow popular vote into a much larger electoral gap, but likewise a small change in the right places can make that gap vanish.

Living in California, you tend to forget how America votes.

7x57

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 5:12 PM
That's not what I recall, though the Democratic-party media sure tried to portray it that way (because they were already campaigning for the Democratic platform before the new congress was even seated). In fact Republican turnout was down, and if it had been normal I seem to remember it would have been just about a dead heat. The winner-take-all system can make a very narrow popular vote into a much larger electoral gap, but likewise a small change in the right places can make that gap vanish.

Living in California, you tend to forget how America votes.

7x57
you mean voting like this, its what happens when when you get a star vs. a putz.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=17

7x57
04-07-2009, 5:41 PM
you mean voting like this, its what happens when when you get a star vs. a putz.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/maps/obama_vs_mccain/?map=17

Good times. :)

7x57

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 6:09 PM
Good times. :)

7x57

indeed :)

i not sure if we'll ever get elections like that again for either side. one of the parties just have to be beaten within a inch of their lives. I don't the Republican party is there. (yet)

yellowfin
04-07-2009, 6:30 PM
The great Will Rogers once replied when asked of his political affiliation "I'm not a member of any organized political party- I'm a democrat." I'd bet a thousand bucks he'd say that of the opposite party if he were here today.

M. Sage
04-07-2009, 6:50 PM
Were you up on Nov. 4 it was a landslide.

I called it disgusting and horrifying, but now we're just arguing semantics.

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 7:22 PM
I called it disgusting and horrifying, but now we're just arguing semantics.

yea but democracy has its pro & cons just like anything else.

Riodog
04-07-2009, 7:44 PM
So what the hell does "MHC" stand for??? Why can't we knock off with the BS initials?
Rio

SkatinJJ
04-07-2009, 7:47 PM
Madame Hell Creature, more frequently referred to as Pelosi.

MHC...

I didn't know this until I saw this

P.S.
The initial makes it a bit more fun for those of us interested in mystery.
http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/skatijj/heavens-gate.jpg (http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/skatijj/heavens-gate.jpg) http://i297.photobucket.com/albums/mm227/skatijj/MHC.jpg
separated at birth???

Paladin
04-07-2009, 8:01 PM
I, for one, am totally impressed by what the Dems pulled off. Since no one else pointed it out, I'll mention that the Dems are perfectly following the political playbook I laid out about 1 1/2 years ago:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=43951

My guess is that Soros helped behind the scenes since hedge fund managers were behind the drive of oil up from $100 to $140/barrel last year. That pushed many over-extenders to start defaulting on their junk (aka "subprime") mortgages, credit card payments and everything else. That caused a slow financial meltdown to turn into an inferno that made voters desperate for a political savior, for "Change."

RomanDad
04-07-2009, 8:57 PM
I, for one, am totally impressed by what the Dems pulled off. Since no one else pointed it out, I'll mention that the Dems are perfectly following the political playbook I laid out about 1 1/2 years ago:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=43951

My guess is that Soros helped behind the scenes since hedge fund managers were behind the drive of oil up from $100 to $140/barrel last year. That pushed many over-extenders to start defaulting on their junk (aka "subprime") mortgages, credit card payments and everything else. That caused a slow financial meltdown to turn into an inferno that made voters desperate for a political savior, for "Change."

I agree with one point.... If anybody ever really bothers to do a postmortem of the 2008 Meltdown, they will find George Soros prints all over it.... If nothing else, he openly shorted the dollar (like he did with the pound a decade earlier, crushing the British Economy in the process) and THAT weakness in the dollar is one of the MAIN reasons oil prices shot up to the levels they did, (both because of the reduction of the amount of oil a dollar would buy, and the coinciding flight from the dollar to commodities including oil as a a hedge against inflation) causing the cascading effects you point out.

In terms of the AWB, Heller will hopefully REVERSE IT at some point if its passed (and some key members of the court remain healthy), but thats not a crapshoot I want to play....

Right now Im hinging my hopes on 65 democrats in congress saying they wont go along with it and thats MORE THAN ENOUGH to kill any bill. They just dont have the numbers.... A few more sensationalized shootings though ,and they may be there.

Colt
04-07-2009, 9:18 PM
56 dead from shootings, anyone know what the death rate per day is in the US from all causes? Maybe put that number in perspective a bit.

Per the CDC, the provisional count of deaths (all causes) in the U.S. for the month of July, 2008 is 191,000.

Provisional count of all deaths from all causes in U.S. for 2007 is 2,415,000, or 6,616.5 deaths per day.

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_21.htm

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 9:29 PM
I, for one, am totally impressed by what the Dems pulled off. Since no one else pointed it out, I'll mention that the Dems are perfectly following the political playbook I laid out about 1 1/2 years ago:
http://www.calguns.net/calgunforum/showthread.php?t=43951

My guess is that Soros helped behind the scenes since hedge fund managers were behind the drive of oil up from $100 to $140/barrel last year. That pushed many over-extenders to start defaulting on their junk (aka "subprime") mortgages, credit card payments and everything else. That caused a slow financial meltdown to turn into an inferno that made voters desperate for a political savior, for "Change."

Does that mean Soro's can fix the S**t he broke?

mblat
04-07-2009, 9:36 PM
do you really think that if ALL Gun owners had vote form Mccain he would have won? Were you up on Nov. 4 it was a landslide.

Considering that there are 50 million or so gun owners in USA there is VERY little doubt that of ALL of them would vote for McCain he would've won.

I actually almost ( and almost is key word here ) want the congress to pass new AWB. Let it come to straight collision to SCOTUS. At least then we will know where we stand.

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 9:38 PM
Considering that there are 50 million or so gun owners in USA there is VERY little doubt that of ALL of them would vote for McCain he would've won.

I actually almost want the congress to pass new AWB. More severe is better. Let it come to straight collision to SCOTUS. At least then we will know where we stand.

how many of those fifty voted, and for who. there are 300 million american's and a portion of them vote so i would like broken down numbers please.

chris
04-07-2009, 9:39 PM
do you really think that if ALL Gun owners had vote form Mccain he would have won? Were you up on Nov. 4 it was a landslide.

i voted on Nov. 4 thank you. and there are approx. 50 million gun owners in this country. if they voted for their rights and not for BHO even a half could have turned the election. you know as well as i do gun owners voted for this guy. and now they are buying guns and ammo in record numbers. i also watched on Nov. 4 that one state was given to Obama with less than 1% of the vote. tell me thats not BS!!!!?

glockwise2000
04-07-2009, 9:42 PM
Pelosi was just citing the 53 lives that lost because of guns. How about the hundreds of people that died of car accidents? So, she is concentrating on lesser percentage rather than looking that could kill hundreds or thousands a month. What an I D I O T.

chris
04-07-2009, 9:42 PM
how many of those fifty voted, and for who. there are 300 million american's and a portion of them vote so i would like broken down numbers please.

and are all 300 million of age to vote? i would say no.

mblat
04-07-2009, 9:51 PM
how many of those fifty voted, and for who. there are 300 million american's and a portion of them vote so i would like broken down numbers please.

Why? You original post seems to imply that regardless of how 50 million gun owners had voted McCain would've lost anyway.
That is demonstratably false. Considering that McCain lost states like Pensilvania, Michigan and Wisconsin ( a LOT of hunters ) all by double digits we can only assume that A LOT of hunters voted for Obama.

<Shrugs> According to Wikipedia out all votes casted 42% were gun owners and 37% of them voted Obama.
If all of them would've gone McCain that would have represented 15% of total vote. Meaning we would've had swing of 30%. Talking about landslide. Reigan-Mondale would've been joke compare to this. McCain would've won easily, again considering that would've carried all three states mentioned above.

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 10:02 PM
Why? You original post seems to imply that regardless of how 50 million gun owners had voted McCain would've lost anyway.
That is demonstratably false. Considering that McCain lost states like Pensilvania, Michigan and Wisconsin ( a LOT of hunters ) all by double digits we can only assume that A LOT of hunters voted for Obama.

<Shrugs> According to Wikipedia out all votes casted 42% were gun owners and 37% of them voted Obama.
If all of them would've gone McCain that would have represented 15% of total vote. Meaning we would've had swing of 30%. Talking about landslide. Reigan-Mondale would've been joke compare to this. McCain would've won easily, again considering that would've carried all three states mentioned above.

good enough for me carry on. :thumbsup:

i just wanted someone to substantiate this gripe.

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 10:12 PM
lets see spead on gunnie states that went for Obama:.

PA-55-44%

VA-53-46 %

NC-50-50 %

OH-51-47 %

IN-50-49 %

WI-56-42 %

IA-54-45 %

MI 57-41 %

Second Tier Gun states (i guess)

FL-51-48 %

NV 55-43 %

CO- 54-45 %

yellowfin
04-07-2009, 11:17 PM
We clearly needed a better candidate no matter which way you slice it, but it's anyone's guess as to just how much of the gap could be covered with all the things aligned the way they were. Maybe McWeasel was a throw away, a fall guy for an unwinnable scenario who would be missed the least.

lioneaglegriffin
04-07-2009, 11:36 PM
We clearly needed a better candidate no matter which way you slice it, but it's anyone's guess as to just how much of the gap could be covered with all the things aligned the way they were. Maybe McWeasel was a throw away, a fall guy for an unwinnable scenario who would be missed the least.

i agree the Repubs. were swimming agaisnt the tide on the last election. Primarily because of Pres. Bush. He bascially gave the party a stroke. it could take a while to learn to walk and eat and drink with stuff sliping out of thier mouth. The Dems need to fall on their faces to get things back to even.

chris
04-08-2009, 5:13 AM
i agree the Repubs. were swimming agaisnt the tide on the last election. Primarily because of Pres. Bush. He bascially gave the party a stroke. it could take a while to learn to walk and eat and drink with stuff sliping out of thier mouth. The Dems need to fall on their faces to get things back to even.

the sad thing is the Dems will get a pass no matter how bad things get. the media will never show a demoKrat in a bad light. they have their people running the country and we will get royally screwed in the process.

lioneaglegriffin
04-08-2009, 8:35 AM
the sad thing is the Dems will get a pass no matter how bad things get. the media will never show a demoKrat in a bad light. they have their people running the country and we will get royally screwed in the process.

i dont think so because the media was all aboard with the iraq invasion until things started going south. They lick the face of whoever's in power IMO.

tiki
04-08-2009, 12:29 PM
It won't happen.
This is just puff drama.
Little thing called Heller getting in the way.

There's a whole lot of people that don't share your confidence.

There's a whole lot of us that do.

mblat
04-08-2009, 12:40 PM
We clearly needed a better candidate no matter which way you slice it, but it's anyone's guess as to just how much of the gap could be covered with all the things aligned the way they were. Maybe McWeasel was a throw away, a fall guy for an unwinnable scenario who would be missed the least.

I disagree with that. I think if economy would've taken **** couple month later McCain would have real fighting chance. Not a certain thing for sure.... but a real chance..
Of cause it is fairly big question if we would've been any better with him than with Obama

chris
04-08-2009, 12:49 PM
i dont think so because the media was all aboard with the iraq invasion until things started going south. They lick the arse of whoever's in power IMO.


fixed it for you. since we all know the media is full of arse kissers.

lioneaglegriffin
04-08-2009, 1:46 PM
fixed it for you. since we all know the media is full of arse kissers.

but dogs don't do that.* :p




(i was trying to imply lap dog with the whole face thing)

*unless you have one of those trained kinky dogs. [eew]

RRangel
04-08-2009, 3:36 PM
Pelosi was just citing the 53 lives that lost because of guns. How about the hundreds of people that died of car accidents? So, she is concentrating on lesser percentage rather than looking that could kill hundreds or thousands a month. What an I D I O T.

How about the thousands that have died in her and her leftist cohorts districts? The political ideals they espouse kill.

Maestro Pistolero
04-08-2009, 3:37 PM
Help a new guy out, what or who is MHC?

Kid Stanislaus
04-08-2009, 3:47 PM
It won't happen.
This is just puff drama.
Little thing called Heller getting in the way.

Hubris is a terrible thing.

Kid Stanislaus
04-08-2009, 3:50 PM
If you were the anti-gun lobby, would you really want to risk your anti-gun legislation being thumped by the SCOTUS in its current makeup?--Neill

Heller was a 5-4 decision and a lot was given away to get that. There is a low degree of certainty that the present SCOTUS will serve up another pro-gun decision.

lioneaglegriffin
04-08-2009, 4:33 PM
Help a new guy out, what or who is MHC?

Madame Hell Creature if you read all the pages you would know that. ;)

DDT
04-08-2009, 4:45 PM
Heller was a 5-4 decision and a lot was given away to get that. There is a low degree of certainty that the present SCOTUS will serve up another pro-gun decision.

Can you please explain this post? What was "given up" and what on earth makes you think there is a "low degree of certainty" that another decision in our favor will be handed down?

Kid Stanislaus
04-08-2009, 5:24 PM
For a quick comparison I went over to NHTSA and checked their stats on how many people are killed by drunk drivers per year.

The most recent stats are from 2007
12,998 people killed in "alcohol-impaired driving crashes"
42,708 Total traffic fatalities.B.

One hundred and seventeen people die EACH DAY in traffic accidents compared to those killed with guns.

yellowfin
04-08-2009, 5:34 PM
Can you please explain this post? What was "given up" and what on earth makes you think there is a "low degree of certainty" that another decision in our favor will be handed down?
It is obvious that Heller was deliberately watered down and incomplete so Stevens would sign on it. If they hadn't had to do that it would have established right to carry outside the home- our guys didn't push that because they were being wisely cautious and wanted 100% certainty of a win, but simple logic dictates that the 2nd amendment if a right pertaining to personal safety must include carry rights for it to be worth anything. Also strict scrutiny was loosely implied but not nailed down, and incorporation suggested but not settled.

Nordyke cannot come fast enough.

VW*Mike
04-08-2009, 5:45 PM
Now for some pot stirring...............

Will someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!!!!

Approximately 1,370,000 elective abortions occur annually in the U.S.

Approx 3,700 a day (I wonder if they are Closed on Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas?)

Source: http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/Stats_on_abortion.htm

What is Pelosi's stance on this? Hmmmmmm.

RomanDad
04-08-2009, 6:11 PM
It is obvious that Heller was deliberately watered down and incomplete so Stevens would sign on it. If they hadn't had to do that it would have established right to carry outside the home- our guys didn't push that because they were being wisely cautious and wanted 100% certainty of a win, but simple logic dictates that the 2nd amendment if a right pertaining to personal safety must include carry rights for it to be worth anything. Also strict scrutiny was loosely implied but not nailed down, and incorporation suggested but not settled.

Nordyke cannot come fast enough.
Stevens wrote the dissent....

I think you mean Kennedy maybe?

CHS
04-08-2009, 6:13 PM
Approximately 1,370,000 elective abortions occur annually in the U.S.

Approx 3,700 a day (I wonder if they are Closed on Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas?)

Source: http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/Stats_on_abortion.htm

What is Pelosi's stance on this? Hmmmmmm.

What does this have to do with guns and AW bans?

M. Sage
04-08-2009, 6:16 PM
Stevens wrote the dissent....

I think you mean Kennedy maybe?

Weren't there two dissenting opinions?

kermit315
04-08-2009, 6:17 PM
the fact that Pelosi is a hypocrite when it comes to "fixing" the things that hurt people in this country.

lioneaglegriffin
04-08-2009, 6:21 PM
Now for some pot stirring...............

Will someone PLEASE think of the children!!!!!!!

Approximately 1,370,000 elective abortions occur annually in the U.S.

Approx 3,700 a day (I wonder if they are Closed on Easter, Thanksgiving and Christmas?)

Source: http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/phil%20115/Stats_on_abortion.htm

What is Pelosi's stance on this? Hmmmmmm.

this stat. implies that you "kill" when you have an abortion when it up to individual belief.

you only "kill" them based on when you believe the fetus/baby is just genetic material or a human being.

Some say human at embryo others say it ain't human until it can breathe on its own. so if Pelosi believes the latter then that number is 0. (because you can't kill something that isn't alive.)

kermit315
04-08-2009, 6:31 PM
up to individual or not, killing is killing. if you have to use drugs or stop a blood supply to make it stop living, then it is killing. if it is killing, it has to be alive.

I guess we shouldnt have life support in this country either, because some people after accidents cant breathe on their own.

dustoff31
04-08-2009, 6:54 PM
you only "kill" them based on when you believe the fetus/baby is just genetic material or a human being.

You only "kill" if you believe the victim is a human being to begin with?

Don't want to get too far OT, but you might want to re-think that.

yellowfin
04-08-2009, 7:10 PM
Stevens wrote the dissent....

I think you mean Kennedy maybe? Ah yes, that's who I meant.

CHS
04-08-2009, 7:28 PM
You only "kill" if you believe the victim is a human being to begin with?

Don't want to get too far OT, but you might want to re-think that.

Killing is killing.

But that doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Killing does not have any inherent morality. Some killing is good, some is bad, some is neutral.

yellowfin
04-08-2009, 7:31 PM
this stat. implies that you "kill" when you have an abortion when it up to individual belief.

you only "kill" them based on when you believe the fetus/baby is just genetic material or a human being.

Some say human at embryo others say it ain't human until it can breathe on its own. so if Pelosi believes the latter then that number is 0. (because you can't kill something that isn't alive.)So basically if you can make a logical argument that MHC herself is also not a human and actually believe it, does the same apply to her?

DDT
04-08-2009, 7:33 PM
So basically if you can make a logical argument that MHC herself is also not a human and actually believe it, does the same apply to her?

It depends is she jewish? or Black? a disbeliever in Religion X? After all there have certainly been people throughout history who felt the same.

VW*Mike
04-08-2009, 7:34 PM
What does this have to do with guns and AW bans?

I do not want to take anything away from the tragedies that happened, or make it look like I am or that they are insignificant because they are not. My statement has very much to do with an AWB, and Democrats leading the charge.

Democrats are worried about violence, loss of life, etc. They want to take away our 2nd Amendment rights because a few criminals and nut jobs have gone on a shooting spree. Then some would say in OTHER citizens eyes, these statistics indicate there are more then 25 TIMES the amount of "deaths" by abortions each year then all firearms statistics combined. Statistics the Left supports in many ways. Numbers that far eclipse these isolated incidents of mentally ill individuals that felt it necessary to also take an innocent life. I'm not saying this is my personal view on abortion or yours, or anyone elses, its just food for though.

dustoff31
04-08-2009, 7:48 PM
Killing is killing.

But that doesn't mean that it's wrong.

Killing does not have any inherent morality. Some killing is good, some is bad, some is neutral.

Certainly killing is killing. But I wouldn't go so far as to say it has no inherent morality. With regard to humans, I would say that killing is either necessary or it isn't. If it is necessary, i.e. self-defense, etc. then it is justifiable, or "good".

Intentional unnecessary killing, particulary for the reason of one's personal convienence is wrong.

M. Sage
04-08-2009, 8:11 PM
:offtopic:

lioneaglegriffin
04-08-2009, 8:20 PM
You only "kill" if you believe the victim is a human being to begin with?

Don't want to get too far OT, but you might want to re-think that.
dehumanization is apart of killing. Thats why people in the military give their enemies pet names (sometimes racist ones at that) (krauts, zipperheads,sandni*ger, jap,towelhead, dinks, to name a few. all to help Dehumanize them and make them easier to kill, so yes.

though inserting the abortion issue, and then the killing issue, to dehumanization is way off topic.

BTW calling Pelosi all these names could be dehumanizing her to make her seem half human.

She is still human if not a desirable one.

kermit315
04-08-2009, 8:25 PM
so, it is a way to cope, because saying it isnt really a life makes it easier to kill it? If you have to lie to yourself to do something, maybe you really shouldnt be doing it in the first place.

kermit315
04-08-2009, 8:31 PM
yeah, similar, except much more gruesome circumstances.

lioneaglegriffin
04-08-2009, 8:31 PM
yeah, similar, except much more gruesome circumstances.

lol

wait do you mean killing is guesome or bad marriage?

ChuckBooty
04-08-2009, 8:36 PM
It won't happen.
This is just puff drama.
Little thing called Heller getting in the way.

How would Heller prevent another AWB? The anti's are clinging to the part about the government having the right to put reasonable limits on firearm ownership.

eflatminor
04-08-2009, 8:40 PM
I suspect that outside of California, gun owners are horrified with the idea of registration. It's amazing what we have come to accept in this state. Nevertheless, I wonder if Ms Pelosi might also wish to require Federal registration of certain books that in the hands of criminals, could prove dangerous to children? Certainly, history has proven words to be far more dangerous than guns. Just think of it, when the local cops have a gun buy back program, we can collect and burn bad books right along with the bad guns. Sounds a reasonable next step, don't you think?

lioneaglegriffin
04-08-2009, 8:40 PM
How would Heller prevent another AWB? The anti's are clinging to the part about the government having the right to put reasonable limits on firearm ownership.

i think the part that says common firearms are legal. an AR-15 would be considered common being that everyone has one.

kermit315
04-08-2009, 8:42 PM
yeah, I think that is the angle also. Plus, with nordyke coming, if it gets challenged somewhere else, it will be a circuit split that will force it back to the supremes.

kermit315
04-08-2009, 8:43 PM
lol

wait do you mean killing is guesome or bad marriage?

really, either way depending on your outlook, but I was talking about the killing.

ChuckBooty
04-08-2009, 8:45 PM
i think the part that says common firearms are legal. an AR-15 would be considered common being that everyone has one.

I think that this line is exactly where they're going to get the legal grounds to impose a ban. Of course it'd have to go back to court to get that line clarified...but I think that it's the Obama administrations opinion that AK's and AR's are NOT common. Nerve racking....

kermit315
04-08-2009, 8:49 PM
problem is that the numbers dont back that up. an AR15 is no different than any other magazine fed semiauto rifle, except that it has a pistol grip. And, its at its height of popularity right now, and only going up. I dont think, as common as they are, and as much connectivity as gun owners have via internet now, that they could get something that stupid through on a federal level, and I dont think they could get out of the heller decision about commonality.

lioneaglegriffin
04-08-2009, 8:56 PM
I think that this line is exactly where they're going to get the legal grounds to impose a ban. Of course it'd have to go back to court to get that line clarified...but I think that it's the Obama administrations opinion that AK's and AR's are NOT common. Nerve racking....

no M16A4's and Full auto AK-47's aren't common. the civilian clones are.

ChuckBooty
04-08-2009, 8:59 PM
LOL...you don't have to convince ME. This is just my opinion on where there gonna get their "wiggle room". Either way...I'm not giving up my AK.

kermit315
04-08-2009, 9:12 PM
eh, sometimes it helps to talk it through.....helps to find holes in your (my) own arguments.

lioneaglegriffin
04-08-2009, 9:16 PM
LOL...you don't have to convince ME. This is just my opinion on where there gonna get their "wiggle room". Either way...I'm not giving up my AK.

sorry i got a little biteheadoffish there.

Dr. Peter Venkman
04-08-2009, 9:42 PM
yea but democracy has its pro & cons just like anything else.

Mainly cons.

The Government is already ignoring the Constitution. Another case decision is just another set of open-to-interpretation lettering, begetting more lawsuits.

Gator Monroe
04-08-2009, 9:44 PM
Obama's Spring Fling will be Amnesty for Illegals and summer fun will be a new AWB !:sleeping:

yellowfin
04-08-2009, 9:48 PM
Democrats are worried about violence, loss of life, etc. They want to take away our 2nd Amendment rights because a few criminals and nut jobs have gone on a shooting spree
.
It's nothing that altruistic. They want to take away the 2nd amendment because they're government acting predictably: it's why we have the 2nd amendment in the Constitution in the first place to stop them. They'd want to do it for any reason or no reason at all, if they read it on a fortune cookie or a donut box they'd use it as a reason.

lioneaglegriffin
04-08-2009, 9:53 PM
Mainly cons.

The Government is already ignoring the Constitution. Another case decision is just another set of open-to-interpretation lettering, begetting more lawsuits.

i think most types government are relatively utopian until someone tries to put them into practice. it may not be done perfectly but you can try.

for example Despotism has i uses.(speed in decision making in a time of crisis, and is best when temporary i.e martial law. But abused seemingly every time.

yellowfin
04-08-2009, 9:59 PM
no M16A4's and Full auto AK-47's aren't common. the civilian clones are.

If the AR and AK platforms were as numerous around 84 to 86 as they are now, there would at very least be a lot more select fire ones in the NFA registry and possible the 86 ban wouldn't have happened at all.

lioneaglegriffin
04-08-2009, 10:06 PM
If the AR and AK platforms were as numerous around 84 to 86 as they are now, there would at very least be a lot more select fire ones in the NFA registry and possible the 86 ban wouldn't have happened at all.

well that can't be helped. that happened before i was born so what can ya do. Anyone who demands it be repeal'd looks like a imediate gun nut. becuz people will think gawd what idiot wants to make full auto's legal. Blod will flow in the streets are you mad! etc, etc. :willy_nilly:

yellowfin
04-08-2009, 10:37 PM
The fear of full auto could be worked on if we tried. We lost a lot of ground because of the 86 ban in as much that with fewer examples and the elevated price it's harder to get any kind of PR together for them. Suppressors are another story, and perhaps a coordinated effort to build a good public presence could be done. They should be as common as every rifle.

CHS
04-08-2009, 10:37 PM
Democrats are worried about violence, loss of life, etc.


No they aren't. You are very very mistaken if you believe that is the case. That's what they say, and that's what they preach, but that is absolutely not the case.


They want to take away our 2nd Amendment rights because a few criminals and nut jobs have gone on a shooting spree. Then some would say in OTHER citizens eyes, these statistics indicate there are more then 25 TIMES the amount of "deaths" by abortions each year then all firearms statistics combined. Statistics the Left supports in many ways. Numbers that far eclipse these isolated incidents of mentally ill individuals that felt it necessary to also take an innocent life. I'm not saying this is my personal view on abortion or yours, or anyone elses, its just food for though.

You need to read what I'm about to say, and understand it and believe it.

They do not want to take away our rights because of a few criminals or deaths or nutjobs. They want to take away our rights because they hate guns. Pure and simple. That is it. They have no respect whatsoever for my rights, or your rights, or anyone elses rights. They despise guns and want them gone and banned, period. They do not want to ban assault weapons and then stop. They WILL NOT STOP until every gun is banned and out of civilian hands. They have said this publicly on many occasions. They simply use the deaths and nutjobs as a way of rationalizing the ban in terms that the ignorant non gun-owners will empathize with and agree with.






(And for the record I am both pro-gun and pro-choice/pro-abortion)

CnCFunFactory
04-09-2009, 3:07 AM
[QUOTE=X-NewYawker;2283551


next time lets not vote for the people who hate us, okay?[/QUOTE]


:hurray:

VW*Mike
04-09-2009, 6:05 AM
No they aren't. You are very very mistaken if you believe that is the case. That's what they say, and that's what they preach, but that is absolutely not the case.



You need to read what I'm about to say, and understand it and believe it.

They do not want to take away our rights because of a few criminals or deaths or nutjobs. They want to take away our rights because they hate guns. Pure and simple. That is it. They have no respect whatsoever for my rights, or your rights, or anyone elses rights. They despise guns and want them gone and banned, period. They do not want to ban assault weapons and then stop. They WILL NOT STOP until every gun is banned and out of civilian hands. They have said this publicly on many occasions. They simply use the deaths and nutjobs as a way of rationalizing the ban in terms that the ignorant non gun-owners will empathize with and agree with.






(And for the record I am both pro-gun and pro-choice/pro-abortion)

Oh, I completely believe you and agree with you on their motives. I should have clarified that these are the reasons they are giving the rest of America that can't see the forest for the trees.

RomanDad
04-09-2009, 7:35 AM
No they aren't. You are very very mistaken if you believe that is the case. That's what they say, and that's what they preach, but that is absolutely not the case.



You need to read what I'm about to say, and understand it and believe it.

They do not want to take away our rights because of a few criminals or deaths or nutjobs. They want to take away our rights because they hate guns. Pure and simple.


You're close..... But also not correct....

They don't hate guns.....

THEY HATE THE PEOPLE WHO OWN THEM.

Gator Monroe
04-09-2009, 8:07 AM
:hurray:

Some here have Issues that trump 2A ...:(

lomalinda
04-09-2009, 8:55 AM
How much was FA a factor in the 1980s drug wars? It's mentioned as a precipitating factor for the 1986 ban, as opposed to there being merely "no need" for civilians to own such guns.

For that matter, were AKs, MACs, Tecs, etc. really that common with drug gangs or was it largely due to the movies/media that they were villified?

mblat
04-10-2009, 10:27 AM
It is obvious that Heller was deliberately watered down and incomplete so Stevens would sign on it. If they hadn't had to do that it would have established right to carry outside the home- our guys didn't push that because they were being wisely cautious and wanted 100% certainty of a win, but simple logic dictates that the 2nd amendment if a right pertaining to personal safety must include carry rights for it to be worth anything. Also strict scrutiny was loosely implied but not nailed down, and incorporation suggested but not settled.

Nordyke cannot come fast enough.

It is "obvious "? Never mind that Heller had NOTHING WHAT SO EVER to do with right to carry outside of homes. Never mind that it is long standing tradition of SCOTUS to issue as narrow of opinion as possible..... Never mind that Heller did imply that 2nd is incorporated (again in spite the fact that this question wasn't even asked) And in general "bear" was mentioned so many times that it raised more than one hair brow in legal circles... Never mind that question of scrutiny wasn't even brought up... it was simply stated that DC ban can't withstand ANY level scrutiny .
It is still obvious that decision was "Watered down".

While I share your impatience.... let's remember that Heller was FIRST pro-gun decision in modern times by SCOTUS. Just because it didn't go as far as you and me liking it, it doesn't mean it was deliberately watered down.

yellowfin
04-10-2009, 12:31 PM
I can think of lots of SCOTUS decisions that weren't narrow at all and had vastly wide reaching impacts well beyond the case being addressed at the time and were deliberately made so. Marbury v Madison, Barron v Baltimore, and Katzenbach v. McClung come to mind. Heller could have been made as big and powerful as those, but was deliberately made not so. I really hope they get Nordyke right and make it powerful enough for us to be able to do what we need to do, but I have strong suspicions and fear that's being traded away under the delay.

chris
04-10-2009, 12:49 PM
Some here have Issues that trump 2A ...:(

they voted for Obama.:mad:

chris
04-10-2009, 12:51 PM
but dogs don't do that.* :p




(i was trying to imply lap dog with the whole face thing)

*unless you have one of those trained kinky dogs. [eew]

how true. but the do kiss the arse of those in power.