Heitkamp: Calls 7-1 against S. 649

[Wherryj]

90% of Americans supported background checks.... Should have said 90% of Democrats supported background checks. If the voters of a state or district say otherwise, it isn't betrayal... IT IS THE POEPLE VOICING THEIR BELIEFS!!

Bloomberg thinks just because he has money that he can tell others what to do. Same goes with any of these politicians who could care less what helps Americans. They will do what they want to do. And people who continue to vote them into office will wake up one day and say...

"I never wanted this <enter issue of your liking>!!!!!"

On the other side, even if it IS the "people voicing their beliefs", the US is supposed to be a Constitutional Republic. Democracy is fine for things not specifically protected by our Constitution, but no matter how many people want something it cannot be allowed if it violates this Constitution.

This is a VERY IMPORTANT protection against tyrrany by the majority. Minorities have often been have often been attacked without reservation because it is known that they won't be able to mount an adequate defense "at the polls".

The very idea that it is somehow "ok" to go directly against the SUPREME law of our land "because the majority support doing it" is treasonous behavior by our politicians. They are supposed to be defenders of the Constitution. They are not supposed to be attacking it out of personal agenda or attempts to reinforce their next election.

[Window_Seat]

I have a strong feeling the Democrats are going to face fierce backlash in 2014, on the scale of post 1994.

I think it will be worse for them than 94. I think a lot of people are starting to see through the BS. They have gone way to far and the fact that every other word out of there mouth is "for the children" and "weapons of mass destruction" or they show that they have no
clue about what they are making laws for. The average person can see through a lot of it I think. There are still your typical Libtards that will vote Democratic anyways but I think most of the swing voters will go our way and a lot of Dems may wake up and come over to
the "dark" side. It will be fun to watch that is for sure.

as a lifelong democrat who voted for a full Republican slate for the first time in my life in 2012, i have to say...

the backlash has already started!

Not to try and play devil's advocate, but the reasons why the (D)s lost in '94 was due to the fact that the '94 AWB was enacted, but this time, there was no major gun control enacted (yet) on the Congressional level.

Suppose we all vote come Nov. 2014 and 2016, and suddenly the (R)s have a SUPER MAJORITY in both chambers by 2016, yet they fail to amend the Constitution to guarantee unrestricted bear outside the home for any citizen or legal non-citizen not incarcerated, even with the Article V majority of the states we currently have in favor of carry (or bear) outside the home (Amici, 38 + states in McDonald v. Chicago and Woollard v. Gallagher).

10 years later, the (D)s once again take complete control and we have Michael Bloomberg in the White House, and Diane Feinstein engages a hostile takeover of the NRA (There is a new drug supplement discovery at the time which allows people to live to average 150 years old), and the attitude at that time is "Well, we got punished and then some in 2014 just for THINKING about gun control, so why not go out as a group martyrized?" This would of course be part of the analysis (minus the 150 year old supplement), but that's of course, jumping to conclusion obviously.

We need to be careful not to have a "be careful what we wish for" moment. No I'm not saying "vote straight line (D)", but I am going to say that there is a reason why the incumbent is always endorsed by the NRA when the challenger is equally as pro-RKBA.

My point really? Regardless, we need NOT let our guards down just because the (R)s might take control because they are just as much anti-Constitution as the (D)s are, just in other ways, and letting our guards down ALWAYS comes back to bite us.

Erik.