Pic Of The Moment: How Do You Beat 90% Public Support For Improved Background Checks?

[EarlG]

Gun control was outspent. By 13 to 1, turns out.

Follow @demunderground

[Turbineguy]

1. I suspect there's a limit

to the amount of damage you can do before a society falls apart.

[Initech]

2. This is why we must work to overturn Citizens United.

GET *ALL* CORPORATE MONEY OUT OF POLITICS NOW!!!!

[drynberg]

18. MY THOUGHTS EXACTLY

Thanks, Initech for your post. This is THEE most political issue in my 64 year old life.

[Eleanors38]

3. EarlG, I'll take the b.g. Checks, and I'm sure you will join with me

In establishing safeguards against a national registration scheme that pass muster with the ACLU. I take seriously the threat of the Far Right, which is why I will not disarm, or provide a record of what arms I have to a government which in the future may be authoritarian and dictatorial. That is a very real threat, and I assume you agree.

Respectfully, don't you think, given the dangers of the coalescing corporate state you ably outlined, that expanded b.g. checks (which I support) are small potatoes?

[HangOnKids]

7. What a Farking Hoot!

Did you read the OP? This is a classic!

[billh58]

9. Aren't we lucky that

people like that are armed to the teeth to protect us against our scary old government? Talk about being a "well regulated militia," and so self-disciplined -- I feel ever so much better about the future of our country now. Why don't we just disband the National Guard units, and reduce ALL military spending to $10.00 month?

Bless this country and all of its armed and patriotic gun huggers who are only looking out for our best interests -- even if they DO have to kill a few of us in the process of defending their freedoms.

[HangOnKids]

10. ^^^^^THIS^^^^^ n/t

[Eleanors38]

19. Yes, I did. nt

[Amonester]

16. Do you think such a dictatorial and authoritarian government

in this 21st century (not a hundred or so years ago) would be scared of you and your pathetic guns? Really?

And that's why you don't want background checks?

[Eleanors38]

20. Do you want a response?

[Progressive dog]

21. You read the RW cliff notes on the bill

the bought and paid for senators fillibustered. It requires all records of B.G. checks to be destroyed.
If you weren't serious, that could be a comedy post.

[Eleanors38]

23. See if you can get the ACLU in on the joke.

[Progressive dog]

26. If I understood why you brought the the ACLU up, I would have.

They protect those minority rights some of the nuts with guns claim they like.

[Robb]

4. I'm tickled, honored -- and of course still outraged about it.

[Ian_rd]

5. There's been talk about how that moment will be remembered as the "high-water mark" of the gun lobby

... and with the resulting polls, that's looking to be true. But it's important that opposition politicians continue to make it a political liability to the lawmakers who voted down background checks, even those who won't face reelection for years. Once implausible, it now seems almost to be expected that linking a politician to the NRA will be an effective attack in many districts.

[caledesi]

12. Well said! As always thanks Earl. nt

[baldguy]

6. They lie at every opportunity, too. Don't forget the lies.

[FBaggins]

8. Self-defeating claim

$3.8 million doesn't buy a whole heap of influence... even if the other side doesn't donate anything at all.

[jjewell]

11. How Do You Beat 90% Public Support For Improved Background Checks?

By having a Senate Majority "Leader" who promises to, and then fails to reform the filibuster on the first day of the current Senate session, that's how.

The bill got a 54-46 majority vote in the Senate, but failed due the filibuster's 60 vote threshold.

Anything that does not get passed through the Senate due to Republican obstruction for the duration of this Senate session, I place squarely at the feet of Majority "Leader" Reid.

[red dog 1]

13. + 1000

[LAGC]

22. You know, the Republicans could very well take back the Senate in 2014.

Last edited Sun May 5, 2013, 07:53 AM - Edit history (1)

Then that filibuster rule won't seem so dumb, will it?

Harry Reid knows the political pendulum tends to shift, especially during mid-term elections, often in favor of the side who doesn't hold the presidency.

Imagine what the Repukes could do with a narrow majority in the Senate, without the filibuster to stop them.

[jjewell]

25. If the Republicans were to retake the Senate in 2014...

So What? They could always re-establish the filibuster on the first day of the new Senate session anyway. Couldn't they?

[Progressive dog]

28. The fillibuster rule isn't just dumb, it's wrong

With 41+ votes, they can and are blocking executive and judicial appointments.
With a majority they could block executive and judicial appointments without a filllibuster.

With 40+ votes, they can stop legislation that the president wants.
With a majority, they can stop legislation that the president wants.

The rule is not democratic, making it wrong.

[mountain grammy]

14. The NRA is having their convention in Houston, celebrating their "victory."

Ok boys, now stand in a big circle and have weapons ready. Ready, aim, FIRE!!

[Rest In Peace Repubs]

15. When ?

will our country bring politics back to the people?When will our our politicians reallize we put them there(Washington)?Not the lobbists?!?When is enough ...Enough? When will we the people send those politicians back to where ever they came from?When will we the people say no more lobbists in Washington.... period no exceptions no exempttions. 2014 2016 2020 ?When ? 90% (f-ing %)When ?When?When?When?

[blkmusclmachine]

17. .

.

[SummerSnow]

24. Here is my question to America...

Why is there such anger toward improved background checks other than them fact they don't want it cause Obama wants it. Is that all? Cause I'm waiting to hear a legitimate reason why they don't want background checks. They rant on about Obama taking their guns.But he hadn't said or done that. What is wrong with these people?

[LAGC]

27. The main concern is about de facto registration.

Many gun owners are afraid that the government will keep records of each background check, effectively knowing who owns what guns, which could come in handy down the road if any certain type of gun were to be banned, since the government would know right where to go to round them up. This fear isn't totally unfounded, since this very thing is happening in California -- they are using registration records to confiscate guns from felons and adjudicated mentally ill -- such tactics could very conceivably be used against others as well.

While its true that around 90% support the idea of universal background checks in general, those numbers fall significantly when the spectre of registration comes up, depending on the particular implementation of background checks. But there are ways it could be done that wouldn't be so invasive and not lend itself to the possibility of registration.

But, indeed, a lot of the resistance is just because Obama wants it. I have no doubt if Romney had won and proposed it, it would have passed the 60-vote threshold. Republicans wouldn't knee-jerk so bad against "their own" president.

[SummerSnow]

29. thanks for your reply.