Jump to content
  • Welcome to AngelsWin.com

    AngelsWin.com - THE Internet Home for Angels fans! Unraveling Angels Baseball ... One Thread at a Time.

    Register today to join the most interactive online Angels community on the net!

    Once you're a member you'll see less advertisements. Become a Premium member and you won't see any ads! 

     

Background Checks Defeated in Senate


Recommended Posts

"A statement by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was disabled by a shooting attack, and her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, said the Senate had "ignored the will of the American people."

 

Citing polls that showed around 90% support for expanded background checks, the statement said "senators voting against the measure chose "to obey the leaders of the powerful corporate gun lobby, instead of their constituents.""

 

that about sums it up for me. it won't solve all of the current gun problems, but parts of it can certainly help.

 

i'd sure like to see them make an effort to go after all of the illegal guns, also.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Although if pushed I would probably not favor this law, I'll never understand why is "defeated" when it gets more than 50% of the vote.

 

Seems stupid

It's because the bill needed 60% of the vote to pass. Kinda like when the Angels pitching staff gives up 8 runs. If their almighty powerful bats don't score 9... well... they're defeated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's because the bill needed 60% of the vote to pass. Kinda like when the Angels pitching staff gives up 8 runs. If their almighty powerful bats don't score 9... well... they're defeated.

I know why, but I don't get "why" if you see what I mean.  Why should it take 60 votes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They keep saying 90% favor expanded background checks but what percentage could actually tell what the background check consists of, what the expansion would include, and what checks are already in place? My guess is that if you dropped that 0 from the 90% the number would still be way high.

 

To me this just proves that nobody on either side is ever going to propose anything constructive or effective. People are going to continue to pile into confined and unprotected spaces and become fish in a barrel.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A statement by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was disabled by a shooting attack, and her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, said the Senate had "ignored the will of the American people."

 

Citing polls that showed around 90% support for expanded background checks, the statement said "senators voting against the measure chose "to obey the leaders of the powerful corporate gun lobby, instead of their constituents.""

 

that about sums it up for me. it won't solve all of the current gun problems, but parts of it can certainly help.

 

i'd sure like to see them make an effort to go after all of the illegal guns, also.

 

 

 

Agree with that 100%, especially the part about illegal guns.  But how do they do it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with that 100%, especially the part about illegal guns.  But how do they do it?

 

i don't have any idea how to do it, tin. none whatsoever.

 

with as many smart people as there are in this country, i wonder why no one has come up with any kind of reasonable solution to address this problem. but the skeptic in me also wonders why gangs are allowed to continue to exist, and the conspiracist in me thinks that maybe some of these things are just simply allowed by our gov't as the price for continuing to have a free society. does the ultra powerful NRA lobby get in the way of any possible solutions because they see it as infringing on the rights of lawful gun owners?

 

it's possible i may be rambling here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A statement by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was disabled by a shooting attack, and her husband, former astronaut Mark Kelly, said the Senate had "ignored the will of the American people."

 

Citing polls that showed around 90% support for expanded background checks, the statement said "senators voting against the measure chose "to obey the leaders of the powerful corporate gun lobby, instead of their constituents.""

 

that about sums it up for me. it won't solve all of the current gun problems, but parts of it can certainly help.

 

i'd sure like to see them make an effort to go after all of the illegal guns, also.

 

If that's true then their constituents will vote them out of office.  

 

I'm going to say that 95% of them keep their seats.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know why, but I don't get "why" if you see what I mean.  Why should it take 60 votes?

 

read up about cloture (means "conclusion" in french-indo-rhodesian)

basically the idea is that you dont want to go on and on and on forever in these government votes (stuff like filibusters are designed to just stall the vote) because then nothing would ever get done/passed.

it started here back in 1919 because there was a filibuster against the treaty of versailles (the thing that said it was all ze germans fault for WWI).

so the idea is ok well if you have a super majority, 67 votes, then they cant filibuster you.

but 66 votes so rarely happens so it was pointless.

so they dropped it down to 3/5ths back in the 70s instead of super majority, which is 60 votes.

 

the reason its not dropped to majority vote, ie 51, is because that pretty much removes all power from minority party to check the majority party.

its all about checks and balances yo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

as mentioned by others i think we have to ask ourselves exactly what gun control may actually accomplish?

will it stop crime?  no.  most criminals dont exactly use their own guns

will it stop the violence?  of course not, just changes it to something else.
will it make people safer?  no, if anything it could be the opposite as criminals could become more arrgoant knowing they have the edge

what exactly does any law affect?  those who folow the law.. and none of what i mention above has anything to do with that so.... at the hend of the day what would any of these laws actually do?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since when is the premise your scenario is based on remotely true in terms of widespread applicability?

 

All the time.  If this vote is a big enough deal to the people in the state, then they'll vote their senator(s) out the next time they came around.  If it's not that big a deal, then ... well ... it wasn't that big a deal for them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...