Background Checks Defeated in Senate

[floplag]

People have short term memory loss when it comes to voting out incumbants.

no, they have long term "the letter next to the name matters more than the name itself" issues.

[Spirit]

Whatever reason you choose to attribute it to, we all have the government we deserve.

[HaloMagic]

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.

Why should the minority party have the right to prevent the will of the people? And why can they only do it in one house of Congress. The filibuster system is complete nonsense.

[Blarg]

Because the majority of the people oft times make decisions that are catastophic in nature to appease their own personal agenda.

[Spirit]

Because the majority of the people oft times make decisions that are catastophic in nature to appease their own personal agenda.

 

- said every gay person ever. 

[mrwicked]

Why should the minority party have the right to prevent the will of the people? And why can they only do it ijn one house of Congress. The filibuster system is complete nonsense.

 

[floplag]

Why should the minority party have the right to prevent the will of the people? And why can they only do it ijn one house of Congress. The filibuster system is complete nonsense.

 

the will of the people implies a sense of universal agreement, clearly this is not the case.. will of the majority is not the same thing

[Bruce Nye]

I believe that a compelling argument exists when the proposal proponents stated that background checks and ID requirements do not diminsh a person's rights, but requiring the same for voting does?  With a straight face how can you argue one is okay, but not the other.

[RallyMo]

I believe that a compelling argument exists when the proposal proponents stated that background checks and ID requirements do not diminsh a person's rights, but requiring the same for voting does?  With a straight face how can you argue one is okay, but not the other.

 

...and vice versa.

 

It's like when Marty McFly meets Marty McFly.

 

The whole universe will start to unravel as a result of your post. Keep a close eye on your photographs, Bruce. If you notice anybody starting to fade, call Doc Brown IMMEDIATELY.

[Schildog]

I believe that a compelling argument exists when the proposal proponents stated that background checks and ID requirements do not diminsh a person's rights, but requiring the same for voting does?  With a straight face how can you argue one is okay, but not the other.

 

lol, that's great.

[arch stanton]

Why should the minority party have the right to prevent the will of the people? And why can they only do it ijn one house of Congress. The filibuster system is complete nonsense.

Allowing the two parties to all but eliminate any third party voice in complete nonsense.

Worldwide cash being funneled into local elections is complete nonsense.

Money equals speech is complete nonsense.

Assuming that purchasing 51 senators represents "the will of the people" is complete nonsense.

 

The filibuster system is way down the nonsense list.

[RallyMo]

lol, that's a great double edged sword

 

ftfy.

 

...and I agree.

[Glen]

I believe that a compelling argument exists when the proposal proponents stated that background checks and ID requirements do not diminsh a person's rights, but requiring the same for voting does?  With a straight face how can you argue one is okay, but not the other.

 

 

For one, I don't recall when somebody was killed with a ballot.  That's just for starters.

[mtangelsfan]

For one, I don't recall when somebody was killed with a ballot.  That's just for starters.

All the people that voted for W. agree.

[Glen]

Apples and carrots, man.

[mtangelsfan]

Not even close, votes can more damage then guns.  Way more.

 

I'm not advocating the argument that having one means having the other, or vice-versa, like all those type of arguments, there is no winner.

[Glen]

No, actually there is a winner: not making such a flawed argument.  

 

Yes, I know.

[Socaliente]

http://youtu.be/JIMFOggk36E

 

 

Awesome video of Feinstein being put in her place.

[Bruce Nye]

For one, I don't recall when somebody was killed with a ballot.  That's just for starters.

 

 

A swing and a miss! 

 

The argument is about a person's rights.

[RallyMo]

A swing and a miss! 

 

The argument is about a person's rights.

 

Your support of the gun background check bill is noted.

[Glen]

A swing and a miss! 

 

The argument is about a person's rights.

 

 

Oh, absolutely.  People have the right to vote and that shouldn't be restricted.  People have the right to firearms but that should be restricted, making it harder (or even impossible) for felons or mentally ill people to get a weapon whose primary purpose is destruction.  I'm glad we can at least agree on that.  

 

Wait, you're not telling me you want unrestricted access to firearms, are you?  If so doesn't that mean, as per your argument, you're also in favor of unrestricted access to voting, since you used the voting comparison?  

[Bruce Nye]

Oh, absolutely.  People have the right to vote and that shouldn't be restricted.  People have the right to firearms but that should be restricted, making it harder (or even impossible) for felons or mentally ill people to get a weapon whose primary purpose is destruction.  I'm glad we can at least agree on that.  

 

Wait, you're not telling me you want unrestricted access to firearms, are you?  If so doesn't that mean, as per your argument, you're also in favor of unrestricted access to voting, since you used the voting comparison?  

No reason to respond to tin, because he tries to answer for you.

 

 

Where are these presumptions you claim?  FTR I am in favor of background checks and ID requirements for gun purchases, but in turn, I want voter registration and ID.  What right is a voter giving up to comply? 

[Lifetime]

I don't think expanding the background checks will stop these kind of mass murders but I do think they are a good idea and I am not opposed to them being implemented. I don't know of any compelling argument against them. 

[Angelsjunky]

An embarrassing day for American politics, proving that the system doesn't work. A joke, really.

 

I'm not opposed to background checks (except the fee) but they won't stop things like Columbine, Newtown and Aurora.

 

Stop? No. Reduce? Yes.

 

Do you honestly think that law would stop violent criminals from getting guns?

 

Stop? No. Reduce? Yes.

[Lifetime]

An embarrassing day for American politics, proving that the system doesn't work. A joke, really.

 

 

Stop? No. Reduce? Yes.

 

 

Stop? No. Reduce? Yes.

What makes you think so?