Senate Republicans are trying to screw Veterans for political points

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

 

LOL If I'm a conservative extremist than you must be Joseph Stalin. I have clearly and repeatedly laid out my complaints about things that the Republican party does with which I do not agree. I'm not going to do it time and again just to satisfy your liberal need to hear it. My most recent disagreement with the conservative pundits is their anger over the fact that Jan Brewer vetoed that bill in Arizona. Good. It was a not good legislation and the reason it wasn't good legislation is precisely because the extreme right conservative hardcore Christians got a hold of it and basically turned it into something that would have essentially made it legal for a business owner to discriminate against homosexuals based solely on their sexual preference. This was going to be done by hiding behind their so called religious values and claiming it was a religious rights issue. Bullshit. I don't want them taking my religion and using it to cloak their hatred of a certain group. It would have been no different than white racists in the 40's and 50's who would refuse to serve blacks in their places of business based on their good old fashioned Christian values. Even one of the legislators who initially sponsored the bill encouraged the Governor to veto it by the time its final form made it to her desk. Now that is just one issue with which I do not agree with and the likes of Hannity and Steve Dayce spent the next couple of days crying about the fact that the bill was vetoed and how it was a blow against religious freedom in this country. No it wasn't. It was bad legislation filled with hate and discrimination and it needed to be defeated. Jan Brewer did the right thing. So I am by no means an "extremist conservative" To even suggest such a thing is laughably stupid.

 

 

With respect to the NRA, I am a gun owner myself and a proud member of the NRA. Like it or not they do more in Washington to help protect your Second Amendment rights than any other organization in the country. They do a hell of a lot more than anything you've ever done. Sitting around and complaining about non-violent felons who get their gun rights back? Really. So what. They should have their gun rights back. They've paid their dues and they are not violent thugs. There is no reason they shouldn't have their gun rights back. So don't sit around and complain about the freedoms that the NRA helps protect and preserve for you and then complain about the manner in which they protect it. If not for the NRA the liberals in this country would long ago have so diminished the Second Amendment that you'd be lucky to legally own a toy cap gun by now.

I can see where the Gun Lobby shares a common interest in protecting the rights of gun owners with the members of the NRA.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

 

However, at some point we should re-instate the civil rights for those felonies not likely to lead to violent and criminal gun use. I'm willing to consider the options. But, a felony for something like grand theft* or tax evasion*, or similar felonies, should not directly impede the return of gun ownership rights after having served their sentences.

 

*-Just an example of non-violent crimes, if they are felonies.......if violence was not used in the committing of the original crime.

[Langston Hughes]

I can see where the Gun Lobby shares a common interest in protecting the rights of gun owners with the members of the NRA.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

 

However, at some point we should re-instate the civil rights for those felonies not likely to lead to violent and criminal gun use. I'm willing to consider the options. But, a felony for something like grand theft* or tax evasion*, or similar felonies, should not directly impede the return of gun ownership rights after having served their sentences.

 

*-Just an example of non-violent crimes, if they are felonies.......if violence was not used in the committing of the original crime.

 

It's too bad that the gun lobby isn't about the gun owners and their rights but about gun manufacturers and if along the way they can get gun owners to fund their lobbying efforts on the part of corporations than all the better.

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

It's too bad that the gun lobby isn't about the gun owners and their rights but about gun manufacturers and if along the way they can get gun owners to fund their lobbying efforts on the part of corporations than all the better.

Just like everthing else the government gets involved in.

 

Such as healthcare and social financial subsidies.

[Langston Hughes]

Just like everthing else the government gets involved in.

 

Such as healthcare and social financial subsidies.

 

Are you forgetting corporate subsidies?

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

Are you forgetting corporate subsidies?

The influences of money is entangled everywhere.

 

Are you so naive to think corporations are alone in influencing policies with money and power?

 

Binary but equal.

[BlackHorse]

 

 

 

These are the people that Langston tries to pretend don't exist.

Edited March 4, 2014 by BlackHorse

[BlackHorse]

[BlackHorse]

[TomServo92]

 

It's too bad that the gun lobby isn't about the gun owners and their rights but about gun manufacturers and if along the way they can get gun owners to fund their lobbying efforts on the part of corporations than all the better.

 

That might be a problem except that what gun owners and gun corporations want are the same thing.

[the_spaniard]

 

Non violent felons is the key which I also do not have a problem with owning a firearm.

If a person is released from prison they are considered to have fulfilled their obligation / penalty so why are you viewing them different ?

A person that is mentally ill or insane is an altogether different situation and should not have access to a gun let alone be permitted to own any.

The SAFE act / bill was largely a piece of shit bill / legislation .

 

If it were only non-violent felons, I wouldn't be so against it. It's not. It includes violent felons that have been shown to go out and commit new crimes (with firearms) and their re-established gun rights.

 

If one law-abiding citizen is killed because a convicted violent felon got their gun rights back, the cost is too high. That is shit legislation.

Edited March 4, 2014 by the_spaniard

[the_spaniard]

So I am by no means an "extremist conservative" To even suggest such a thing is laughably stupid.

 

Until you look at your posting history, your views, and your constant adherence to extremist rhetoric like "Marxism, socialism" and denigration of entire groups of people with different views than your own. Good Lord, you aren't fooling anyone. Wake up.

 

With respect to the NRA, I am a gun owner myself and a proud member of the NRA. Like it or not they do more in Washington to help protect your Second Amendment rights than any other organization in the country. They do a hell of a lot more than anything you've ever done. Sitting around and complaining about non-violent felons who get their gun rights back? Really. So what. They should have their gun rights back. They've paid their dues and they are not violent thugs. There is no reason they shouldn't have their gun rights back. So don't sit around and complain about the freedoms that the NRA helps protect and preserve for you and then complain about the manner in which they protect it. If not for the NRA the liberals in this country would long ago have so diminished the Second Amendment that you'd be lucky to legally own a toy cap gun by now.

 

Are you that naive to believe that without the NRA there would ever be legislation passed in this country to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Do you really think it would get through the Senate much less the House? Wow.

 

I don't need to do anything to protect my 2nd Amendment rights. Contrary to what the NRA tells you, they aren't under attack. There has been no legislation passed that would effect my ability (or right) to own and use my firearms. Do you ever stop to think who benefits from "gun-grabbing" rhetoric? Gun production increased by 31% in 2012. While the NRA spoon feeds you rhetoric about gun-grabbing democrats, gun manufacturers rake in the profits. All because of paranoia the NRA manufactures. It's a ploy so obvious in design it re-defines "sheep" as an adjective.

 

The legislation often includes violent felons. But hey, you support relief for people that were busted later for transporting explosives to terrorists, right? Sexual assault? Aggravated rape? How about a guy that illegally sold machine guns? Murder? All examples of crimes committed after those convicted felons got their rights back, facilitated by firearms. I guess it's OK if it doesn't happen to your family.

 

70% of felons convicted for robbery return to prison. Firearms were used in 40% of those robberies. I'm so glad the NRA is looking out for their rights.

 

If the NRA was really about protecting gun owners rights, they would do a little better than 8% membership of gun owners in this country. Sadly, they are only about selling guns.

Edited March 4, 2014 by the_spaniard

[Langston Hughes]

The influences of money is entangled everywhere.

 

Are you so naive to think corporations are alone in influencing policies with money and power?

 

Binary but equal.

 

I was just commenting that you left them out. It seems you do that a lot, mention only one side despite your so-called out of the two party system thinking.

[the_spaniard]

I can see where the Gun Lobby shares a common interest in protecting the rights of gun owners with the members of the NRA.

The enemy of my enemy is my friend?

 

However, at some point we should re-instate the civil rights for those felonies not likely to lead to violent and criminal gun use. I'm willing to consider the options. But, a felony for something like grand theft* or tax evasion*, or similar felonies, should not directly impede the return of gun ownership rights after having served their sentences.

 

*-Just an example of non-violent crimes, if they are felonies.......if violence was not used in the committing of the original crime.

 

I don't think that is out of the question. But the NRA wants violent felons armed as well. I would guess that is not in the best interest of the people, nor what they want.

Edited March 4, 2014 by the_spaniard

[the_spaniard]

 

That might be a problem except that what gun owners and gun corporations want are the same thing.

 

Good, so gun manufacturers should be supportive of:

 

- Background checks for private and gun show sales (85% of gun owners want this)

- A federal database that tracks gun sales (65% of gun owners want this)

- Laws enacted that prevent the mentally ill from getting guns (90% of gun owners want this)

These numbers drew equal support from democrats, republicans, and independents.

 

The NRA represents the people, and gun manufacturers want what he people want. So this should be enacted immediately, yes?

 

(Data from the 2013 Pew Research Poll)

 

 

[FiredMotorCompany]

 

I was just commenting that you left them out. It seems you do that a lot, mention only one side.

Thank you, Mr. Pot.

Sincerely, Mr. Kettle.

Edited March 4, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany

[TomServo92]

 

Good, so gun manufacturers should be supportive of:

 

- Background checks for private and gun show sales (85% of gun owners want this)

- A federal database that tracks gun sales (65% of gun owners want this)

- Laws enacted that prevent the mentally ill from getting guns (90% of gun owners want this)

These numbers drew equal support from democrats, republicans, and independents.

 

The NRA represents the people, and gun manufacturers want what he people want. So this should be enacted immediately, yes?

 

(Data from the 2013 Pew Research Poll)

 

 

 

Data from early 2013? Really? Current polls (CNN in December 2013, AP in September 2013) show support for more gun control legislation is at an all time low.

 

I don't know any gun owner that support the first two and I believe I'm in much better tune with the gun community than you are. The guns rights organizations are doing what gun owners want done.

[Langston Hughes]

 

Data from early 2013? Really? Current polls (CNN in December 2013, AP in September 2013) show support for more gun control legislation is at an all time low.

 

I don't know any gun owner that support the first two and I believe I'm in much better tune with the gun community than you are. The guns rights organizations are doing what gun owners want done.

 

As a gun owner i would support the first one. The second one i am not going to support.

[TomServo92]

 

As a gun owner i would support the first one. The second one i am not going to support.

 

You're the first one I've met! Seriously though, I respectfully disagree on the subject.

[BlackHorse]

The notion that felons are getting their firearms rights restored just because of the NRA is a left wing talking point that as usual tells only some of the story and of course is told in such a way so as to make the NRA, and by extension gun owners, look bad. These people are getting their second amendment rights restored because of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 which was passed by CONGRESS. The NRA does not make law, pass law or enforce law. They are an advocacy group. Granted they are a powerful advocacy group, but an advocacy group none the less. Furthermore, guess who controlled the Congress in 1986. That's right boys and girls the Democrat party controlled Congress at that time so all of you liberals on this forum who are all upset about this, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

[the_spaniard]

 

Data from early 2013? Really? Current polls (CNN in December 2013, AP in September 2013) show support for more gun control legislation is at an all time low.

 

 

I just looked at the latest polls which poll all Americans, and not just gun owners (as the poll above did) so it's apples-oranges. Even with the 8% drop, twice the number of Americans want stricter laws than those that do not.

 

I don't know any gun owner that support the first two and I believe I'm in much better tune with the gun community than you are.

 

 

So what you believe and anectdotal evidence now constitutes proof? I know many people that not only want stricter gun laws that work in federal, state, and local LE departments. I even know people that are OIF vets that want stricter gun laws. What does that mean? Nothing.

 

The guns rights organizations are doing what gun owners want done.

 

 

Very debatable.

[the_spaniard]

The notion that felons are getting their firearms rights restored just because of the NRA is a left wing talking point that as usual tells only some of the story and of course is told in such a way so as to make the NRA, and by extension gun owners, look bad. These people are getting their second amendment rights restored because of the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 which was passed by CONGRESS. The NRA does not make law, pass law or enforce law. They are an advocacy group. Granted they are a powerful advocacy group, but an advocacy group none the less. Furthermore, guess who controlled the Congress in 1986. That's right boys and girls the Democrat party controlled Congress at that time so all of you liberals on this forum who are all upset about this, you have no one to blame but yourselves.

 

Yes despite the fact that I have showed you how these bills at the state and federal are lobbied heavily by the NRA. I also love how you consider the NRA a simple "advocacy group" and don't even acknowledge them as the leading gun lobby. In essence you are arguing that lobbyists have no impact on legislation, despite the fact that lobbyists spent $3.21 billion dollars last year for that explicit purpose.

 

That "advocacy group" spent almost $18.6 million dollars on election spending through their SuperPAC the NRA Political Victory Fund last year, making sure the right people get/stay into office to support pro-gun legislation. After Sandy Hook the NRA spent a record-high $800,000 in federal lobbying to ensure (successfully) that expanded background checks for gun buyers failed. They also spent nearly $3 million in lobbying last year. Not bad for an "advocacy group". On the day of the vote, they released a false advertisement that stated "80% of Police say background checks will have no effect on violent crime."

 

My point is not the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986 was passed, but that the NRA lobbies against any regulation that comes down the pipe - even common sense regulations that the public wants. And they vastly outspend opposing groups (because of their financial backing from gun manufacturers) at a rate of 73 times the leading gun control "advocacy group" The Brady Campaign for Preventing Gun Violence. When you have that kind of financial backing you can make sure only your side (the manufacturers) and not the opposing side (the actual people) gets heard.

Edited March 4, 2014 by the_spaniard

[cal50]

 

I just looked at the latest polls which poll all Americans, and not just gun owners (as the poll above did) so it's apples-oranges. Even with the 8% drop, twice the number of Americans want stricter laws than those that do not.

 

 

 

 

There are over 20,000 + gun laws already on the books.

Adding to that could be defined as an exercise in futility and way past the point of diminishing returns or real benefits.

 

Efficient enforcement of existing laws cover about any unlawful use of a firearm in the country.

Millions of firearms are in existence yet only a small portion are misused or for illegal purpose.

 

Nothing like creating a problem from a statistically decreasing non problem.

[BlackHorse]

 

Yes despite the fact that I have showed you how these bills at the state and federal are lobbied heavily by the NRA. I also love how you consider the NRA a simple "advocacy group" and don't even acknowledge them as the leading gun lobby. In essence you are arguing that lobbyists have no impact on legislation, despite the fact that lobbyists spent $3.21 billion dollars last year for that explicit purpose.

 

That "advocacy group" spent almost $18.6 million dollars on election spending through their SuperPAC the NRA Political Victory Fund last year, making sure the right people get/stay into office to support pro-gun legislation. After Sandy Hook the NRA spent a record-high $800,000 in federal lobbying to ensure (successfully) that expanded background checks for gun buyers failed. They also spent nearly $3 million in lobbying last year. Not bad for an "advocacy group". On the day of the vote, they released a false advertisement that stated "80% of Police say background checks will have no effect on violent crime."

 

 

I don't care how much money the NRA spent in lobby efforts. At the end of the day the vote is cast by members of Congress, not the NRA. You can't get on here and claim that members of Congress can claim "But the NRA made me do it." as a defense. Otherwise every group with a lot of money that lobbied in Congress could get whatever silly assed law they wanted to pass. The NRA is effective because they advocate not only for a Constitutional right but also on behalf of millions upon millions of American citizens who believe in that right. But the fact remains that at the end of the day this law was passed by Congress and blaming the NRA for it is just political agenda. I mean I know that it really bothers you liberals to have to take responsibility for the messes you make but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with your nonsense.

[the_spaniard]

 

 

There are over 20,000 + gun laws already on the books.

Adding to that could be defined as an exercise in futility and way past the point of diminishing returns or real benefits.

 

Efficient enforcement of existing laws cover about any unlawful use of a firearm in the country.

Millions of firearms are in existence yet only a small portion are misused or for illegal purpose.

 

Nothing like creating a problem from a statistically decreasing non problem.

 

I agree that the we don't need that many laws. Let's say we wiped the books clean and wanted to create simple, logical, effective gun legislation that people want.

 

It would never happen. Lobbying groups like the NRA would never let it happen.That is the problem. They want no regulation because regulation infringes on the profit margins of their benefactors. They play this as "protection of personal rights and freedoms" when what they really mean is protection of gun sales they benefit directly from.

[the_spaniard]

 

I don't care how much money the NRA spent in lobby efforts. At the end of the day the vote is cast by members of Congress, not the NRA. You can't get on here and claim that members of Congress can claim "But the NRA made me do it." as a defense. Otherwise every group with a lot of money that lobbied in Congress could get whatever silly assed law they wanted to pass. The NRA is effective because they advocate not only for a Constitutional right but also on behalf of millions upon millions of American citizens who believe in that right. But the fact remains that at the end of the day this law was passed by Congress and blaming the NRA for it is just political agenda. I mean I know that it really bothers you liberals to have to take responsibility for the messes you make but that doesn't mean the rest of us have to go along with your nonsense.

 

And congress is impervious to the influence of well-financed lobbying. That is quite the argument.

 

The NRA is effective because they advocate not only for a Constitutional right but also on behalf of millions upon millions of American citizens (that constitute 8% of gun owners) and millions of dollars in gun manufacturer donations who believe in your right to buy their product. The NRA is effective because they have plenty of funding to create hysteria and appeal to a simple demographic that is blinded by misguided patriotism. The NRA is effective because they convince simple people to buy guns.

 

Millions of Americans do believe in the 2nd Amendment, myself included. All gun owners do not support the NRA. Just because you ignore their member statistics does not mean everyone that believes in the 2nd Amendment supports the NRA, or what it does. And once again you simply choose to ignore the financial impacts of lobbying on legislation and still manage to throw in an ad-hominem attack. I'm detecting a pattern here.

 

The law was passed. Ignoring it was spearheaded by the NRA means they had nothing to do with it? So they didn't vastly outspend the opposition in support of passing it? Declaring criticism of a bill backed by the NRA, passed by people that received financial support from the NRA is just political agenda? Wow.

Edited March 5, 2014 by the_spaniard