Skip to main content

View Diary: A well-funded militia (53 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's not the NRA and its money the Senate listened (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happy camper

    to.
    It was their constituents.

    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

    by FrankRose on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:01:28 AM PDT

    •  You're assuming that there are no Democrats (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, a2nite, coquiero

      or Independents amongst their constituents and that most Republicans want no background checks. Those are some mighty big assumptions. Can you show me some polling data that every Republican who voted against background checks is in a state that opposes them? Because with 90% overall approval I'd find it hard to believe they voted the will of their constituents in more than a few states.

      Sorry conservatives, but Occam's Razor isn't a beard trimmer for jihadists. What it means is I don't have to accept your crazy-assed theories as an alternative to reality.

      by ontheleftcoast on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:14:42 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  90% for B/Cs, not necessarily the bill itself, (0+ / 0-)

        And definitely not the person whom introduced his plan for B/Cs along with a gun ban.

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:23:47 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Would you like some syrup with that waffle? n/t (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          Glen The Plumber, coquiero

          Sorry conservatives, but Occam's Razor isn't a beard trimmer for jihadists. What it means is I don't have to accept your crazy-assed theories as an alternative to reality.

          by ontheleftcoast on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:24:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  No waffling....nor lame pun in my comment. (0+ / 0-)

            If you really think that 90% supported the plan presented, then you should be ecstatic, because that would mean that the GOP just committed electoral suicide.
            Why, there must be pubic outrage.....huge rallies that put things like the 'million mom march' of the early 90s to shame!
            As Kos said in a diary not too long ago 2014 is going to be about gun control.
            You must be looking forward to it.

            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

            by FrankRose on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:42:29 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  And as I said in that very diary I think we're (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ichibon, Glen The Plumber, coquiero

              making a mistake in believing that a single issue will drive us to electoral victory. The Republicans probably made the same calculation, that they were willing to piss off some of their voters on gun control because who else would they vote for? Some gay loving hippies?

              But it will be interesting to see if rabid support for gun control will start to drive a wedge in to the Republican base like rabid anti-immigration and rabid homophobia is starting to do.

              Sorry conservatives, but Occam's Razor isn't a beard trimmer for jihadists. What it means is I don't have to accept your crazy-assed theories as an alternative to reality.

              by ontheleftcoast on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:48:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  With 32% (0+ / 0-)

                of Democrats against gun control, it's defiantly a wedge issue.
                Just not of the type you are suggesting.

                I agree with Kos's diary. This election is all about gun control.
                Gun controllers wanted it.
                Gun Controllers got it.
                Now they get to own it.

                Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                by FrankRose on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:53:26 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Bull, 32% of Democrats are not against ALL gun (4+ / 0-)

                  control, just specific forms like AWB. But you know that, you just can't resist putting your spin on reality.

                  Sorry conservatives, but Occam's Razor isn't a beard trimmer for jihadists. What it means is I don't have to accept your crazy-assed theories as an alternative to reality.

                  by ontheleftcoast on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:55:41 AM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  "Spin on reality"? Apparently you haven't heard (0+ / 0-)

                    the results of the recent gun control attempt. (Spoiler alert: lol)

                    The president, himself, attached the AWB with B/Cs when he introduced the two together.

                    It's kind of hard to argue that he isn't against banning guns when he specifically proposed banning guns.
                    That is why the least popular Congress in history is more trusted than Obama on this issue.
                    And that is why B/Cs failed....not because of the NRAs money, but because of the viewpoints of their constituents.

                    And that is why gun controllers get to own the results of the next election.

                    Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                    by FrankRose on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:42:33 AM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  I take it back, you aren't in reality at all (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      Glen The Plumber, coquiero

                      These are numbers from the recent FOX News poll

                      But the poll also found that 82 percent of voters, including 77 percent in gun-owning households, still favor expanding background checks to private sales. And, more to point, 61 percent say they would be less likely to support a candidate who voted against expanding background checks versus the 23 percent who are more likely to support such a candidate. Sixty-eight percent say they are more likely to support a candidate who voted in favor of expanding background checks.
                      When even FOX News debunks your claim you might want to re-think your position on the issue. Good bye and thanks for playing!

                      Sorry conservatives, but Occam's Razor isn't a beard trimmer for jihadists. What it means is I don't have to accept your crazy-assed theories as an alternative to reality.

                      by ontheleftcoast on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 09:52:49 AM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Which part? (0+ / 0-)

                        A majority (with 32% of democrats) against gun control? (CBS poll)
                        The least popular Congress in history being more trusted than Obama on this issue? (Cited in a diary by MB)
                        The president proposing a gun ban along with B/Cs?
                        The embarrassing failure of B/Cs to pass (and the laugher of an attempt for the AWB)?
                        The public's nary a fuck given for the demise of the aforementioned bills?

                        I'm still playing.
                        So are you.
                        But don't worry. I'm certain that it will end around Nov of 2014.
                        I look forward to your post-game commentary.

                        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                        by FrankRose on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 10:08:08 AM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

    •  True... (0+ / 0-)

      though an analysis of the number of actual humans represented by each of these Senators shows that minority rule is alive and well in the US Senate.

      "A lie is not the other side of a story; it's just a lie."

      by happy camper on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 08:18:38 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Wow! It's almost as if you're a rep for the NRA! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber

      You really know those NRA talking points inside and out, don't you?

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 02:15:25 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Really? (0+ / 0-)

        Quote & link the 'NRA talking points' you are speaking of.
        Should be easy; apparently you know them better than I.

        In trade I will link to you the definition of 'Guilt by Association'.
        (Spoiler alert: It's a logical fallacy.)

        Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

        by FrankRose on Wed Apr 24, 2013 at 04:15:45 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site