Skip to main content

View Diary: Jon Stewart rips NRA for blocking Obama's surgeon general nominee (125 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Silly frankie. (8+ / 0-)

    There is no political discussion involving prohibition in this story. Of course, it's a lot easier to feel right when you pretend there is some effort to ban all guns than to actually discuss reality.

    •  Assault Weapons BAN (0+ / 0-)

      A ban is a prohibition.

      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:03:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Durr. (6+ / 0-)

        Clearly all guns are already prohibited, since I am banned from owning a nuclear weapon.

        •  ...... (0+ / 0-)

          You support the prohibition of legal objects.
          The AWB bans guns. It even says so in the title in order to clear up any confusion.

          But do continue with your debate with the English language. It is truly captivating.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:36:57 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  me shoot things gud u no take gun (3+ / 0-)
            "You support the prohibition of legal objects."
            You certainly provided lots of proof for this claim.

            I suppose with all the empty space available in it's place, it makes sense your mind is an echo chamber.

            •  Oh? So you don't support the AWB? (0+ / 0-)

              Glad to hear that.

              Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

              by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 04:55:49 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Weren't assault weapons formerly illegal to buy? (3+ / 0-)

                And wasn't it because of NRA lobbying that the ban was not continued? Has not our nation had a long tradition of gun restrictions?

                I'm actually somewhat sympathetic to hunters and sportsmen/women, but I can't help but notice that your argument here is disingenuous. And from what I've observed thus far here, it seems that for much of the RKBA contingent, there exists no reasonable middle ground.

                What the RKBA folks here and elsewhere think about the NRA meddling in the nomination of a Surgeon General whose opinions merely reflect those of a great many other medical professionals on gun control is certainly relevant, as you folks are the same people who form the membership of the NRA, and who nevertheless wield some influence on the NRA even when not active members.

                What, all Presidential nominees must pass the scrutiny of the NRA, regardless if they lack any real power to enact legislation or regulations that run counter to NRA aims? What's next, they must withstand scrutiny from the Chamber of Commerce?  ALEC?

                •  Yes. No. Kind of. (0+ / 0-)

                  Yes. Assault Weapons were formerly illegal to buy.
                  The only effect it had was to usher in the Republican Revolution & lead to Gore losing his home state (and thus the Presidency) to GWBush.

                  No. It wasn't because of NRA lobbying. It was due to sunset & because of the above issues, there wasn't any push to renew it.

                  Kind of. There is the NFA of 1934 & the GCA of 1968. But by and large the RKBA has remained fairly consistent.

                  but I can't help but notice that your argument here is disingenuous.
                  How so?
                  for much of the RKBA contingent, there exists no reasonable middle ground.
                  How so? What middle ground is it that you are envisioning?
                  NRA meddling in the nomination of a Surgeon General
                  It has more to do with the constituents of the 10 Democratic Senators that won't vote for his nomination.
                  What, all Presidential nominees must pass the scrutiny of the NRA
                  No. All Presidential nominees must pass the scrutiny of the Senate....and when the Senate's majority party is the same party of the President, it's not that high of a bar. That Murthy can't clear that very low bar should be a hint about how much of a loser gun control is.

                  Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                  by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 07:06:48 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  It's entirely about the nra idiots. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Caittus

                    Are one of them?

                  •  Right, so your argument was disingenuous. (3+ / 0-)
                    Yes. Assault Weapons were formerly illegal to buy.
                    It is naïve to think the NRA isn't in large part responsible for not getting the ban renewed and for the pressure being put on Senators not to confirm this Surgeon General nominee. I don't think you're that naïve. What does that leave?

                    Funny how you turn that around. What is the RKBA group's idea of reasonable middle ground? Because I have yet to see any sign of it. In fact, I see little flexibility, only rigidity.

                    It's interesting how RBKA proponents here are ducking the question about if they support the NRA stance on this Surgeon General nominee, while refusing to acknowledge their own complicity.

                    •  "What does that leave?" (0+ / 0-)

                      Their constituents. The NRA was vastly outspent in Colorado, yet Democratic Senators in districts that voted for Obama by 19 points, less than a year prior lost with 20-30% of registered Democrats voting for their recall.
                      Then it happened twice more....all in a state that had never had so much as a successful recall petition in their 134 year history.

                      What is the RKBA group's idea of reasonable middle ground?
                      1) I'm not a member
                      2) "Middle ground" means you give something in order to get something. Generally I've found that gun controllers version of 'middle ground' is taking slightly less while continuing to offer jackshit.
                      It's interesting how RBKA proponents here are ducking the question about if they support the NRA stance on this Surgeon General nominee
                      You mean the stance supported by 10 Democratic Senators?

                      Gun Controllers wanted this mess.
                      They got it.
                      Now they get to take responsibility for it.

                      Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                      by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 08:19:28 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Lots of smoke, little honesty. (2+ / 0-)

                        Sorry, I'm not buying that you're that naïve. And I'm not that naïve it can't be perceived that you are arguing here from the standard RKBA Democrat angle, whether you are a card-carrying member or not.

                        What actually happened in Colorado has been explored here and elsewhere at some length, and I'm not buying simplistic explanations, nor do I think wasting a bunch of time and space here to rehash that canard is appropriate.

                        Middle ground means just what it says. I see people wanting to repeal the 2nd open to compromise, I see plenty of us already in the middle, and then you have the RKBA camp sitting in a fixed position, unwilling to budge.

                        •  I am describing actual events & actual elections. (0+ / 0-)

                          You are offering nothing but opinion-barf with big chunks of 'naive'.
                          The elections in Colorado were anything but 'simplistic': they involved numerous firsts: 1st,2nd & 3rd successful recall petitions in Colorado history. First time an incumbent lost an election in a district that went for the same party by 19 points the year before. First time an incumbent lost with a 6-to-1 spending advantage. First time 20-30% of a party switched parties in a year.
                          Your ignoring of these unprecedented & humiliating elections is willful ignorance.

                          standard RKBA Democrat angle,
                          I don't even know what you are referring to. Care to explain?
                          Middle ground means just what it says. I see people wanting to repeal the 2nd open to compromise, I see plenty of us already in the middle,
                          Oh? Then what is it that you are willing to give? I am honestly unaware.

                          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 09:06:48 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  Who's behind making the SG nominee's views on gun (0+ / 0-)

                            control, views that are widely shared in the medical community, an issue? Most constituents could care less about who the SG is as long as they are qualified to do the job. Should this mean that only nominees that are staunchly on the RKBA side, regardless of better qualified candidates that may be available, should be nominated? Or that nominees can't be candid in their confirmation hearings? Since when does the S.G. enact gun control legislation? Since when has the S.G. ever had any real influence on enacting gun control legislation?

                            You're ignoring that Democrats could vote for the nominee while insulating themselves from the gun control issue, which is irrelevant to the candidate's qualifications to perform the duties of the position, which is the only thing the confirmation process should be about. Why not bring in the abortion issue while we're at it? The ACA? Women's contraceptives? The list goes on and on, and there is a whole grab bag of traps that could be laid out by conservatives for any potential candidate that doesn't toe their line. You're being willfully ignorant of how the NRA is corrupting our democracy. By your twisted logic, any nominee that isn't conservative enough in their views is going to cost these Dems their seat. What this is really all about is just another ploy for the NRA to advance their narrow agenda, by silencing critical voices. And you're certainly attempting to do your part to assist.

                            You're also trying to be slick by turning things around again. What is the RKBA side willing to concede? Besides, using the middle to bargain against is just a disingenuous way of moving the goal posts closer to the RKBA side of the field.

                          •  You are actually arguing that the electorate is (0+ / 0-)

                            TOO informed?!

                            If a candidate made tweets that were anti-abortion & Planned Parenthood pointed it out, would that be a 'corruption of democracy'?

                            By your twisted logic, any nominee that isn't conservative enough in their views is going to cost these Dems their seat.
                            1) I am arguing for liberal gun laws.
                            2) Again. Ten. Democratic. Senators.
                            What this is really all about is just another ploy for the NRA to advance their narrow agenda, by silencing critical voices.
                            By utilizing Democracy.
                            Those bastards.
                            You're also trying to be slick by turning things around again.
                            1) No. I'm trying to find out what gun controllers are willing to offer. Don't call it the 'middle ground' if you're not willing to give something.
                            2) We don't have to concede anything. Gun Controllers are so politically toxic they can't even protect Democratic incumbents in Democratic districts from elections during non-election years. Hell, they can't even manage to get a Surgeon General nominated in a Democratic held Senate.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 06:38:25 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Non-responsive to the arguments. (0+ / 0-)

                            As I said:

                            By your twisted logic, any nominee that isn't conservative enough in their views is going to cost these Dems their seat.
                            The same twisted argument you're using for voicing a liberal position on gun control could be used for the nominee voicing a liberal opinion on another conservative issue. The answers you give have nothing to do with that argument. The civil rights nominee wasn't blocked because of his views on gun control, but because he was unjustly maligned by conservatives for ably representing a former client.
                            Since when does the S.G. enact gun control legislation? Since when has the S.G. ever had any real influence on enacting gun control legislation?
                            You're ignoring that Democrats could vote for the nominee while insulating themselves from the gun control issue, which is irrelevant to the candidate's qualifications to perform the duties of the position, which is the only thing the confirmation process should be about.
                            You provide no response to these arguments. Is Planned Parenthood or its supporters going to seek to block a Republican President's nominee for Secretary of the Treasury because they are pro-life? Very doubtful. Is the ACLU and its supporters going seek to block a Republican President's Secretary of the Interior nominee because they support the death penalty? Again, very doubtful. The argument isn't about people being informed or democracy, as is being deviously and tortuously misrepresented, it was about corrupting democracy to advance the NRA's narrow agenda.
                            I'm trying to find out what gun controllers are willing to offer. Don't call it the 'middle ground' if you're not willing to give something.
                            We don't have to concede anything.
                            Yeah, still trying to be slick. The middle ground it the ground between two opposing camps. The NRA represents one extreme, the side wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment represents the other extreme. The majority wanting to enact common sense gun controls represents the middle ground. You have continually refused to answer what concessions the NRA is willing to offer. In fact, your words confirm here what I have been asserting all along, and which you have been tacitly arguing against, which is that the NRA position is rigid and not open to compromise. What compromises those wanting to repeal the 2nd Amendment are willing to make is irrelevant when there is no corresponding willingness from the other side.
                          •  Way to respond to yourself. (0+ / 0-)

                            Top notch.

                            "compromise"
                            Compromise means that both sides are willing to give something up.
                            What is something gun controllers are willing to give in order to get what they want?
                            I am honestly unaware. Spell it out for me.

                            Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

                            by FrankRose on Wed Mar 26, 2014 at 01:11:46 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

      •  It is this kind of crap which makes it clear that (2+ / 0-)

        the gun fetishists should not have a seat at the table when we eventually confront the gun violence problem at the national level.

        •  So long as there are free elections, you don't (0+ / 0-)

          get to make that choice.

          But there are 3 Democratic Senators from Colorado whom no longer have jobs & a prospective Surgeon General whom won't even get to start thanks to your viewpoint.
          Great job with that, BTW.

          Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither.

          by FrankRose on Tue Mar 25, 2014 at 06:02:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site