Thu, Jul 31, 2014, 11:20 PM EDT - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

AT&T, Inc. Message Board

  • echo2165 echo2165 Apr 9, 2013 5:01 PM Flag

    The Gang of Twelve...

    ...Hey, wilkes, dan, jon, win, and your other assorted like minded individual(s). Here are the dozen Senators who are threatening to fillibuster any gun control legislation, led by Rand Paul (who's filly on drones went a long way to proving he's a nutball, while accomplishing nothing.)

    How about you frog folks explain to us all, why the American people, through their elected representatives are not entitled to a vote on this? You won't, because you can't, without revealing that you extremists, who care more about the gun lobby than the 2nd amendment, are afraid that the GOP minority will vote with the Democrats, because that is what America wants. God forbid that reason should prevail and government actually do something for a change. You have no legitimate reason, any more than these twelve pawns of the gun manufacturers do.

    If these guys proceed, the American public, even in their own supposedly safe gerrymandered districts, will take them out at the polls in the next election. Seriously, just one of you folks, try to explain your position on this (other than "they're comin' for our guns" nonsense.)

    The Gang of Twelve - remember their names at the polls next time around:

    "In addition to Paul, Lee, Cruz, Rubio and Moran, the Republican who have signed the second letter are Jim Inhofe of Oklahoma, Richard Burr of North Carolina, Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, Mike Enzi of Wyoming, Jim Risch and Mike Crapo of Idaho, Dan Coats of Indiana and Pat Roberts of Kansas."

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • "How about you frog folks explain to us all, why the American people, through their elected representatives are not entitled to a vote on this?" You asked for it so here it is. The Constitution can not be amended by a vote of the Congress. They are wasting their time even discussing tighter gun controls. Experience shows that gun controls don't work. They just give criminals more laws to break. Illinois, Colorado, and Connecticut are among the states most tightly controlled and yet violent crimes are higher there than in states with fewer controls. It should be clear even to you that it is not about guns, but about control. The "gang of 12" are not controlled by the gun lobby; rather they are controlled by the Constitution. I know you Communists wish there were no Constitution but there is and we need our guns to make sure you don't take the Constitution away.

      • 2 Replies to wilkes71
      • "The Constitution can not be amended by a vote of the Congress."

        Who's talking about amending the Constitution? Believe it or not, the NRA does not get to dictate the meaning of the Constitution to the government or the people of America. In fact, the US Constitution grants that authority to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court has, since its inception, allowed the regulation of arms.

        The Constitution is a pretty nifty document. You should read it some time. Not just the snippets sent out in your NRA newsletter.

      • ...“You asked for it so here it is. The Constitution can not be amended by a vote of the Congress.” – wilkes

        Wilkes, you need more than the bogus talking points of the far right for legitimacy. Sane people understand that no one is amending the Constitution with these gun control proposals. You sound very foolish suggesting that they are…but, then again, you sound very foolish most of the time.

        “Experience shows that gun controls don't work. They just give criminals more laws to break.” - wilkes

        “Firearm deaths are significantly lower in states with stricter gun control legislation.” The Geography of Gun Deaths, 2011 – The Atlantic

        Gun controls are aimed at preventing criminals from getting the guns in the first place. As it stands now, anyone can buy a gun legally and then sell it to a criminal. There are thriving businesses doing just that. Ask you pal, jon. Personally, I am not happy with the compromised version of the proposed legislation, but closing the loopholes in background checks is a start.

        “I know you Communists wish there were no Constitution but there is and we need our guns to make sure you don't take the Constitution away.” – wilkes

        Calling me a Communist and suggesting that I abhor the Constitution does very little to validate you gun control argument, does even less for your overall credibility and adds immensely to your reputation as a Tea Party fanatic, pimping for the gun manufacturers under the guise of the 2nd Amendment (which you obviously don’t understand.)

    • There are several issues you conveniently overlook. First, nearly all involved admit that is the law they want passed had been in place at the time of Sandy Hook and the CO shooting, the law would in all likelihood not prevented either incident. The obvious question then becomes why do it now?

      Second while having no issues with gun buyers needing to pass a background check, there are some logistical issue that have not been highlighted by those in support of expanding these checks. In the case of individual purchases/sales, who does the background check? Who approves the check and blesses or denies the sale? Who has access to the critical data? Where is this data and who is responsible for its accuracy and timeliness? Who pays for the background checks and who do they pay and how?

      The next issue is that this bill as suggested would basically alter the second amendment. By law you cannot change the Constitution without Congressional action to present an amendment bill that has to be voted on by the citizens of the U. S. This bill does not accomplish that requirement.

      While I have no problems with a background check being a requirement or that there might even be some restrictions on the type of weapons allowed to the general public, there are way to develop rational, effective, and reasonable processes to accomplish this. Illegally amending the Constitution and a knee jerk reaction for the sake of political gain and publicity should not be accepted as the solution.

      "God forbid that reason should prevail and government actually do something for a change." Yes, and wouldn't it nice if this same government did something effective, reasonable and for the right reasons, not just for the sake of change and to further their individual careers?

    • They can't explain why La peeair was for background checks and spoke strongly for controls, a dozen years ago, either. They just mindlessly let themselves be conned into believing the most ridiculous things ever in American political history.

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Eggo..my "bottom" is still really, really itchy. Do you have a barbevue forkk..I can use(??). Puppy tried nibbling to get off all the peanut butter (teehee) me did put it on earlier..but I am still really..really..itchy. Grins(!!)

 
T
35.59-0.77(-2.12%)Jul 31 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.