Skip to main content

View Diary: Debate on gun bill delayed as Reid, Manchin, Toomey and Biden seek needed votes (117 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  As a gun owner, I don't believe in demonizing... (6+ / 0-)

    ...gun owners. But the idea that the weakness of the Manchin-Toomey amendment, in particular, and for congressional support for anything other that weak new laws, in general, is the fault of demonizers is malarky.

    The NRA and GOA were and are opposed to any new gun legislation that tightens things up and we've heard a constant barrage from it and its enablers for months about how any proposed background check bill would be ineffective. Which means, essentially, that they believe we should get rid of the EXISTING background check law. That has also been the stance of several in the more avid gun-rights advocates here, which includes some individuals who have argued that even the law restricting machine-gun ownership and requiring strict background checks for owning them, plus registration and a special fee, should be done away with.

    How, precisely, were those who believe that all or almost all gun sales should include mandatory background checks supposed to make common cause with people holding those points of view?

    The people objecting to universal background checks are extremists. They are out of step with the vast majority of Americans.

    Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

    by Meteor Blades on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 10:29:15 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  In response to the following points: (0+ / 0-)
      But the idea that the weakness of the Manchin-Toomey amendment ... is the fault of demonizers is malarky
      I mean nothing so grandiose, however, it should be readily apparent that the demonizing has cost supporters.  This is especially true outside of DK, where many self proclaimed Liberals are saying they intend to sit out the coming elections because they won't support the actions of the party.
      The NRA and GOA were and are opposed to any new gun legislation ...
      Indeed, and likely they always will be as this is their mission.  Looking at the political powers, neither side has sufficient strength to overwhelm the other.  If it did, we wouldn't be having this ongoing debate.  Consequently, the battle(s) will be won or lost by gaining (losing) those in the middle.
      The people objecting to universal background checks are extremists. They are out of step with the vast majority of Americans.
      So are the extremists on the other side, and so are many of the views expressed in this forum.
      •  do you have a poll to back this up..??.. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, Free Jazz at High Noon
        This is especially true outside of DK, where many self proclaimed Liberals are saying they intend to sit out the coming elections because they won't support the actions of the party.
        ...of course not...just more baseless threats of an extremist.

        what you don't seem to understand is your voice has no more weight in the senate than mine...this is about the power of the NRA's lobbying...not the desires of the public.

        polls show most NRA members support universal background checks...yet the NRA won't budge...why..??..because they speak for their corporate sponsors...not their members.

        I won't claim to speak for "many self proclaimed" gun owners...but after going to a few gun violence rallies...I have met a few other gun owners there who have no problem with b/c, AWB and mag limits...they must be extremists.


        We are not broke, we are being robbed.

        by Glen The Plumber on Tue Apr 16, 2013 at 02:05:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Speaking of malarky ... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      noway2, ban nock

      I suppose you must have missed teacherken's recent diary rant calling to primary Begich and Pryor simply for voting against the motion to proceed.

      It's unfortunate that you brand any and all opponents of the presently constructed M-T Amendment as extremists (without, I'm sure, meaning to demonize anyone or needless inflame the debate).

      My response to teacherken at the time, for which no response was ever offered, was to point out several factors that pertained specifically to Alaska (though I certainly thought that states with other distant rural communities might be equally impacted by the lack of FFL access or have similar Democratic challenges in opposing a more firmly embedded Republican establishment).

      And now lo and behold ... in the ugly sausage making the principal sponsors are now seeking to address this and other specific issues among select senators to garner the necessary 60 votes -- certainly including Begich and his moderate Republican Sr. Senator, Murkowski.

      The broad brush never paints very well, MB.  And on this issue, I"m sorry to say, my feeling is that you've been a part of inciting inflammatory reactions of this DK discussion and debate.

      •  I am happy to discuss whether I'm part... (0+ / 0-)

        ...of inciting inflammatory reactions here when you stop distorting what I actually have said. What I called extremist is not what you claimed. I did not direct my criticism at the foes of Manchin-Toomey. Rather, I went even broader-brush than that:

        The people objecting to universal background checks are extremists.
        And I stand by it. The 10%-15% of the population that opposes such checks are unwilling to support a law (not M-T) that would actually work to keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals and some people who are dangerously mentally ill. And it would do so without touching my 2nd Amendment rights. This refusal is extremist. And it's lethal.

        Every step of the way, we've been told that the things which would make gun regulations effective are verboten. Every step of the way, the NRA and its enablers have done all in their considerable power to undermine existing laws while pretending to favor enforcement.

        The talk about confiscation is bogus. We have a gun registry in this country, the machine-gun registry. It's 79 years old. Very few of the hundreds of thousands firearms registered under it have ever been confiscated and then only when an owner became, by criminal activity or serious mental deterioration, no  longer eligible to have guns. And yet we have people here actually arguing for getting rid of the extra hurdles machine-gun owners must leap over and dumping the existing background check as well.

        And these are not extremists?

        Meanwhile, we have some of these enablers here saying they will vote for Republicans rather than Democrats in the next election. Must I also convince you that most elected Republicans nowadays are extremists?

        What can be expected now that new gun legislation has been crushed is that we'll see a departure of those people who signed up here to talk nothing but guns in July after Aurora and in December after Newtown. Those who stick around and keep making their voting-for-Republicans assertions won't survive long.

        Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

        by Meteor Blades on Wed Apr 17, 2013 at 06:07:10 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  The devil is always in the details ... (0+ / 0-)

          and you know that as well or better than most here with respect to crafting legislation.

          Begich -- who has incurred some hysterical wrath around here -- opposed the only real game in town on background checks -- the M-T Amendment.  It is silly to suggest some distinction between the abstract point you supposedly made and application to this particular Amendment.

          And let us make no mistake here ... despite your broad brush, Begich is no extremist, nor is his senior Senator Murkowski, who also joined him in opposing the M-T Amendment today.  The reason, which I and some others have argued here on DK, concerns matters of policy and politics particular to the state they represent ... and not some ideological extremism as shills of the NRA.

          The disassociation here from reality is really quite stunning.  Those who advance this broad brush accusation also seem to have forgotten Begich's vote in support of the Affordable Care Act, for example, and that his possible opponent in 2014 is a resurrected Joe Miller -- an actual ideological wing nut that one can only wonder who he would support or not as a supreme court nominee in the remainder of Obama's presidency.  

          And I stand on my point of view as well, I'm sorry to say.

          And since previously mentioned you typically only HR for suggestions of violence (and not insult or disagreement), here one you can tag in one of your earlier diaries today ... the exact predictable outcome of this ramped up and demonizing talk of extremism:  http://www.dailykos.com/...

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site