“chas1356> How hateful of you to assume malice aforesight ("as a as a quiet narrative to evoke sympathy.") As a matter of fact, Ms. Morales did not even mention the fact that she was a former Marine in the blurb I read about the incident, which included a copy of the noxious hand-written note which she showed her employer. To have forged it and the other witnesses statements would have involved a lot of collusion on everyone's part, so it is highly unlikely unless she had a decrepit mind or is paranoidally suspicious. Ahem.”
“Your reply dodges/confuses the issue: It doesn't matter who the votes were for -- what does the law say about discarding Voting Registrations? Four people took the time to sign up to vote, and would have shown up to do so, only to find they were NOT registered, thereby perverting the time-honored tradition of a Democracy in action. To say it was an "honest mistake" when a person purposefully opens a trash container and pushes in 1 or 100 Registration forms is ridiculous and dishonest, not to mention unethical. If it doesn't even warrant a misdemeanor, what message does that send would-be voters in the future. If you can't see that, you share in Small's "tiny" moral sense of justice. Shame on you.”
“Oh Geez -- just another example of how horrible dogs and dog owners are and let's put the former down if he steps out of line (unlike what we do to humans who commit murders and rapes and get away with it every day) and while we're at it, ban the whole breed!!!
I'm very sad about this horrible incident, but let's keep it in perspective folks -- animal abusers don't need another reason to continue their atrocities against innocent animals. For another view of Bull Mastiffs, see Google: Mastiff/Boxer&Baby. And when you STILL don't see or understand, just look at Jodie Arias' slaughter of her "BF" for true viciousness.”
“You're right, of course -- as several bloggers have noted, it's more an issue of trust and fear of a "gateway" to more and more Governmental control. But that's why we hire/elect our Legislators to work on an issue, clearly state limitations, not tacking on Amendments after the fact without Public notification and discussion (true transparency), etc. But I have hope that we can make meaningful bipartisan laws for our great Nation with good Legislators and Public support on a case by case basis; if not there's always another election around the corner, right?”
ruler777 on Apr 27, 2013 at 10:34:11
“That is the way it is supposed to work. However, Washington has become a cesspool. It is no longer the real world. Members of both parties go there, stay there forever, and vote however they want (or however they are paid to vote?). They think they are special and laws don't apply to them. They vote themselves tremendous perks and pay raises. Some of them are like Obama when he was a member, and don't do anything at all. We need term limits badly. Let them do their jobs like they did at the beginning of our history and then go home to make a living. Get rid of lobbyists. Make them actually read and know what they are voting on. Both parties suck and spend more time and money getting elected and re-elected than they do working. The big question is how do we get them to enact limits on themselves.”
“I think you're spot on about the central problem being one of trust, more's the pity. But if the Bill is discussed in depth and its limitations clearly stated, maybe we have to go beyond our usual methods and try it -- especially in light of your own and many voters wishes about the need for BC without any dangling openings, right?”
ruler777 on Apr 27, 2013 at 10:58:14
“I think a lot of gun owners are not against doing expanded background checks (even though they know it will do very little about the problem). Criminals NEVER use a registered gun. The liberals underestimate what this whole issue means to gun owners. They consider this a direct attack on their rights. People all over the country are burying their guns and ammo in PVC pipes and plastic bags. Would they shoot someone that tried to take their guns? Millions absolutely would. Most would give you their car before they would give you their gun. I went to buy a gun a few months ago. First, I had to go to the sheriff and get a buyers permit after he checked me out. Then, I had to take the permit to the store which checked my identity. Then they made me fill out a lot of papers. Then they called the federal ATF or FBI Quickcheck and checked me out again. Finally, I could buy the gun. These are the laws that are already in place everywhere. 70% of the people selling guns at gun shows are dealers and have to do these same things. You might be able to buy a gun on the internet, but they can't ship it to you. It is shipped to a dealer that does these same checks before you can get it. I think if the liberals knew how hard it is to buy a gun already, it would help. No matter how”
“Thanks again for your comments, although as for "obstructionism," if it looks like a duck, and quacks.....and the 13th Congress certainly has been known for not getting anything done (e.g., failure to appoint 50 Circuit Court Judges after nomination -- and they are so badly needed) or on time.
As to whose fault it has been, there's enough blame to go around, including unwielding systemic problems inherent in Government in general. I don't agree with your assessment of Obama, but I respect your opinion, which is shared by many!”
“ruler777> If you look back to my original comment, I stated just that, and I have not mentioned the 4 Democratic members you referenced in any of my comments to date.
I opened the discussion with my objection to the planned filibuster to the initial BC Issue, which I felt was not representative of what the People were asking for in the National Polls. If we did not open the vote, then NO discussion or restrictions would be made. BTW, your statement that "the people in those states were against gun control" is incorrect: even So. Carolina voted 57% FOR a discussion on BC per se; not "Gun Control." In order to address restrictions/registries, etc. you have to open the initial discussion to begin the process. Thanks for your comments, however.”
ruler777 on Apr 26, 2013 at 16:48:52
“Pandora, even I am for background checks, but only if no records are kept. That is the same way millions of the people feel. If they try that, the 90% that they say are for background checks will drop to 20%. That is why I say that you cannot believe the polls and statistics. It depends on where they were taken (Mississippi is completely different than New York), and how the questions were worded. I would almost guarantee you that South Carolina people are very much against gun control in the long run, as most of the states are (regardless of what liberals believe and the liberal media says). As you said, South Carolina may be in favor of a few things like expanded background checks, but almost everyone is for that as long as there is no registry. I think one of the reasons the conservatives don't want to discuss/vote is that they don't trust the liberals agenda. They think it is a first step to taking all guns in the future. If the government thinks radical Muslims are bad, let them try to take all the pistols. There will be another revolution. It is one of the most volatile issues. Maybe even more than murder by abortion.”
“Thanks for your attempted clarification, but I'm not sure how that affects the BC Issue at hand, nor my position as to "Pure vs. Direct" Representative Government. Your have obviously thought alot about the larger issues involved, however, and I respect your thoughts on that. Thanks again for the discussion.”
howlando on Apr 27, 2013 at 01:38:25
“I've enjoyed the discussion as well. I like that on huffpo you can often start off pretty far apart and then find you can have a meaningful discussion and find at least a little common ground when you thought there might be none. Too bad congress can't do the same thing :)”
“I think the Sequester is a case in point about the failure of BOTH sides of the Aisle to reach consensus on the most important of issues facing the Nation today. Your mention of the Healthcare Bill in the same discussion as Gun Control is inappropriate; the NRA proposed Background Checks some years ago, for example, and we are not discussing a major Policy change as is true for the Healthcare Bill that was passed by BOTH houses almost two years ago; the current BC issue is an enhancement and enforcement of an already existing Background Checks issue that is not being enforced in Online and Gun Show sales. Amendments and restrictions should be discussed and voted on now that we FINALLY got a vote so we can discuss it; it was not possible before if the filibuster had gone through, however. The sideline discussion you have introduced about which Party's stance has been more ineffective/obstructionist is another issue entirely, and I don't wish to address it, although my statement that the current Congress has been the most ineffective in recent History stands, regardless of Party affiliation. Thanks for your comments.”
howlando on Apr 27, 2013 at 01:32:15
“Your first sentence is certainly true, and that's what I was attempting to address, since you had brought up obstructionism and divisiveness. The fact that bill happened to be about "healthcare" is irrelevant, it could have been about anything. The point is the manner in which it was passed, without a single republican vote, and the brash manner in which the democrats essentially said we're going to do whatever we like and ignore you because you can't stop us. The price for that attitude is a mistrust between the 2 parties that we're still seeing today, and is extremely relevant as to the cause of the current atmosphere of non-cooperation, and contributed in some part to why the BC bill wasn't passed.
AND, just the word obstructionism which the left has grown fond of is in *itself* divisive. It implies one side can and should be able to do what it wants, and the other side is guilty and the bad guy who won't just roll over and play dead but is daring to stand up from themselves, as if that's a horrible thing. The well has been poisoned because of the *manner* in which the healthcare bill was passed, and those flames are being fanned by words like "obstructionism", and there's a good chance the BC bill would have played out differently if the tone was set differently in O's first 2 years.
“I agree with your last statement, and I hope the Background Checks Issue will be intro-duced again with any needed Restrictions discussed and negotiated. As for the Site, just log directly into U.S. 13th Congress and they have a list of options for the Senate and House on Bills, etc. Thanks for the thoughtful discussion!”
“I appreciate your comments, but I'm not sure where you got the idea I was "only" talking about gun control in my observation that the current (13th) Congress has been the least effective in GOVERNING and/or LEGISLATING anything due to obstructionism, inter/intra-party divisiveness and the power of Lobbyists and special interest groups in general than any other in our Nation's history. Further, it IS our elected official's to REPRESENT the people who elected them; hence the name of the House of Representatives, right? I have no idea what a "Direct Democracy" vs. a "Representative Democracy" means, so will leave it at that. And, oh BTW, the Congressional Record gives a step-by-step analysis of the SB649 and its progress through Committee. If you recall, the Republicans wanted to "filibuster" even a vote on the initial bipartisan offering because of what they feared it would open the flood-gates to Registries, which later suggested Amendments did; those should have been resisted in a true "Democratic" fashion, as is the usual wont of governing organizations without pillorying the whole concept of background checks to begin with at the get go. Of course, that's my limited humble opinion.”
howlando on Apr 25, 2013 at 11:21:02
“If you have a link to the congressional record step-by-step analysis of the bill btw, I'd like to read it. I wasn't successful trying to find it on google, in any form that wouldn't take days to dig through the chaff to get to the wheat.
I didn't follow the proceedings very closely, I did however read the text of the bill line by line and draw my own conclusions based on what it actually was. While it had problems, and I personally didn't like it unless the problems could be fixed, I could have lived with the bill if it passed in the interest of compromise. It wasn't horrible like Obamacare. (The most unreadable complicated bill in history which deserved to fail for *only* that reason no matter what was in it).
If as you say there were proposed Amendments by Democrats which included Registries, this was the negotiating tactic that doomed the bill more than any lobbyist ever could. Registries are an all-out show stopper.”
howlando on Apr 25, 2013 at 11:00:42
“Also note I feel that my representatives *are* representing me. I don't want the government to "govern and legislate" in the direction that the Democrats want to take us in terms of taxation, spending, entitlements, jobs, the economy, and guns. I *want* them to stop what the Democrats are trying to do, since I think their positions on those issues are bad for the country, for the welfare of all the people particularly the middle class and poor, and for the individual freedom. Moreover, I don't want *more* laws, I want them to roll back many of the laws we have - so any day they don't "legislate" is a good day in my book.
I didn't always feel that way, in fact I used to be a Democrat. I think we've progressed too far to the left since the times of JFK, and many of us have drawn a line in the sand to at least go no further. Its the nature of this beast that there's precious little compromise to be had when the 2 parties want to go in completely *opposite* directions.
Branding this complex important issue as an "ism", e.g. "obstructionism", belittles the reason for the difficulties congress is having and only inflames the problem. The new left progressives think they finally have momentum to "fundamentally change America" as Obama has said, and the new right is trying to stop that and return to our limited government roots. So we get what we're seeing, naturally.”
howlando on Apr 25, 2013 at 10:37:15
“In regards to divisiveness, I agree that the representatives are probably as divided as any time since the civil war, which is a direct reflection of the fact that the people are as divided as any time since the civil war. They actually *are* representing us in that regard.
In regards to obstructionism, that is very normal. Reagan, Clinton, and the Bushes did not get what they wanted, they had to compromise. Obama is not a compromiser, although, I will give him credit for finally realizing compromise is necessary to get things done, and he seems much improved so far in his second term. The problem is he and the Democrats set the tone in his first 2 years by taking the most uncompromising position I've seen in my lifetime by ignoring the other side of the aisle and ramming through an unpopular healthcare bill without a *single* Republican vote. Now he and the Democrats like yourself are surprised that Republicans have also adopted a hardline stance to counterbalance their extremism.”
howlando on Apr 25, 2013 at 10:22:54
“A Direct Democracy or Pure Democracy is where the people vote on policy directly rather than via representatives (Representative Democracy). The founding fathers made it clear they did not want us to be a Pure Democracy. It's akin to mob rule or 3 wolves and sheep voting what's for dinner. It sounds like you care more about what the people want than what the representatives decide, so it sounds like you'd be in favor of Direct Democracy.
“Isn't that what the Legislators were "hired" to do -- restrict those aspects that they don't agree with/won't vote for in their negotiations? (used to be called "governance"). To not vote for something that you think may happen in the future is like trying to prove a negative; to not vote for something good because you think it will lead to something bad means you're not doing your job, right?”
ruler777 on Apr 25, 2013 at 09:00:12
“No, you are incorrect. Legislators are not hired to vote for what they agree or disagree with. They are hired to vote as the people that hired them want whether they agree with it or not.
That is why Obama lost the gun vote by some Democratic Senators. The people in those states were against gun control even though their party was pushing it. The Senators did as they were supposed to do and voted the will of their people instead of their own will or the will of their party.”
“wdc39> You're absolutely right, but as I've mentioned before, these people are there to govern and legislate -- including knowing how to negotiate, restrict the purview of the Bill in question, etc. -- not act like babies. If there were those with bona fide objections on either side, where else to discuss them than in the Senate? You're spot on about the ever-present threat of disenfranchising the poor, but disagree that "for what little good they would do" is the case. I just saw the case of Australia and how they handled background checks and even banning assault weapons (with no Registries) and they seemed to have found a way to make a difference. sigh. Thanks for your comments at any rate.”
wdc39 on Apr 29, 2013 at 19:24:32
“Negotiations happened and you lost. Get over it. Australia handled their gun laws in a way that will NEVER happen here. Mandatory turn in. Bunch of Aussie wimps if you ask me. You need to read this and I mean read it all. If this doesn't change your mind, nothing will. England and Australia DID have registration and used it to confiscate. Australia's buyback money came from their Medicare fund. Read it and weep. You lost this one too.
“avrggu> Good points, all, and I agree that having the amendments on hand was very bad timing, but the Senate has always had discussions and limitations on a Bill without filibustering and not having it come to a vote at the onset. Their job is to GOVERN/LEGISLATE/NEGOTIATE -- not just sit on their bums and decide not to bring the Issue at hand to a vote. Your counsel that they should have waited to bring it to a vote is a good one, but these are supposed "grown-ups" and stopping the discussion doesn't help the negotiation process. Thanks again for your comments.”
avrgguy on Apr 25, 2013 at 23:17:12
“It is always a pleasure to have an exchange of opinions (no name calling etc.) and you also bring up excellent ideas as to how to deal with this issue. Sorry to be soo late to reply, have a great night and I look forward to future opinions on other pressing issues. Take care.”
“I'm sorry, but the many, many Accredited Polls that have looked at the initial Vote on SB649 have consistently been from 85% to 90% -- the 90% of Republicans voted Nay and 10% of Democrats voted Nay (90% voted Yay). I should have mentioned that later amendments which included some restrictions and perhaps a Registry of Background Check information on those who were denied changed the vote considerably. I still haven't heard what people think about the central issue as to Senators and Representatives who do not represent their Constrituency, but pander to the small percentage who have control over their future Elections, are rich or have more power than the rest of the 90% that they should be representing.”
howlando on Apr 24, 2013 at 14:52:24
“I have yet to see one accredited poll that looks at the initial vote on SB649. I have seen many, many polls, that ask questions which are not representative of the bill.
I've read every line of the bill. I support background checks. I would answer yes to almost all poll questions that were ostensibly "about" the bill. But I am against the bill, because I know its different than the questions being asked.
As to what you call "the central issue as to Senators and Representatives who do not represent their constituency", this is why we have elections. It will get sorted out in 2014. More importantly, we don't vote for our representatives *only* on the gun issue, there are a million *other* issues, so this *might* cost one or two people their seats. But it won't have a tremendous impact because things like the economy, jobs, energy, healthcare, spending, taxation etc are more important as a whole. It's hardly worth voting for someone who is on the wrong side of all those other issues just because of SB649, that would be crazy.
It sounds like you'd rather live in a Direct Democracy than a Representative Democracy.”
“Please don't apologize, as I made several typo's myself; but I'd like to hear what you think about the central issue in SB649 which I find astonishing: are our "Representatives" representative of just 10% of the Populace (those who are powerful, ultra-conservative and/or rich, in other words) or the whole of their Constituency? If nothing else, what does that portend for the 2014 Elections?
Thanks for your reply and thoughts.”
avrgguy on Apr 23, 2013 at 20:41:13
“I think that in order to keep the bill from advancing with the amendments which were sitting there to become part of this bill they decided to filibuster the background check. I also think that the NRA's involvement, while it was opposed to certain background aspects of the bill, pushed for the filibuster primarily because of those amendments which were coming. Because of the focus on the background checks the filibuster will come back to bite the Repubs. big time. It probably would have been wiser to wait until the entire bill was debated and then let the public know exactly what protions they oppose and then make a move to stop it. Sometimes, in the heat of the moment, things are pushed through based on emotion and slowing down the process makes sure everything is what it's intended to be.”
“No, I don't care to bet, as my central Issue did not include "Amendments" (including Registries) on SB649 Added later; it had to do with 90% of Republicans voting "Nay" on Background Checks per se, and 10% of Democrats also voting Nay on what the Populace has consistently voted on, including 85% of NRA Members (again without amendments) in many, many, many polls reported by reputable media and accredited Pollsters. Do you think our "Representatives" should at least consider their Constituents wishes, or just blindly pander to a fewer number who have power, money and influence? Could you please address THIS issue?”
“There were 45 Nay votes against the SB649 which was initially presented absent any mention of "Registries"; there are currently 45 Registered Republicans at present in the Public Record, but how about addressing the central issue of non-representative of the Public's wishes and concerns? Why are you citing silly objections to the number, etc? Suffice it to say that 85% of NRA Members have said they would vote for Background Checks (without a "Registry") and 90% of Republicans voted against it?”
wdc39 on Apr 24, 2013 at 19:36:09
“Registries were brought up. Both for and against. In fact, I think they finally added "no registry" to the bill. But when you have AG Holder telling Obama that universal checks won't work without a registry and an AWB wouldn't work without forced buybacks(confiscation), the people were leary and let their senators know it. At vote time there was not a 90% approval rating. That was an emotional poll response shortly after Sandy Hook. Today, only 47% of people polled are angry at congress over the vote. The majority no longer want ObamaCare. shall we trash can that too? I fully support background checks. With a constitutional amendment guaranteeing no registry ever, I might support universal checks. For what little good they would do. And they would have to be free. Otherwise, you're disenfranchising the poor of their self defense rights. Works with voter ID, it's gotta work with background checks too.”
“Yes, there were 4 (FOUR) Democrats who voted nay and 41 (FORTY-ONE) Republicans who voted nay. Evidently you read some other voting record than I did, Mr. All Huffed Up. I apologize for the 54/45 dyslexic typo I made, but it still stands at 90% of Republicans and 10% of Democrats voted Nay on a common-sense method of "helping" to curb the purchase of guns voted for by from 87-90% of voters, including 85% of NRA Members. Can you address the central issue of that disparity instead of babbling about "simple" things?”
“"Simply" put, the original SB649 proposed (00095) on 4/17/13 did not include a "Registry" of any sort for the 45 R, 2 I and 53 D in the Senate to consider: 90% of the R voted Nay; 10% of the D/I voted nay, Amendments added DID include mention of a Registry, however. Anything else?”
ruler777 on Apr 23, 2013 at 20:23:27
“Do you think we trust this administration and the goofy liberals enough to trust them not to keep a registry in the future? Several members of the administration have admitted that the ultimate goal is to get all the weapons.”
“If you're referring to GNFIDPARK, he said "well over half of NRA members" and 90% of U.S. Citizens. The last poll reflected anywhere from 54 to 57% of NRA members voted for Background Checks. We elect a President with just a 51% majority, so why wouldn't we listen to over-half of the NRA members? Settle down and get the facts (not opinions) before you attack people.”
JDavis1861 on Apr 22, 2013 at 02:32:29
“And no constitutional law can be changed without 75% of the states agreeing... So, your point is.?????????????”
“Sorry, but the original planned filibuster was submitted by the Bipartisan Duo BEFORE the Amendments, and the filibuster was cancelled, remember? Any other excuses you'd like to recommend for the Republicans? Also, if Background Checks is a "hot button" (i.e., 90% of Citizens, including NRA Members supported it as well as many Republicans initially) why can 10% of Citizens hold the rest of us hostage, as well as vow to not re-elect any Rep./Sen. who votes for it?”
avrgguy on Apr 21, 2013 at 23:10:56
“I do recant that statement I made, as you say, the filibuster was indeed cancelled due to a lack of votes to over ride. I said it is a hot button issue because that is all they are talking about, nobody is mentioning all the amendments that were waiting to be crammed into the bill. Once again, I apologize.”