Sure, fmull, and many others where completely rational, beneficial policy is blocked in favor of irrational deleterious policy. So, congratulations on your turd being protected. Does this make you feel personally proud?
How is regulating "online sales" rational? I would actually like to know because I didn't waste any time reading the compromise, but with the main points being gunshows and online sales it seems far from rational. There is no firearms amazon, so online sales makes no sense. I don't have any personal pride, but I would say I am quite happy.
Sen. Mike Lee explains his vote http://www.usatoday.com/story/opini...hy-i-voted-against-background-checks/2090793/ shameful, cowardly, weak, insane, [insert pejorative here]
Well they said it's a betrayal of the victims of Sandy Hook which implies that this law is connected to Sandy Hook. One can reasonably infer that this mean it would have prevented it.
the bill didn't even fail to technically pass the Senate (which for most rational years was held to a simple majority vote), it was just held up AGAIN by that filibuster nonsense. As for Heller, get a good case, and replace a Reagen-era justice or two with an Obama-appointed one, and that falls swiftly too. careful with that 5-4 vote. I wouldn't be gloating too early. 2014 is coming, and for once the momentum is for the incumbent party.
It is connected to Sandy Hook for reasons stated above ad nauseum. But cool beans on making up an inference to retroactively support your position -> you're really putting Gabby in her place for not saying the thing that you wanted her to say, to make your interweb stance make sense!
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics...love-of-god-just-call-it-a-filibuster/275087/ ^a failure of democracy at its' core. I hope you are all happy with a result purchased at the cost of the integrity of the American political process. It takes 51 votes to pass a bill, let's get that damn straight. The Republicans fillibustered gun control. When it comes to expanded carry or any initiative they have when it comes to expanding gun rights, they might want to consider their new 60-vote threshold an ironic liability.
Because to normal people it is quite rational, much like the term "loophole" has a common meaning. To the bizarre-o trimuvirate of Casey/Bandwagon/fmullegun, the most deliberately obtuse object known to man in certain contexts, the term "online sales" is s a thing of awe and wonder, to be puzzled over and contemplated, like dyslexic gorilla trying to translate Finnegans Wake into Sanksrit. Just unfathomable for you on so many levels. It's like trying to post twitter updates on a Speak'n Spell. YOu need some ET's or something to help you out.
I disagree with loophole being used and gun control advocates did as well. They changed the rhetoric to universal background checks for a reason. Online sales are no way different. You cannot legally buy a gun online without either meeting in person or going through a dealer. Advertising online doesn't avoid any laws. This is the reason it being included confused me. Similar to grenade launchers being banned in the 1994 bill. It is meaningless.
If they want to impose federal concealed carry standards on the few sane states (which will grow in number) as they have demonstrated in this round by trying to allow concealed carry rules to apply to citizens running into other states (what I was referring to), those 60 votes look high. It's going to be like DOMA---challenged on the state level. The Republicans will want to use federal power to enforce their whimsical views on the few states that buck the trend. They'll rue the day they imposed 60 votes as the new standard, for this or anything else they want to get passed, on anything. As much as 60 senators won't share progressive views, 60 senators sure as hell won't be uniting behind expanding gun rights on a federal level anytime soon.
reciprocity is a dead issue now that so many states have agreements with each other. Your information is about 5-10 years out of date.
I am so sick of people using these children to prop up their moronic gun control legislation. Nothing in these bills that have been proposed would have done anything to stop these events. Nor are they even necessary. More people die from clubs and hammers than rifles each year. You can try and take their guns, but you can't take the crazy. What happens when you enact these bills, and someone does the same thing? Do we pass even stricter gun control? To what end? Till we are all disarmed and we are sitting ducks when history repeats itself and we are attacked, either from abroad or from within.
I believe we are seeing such fervent opposition to this bill from some here on the BBS due to real concern they would no longer be able to purchase firearms.
Try Senator Cornyn's information. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/...The-George-Zimmerman-Right-To-Carry-Amendment Anyways, anything Republicans will try to pass in terms of regressive policies will be that much harder. Really, they're shooting themselves and the American people in the foot. sad.
