'murica!

[blowe]

http://www.unitedliberty.org/articles/13364-assault-weapons-ban-goes-down-in-flames

 

Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA) lost her push today for renewal of the Assault Weapons Ban. Feinstein, who authored a similar law in 1994, made a plea during her short speech on the floor prior to the vote, but acknowledged that she knew “how this was going to end.”

 

The amendment targeted semi-automatic firearms simply because of cosmetics and dubbed them as “assault weapons.” Supporters of the amendment tried to make it sound like it the guns being targeted were automatic weapons or machine guns. Those types of weapons are already banned by law.

Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) noted that the Assault Weapons Ban didn’t prevent Columbine and wouldn’t have prevented Newtown. He also warned that passing the amendment could lead would open the door for further abuses of the Bill of Rights.

 

The Senate overwhelming voted against Feinstain’s Assault Weapons Ban by a vote of 40 to 60. The only Republican to support the amendment was Sen. Mark Kirk (R-IL). Twelve Democrats, most of which are from red states, opposed the ban — Sens. Mark Begich (D-AK), Joe Donnelley (D-IN), Kay Hagan (D-NC), Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND), Jon Tester (D-MT), Mary Landrieu (D-LA), Martin Heinrich (D-NM), Mark Udall (D-CO), Tom Udall (D-NM), Mark Pryor (D-AK), Joe Manchin (D-WV), and Max Baucus (D-MT).

 

The two biggest parts of the package pushed by President Obama — background checks and the Assault Weapons Ban — have been struck down. That’s a lot of political capital wasted with nothing to show for it.

 

Hear that bitches? That's the sound of freedom.

[The Cysko Kid]

You say that as if there was ever a doubt. There was only a doubt in the minds of crazy people like cal, and apparently, you.

[VaporTrail]

 

Also, what's up with the img tags? I had to insert a picture to post it.

[calfoxwc]

Obamao and co. got their marxist pig faces stuffed into humble pie.

 

Arrogant somebeeches hate that, you know. They were all set to have

 

this bill pass the Senate, and then fail in the House, so they could score huge, huge

 

political points against Republicans, using the murder victims of Conn. as political capital.

 

Even a bunch of Dems saw through that. And anti-guns emotionally venting irrationally Cysko was again on the wrong side of an issue.

 

No surprise....

[The Cysko Kid]

Did I or did I not ever endorse a weapons ban?

 

The answer, of course, is I did not. This is why I say you are a crazy person.

[The Cysko Kid]

And if we're being honest even I think Obama is using the parents of newtown victims as political fodder way too heavily. Leave those people be and stop fucking asking them to introduce you at blah blah blah, whatever.

[calfoxwc]

Not per se.

 

But your rambling about gun control LEADS to bans. It's what they want. Feinstein pretty much admitted it.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Cysko, they want to be up on that stage. He's not making them do that. That's what those people want to do. That's alright, isn't it?

[The Cysko Kid]

I don't like it one bit. It seems undignified to me. Everybody wants fifteen minutes of fame, and of course he's asking them to do it. Their unfortunate murdered children are now just some politician's ploy.

[blowe]

 

You mad Obama? Lying about the stats too no doubt. 90% of the American public wanted this huh? Liar!

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't like it one bit. It seems undignified to me. Everybody wants fifteen minutes of fame, and of course he's asking them to do it. Their unfortunate murdered children are now just some politician's ploy.

 

It'd be a ploy to use them if they don't want to be used in that capacity, but they do.

 

Also, what's wrong with using real world events, like Newtown, to highlight the need for particular legislation? After all, after Newton lots of people - including many on this board - were wondering how to change things to make things safer, even if it was just on the margins. After 9/11, did we not use those events to justify new policies? After a plane crashes, do we not use those events to justify new rules on air safety? After a football player dies from suicide, do we not question what we can do about traumatic brain injuries?

 

Honestly, I don't see the problem. They're not being exploited. They're not ploys. They're pushing for changes in gun laws because they've been affected by gun violence and want to see those laws changed. If you ask them, and lots of people have, they'll tell you how important it is to them.

 

It happens all the time and with every issue.

[MLD Woody]

Cal has been falling down that slippery slope for months... its his thing

[blowe]

Cal has been falling down that slippery slope for months... its his thing

...what?

[MLD Woody]

...what?

 

Cal takes something proposed by the side he disagrees with, and then runs it out saying this will happen, and then this, then this, until it gets to some crappy conclusion.

 

Slippery Slope argument... logical fallacy

 

He does it all the time.

[calfoxwc]

Well, Woodypeckerhead,

 

consider:

 

"The heart of the slippery slope fallacy lies in abusing the intuitively appreciable transitivity of implication, claiming that A leads to B, B leads to C, C leads to D and so on, until one finally claims that A leads to Z. While this is formally valid when the premises are taken as a given, each of those contingencies needs to be factually established before the relevant conclusion can be drawn. Slippery slope fallacies occur when this is not done—an argument that supports the relevant premises is not fallacious and thus isn't a slippery slope fallacy.

Often proponents of a "slippery slope" contention propose a long series of intermediate events as the mechanism of connection leading from A to B. The "camel's nose" provides one example of this: once a camel has managed to place its nose within a tent, the rest of the camel will inevitably follow. In this sense the slippery slope resembles the genetic fallacy, but in reverse.

*********************************************************************

So, some of us have shown as a fact, that those things we are concerned about, have absolutely happened in history in

other countries. So your wussy claim of "slippery slope" flies right out of the window like fairy dust. It's quite a false argument, then,

to simply lcya by claiming that since it never happened in our country, it's an invalid claim of possibility/probability.

That's why Cysko bailed on my serious questions to him. He ran from it like a terrified chipmunk. After all his incessant

emotionalism that made little sense, he couldn't vent his way out of historical fact. Therefore, refer to the underlined sentence above,

and realize that multiple historical proofs of the relationships between "A", and "B", etc, as absolute fact, IS the basis for

"factually establishing" the alleged "contingencies". We can simply draw valid conclusions of legitimate concern.

[blowe]

 

Cal takes something proposed by the side he disagrees with, and then runs it out saying this will happen, and then this, then this, until it gets to some crappy conclusion.

 

Slippery Slope argument... logical fallacy

 

He does it all the time.

Ahh, ok. Well this would be one thing that I agree with him on. Not everything is a slippery slope, but you know what they say the first step in a dictatorship is... strip the public of their weapons. You can't do that in America so it has to start somewhere like stricter gun control. It's not that I think that WILL happen; it's more so that it COULD happen in America, which is a scary thought. And let's not be naive, you and I both know that libs were going to keep pushing more and more legislature through if this bill had passed. It wouldn't be the last bill stripping American liberties we saw.

[calfoxwc]

Hey, Blowe, that's not right. I swear you agreed with me on something else, one other time....

[We need Tom Tupa]

 

It'd be a ploy to use them if they don't want to be used in that capacity, but they do.

 

Also, what's wrong with using real world events, like Newtown, to highlight the need for particular legislation? After all, after Newton lots of people - including many on this board - were wondering how to change things to make things safer, even if it was just on the margins. After 9/11, did we not use those events to justify new policies? After a plane crashes, do we not use those events to justify new rules on air safety? After a football player dies from suicide, do we not question what we can do about traumatic brain injuries?

 

Honestly, I don't see the problem. They're not being exploited. They're not ploys. They're pushing for changes in gun laws because they've been affected by gun violence and want to see those laws changed. If you ask them, and lots of people have, they'll tell you how important it is to them.

 

It happens all the time and with every issue.

 

Did you really just reference the Iraq War and Patriot Act as positive examples?

[heckofajobbrownie]

I don't believe the Iraq War or The Patriot Act were the only policies we changed after 9/11, and not sure I was placing a value judgment on any of them, but sure.

 

And welcome home.

[VaporTrail]

We already fucked up enough after 9/11. We don't need that shit to happen again, and it seems exploitative for Obama to do that. Also, I really can't believe how he blamed the NRA for the bill not passing.

[heckofajobbrownie]

Manchin said he had 70 votes. Then the NRA announced they'd score the bill and he had 56. If Manchin is right, I'd blame the NRA too.

[VaporTrail]

Or he could blame the fact that they were trying to enact a half-assed assault weapons ban that won't actually change anything.

[heckofajobbrownie]

But that wasn't part of the Manchin-Toomey bill. In fact, it had language in it specifically saying that this was not an assault weapons ban.

[calfoxwc]

It had language in it to bar it becoming a registration, too.

But that's pie in the sky. The mainstream anti gunners are insisting that

 

anything that does pass will only be a stepping stone. As in, they get a Dem House and Senate,

they'd simply pass an amendment changing it to what they really wanted, without all the political turmoil

of trying to accomplish a registry and ban first off. Just once, Heck, listen to the extremist lefties in your own party.

 

Feinstein insists that if she could get the votes, she'd ban all guns. Why not figure that she's serious leftwing nutcase?

 

It's exactly as I said to Cysko much earlier - legit work toward a genuine solution? to at least try to stop these crimes

goes by the wayside of all the left who want to rail against the NRA and gun owners for having guns.

 

Going after the many millions of LEGIT gun owners does nothing to stop violent nutjobs from committing crimes with guns.

No more than outlawing bombs to all legal, responsible citizens, yet the violent nuts still get bombs. Go figure, eh?

 

(and no, don't figure I think we should all be allowed to have bombs, either...)