Dems Tout Second Amendment, but Voting RecordsShow Hostility

[alan]

MOA:

Your interesting post included the following:

"Can you imagine what it would be like on hot button, gun-control Bills. Maybe no one will show up in the Senate to cast their vote except the Bill's sponsors. And why not? Being a no-show Senator has no political consequences".

One of these days, no, I don't know when, these overpaid clowns might find out, the hard way, that being a "no show" Senator has significant political consequences.

Of course, that ending will require Joe and Jane Six Pack to get off their asses, and do something, which might well be the equivalent of expecting Joe and Jane Gun Owner to contact their elected things, regarding issues that self interest, if nothing else should suffice to energize them over. Alas, they, all to often, seem content to simply sit there, doing nothing, other than crying, when that nasty thing that "snuk up on them",bites them on their lazy asses.

It's been raining all day, and my outlook gets darker in the rain.

 

[labgrade]

Quick read/skim & sorry for no content other than exposed ...

rick_reno
Absolutely - Yes - you can trust them. Just look back at the past 20 years of 2nd Amendment protection measures that were passed and you can thank the Republicans. They, unlike the evil Democrats are only interested in protecting your Rights, especially those Rights assoicated with the keeping and bearing of arms."

I may be in huge error here, ...

But, what from our current masters?

Ascroft's own words (paraphrased) "Yup, The Second is "secure" except for "reasonable restrictions." & that apt "phantoms of lost liberties ... "

Bush said he'd sign the AWB renewal.

A Repub Guv, state-level senate & house cause us to start the TRT.

Ergo. They attempted to poltically F-us! at the state level - to "head off a more serious threat." Want to bet that they could have "headed of that threat" by some sort of "0political action?"

Bastards!

We now have a constitutional amendment against "gun shows"... thanks to the "prohibitive actions" of ourt state-level GOP.

Thanks for nothing, A-holes!

Sorry, folks.

I don't see a single thing that says the GOP will defend any thing whatsoever.

Bunch-a pussies! & worse.

 

[Standing Wolf]

If someone would kindly tell me how to distinguish between the Republicrats and the Democans, I'll let you know which I distrust more. I can't tell them apart even with a score card.

 

[Don Galt]

Standing Wolf-- there's a difference. While both parties want higher taxes, more violations of the BoR and to ban guns, the republicans pretend to NOT want these thigns, while working for them.

Thus, whenever these things happen, they just blame the Democrats! ITs a perfect system... well, as long as republican voters continue to ignore how their republican representatives actually vote.

 

[Betty]

Merging threads...

 

[7.62FullMetalJacket]

Don,

So by your logic, we should vote Democrat to set ourselves free

 

[Don Galt]

No, the Democrats are no better.

Vote Libertarian, and set yourself free.

 

[Frohickey]

"We don't believe there is any contradiction between strongly supporting the Second Amendment right of individuals to bear arms as well as supporting laws that keep guns out of the hands of kids, criminals and terrorists," Barron said. "You're seeing Democratic candidates standing up and clarifying their support of the Second Amendment."

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.

Barron is wrong. What you are really seeing are Democratic candidates weaseling out and trying to justify their infringement of the Second Amendment.


On the issue of missing votes, a Constitutional amendment saying that a Senator and Congresscritter is paid a percentage of the votes that they cast would be good.

 

[alan]

Frohickey offered the following:


"On the issue of missing votes, a Constitutional amendment saying that a Senator and Congresscritter is paid a percentage of the votes that they cast would be good".

Excellent idea. You realize, of course, that it would never go anywhere.

Another "good idea" that went nowhere was as follows. Many years ago, as the story goes, some young congress critter offered what seemingly was viewed as a truly outrageous suggestion, re staffing levels at The Bureau of Indian Affairs. I suppose that his idea would have been applicable to other agencies too.

He proposed that under no circumstances would the number of government employees at said bureau be allowed to exceed the number of Indians whose affairs it was overseeing or looking after.

The suggestion was withdrawn, after having been shouted down.