Obama Responds to His Gun Control Defeat With Self-Righteous Solipsism

White HouseWhite House"There are good people on both sides of this thing," President Obama said in a gun control speech a couple of weeks ago, "but we have to be able to put ourselves in the other person's shoes." He worried that "both sides of the debate sometimes don't listen to each other" and wondered, "How do you build trust?" Not this way:

There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics—the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections....They caved to pressure, and they started looking for an excuse—any excuse—to vote no....This was a pretty shameful day for Washington.

That is how Obama explained the Senate's refusal to approve the gun control measures he supports. According to the president, no one honestly questioned the merits of his proposals; the opposition all "came down to politics," meaning a desperate desire to retain power. His opponents not only failed to make a convincing case, he says; they offered "no coherent arguments" at all. Since Obama's case for gun control consisted mainly of invoking dead children and grieving parents, that charge displays an astonishing lack of self-awareness. Here is how Obama responds to critics, such as Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), who fault him for using victims of gun violence as props:

Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss, is not relevant to this debate?

Of course they have a right to speak their minds. But no, their emotions are not relevant when it comes to empirical questions such as the impact of background checks, "assault weapon" bans, and limits on magazines. Their pain tells us nothing about the effectiveness or constitutionality of such measures. To the contrary, it obscures those issues with an impenetrable emotional fog.

Obama does a fine job of empathizing with the parents of Adam Lanza's victims. But that is something any decent human being should be able to manage. Where he has trouble, despite his lip service to the idea of putting himself in the other guy's shoes, is in empathizing with his opponents. He not only says they are wrong, which is to be expected. He refuses to concede that people who disagree with him about gun control are acting in good faith, based on what they believe to be sound reasons—that they, like him, are doing what they think is right. His self-righteous solipsism is striking even for a politician.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Not a Libertarian||

    Shorter Version:
    His self-righteous solipsism is striking even for a politician.
    Rinse | Repeat.

  • PapayaSF||

    "What I admire most in any man is a serene spirit, a steady freedom from moral indignation, an all-embracing tolerance — in brief, what is commonly called good sportsmanship. Such a man is not to be mistaken for one who shirks the hard knocks of life. On the contrary, he is frequently an eager gladiator, vastly enjoying the opposition. But when he fights he fights in the manner of a gentleman fighting a duel, not in that of a longshoreman cleaning out a waterfront saloon. That is to say, he carefully guards his amour propre by assuming that his opponent is as decent a man as he is, and just as honest — and perhaps, after all, right. Such an attitude is palpably impossible to a democrat. His distinguishing mark is the fact that he always attacks his opponents, not only with all arms, but also with snorts and objurgations — that he is always filled with moral indignation — that he is incapable of imagining honor in an antagonist, and hence incapable of honor himself. Such fellows I do not like. I do not share their emotion. I can't understand their indignation, their choler. In particular, I can't fathom their envy. And so I am against them." —H.L. Mencken

  • AlmightyJB||

    OMG! Yes!

  • andrew79||

    Start working at home with Google! It’s by-far the best job Ive had. Last Wednesday I got a brand new BMW since getting a check for $6474 this - 4 weeks past. I began this 8-months ago and immediately was bringin home at least $77 per hour. I work through this link, Mojo50.com

  • BigT||

    Mencken's timeless wisdom!

  • maayani||

    I'm putting this on a shirt.

  • grey||

    I'm making a song of it and singing it all over town.

  • Greendogo||

    I'm going to pee this into a glacier.

  • Arminda321||

    If you think Thomas`s story is terrific..., last month my brother's best friend actually earned $8592 just sitting there 40 hours a month from there house and there best friend's half-sister`s neighbour has been doing this for 6 months and made over $8592 part-time at their pc. applie the advice at this site, kep2.com

  • Shmurphy||

    Stealing this for my quote of the night on Bookface. Props given.

  • BarryD||

    ¿Es possible?

  • ||

    Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss, is not relevant to this debate?

    Here's an idea, President Obama: why don't you call your old pal Rahm and see how some of the strictest gun control in the country is working out for the "thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence"?

    And then after you two have a nice chat about that, you can go fuck yourself.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Or someone could remind the Constitutional Scholar that they all have weighed in during the elections.

    And those pesky congress members voting against President Obama are representing those who have "weighed in".

  • DaveInCO||

    Pretty much nails it. Nothing else needs to be said.

  • BarryD||

    I submit that harakiri is the only good option for Obama now.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    No no. Harakiri was an honorable luxury granted by a lord. Who could be lord to King Obama -- Rahm?

  • BarryD||

    That's the one honorable luxury I'd happily grant the ratbastard pile of shit.

    Yes, it is too good for him, but I'm in a generous mood, after a couple of Hendrick's martinis.

  • deified||

    You know, people make fun of him for it but I would say the most honorable job this jug-eared shit-weasel ever had was "community organizer." Here was a position where he didn't have to lick boots to get up the chain of command. If he really had a knack for his job, he could have helped people in a marginal community draw strength from themselves and each other by cooperating to do things like "neighborhood watch" in order to improve security. He could've organized a letter-writing campaign to get in communication with the police for more patrols. He could've even negotiated with street gangs to tell them to keep the violence and dealing out of his 'hood.

    So what happened when he had the chance to do something?

    Well, he couldn't even stop violence in his own neighborhood. So while BHO was scheming to get his next job, the carnage on the South Side continued unabated.

    I mean, Hadiya Pendleton was killed in 2013.

    All of Barack Obama's efforts and those of his countless Chicagoland cronies can't even make his own neighborhood safe. But he's got big plans for Libya, and Syria, and gun owners in Idaho.

    What a maroon.

  • BarryD||

    Libya and Syria don't hold a candle to what will happen if the Feds fuck with gun owners in Idaho.

    There was a game warden who wasn't much liked by a lot of people. A guy shot him and a fellow warden, execution style, in the hills, and disposed of the bodies. He was hidden by a veritable underground railroad for more than a year before he was found and charged with first-degree murder. He's still a bit of a hero.

    That was for killing a game warden who was known for excessive enforcement of hunting regulations.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Claude_Dallas

    And no, Idaho isn't some barbaric place. It's just not a place that's fond of government overreach.

  • Generic Stranger||

    I read one of the books about that guy. He's a genuine folk hero to a lot of people in that area.

  • TheZeitgeist||

    Libya and Syria don't hold a candle to what will happen if the Feds fuck with gun owners in Idaho.

    As someone raised in Idaho, you are very correct. Just about everybody has guns in Idaho, too. Lots of them. Big ones. Mongo clips. Never saw anyone shot, never encountered gun violence - except for this one incident, but that's a long story.

    As someone living in LA, I note hardly any of my co-workers or friends has discharged a firearm much less owns one, much less AK's with super-banana clips (I do miss mine living here). When in debates about subjects like this, and the subject of semi-autos comes up, I pointedly ask these LA folk to define a semi-auto - and five times out of six (thereabouts) they cannot.

    And despite that, I have seen my street shut down by the cops twice while they tried finding 'the shooter' while living here in LA. The 'ghetto birds' are always busy, though lately I don't see their search beams anymore (I'm guessing they've upgraded to FLIR-pods since I arrived two years ago).

    You want more gun control lefties? Learn how to aim.

  • BarryD||

    To put it more simply: people in Southern Idaho, where the whole Claude Dallas thing went down, are just plain nice, polite people. If you're going to break down on the side of the road, that's where you want it to be.

    People in LA, as well as most "blue" places it seems, are remarkable assholes by comparison.

    The Department of State sees fit to send a lot of African refugees to Idaho, as well. The violent crime rate is far lower than it is in gun-controlled oh-so-liberal California.

    But it's the asshole factor that you really notice right away, when going from Southern Idaho to Western Washington, Southern California, etc.

  • General Butt Naked||

    @Barry

    Reminds me of two things:

    1. When I lived in Arizona you could almost instantly tell who was a native arizonan and who was a transplant; the guy born there would be much more polite.

    2. I traveled poor all across this nation and the most giving and polite people I met were down were in the rural south and rural texas. Once you got to tennessee there was a distinct difference in how people treated you. It's anecdotal, but I've heard the same from others.

  • forestgombosi39||

    Brody. I can see what your saying... Earl`s blog is amazing, last friday I got themselves a Jaguar E-type since getting a cheque for $4865 this-past/five weeks and-in excess of, ten grand this past month. this is certainly my favourite job Ive ever had. I actually started five months/ago and straight away startad bringin home at least $87 per-hr. I work through this link tinyurl.com/d8v6duz
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • General Butt Naked||

    I read your second paragraph as LA = Louisiana and was a might confused, but your moonbeam reference set me straight.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That's a crazy story (the Claude Dallas story). I'll have to check out one of those books.

  • Jon Lester||

    I saw the TV movie, with Claude Akin and a young Brent Spiner.

  • LarryA||

    All of Barack Obama's efforts and those of his countless Chicagoland cronies can't even make his own neighborhood safe.

    These are the people who named a handgun/semiauto firearm licensing bill after Blair Holt, a student shot on a "gun-free" school bus in Chicago, a "gun-free" city.

    They just can't connect the dots.

  • ||

    Is Obama serious for having placed Geithner and Paulson on control of, erm, America's money destiny?

  • Sevo||

    His dog seems to like him, so there must be some redeeming factor.

  • RBS||

    I'm going to need to see the budget for the First Dog's treats.

  • Sevo||

    Prolly right; bought with your an my money like everything else the sleazebag's ever done.

  • Killazontherun||

    Dogs are no judge of moral fiber, many even hang out with cops.

  • BarryD||

    My gun dogs are judges of such. They wouldn't get near Obama.

  • Torqued||

    No, that dog does not like him. Dogs have body language too and his is telling.

  • prolefeed||

    Solipsism is the philosophical idea that only one's own mind is sure to exist.

    Jacob, a failure to acknowledge that one's opponents have reasons to think as they do, while indicating one understands the POV of one's allies, is not solipsism. Rather, it is a failure to empathize with those one hates, or cynical mislabeling of their motives, or ... well, anything but a case that Obama suffers from solipsism.

  • Raven Nation||

    "a failure to acknowledge that one's opponents have reasons to think as they do."

    This seems to be the left's SOP today. In the view of my many leftist friends, people who hold different ideas have to be stupid or corrupt or both. The concept that there may be any other valid way to see the world is simply not something they can grasp (this is not to suggest that conservatives think clearly on everything. They just have other issues).

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Anyone in a real echo-chamber ends with the same belief regardless of their worldview. Which is: I'm right, everyone else therefore must be wrong.

    & since what is right is also obvious to them and everyone they know; the only way others can be wrong is to be stupid or to knowingly advocate the wrong position for immoral reasons (corrupt).

  • prolefeed||

    I usually don't agree with leftists, but at least I understand their POV. This is not always reciprocated.

    I think this failure of empathy is gonna cost the Ds some seats in the next election. It's one thing to say "I understand and respect your concerns, and they are valid, but I think these other things take precedence." It's a whole nother thing to break out the "no coherent arguments" line and piss off people making coherent arguments.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Agreed, only to say that most true believers are like this.

    It sucks, given the breadth of opinions on the internet, but most high traffic sites are setup to preach to the choir. & they don't rake millions of daily views for people looking for dissenting opinions.

    I will give you though that a good complaint against liberals has been & is their arrogance and seemingly inability to believe anyone holding another position could do so through valid opinions.

    I heard Carville speak about this shortly after the 2004 elections....

    I would say though that any authoritarian streak requires arrogance to begin with - many on the left and right aren't truly authoritarian/statist, but the true-believer-leftist is.

    & I think to even contemplate that your worldview (regardless of what it is) should be imposed by force on others begins with arrogance.

    & true arrogance loves responding to any critiques with "so" or "whatever" or " you just don't care about people" or... anything else irrelevant.

    'Cause true arrogance is so certain its correct, even questioning it is an insult.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Sorry for the novel - but slightly further - to really understand your opponents arguments one must not be "just" non-arrogant, but actually be humble.

    It's a requirement for critical thinking in general, but also a specific requirement to be able to put yourself in someone else's shoes.

    Either way - statist = arrogance :)

  • rassik3||

    Well, prolefeed, one of the connotations of of the word "solipsism" in Merriam-Webster is... "extreme egotism". Need we say more? I realize this applies to virtually all high level politicians, but BOH II is an egotistical narcissist of the very highest order. It is his way or the highway and if you don't see it his way you are derided as a reactionary, a racist, a Neanderthal, etc.

  • benji||

    As biocitizens and former biocitizens the victims of gun violence should have more of a say than a CORPORATE CITIZEN like the NRA.

    Thanks to his Tea Party member supporters in the CORPORATE NRA, the Boston Bomber is probably out there right now with weapons of mass destruction in his hands. Not to mention how many criminals are able to continue to make illegal gun purchases thanks to this undermining of the rule and will of the people.

  • Sevo||

    Sarc, right?

  • Not a Libertarian||

    /Futurama Phillip Fly GIF wondering if he is trolling/

  • RBS||

    Definitely sarcasm, We were making fun of a HuffPost user in the other thread.

  • Cytotoxic||

    Biocitizens? Not sure whether that boosts or hurts the trolling grade.

  • benji||

    Look at some of the Puffington Host comments from the thread earlier: http://reason.com/blog/2013/04.....sures-bill

  • benji||

    Also Bloomberg's whining about how not passing this allows people to continue to make illegal gun purchases.

  • JohnD||

    Someone send Bloomberg a pressure cooker

  • SweatingGin||

    Okay, way too late for this one, but has to be posted:

    Kiss three fifths of my ass!

  • Sevo||

    Oh, and Biden sure looks like Walter: http://www.orble.com/images/jeff-dunham-walter.jpg
    Can Dunham sue for copyright infringement?

  • Drake||

    So President self-righteous put himself in the place of a law-abiding gun owner who would have his belongings banned and his rights curtailed? Please.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    So, has he officially topped Nixon as "Biggest Crybaby President", or what?

  • Kurbster||

    I'm finally back home. A sudden wave of liberal tears flooded my Massachusetts town and took me out to sea.

    I'm happy to be alive, and I shall be putting this experience in my biography, which will be available this summer

  • SweatingGin||

    Did the tears taste good?

    I only got electronic tears. They were still delicious.

  • Kurbster||

    they tasted like jizz and mountain dew

  • Cytotoxic||

    Did the jizz at least wash out the bad?

  • Tony||

    The NRA spends decades lobbying for relaxed gun laws... succeeds wildly... Now the NRA says there are too many guns and we can't possibly do anything about it. 30,000 gun deaths a year (and presumably many, many more) are the appropriate price of freedom. (Meanwhile mass murder committed merely with a different type of weapon is called "terrorism" and treated very differently by parties who may support gun proliferation.)

    If the emotions of gun victims are irrelevant then so, presumably, are the emotions of gun advocates, who are really quite an emotional group. Paranoid, one might say.

    The bill at hand that failed (less so perhaps the other two) was indeed weak stuff destined to do little to prevent gun deaths. So which stronger measures do we prefer, hm?

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    :`(

  • Generic Stranger||

    Fuck off, slaver.

  • Hyperion||

    Tony, is sad Tony.

  • Restoras||

    Sad, sad Tony.

  • Calidissident||

    "The NRA spends decades lobbying for relaxed gun laws... succeeds wildly"

    And interestingly enough, the homicide rate has been declining for decades now. I wonder how you would react if the correlation was the other way around.

  • Tony||

    The homicide rate has declined for at least 150 years with no easy explanation (but I would refer you to Pinker). That only puts in starker relief the extremely high levels of gun deaths--relatively and my any measure--in this country. Not all are homicides, of course, but accidental deaths and suicides are not less worth preventing. And indisputably the presence of guns makes all three ways of dying easier.

  • Restoras||

    Of course, some of the strictest gun control laws are in place in Chicago and that has worked out...how, again?

  • Tony||

    Local gun controls are pretty useless when local gun policy somewhere else is more relaxed and people are free to travel wherever they want in the country.

    The bottom line question is whether you think that many deaths (and presumably many more--as you're absolutists on this matter) is the appropriate price of freedom, or if you favor much stricter and broader gun control laws in place of the ineffective ones.

  • Irish||

    Local gun controls are pretty useless when local gun policy somewhere else is more relaxed and people are free to travel wherever they want in the country.

    If this is true, then how can any national gun laws work? After all, they're local laws that other countries and crime syndicates are free to disregard. Which is why people would simply smuggle guns into the country, just like they did with alcohol during prohibition and just like they do with drugs now.

    Which is why you're an idiot. Your own arguments refute your point.

  • Tony||

    So every country on earth is saturated by guns just like the US?

    You're just restating the argument I assumed you must accept: that our level of gun deaths is the appropriate price of freedom. And, more explicitly, that the success the NRA has had in promoting maximum gun proliferation is, they say, the very reason we shouldn't do anything about it.

  • Irish||

    You're an idiot. In other countries, fewer people want guns. It's a basic fact that you cannot ban something that people want. Most Germans are perfectly happy not owning guns. Most Brits are perfectly happy not owning guns. If guns were legal in both of those countries, they would still have far fewer guns sold, simply due to culture.

    This is a second reason you're an idiot. You think the government can change society through magical laws that cannot possibly work.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Most Germans are perfectly happy not owning guns"

    Actually there a quite of lot of Germans who do own guns - in violation of their laws.

    Actual gun possession is far higher in Europe, Australia, etc. and other countries that have severely limited legal gun possesion that most gun control advocates in this country want people to know about.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Most Germans are perfectly happy not owning guns. Most Brits are perfectly happy not owning guns. If guns were legal in both of those countries, they would still have far fewer guns sold, simply due to culture.

    I'm not sure I agree with that. Both Germany and Britain have a long history of hunting as a sport and pastime. Now, it was always seen as more of an upper-class thing as opposed to here in the Americas, but still.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    False dichotomy squared...

    The first false dichotomy:

    Believing in gun rights does not mean one assumes the current level of gun deaths is the appropriate price (even though you falsely assume it does).

    & not to be out done, let's do a second one in the very next sentence)

    Just because the NRA is pro-gun rights does not mean they have been actively promoting maximum gun proliferation.

    While we're here - what exactly is "maximum gun proliferation"? Do they say, offer people money to buy guns?

    Like the government does for cars, appliances, homes, etc, etc, etc...

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 8:58PM |#
    "So every country on earth is saturated by guns just like the US?"

    No, some are more saturated. Like CH, shithead.
    Do you like being beat over the head with facts, shithead?

  • Agammamon||

    Walp, Mexico is - though most of those guns are in the hands of criminals thanks to multiple decades of strict gun control.

  • Ron||

    Brazil has a a zero gun law except for the police but 50,000 a year are murdered there every year by guns. Since they are all illegal the rampant gangs don't stop at pistols they go all the way with full auto rifles.
    So much for your theory.

  • Restoras||

    Right. Because criminals can't get guns in states with strict gun laws. Do you really beleive your own illogical arguements? Oh, wait, I forgot, you are a Progressive! and beleive in the power of the almighty state to usher in a new era of peace and prosperity, if only us proles would give you free reign for just a few years. Sure, you won't be free anymore but the price of progress is serfdom.

  • ||

    Local gun controls are pretty useless when local gun policy somewhere else is more relaxed and people are free to travel wherever they want in the country.

    Like in El Paso TX, one of the top 3 safest large cities in the country while simultaneously having some of the loosest gun laws in the country? While being right across the border from Juarez Mexico, called "the most violent zone in the world outside of war zones?

    Nice "logic" you have there.

  • ||

  • Calidissident||

    And El Paso is also nearly 90% Hispanic, if American is reading this

  • StinkEye||

    "Local gun controls are pretty useless when local gun policy somewhere else is more relaxed and people are free to travel wherever they want in the country."

    Sooo.. we should put a huge, impenetrable fucking dome over Chicago, and never speak of them again? That ought to restrict their right of free travel.

    /If it can save just one life...

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 8:44PM |#
    "The homicide rate has declined for at least 150 years with no easy explanation (but I would refer you to Pinker)."

    Of course you would, shithead, since Pinker has no idea of the cause.
    Regrading the rest of you post, got any evidence? Or just your standard 'well, it's obvious' bullshit

  • Fluffy||

    Dumbass, if the homicide rate is caught up in a centuries-long decline anyway, then we need to do precisely nothing.

    If you don't understand the reasons for the decline, the only safe thing for you to do is...nothing. Because by your own admission you have no way to know if you policy change might be the one thing we could do that would fuck things up.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I'm unsure the homicide rate from 150 years ago is to be believed in its entirety anyway.

    Didn't people disappear on things like, trips across the country all the time?

    & I'm pretty sure forensic science wasn't all that capable back then.

    Though my point is likely the murder rate was understated, so I guess it still means the overall rate is likely be one decline for 150 years... but I'd still rather stick with recent stats or two reasons.

    A) They are typically more reliable than stats from 150 years ago &
    B) The more recent stats come from a society which resembles the current society much more closely than the society from 150 years ago resembles current society.

    & under that thesis - crime rate has dropped while gun sales and NRA victories for concealed carry permits have proliferated.

    Therefore, we should continue forward with whatever gun-rights people suggest and we should have tax breaks for those buying guns.

  • Tony||

    But I'm talking about the shockingly high rate of gun deaths in this country (10 9/11s a year), not the overall homicide rate.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I can't hear you over the sobs. Please clean yourself up and get a grip man.

  • Virginian||

    Holy shit he's still counting the suicides as gun deaths. What a bullshit argument.

    If someone wants to kill itself that is

    a. None of your fucking business, it's their life.
    b. Not going to be stopped by gun control, unless you're also going to wrap everyone up in bubble wrap and medicate them.

  • ||

    ^^^THIS

    Tony lives in a make-believe land where people who want to commit suicide would

    a)not do so without a firearm (ridiculous)

    b)is somehow a scourge on our society (because you don't own your own body, and have no say in how/when you die).

    Hey Tony, explain how Japan has such a high suicide rate? They have no guns, how is this possible?

  • Brendan||

    Yet you include about 19,000 suicides in your figures.

    Countries with strict gun control have similar and greater suicide rates.

  • Fluffy||

    No, suicides are not worth preventing.

    Not if the method you propose to use is control.

    You find a way to help people be happy, knock yourself out.

  • Calidissident||

    "That only puts in starker relief the extremely high levels of gun deaths--relatively and my any measure--in this country"

    Even if there were no murders committed by guns (and no murders by other means prevented by guns), the homicide rate in the US would still be higher than many of the countries you're comparing it to. Which seems to indicate that gun rights isn't a big factor in the homicide rate

    "but accidental deaths and suicides are not less worth preventing."

    What else should we ban to accomplish these goals? Not to mention there are places where gun ownership is nonexistent with even higher suicide rates than the US.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 8:29PM |#
    "The NRA spends decades lobbying for relaxed gun laws... succeeds wildly... Now the NRA says there are too many guns and we can't possibly do anything about it."
    Non-sequitur, shithead. Oh, sorry: "Does not follow". Is that clear?

    "30,000 gun deaths a year (and presumably many, many more) are the appropriate price of freedom."
    Again, does not follow, shithead.

    "(Meanwhile mass murder committed merely with a different type of weapon is called "terrorism" and treated very differently by parties who may support gun proliferation.)"
    You're full of 'em this evening, shithead. Are you capable of putting a consistent thought on the keyboard?

    "If the emotions of gun victims are irrelevant then so, presumably, are the emotions of gun advocates, who are really quite an emotional group. Paranoid, one might say."
    Yes, and the emotions are all that drive your POV, shithead. None others matter.
    ..."the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed".
    So, shithead, please tell me where 'emotion' figures in that statement.

  • Restoras||

    In Tonyland, this is a horrible waste of a crisis. This makes Tonies in Tonyland sad because in Tonyland, appeals to emotion are the basis for feel good legislation. Nevermind nasty, tricksey things like facts, since they can't be manipulated they can't be trusted - at least that what Tonies in Tonyland think.

  • Tony||

    Name one factual thing the NRA has said during this political episode that didn't brazenly prey on people's emotions.

  • Irish||

    Name one factual thing Obama said. The NRA overall was silent. Obama's the one who was flat out lying about 40% of gun purchases being made without a background check, etc.

    In fact, every time the NRA said 'Obama is lying' they were telling the truth! Boom, there's one factual thing they said.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 8:53PM |#
    "Name one factual thing the NRA has said during this political episode that didn't brazenly prey on people's emotions."

    "Politicians pass laws for Gun-Free School Zones. They issue press releases bragging about them. They post signs advertising them.
    And in so doing, they tell every insane killer in America that schools are their safest place to inflict maximum mayhem with minimum risk."

    How 'bout that shithead?

  • ||

    HOLY SHIT! Did Tony just ask that question? I'm reading the thread and you got your ass handed to you on a plastic plate and you chime in with more drivel?

    Tony. OMG.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    QQ MOAR PLZ

  • Irish||

    Since the vast majority of murders occur in cities, which are overwhelmingly controlled by Democrats, maybe if we murdered all Democrats over the age of 15 and raised their children to respect freedom, our murder rate would drop.

    Obviously I'm kidding about the murder part. But it does occur to me that the Democrats argument seems to be 'we're childish morons who can't stop killing each other and have no control over our emotions, therefore you should give up your rights.' So you can go fuck yourself, Tony.

  • MaxF||

    Everyone wants Tony to go fuck himself. I sure hope he has a schlong.

  • Banjos||

    I don't want him to fuck himself, I want him to die in a fire.

  • dinkster||

    No! I condemn him to LIVE!

  • ||

    If the emotions of gun victims are irrelevant then so, presumably, are the emotions of gun advocates, who are really quite an emotional group.

    "If"?

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    The NRA spends decades lobbying for relaxed gun laws... succeeds wildly

    Actually, prior to the Gun Control Act of 1968--which has not been repealed, a fact that you're apparently unaware of--a person could order a gun through the mail and have it delivered directly to his home, no questions asked so long as the check didn't bounce. Guns were sold from the Sears catalog.

  • The Bearded Hobbit||

    I bought my first deer rifle at age 14 from Sears. I think I paid $35 for it.

    ... Hobbit

  • Cytotoxic||

  • ||

    Every single word you typed was part of a fiction. Not one single thing you said was not a fallacy.

    Go fuck yourself Tony.

    Oh, and haha motherfucker.

  • Fluffy||

    I'll give you one point here, Tony. 2nd amendment defenders are also partially motivated by emotion.

    The emotion in question, however, is indignation over threats to the dignity of the citizen.

    That's an entirely reasonable emotion to base a political action on. Basing political action on the emotion that tells you I am the same person as Adam Lanza is not.

  • Tony||

    Sorry, no. Lie-fueled paranoia about something what's probably an ineffective minor regulation is not more politically legitimate emotion than that of people who are victims of gun violence in a debate about reducing gun violence.

    Libertarians consistently manage to find lobbying more distasteful the less well-funded it is.

  • Calidissident||

    Because Michael Bloomberg, a freaking billionaire and the mayor of the largest city in the country, totally isn't lobbying for gun regulations

  • ||

    $

  • Jordan||

    The NRA spent decades fighting against further gun laws, not lobbying for relaxed laws.

  • ||

    Thank you. I have yet to see the NRA lobbying to reverse the 1968 Gun Control Act, for the National Firearms Act of 1934.

  • General Butt Naked||

    You could argue that they've been fighting for relaxed carry laws, but that's more of a state advocacy issue.

  • Scarecrow Repair||

    Well, this is wasted, but I'll put it out here anyway.

    30,000 gun deaths: 20,000 are suicides. Japan has much much stricter gun laws, yet has double the suicide rate. When Australia banned guns, the suicide rate didn't even wobble -- gun suicides dropped and other methods picked up the slack.

    The remaining 10,000 gun deaths are homicides, but 8000 are criminals killing criminals, almost entirely due to the War on (Some) Drugs.

    There are only 2500 or so gun murders in the US that are neither voluntary nor a direct result of government policy.

    So shut it.

  • John C. Randolph||

    It's not about emotions, dipshit. It's about rights. My right to self-defense is not contingent on your approval.

    I'm very happy that the object of your worship failed in his latest move to violate his oath of office. It means that there's still some limitation to power-grabbing.

    -jcr

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "The bill at hand that failed (less so perhaps the other two) was indeed weak stuff destined to do little to prevent gun deaths. So which stronger measures do we prefer, hm?"

    Seeing as how no gun control law of any type that has ever been enacted - not only in this country but anywhere on earth has ever been proven to reduce the crime rate in way, I'd say we don't prefer any.

  • Don Mynack||

    Butthurt Tony is so, so funny.

  • Jim in Denver||

    So the NRA operates on it's own? There isn't a large voter base who supports the same outcome as the NRA? Just months after Aurora and Sandy Hook and according to recent polls a majority of American's DO NOT favor more gun laws...

    Gun supporters use facts and statistics not dead children and crying mothers as their basis of opinion, try again fuckwad.

    BTW, how many of those gun deaths are suicide? You think background checks are going to stop suicide?

    Place hands on buttocks, press hard until you see daylight.

  • Caleb Turberville||

    Of course the GOP can never argue in good faith. It seems, in Dems' eyes, the only reason the GOP have for doing anything is sweet, sweet corporate money or something else nefarious.

  • Tony||

    The GOP is an almost shockingly corrupt entity, only being made worse by the increasing injection of stupidity and dogmatism that buys its corruption as some sort of moral philosophy.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 8:39PM |#
    'The democrat party is an almost shockingly corrupt entity, only being made worse by the increasing injection of stupidity and dogmatism that buys its corruption as some sort of moral philosophy.'

    I've got more evidence than you do, shithead.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    Ah, projection.

  • Restoras||

    Well, Tonies would know.

  • Irish||

    The GOP is an almost shockingly corrupt entity

    Which is why Democrat controlled areas like New Jersey, Illinois and New Orleans are so pure.

  • Tony||

    Those Democrats didn't invent legalized corporate bribery on the national scale. Or make torture of suspects national policy, for that matter.

  • Irish||

    HAHAHAHAHAHA! So, when the most corrupt places in the country are all run by Democrats, and the vast majority of people arrested for corruption come from places the Democrats have run for decades, it's the Republican's fault. Okay, Tony.

  • Tony||

    I'll stop supporting Democrats on the rather stupid argument that they're more corrupt once Republicans start advocating for climate change mitigation policies, i.e., accepting basic scientific facts as true.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 8:59PM |#
    "I'll stop supporting Democrats on the rather stupid argument that they're more corrupt once Republicans start advocating for climate change mitigation policies, i.e., accepting basic scientific facts as true."

    Of course you would, shithead. Who cares? You'd support the democrat party if it said the world's ending tomorrow and you woke up and it was till there!
    You're an ignoramus; who cares what you support?

  • Irish||

    I like when you lose an argument (which you always do) and you immediately start talking about something unrelated.

    It's almost like you are incapable of making a coherent point without drooling on yourself.

  • Tony||

    Back your claim up about the most corrupt places. Because I think it's either bullshit or the product of an obvious correlation between higher population density and more occurrence of and news reporting on corruption (and the tendency to have Democrats in office).

    Republicans are stupid poodles of corporate lobbies. And I have no earthly idea why you're defending them, or why everyone ALWAYS defends them here, as if they don't even realize they're doing it.

  • Irish||

    So when the Democrats give massive sums of money to corporate entities, like failed green jobs initiatives, is that not corruption? Al Gore is incredibly rich as a direct result of the government giving him money.

    Because it strikes me that Republicans don't flat out hand money to the gun industry, whereas Democrats give money to pretty much any corporate entity that asks.

    Face it, your a stooge for a hyper-corrupt oligarchy.

  • Tony||

    At least green jobs initiatives have a social purpose. Republicans pathologically do the bidding of corporate interests that are usually bad for people. And that poodleship is ALWAYS shuffled aside in favor of crying over supposed cronyism in minor industries like solar panels. Please.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Ah yes, since green jobs are a moral good, it doesn't matter all the money spent produces nothing and goes to cronies.

    So it's ok, if we find that working in community outreach programs with the NRA is a moral good, it will not matter that it produces nothing or that the money seems to only flow to right wing groups?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 9:25PM |#
    "At least green jobs initiatives have a social purpose"

    Ah yes. To waste taxpayer money. What a wonderful purpose, shithead.

  • StinkEye||

    "At least green jobs initiatives have a social purpose. Republicans pathologically do the bidding of corporate interests that are usually bad for people..."

    A social purpose? get real. It was a big taxpayer funded payoff for campaign bundlers. How about all the tax breaks for the motion picture industry? They got repaid well in the pork in the "Cliff bill" as I recall.

  • Jordan||

    Republicans are stupid poodles of corporate lobbies.

    Says the guy who supports TARP, bailouts, and subsidies.

  • Tony||

    Not support in terms of preferred over every possible alternative. But if you were in favor of global economic collapse, that hardly makes you morally ascendant. I don't support government doing anything that doesn't serve the public interest. Occasionally that entails subsidies, of course, like for companies that build stuff used in national defense, etc.

  • Jordan||

    In other words, the exact same argument that every other corporate whore makes.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 9:26PM |#
    "Not support in terms of preferred over every possible alternative."

    Just every one that doesn't match you stupidity, right, shithead?

  • John C. Randolph||

    if you were in favor of global economic collapse

    Do you believe everything that Hank Paulsen tells you?

    You really need to have a guardian appointed to manage your financial affairs, Tony. Someone as gullible as you is in grave danger from Brooklyn Bridge salesmen.

    -jcr

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 9:12PM |#
    "Back your claim up about the most corrupt places."

    Shithead:
    1) Chicago
    2) New Jersey
    3) San Francisco
    4) Los Angeles
    5) Detroit
    6) Cleveland
    Enough, shithead?

  • Tony||

    No. What is the metric of corruption here? And New Jersey has a Republican head of government.

  • Calidissident||

    Obviously NJ was pure when Jon Corzine was in charge

  • ||

    How could you leave out Baltimore and Philadelphia?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Republicans are stupid poodles of corporate lobbies.

    Hate to break it to you, but your idol was a wholly-owned minion of Goldman Sachs before he ever set foot in the senate chamber.

    -jcr

  • Jim in Denver||

    It's not that they defend Republicans Tony, it's that they defend intellectual honesty, of which you are unimaginably deficient.

  • John C. Randolph||

    Tony, you know goddamned well that whenever the Ruling Party flips the switch on the alarmatron from "we're all going to fry!" to "we're all going to freeze!", you're going to be screaming your damn fool head off with full-throated support for the nationalization of all heating devices FOR THE CHILDREN, so that the GREEDY RICH can't HOARD all the HEAT!

    -jcr

  • Libertarius||

    Hey dipshit--even if your phony baloney religion of GW was valid, you are basing your arguments on the pretense that America is the only country in the world that pollutes anything.

    Fuck off, you irrational mystic.

  • Sevo||

    Poor, poor shithead:
    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 8:54PM |#
    "Those Democrats didn't invent legalized corporate bribery on the national scale."
    Tell it to Joe Kennedy, shithead.

    "Or make torture of suspects national policy, for that matter."
    No, they just decided it was such a good idea the expanded it!
    Stuff it up your butt, shithead.

  • Tejicano||

    Why torture them when you can drone them at home with the wife and kids?

  • Tony||

    Drone use is FAR preferable to the prior methods. Drones have the lowest collateral damage of any military means, of course including those employed by Republicans when they lied their way into a massively destructive ground war.

    Drones kill innocents and inflame anti-american passions, for sure. But Democrats didn't invent drones--they were an inevitable technological innovation. Democrats just use war machinery more judiciously than Republicans. Not to say perfectly, of course.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    lol - use more "judiciously".

    I don't think you know what that word means, as I don't think it's synonymous with "directly selecting individuals for execution with zero oversight".

  • Tony||

    I said more judiciously, admittedly a low bar, and I didn't say they were perfect.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 9:49PM |#
    "I said more judiciously, admittedly a low bar, and I didn't say they were perfect."

    IOWs, shithead, you prefer to excuse assholery done by your fave asshole.
    Got it.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    There aren't many words that he does know the meaning of.

  • Irish||

    Is drone use preferable to not firing missiles into a country that we aren't at war with? It occurs to me that that is also an option.

    Democrats just use war machinery more judiciously than Republicans.

    Yeah, that explains Vietnam. It also explains why Bill Clinton sent American troops into active war zones an average of once every nine weeks.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 9:30PM |#
    "Drone use is FAR preferable to the prior methods. Drones have the lowest collateral damage of any military means,"

    Shithead, how long can you do that before you get dizzy?

  • John C. Randolph||

    Democrats just use war machinery more judiciously than Republicans.

    Today I learned that "more judiciously" means "a hell of a lot more" in Tony's dialect of newspeak.

    Look it up, Obama-fluffer.

    -jcr

  • jdkchem||

    Drones have the lowest collateral damage?

    Would you be referring to the same lie bubba used to launch cruise missiles at empty tents?

    Using more judiciously as in Somolia and Benghazi?

    Shut the fuck up you ignorant shit sack. You know jack shit about the military you preening fuck monkey. As for your moronic and retarded climate change concerns. If you complete the late term abortion your mommy started you'll actually do something about mitigating the apocalypse and you'll demonstrate that in at least one instance you're not a mouth breathing shit eating gutless fucktard.

  • Silly ol' Bear||

    1. "Drone" is just another word for clay pigeon. Bring it on.

    2. I live in the rural, Deep South. We have very, very few murders unlike big towns.

    3. I used to live in Chicago, trust me, the cronyism and illegalities committed by those elected to office and employed by them is amazing.

    4. If at least one person in the CT incident had a gun, a lot of kids would have been, saved. Please read something other than liberal media and discover how many children have been saved by someone having a gun on the premises. Gun control does NOT work.

    5. I just can't figure out how anyone would think criminals would not get guns. A.) they don't care, B.) they don't follow laws. ETOH consumption skyrocketed during Prohibition, when will people learn that passing laws to prohibit/restrict/deny actions creates more use of the "forbidden" substance. Tobacco use is on an increase, esp. in younger adults, late teens, despite all the ads and restrictions against tobacco use.

  • isadordegeorge87||

    Sadie. although Elaine`s remark is incredible, I just purchased a brand new Aston Martin DB5 after making $8366 this-past/5 weeks and in excess of ten k last month. with-out a doubt this is the best-work I've ever done. I started this 6 months ago and almost straight away began to make at least $73.. per/hr. I work through this website tinyurl.com/d8v6duz
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Those Democrats didn't invent legalized corporate bribery on the national scale.

    No, just legalized crony bribery.

  • Anonymous Coward||

    The GOP is an almost shockingly corrupt entity,

    Do you choke yourself when you clutch your pearls? Please tell me that you do.

  • ||

    Epic logical fail and based on specious speculation. Yawn.

    I bet there are more Democrats with criminal records than the GOP.

  • benji||

    Why would anyone oppose progress if not for nefarious or financial means?

  • Sevo||

    benji| 4.17.13 @ 8:40PM |#
    "Why would anyone oppose progress if not for nefarious or financial means?"

    Uh, good question. Or silly proposition; hard telling.

  • Restoras||

    I think we can yellow card this one.

  • Sevo||

    Looking like random-shot troll.

  • Restoras||

    I am loving the sweet sweet salty ham tears from Sad Tony.

    He's like those incompetent criminals in Scooby Doo: Curses! If not for you meddling, freedom loving proles we Proggies would give the world ORDER!

  • SweatingGin||

    There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics—the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections....They caved to pressure, and they started looking for an excuse—any excuse—to vote no.

    The left really has a hardon for smashing down minorities lately.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    Petulant megalomaniac is petulant.

    Boohoohoo.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    no one honestly questioned the merits of his proposals; the opposition all "came down to politics," meaning a desperate desire to retain power.

    Perhaps his overpowering intellect is not so overpowering, after all.

    That makes his butt hurt.

  • Hyperion||

    I was watching it on TV Globo, only because wifey was watching. I really hate TV news.

    All I can say, is wahhh, Mr. Potus, aren't you supposed to be the leader of the free world, and commander in chief of the worlds most powerful military?

    If that's so, why are you such a whiney ass little bitch?

  • benji||

    He won twice and is, as you note, commander in chief, and yet whiney ass little bitches are still telling him "no" when he offers them progress.

  • Unindicted Co-conspirator||

    "Progress", as defined by weapons-grade dumbasses like you.

  • Hyperion||

    What is progress?

  • Sevo||

    benji| 4.17.13 @ 8:42PM |#
    "He won twice and is, as you note, commander in chief, and yet whiney ass little bitches are still telling him "no" when he offers them progress."

    Uh, you use the term "progress". I don't think you know what that means.

  • Dweebston||

    He knows exactly what it means: progress is whatever the progressive party clamors for. It's a very literal philosophy. You're just overthinking it.

  • benji||

    Exactly, progress is whatever I want. You're STOPPING PROGRESS BY NOT LETTING ME GET MY WAY!!! IT'S NOT FAIR!!

  • Hyperion||

    Sure he does.

    Communism=Socialism=Progressivism

    They'll change it again soon, since they are now getting a bad name again, stay tuned.

    Forwardism?

  • Tony||

    Or maybe you're an idiot who doesn't understand the meanings of words.

  • Cytotoxic||

    PROJECTION

  • Restoras||

    Sad, sad Tony has a sad. Your poor wittle crisis has all gone to waste - no longer can you stand on the graves of children and heap shame on your inferiors.

    Sad, sad Tony.

  • Irish||

    Tony's always sad or angry. He's also incredibly paranoid that evil right wingers are going to come and get him, and then claims that the right-wingers are the paranoid ones.

    Projection is his lifeblood.

  • Tony||

    I'm not sad. A weak-tea bill failing in the Senate because of Republican exploitation of the filibuster and obvious pansy-ass reelection fear dictated by a product lobby?

    I've always known all I have to do to get my preferred society is to wait for the fat, old, white idiots who are too stupid to know what's good for them or anyone else to die the fuck off. It'll be increasingly successful incremental steps as that process happens. And we had a vote on gun restriction. That's progress.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 9:08PM |#
    "I'm not sad"
    OK, you're stupid.

  • ThatSkepticGuy||

    "Republican exploitation of the filibuster and obvious pansy-ass reelection fear dictated by a product lobby?"

    = Disobedient Democracy is Bad Democracy

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    It'll be increasingly successful incremental steps as that process happens. And we had a vote on gun restriction. That's progress.

    So, gun owners aren't "paranoid" when they say that this is exactly what your intentions are?

  • Tony||

    My intention is to sit here and drink pinot grigio. My preference is to ban the ownership of any weapon that can inflict damage on large numbers of human beings. My understanding of political reality is that we can't even get gaping loopholes closed on background checks so psychopaths are hindered when trying to get guns.

    What are the intentions of the gun lobby? I mean besides selling the maximum amount of guns (evidently completely regardless of the social cost).

  • Restoras||

    I just bought a Remington 700 BDL. It holds five rounds. You gonna come and take it from me?

  • Tony||

    You gonna go up against the feds in the event they pass a law doing such a thing? Or are you going to just sit there and jerk off to your fetish and cry like a toddler when the feds come?

  • jdkchem||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 10:27PM |#

    "You gonna go up against the feds in the event they pass a law doing such a thing?"

    If you'll promise to be a fed I'll be your huckleberry fuck monkey.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 9:37PM |#
    "My intention is to sit here and drink pinot grigio."

    Goody for you, shithead.

    "My preference is to ban the ownership of any weapon that can inflict damage on large numbers of human beings."
    Which means you have no idea what you're posting about shithead.

    "My understanding of political reality is that we can't even get gaping loopholes closed on background checks so psychopaths are hindered when trying to get guns."
    Which means you have no understanding at all, shithead.

    "What are the intentions of the gun lobby?"
    A2: ..."The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"
    Do you see that shithead? Are you capable of reading the English language, shithead?

  • Tony||

    So the lobby whose sole purpose is to sell guns and more guns has a mission that amazingly accords with an amendment to the constitution?

    Wow! I would have guessed they were just abusing the constitution for their own commercial ends, but that makes too much sense.

  • John C. Randolph||

    My preference is to ban the ownership of any weapon that can inflict damage on large numbers of human beings.

    Tell you what: get the government to give them up, and then we might consider following suit.

    -jcr

  • ||

    I was talking to an ex-military guy in the Canadian army earlier this week.

    Basically, he sides with Reason commenters and not Tony.

  • jdkchem||

    So you're a piss drinker and a liar. Go fuck yourself bitch.

  • ||

    Pinot Grigio is lowest common denominator white wine. Suitable for ladies who don't want to be adventurous in their drinking but want to drink something that they perceive as more adventurous than Chardonnay or pink Zinfandel (while not actually being so).

    It fits.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "What are the intentions of the gun lobby? I mean besides selling the maximum amount of guns (evidently completely regardless of the social cost)."

    Prove to me that such a thing as "social cost" exists.

    And do so with unequivocal and absolute definitiveness(i.e. exactly the same level of definitiveness that I can prove that my car has 4 wheels attached to it) - or you've proven absolutely nothing at all.

  • StinkEye||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 9:37PM |#


    My intention is to sit here and drink pinot grigio I'm drunk. My preference is to ban the ownership of any weapon that can inflict damage on large numbers of human beings I'm a progry/statist, completely terrified of my fellow Americans. I'm completely willing, no.. absolutely apoplectic that some out there won't trade the reality of freedom for the illusion of security. My understanding of political reality is that we can't even get gaping loopholes closed on background checks so psychopaths are hindered when trying to get guns is limited.

    What are the intentions of the gun lobby? I mean besides selling the maximum amount of guns (evidently completely regardless of the social cost) Why can't they just do what Chicago Jesus™, and by extension, I want? Booooooooooosh!

    FTFY

  • Jim in Denver||

    Those loopholes in background checks protect innocent citizens from becoming criminals any time they loan a gun to a friend or family member.

    Transfer of a firearm isn't defined by a sale, it is quite literal. In Colorado it would now (once the law takes effect) be illegal to hand my firearm to a friend at the firing range to try it out without first running a background check and ensuring I don't have a magazine that holds over 10 rounds in the well.

    Fuck you and the horse you rode in on.

  • Irish||

    In my lifetime gun laws have gotten less strict, not more. You will always lose on this issue.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I'm not sad.

    Said from behind a veil of tears...

  • jdkchem||

    And ignorant fucks like you still don't get the message. How many votes do you need before reality works it's way between your cheeks shithead?

  • John C. Randolph||

    too stupid to know what's good for them or anyone else

    Scratch a liberal, find an autocrat. Of course, everyone in the world would be better off if they just obeyed Tony. Especially those benighted "Persons of Color" who need Tony to tell them what kind of food they're allowed to buy.

    Hey, if anyone wants to send Tony to south central LA to try to grab the Popeye's Chicken out of some kid's hand, I'm sure thousands would pay to watch him get his ass kicked on pay-per-view.

    -jcr

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 8:55PM |#
    "Or maybe you're an idiot who doesn't understand the meanings of words"

    So far, shithead, you've yet to show any real understanding of the English language, so you'll forgive me if I call BULLSHIT, shithead.

  • ||

    He's being facetious.

  • Irish||

    Public service announcement: Benji is a libertarian and is opposed to gun control. He should really start using the /sarc tag.

  • ||

    I can't believe the WHATWG overlooked the glaring lack of a sarc tag in HTML.

  • Dweebston||

    We've enough of those already. Why are we such a wry bunch?

  • Sevo||

    Irish| 4.17.13 @ 8:50PM |#
    "Public service announcement: Benji is a libertarian and is opposed to gun control. He should really start using the /sarc tag."

    Well, he suckered shithead in on the 'progress' comment.

  • benji||

    But I like the hop-ons. Especially if you snag John or somebody who just flies off the handle immediately and can't let go.

  • Sevo||

    Yeah, but if you keep baiting folks, you'll find more and more of those.
    Is that what you want?

  • Restoras||

    I know right!
    Progressives hate - HATE! - freedom and personal liberty of any kind since it jsut creates such a messy, disorganized society! If only the proles would listen - for just a few years, they promise! - the Proggies would build us a society humanity could finally be proud of!

    Just like...Stalin! And...Mao! And...Pol Pot! And...well, you know the rest, including the gulag, killing fields, and re-education camps.

  • ||

    Joke all you want, but that is exactly what the fuckers want.

    Just ask Tony.

  • RBS||

    Tony wants all of you to die.

  • Sevo||

    RBS| 4.17.13 @ 9:13PM |#
    "Tony wants all of you to die."

    I don't think so. Shithead prefers the bounty of your efforts, but only if you arrange your life as shithead desires.
    Peel him a grape, slave!

  • RBS||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 9:08PM |#

    I'm not sad. A weak-tea bill failing in the Senate because of Republican exploitation of the filibuster and obvious pansy-ass reelection fear dictated by a product lobby?

    I've always known all I have to do to get my preferred society is to wait for the fat, old, white idiots who are too stupid to know what's good for them or anyone else to die the fuck off.

  • RBS||

    Ok, so he's waiting for everyone who doesn't know what's good for them to die while enjoying the fruits of their labors until they do so.

  • Tony||

    Hardly. Most of you idiots are on Medicare I'm paying for by having a productive job. I do however enjoy the fruits of tax dollars every day and every second of my life, just like you do.

  • Irish||

    Wait, you're seriously arguing that libertarians are a bunch of Medicare moochers? Why would they be advocating getting rid of it then?

    You're a nutcase.

  • Tony||

    Because they are stupid hypocrites?

  • Irish||

    Yeah, when you prove libertarians are all not working and are just hanging out on medicare, you might have a point.

    As it stands you just make wild claims without evidence and then claim the mythical libertarian that only exists in your mind is a hypocrite.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 9:47PM |#
    "Because they are stupid hypocrites?"

    Because you're a lying asshole, shithead.

  • benji||

    It's like the whole "BLUE STATES CONTRIBUTE MORE AND RED STATES TAKE MORE IN TAXES" thing that often gets trotted out. Isn't this what the socialists want? To redistribute wealth to the poor? Why complain then?

  • Tony||

    Why complain about hypocrisy?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 9:40PM |#
    "Hardly. Most of you idiots are on Medicare"
    Presumption absent evidence, shithead.

    "I'm paying for by having a productive job."
    Prove it, shithead.

    "I do however enjoy the fruits of tax dollars every day and every second of my life, just like you do."
    Assertion minus evidence, shithead.

  • jdkchem||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 9:40PM |#

    "Hardly. Most of you idiots are on Medicare I'm paying for by having a productive job. I do however enjoy the fruits of tax dollars every day and every second of my life, just like you do."

    Cock sucking is taxed. There should be no reason than for your jug eared turd polisher to raise taxes when you can just take another mouthful.

  • ||

    It shows how much he cares about people who agree with him.

  • benji||

    Look those would have worked but there were still too many capitalist infiltrators and outside forces undermining the revolution.

  • dinkster||

    Unchain yourself from the serfdom of wage earning.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And yet he's the one crying like a woman on national television.

    Telling the overgrown spoiled brat "no" is the best thing that ever happened to him, since obsequious bootlickers like you would never dream of doing so.

  • ||

    *My* life has been shattered by gun violence, but yet I don't agree with Obama's gun control proposals. Imagine that. I DO agree with the idea that many, if not most people on both sides of the debate are acting out of sincere belief and good conscience not politics.

    I know that esoteric, largely cosmetic distinctions amongst guns are not the problem and that implementing Obama's proposals would not help. It would inconvenience and limit choice for law abiding folks, but I don't see how it would stop gangbanger, thugs, etc. from going about doing their nefarious deeds.

    It goes up my ass sideways when Obama and gun control proponents invoke cop safety and cop's lives with their proposals. Show me EVIDENCE that an assault weapons ban makes our job safer. I've seen none. Lots of things DO make our job safer - intelligent proactive officer safety techniques, bulletproof vests (these save according to estimates by experts roughly 150-300 cop lives a year at least), strong sentencing guidelines for thugs, etc.

    Assault weapons bans? Where's the evidence?

  • Dweebston||

    Dunphy, they're big, black, and scary. The assault weapons, I mean. How can banning them not help?

  • Cytotoxic||

    they're big, black, and scary

    Racist?

  • ||

    It's ironic considering fear of the "black and scary" was the impetus behind much of the early gun control measures in our country in the first place. It is NOT true that many current gun control proponents are racist, but it is true that racism, specifically fear of armed black men was a huge influence in the history of gun control in this country.

    Not to mention the war on drugs.

  • Dweebston||

    I'm not proposing we ban them all, just the darker-toned ones with the high capacity hoodies.

  • ||

    Also, how come victims of gun violence who are ANTI-gun control are never trotted out in these debates (or at least so rarely I can't recall when).

    For example, are any of the Sandy Hook parents AGAINST gun control proposals? I see them trotted out on the advocacy side, but not the other side. Wonderin...

  • Drake||

  • PapayaSF||

  • ||

    Spanx! Good examples

  • Sevo||

    Hey, you get someone to cry on national TV, you got guaranteed employment! Ask that twit on CNN!

  • Sevo||

    Twit being Anderson Cooper.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    I think there were some anti-gun control people identified in other mass shootings, but mostly they stay quiet. Possibly out of fear.

    Possibly though, that the part of the brain which tells one that your wishes for security can be used to dictate controls for all of society has something in common with the part of the brain that tells these same people it's ok to mourn in public.

    Or vice versa - maybe those who don't think it's any of their business to worry about their neighbors are also predisposed to be against publicly emoting for whatever reason.

  • Jordan||

  • Dweebston||

    This is a reasoned position, consistent with a philosophical belief: the same logic behind "i abhor what you say, but I'll defend to the death" etc. It has no emotional impact, thus won't be used to appeal to voters.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Which ultimately lays the blame at the voter's feet.

    If they willingly refuse to learn from the past...

    Or as Lincoln once said, "As a nation of free men, we shall live forever, or perish by suicide."

  • Anonymous Coward||

    There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this.

    The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?

  • Gamblorr||

    +1 Constitutional Amendments

  • ChrisN||

    This is Activism 101, and it failed. Textbook exploitation of wounded people trotted out attached to the activist's righteous cause and a mostly emotional appeal to the public

    May this be the beginning of your long, painful lame-duck 2nd term.

    Blow it out your ass, Obama.

  • Ted S.||

    The most repulsive moment for me was when Obama tried the "don't we have an obligation to try this if it will save even one life" argument.

    I'm sure taking children from their parents and putting them in internment camps away from all but a tiny minorty of adults would cut down on the number of children shot to death. But nobody would think we have an obligation to try that.

  • PapayaSF||

    Since AIDS kills about as many people as guns every year, I propose that what I call "assault penises" (men infected with HIV) be registered with the government in a database that allows their potential sex partners to check on them. If it saves one life.... /sarc

  • Ted S.||

    Jezebel says all penises are assault penises.

  • Generic Stranger||

    Better just outlaw the swapping of bodily fluids altogether.

  • PapayaSF||

    I thought you would link to this.

  • ||

    I thought he'd link to Demolition Man

  • jdkchem||

  • Cytotoxic||

    You know, this failure sure feels like Bush's SS reform failure. And the sequester hysteria feels almost like Obama's Katrina, or at least a similar burnout over the shark moment. I think we've seen peak Obama come and go.

  • Drake||

    Bush's SS reform was an even bigger flop - both parties ran away like their hair was on fire and just agreed to pretend we weren't going bankrupt.

    But it is the first time Democrats really broke with the President.

  • Sevo||

    "both parties ran away like their hair was on fire"

    I prefer: "Like their pants were on fire and their asses were catchin'"

  • benji||

    Libertarians should redistribute tactics from the Left.

    Rail against the obstructionist President and Congress that are controlled by special interests like the DEA, ATF, Federal Reserve and corporations like the SEIU, UAW, GM, GE, Disney, Comcast, News Corp, The New York Times Company and CBS Corporation to oppose the COMMON SENSE "Fuck you, cut spending" agenda.

    Not to mention the wildly popular "Also, fried chicken" platform.

  • benji||

    Have Reason-Rupe run a poll:
    Which policy proposal do you prefer:
    A. Cut ineffective, counterproductive and wasteful government spending.
    B. Allow everyone to die in poverty.

  • Ted S.||

    Cut government spending, and allow the laid-off government workers to die in poverty!

  • Sevo||

    "A. Cut ineffective, counterproductive and wasteful government spending.
    B. Allow everyone to die in poverty."{

    Yes.

  • ||

    [T]he COMMON SENSE "Fuck you, cut spending" agenda.

    I'm keeping this.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "They caved to pressure, and they started looking for an excuse—any excuse—to vote no....This was a pretty shameful day for Washington."

    This is like when Bush Jr. (shortly after being reelected) blew it with Harriet Miers nomination.

    A misstep? Suddenly, it's okay for some Democrats to start opposing Obama?

    That's what happened to Bush. Couldn't get a nomination past his own party. Obama couldn't get a gun bill past a Democrat controlled Senate--that's failed leadership.

    If it starts to limp like a duck, it's a lame duck. ...or at least it's becoming one.

  • The Late P Brooks||

    We just need more tent show revivalist rhetoric and public shaming, and those corruptocrat rethuglitards will learn their place.

  • Enjoy Every Sandwich||

    This is just another example of people who can't accept that our federal government is a limited government.

    No, I'm not referring to Constitutional limits. The federal government violates those limits on a daily basis, generally with no consequences. Indeed, many people applaud them for it. I hear stupid bullshit like "the Constitution isn't a suicide pact" and the like.

    I mean limited by reality. Obama isn't a god or a wizard. He can't create NerfWorld no matter how much we kowtow to his greatness.

  • benji||

    The railing against how the Senate isn't democratic is my favorite.

    Saw a bunch of people going "how can I explain to my kids or others that 90% of the population and 55% of Senators support something but it doesn't happen?"

    It's like the entire fucking point of the Senate you idiots.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You never know that for sure until he loses, though.

    And I think this is the first time he's lost.

  • ||

    Oh. DELICIOUS.

  • John||

    The good news is he can now move on and talk about the economy and how Obamacare is working out. You know, move on to some good news.

  • ||

    Meanwhile people are talking to Tony in what should be the thread of joy and yummy tears. WORST CHATROOM EVER.

  • RBS||

    Usually I'd agree but having Tony here means I don't have to look elsewhere for all the butthurt.

  • benji||

    Fine:

    Mitch McConnell and his team are having a great day at the expense of American lives.

    https://www.facebook.com/McConnellForSenate


    Didn't I say nothing would happen because conservatives would bitch and moan about their freedom to kill being under attack?

    Fuck this country.


    It's shitty that a filibuster can subdue such a simple, universally positive measure with massive popular support.
    It's shitty that four democratic votes could have swung the margin, but procedural reasons and the courting of votes for reelection stopped it from happening.
    It's shitty that the reasoning given for why it shouldn't be law is essentially that it wouldn't have specifically prevented the most recent mass slaughter in our history- as though that's a compelling reason to do nothing at all.
    It's shitty that this will give ammunition to Limbaugh and Hannity as a "victory" in the gun control "debate," despite the fact that defeating this bill flies in the face of overwhelming public opinion.
    It's shitty that the NRA can extract money from its members while supporting and only supporting the people who sell things to those members.
    It's shitty that we need to enact a law to make sure this happens at all.

    This is a god-awful example of what American democracy looks like sometimes. I'm hoping the President can give some voice to my frustration right now but I'm honestly not holding my breath.
  • RBS||

    It's shitty that the NRA can extract money from its members while supporting and only supporting the people who sell things to those members.

    How dare those people pool their resources together are support things I don't like!

  • Jim in Denver||

    And I bet Capt. Butthurt doesn't mind Unions extracting money from their members...

  • General Butt Naked||

    I love the buying into the "overwhelming majority of americans" bullshit. Dude, just because you heard once that 90% of people agreed with you doesn't mean that legislators' internal polls show the same bias. The facts on the ground don't match the facts in your head.

  • Michael S. Langston||

    Yeah, but when you're so convinced you're correct, and furthermore, convinced that the answer is so simple it should be obvious to everyone, then the only ones who disagree are by definition a minority and either very stupid or very corrupt.

  • ||

    What's great is that no matter what, this bill would have still had to pass a GOP House...good luck with that.

  • ChrisN||

    Next up, that horrid train-wreck of single-payer aimed Obamacare.

    You've underestimated how many sensible people there are who are realizing how much liberty they will be denied by this crap sandwich. You are simply a man of the Left, hiding behind the fart cloud of race that enveloped the country and your huge non profit money engines.

    Nice of you to leave your activist DNA behind.

    The rest of us will work on what's most important on our own, and mostly be better off for it.

  • John||

    Mr. President, your tears are wonderful. Please give us more.

  • StinkEye||

    "Mr. President, your tears are wonderful. Please give us more."

    His artisanal ham tears taste suspiciously of crocodile.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I just want to say that Tony's tears made all the emails, letters, phone calls, and donations worth it to keep the president from enacting any legislation.

    I'm sure that tony doesn't think this failed because gun owners mobilized, but rather it was some sort of giant corrupt payoff by Ruger, or something.

  • John||

    I think I might look around Huffpo and the Daily Beast for some ymmy tears. I bet they are hysterical right now.

  • RBS||

    The HuffPo front page is great. I can feel the rage through my computer screen.

  • John||

    I just went there.

    NO JUSTICE

    With lots of pictures of dead children. That will show them. I wonder if they realize how happy their behavior makes gun owners?

  • Ken Shultz||

    The Koch Brothers!

    Why, if I wasn't under the spell of the Koch Brothers, I wouldn't care about my constitutional rights at all!

  • John||

    http://newyork.cbslocal.com/20.....ms-likely/

    Have some Nanny Bloomberg tears.

  • A Serious Man||

    This is quite possibly the best day for enjoying liberal dejection since the Wisconsin recall election.

  • John||

    Easily It is glorious.

  • John||

    The only silver lining is that we now know who refuses to stand with the 90 percent of Americans – and in 2014, our ever-expanding coalition of supporters will work to make sure that voters don’t forget,

    Good luck with that Mike.

  • A Serious Man||

    Baahahahahaha, what will the explanation be when Democrats in gun friendly states start dropping like flies in the midterms?

  • General Butt Naked||

    He's right that voters won't forget.

    Only it'll be more like '94 than 2008.

    I can't wait until the midterms to see the backtracking and distancing. I am seriously doing some work for primary candidates that are challenging those that have advocated for gun control.

  • John||

    Gun owners vote and more importantly they vote on that issue. These clowns think that because some poll says whatever percent of voters support background checks that means all of them are going to vote based on that issue. Ah wrong answer dancer. Those people will move onto other issues and vote based on something else.

  • General Butt Naked||

    That describes me. When things are going about their normal bullshit right/left back-and-forth I'm apathetic and probably won't even vote.

    When it comes to guns, I'll hold my nose and vote for someone to kick out traitors and turncoats (toomey, casey). Not only that, but I get active with my time and money.

    And the people that are pro-gun control, most of them will forget all about it and it will be a minor issue by '14 and beyond.

  • ||

    I was so disappointed in Toomey. Should write him a long letter about how I'll support and give money to a primary challenger and vote against him in a general should he get there.

  • ||

    Do any of these fucking retards understand how polling works? Calling 1,000 people and getting 900 of them to agree with you DOESN'T MEAN THAT 90% OF THE COUNTRY WANTS IT!

  • benji||

    The science is settled.

  • benji||

    Posted from that in the other thread, my favorite part is still:

    “Democrats – who are so quick to blame Republicans for our broken gun laws – could not stand united,” Bloomberg said. “And Republicans – who are so quick to blame Democrats for not being tough enough on crime – handed criminals a huge victory, by preserving their ability to buy guns illegally at gun shows and online and keeping the illegal trafficking market well-fed.”
  • SweatingGin||

    I had the fun thought of what

  • General Butt Naked||

    Just to pile on:

    Arizona state senate has passed a bill that requires community gun buy-backs sell the bought guns back to the public.

    Interestingly enough, in Arizona confiscated firearms must be auctioned off to the public already. Meaning that the rifle that Mr(s). Gifford bought would be sold back to the public if he turned it into the police.

  • ||

    Except they refused the sale in the end.

  • StinkEye||

    Oh, that quirky Form 4473

    Are you the actual buyer of the firearm(s) listed on this form? Warning: You are not the actual buyer if you are acquiring the firearm(s) on behalf of another person. If you are not the actual buyer, the dealer cannot transfer the firearm(s) to you. (See Important Notice 1 for actual buyer definition and examples.)?

  • John||

    This is a good night to read the Slate Boards

    Brent Butterworth
    Good to know that if I ever again own a gun, and want to sell it, I won't have to suffer the inconvenience of finding out if the buyer is a criminal or deranged. And good to know that if I ever become deranged, and decide to kill a bunch of kids at the nearby high school, that my ability to acquire a gun won't be impeded. If some people die as a result, well, that's just collateral damage. My convenience is the most important thing. Freedom!
    56 Minutes Ago
    from slate.com
    · Reply

    You tell them brother!! Hahaha

  • John||

    God this is so much fun

    All gun owners are tough and ready to fight. So why did we send our soldiers to fight for nothing in Iraq and even less in Afghanistan? We should have sent all card carrying NRA members over there, they would have cleaned up both countries by now, of course democracy wouldn't be one of the things that they'd bring.

    NRA doesn't want the rest of us to have a voice and only believe in the 2nd amendment but hate the government.

    There's lots of rich politicians counting their NRA cash this evening.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Pearls... Clutched

    Straws... Grasped at

    Looks like we have a full on salty ham tears situation here.

  • A Serious Man||

    Scroll down further and read the posts of Jack Manning. He's literally screaming and ranting and raving.

    I couldn't help but provoke him with a few of my posts.

  • John||

    One of my favorites are all of the concern troll "gun owners" who are just so angry at the NRA and other gun owners for killing this.

    Yeah, sure you own a gun. Funny how so many liberals seem to own guns but only mention the ownership when talking about the need for gun control.

  • RBS||

    Sure they own a gun. It's probably locked away in a closet somewhere because they are too terrified to look at it or hold it.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    So why did we send our soldiers to fight for nothing in Iraq and even less in Afghanistan? We should have sent all card carrying NRA members over there, they would have cleaned up both countries by now,

    Actually, that's the point of having an armed populace. A force of well-trained citizen-militias as opposed to a Pratorian Guard.

  • DblEagle||

    I spent way too much time in Iraq and one point these slavers never mention is that damn near 100% of Iraqi households had an AK series weapon and multiple 30 round magazines in them. We and the GoI knew it and it wasn't an issue.

  • MJGreen||

    So why did we send our soldiers to fight for nothing in Iraq and even less in Afghanistan?

    Uh... what?

    Even us peaceniks can see some justification for sending "our" soldiers to Afghanistan.

  • jdkchem||

    All gun owners are tough and ready to fight. So why did we send our soldiers to fight for nothing in Iraq and even less in Afghanistan? We should have sent all card carrying NRA members over there, they would have cleaned up both countries by now, of course democracy wouldn't be one of the things that they'd bring.

    As a veteran and NRA member the asshole who wrote that can go fuck tony.

  • benji||

    I never knew that not passing a law at the federal level instantly repeals all state level laws.

    Brent dun goofed, now the teabaggers are going to destroy SCHOOLS AND ROADS!

  • Ken Shultz||

    Here's how bad Obama's defeat was:

    More senators voted for the concealed carry permit national reciprocity law--than voted for background checks.

    http://democrats.senate.gov/20.....eal-carry/

    http://democrats.senate.gov/20.....dment-715/

    In other words, 57 effectively voted to expand conceal carry freedom, but only 54 voted for background checks.

  • John||

    They just can't help themselves on gun control. Anyone with an ounce of sense knew this was suicide considering the number of Dem Senators up in the next midterms. It is Obama's Picket's charge.

  • Ken Shultz||

    He way overplayed his hand.

    And there ain't nobody gonna follow him into the next breach after this one.

    Some of the dems who backed Obama on this got their gun rights constituents mad at them, and now the dems that voted against it are gonna have to face angry dem voters--because of Obama's incendiary blathering about it, too.

    LOL

  • benji||

    They should be happy this got killed in the Senate. The House won't be voting on it. They've been battered enough there the last two cycles.

  • John||

    He is the one that made it a life or death issue. Now he has to live with the consequences of losing on a life or death issue. Gee, maybe if he hadn't been such a jackass and called all of his opponents murderers and made such a big deal about this, this wouldn't be such a bad defeat.

  • Sevo||

    Ken Shultz| 4.17.13 @ 9:53PM |#
    "He way overplayed his hand."

    Yeah. Waving bloody shirts gets on peoples' nerves.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Hey man, if you climb up on that hill of dead kids, you expect to win the battle.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Who the hell is the giant black dude behind obama?

    Yeah dude, if I were 7' tall and 300 lbs of muscle, I probably wouldn't need a gun either.

    "Nobody's ever robbed or assaulted me!"

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Everyone should stop responding to Tony the racist.

  • John||

    CBS News has learned that previously unknown whistleblowers on #Benghazi are now speaking to Congressional investigators.

    A little more good news for Obama.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    As Instapundit pointed out, it was a bad day for Obama. Gun control failed, there are new Benghazi whistleblowers, and also this:

    The head of a group accused of illegally taping private meetings of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell's campaign visited the White House days before the group's Twitter account began actively attacking the Kentucky Republican, according to White House visitors logs.

    Not to mention that Obamacare is starting to show cracks at the seams, with a union coming out against it, and Baucus making noise that it's going to be a "huge train wreck."

  • John||

    There is so much dirt and corruption to hide. If people are no longer afraid of him or need him anymore, a lot of bad things are going to come out.

  • RG||

    Epic butthurt. Comments are all over the place.

    http://www.philly.com/philly/b.....-0411.html

  • John||

    Have some epic HuffPo butthurt on me

    Take a good look at all those who voted against the back ground check they are the senators at this point would be ok for Al-Qaida to cross our borders and purchase guns to commit terrorist attacks against Americans! They are also the senators that feel it is not necessary for truck drivers or nuclear operators to have clearance to work in that profession because if you don't need a back ground check to carry a gun, why would you need to spend the money to drive a big rig? Why would it be legal for banks or lending institutes to pry into your criminal record or credit reports? Our law makers are taking the risk at protecting our nations citizens against future attacks because from the words of Congressman Gohmert those Al-Qaida types are just waiting to enter the United States from Mexico!

  • RG||

    I can't even parody this.

    Sheepishly, I'm struggling not to troll them.

  • John||

    You just want the terrorist to win don't you?

  • RG||

    Only with illegally purchased assault weapons

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Fuck occupational background checks.

  • Ken Shultz||

    they are the senators at this point would be ok for Al-Qaida to cross our borders and purchase guns to commit terrorist attacks against Americans!

    ...

    ...from the words of Congressman Gohmert those Al-Qaida types are just waiting to enter the United States from Mexico!

    I think they're trying to take a dig at Republicans, somehow, but, Holy Shit, they sound like they're getting their advice from Karl Rove circa 2003.

    They've had Obama to unify behind for the last five years--now that he's lost, they don't know what to do.

    The first rule of Progressive Club is: the American people want what the progressives want.

    The second rule is that if the American people don't want what the progressives want, see rule #1.

    Honestly, if Obama didn't get through the Democrat controlled Senate what the American people want (according to the progressives), and it wasn't because the American people didn't want it, then the only plausible progressive explanation is that it's Obama's fault.

    Being in any way to any small extent unpopular in his own party would be new territory for Obama. Look for Hillary and others to start making their moves. Obama's not sunk yet, but he's in uncharted waters. If a progressive president isn't good for forcing a progressive agenda on the American people, what is he good for?

  • Ken Shultz||

    End italics Shazzam!

  • John||

    If a progressive president isn't good for forcing a progressive agenda on the American people, what is he good for?

    Nothing Ken. That is why they passed Obamacare even though they knew it was going to be a complete disaster. They knew not shoving it down the country's throat would have caused the progs to turn on them. They had no choice but to do it, even though they knew long term it was going to be horrible.

    Now Obama can't deliver the goods. Remember politics is an interest to you and I. But it is life and death to progtards. After first sequester and now this, they are going to go after Obama.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Enter Hillary, stage left.

  • John||

    I wonder if maybe that is why the Bengazi survivors have all of the sudden started speaking to congress. Bengazi is bad for Hillary. If Hillary starts shooting her mouth off, Obama can just leak the truth about Bengazi.

  • Ken Shultz||

    That can go both ways, though, right?

    Hillary has no problems bending the truth. She's been lying through her teeth for years about everything from FBI files to Whitewater.

    She got out of there, partially, because she wouldn't be his patsy. If she's the presumptive nominee, she's already got some of his mojo, too.

    I don't know. If they go after each other, that'd be about the best thing that could possibly happen for the Republicans.

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I wonder if Hillary is really going to run. My wife commented that she looks like she's been ill, which is funny because I had been thinking the same thing. She's really aged, too. I just wonder if something is going on there.

  • Ken Shultz||

    When she looks in the mirror, she sees someone who looks better than Kamala Harris.

    Everyone around her tells her she looks great, too.

    The other person to watch out for is Granny Cheekbones.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uegqTj3SHO4

    She raised most of the money for her Senate campaign from Hollywood--her fundraising machine is already national.

  • John||

    I don't know. If they go after each other, that'd be about the best thing that could possibly happen for the Republicans.

    That is true Ken. And that is probably why they won't. My guess is that some other person like Cuomo does and picks up the progtard rage vote in the primaries.

  • SweatingGin||

    This could be a nice tearing apart of the dem coalition. You've got a union wanting repeal of obamacare, progressives losing on guns and maybe getting blamed for obamacare. Proposed cut in SS to make the old mad (and really the whole base)

    All he needs to do now is approve keystone to make the environmentalists hate him.

    Who would that leave? Minorities and government employees?

  • John||

    Government employees are facing another year without a raise and sequester and probably staff cuts next year. They hate him too right now.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It's hard when people realize the messiah's not all he's cracked up to be.

    They were only unified becasue of the messiah, most of them.

    Gay liberals in California still haven't come to terms with the fact that it was socially conservative blacks and Latinos that voted to deny their right to marry by way of Prop 8.

    Why should environmentalists and coal miners' unions be on the same side?

    I think it was Will Rogers that quipped, "I'm not a member of any organized party--I'm a Democrat". The only thing that was holding a lot of them together was their belief in Obama.

    Environmentalists and farmers on the same side--why?

  • jdkchem||

    If a progressive president isn't good for forcing a progressive agenda on the American people, what is he good for?

    Shining shoes at union station.

  • jdkchem||

    WTF is that moron babbling about. I have a CDL and the only background check involved is for the hazmat endorsement.
    What human living in this universe actually believes that some al-qaida flunky is going to walk into a gun shop or gun show and just buy anything more than a nerf gun?

  • crazyfingers||

    Guns, explosives, chemicals, etc. actually can be bought on the web anonymously by anyone using TOR. And the government is completely incapable of shutting it down.

  • Lady Bertrum||

    Um, was this bill ever even a possibility with the repubs controlling the house? Is he angry because the bill failed in the Senate or because he wasn't able to get the dems in line and vote for this turd thereby painting the repubs as a bunch of "extremists" and more likely to win seats in the midterm? Isn't this more about his failed strategy to get those seats rather than actual gun control?

  • Fatty Bolger||

    I think this reasoning is sound: A LAME DUCK SQUAWKS, BUT WHY?

    As we have noted more than once, pretty much everything Obama does is intended to stir up the Democratic Party’s base to drive turnout in 2014. Obama knows he can’t do much of anything as long as the GOP holds the House, so his primary goal is to stoke outrage on the left, in hopes that 2014 will look like 2008 and 2012, and not like 2010. So no doubt he hoped that some gun control measure–any gun control measure!–could get through the Senate, so that pressure, probably irresistible, could be brought to force a vote on the same proposal in the House. Not so that it might pass, but so that House Republicans would be on record voting against gun control. Obama could have raised countless millions from his fervently anti-gun base to go after the more vulnerable such Republicans. Now, the issue won’t even come up in the House, and Obama and the Democrats will have to find something else.
  • Ken Shultz||

    If he'd won in getting it passed in the Senate, yeah, this would be more about his strategy to get those seats in the House.

    Since he failed to get it passed, it's all about his being a failure as Legislator in Chief.

  • Ken Shultz||

    Wouldn't it be great, though, if what this really means is that the American people are finally sick of 13 years of fear-mongering?

    That using fear-mongering to dilute our rights just doesn't work with the American people (and, hence, their Senators) as well as it used to do?

    Probably just wishful thinking on my part.

  • benji||

    I wonder if Obama will retain his professionalism towards the end of his presidency when he knows that he won't be up for re-election anytime soon anyway. I'd love to hear the man speak his mind about all of the shit he's had to put up with from the Republican party. Eh, it probably won't happen. He should retain his professionalism afterall. Still, it would be interesting to hear him go off on them with a proper shaming and naming.


    It doesn't really matter to the Senate that a vast majority of the American population supports this. They only care what their own individual voters support. And unfortunately, GOP senators from bumfuck flyover country count as much as those who represent significant chunks of the US population.


    Exactly. Expanded background checks are, on their own, a wholly uncontroversial proposal.

    The fact that we can't pass a wholly uncontroversial law, because it it wasn't attached to a more controversial proposal is crazy.


    Ah, the Republican definition of compromise. Basically, "Give me everything I want or fuck off."
  • John||

    I agree with the first comment. I would dearly and truly love to see Obama have a full on melt down beneath the dignity of the office, remember for all time, temper tantrum in a press conference some day.

    Would that not be the most awesome thing ever?

  • Tony||

    Why would you want the only president this country has at the moment to melt down? It's like you're a political creature before you're a decent human being who cares about his fellow citizens.

  • Irish||

    What does caring about the president have to do with caring about your citizens? You realize that Obama does not rule through the divine right of kings, correct?

  • John||

    My welfare nor anyone else's depends on that clown's mental well being. A tantrum would just show the world how nasty and horrible he actually is.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    A tantrum would just show the world how nasty and horrible he actually is

    To which the world would shove it's collective fingers in their ears and shout "LA-LA-LA! I CAN'T HEAR YOU! LA-LA-LA! RACIST!"

  • General Butt Naked||

    Look at tony, so dependent on the president's mood that he sees an obama meltdown as some sort of terrible thing.

    He could go on teevee and commit suicide and it would change people's lives for about the 4 minutes after they heard about it. Your blubbering, boot-licking sycophantic nature wants to believe that we all need some harvard strongman to live, but it just ain't so.

    Sorry. Need a tissue?

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 10:24PM |#
    "Why would you want the only president this country has at the moment to melt down?"

    Are you so stupid or young as to ignore Nixon?

  • Ted S.||

    Why would you want the only president this country has at the moment to melt down?

    Because the president is just another politician.

    We need to have it be clear once and for all that politicians are not above us.

  • Ken Shultz||

    "Why would you want the only president this country has at the moment to melt down?"

    For the same reason I'd like to see him cry--for the yuks!

  • jdkchem||

    Fuck You. Stick your head back up your jug eared jesus' ass bitch. Then go fuck yourself.

  • Irish||

    Well, he throws minor petulant temper tantrums every five minutes. But yes, a full blown implosion in a year or so would make me so happy. Imagine if they lose even more seats in the house, which is very likely given that the sitting president's party normally doesn't do well at the midterms.

    A midterm night meltdown would make all my dreams come true.

  • Sevo||

    Irish| 4.17.13 @ 10:24PM |#
    "Well, he throws minor petulant temper tantrums every five minutes"

    Shithead or Obozo?

  • General Butt Naked||

    You're assuming they're different people.

  • benji||

    I think Tony's more articulate. No idea if he's more clean and neat.

  • SweatingGin||

    They really don't realize it would have been even worse in the house, do they? Or are there some squishing republicans in the house? Granted, some, but it seems like less demos would be willing to, as well.

  • Ken Shultz||

    The hope was to use the Republicans refusal to pass gun legislation in the house as a hammer to club them with during the midterms.

    Now instead of having a way to help them take back the House, the Dems are looking for a way to unify themselves in the Senate.

    Whole lotta angry Dem voters out there right now--and they're mad at the Senate 'cause Obama's telling them to be?

    Sounds...divisive.

    HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA! HA!

  • SweatingGin||

    Ah, true.

    I suppose also, this was probably one prong of attack. Do this to make sure the progs turn out for the dems, and get something else in there to either make sure the gun owners are demoralized in '14, or get some other team red voting block demoralized.

    Seems like they would have realized it was a long shot. Or at least would have backed it down when it became clear they would lose.

    Not that I'm complaining.

  • Ken Shultz||

    I think Obama believes his own BS.

    I think he thought he could get anything he wanted through the Senate.

    Like Nero nominating his horse to be consul.

    Like Bush thinking he could get his party to vote for Harriet Miers.

    He was wrong. They all turn into lame ducks eventually.

  • Ken Shultz||

    It was Caligula!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incitatus

    Apologies to my Latin professor.

  • RBS||

    Sure, go ahead and have that meltdown Mr. President. I like how the one commenter is pissed at elected officials voting how their constituents want them to vote.

  • benji||

    There's some whining about how in other countries the parties would punish those who vote against The Party. That it's horrible that a Democratic Senator can not only vote against this but also use his vote to win re-election in his horrible redneck flyover state.

  • SweatingGin||

    They should totally primary those senators. Maybe get Ashely Judd to move to Montana, they probably didn't hear the coal-mining-is-rape one there.

  • Sevo||

    Ashley Judd: Deep thinker. Or not.

  • Sevo||

    benji| 4.17.13 @ 10:18PM |#
    "There's some whining about how in other countries the parties would punish those who vote against The Party."

    True. Also true here, if the party has enough power to override the constituency.
    Public choice and all that.

  • Paul.||

    As I'm scrolling through the comments, I'm seeing Tony's name. I haven't read the comments, but uhh, here's my advice Tony. It's the same advice you've given so many others over the years: democracy works. if you don't like the results, petition your representative.

  • benji||

    This isn't democracy this is unprecedented obstructionism by Republicans abusing the filibuster!

  • Sevo||

    Paul.| 4.17.13 @ 10:20PM |#
    "It's the same advice you've given so many others over the years: democracy works. if you don't like the results, petition your representative."

    If so, I'm sorry to hear it.
    We do not live under a democracy. We live under a republic, and it would be far worse if it were a democracy.

  • Jordan||

    Just a reminder that Piers Morgan vowed to leave the country if these laws didn't pass.

    Bye.

  • Sevo||

    REALLY?! GREAT!

  • Death Rock and Skull||

    Whatever happened to "Don't be his porn"?

  • ||

    I happen to be signed up for the White House propaganda emails that get sent out, and one last email was sent out on the gun control topic for the night. I thought everyone would like to see it, so I got the text hosted online. The title of the email is "Shameful".

  • ||

    It has much the same content as the quotes above,but I thought people here would appreciate the full text being available.

  • Tony||

    You guys should be less concerned with my tears and more concerned with your disturbing fetish and borderline homicidal mania.

  • Jordan||

    I'm more concerned about the strawman genocide you're perpetrating.

  • Gamblorr||

    He heard a tale of a man of straw who had been gifted with a brain, and he's been mugging them ever since then in hopes of stealing it.

  • Irish||

    What? Where has anyone expressed homicidal mania?

    Aren't you the one who argued that Obama should murder all climate change deniers?

  • benji||

    Wanting to maintain self-defense rights = homicidal mania.

    Wanting to violently confiscate all weapons and most wealth = reasonable common sense policy.

  • Sevo||

    Tony| 4.17.13 @ 10:32PM |#
    "You guys should be less concerned with my tears and more concerned with your disturbing fetish and borderline homicidal mania."

    No shithead, your fantasies are of less interest than your lies, misdirections, irrelevancies and general mendacity.

  • General Butt Naked||

    If anyone here had a borderline homicidal mania, you'd already be dead by now.

    Not to mention your disturbing fetish of licking the boots of federal law enforcement.

  • Ken Shultz||

    You need deprogramming.

  • ΘJΘʃ de águila||

    You should be more concerned your own sick support for the current unrepentant child-murdering war criminal in the White House.

  • MJGreen||

    But your tears are the only thing keeping my homicidal mania in check.

    If I go off, it'll be your fault, Tony. It's your obligation to keep the tears flowing.

  • ||

    "Alack, did you just celebrate the defeat of a bill, which had been advocated for by the parents of recently-murdered children, with a glass of Balvenie Doublewood 17?"

    "Sure did, Other Alack. Suuuuure did."

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Aw dammit. Now you gone and made me thirsty!

  • Heroic Mulatto||

  • John||

    You can't have someone blow up a marathon and never catch the guy. And framing someone is really hard.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    Framing someone is hard, but they'll try their best to sling mud at the currently fashionable enemies-of-the-people. Eventually the masses' attention will be drawn away to something else. Probably the discovery of a pregnant-Kim Kardashian sex tape or something equally as vapid and lurid. At that time this will all be thrown down the memory hole.

  • Sevo||

    John| 4.17.13 @ 10:49PM |#
    "You can't have someone blow up a marathon and never catch the guy."
    Pretty sure it's more'n one guy which means 'crowd-sourcing' the evidence will be one of the lot snitching. Not griping; AFAIK, quite a few crimes are 'solved' that way minus the 'crowd-sourcing' BS.

    "And framing someone is really hard."
    I hope so.

  • Calidissident||

    I'll wait until all the facts (and proof) are in. There have been so many false or sketchy rumors I'm not going to rush to judgment

  • benji||

    Three Saudi men can't just attend any major event without committing terrorism. It's in their blood.

    And if someone telling Sean Hannity something isn't proof, what more do you need?

    Especially this expert:

    “Oklahoma City, I can tell you, is probably considered one of the largest centers of Islamic radical activity outside the Middle East,”
  • Heroic Mulatto||

    OT: How far we have fallen!

    Someone actually has to explain how to use/wear boat shoes. (Read the first review)

  • ||

    You will never think of the word "maroon" the same way again.

  • Heroic Mulatto||

    At least he didn't use Nad's.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn't do this. It came down to politics"

    And that is perfect illustration of two universally distinguishing characteristics of ALL liberals:

    They are always guilty of that which the accuse their opponents.

    They are all pseudo-intellectual bluffers with nothing to back it up.

    Make that three universally distinguishing characteristics - they are all sore losers as demonstrated by Obama's hissy fit.

  • Archduke Pantsfan||

    So why hasn't spineless congress banned fertilizer yet?

  • benji||

    Gabby Speaks For All Of Us:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04......html?_r=0

    SENATORS say they fear the N.R.A. and the gun lobby. But I think that fear must be nothing compared to the fear the first graders in Sandy Hook Elementary School felt as their lives ended in a hail of bullets. The fear that those children who survived the massacre must feel every time they remember their teachers stacking them into closets and bathrooms, whispering that they loved them, so that love would be the last thing the students heard if the gunman found them.
  • benji||

    On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count.

    Some of the senators who voted against the background-check amendments have met with grieving parents whose children were murdered at Sandy Hook, in Newtown. Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died. These senators have heard from their constituents — who polls show overwhelmingly favored expanding background checks. And still these senators decided to do nothing. Shame on them.
  • Sevo||

    "On Wednesday, a minority of senators gave into fear and blocked common-sense legislation that would have made it harder for criminals and people with dangerous mental illnesses to get hold of deadly firearms — a bill that could prevent future tragedies like those in Newtown, Conn., Aurora, Colo., Blacksburg, Va., and too many communities to count."

    Darn those people! Why won't they vote for honesty, purity and saving the childrunzzz?!

  • Coeus||

    Some of the senators who voted no have also looked into my eyes as I talked about my experience being shot in the head at point-blank range in suburban Tucson two years ago, and expressed sympathy for the 18 other people shot besides me, 6 of whom died.

    Ok, time to commit her. Her brain damage has obviously impaired her to the point that she thinks she has some kind of magic power. Like an anti-gun medusa or something.

  • benji||

    More comments:

    At least we have a crystal clear example of money mattering more than votes to politicians. Remember the failure of background checks whenever anyone defends Citizens United by arguing that everyone has an equal say in government through voting, and that money does not matter as much as votes. Clearly, politicians have no desire to listen to public opinion when they can gain some campaign contributions from an angry minority instead.

    Like most problems with our democracy, the failure of the gun bill and the cowardice of the Senate are just symptoms of a greater problem: our campaign finance laws. Which is the result of an even more serious problem: our radical, dangerous Supreme Court. It's truly sad how pure misfortune (the fact that more Justices died during conservative presidencies) has had such a commanding influence on our "democracy."

    Top favorite:

    Watching Obama's press conference and Biden is damn close to tears. Its good to see this tragedy actually registering emotionally with a politician.
  • ||

    The tragedy being that they didn't get their legislative agenda through, right?

  • benji||

    Indeed.

  • juris imprudent||

    The slings and arrows of outrageous fortune!

  • Cytotoxic||

    Biden is damn close to tears

    24 Karats. Whoever posts the pic will be a HandR hero.

    This has been a day of days.

  • General Butt Naked||

    No tears, but everyone has a sad...

    Awwww...

    I sill want to know who the giant dude is.

  • benji||

    Biden looks closer to tears here:
    http://i.imgur.com/W2h3Vek.jpg

  • General Butt Naked||

    That could also be extreme constipation.

  • benji||

    He and the guy with the green ribbon must have ordered the same thing for lunch.

  • ||

    I sill want to know who the giant dude is.

    And is he so sad because he just realized he's being used as a prop?

  • General Butt Naked||

    I don't know, but I sure as hell don't take self-defense advice from a guy whose neck is bigger than my waist.

    I think I figured out who it is though; it's michelle without her wig.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    The standard motivation of any progressive is the increase and consolidation of their own power--the rights of others have no bearing to them, as these comments prove.

    When something doesn't go their way, their inner authoritarian comes out and does a dance.

  • OldMexican||

    To the contrary, [their pain] obscures those issues with an impenetrable emotional fog.


    Just ask Tony, who keeps spewing these gun death statistics as if they carried their own context in a convenient duffel bag.

  • Sevo||

    "Just ask Tony, who keeps spewing these gun death statistics as if they carried their own context"

    Shithead is mystified by your post, but shithead will post something wonderus in response!

  • ||

    BO has to be the most pussified president in history.

    Just food for thought.

    http://www.tomatobubble.com/putin_obama.html

  • ||

    Murder and thuggery aside, Putin seems like a lot of fun to hang out with.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Shit, at least Putin doesn't act like a woman all the time like Obama does.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Why would you insult women like that?

  • JeremyR||

    It's also funny, the unofficial Obama slogan in the primary (vs Hilary) was "Bros before Hos"

    Yet she had a reputation as a tough person.

  • OldMexican||

    The NRA spends decades lobbying for relaxed gun laws...


    They're an advocacy group to protect the rights of people to own and carry firearms, not unlike an advocacy group for the 1st Amendment or the 13th Amendment. Calling them a "lobby" is nothing less than defamation as one lobbies for privileges (entitlements), regulations or ordinances, not for rights.

    If the emotions of gun victims are irrelevant then so, presumably, are the emotions of gun advocates, who are really quite an emotional group.


    Emotions play no role in curtailing rights because the onus is on the person making the argument against such rights to make a cogent case (and appeals to emotion are logical fallacies), not on those that want to protect those rights.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Oh, for sure. The left-wing authoritarians can't imagine a citizens' group that advocates for the second. It's just gotta be an evil corporate bribe machine, powered by the manufacturers of death guns.

    I remember you saying you were going to move to Texas a couple of years ago. Did you do that, and did you get yourself an arsenal yet?

  • benji||

    Look, I'm one of the people, so therefore the people think like me. Anyone that doesn't clearly isn't one of the people.

  • OldMexican||

    Re: General Butt Naked,

    I remember you saying you were going to move to Texas a couple of years ago. Did you do that, and did you get yourself an arsenal yet?


    And I did and I haven't. I can't legally obtain a firearm unless I get a hunting license and those are expensive, plus they must be renewed every year. So, no arsenal.

  • General Butt Naked||

    I can't legally obtain a firearm unless I get a hunting license and those are expensive, plus they must be renewed every year.

    That's crazy. Why not, if you don't mind? (don't mean to pry)

  • Generic Stranger||

    Sounds like he's not a citizen or a green card holder. Non-immigrant aliens aren't allowed to possess a gun unless they have a hunting license.

  • Coeus||

    Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss, is not relevant to this debate?

    "Are you serious?" seems to be the new authoritarian battle cry. If he really believes this, I eagerly await him flying in people convicted of tax fraud on Air Force One the next time there's a tax bill up for debate (regardless of the taxes involved).

  • Steve_J||

    NRA 85% of Americans

  • Steve_J||

    NRA greater than 85% of Americans

  • General Butt Naked||

    What do you mean?

  • benji||

    I think he doesn't know about the squirrel's symbol rationing program.

  • General Butt Naked||

    Access to symbols is a right. In Europe there is a universal cradle-to-grave guarantee of symbol access and they have a much lower rate of comment mortality.

    Of course the rethuglicans and loserdopians will never allow such a rational and compassionate system here in amerikkka.

  • Coeus||

    Fark thread on the votes. Jesus, these people are stupid. This is who we're fighting, folks. People with no sense of cause and effect or logic.

  • Coeus||

    Here is an excellent example of the slippery slope. And these fuckers know it works and are actively using it.


    justtray
    2013-04-17 06:11:05 PM
    There can be no regulation on important rights. Also all constitutional rights are exactly the same, except when they aren't. Why is the 2nd so important? It's so obvious you're just stupid. Wild, Coked-out Hogs, Government Tyrrany, and skeet shooting, of course.

    We don't ban things just because we don't need them. Well, except for all kinds of commercial products we find dangerous to our health.

    And we can't tax guns because then the poors wouldn't be able to get them. Just like how we can't tax cigarettes. What's the NFA? Oh, you mean there's already tax stamps required for some weapons and it's been around for decades? Well that's BS. Oh and there's already an 11% federal tax on ammunition? LA LA I CANT HEAR YOU SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED.

    Besides, regulation would never work because I wouldn't let it, and it is known that it doesn't do anything to curb crime. That's why we don't have laws against murder and rape, because they don't do anything.

    .....(cutting the rant for character limit)

    Finally, Mao came for the guns and so did Hitler, and furthermore.
  • benji||

    I like when the same person pulls the "that's a slippery slope, it never happens in reality" and "we already have these restrictions, why would you oppose more?" cards.

  • ||

    You already let him slap you on the butt with minimal protest, therefore he should be able to rape you.

  • Bill Door||

    +1. Well put.

  • General Butt Naked||

    All they seem to have is the overused and questionable poll result showing 90% support for background checks.

    They seem to think that there are no background checks at all, and that that number comes from god himself as a matter of faith.

  • benji||

    They probably don't know the current laws at all. Note the guy John quoted far far above who seems to think the Senate not passing this law invalidates all the state level laws.

  • benji||

    I mean the news has basically just been say GUN SAFETY BILL, ANTI-GUN VIOLENCE BILL, WOULD BAN ASSAULT WEAPONS, over and over. As documented here the law doesn't really do shit related to Newton or anything else. Same as Connecticut's existing law.

    Intentions, etc.

    I got called callous and uncaring for sarcastically mocking how Lanza wouldn't have failed the background check WHEN HE KILLED HIS MOM AND STOLE HER GUNS because there's no background checks before committing crimes. (LOOPHOLE)

  • General Butt Naked||

    I got called callous and uncaring ...

    As an advocate of liberty it probably isn't the first time and certainly won't be the last time.

    And yeah, it's not like lanza bought the weapon used at a gun show, or from a friend. He murdered someone and stole it. If he killed a cop with his car then stole the cop's AR would we be having a discussion about cops carrying ARs? No, it would be the same stupid shit that has no effect on violence and a push to deprive people of their rights.

  • benji||

    *something something* no guns in a home with someone like him who could shoot someone *something something*

    I mean that's not going down a dangerous path. What if the snitch gets out of jail, he's still a felon right? So his whole family can't have guns, etc.

    It's kinda like the Patriot Act, they had this whole big bill full of various goodies lots of people wanted for ages, they trumpet one or two not entirely unreasonable parts (like you always heard about THE WALL with the Patriot Act between intelligence agencies which sounds dumb to most people kinda like no background checks sounds dumb) as the key feature and otherwise, it's just an anti-terrorism, anti-gun violence bill.

    Or say ObamaCare with the pre-existing condition or giving people insurance thing. HEALTH CARE BILL.

    Any of the other details disappear from the discussion as those intentions get drawn in "YOU WANT THE TERRORISTS TO KILL US WITH GUNS AND THEN WE DON'T GET ANY HEALTH CARE AFTER DYING!"

    But at least we accomplished something. Something needed to be done and we sure did do something.

  • benji||

    And it was those gun manufacturers, the NRA, the ACLU, insurance companies and Republicans who stuck in all those loopholes. We didn't intend it to go this way.

  • 0x90||

    "I got called callous and uncaring..."

    You know what that is: people who are generally distrustful are generally untrustworthy, and are resultantly fundamentally misanthropic. This being an unattractive posture, you will find such people operating in a constant state of faux outraged concern.

    The ironic part is that without them, places like this would not work at all; half the humor you find here is nothing other than parody of that very same misanthropy.

  • AlmightyJB||

    I didn't go through all the comments so I totally apologize if this has already been said. But I just came here to say fuck Obama. Fuck Obama and everything he says or does or believes in. He is the scum that scum scrape off their shoes. Did I mention fuck Obama?

  • General Butt Naked||

    Never apologize for repeating a thing that can't be said enough.

  • AlmightyJB||

    This is a guy who is 100% pandering to Europe and the left wing folks here that write the history books that will be used in future high school and college courses. He will be vaunted as the "voice of reason", and they will read it, memorize it, and believe it. For they are but sheep.

  • benji||

    A lot of people already do. They don't need history books. (And they're never the types to have read history anyway.)

  • juris imprudent||

    Shorter Obama: I am your fucking GOD goddamit!

    Large part of America: Piss off.

  • General Butt Naked||

    But 90% want background checks AAIIEIEEEEEE!!!onety! POLLSSSSSSZZZZ

    DEMOCRACY!

  • benji||

    It's such a shame than the American citizens, 90% of whom want federal background checks on all gun purchases, have no recourse against their elected Representatives or Senators. If they did then surely we would see the gun violence supporters being defeated at the polls and replaced with strong control advocates.

  • benji||

    oh wait SPECIAL INTERESTS CITIZENS UNITED

  • buybuydandavis||

    " It came down to politics "

    It came down to upholding the constitution, for a change.

  • buybuydandavis||

    "Where he has trouble, despite his lip service to the idea of putting himself in the other guy's shoes, is in empathizing with his opponents."

    Standard progressive.

    Jonathan Haidt says that in his studies, conservatives can mimic liberal morals better than liberals can mimic conservative morals.

  • WomSom||

    Sounds like a solid plan to me ddue.

    www.AnonHit.tk

  • ||

    General Butt Naked| 4.18.13 @ 12:59AM |#

    All they seem to have is the overused and questionable poll result showing 90% support for background checks.


    If there is "90% support for background checks", it's thanks to the steady media drumbeat about the non-existent "gun show" and "internet" loopholes.

    From the comments at pretty nearly every blog it appears that millions of Americans and most people in gun-controlled foreign countries are convinced that Americans can buy machine guns and RPGs on the internet and that the Mexican drug lords were just loading up their pickups with the same at Texas and Arizona gun shows.

    Is it really to much to ask that announcers like the one on NPR this AM check their facts before making a blanket statement that all guns at gun shows are sold with no background checks?

  • ||

    correction:

    Is it really to much to ask that announcers like the one on NPR this AM check their facts before making a blanket statement that [implies that] all guns at gun shows are sold with no background checks?


    I am trying to be charitable here in suggesting that in making these statements these media heads are, in fact, just mindlessly parroting the blatant lies of Obama, McCain (who if memory serves was the one who started the "gun show loophole canard) et al.

  • Mike M.||

    Now that this bullcrap is finally over, maybe there's a tiny chance that our sorry politicians will spend some time focusing on jobs and the economy.

    You know, the things that are at the top of the priority list of most normal Americans.

  • ||

    I am not so certain this "bullcrap is finally over" at all.

    These mendacious fucks will stop at nothing to get what they want.

  • OldmanRick||

    "Solipsism" is a great word; however, I prefer the following to describe the brat: divisive, self centered, spoiled, narcissistic, disingenuous, mean spirited, snively, whiny, sissy snitch, commie, pinko, statist. Yep, that pretty much sums up the brat.

  • ||

    I didn't even watch satan's bitch.

  • ||

    See how it feels??? We don't like being lied to either, the difference is that we can vote you away, but you have to put up with us...lol

  • ||

    I'm thinking about buying a projector. Which one should I buy: this one or this one?

  • lucien||

    If you think Monica`s story is flabbergasting..., 4 weeks ago my friend's brother basically broght in $9590 working a eighteen hour week from there apartment and there best friend's half-sister`s neighbour has been doing this for four months and earned more than $9590 parttime on their pc. follow the instructions on this address... and go to home tab for more detail--- http://www.BIG76.com

  • JeffC||

    "Obama does a fine job of empathizing with the parents of Adam Lanza's victims. But that is something any decent human being should be able to manage. Where he has trouble, despite his lip service to the idea of putting himself in the other guy's shoes, is in empathizing with his opponents."

    Actually the fact that he can't empathize with his opponents means he's not empathizing with the families either ... he's simply using them to further his agenda ... empathy for all or for none ... you can't be a selective empath ...

  • Daily Beatings||

    Actual the 90% for background checks have been pretty consistent in polling for the last 10 years or so, but this figure is for background checks at gun shows:

    http://www.pollingreport.com/guns.htm

    Those polled most likely do not know that licensed dealers already perform background checks at gun shows. The gun grabbers are creating a false impression by equating background checks at gun shows, which are already performed by the majority of vendors, to support for universal background checks.

    It's interesting to note that support for other gun control measures, such as an AWB or magazine limit, has been steadily declining in the last decade. It's interesting to note that in a recent CBS/New York Times poll support for concealed carry was at 65%.

  • Mr. Weebles||

    During the stimulus negotiations back in 2009, President Obama reminded Republicans that he was in charge by stating "I won."

    Well, this time you lost. Deal with it.

  • hannah65||

    If you think Clarence`s story is flabbergasting..., last month my brothers father in law actually earned 9315 just sitting there a eighteen hour week an their house and the're neighbor's step-sister`s neighbour has been doing this for 4 months and earned over 9315 in their spare time online. follow the steps at this site... http://www.wow92.com

  • A Citizen in Austin||

    Every time I hear Mr. Obama speak I mutter to myself, "does he really believe what he says?" This man is either breathtakingly uninformed about economics, civics, and our Constitution, or he is the most mendacious president I've ever known--and I remember Richard Nixon well.

  • forestgombosi39||

    Anna. although Richard`s artlclee is nice, last monday I bought themselves a Mercedes after making $7877 this munth and-just over, 10 grand this past-munth. this is really the nicest-job I've ever had. I actually started 4 months ago and practically straight away began to bring home over $78... per-hr. I work through this link http://www.wow65.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • forestgombosi39||

    Anna. although Richard`s artlclee is nice, last monday I bought themselves a Mercedes after making $7877 this munth and-just over, 10 grand this past-munth. this is really the nicest-job I've ever had. I actually started 4 months ago and practically straight away began to bring home over $78... per-hr. I work through this link http://www.wow65.com
    (Go to site and open "Home" for details)

  • Luke6345||

    before I saw the check which had said 4615, I didn't believe that my mother in law had been actualy bringing home money parttime on their computer.. there friends cousin has done this for under 21 months and at present repaid the mortgage on their appartment and purchased a new Lancia Straton. this is where I went, http://www.wow92.com

  • LDS Libertarian||

    I am so sick of this man and the lack of personal and professional responsibility which he is brought to account for...he makes me want to quit following politics!

  • JohnD||

    Liberals are incapable of rational judgement. Every decision they make is based on emotion. "It's for the children".

    That is why they are so moronic.

  • caroljonathan||

    what Robert responded I cant believe that some one can make $7146 in 4 weeks on the computer. did you see this web page
    http://www.big76.com

  • quincy_85||

    up to I looked at the draft for $8691, I accept ...that...my sister woz like actualey taking home money part-time on their laptop.. there dads buddy haz done this 4 only six months and just paid the debts on their home and bourt a new Cadillac. we looked here, http://www.wow92.com

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Video Game Nation: How gaming is making America freer – and more fun.
  • Matt Welch: How the left turned against free speech.
  • Nothing Left to Cut? Congress can’t live within their means.
  • And much more.

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement