Gun Rights

Who Cares What the Majority Wants on Guns?

Whether Democrats like it or not, this issue concerns the Constitution.

|

President Barack Obama has been struggling to wrap his head around the "unimaginable" idea that Congress may "defy" the American people and stop a vote on a gun control package compromise. The notion, he says, resists the "overwhelming instinct of the American people" after the massacre in Newtown, Conn., to pass gun control legislation.

Well, the unthinkable happened. The Senate's sweeping gun legislation came up short on the votes required to move forward. And despite all the idealistic calls for passage and despite the fact that many pundits and advocates seem to believe that something should be law simply because "the vast majority of Americans" support it, not every issue deserves a majoritarian decision.

To begin with, whether Democrats like it or not, this issue concerns the Constitution—where stuff was written down for a reason. That's not to say that expanding background checks or banning "assault rifles" would be unconstitutional (though you may believe they both should be). It's to say that when you begin meddling with protections explicitly laid out in the founding document, a 60-vote threshold that slows down stampeding legislators is the least we deserve.

The Founding Fathers worried that "some common impulse of passion" might lead many to subvert the rights of the few. It's a rational fear, one that is played out endlessly. Obama, who understands how to utilize public passion better than most, flew some of the Newtown families to Washington for a rally, imploring Americans to put "politics" aside and stop engaging in "political stunts." This is, by any measure, a preposterous assertion coming from a politician piggybacking tragic events for political gain. It would have been one thing, I suppose, if the gun control legislation written in the aftershock of a gruesome massacre had anything to do with the topic at hand. But what senators came up with would have done nothing to stop the shooter in Newtown—or the one in Aurora, Colo. Passions can be aggravated by events, but in this case, events have little to do with the policy at hand.

Cabinet positions and judges should probably not be held up over ideological concerns. But if Washington is internalizing the 60-vote threshold as the barrier to pass legislation, voters should be grateful. Considering Washington's propensity to politicize everything and its increasingly centralized power (what your health care looks like is now up for national referendums, for instance), slowing things down can only help.

I'm not operating under the delusion that any of this is good national politics for Republicans—though the arguments about obstructionism's dooming the GOP are probably overblown. No doubt, when the next disaster hits—and it will—Democrats will blame the overlords at the National Rifle Association and Republicans for the act of a madman. That's life.

But generally speaking, it'd be nice if Congress occasionally challenged the vagaries of American majority "instinct." Though it might seem antithetical to their very existence, politicians should be less susceptible to the temporary whims, ideological currents and fears of the majority. Theoretically, at least, elected officials' first concern is the Constitution. And if the need for gun control is predicated chiefly on the polls taken immediately after a traumatic national event, they have a perfectly reasonable justification to slow things down. In fact, if Washington internalizes the 60-vote threshold as a matter of routine, voters should be grateful. Considering Washington's propensity to politicize everything and its increasingly centralized power (what your health care looks like is now up for national referendums, for instance), this might be the only way left to diffuse democracy.

NEXT: MSNBC Host Blames NRA for FBI's Inability to Find Boston Bomber

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.

  1. You don’t like guns?

    Don’t fucking buy one.

    (And I say this as an NJ-raised non-gun owner. To all the gun owners, CCW carriers especially: thank you for keeping criminals frightened. I mean it.

    1. Why don’t you own a gun?

      1. Can’t speak for deified, but I don’t own one because of my felony record.

        1. I own two because of your felony record.

          1. I love you, Paul.

            1. 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)

      2. Could be a myriad of reasons.

        I know for me, I don’t own one cause I can’t afford a quality firearm.

        But before that, I never felt the need to have one, but I like the option of owning one if I want one. I think that’s the majority of folks out there that don’t own, but support the 2nd Amendment.

        1. This is where you SHOULD take Biden’s advice.

          Buy a shotgun, buy a shotgun.

          You can get a fairly decent 20 gauge pump for pretty cheap. I got one because my wife didn’t like the 12 gauge’s kick.

          1. {opinion}
            My preferred homepro shotgun: Used Remington Model 11 @ 20″ bbl

            Cost = ~$100 – $200 + hacksaw

            Pros:
            All steel, well made, economical, semi-auto, recoil operated(easy to clean/ no gas port)), moderate recoil, easy to come by, 12ga (generally), popular with the military/cops/gangsters for years, hunts well.

            Cons:
            none apparent, (small mag capacity).

            {/opinion}

            1. I’d hate to take a hacksaw to a perfectly fine shotgun. I have an 870 with an 18″ slug barrel and it’s perfectly fine (and legal) as manufactured. And keeps the ATF off my back in the event it is ever in evidence in a home defense shooting.

              You can get mag tube extenders for almost any brand shotgun to remedy that small mag capacity you noted.

              I also love my Knoxx recoil-reducing stock. Highly recommend.

              1. upto I looked at the paycheck which had said $7580, I did not believe …that…my neighbours mother woz like they say actualy receiving money part-time at their computer.. there uncle had bean doing this 4 only twenty months and just paid the dept on their apartment and bought a new Saab 99 Turbo. read more at, kep2.com

      3. Because I am a lazy pussy.

        This has only become a big issue now because there is a dangerous person in my social vicinity and I have a serious concern that she (yes she) could attack my family.

        1. Just play Misty for her. 🙂

        2. NJ has some of the worst gun laws in the country. I feel for you.

      4. Now I don’t own one because nobody as nervous of power-tools as I am should. But that is MY decision, not some politician’s.

  2. I am ordinarily vehemently opposed to conjuring up the ghosts of the past, especially this one, but I cannot help wondering how our little pal MNG is doing this morning.

    He used to work himself into a frenzy bleating about how “undemocratic” it was that low-population states in the west were able to thwart the majority by getting two votes in the Senate, just like real states.

    Sweet salty tears.

    1. We can only hope him and Joe from Lowell are in an organic fair trade coffee shop somewhere in Boston crying in each other’s arms right now.

      1. I hope those two have finally found love!

        1. That is what I was thinking.

    2. C’mon. The fact that MNG disappeared with registration proves that he was some regular commentor’s troll alter-ego.

      1. It’s not hard to register under two different names.

        1. This. You guys do realize that I’m Tulpa, right?

  3. To begin with, whether Democrats like it or not, this issue concerns the Constitution — where stuff was written down for a reason.

    But that’s like a hundred years old and written in a language nobody understands.

    But if Washington is internalizing the 60-vote threshold as the barrier to pass legislation, voters should be grateful.

    Moving to a 60-vote threshold to pass legislation would be one of the greatest wins for liberty in a long time.

    1. 100 vote threshold if you ask me

      1. 101 vote threshhold.

        1. yup… especially for relief aid bills… 102 if for texas.

    2. “But that’s like a hundred years old and written in a language nobody understands.”

      It’s written in language anyone with a passing acquaintance with English understands, which is why the Elitist “We Know Best” Twit Left hates it so poisonously. You have to go through several years of Lefty indoctrination to get to the point where you can argue that “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed” leaves some room for gun control. Even then, the language is so straightforward, and the historical context is so plain, that Lefty indoctrination has a way of wearing off inconveniently. Lawrence Tribe asserting that the 2nd. Amendment protects an individual right to weapons must have been a nasty shock to the True Believers, seeing that he was and still is pro-gun control.

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

        200 years old, and could well mean that guns should be controlled by the state.

        “Shall I compare thee to a Summer’s day?
        Thou art more lovely and more temperate.”

        500 years old and could well mean that guns should be controlled by the state.

      2. why are the 2nd amendment rights of felons being violated daily then? huh?

        you do know how the 2Am was interpreted for most of US history, right?

  4. The Founding Fathers worried that “some common impulse of passion” might lead many to subvert the rights of the few.

    Don’t be ridiculous, Shirley. That only applies to low brow ratbaggers.

  5. The NRA’s Fraud: Fabrication of Second Amendment Rights

    For well over two centuries the Supreme Court never decided that the Amendment granted a constitutional right to individuals to bear arms. The widely held notion that such a right existed was a myth fabricated by the NRA for its own self interest and for the corporate profits of gun manufacturers.

    Take your blood pressure meds prior to reading.

    Have a nice day.

    1. I don’t think anyone at HuffPo really wants to open the can of worms of fabricated constitutional rights.

      1. We are all strict constructionists now. Didn’t you know that Fist?

      2. I don’t think anyone at HuffPo really wants to open the can of worms of fabricated constitutional rights.

        Projection, thy name is HuffPo.

    2. For well over two centuries the Supreme Court never decided that the Amendment granted a constitutional right to individuals to bear arms.

      Maybe I’m being naive, but if the Second Amendment clearly spells it out why would the SC need to get involved? It would be the most awesome thing in the world if more people weren’t stupid.

      1. And for most of those 200 years there were no gun control laws so there was no reason for the court to ever consider the matter. For over 200 years the court has never thought much about quartering of soldiers in homes either. Clearly that right must not exist or the Supreme Court would have thought about it.

        1. God I hate liberals.

          All the tears are so fucking delicious.

        2. There were? Black Codes and the like.

    3. Important rage just makes me laugh. I love this part

      In the 45 years since Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated in 1968, there have been over 1.3 million deaths in our country caused by firearms.

      Gee, if you just take a long enough time span and present the number without any explanation or context, you make anything look so scary. 1.3 million sounds so much more scary than 28,000 deaths per year, including suicide in a country of 300 million.

      But a million people have died!!!

      1. Important rage just makes me laugh.

        Your misspellings frequently make me laugh. Well played.

        1. They are actually getting better. But God that was a bad one.

      2. We need to ban cars. Since 1968 (1968 – 2011) 1,957,015 people have been killed in autos.

        1. Cars are actually MORE dangerous. Something like 40% of gun deaths are intentionally self-inflicted, compared with less than 1% of automobile deaths.

          1. I wonder if that 1% shouldn’t be higher. Does it count people who ran the car with the garage closed? Maybe some people drove into a wall going 130 on purpose?

            1. I’m actually including them, I think. I don’t think there have been 190k cases of hitting walls at 130 + carbon monoxide poisoning (although I could be wrong).

              1. the Intimidator hit a wall at near 200 and died. so cars are killing the people most qualified to handle them.

                  1. +3

                    Shouldn’t it be “-3”?

            2. Had a relative who did that. I was ultimately responsible for selling the vehicle thereafter. Surprisingly, there is no legal obligation to disclose such a thing (maybe not surprisingly, I live out in the desert, where we don’t have a lot of laws). It was a nice car, it sold fast for a tidy sum. I doubt it would have been so easy to sell had I been required to share that information.

              1. I was referring to the carbon monoxide thing, not a high speed impact, obviously.

                1. I knew a guy who bought a 68 Firebird in Victoria, BC, drove the thing back to Northern Saskatchewan, and did the carbon monoxide thing to himself in the garage within 2 weeks of getting home.

        2. “We need to ban cars. Since 1968 (1968 – 2011) 1,957,015 people have been killed in autos.”

          nah, no need to ban cars. all we should do is create some sort of test that you have to pass in order to get to drive one, and some sort of national database so we can figure out who it was if someone runs someone over…

          although, cars are pretty deadly as mentioned, so maybe they should be classified as a weapon. and boom, 2Am protection extends to the right to own an suv. i love america.

      3. In the 45 years since Robert Kennedy and Martin Luther King were assassinated in 1968

        …which has fuck all to do with anything, how exactly? Talk about a non-sequitor.

        there have been over 1.3 million deaths in our country caused by firearms.

        Really? Firearms routinely sprout legs and go out and shoot people all by themselves? Huh, that’s news to me, I always thought that a person was required to pull the trigger. Maybe these things really should be banned, since they’re apparently becoming sentient, self aware, and mobile.

        What a retard.

        1. “…Maybe these things really should be banned, since they’re apparently becoming sentient, self aware, and mobile.”

          Pssst…It’s the gunz that are high on teh Baffsaltz…

          1. http://www.assaultweaponwatch.com/

            They’re right on top of this. Watching assault weapons closely, 24/7!

      4. Since Dow Chemical has been in business hundreds of millions of people have died!!

      5. That’s far fewer than in Europe, when you include 1914-1918, the Spanish Civil War, 1939-1945, Bosnia, Chechnya, etc..

    4. the huffpo frontpage last night was a riot. I swear liberal tears were leaking out of my monitor

      1. The pictures of the dead kids and the evil Senators. Oh God, you couldn’t make that shit up if you tried. I absolutely LOLed when I saw that.

    5. No, why am I reading HuffPo comments.

      Thank you, Mr. Newton. Your article is timely with intelligent perspective on the evolution of gun ownership. As a kid I believed I was doomed to exist in a world of second hand smoke and the disgusting remnants of smoking in our culture. Times changed for the better after the public became educated. The effects of gun ownership will, too, eventually be ameliorated with education and we will not have to live with the invariable deaths caused by gun violence.

      Indoctrination is the only way to make the ignorant unwashed masses agree with me.

      1. Well, that’s the kind of asshole you become if you spend your time as a kid worrying about “a world of second hand smoke”.

      2. Praise be to the founders for creating a CONSTITUTIONAL democracy! These other liberal people though, need a REAL education in American government. Oh, I am sure they passed their “No child left behind” Government classes and “believe” they understand how a Constitutional democracy works. But in actuality, they don’t understand. Even an attorney and adjunct professor from the Washington University School of Law, misses it or lies about it completely. Remind me to never respect a WUSoL degree, if I ever see one.
        “, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
        It is and was written in plain English.

        1. Point of fact: it’s a republic.

          1. Federal Republic. . .

        2. Maybe children need more English classes. The Constitution is very easy to understand. Law, on the other hand…

    6. I love that they always bring up Warren Burger’s remarks. When I bring up his anti-gay beliefs like this(from wikipedia):

      Chief Justice Burger pointed out that the famous legal author William Blackstone wrote that sodomy was a “‘crime against nature’… of ‘deeper malignity than rape’, a heinous act ‘the very mention of which is a disgrace to human nature’ and ‘a crime not fit to be named'” (106 S. Ct. at 2841).

      they just go dumb.

    7. Take your blood pressure meds prior to reading.

      Nah, don’t need to. This argument has been beaten like a red headed stepchild so many times, it’s not even worth giving it the click.

    8. Please forgive me for being totally fucking confused. Does the 2nd not protect the individual right to ownership as this guy is claiming, or is it a vile, barbaric abomination from prehistoric times that is utterly incompatible with modern society as so many of his ilk also claim? Which is it? Make up your fucking minds. I mean, if your endgame is to triumphantly seize the reigns of power as to usher in a progressive utopia on Earth, it may be wise to first get your talking points squared up.

    9. Many cases from the infamous Dred Scott decision to Presser to Miller acknowledge the second amendment confers an individual right to bear arms. The only quibble was that the bill of rights only applied to the federal government. That changed with various 20th century decisions.

      Tell you what you can have the 19th century understanding of gun control where the states could do what they want if you want to go back to the 19th century understanding of the rest of the constitution. True you could get your gun ban in CT but almost the entire federal government would be illegal.

      Deal?

  6. Theoretically, at least, elected officials’ first concern is the Constitution.

    Now you’re just being silly.

    1. Really. Do you think that an oath of office actually means anything to a politician? They would ban the Bible to stay in power.

  7. Any number of protected rights are minority rights. Note how few free speech cases deal with speech we all like, like, I dunno, the Muppets. It’s Nazis marching in Jewish neighborhoods, protestors, naked people being naked, etc. Not the majority, except for maybe the naked people.

    Liberty cannot and will not exist for all if the majority has unchecked power, any more than if one guy has unchecked power.

    1. Nothing being proposed is even suspected of running counter to constitutionally protected rights.

      1. Might want to look up the definition of infringed moron.

      2. Infringement is in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it?

        1. If the beholder is a Supreme Court justice, then yes. Nothing being proposed wouldn’t pass even Scalia’s muster in Heller.

          1. The beholder is the citizen who is affected by government action. Don’t forget, the impetus behind this is nominally a mass shooting. So we’re changing laws that affect millions due to the actions of an insane person. And, as has been admitted by even some gun control supporters, the changes wouldn’t have stopped that or most shootings.

            1. As I said in another thread, then you seem to be stuck with two choices: the status quo with respect to gun deaths is an appropriate price of freedom, or we need much stricter regulations than are being proposed.

              1. The status quo with respect to gun deaths is an acceptable price for freedom. Particularly when you consider that the great majority of those deaths are either suicide or gang related. Way too much has already been lost in many states.

                1. Why are suicide or gang deaths any less lamentable? Wouldn’t it be better if gangs only had knives and bats to fight with, or people contemplating suicide had to go to a little more trouble than squeezing a trigger?

                  1. FIRE! It has killed baziilions and killizaons of peopless. for da kidzis paaaleeze ban the plasmic terror of da evil fire!

                  2. They are less lamentable because the victims brought it on themselves. I would prefer it if those things happened less, but I’m not giving up rights to make that happen. And gang bangers don’t do background checks, so unless you are proposing to ban and confiscate all privately owned guns, none of the proposed legislation would do anything to get guns away from gangs.

                  3. ITT: Tony admits that the suicidal should suffer first.

                  4. There is no law that could prevent suicide, as evidenced by the 55 countries with higher suicide rates and far lower rates of gun ownership.

                    The only law that could stop gang warfare would be to end the Drug War.

                    Fuck off, slaver.

                  5. What the fuck does “lamentable” have to do with anything you silly freak?

                    Lots of things are lamentable but have no solution. The “solution” being proposed does about as much good as wearing a flower in your hair. Why don’t we try that since this is so lamentable? See how your utter lack of logic works? (I dount it)

                  6. Ending the WOD would stop a lot of that.

              2. Seeing as how neither you nor anyone else is capable of actually proving that ANY gun control law ever enacted not only in this country but anywhere on earth has ever done anything to reduce the crime rate, your statement is totally meaningless.

              3. Holy false dichotomy, Batman!

                Why can’t the choice be expanded gun rights so that more people are able to carry to dissuade attacks by criminals?

                Why can’t the choice be repealing the Drug War that results in a large number of gun homicides every year?

                Why can’t the choice be mandating that every man, woman, and child be trained in how to use a gun responsibly, and owns their own gun? (I don’t really support this one, but the penaltax has allowed this to be an option now.)

                You’re not thinking outside the box, T-bone.

                1. Such muddying of the waters, generic Brand — that’s not a proper part of a national conversation.

              4. the status quo with respect to gun deaths is an appropriate price of freedom

                Like it or not, this is the correct choice. Some people will use freedom to do horrible things. This, however, does not give you the right to take those freedoms from the millions of people who will not do harm.

                1. But the freedom at issue is the freedom of people adjudicated to be a danger to society to own guns.

                  1. But the freedom at issue is the freedom of people adjudicated to be a danger to society to own guns.

                    If they’re a danger to society, what the hell are they doing out in society?

                2. Like it or not, this is the correct choice.

                  Amen!

                3. Well, there are a lot of car deaths. Are we going to ban cars?

                  I think there are other options open to society–not government–to reduce deaths from violence.

                  1. We might reasonably ban cars that are particularly dangerous and do not serve any greater transportation function as a result of their increased danger. Besides, there are tons of regulations in the manufacture, sale, and use of cars.

                    Guns are relatively unregulated, and on the whole serve only the purpose of sending projectiles into people’s bodies with the intention of killing them.

                    We can’t regulate away all danger without becoming a police state, but we can talk about the balance between safety and freedom. The vast majority of citizens thank you for representing one extreme end of this spectrum, and doing it so well.

                    1. Guns are relatively unregulated, and on the whole serve only the purpose of sending projectiles into people‘s bodies with the intention of killing them.

                      You added that.

                      Just because you think a gun is used only for the slaying of people doesn’t mean that is the only use that can be gotten out of it. If I went around killing people with an axe because an axe’s only purpose is to cut up people’s bodies with the intention of killing them, would you think that axes are evil, or that I am evil?

                    2. “on the whole serve only the purpose of sending projectiles into people’s bodies with the intention of killing them”

                      That may be the functional purpose of guns, but very few guns actually serve that purpose. My guns mostly serve the purpose of sending projectiles into plywood, old appliances and troublesome squirrels.

                    3. Besides, there are tons of regulations in the manufacture, sale, and use of cars.

                      As relates to the car’s ability to convey it’s passengers safely from point A to point B. Get back to me on that when we have a rash of guns exploding in people’s faces at shooting ranges.

                      Guns are relatively unregulated, and on the whole serve only the purpose of sending projectiles into people’s bodies with the intention of killing them.

                      A gun is a mechanical device whose sole purpose is to harness the energy of a chemical reaction in order to expel a projectile. Any “purpose” beyond that is imputed to it solely by its end user. As evidences, of course, by the fact that only the tinest percentage of privately owned guns are ever used to create mayhem.

                    4. “We might reasonably ban cars that are particularly dangerous and do not serve any greater transportation function as a result of their increased danger. Besides, there are tons of regulations in the manufacture, sale, and use of cars.”

                      Jackboots unintentionally brings up an excellent point.

                      We should watch what we say with regards to Car vs Gun deaths, because shitheap Lefties won’t process that argument the way it should be.

                      They’ll just mentally file it away for later, when that inevitable day comes to ban all non-Party members from using anything except Public Social Justice Transportation because OMG TEH FATALITIES AND CARBONZ AND WHO NEEDS TO DRIVE A CAR WITH MORE THAN TWO SEATS ANYWAY?

                    5. What car should I own, Tony?

                    6. I think the question is: “which car do I need, Tony.”

                    7. They’re also handy when someone needs a good old-fahioned pistol-whipping.

              5. thanks for the false choice. I’ll take rhetorical devices for $800, Alex.

                You can have freedom or you can have security, but you won’t get much of either if you try to have both. And no one is choosing gun deaths beyond the people pulling the trigger.

                1. “They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
                  Ben Franklin

              6. Tony| 4.18.13 @ 11:39AM |#

                As I said in another thread, then you seem to be stuck with two choices: the status quo with respect to gun deaths is an appropriate price of freedom, or we need much stricter regulations than are being proposed.

                That really is the essence of the false choice foisted upon anyone engaged in this asinine argument. The status quo vs. an answer to the desire of violent sociopaths (regardless of method), and what ever their tool of choice used to impose their will is the real argument. As long as you are hung up on method over motive, and narrative induced dogma over these incidents continues the policy of treating tertiary symptoms rather than the festering disease. The left is intentionally barking up the wrong tree, to avoid some painful soul-searching of their failed policies, at my (our) expense, as my rights are non-negotiable, and irrelevant to the real discussion that needs to take place to move beyond the “status quo”

        2. As far as the Toomey-Manchin bill goes I still fail to see how it violates Second Amendment rights in the slightest.

          The only people it would prevent from bearing or keeping arms are people who are already prohibited by earlier laws. And indeed it allows more people to bear arms across state lines with less fear of interference by the locals.

          1. The biggest problem with expanded background checks is that it is practically unenforceable and would only be used selectively to fuck with people or punish people for other people’s crimes.

            1. So because it’s difficult to enforce it, it shouldn’t be law?

              It’s even harder to enforce the current laws against selling firearms to people you know are violent felons or mentally ill, because it’s hard to prove what the seller knew. Should we repeal those laws too?

              1. So because it’s difficult to enforce it, it shouldn’t be law?

                To some degree, yes. It’s rather pointless to pass into law something that cannot be enforced. Why not just create a signing statement saying “Guns are bad, mmmkay” if that is the practical application of this law?

                I know this doesn’t really jive with your “Law and Order Libertarianism”, but the government’s job isn’t to create unnecessary hoops for the citizens to jump through in order to go about living their lives. The government should protect against the majority (or minority) taking the rights from others, and nothing else.

                1. The govt is supposed to protect against ANYONE violating the rights of others. Whether we’re talking about one assailant or 300 million.

                  A committed schizophrenic shooting you is just as much a violation of your rights as a cop shooting you with the backing of the majority.

                  1. And that schizophrenic will be prosecuted. The cop? Not so much.

                  2. The govt is supposed to protect against ANYONE violating the rights of others. Whether we’re talking about one assailant or 300 million.

                    A committed schizophrenic shooting you is just as much a violation of your rights as a cop shooting you with the backing of the majority.

                    I get that, but it’s already been shown that all of the recent shooters (Holmes, Loughner, Lanza) possessed legally purchased guns. So if this background check bullshit wouldn’t have prevented even those crimes, why should we give a fuck what Toomey-Manchin says it will do?

                    Why not just create a signing statement saying “Guns are bad, mmmkay” if that is the practical application of this law?

                2. It’s rather pointless to pass into law something that cannot be enforced.

                  Of course it can be enforced. The same way the current laws against selling to known prohibiteds are enforced, by doing a forward trace and tracking down the last lawful owner.

                  1. by doing a forward trace and tracking down the last lawful owner.

                    Which is de facto registration.

                    So you need to ask if the benefits of the law,
                    b) fewer criminals and insane having guns,

                    is worth the cost
                    c) a defacto registration system in the hands of people that crave a prohibition on gun ownership.

                    Any reasonable person would conclude that the cost vastly outweighs the benefit.

                    1. Which is de facto registration.

                      No, it isn’t. It would be an intractable problem to use the forward trace process to compile a list of gun owners, which is a necessary first step in order for ATF or anyone else to be able to determine whether a randomly selected person is a gun owner.

                      There are records of who has purchased/transfered a gun, but those records are scattered all around the country. That’s how you have enforcement of gun transfer laws without registration.

                    2. There are records of who has purchased/transfered a gun, but those records are scattered all around the country.

                      Well, until someone creates a way for people to share information all around the world at lightning speeds. I have no idea how they would accomplish that, man in VA, from man in KY. Perhaps we could ask one of the people who comment from CA or Liberia, etc., if they have any ideas.

                    3. Well, until someone creates a way for people to share information all around the world at lightning speeds.

                      This would require every FFL in the country to be voluntarily complicit in the registration scheme.

              2. “Mentally ill”

                Let’s talk about that one, because that’s my biggest problem with the bill. How many times have the American people treated mental illness with sympathy and caring? Well, a lot, but never with the power of the state.

                When the state and psychiatrists get involved, you get MK Ultra and forced sterilization.

          2. As far as the Toomey-Manchin bill goes I still fail to see how it violates Second Amendment rights in the slightest.

            You answered your statement with your very next sentence:

            The only people it would prevent from bearing or keeping arms are people who are already prohibited by earlier laws.

            There are already a number of people who are barred from possessing firearms that shouldn’t be, and that is unconstitutional.

            1. So work to repeal the laws against selling firearms to murderers and schizophrenics if you want. Don’t rip on the Toomey bill.

              1. If the existing laws are bad, and the Toomey bill does the same thing, then why not rip on it? That doesn’t make any sense, Tulpa.

                1. It doesn’t do the same thing. It makes it harder to break the previous laws.

                  If the laws against felon or lunatic possession were repealed (which I do not support, btw) then Toomey-Manchin wouldn’t affect such sales.

              2. Why should schizophrenics with no history of violence be banned from owning fire arms?

                Because we find their brain chemistry unusual and scary, and thus they aren’t as human as we are and don’t deserve the same rights?

              3. “So work to repeal the laws against selling firearms to murderers and schizophrenics if you want. Don’t rip on the Toomey bill.”

                Who said anything about selling firearms to murderers , or schizophrenics? Tulpa… Jesus Christ man, what the fuck? Non-violent felons…maybe, false accused domestic battery, absolutely… Come off it man.

          3. The only people it would prevent from bearing or keeping arms are people who are already prohibited by earlier laws.

            Tell that to the people who mistakenly have ended up on the no-fly list. And, for the one millionth time, people legally prohibited from owning firearms aren’t going to let a silly little law get in the way, if they actually want firearms.

      3. keep and bear arms

  8. “the vast majority of Americans” polled.

    Fixed it for you MSM. No charge.

    1. And polled on a vagary. Much like “Obamacare,” polls break down very differently when details are introduced.

  9. Supreme Court never decided that the Amendment granted a constitutional right to individuals to bear arms.

    And this is why I never go to Huffington Puffington.

    They’re stupid.

    Rights are not “granted” by the State, you cretinous bootlicker.

    1. They honestly believe that though. That is why they think Supreme Court appointments are such life and death matters. If the court doesn’t grant them any rights, then they have no rights.

      1. 9A

        The ignored amendment.

    2. “Rights” are sooooo 1787.

  10. I think that last paragraph needs an edit, because it reads a lot like the second from last, but the sentiment is spot-on, and exactly why we’re a republic and not Athenian democracy. It’s also exactly why any idea of “online voting” for national referenda needs to be rejected out of hand; state propositions and constitutional amendments are abusively worded, already.

    1. Propositions and referenda can serve as a useful check on elected officials, but here in California, they have been used to an absurd degree. In our last election, in addition to every office imaginable, we voted on 10 propositions for the state and 7 for my county. The voter guides were 144 pages and 147 pages respectively. Who the fuck reads that shit before making a decision?

      1. Here in Florida we have a Constitutional Amendment to protect pregnant pigs … beat THAT Californistan!

        (and yes, you can skip the “banjo and purty mouth” jokes)

  11. I hope the kids at HuffPo drew horns and bloody fangs on all the Senators who voted Nay. Because that would be edgy and sophisticated.

  12. I’ve seen more posts from Tony in the last two days then I have for a long time. I really think this has broken what little sanity he had left.

    Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

    1. Give Tony some credit. At least he is honest about what he thinks and came on here even after things went poorly, unlike buttplug who trolls pretending to be pro gun.

      1. [At least he is honest about what he thinks ]

        Evn though most of what he thinks is dishonest.

  13. What was the bill #? I’m curious to see which Dems voted Nay.

    1. Never mind – found it.

  14. Well, I’ll be bowled over with a feather. Mark Warner was a Nay.

    1. I guess Virginia isn’t quite Southern Maryland just yet.

      1. Not if I have anything to say about it.

    2. once toomey-manchin went down, the whole bill was toast, so he would vote nay without consequence.

    3. holy crap! i take it all back, Mark. well, maybe not all of it.

    4. I think you have the Lautenberg Amdt. there Kristen.

      This is the Manchin Amdt.

      1. Reid voted nay?

  15. Thanks for the roll call, Kaptious- based on something I saw earlier, I thought Tester had been an good little Democrat and voted Aye.

    He has a well established record of obedience to the hive mind, so it wasn’t totally unbelievable.

  16. Imagine that; both Colorado Senators voted Aye.

    Worthless fucks.

    1. Imagine that; both Colorado Senators voted Aye.

      Colorado has been going down hill for years. All the fucking Cali’s moving in and bringing their stupid with them. Really is disappointing.

      1. I believe Udall is up for re-election in ’14 and Bennett in ’16. A lot of my decisions for the next couple of election cycles are getting easier, at least insofar as who I’m NOT going to vote for:

        Gov. Lick-a-pooper: No
        Udall: No
        Bennett: No

        Now all I have to do is wait and see if the repubs actually nominate someone I can stomach voting for, or if I’m going to go rogue and vote for a 3rd party, or just not bother.

        1. It is so stupid. If they hadn’t gotten on this gun shit, I would have said that Hickenlooper and Udall were locks; Bennet is an idiot partisan hack and Colorado hasn’t been California-ized enough yet for him to win over that states more centrist Dems.

          Now, it may be a Democrat bloodbath the next few years in Colorado. Even Denver is pretty pro-gun, remember.

        2. I hope it is a bloodbath.

    2. Jeff Flake stood up to the emotional blackmail of Gabby Giffords.

      Dude might be better than Rand Paul.

  17. Here’s the vote on the Manchin-Toomey amendment.

  18. I find it ironic that VT has the best gun laws in the country (in that there aren’t many and that protection of gun ownership is enshrined in their state Constitution), but both Senators voted Yea. The cognitive dissonance is so strong that they can’t even see that gun violence is a non-factor in their own state, therefore wide gun ownership may be a net good.

    1. Same here in Washington. Conceal carry, enshrined in the consitution, no city or county can enact any gun control law or regulation more restrictive than the state laws (which makes Seattle yuppies go fucking insane), and yet Cantwell and Murray were both Yea.

  19. It’s hard to unlearn democracy and majority rule when it’s been pounded into your head since grade school. Too bad public education can’t do that with inalienable rights.

  20. There is absolutely no good argument for favoring minority rule in the Senate (which is what the 60-vote threshold is). It was certainly never the intended way the body was to function, the filibuster being essentially the exploitation of a loophole in senate rules. Add to that the fact that it’s already a highly unrepresentative body (2 votes for the population of Montana and 2 votes for the population of California), and we’re way past the concept of a cooling saucer for legislation and well into it being a body that puts the legislative wishes of a minority above those of the majority at all times.

    This might sound good to people like libertarians who feel they never get their way, but what happens if you were on the other end of this undemocratic system? This argument amounts to “I should get my way because I’m special.” Majority rule is not meant to be absolute, but not every singly bill ever proposed has to do with minority rights exceptions. Libertarians seem to think their every policy desire is a god-given right that nobody is allowed to disagree with.

    1. There is absolutely no good argument for favoring minority rule in the Senate (which is what the 60-vote threshold is).

      Sure there is. If what you are proposing is REALLY a good idea, it shouldn’t be hard to get 60 votes. I would personally rather they require 2/3 to pass anything.

      Add to that the fact that it’s already a highly unrepresentative body (2 votes for the population of Montana and 2 votes for the population of California)

      Are you really this bewildered by the history of the three branches and why they are configured as they are? The Senate is supposed to represent the STATES, not the people. The House is to represent the PEOPLE. History really is your friend.

      1. Nevertheless, even in the House the people of small states get more representation. In the Senate–the differences in state populations having grown significantly since the Connecticut Compromise–a citizen of Wyoming get 70 times the representation a citizen of California does. Surely there’s a limit to the fairness or utility of disproportionate representation, and surely we’re way past it. This is even more true as state sovereignty becomes less meaningful as communication and travel technology has advanced and issues are increasingly of an interstate nature.

        Let’s just not pretend that the Connecticut Compromise was anything but a compromise between two philosophies of how the national government should work–not the establishment of an ideal system. (Especially since slavery was entangled in the whole thing.)

        1. $

          See below.

        2. Fucking bicameral legislature, how does it work?

          It’s almost as if the founders saw the problems that majoritarian rule would create and wanted to create a group of lawmakers that represented their constituents on equal footing with all other states, and not based on how many people lived there.

          MADNESS!!!

          1. It’s not almost like that at all. It’s pretty much like the founders saw they couldn’t get the country unified without appeasing slave states and their desire to have more representation for their citizens.

            1. No, Tony, it’s because they were learned, experienced men and knew that pure democracy sucked ass. Not to put too fine a point on it. Hence the Bill of Rights.

        3. Following the inevitable breakup of this country, the blue remnants will merge into the unitary Republic of America modeled on Fifth Republic France while the red states will maintain the USA in structure and name.

          1. What will the Red States do once they’re cut off from all the federal assistance and subsidy they receive paid for by citizens of the Blue States?

            1. Get jobs?
              Create jobs?

              1. Deal with the delicate issue of how to deal with the influx of immigrants from the former blue states.

            2. I never understood why people on the left think they are being clever when they claim that red states receive disproportionately more money from the federal government than blue states. If the red states are poorer than their richer blue brethren, then shouldn’t the left be in favor of such redistribution? Alternatively, if the left believes that blue states are being unfairly treated by the federal government, shouldn’t they favor reducing federal government? It’s like handing your uncle $100 with the expectation that he spends all $100 on you and then whining when he only spends $90 on you. Why not just keep the $100 in the first place?

              1. The only reason “red” states win out is defense spending. CA in particular chased away a ton of military bases has it went progtard. Those dollars go to other states.

                Plus, who decides? MD is a blue state for sure, and TX is a red state. But VA gets a ton of defense dollars and voted Obama twice. Of course, it also voted for Bush twice. So…is VA a red or a blue state?

                It’s a stupid leftwing talking point, as dumb as any of their other talking points.

              2. If the red states are poorer than their richer blue brethren, then shouldn’t the left be in favor of such redistribution?

                Red States aren’t poorer. Median Household Income between the two is pretty close to identical on average once you adjust for Cost of Living. The Wikepedia entry on “Household income in the United States” has the data.

                I had this reality brought to the forefront on a recent trip to Delaware, where I saw miles and miles of trailer parks and run down shacks, even though Delaware supposedly is pretty wealthy using raw figures.

                Blue states are the most unequal in terms of GINI, though. Another one of those peculiar facts they like to sweep under the rug.

            3. What will the Red States do once they’re cut off from all the federal assistance and subsidy they receive paid for by citizens of the Blue States?

              Become nice places to live.

            4. Blue Team complains that Red Team gets more money. Red Team says “Keep it. We don’t want your money”. Blue Team votes to give Red Team more money. Then complains about it again.

              This is the insanity of politics.

            5. What makes you think that the citizens who are actually paying most of those taxes in the blue states are actually blue voters?

              The top 50% of income earners pay 97% of federal income taxes collected.

              I rather doubt that blue voters make up the majority of THAT group.

              The red states can invite those blue state dwellers who are actually paying the freight to relocate to their territory by establishing policies to refrain from stealing their money as is done in blue states.

              Then it will be the blue states cut off from THEIR subsidies.

        4. “a citizen of Wyoming get 70 times the representation a citizen of California does. Surely there’s a limit to the fairness or utility of disproportionate representation, and surely we’re way past it.”

          I don’t know why you’re arguing this point. Get rid of the Senate and Republicans will control all of Congress for the forseeable future.

      2. Also shows why the 17th amendment should be repealed.

    2. Good thing we live in a Constitutional Republic and not a Democracy, huh…

      …idiot.

      1. In libertarian-speak this translates to “I deserve to get my way all the time, and you should shut up.”

        Yes we live in a constitutional republic. That doesn’t mean the majority shouldn’t get its way most of the time.

        1. It means the majority cannot vote away the inalienable rights of the minority, you mendacious cunt.

          1. A big enough majority can. But nobody’s talking about violating any constitutionally protected right.

            1. Feel free to amend it idiot. As that is your only recourse.

              1. You are not being coherent. Are you arguing that every single policy change should require a constitutional amendment? Or that every single law ever passed has something to do with your inalienable rights?

                1. Are you arguing that every single policy change should require a constitutional amendment?

                  No, he is saying that if you want to pass a law that violates the protections of the constitution, you need to pass an amendment first. But you knew that.

            2. A big enough majority can. But nobody’s talking about violating any constitutionally protected right.

              Via constitutional amendment, yes, yes they can.

              And we are talking about a consitutional right, a right that says because there’s going to be a well-regulated militia under control of the state which might abuse the citizens, the citizens have a right to keep and bear arms themselves– arms which are in common use.

              Translated: If Obama and his security team get 11 bullets, I get 11 bullets.

              1. That’s an inventive translation I must say.

                Pretty sure the original right was for the citizens to defend their states from outside invaders, since standing national armies were looked down upon and not to be relied upon in those days.

                The 2nd Amendment isn’t really about anything 2nd Amendment obsessives think it’s about.

                1. Unfortunately for you, you don’t wear 5 black robes and can’t outvote the Supreme Court.

            3. Actually, no it can’t. It can vote to violate the rights of a minority. But, the majority’s doing so does not negate those rights. It simply defines the majority as immoral.

        2. That doesn’t mean the majority shouldn’t get its way most of the time.

          That’s not at all clear. On a great many matters the majority has only minimal levels of knowledge and only minimal levels of preference. If that’s the case, there really isn’t any reason that a self-selection process wherein a minority with greater levels of preference and greater knowledge of the issue thwarting the modest preference of the majority is necessarily a bad thing.

        3. In libertarian-speak this translates to “I deserve to get my way all the time, and you should shut up.”

          Well, yeah, when your way involves infringing on the rights of innocent people for zero justification, then that pretty much sums it up.

        4. Do you mean the 58 liberal Senators who represent about 30% the population?
          Just to help you make sense of that, count the total number of votes received by the 58 lib Senators and divide by the adult population of the US. It ain’t a majority.
          And if you respond that people who don’t vote had their chance and that’s the way elections work, then 60 votes in the Senate is the rule of the Senate and that’s the way the Senate works.

          1. “Do you mean the 58 liberal Senators who represent about 30% the population?”

            Most polls put “liberals” at 20-23% and conservatives at 40%+. That’s why Democrats campaign as moderates and govern as socialists, while Republicans campaign as conservatives and govern as moderates.

    3. Requiring 60 votes to pass something is not minority rule. That’s just silly. Requiring a greater majority to pass something is quite the opposite of minority rule.

      1. It certainly is if you consider issues on which there is no such thing as not making a policy choice. (I’d argue that most questions are like this.)

        1. Meaningless bullshit.

    4. The harder it is to pass laws the better.

      I’d favor a consensus requirement (100 votes) to pass bills, for BOTH houses.

      1. That’s not necessarily a great idea, either. Abuse of the nobles’ liberum veto is probably the primary culprit in Poland-Lithuania being divvied up by the great powers.

    5. “There is absolutely no good argument for favoring minority rule in the Senate”

      Who gives a fuck?

      None of this stuff would have passed the house.

  21. Lwmme fix that for you, Tony:

    “There is absolutely no good argument for results-based cost benefit analysis in the Senate, when appeals to emotion are good enough for me.”

    1. Bingo. Fuck majorities. The right thing happened, and that’s all that matters.

  22. It was certainly never the intended way the body was to function

    So, based on “intent” now you admit popular election was a bad idea?

    1. “never the intended way the body was to function”

      Are we still discussing the 2nd Amendment or have we switched to gay rights?

  23. Islands of rights in a sea of powers, man.

  24. Libertarians seem to think their every policy desire is a god-given right that nobody is allowed to disagree with.

    How do you find your way around in your hall-of-mirrors reality?

  25. Now I’m pissed again (thanks to Francisco). That fucking Obama lapdog Tester did vote Aye on Manchin.

    Cocksucker.

    1. Sorry. Didn’t want you thinking he might have done something good.

      He’s a fucking POS! I already sent an email to him, outlining what I think of his vote.

      1. Sorry, PBrooks, I see on the original thread you were on the side of the angels. But….

        Francisco d Anconia| 11.7.12 @ 12:58PM |#

        Well, here is the email I JUST sent Denny Rehberg:

        How about that? Apparently the Republican Party DOES need the libertarians if they want to stay in power.

        Let’s see?

        Tester 216,254
        Rehberg 197,991

        If my math is right, you got beat by 18,263 votes.

        How many votes did the Libertarian get? Let’s see?Cox..Oh there it is.

        Oh, 28,686.

        As you are packing up your desk in Washington, you might want to point this out to your Republican buddies. The libertarian vote can no longer be counted on when Republicans continue to push Social Conservative issues.
        reply to this

        1. See below fuckstain.

    2. Still proud of all those principled Libertarian voters who handed Tester the election last year?

      1. You bet your ass I am. I was one of them. If the dipshit Republicans had voted Libertarian, we wouldn’t be in this situation.

        1. Make sure you include that, along with your above email to Rehberg, in your communication with Tester.

          I’m sure he’ll be scared that you’ll… vote LP again in 2018 and hand him another election.

          1. Tulpa, how do you sleep at night knowing, as you do, that you are an unprincipled cunt? You must have a beard, as I doubt you can look in a mirror even to shave.

            1. You’ve actually plucked out a mote of truth for once. You’re right, being intelligent and pragmatic doesn’t necessarily mean one sleeps better at night.

              Children with dreams of houses made of candy presumably sleep very well.

            2. There’s nothing unprincipled about voting in the way that gives your principles the best chance of being implemented.

              A vote is a tool, not a wife. You don’t have to like it to make use of it.

              1. I love watching you justify yourself.

              2. Your “principles” are immoral. You are a self admitted utilitarian. By your immoral “philosophy” (and I use that term loosely), you would eat 49% of the children in the world if it were to benefit the other 51%.

                YOU. ARE. TONY.

              3. A vote is a tool, not a wife. You don’t have to like it to make use of it.

                You don’t have to like the wife either – or so I’ve been told.

  26. In the broader context of DC v Heller, it’s important to note that… Oh, the hell with it. Ding, dong, the bill is dead! Which old bill? The wicked bill!

  27. Did anyone see this popping up on their facbeook?

    From a group called “Ultraviolet”:
    46 Senators–including 4 Democrats–just voted against background checks. Share this if you’re as outraged as we are.

    Some comments:
    Lisa Miller: Why is everyone so scared of a background check? I’d be more scared of a granny that was packing heat in the Walmart carpark. In Australia we have had gun control laws since the 80’s. We have nowhere near the amount of gun related violence.

    Jessica Tedder: If you have to take a test and fill out paperwork to drive a car, you should have to complete a few simple forms for a deadly WEAPON!!! Why is this so hard?!

    Dale Littleton: Thank you senators for not letting emotions get in the way of doing your job, and defending the constitution like you swore to do

    I don’t dare click to read the replies to that last one.

    1. They seem to primarily be a feminist group with articles on VAWA and Equal Pay.

      Ultraviolet’s main page

      Their FB page

    2. I don’t dare click to read the replies to that last one.

      Probably a lot of death threats.

  28. Still proud of all those principled Libertarian voters who handed Tester the election last year?

    Maybe we should consider how principled his opponent was before we start waving that bloody shirt. If Rehberg had spent a little less time with Janet Napolitano’s throbbing cock lodged between his tonsils, he might have picked up a few more votes.

    1. You think Rehberg would be worse than Tester?

      That’s the only question that matters.

      1. Not to me it isn’t.

        I can’t live with endorsing a piece of shit just because the other guy is worse. You can.

        1. I can’t live with standing idly by and allowing the worse guy to win just so I can comfort myself that I’m “principled” and shit.

          1. +1000

            Who you vote for, or even who you advocate that others vote for, isn’t a reflection of your principles. Democracy is unprincipled by nature. Voting is unprincipled, and not voting is is the same as voting for the winner.

            Making the best out of a bad situation is what separates rationalists from crybabies.

  29. In Australia we have…

    Who gives a fuck what they have in Australia?

    Go pound broken glass up your ass.

    1. She just wants to make sure that we aren’t being assaulted by grannies in car parks. Feel pity for her, she clearly teeters on the edge of being a complete agoraphobe.

      1. “Car parks”? Are those like race tracks open to the public?

  30. She just wants to make sure that we aren’t being assaulted by grannies in car parks.

    I have seen guns being waved around in a Walmart parking lot.

    Guess whose; a bunch of cops, in desert camo fatigues and ski masks, busting a couple of guys in a beat-up old pickup truck. And it was plainly obvious they did not give fuck one about backstops or line of fire.

    It was the sort of thing I used to believe could only happen in a banana republic (but maybe I’m still right about that part).

  31. And I scoured the paper for more than a week afterward, looking for the story about bank robbers shooting their way out of a siege, or a home invasion rape/robbery/murder, or anything which might remotely justify such a show of force in a crowded public area, but there was none.

    Not a fucking word.

  32. You think Rehberg would be worse than Tester?

    97% of the time.

    Go butt chug some more codeine.

  33. my best friend’s half-sister makes $74/hour on the computer. She has been fired for 9 months but last month her check was $18658 just working on the computer for a few hours. Read more here and go to home tab for more detail— http://www.BIG76.com

  34. His Royal Majesty our King threw a pissy little hissy fit when congress, for whatever reasons decided to err on the side of the Constitution, defying his will. Watching the video of his pouty little tantrum was priceless.

  35. I can’t live with standing idly by and allowing the worse guy to win just so I can comfort myself that I’m “principled” and shit.

    Glug glug glug. Mmmmmmmmm, tastes like Kool Aid!

    1. I don’t see the point in bickering and arguing over who is worse than who when the end result keeps being more government, less freedom, shittier economy. I want to get off the path, not to walk towards the cliff in a zigzagging motion.

      1. Explain how voting LP or not voting helps to get off the path.

        1. “Explain how voting LP or not voting helps to get off the path.”

          Hmmm, lets see here…

          Voting “Ass” = getting kicked in the balls.
          Voting “Elephant” = getting punched in the face.
          Voting “L.P.” = asking to leave peacefully, with dignity intact.

          Not voting = leaving it up to fate, same as the other three votes, so…

          Voting L.P./no vote =/= to asking to be kicked in the nuts, and punched in the face by “elephantAss”…as if you really had a choice.

  36. Rapid legislation born of emotion is probably always going to end up with unintended consequences. The first of which would be a ‘mob rule’ mentality. Once you get going down that road, things may start to look like the French Revolution.

  37. I don’t see the point in bickering and arguing over who is worse

    You’re right, of course. But some allegations are hard to leave unchallenged.

    I honestly think this country is going to go over that cliff, and there is not a damn thing anybody can do to stop it. I just would like to see an honest attempt to apply the brakes. And the Republican Party is not where we can turn for help.

    1. No, the GOP won’t do what needs to be done, though they do have a pitiful few that have the right ideas, for the most part.

  38. You can tell that the new Reason would much rather be aligned with the left than with the right.

    DRINK!

  39. Who Cares What the Majority Wants on Guns anything?

    FTFY.

  40. Vast majority? A recent Gallup poll shows that only 6% of Americans think gun control is a major issue right now.

    1. I’ve already forgotten what we’re even talking about.

  41. The whole argument that 90% of Americans want background checks is a false argument because when you say background checks people fill in the details with their own conception of what this entails. I’m sure if these polls questioned details, then it would be a different story. For instance, what sort of blemish on your record discovered during the background check precludes you from being able to obtain a gun? Taking an antidepressant when you were 19? Having a family history of mental illness? A moving violation? Public intoxication?

  42. A recent Gallup poll shows that only 6% of Americans think gun control is a major issue right now.

    They’re just not asking the right question!
    Or asking the question right; same thing.

    1. This is an important point. Even if you believe there’s something called “the will of the people” (which is really just meaningless bullshit rhetoric), then will-of-the-people isn’t the same as majority-of-opinions. If a majority holds an opinion with little or no passion, while a minority holds the opposing opinion passionately, then an accurate appraisal the aggregate social “will” might not very well not favor the majority.

      …as in this case of background checks.

      Look, these senators voted against this because they knew they’d lose their next election if they did. Why? Because gun-rights voters care a great deal and will vote against you on that one point alone, whereas the average pro-background check voter won’t change his vote on the issue regardless of what you do. This IS representing “the people”, to whatever degree “the people” is a meaningful term.

      1. The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.

        1. A perfect description of the demo’s I know.

    2. A recent Gallup poll shows that only 6% of Americans think gun control is a major issue right now.

      They’re just not asking the right question!
      Or asking the question right; same thing.

      ^ This ^

      If you are paying fiddler, you name the tune…

  43. the GOP won’t do what needs to be done, though they do have a pitiful few that have the right ideas, for the most part.

    To be brutally honest, Tulpa’s principled nonacknowledgement notwithstanding, Tester [insert greater than or equal to sign] Rehberg, 97% of the time. Labels are meaningless to me.

  44. The argument against background checks I make to my gun-snatching friends is that the “no fly zone” database has been rife with errors, with innocent people getting caught in the gears of an incompetent government, without notification or legal recourse. Criminal background checks often have erroneous information and confused identities. And how does one go about repealing incorrect or misdiagnosed mental health information? There’s too much room for error or abuse and the government has constantly proven itself untrustworthy.

    I say if they want to restrict the right to bear arms based upon criminal and mental health histories, they need to pass a constitutional amendment. These histories don’t restrict freedom of speech or enable government to quarter agents in your house do they?

    1. +1

      Your last paragraph was brilliant, by the way.

  45. So, why didnt I \ever think of that?

    http://www.AnonHit.tk

  46. Unfortunately many Americans have an ass-backwards notion of how the Constitution works. They think that the federal government has unlimited power, except for a few pesky items in the Bill of Rights that can of course be overcome by “compelling state interest” (i.e. it inconveniences a bureaucrat) or by the super-elastic version of the Interstate Commerce Clause.

    In fact the only powers the federal government legitimately has are those specifically spelled out. If the Second Amendment didn’t exist at all they would still have no rightful authority to regulate guns.

    Of course this is all academic. Either way the government does pretty much what it wants to most of the time, and most folks (including our various resident statists) profusely thank them for it.

    1. That’s it in a nutshell. The shameless manipulation of the language of strictly circumscribed state power into limitless power that you see in cases like Wickard demonstrates the impossibility of establishing an enduring system of limited government. The narcissists and the power-hungry will always corrupt that system for their own benefit, and the lessons that previous generations learned about the dangers of the state will be forgotten when they’re presented with “free” goods and services.

      The founders may have believed in limited government, but by the time that they’re dead and gone and replaced by narcissists who stand unopposed in practice, it really doesn’t matter what the Constitution says, was intended to say, or what it is interpreted to say. They’re just going to do what they want FDR-style, and the will of the minority who are willing to pick through the web of lies and coercion that is politics is insufficient to stop them.

      As usual, Spooner was right: the Constitution has no binding effect on anyone either in theory or in practice. If the past century hasn’t convinced us of the failure of valiant attempts to create a self-limiting state, I don’t know that anything ever will.

  47. And, by the way, it’s just plain fucking disingenuous when the supporters of this crap claim that “it won’t violate Second Amendment rights”.

    You fucksticks don’t think any such rights exist in the first place. So naturally you aren’t worried about any infringement on what you see as nonexistent rights.

  48. I hate that insane, commie rat bastard koranimal.
    More and more each day. A kind of white hot hate.

  49. Our experience has consistently shown that democracy is as much a function of PASSION as POPULARITY. A majority of Americans have favored educational reform, reducing the deficit, immigration reform, ending agricultural subsidies, etc.

    Yes, in each case, a passionate minority is able to have its way. This is a part of democracy – I don’t see it necessarily as a problem (even if it might be in specific cases). After all, America rests on 2 bedrocks – one is democracy, rule by the people; the other is a Constitution, to restrain the rule of the majority against minorities.

  50. my neighbor’s step-sister makes 77 an hour on the laptop. She has been without work for 7 months but last month her paycheck was 14207 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Go to this web site and read more http://www.wow92.com

  51. Nowhere in the Constitution does it say that a citizen may own a gun. Look up the meaning of KEEP and BEAR. I think guns should only be owned by the government and then provided to police and actual state militias just like it actually says in the Constitution that you are so fond of parsing. As for who cares about the opinions of the populace, it is quite true that there have been horrors in the Constitution that have slowly been removed, always in the favor of nondiscrimination and equality. Other than that, with the exception of Cantservatives who seem to want to redefine words which don’t fit their preconceived opinions, actual Americans think that representatives should represent their opinions.

    1. I would like to know what YOU think KEEP and BEAR means. I believe that it gives the right to the people to own and possess arms of all kinds. In fact I think that this right has already been infringed upon because we are limited to semi-automatic weapons and can’t own many other things that the military and police are allowed to use.
      The constitution was written in order to keep power in check, so I ask you, how do you justify your thinking that the 2nd amendment does not give the right to the people to own a gun?

  52. my classmate’s half-sister makes 66 an hour on the internet. She has been fired for five months but last month her check was 16213 just working on the internet for a few hours. Read more on this site http://www.wow92.com

    1. Just curious, but does anyone ever click on your link?

  53. My reading of the Second Amendment is that the US government should provide me with a free M-16 with an M-203 grenade launcher (and ammo)so that I can be an effective militia member. Or, at least, I should be able to go to the local Wal-Mart and buy one.

  54. listen. places with tougher gun control, both state by state and globally, tend to have fewer gun related deaths. it really is that simple.

    (i am such a sadist for even reading the stuff in this echochamber)

  55. 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

  56. If you think Matthew`s story is unbelievable,, 3 weaks-ago my uncles best friend basically also broght in $4885 sitting there twenty hours a week at home and the’re neighbor’s sister-in-law`s neighbour done this for 9-months and earned over $4885 parttime on- line. apply the tips at this site…
    http://www.big76.com

  57. my friend’s step-sister makes $75/hour on the laptop. She has been unemployed for 9 months but last month her paycheck was $21903 just working on the laptop for a few hours. Read more here http://www.wow92.com

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.