Thoughts and prayers

Exactly. They did nothing, promised nothing, blocked the Dem attempts to do anything, and then publicly offered their thoughts and prayers to the families of the maimed and dead.

They had no such control for that long.
And they had priorities during their brief window - the Republican malingering and malfeasance had piled up a huge backlog, especially in health care.

No critique of the Dems changes the basic fact that the Reps did nothing, and prevented others from doing anything, except offer thoughts and prayers.
Apparently you couldn't be bothered to read the examples of Democrats filibustering gun control bills.
Until you acknowledge them, I can't really take your argument seriously. Just partisan noise.
It's easy to cite these examples from a distance, but bills are often poisoned by partisan inclusions that would be abhorrent, even if the main premise of the bill is sound.
Unless you can show me the specific poison pills, this seems like empty apologetics.
Covered it. Done with it.
So misread/misunderstood. Got it.
 
The Dems actually have some history of blocking majority supported gun control bills:
Senator Chuck Grassley proposed legislation that would have increased funding for the NICS background check system, and would have pressed states to send more records to the FBI on felons and others barred from buying guns. It also revamped language that prohibits some people with mental health problems from buying guns. Grassley’s bill had majority support, 53-47, but wasn’t passed because the Democrats filibustered it.

Senator John Cornyn offered legislation to keep firearms out of the hands of suspected terrorists. His bill would let the government block a sale to a known or suspected terrorist, and prosecutors would then have three days to convince a judge that the would-be buyer was likely a terrorist. This seems like a sensible compromise, and it too had majority support, 53-47, but again the Democrats filibustered and blocked the bill from taking effect.

The Democrats likewise offered two proposals, both of which enjoyed less support. Dianne Feinstein proposed legislation that would bar gun sales to people on any federal terrorism watch list–a list that has included Ted Kennedy, Nelson Mandela, and many random, innocent citizens–without providing any way for people to get themselves taken off the list. I think it is safe to say that this proposal was sheer political grandstanding. It went down to a 47-53 defeat. It is shameful that so many Democrats voted for it.

Chris Murphy’s bill would have required the current, inadequate list of people who can’t buy guns to be applied to even more sales, including sales between friends or relatives. That, too, was defeated 47-53.
http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2016/06/democrats-block-sensible-gun-proposals-in-senate.php
Dems would rather grandstand than pass any bipartisan measures.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) signaled on Tuesday that his caucus may block the modest bipartisan proposal to improve — but not expand — background checks for gun purchases unless Republicans commit to voting on broader gun control measures.
...
Rather than just passing one narrow bill and moving on, we Democrats intend to push our Republican colleagues to have a real debate on gun safety,” Schumer added.
https://www.politico.com/story/2018/02/27/congress-guns-background-checks-bill-429509
More grandstanding, likely to keep it an issue for the midterm rather than get even modest gun control. Endless debate instead of any action at all.

Why didn’t Democrats curb gun laws when they controlled Washington from 2009 to 2010?
“Yes,” Sen. Bill Nelson (D-Fla.) said Wednesday when asked by CNN’s Jake Tapper if his party made a mistake in not acting. “When the Senate had 60 votes, as we did until Ted Kennedy died, that’s how we got the Affordable Care Act passed. And, yes, gun legislation under those circumstances should have been considered because there’d been a lot of massacres up to that point.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...y-controlled-congress/?utm_term=.fabdde11babe
why don't you try being honest. i know its not something you and yours are known for. the "bills" you are reffering to are amendments to repealing the affordable care act. and most of the cases the democtats voting against them are people in red states worried of getting attacked by the NRA and losingtheir seats to republican who only care about the rich.
 
Tell that to people of the Titanic.

But I know what you mean. However faith does not prevent you from dying on land either.
Make no mistake, all people die eventually.

You are confusing "faith" with "purpose". In your posit you are replacing purpose with faith.
Think about that.

Faith is purpose. Think about that.
 
why don't you try being honest. i know its not something you and yours are known for. the "bills" you are reffering to are amendments to repealing the affordable care act. and most of the cases the democtats voting against them are people in red states worried of getting attacked by the NRA and losingtheir seats to republican who only care about the rich.
Really? You're just going to lie like that? Those were stand alone bills. If they had anything to do with the Affordable Care Act, one of these outlets would surely have been all over that:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...als-monday-heres-everything-you-need-to-know/
https://www.cnn.com/2016/06/20/politics/senate-gun-votes-congress/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/o...4-gun-policy-measures-thorny-showdown-n595896
https://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/senate-gun-votes-224560
Or are the Washington Post, CNN, NBCNews, and Politico all right-wing shills?
You'd have to prove your claim that the only Democrats voting against them are in red states. Otherwise, that's just laughable.
 
Or are the Washington Post, CNN, NBCNews, and Politico all right-wing shills?
Quite often that's their content, sure. Maybe not this time - do you have an argument?
Apparently you couldn't be bothered to read the examples of Democrats filibustering gun control bills.
They are irrelevant to my point: the Republicans have blocked Dem efforts, and done nothing themselves but offer thoughts and prayers. So less than nothing.
 
Or are the Washington Post, CNN, NBCNews, and Politico all right-wing shills?
Quite often that's their content, sure.
Hahaha!
They are irrelevant to my point: the Republicans have blocked Dem efforts, and done nothing themselves but offer thoughts and prayers. So less than nothing.
So Democrats filibustering to stop gun control bills, including from Republicans as well as Democrats, is irrelevant to your obvious partisan bias? Okay. I'll buy that.
Unless you can show me the specific poison pills, this seems like empty apologetics.
Give me the title of one bill then. I'll look it up.
Hey, thanks for letting us know you didn't know what you were talking about. Really appreciate it.
 
According to the news, 200,000. According to march organizers, 800,000.
Nobody in the news business came in under 200, 000 even just in Washington - there were marches all over the US, and worldwide.

As far as Call of Duty - as an estimate for how many people sat on their ass and played video games instead of marching, that number seems likely low.

As an estimate for how many actually provided the thoughts and prayers rhetorically offered by those doing nothing else, it seems likely high.

Or are the Washington Post, CNN, NBCNews, and Politico all right-wing shills?
Quite often that's their content, sure.
Hahaha!
You haven't noticed? It's not a secret.
 
Last edited:
Nobody in the news business came in under 200, 000 even just in Washington - there were marches all over the US, and worldwide.
I was only talking about DC, and estimates varied wildly.
As far as Call of Duty - as an estimate for how many people sat on their ass and played video games instead of marching, that number seems likely low.
No, as an estimate of what has a greater influence on young people. One march or hours of daily play.
You haven't noticed? It's not a secret.
Haha! That imagination of yours.
 
No, as an estimate of what has a greater influence on young people. One march or hours of daily play.
When it comes to influence on young people, the many more hours they spend in school - a place where they can be shot without warning - is probably a larger influence.
 
Or being threatened and getting shot at, in real life.
When it comes to influence on young people, the many more hours they spend in school - a place where they can be shot without warning - is probably a larger influence.
American children do not “risk their lives” when they show up to school each morning — or at least, not nearly as much as they do whenever they ride in a car, swim in a pool, or put food in their mouths (an American’s lifetime odds of dying in a mass shooting committed in any location is 1 in 11,125; of dying in a car accident is 1 and 491; of drowning is 1 in 1,133; and of choking on food is 1 in 3,461). Criminal victimization in American schools has collapsed in tandem with the overall crime rate, leaving U.S. classrooms safer today than at any time in recent memory.
http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2018/03/there-is-no-epidemic-of-mass-school-shootings.html
If you think those odds worry the average teen, you're out of touch.
 
Criminal victimization in American schools has collapsed in tandem with the overall crime rate, leaving U.S. classrooms safer today than at any time in recent memory.
Then there's absolutely no point in arming teachers.

Reasonable changes in the bad aspects of current laws and their enforcement, in particular regarding high-RPM firearms, should wrap up the ongoing success. And after that, some thoughts and prayers.
 
Hey, thanks for letting us know you didn't know what you were talking about. Really appreciate it.
It's still a real thing that happens, even if it didn't happen in this case. I don't pretend to know about things I don't know about. In this case, it seems the Democrats voted against what they felt was bad gun legislation.
 
They worry disproportionately to the odds, but it doesn't matter because one time is too much.
Yep, out of touch.
Here’s who actually attended the March for Our Lives. (No, it wasn’t mostly young people.)
Contrary to what’s been reported in many media accounts, the D.C. March for Our Lives crowd was not primarily made up of teenagers. Only about 10 percent of the participants were under 18. The average age of the adults in the crowd was just under 49 years old, which is older than participants at the other marches I’ve surveyed but similar to the age of the average participant at the Million Moms March in 2000, which was also about gun control.
...
Even more interesting, the new protesters were less motivated by the issue of gun control. In fact, only 12 percent of the people who were new to protesting reported that they were motivated to join the march because of the gun-control issue, compared with 60 percent of the participants with experience protesting.

Instead, new protesters reported being motivated by the issues of peace (56 percent) and Trump (42 percent), who has been a galvanizing force for many protests.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...t-mostly-young-people/?utm_term=.d0cebe294268

High schoolers still like their guns, even after Parkland
Many American high schoolers do not blame school shootings on guns and don't argue the answer is tighter restrictions on firearms. It's a view at odds with many of their classmates, yet born from the same safety concerns.

“There’s many things that go into a solution for this, and it’s not guns,” said Melanie Clark, an 18-year-old high school senior from Tallahassee. “We’re definitely in the minority for believing that it’s not guns.”

As gun-control advocates their age gain popularity and others cast their generation as anti-firearm, pro-gun students feel at times overlooked. But polling suggests young people aren’t overwhelmingly for gun control.
...
A USA TODAY/Ipsos poll taken after the Parkland shooting found fewer than half of students 13 to 17 think tightening gun laws and background checks would prevent mass shootings.
...
Marjory Stoneman junior Kyle Kashuv, a firm Second Amendment supporter, opposes banning assault weapons. School shootings, he said, are driven by “faulty communication and reporting of prior convictions,” along with mental health issues.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...-gun-control-stance-after-parkland/444834002/
It's still a real thing that happens, even if it didn't happen in this case. I don't pretend to know about things I don't know about. In this case, it seems the Democrats voted against what they felt was bad gun legislation.
No, they voted against two bills submitted by Democrats (and two by Republicans) in favor of overly aggressive bills they knew couldn't pass with the current makeup of Congress. They cynically want the issue to be around for the midterm election campaigns, instead of doing anything about it now.
Then there's absolutely no point in arming teachers.

Reasonable changes in the bad aspects of current laws and their enforcement, in particular regarding high-RPM firearms, should wrap up the ongoing success. And after that, some thoughts and prayers.
Just because there is no epidemic does not mean there is no threat at all.

No, ROF is just another in the long history of slippery slopes on gun control. First its bump stocks, then high-end triggers, then modifying stock triggers, then efficient buffer tubes, ported bolts and slides, and weakly loaded ammo. Did you know that a simple shoe lace or belt loop can work like a bump stock? Going to ban those next? What about people who learn the bump-fire technique without any assistance at all? See, ROF is just an excuse to ban AR-15s altogether, not to mention just about every handgun.
 
Back
Top