quote:

ORIGINAL: egern
Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash
"Analysis of campaign disclosures shows 42 of 45 dissenting senators logged donations from firearms lobbyists"
"The NRA has also tightened the screws on senators in recent days by taking the unprecedented decision to award negative scores to anyone who voted for a motion allowing the gun debate to go ahead. These scores are widely used during elections to show adherence to the gun cause."
Dan Roberts in Washington
The Guardian, Friday 19 April 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators
"When 90% of Americans want increased gun control policies and their elected officials reject even minimal reform, it begs the question, who exactly are our Congress members representing? Well, as usual, the money tells a significant part of the story: 42 out of the 45 Senators who voted no on the recent bill have received significant donations from the gun lobby."
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/93-of-senators-who-rejected-gun-control-paid-by-nra.html#ixzz2RHjUR4Fh
The situation is clear: The will of the people counts for nothing against money.
Is this democracy? And if not, what to do about it??

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern
Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash
"Analysis of campaign disclosures shows 42 of 45 dissenting senators logged donations from firearms lobbyists"
"The NRA has also tightened the screws on senators in recent days by taking the unprecedented decision to award negative scores to anyone who voted for a motion allowing the gun debate to go ahead. These scores are widely used during elections to show adherence to the gun cause."
Dan Roberts in Washington
The Guardian, Friday 19 April 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators
"When 90% of Americans want increased gun control policies and their elected officials reject even minimal reform, it begs the question, who exactly are our Congress members representing? Well, as usual, the money tells a significant part of the story: 42 out of the 45 Senators who voted no on the recent bill have received significant donations from the gun lobby."
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/93-of-senators-who-rejected-gun-control-paid-by-nra.html#ixzz2RHjUR4Fh
The situation is clear: The will of the people counts for nothing against money.
Is this democracy? And if not, what to do about it??

quote:


Here's a question for you... why did the Senators vote 'no' on the bill? Was it simply because they were bought and paid for, or was it because there was something in the bill they didn't want?

quote:


Making the claim that 90% want increased gun control is all well and good, but what gun control do 90% want? If the bill was written to strip everyone except government to have any type of projectile weapon, would the 90% stat still apply?

quote:


If you can't show that 90% of Americans wanted the gun controls written in the bill, you have no idea if 90% of Americans would have supported that bill.

quote:


Of the Senators that voted 'no,' how many of them have majority support from their constituents for that vote?

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern
Is this democracy? And if not, what to do about it??

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern
Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash
"Analysis of campaign disclosures shows 42 of 45 dissenting senators logged donations from firearms lobbyists"
"The NRA has also tightened the screws on senators in recent days by taking the unprecedented decision to award negative scores to anyone who voted for a motion allowing the gun debate to go ahead. These scores are widely used during elections to show adherence to the gun cause."
Dan Roberts in Washington
The Guardian, Friday 19 April 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators
"When 90% of Americans want increased gun control policies and their elected officials reject even minimal reform, it begs the question, who exactly are our Congress members representing? Well, as usual, the money tells a significant part of the story: 42 out of the 45 Senators who voted no on the recent bill have received significant donations from the gun lobby."
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/93-of-senators-who-rejected-gun-control-paid-by-nra.html#ixzz2RHjUR4Fh
The situation is clear: The will of the people counts for nothing against money.
Is this democracy? And if not, what to do about it??

quote:

Here's a question for you... why did the Senators vote 'no' on the bill? Was it simply because they were bought and paid for, or was it because there was something in the bill they didn't want?

And one for you: If they disagreed with the bill, why was it necessary to bribe them?

quote:

quote:

Making the claim that 90% want increased gun control is all well and good, but what gun control do 90% want? If the bill was written to strip everyone except government to have any type of projectile weapon, would the 90% stat still apply?

But it wasn't.

quote:

quote:

If you can't show that 90% of Americans wanted the gun controls written in the bill, you have no idea if 90% of Americans would have supported that bill.

"But the outrage was not that a majority of the Senate had defeated the overwhelming majority of the American people who embraced background checks; it was that a 45 member minority had defeated the 55 member (substantial) majority that had actually "passed" the legislation -- if majority rule had been in effect. The Senate agreed with the American majority: both went down to defeat at the hands of a rabid, deeply undemocratic minority abusing Senate rules."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/benjamin-r-barber/gun-bill-filibuster_b_3111692.html?utm_hp_ref=politics

quote:

quote:

Of the Senators that voted 'no,' how many of them have majority support from their constituents for that vote?

What does it matter to the senators, if said constituents cannot pay them for the voting as they wish?

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: egern
Gun control reform: all but three 'no' senators received pro-gun cash
"Analysis of campaign disclosures shows 42 of 45 dissenting senators logged donations from firearms lobbyists"
"The NRA has also tightened the screws on senators in recent days by taking the unprecedented decision to award negative scores to anyone who voted for a motion allowing the gun debate to go ahead. These scores are widely used during elections to show adherence to the gun cause."
Dan Roberts in Washington
The Guardian, Friday 19 April 2013
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/18/pro-gun-groups-donated-senators
"When 90% of Americans want increased gun control policies and their elected officials reject even minimal reform, it begs the question, who exactly are our Congress members representing? Well, as usual, the money tells a significant part of the story: 42 out of the 45 Senators who voted no on the recent bill have received significant donations from the gun lobby."
Read more: http://www.care2.com/causes/93-of-senators-who-rejected-gun-control-paid-by-nra.html#ixzz2RHjUR4Fh
The situation is clear: The will of the people counts for nothing against money.
Is this democracy? And if not, what to do about it??

Here's a question for you... why did the Senators vote 'no' on the bill? Was it simply because they were bought and paid for, or was it because there was something in the bill they didn't want? Making the claim that 90% want increased gun control is all well and good, but what gun control do 90% want? If the bill was written to strip everyone except government to have any type of projectile weapon, would the 90% stat still apply?

If you can't show that 90% of Americans wanted the gun controls written in the bill, you have no idea if 90% of Americans would have supported that bill. Of the Senators that voted 'no,' how many of them have majority support from their constituents for that vote?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Polling on universal background checks, the bill was slighty less than universal, shows that about 90% support it.
No Senator that voted no has majority support for that vote.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Polling on universal background checks, the bill was slighty less than universal, shows that about 90% support it.
No Senator that voted no has majority support for that vote.

No links?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Polling on universal background checks, the bill was slighty less than universal, shows that about 90% support it.
No Senator that voted no has majority support for that vote.

No links?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen
Polling on universal background checks, the bill was slighty less than universal, shows that about 90% support it.
No Senator that voted no has majority support for that vote.

No links?

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2013/apr/18/gabrielle-giffords/gabby-giffords-says-americans-overwhelmingly-suppo/

You are making a claim that "Universal" background checks are supported by about 90%. According to your link, that's a fair assessment. Is the bill that was voted on consistent with those questions? Was there anything else in that bill that may have been the reason Senators voted 'no?"

Any proof that no Senator has majority support for a 'no' vote?

quote:

ORIGINAL: subrob1967

The problem with this so called 90% figure is, it comes from an uncontrolled informal online opinion poll.

I believe President Obama said it best... "We won, you lost." The gun control legislation is dead, stop beating a dead horse, will ya?

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Any proof that no Senator has majority support for a 'no' vote?

if 90% of the nation supports universal background checks it is pretty clear no Senator has majority support fo the no vote. You are of course welcome to try and find some state where the question does not poll at at least 50% but I'm not wasting my time with such nonsense.

quote:

Text of the bill
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968
Looks like all it does is expand background checks and setup a commission to study mass shootings.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri
Any proof that no Senator has majority support for a 'no' vote?

if 90% of the nation supports universal background checks it is pretty clear no Senator has majority support fo the no vote. You are of course welcome to try and find some state where the question does not poll at at least 50% but I'm not wasting my time with such nonsense.

Did 100% of Americans vote in this poll? Of course you aren't going to "waste time with such nonsense." You wouldn't want the lack of support for your claim to be exposed.

quote:

quote:

Text of the bill
http://www.toomey.senate.gov/?p=press_release&id=968
Looks like all it does is expand background checks and setup a commission to study mass shootings.

Section 112 Article 3A sure might be unConstitutional the same way the SCOTUS found the Medicaid expansion rules in the ACA unConstitutional (loss of current and future funds if the State didn't expand Medicaid as outlined).

Maybe the HIPPA rules exemption was unsavory?

That's just a first blush look at it, without pulling up all the US Codes mentioned.

• A Conservative interpretation of the US Constitution
  
• Personal Responsibility
  
• Help for the truly needy
  
• Limited Government
  
• Consumption Tax (non-profit charities and food exempt)
  

quote:

ORIGINAL: DesideriScuri

Do you have any proof of why any of the Senators voted 'no?' IF not, then you don't really know, do you?