Why are libertarians trying to force their will on other people when it comes to gay marriage?
It's not intentional (at least, I don't THINK it is), but the problem is this fight has become about forcing people to say the M-word.
Take prop 8 as a prominent example, It was one line of legislation. Yes, one. It read, in its entirety;
"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."
Nothing about nullifying civil unions, blocking adoptions, or rounding up gays into internment camps. Just the M word.
"But wait!" I've heard many times, "A civil union isn't the same as a marriage!" Actually, it is. In the state of California, civil unions have the same protections and privileges as a marriage.
Prop 8 was literally only about the M-word.
And in that paltry petition, it failed. It lost because the supposedly liberal people of California didn't want it.
Sorry, it wasn't because ZOMG TEH MORMENZ, or because the Pope pooped in the woods. It was because the people of California, when asked, said "No."
Now we get to libertarian crazy town.
Because at this point, libertarians started arguing that the government should overrule the people's decision and force them to use the M-word in describing the union of two people of the same sex.
"Don't be ridiculous!" Larry "The Big L" Libertarian says, "You act as if gangs of gays are beating up religious people until they say the m-word! No one is being put upon by this legislation!"
If that's the case then why do they keep voting it down? Over and over and over again, in state after state after state?
"Because they're bigots and hate gays!"
Supposing you're right, do libertarians advocate forcing people to agree with us? Do Libertarians demand uniformity of thought? Or is that only for beliefs that you believe are dumb?
Technically the real issue here is that the vote keeps going to the people, and the people have spoken, just not the way libertarians apparently wanted. So libertarians are arguing that people should change to suit the will of others.
Does that seem libertarian to you?
"People's religious beliefs don't trump personal freedom. Majority opinion should be overruled when it comes to personal rights."
I'm glad you brought up rights, Strawman o' mine, because the people who voted "no" were freely exercising their religious beliefs. That's actually inside the 1st amendment. Which amendment is the right to have the fedgov anoint your marriage?
"But the majority shouldn't impose its will on a minority, no matter the reason. America is a republic to defend the rights of minority. The state should overrule them!"
From a perspective of federalism, yes, the state should be able to do whatever it likes, and actually, it can.
California could try to pass it legislatively, but they go to the people because they know gay marriage is unpopular, and they like getting reelected.
"Then the supreme court should tell the states and the people what to do!"
This is where the libertarian support of gay marriage seems to go full retard.
Since when do Libertarians run to the supreme court, and ask them to force a state whose people agreed on a course of action, to overrule the state and its people?
While we're talking about the supreme court, I'd like to remind us all that nine people in robes didn't give us our right to keep and bear arms, so they can't take it away.
I celebrated the Heller decision like everyone else, but only because it extended Claire Wolfe's awkward phase. It was not a magic bullet, nor was it validation. If I elect myself ruler of your life, and magnanimously deign that you may go about your business, would you feel relief at my benevolence? Or would you just chuckle?
"Alright, fine, lets be honest... We all know this is more about getting the government out of marriage than it is about gay marriage."
This is the crux of my concern. Two groups joined up to fight for the same ground with different destinations in mind. Once that ground is gained, libertarians will lose.
The fight has become over the top and, dare I say, flamboyant. A win on this ground is a loss for libertarians who hitched their wagon to this fight and are destined to suffer from its failure.
Yes, failure. This is not a popular fight. Gay marriage has been deeply unpopular even in deeply liberal states. Many failed pieces of legislation have proven that.
Libertarians shouldn't be running to the supreme court for justice. We should be appealing to the people with common-sense and rational arguments.
So raise your hand if you think there's been an abundance of common sense and rationality in this debate.
Bueller? ... Bueller? ... Bueller?
"The ends justify the means. Getting the fedgov out of marriage would be a huge win, no matter how we get there!"
Ok, lets imagine victory. Say the fedgov threw up its hands and said, "FINE! GO BE GAY IF YOU WANT! I DON'T EVEN CARE ANYMORE!" and got itself out of the marriage business. Say it deferred to the states, accepting any state marriage certificate as a union with the same protections.
Do you think this fight would be over?
Of course not! There'd be gay riots in the streets! How DARE the fedgov not FORCE every state to allow gay marriage! It's about rights! Except... which right would being infringed upon at this point? The right to force other people to say a word? The right to force people to vote against their religious beliefs? Then, when libertarians celebrated it as a victory, gay activists would turn on them for not sharing their goal.
Libertarians need to acknowledge that we don't share the same goal with the gay rights movement.
There is no victory here.
Either gay marriage wins, and libertarians become a group that opposes religion and forces their will on others, or gay marriage loses, and libertarians lose the momentum they've built getting the feds out of our marriages.
"So what do we do then? Give up the partnership? Lose all we've gained?"
Not really. I think we just need a slight course deviation. Not a 180, just, like, five degrees off to one side. We're going in the same direction, but we don't have the same destination (or convoy!)
So when a gay rights advocate fights for legislation to force all 50 states to acknowledge gay marriage, just say,
"Getting the government out of the marriage business is the root of this issue, and where we should be focusing. Because it would empower the individual residents of each state to chart the course of the state, and win the freedom they seek without nine unelected people in robes thousands of miles away telling them what to do."
"You just hate gay marriage."
Actually no, I think gays should be allowed to marry. I don't think the fedgov can provide a service to one taxpayer and deny it to another. However, if it weren't in the fedgov's hands, I'd defer to the states.
"How can you 'defer to the states' when widows of gay service members are being denied benefits!"
Yeah, I keep hearing that, and I think it's wrong and distressing (again, a service to one taxpayer, but not another), but I don't think it's happening enough to warrant all this pressure on the issue. Which begs the question--
What is this fight actually about?
Love is a personal experience, and I never understood what impact a piece of paper stamped or signed by another person could possibly have on it.
There are many gay men in committed, loving relationships right now, living happily, regardless of their union status as applied by the federal government (or lack thereof!).
Look at it from a gun rights perspective. The supreme court doesn't protect my rights. I do. With my rifle, my skill, and my willingness to use it. My freedoms are extremely personal.
If Obama stacked the court with liberals and they all but nullified the second amendment, that wouldn't mean the inalienable rights endowed to me by my creator ceased to exist.
So why would a bureaucrat stamping a form have some effect on your deep, abiding love and personal commitment to your soul mate?
It doesn't make sense, and I ask again; what is this fight REALLY about?
Personally? The only thing that makes sense to me, is that it's about wanting to be normal.
If the feds made a new classification of marriage called "Super Marriage," and only allowed to a select group of couples to apply for that status, I think there'd be plenty of excluded couples clambering just as desperately for the privilege.
But I think the only couples who thought they needed a Super Marriage would be the ones that were in trouble already.
The union of two people who love each other doesn't magically improve when you call it a marriage, or a "civil union with all the protections of a marriage," or a Super Marriage, or a jelly donut. It is what it is.
And it isn't what it isn't.
If you're not happy with your Honda Civic, forcing all your friends to call it a Lamborghini isn't going to help.
The Bard said, "The lady doth protest too much" and methinks the flamboyant and viciously vocal section of the gay rights movement is getting in our faces so it doesn't have to look in the mirror.
I was driving to work this morning and glanced in my rear-view mirror.
At the mere sight of the driver behind me, my immunohippie response gland dumped antihippomine into my blood stream, and I instantly knew everything about her.
What she was thinking: "I can't believe I have to work to feed this country's Corporatocracy." "Why can't I just live a carbon-neutral life in the woods, subsisting on stream water, berries, and Starbucks venti soy double triple mocha frappaccinos?" "How can I make name-calling a valid debate tactic?" "Mother Gaia, please give me the strength to attack idiots who believe there's a god." "I can't believe my car runs on gasoline. If only I had an electric car that ran on coal." "I wish everyone felt as horrible as I do. Then they'd understand how happy they'd be if they'd only live the way I tell them to." "I know the aphids and caterpillars need their 'fair share,' but my organic garden is in shambles!" "Should I ram the "don't tread on me" car in front of me?" "How hard should I ram the "don't tread on me" car in front of me?"
What she had for breakfast: Free-trade cruelty-free gluten-free soy-free organic cardboard pieces in a bowl of water, eaten with a fork (to save the water for tomorrow, because, the rainforest, or something). The horrible lingering taste assures a permanent scowl for the day, and the roughage offers regular bowel movements to withhold in order to preserve the Earth's precious resources of toilet paper, toilet water, and pinched assholes.
What car she was driving: A rusted, dirt-colored Saaaab 1.1 liter[e] 0.5 cylinder Pretentiousmobile, with at least one patch of duct tape to prove she wouldn't buy another car "just because this one is broken/slow/getting poor mpg/absolutely horrible."
What bumper stickers were on her car: "Tree hugging dirt worshiper," "You can't hug your kids with nuclear arms," "Imagine world peace," "Violence is never the answer," "Kill all Republicans," "YOUR electricity comes from coal. MINE comes from unicorn giggles!" "Carter '13," "Stop having kids, the Earth is full," "My gender non-specific child got a Rainbow in non-patriarchal Math at Free-To-Be-Me Non-School of Worldly Understanding, along with all the other children, so they didn't feel left out."
During the indulgence of this unavoidable physiological response, I couldn't help but wonder when this generation would do itself a favor and relieve the Earth of its burden by just turning to freakin' compost already.
I immediately lamented the increased average life expectancy that our decreasingly-free-market healthcare industry provided.
They'd probably linger longer than any generation before them, turning into that monolithic voting bloc: Single-Issue Seniors, with the added bitterness of a "generation ME!" selfish streak so thick the edges almost touch on the other side.
But wait! There's a sparkle of hope! Obamacare!
I'm reminded of a news piece noting Obamacare is likely to drive up premiums and drive out competition, and I realize the sweet poetic justice that this generation stuck its children with a bill so large that the interest payments will hit them first.
Though Obamacare will eventually burn everything to the ground, at least it will burn its supporters first, and give us time for a futile, but satisfying, "I told you so!"
The boomer generation hitting retirement and the power of this fully armed and operational Obamacare will be a knock-out blow to the already beleaguered healthcare industry, and it will crumple, giving way to the monumental 20,000 page dullard they have created.
The older generation, which requires healthcare at a significantly greater rate than the rest, will be forced to rely on federal healthcare schemes, which are already cutting back on coverage to deal with the same fatal flaw from which every Ponzi scheme suffers; actually paying the participants.
This generation, first and most, will taste the bitterness of admitting that maybe Sarah Palin was right about "death panels," as a nameless, faceless, unelected, and untouchable murder of bureaucrats finds chemotherapy is mostly unsuccessful, and therefore, not an appropriate use of increasingly scarce tax-payer dollars.
The spiteful satisfaction may be limited somewhat by the laughter coming from the Boomer Graveyard as aforementioned committee determines your allotment of rations is reduced to zero because you are not an appropriate use of increasingly scarce tax-payer dollars.
But all is not lost! If it's a suicide pact they wanted, they probably should have considered what armed, freedom-minded individuals oppressed by a Kafkaesque bureaucracy might do with nothing to lose.
So, shine on, you crazy conflict-free diamond, you've sealed your fate, and have likely set into motion events that will bring about the exact opposite of what you wanted.
The God of Unintended Consequences is a fickle contrarian, and you'll be powerless to stop his final domino from falling right on top of your fat heads.
Oh man! They're in for it now! You know the fine for that? I mean, sure the whole terrorist bombing and everything, but Reuters is ON THE BALL when it comes to these guys not having permits to own guns in the town they're from.
THAT'S ILLEGAL! It's like they didn't even care about breaking the law! OBVIOUSLY what we need is another law about guns, making it even MORE ILLEGALYER to not license your guns AND use them in the commission of a terrorist act. Like a mandatory add on of-- like-- 2 years! Thank you, Reuters, for pointing out that criminals have broken the law!
NEW BREAKING NEWS! Boston bombing suspects BROKE THE SPEED LIMIT while fleeing the police! FULL STORY SOON, THIS IS BREAKING NOW!!!
Oh teh noes! Daddy found out we did a bad thing, and he's not just mad... He's disappointed...
A few months ago, in response to too many tragedies — including the shootings of a United States Congresswoman, Gabby Giffords, who’s here today, and the murder of 20 innocent schoolchildren and their teachers –- this country took up the cause of protecting more of our people from gun violence.
No, "this country" didn't take up the cause of protecting people from gun violence, YOUR PARTY took up the cause of taking guns away from law abiding gun owners, while everyone else wanted to talk about what makes these crazy people crazy.
If you really cared about protecting people you would have realized that bans DO NOTHING except make you feel like you did something.
Families that know unspeakable grief summoned the courage to petition their elected leaders –- not just to honor the memory of their children, but to protect the lives of all our children. And a few minutes ago, a minority in the United States Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms...
A minority blocked passage of a bill? I didn't know minority parties could do that.
...even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery.
What?! They did this WHILE HIS PITY PROPS GLARED AT THEM FROM THE GALLERY?! THE AUDACITY! Everyone knows that if someone is really, really sad, and they make REAL BIG puppy dog eyes, that you HAVE to do what they say! Doesn't matter how stupid, dangerous, or pointless it is!
By now, it’s well known that...
Oh, is it now? It's so obvious that you don't even have to cite any sources or apply any reasoning? Well, I'll just have to trust you then!
...90 percent of the American people support universal background checks that make it harder for a dangerous person to buy a gun.
90%? I didn't think you could get 90% of the population to agree the sky is blue! But if it IS 90%, then that's great news for you!
If 90% of the American population was just snubbed, Democrats will take almost all the seats in the mid-term! Your enemy made a huge blunder, and practically assured your victory!
Unless, of course, you're just making shit up. Then you get nothing.
We’re talking about convicted felons, people convicted of domestic violence, people with a severe mental illness. Ninety percent of Americans support that idea.
Forget all that talk about anyone who ever made eye contact with a psychologist having their gun rights revoked. Also forget that talk about veterans being denied their gun rights too. Really. Just forget it. Please?
Most Americans think that’s already the law.
Really? Because TWO THIRDS of the states in the union don't require background checks for private transactions. But I guess if you only ask people in the other third of America, then yes, probably all of them will think that.
And a few minutes ago, 90 percent of Democrats in the Senate just voted for that idea. But it’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans in the Senate just voted against that idea.
Wait, what? There's that minority thing again, how are those dastardly Republicans controlling everything even when they are a minority in the senate?!
Is this like that time when the Democrats had a SUPER MAJORITY and still couldn't pass any bills because of those dastardly Republicans for some reason?
Hang on a second... If 90% of Democrats opposed 90% of Republicans, shouldn't it have been a tie settled by Joe "Shoot your shotgun into the air or through your door!" Biden?
OH THAT'S RIGHT! There are fewer Republicans than Democrats, hence "minority party." But 90% of a bigger number beats 90% of a smaller number.
UNLESS some Democrats voted AGAINST the bill?!!?!?!?@11/224jaOMG
So what you're saying is, this was a BIPARTISAN VOTE?! UNTHINKABLE!
A majority of senators voted "yes" to protecting more of our citizens with smarter background checks. But by this continuing distortion of Senate rules, a minority was able to block it from moving forward.
GAH! Those EVIL Republicans DISTORTED the Senate rules to prevent it from moving forward! ARRGH! What "procedure" did they twist this time?! Did they hold it in committee? Did they force an amendment to cut the legs off orphan kittens?!
No, it was a floor vote... Hmm... How do you "distort" a floor vote? Well, maybe they stopped the vote from proceeding!
No, the vote completed. It was defeated 54 to 46.
I'M SURE THEY DID SOMETHING UNDERHANDED SOMEHOW!!!
I’m going to speak plainly and honestly about what’s happened here because the American people are trying to figure out how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen.
Good question! It's almost as if... the 90% support doesn't exist... Strange...
We had a Democrat and a Republican -– both gun owners, both fierce defenders of our Second Amendment, with "A" grades from the NRA — come together and worked together to write a common-sense compromise on background checks.
Yeah, and you were totally for education reform until you actually got the power to do something about it. But if you're looking for token Republicans and token gun owners, why not have Biden change parties? He owns a gun!
And I want to thank Joe Manchin and Pat Toomey for their courage in doing that. That was not easy given their traditional strong support for Second Amendment rights.
Why would you thank them for the courage to do something that 90% of America wanted them to do?
If this was as slam dunk anyone could have done it. It's almost as if they were sticking their necks out to make this half-assed milquetoast watered-down translucent piece of legislation. But THAT would imply that gun control was deeply unpopular. Wouldn't it, Barry?
As they said, nobody could honestly claim that the package they put together infringed on our Second Amendment rights.
Technically that may be true, since this legislation did almost nothing, but We The People reserve the right to hate it on principal if not on substance.
Free people can do that.
All it did was extend the same background check rules that already apply to guns purchased from a dealer to guns purchased at gun shows or over the Internet.
BZZZZZ! Wrong! It only applied to dealers, and dealers are already required to do background checks on every transaction they facilitate! This legislation did LITERALLY NOTHING.
So 60 percent of guns are already purchased through a background check system; this would have covered a lot of the guns that are currently outside that system.
Well worded! How many more guns would have gotten background checks? "A lot." Well that's sure good to hear. I mean, it won't get the remaining 40%, so I guess "a lot" is a good enough victory for your side!
Their legislation showed respect for gun owners, and it showed respect for the victims of gun violence. And Gabby Giffords, by the way, is both — she’s a gun owner and a victim of gun violence.
Nope!
The legislation didn't respect gun owners, it said, "We know you're doing evil stuff, so we're going to check up on you!" (I mean, not technically, since it was BS legislation, but that's what the sentiment was.)
So was Reagan, he didn't go crying to congress.
The legislation CERTAINLY didn't respect the victims! Because it was exactly what Toomey was. TOKEN. It was pandering, it was disrespectful, and it accomplished nothing.(The legislation, not the president)
She is a Westerner and a moderate. And she supports these background checks.
A Westerner? What does that have to do with anything? Are us cousin-humping rednecks concerned about dem easterners terkin' er gerns?
"Why don't you dumb rednecks agree with me?! This person agrees with me, and she's from out west! I'll bet she even has one of those hats that say 'deer john' on them!"
Seriously, this is so transparent it's embarrassing. But at least something about this man is transparent.
In fact, even the NRA used to support expanded background checks. The current leader of the NRA used to support these background checks. So while this compromise didn’t contain everything I wanted or everything that these families wanted, it did represent progress. It represented moderation and common sense. That’s why 90 percent of the American people supported it.
Blah blah, the NRA loves background checks, blah blah, the NRA is on my side, blah blah, this legislation was a steaming pile of shit, but at least it's better than nothing, blah blah, 90% of Americans love the shit I'm shoveling.
Just stop. No one believes you.
But instead of supporting this compromise, the gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill. They claimed that it would create some sort of "big brother" gun registry, even though the bill did the opposite. This legislation, in fact, outlawed any registry. Plain and simple, right there in the text. But that didn’t matter.
Right, because the government is required, by law, to destroy any background check records within 24 hours of the approval coming in.
Except when they miss something, approve the sale, then a week later call back and tell us to call John Doe back, and have him bring the gun back because they screwed up.
But I'm sure that information is stored for archival purposes not eeevil gun registration purposes. They've got to comply with the law, right?
Even if they destroyed all the records, it's not like the ATF, (which is not bound to destroy records by the brady law) could go to gun shops, and scan their 4473 forms... But that would never be happening right now.
And unfortunately, this pattern of spreading untruths about this legislation served a purpose, because those lies upset an intense minority of gun owners,
Darn! It's the tyranny of those minorities again! Always overruling the 90% that support him... I guess... somehow...
and that in turn intimidated a lot of senators. And I talked to several of these senators over the past few weeks, and they’re all good people. I know all of them were shocked by tragedies like Newtown. And I also understand that they come from states that are strongly pro-gun. And I have consistently said that there are regional differences when it comes to guns, and that both sides have to listen to each other.
How about, "No." I don't have to listen to you.
We've been listening for 80 years, and the tune is: compromise a little each time, over and over, until you have everything you want.
Well, the music has stopped, and we're not moving.
Not. Another. Inch.
But the fact is most of these senators could not offer any good reason why we wouldn’t want to make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun.
Maybe that's because you didn't ask them that question, you asked them to sign nonsense legislation, instead of something that might actually make it harder for criminals and those with severe mental illnesses to buy a gun...
Just a guess...
There were no coherent arguments as to why we wouldn’t do this. It came down to politics — the worry that that vocal minority of gun owners would come after them in future elections.
There's that evil minority again! How are these tiny tyrants ruling the country so effectively?
They worried that the gun lobby would spend a lot of money and paint them as anti-Second Amendment.
Oh, you mean for passing a bill which adds federal regulation to their second amendment rights?
That's crazy. Lobby groups hate supporting their industry. Remember how big pharma was all like, "No, please regulate our industry more, also, we don't want any say in the matter."
C'mon, you gotta remember that. It must have happened during all those closed-door sessions where Obamacare decided to force people to buy more of their products and services?
And obviously, a lot of Republicans had that fear, but Democrats had that fear, too. And so they caved to the pressure, and they started looking for an excuse — any excuse — to vote "no."
ANY excuse would do, even, "Well, Golly Gee, Mister President, I'd call this bill a turd sandwich, but at least a turd sandwich would leave a bad taste in your mouth. This bill is like eating an imaginary turd sandwich."
One common argument I heard was that this legislation wouldn’t prevent all future massacres.
"All future massacres?" This wouldn't even prevent the ones that supposedly prompted this legislation!
And that’s true. As I said from the start, no single piece of legislation can stop every act of violence and evil.
"So the solution is MANY PIECES OF LEGISLATION!" Obama barely stopped himself from saying aloud.
We learned that tragically just two days ago. But if action by Congress could have saved one person, one child, a few hundred, a few thousand — if it could have prevented those people from losing their lives to gun violence in the future while preserving our Second Amendment rights, we had an obligation to try.
No. We don't. If cutting everyones' arms and legs off prevents just ONE punching or kicking death, we have an obligation to try.
What's that? The comparison is false because arms and legs do positive things? Is a gun in the hand of a live woman standing over a dead rapist a negative thing?
And this legislation met that test. And too many senators failed theirs.
Again, the test was "ZOMG TRY SOMETHING!!!111" So, why are we supposed to be upset that this "goal" was not met?
I’ve heard some say that blocking this step would be a victory. And my question is, a victory for who? A victory for what? All that happened today was the preservation of the loophole that lets dangerous criminals buy guns without a background check.
Right, which is why no criminals have guns in the states that DO have universal background checks. They all run around with socks full of pennies. In fact, I recall there were 8 people killed in a drive-by socking in universal-background-check-having Chicago.
Though, from what I understand, some of the pennies came out of the sock during the event... and turned into bullets. Again, somehow.
That didn’t make our kids safer. Victory for not doing something that 90 percent of Americans, 80 percent of Republicans, the vast majority of your constituents wanted to get done? It begs the question, who are we here to represent?
Yeah, who do you represent exactly? Obamacare was deeply unpopular throughout its creation and passage. So who were you representing then?
But if you really did think that 90% of Americans wanted this, then you'd be hopping and skipping your way to the mid-terms so you could pass whatever you wanted with your inevitable mega-ultra-double-secret-probation super majority.
Instead, you're just butthurt. It's almost like you lost, and you know you lost, and you spent a lot of political capital to fail so miserably, and that there will be some serious fallout over this loss.
Nah, I'm sure you believe everything you're saying.
I’ve heard folks say that having the families of victims lobby for this legislation was somehow misplaced. "A prop," somebody called them. "Emotional blackmail," some outlet said. Are they serious?
Yeah, it's called "appeal to emotion." You can find it in the Big Book of Logical Fallacies you obviously own and read religiously.
Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don’t have a right to weigh in on this issue? Do we think their emotions, their loss is not relevant to this debate?
If you think they are relevant, then why not invite some folks who saved the lives of their loved ones with guns?
Why not invite one of the many armed citizens who stopped rampages with guns and never got so much as a nod from any media outlet?
Oh, are we just playing your side? Never mind then.
So all in all, this was a pretty shameful day for Washington.
Not a day goes by without earned shame in Washington. Poor point.
But this effort is not over.
Yeah, actually it is. You couldn't get the weakest, most piddly, ineffective, worthless piece of gun control legislation over its first hurdle.
This loss was devastating to your side.
Anyone who didn't believe it before just needs to listen to your tone an demeanor to know it now.
We win. You lose.
Even though this legislation was as dangerous to gun rights as a sea sponge, we still said, "No."
And all the king's horses and all the king's men could not pass even the slightest bit of gun control. Not. Another. Inch.
I want to make it clear to the American people we can still bring about meaningful changes that reduce gun violence, so long as the American people don’t give up on it. Even without Congress, my administration will keep doing everything it can to protect more of our communities. We’re going to address the barriers that prevent states from participating in the existing background check system. We’re going to give law enforcement more information about lost and stolen guns so it can do its job. We’re going to help to put in place emergency plans to protect our children in their schools.
Wow. You really are thoroughly defeated.
Even now, after becoming visibly upset about the results, revealing that you really privately and personally believe in gun control, you still won't exercise your executive privilege to push on guns.
You're backing down again.
I can't believe we were worried about this wuss.
But we can do more if Congress gets its act together. And if this Congress refuses to listen to the American people and pass common-sense gun legislation, then the real impact is going to have to come from the voters.
Blah blah, boilerplate blame congress, blah blah, not my fault.
This didn't work when you had a super majority, it wont work now.
To all the people who supported this legislation — law enforcement and responsible gun owners, Democrats and Republicans, urban moms, rural hunters, whoever you are — you need to let your representatives in Congress know that you are disappointed, and that if they don’t act this time, you will remember come election time.
Little late for that, because all the people who DIDN'T support this legislation have already done that.
To the wide majority of NRA households who supported this legislation, you need to let your leadership and lobbyists in Washington know they didn’t represent your views on this one.
LOL - Do you hear yourself talk? Seriously, we're not falling for it, so who are you lying to, exactly? Be honest. Is it yourself?
The point is those who care deeply about preventing more and more gun violence will have to be as passionate, and as organized, and as vocal as those who blocked these common-sense steps to help keep our kids safe.
Yeah, I've never heard an anti-gun argument anywhere on TV in the newspaper, on the radio, or every other form of media known to man!
It's a damn shame anti-gun arguments don't OOZE out of every orifice of American media! If only I was exposed to your beliefs more! That must be why I'm so wrong!
[Insert eye-roll so huge I detach my optic nerves here]
Ultimately, you outnumber those who argued the other way.
Ha! Not anymore, Barry.
We'd been holding back because we thought we could win by being polite and making small gains at a time. Your zealotry forced us to pull out all the stops.
Casual comments that would have gone unchallenged turned into impromptu education sessions on facts, stats, and history that casual anti-gunners had never been exposed to.
Most of them hadn't ever argued gun control before, and when they were challenged and actually had to apply logic and thought to it, realized they were on the wrong side of the issue, and joined us.
You overplayed your hand. You have lost.
You've possibly lost several generations.
Nice job.
But they’re better organized. They’re better financed.
wat
They’ve been at it longer.
Damn straight. Since 1776, King George.
And they make sure to stay focused on this one issue during election time. And that’s the reason why you can have something that 90 percent of Americans support and you can’t get it through the Senate or the House of Representatives.
There's that fuzzy math again.
So to change Washington, you, the American people, are going to have to sustain some passion about this.
Don't worry. We are.
And when necessary, you’ve got to send the right people to Washington.
Don't worry. We will.
And that requires strength, and it requires persistence.
We've got plenty of those.
And that’s the one thing that these families should have inspired in all of us. I still don’t know how they have been able to muster up the strength to do what they’ve doing over the last several weeks, last several months.
A sob story doesn't make you right.
FACTS and REALITY do. Your side has neither.
And I see this as just round one. When Newtown happened, I met with these families and I spoke to the community, and I said, something must be different right now. We’re going to have to change. That’s what the whole country said. Everybody talked about how we were going to change something to make sure this didn’t happen again, just like everybody talked about how we needed to do something after Aurora. Everybody talked about we needed change something after Tucson.
Yeah. We wanted to change things. But you just wanted to do something that felt good, accomplished nothing, and inflamed a huge voting bloc
So don't talk about wasted initiative. YOU wasted the initiative to do something REAL about the mentally ill in our communities.
The next shooting will be YOUR fault. Just like it would have been had this bill passed anyway.
And I’m assuming that the emotions that we’ve all felt since Newtown, the emotions that we’ve all felt since Tucson and Aurora and Chicago — the pain we share with these families and families all across the country who’ve lost a loved one to gun violence — I’m assuming that’s not a temporary thing. I’m assuming our expressions of grief and our commitment to do something different to prevent these things from happening are not empty words.
Our words are not empty. Your head is.
"Try something that has never worked before" is not a valid course of action when we're talking about saving lives.
It's stupid and dangerous.
I believe we’re going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it. And so do the American people.
THTHHTHTHPPHPHPHHPH!(that's supposed to be a raspberry)
Take your indignation elsewhere. You have no power here, in the realm of reality. Go back to the make-believe land that is DC.
For some reason in our day and age, when a crazy person does something crazy with a Beretta 92 9mm handgun, the news reporters camp out Beretta's headquarters and charge employees as they leave work shouting, "WHAT DO YOU HAVE TO SAY ABOUT WHAT YOUR HANDGUN DID?!"
I never thought we'd see that transfer to other objects...
Fagor America, Inc ... released a statement Wednesday saying it has been contacted by investigators and is fully cooperating. The pressure cookers "are not intended to be used for any other purpose other than cooking,"
Well shit! Why didn't you say so! I'll bet money they didn't even have "No Terrorist Bombings" on the warning label! THEY'RE CULPABLE! WHAT DID YOU KNOW, AND WHEN DID YOU KNOW IT?!
But it gets better! The maker of a battery used to power the device speaks out!
"We were appalled to discover that one of our off-the-shelf products was used in such a horrific and senseless act of hate,"
So, now we need to investigate the these high capacity rapid fire electron holders?
This is utterly silly, the only thing that could make it worse is some stats about the previous products to strongly imply the danger we are all in at the hands of these merchants of death!
The battery company said the product, a 1.25V 3000mAh Sub-C siz Nickel Metal Hybrid, is widely available on the retail market and they have sold tens of thousands of it over the past year. Fager America said they sell over 250,000 pressure cookers annually.
Lily Burk's story is about a young girl's trust and our failure as a society. It includes a family friend of hers who joins the discussion and unbelievably offers the beliefs that perpetuate these horrors. Read the posts and comments starting here. Never forget that these people exist.
Remember James Broadnax
He wounded and executed two Christian music producers for $2 and a car so he wouldn't have to walk home. Watch the interview with the remorseless murderer that changed my life. Never forget that these people exist.
