the not-so-sweet 16

In one of the United States' most lopsided gun votes in the nation's recent history, there was broad, bi-partisan support for a recent pro-gun bill in the Senate. 

Of the entire senate, a measly 16 Senators voted against Senator Vitter's legislation to prohibit the usage of taxpayer funds from the Homeland Security Appropriations Bill to be used for the purpose of confiscating lawfully owned guns in the event of an emergency, such as what occurred in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. 

They were all democrats: 

Akaka (D-HI)
Boxer (D-CA)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Harkin (D-IA)
Inouye (D-HI)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Schumer (D-NY)

Of all times to confiscate weapons, though they are all bad, the period directly after a disaster with widespread lawlessness when self-defense is most crucial, is most certainly one of the worst to choose.  These 16 democrats stuck with their anti-gun, anti-2nd amendment convictions and voted against this legislation. 

All OTHER 28 democrats in the senate, joined by every one of the 55 republicans voted for this common sense legislation. 

lousy democrats

>>1 That's not all of the dems, right? So, don't vote for these people later. It's not like the right has ushered a new era of catering to the public. Nah, there's a point here - the dems consider the american public to be immature, perhaps a case of wanton superiority. As such, instead of relying on 'virtues' (a word the dogmatic right has too much tendency to use) they seek to keep all teachings postmodern and spread a forgiving doctrine that equates Israel with Hezbollah, for example. Without these, they then try to impose bureaucracy to prevent everybody from going nuts...

>>3
That's correct, it isn't ALL of the dems.  These are just the dems who are the most extremely anti-gun.  If you look at the voting records of all the dems in general, however, you will notice that the vast majority of them vote overwhelmingly and pretty consistantly anti-gun.  It's easy to say that if we didn't have dems in the government, we wouldn't have gun control. 

>>3
Of course the dems consider the public to be immature.  It's typical leftism.  The left thinks your average person doesn't know how to take care of himself, his family, his property, or his finances.  Thus, they seek to control and regulate these things through use of the government. 

Some on the left could be seen as more or less "statist" (favor broader government in both economic, and personal aspects of life) as well.  These are the more particularly vicious, as they are basically the exact opposite of a libertarian.  They favor all around more, larger, more pervasive, and more powerful government. 

Just take a look:  many of the democrats in office voted for the Patriot Act.  Sure, some say this is just due to political pressure, but again, what good are they if they won't show spine and stand up for what is right in situations like this? 

In the situation where they think they are right, however, again, they are just statists, and have proven that they don't give a shit about human rights. 

"Of course the dems consider the public to be immature.  It's typical leftism.  The left thinks your average person doesn't know how to take care of himself, his family, his property, or his finances.  Thus, they seek to control and regulate these things through use of the government. "
This is complex shit,  and it is here that behaviorist psychology becomes important. Now, organisms are stimulated and shaped by the environment. They seek to change it (response) and the response from the environment dictates if the organism tries again. It is not fit for a dictionary but the gist is that people are containers for almost everything and they act accordingly. Free will is thus an illusion. Now, the left and the right both want people to escape negative influences so that they act in a positive, constructive manner. The issue is that they can't decide what is good for an individual and what type of emitted responses are good for society. The left recognizes that people are very much subject to the environment, but instead of getting to the core of the problems they try to put focus on symbols and emitted behaviors (gun ownership) instead of trying to give people ideals and virtues to stand for. The right adheres to heavily to the idea of the self-made man and therefore ignores that individual self-fulfillment causes positive and negative effects in the surroundings. They believe ideals and virtues prevent selfish strivings from leading to negative behavior but they see people as completely responsible if they fail to follow the virtues. Philosophically, I can't agree with either but I do believe neither supernatural doctrines or the idea of social justice are factors that can be allowed in America anymore. The libertarians try to stand above the bickering and vitriol by lamenting and pitying everybody else.

>>6
I see what you are saying, but I still don't see how removing consequences for a person's actions is the right way to go. 

The only reason people do anything in the world today (if they are rational people) is because they know some consequence, or result will come of it that they will find favorable. 

Economically speaking, the right wing rewards good, responsible behavior, and I see absolutely nothing wrong with that. 

I think, generally, every person should pull his weight in society, and that they should be held accountable and take responsibility for their own actions. 

Since you think an environment of a certain kind will create certain responses from people, surely you would think that a more or less capitalist society, in which, in an economic sense, the consequences of a person's actions will bring them to certain conclusions, that people will then be motivated to produce, and become fruitful, responsible members of society, no?

Socialism would seem to remove these factors, and make people less accountable for their actions.  This would remove the stimulation to be responsible people. 

"This is complex shit,  and it is here that behaviorist psychology becomes important. Now, organisms are stimulated and shaped by the environment. They seek to change it (response) and the response from the environment dictates if the organism tries again."

So Capitalism is the solution, since it will create an environment which will create good reactions from the people.  (Productivity, self-reliance, and responsibility.)

>>1
It should also be noted that Vitter himself was a republican. 

>>7 Sure, but this task of acting responsibly is insurmountable for someone without hope, and a non-meritocratic society were poverty accumulates removes hope. I dunno, really, because the causality between human and environment is very difficult to see in detail and to change the relationship for the better.
>>8 In fact I want to believe this and I think that this idea isn't bad. But, the environment does odd things to a human, and we are what we learn. Just because a human's only road for improving is said virtues doesn't mean he will be inspired to do so. I still think that neither the right nor the left offer a solution here, especially since the right demands its religious alliances to be part of the deal as well.

>>10
"especially since the right demands its religious alliances to be part of the deal as well."

You are generalizing.  Firstly, not all right wingers are religious.  If the religious aspect of the "right wing" is the big issue you have, why not vote libertarian? They are sure as hell better than the Socialists (the democrats). 

http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=196

Kinda touches on this.  We can't let the democrats have their way in the coming elections.  The result could be a 2nd Amendment nightmare.

>>12 If I was an American I would take the left's deal but ask for stronger support for Israel and a Medicare solution. The right lost a shitload of credibility when they allowed Bush to steal the country twice.

>>13
I don't blame the right one bit.  Gun owners are sick and tired of being harassed with pointless and arbitrary legislation from elitist scumbags like the Clintons and their many democrat associates.  I'm happy they lost, as are millions of law-abiding innocent gun owners across the nation. 

Of COURSE, I'm open to a DEMOCRAT who will run who is willing to stand up for the second amendment.  I had my eye on Dean for a while, I'm not sure though.  I'll have to check his voting record.  Supposedly, he is more pro-gun than the other dems, and comes from a pretty lax state (vermont). 

Anyway, Dean lost the primary, and the Dems picked anti-gun senator Kerry.  I'd rather re-elect Bush anytime than go with a gun-grabber.  And as for Bush's initial election back in 2000, it should be noted he was running against Al Gore (CLINTON's former vice president).  Also a gun-grabber. 

If the democrats aren't willing to give up this stupid, irrational, unconstitutional, dead, and downright annoying issue (gun control), they have lost my vote. 

I'm really not asking for much.  I'm just asking for them to obey the god damn 2nd Amendment of the constitution that was SUPPOSED to be the law of this land. 


"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."

I'll oppose anyone opposed to that, Republicans or anyone else included.  This is something that shouldn't even be an issue. 

>>13
"Stronger support for Israel"?

As in, piss away more tax money in the form of Foreign Aid?

"and a Medicare solution"

Socialism is not a good solution. 

>>15
I agree. 

>>14
Definitely agree.  Keep in mind though, that most of the most "pro-gun" democrats, are really not much more "pro-gun" than your average moderate republican. 

I'd still likely give them my vote though, because the democrats need to be sent a message that their stand on gun control is just stupid and unacceptable. 

I'd like to see a party that is pro-gun, anti-involve us in Middle Eastern adventures, and with loose social policy.

Sorry, I just don't see the libertarians doing that, they smell to o much like the guys who sent my friend to risk his life for nothing.

>>17
What? Dude... think about what you are saying, seriously. 

The libertarians, unlike the democrats, wrote up an "exit strategy" to pull our troops out of Iraq and stop the war years ago. 

The libertarians want to stop the wars of aggression.  The libertarians are pro-choice.  The libertarians are pro-gun.  The libertarians are pro-drug legalization.  What other social policy areas do you care about, that you want loosened up?

The libertarians have one of the most loose policies on anything of any party I know, including social policy.  They are, again, pro-gun.. even moreso than the republicans. 

Again, what social policy are the libertarians "tight" on?

>>17
Libertarians are just Republicans who want to sound more intelligent in the wake of the 2004 vote, during which they more than likely voted for Bush.

4chan is also a great place for internet tough guys to roam free, boasting of their love for guns, despite not actually owning one, or knowing how to use one (and probably being afraid of them, too). When your only experience with guns comes from Counter-Strike, 4chan's the place to come to act like you're a tough guy. Isn't it, ANONYMOUS?

>>19 Now that is just the kind of generalizations that make sensible left-leaners muy depresado. I think all libertarians that voted for Bush should have to eat their own ammunition and get raped by the guy who created Boondocks, but that doesn't mean all of them consider the reps to be the best bet. I don't think they should be allowed to have guns as long as gays can't marry, but I guess their priorities are written in blood.

>>20

"I don't think they should be allowed to have guns as long as gays can't marry, but I guess their priorities are written in blood."

Xel, you are showing your lack of familiarity with American politics.  GWB and the republicans getting elected so soundly with majorities in all areas of government is gun owners' retribution against the pointless laws, general annoyance, and harassment committed on them by Bill Clinton and the democrats during his administration. 

Had Bill Clinton & the dems decided NOT to try and harass the nation's gun owners, the NRA wouldn't have handed over it's members' millions of votes to GWB and the republican party this last election. 

Take a look at this: 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#2000_Presidential_Election

"The NRA is sometimes said to be the most powerful single non-profit organization in the United States."

In my opinion, Bill Clinton and the democrats brought this unto themselves in voting for candidates both in the primaries, and in the final election who would piss off the gun rights folks & the NRA (not to mention all the other various gun rights groups), and thus set the stage for a HUGE republican victory in the following election, no matter HOW BAD the candidate was. 

They should have known that in pro-gun USA, this would mean political suicide, and the sacrifice of the next election, especially with the lack of popularity many of Clinton's gun laws had (EVEN WITH THE DEMOCRATS!), let alone with the gun lovers themselves...

Also to be noted:  The very democrat who was elected in the primaries to be running at the head of the dem ticket in that election vs Bush happened to be Al Gore... Clinton's runningmate and vice president throughout his just-ended administration.  It should also be noted that Gore has a horrible voting record on the 2nd amendment, as I'm sure you guessed, not to mention his annoying history with the Clinton administration.

Essentially, it was the Clintonians & dems who created the environment which then made it possible for such a sound republican victory the next several elections.  The loss of gay rights could thus be attributed to Clinton's harassment of gun owners.

>>21 (21 continuing)

Take a look at this: 

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

The situation was the same in 04.  The dems put forth a candidate who was opposed to gun rights, and the same thing happened.  This further supports my previous conclusion made in post 21.

"As a leading speaker for the NRA LaPierre, citing Democratic candidate John Kerry's history of authorship and support for gun control bills, campaigned against the senator in the 2004 Presidential elections. In the 2004 presidential campaign the NRA worked to support Republican President George W. Bush after making a determination that Bush was the candidate closest to their position on gun control policies."

-wikipedia article

You can't blame the gun rights folks for standing up for their interests.  They are just like you standing up for your interests.  You CAN however blame the dems for irritating them enough that they'd vote for and endorse a candidate as shitty as GWB (George W. Bush) for the sake of ensuring their freedoms don't get encroached upon any further. 

The NRA is a non-partisan organization.  All they care about is performance of the candidate.  They will support dems who are supportive of gun rights.  Had the democrats had a more pro-gun outlook, (or at least not had such a horribly anti-gun outlook) they wouldn't have gotten beaten up so bad the last several elections, and the gays wouldn't have lost their rights. 

>>19
Where are these internet tough guys? Almost all pro-gun posts here 4chan seem to be very reasonable and come from real gun hobbyists. Can't say same about anti-gun posts though... Besides you know nothing about libertarians if you think they're just republicans in disguise. They're very diverse group ranging from libertarian-republicans and jeffersonian conservatives to libertarian gays(such as pink pistols members) and radical minarchists, but generally all support constitutional rights and are against big goverment and freedom loving.

>>20
Yet we don't know would Kerry have been even worse. You know Clinton was actually worse than Bush. Bush maybe stupid and incompetent, but only really bad thing he has caused this far is Iraq war. I don't like Bush nor I did vote him, but you can't really say Kerry would have been better.

>>21 >>22 Well, guns and loving who you love are both birthrights and neither deserve repercussions. I understand this shit is important for those who own guns, and I respect that. But voting for a president who wishes 10 % of America's love gone and who has pissed on the same pieces of paper you always throw at people who worry about guns is a low and selfish way to express that. I can't accept the logic behind claiming a liberty of your own at the expense of someone else's. I don't claim you shouldn't care about firearm ownership or that NRA is really fucking glued to this. I just call complete lack of moral philosophy and logic on those that settle for the right.

>>24
"I just call complete lack of moral philosophy and logic on those that settle for the right."

I don't.  People who settle for the right are just out to defend their interests, and I can't see anything wrong with that..  Like you said, they are both birthrights and neither deserve repercussions.  The way you vote is purely a matter of preference of one set of rights vs the other. 



All I'm tr

>>23
"Yet we don't know would Kerry have been even worse. You know Clinton was actually worse than Bush. Bush maybe stupid and incompetent, but only really bad thing he has caused this far is Iraq war. I don't like Bush nor I did vote him, but you can't really say Kerry would have been better."

Kerry's plan for Iraq was the same as Bush's plan for Iraq. 

From a gun rights perspective, I'm 100% sure Kerry would have been worse. 

Don't believe it? Take a look everyone: 

http://www.gunowners.org/cgv.htm

Kerry's state he represented is Massachusetts or however you spell it.  Take a look how he voted on various gun related bills, and gun control legislation.  He is pretty obviously a very strong advocate of gun control. 

Contrast that with Bush.  Bush himself happens to be a member of the NRA.  During his tenure as governor of Texas, he signed a good deal of pro-gun legislation. 

The effects of the Bush administration on gun policy are as expected.  We have a pro-gun ambassador to the U.N. who basically told them to fuck off when they tried to start up international regulations on guns (Bolton).  I don't think he vetoed any pro-gun legislation that managed to make it's way to his desk. 

I can see why the NRA endorsed him. 

>>24
Well, I'm gay and I don't think Bush has been so bad to my interests. I know he hates gays and I don't like him like nor I voted him like I said before, but you're forgetting that gun rights and gay marriage are entirely different issue. Marriage is just little formal stuff while gun rights are actually far more mportant issue. It's like banning silencers or other unnecessary accessory. Banning guns would be like banning gay sex. I don't see gay marriage as very important thing and I'm actually AGAINST "positive" discrimination as there's no such thing as positive discrimination. I think best way to promote all rights(gay, gun and freedom of speech) would be through education.

>>27
"I think best way to promote all rights(gay, gun and freedom of speech) would be through education."

I definitely agree.  This is one of the main reasons I post here whenever I see a nice article about guns. 

Most of people's fears about guns are just like their fears about gays.. irrational fears.  Education is the key to solving both problems, homophobia, and this irrational fear of guns some seem to have. 

>>28
Yeah, people naturally fear things they don't know about and fear leads to hate.

>>27 Unfortunately, equality is a birthright and in such a case marriage for all is not a formal thing, considering it is part of the entire HGBT cause
>>26 Bush has done bad things except Iraq - his tax cuts were useless, misaimed and are probably a way to create such a crisis for health care and Soc. Sec. that the nation would clamor for a solution. A solution of the more nihilistic sort, that the conservatives and the rich would love to provide. Poverty increases under Bush, and all that black ink started turning red thanks to his poor economic competence. Then there's Katrina, the super highway right through the country, the state of the constitution and let's not forget how he harmed development in the third world by banning funding for all charity organisations that provide condoms and abortions.
>>28 >>29 You are both right, and I assure you my view of guns have softened a lot lately. Now I am not afraid of the guns but rather what a priority it is for some and how they are ready to support a constitution-hating evangelical just for them. You can't call yourself a libertarian and vote Bush simultaneously.

>>27
I support gay rights, but truthly I don't really know much of what Bush has done relating to them.  I guess I know he called for an amendment to ban gay marriage or something... ( I don't think it passed though, right? )

Not sure.. I have a feeling Bush actually doesn't care, and is essentially just politicizing it for his own gain, and to get the religious right to back him more 'faithfully'. 

>>30

Health care and Social Security were doomed anyways. 

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-24-retiree-taxpayers_x.htm

Bush had a plan created that would fix Social Security, and avert the coming disaster. 

>>30
Bush's tax cuts are working, also. 

http://sayanythingblog.com/2005/08/06/reuters_bush_tax_cuts_working_but_hes_still_a_schm/

There was an article in the NYTimes about this a while back, but unfortunately you seem to need to log in to access this now..

http://www.laughatliberals.com/blog/archives/2006/seetax-cuts-work/

>>30

"You can't call yourself a libertarian and vote Bush simultaneously."

I assure you there are plenty of people who would call themselves "libertarians" who vote both ways, dem or repub, simply because they sympathize with either party, but view one party as being the lesser of two evils, for one reason or other. 

Libertarians like all freedoms.  Both parties support some freedoms, but not others.  If a libertarian "settles" for either major party, all he's saying is that freedom which the party he settles for is evidently more important to him than the others the opposing party will support, and so he wants to vote for the main party so as to keep from jeopardizing the freedoms his favored party seeks to protect.

>>32 Privatization of Soc. Sec? That would have spelled doom for the institution that is faring better than health care by far. That privatization is aimed at the upper quintile and is a nihilistic solution looking for a problem. Bush has made healt care progressively worse the last three years, and private offerings via employers are going worse, because both insurers and employers constantly fuck with those capable of paying insurance. The utilitarian power of competition: http://www.leftcenterleft.com/2005-09-20-health-care-the-numbers.html

>>33 Regarding that:    http://search01.brookings.edu/search?access=p&output=xml_no_dtd&sort=date%3AD%3AL%3Ad1&ie=UTF-8&client=BI_PublicWeb&q=gale+20030109+tax+cut&numgm=5&site=BI_PublicWeb&Submit=&oe=UTF-8&proxystylesheet=BI_PublicWeb&ip=81.236.30.142&filter=p

>>35

"That would have spelled doom for the institution that is faring better than health care by far."

I'll agree Social Security is faring better than health care.  The thing is though, health care as we are doing it now is simply not faring well. It costs too much, and social security, while it isn't doing AS BAD, is still not doing well enough.

At the very least, our health care expenditures are not sustainable.  Our national debt and expenditures are skyrocketing, and we can't keep this up, let alone have nationalized medicine and or massive foreign aid like Kerry and the dems want.  (yet they claim to be fiscally responsible?)

Bush's tax cuts are working.  The main economic qualm I see with Bush is that the war in iraq and afghanistan are simply costing too much tax money, and the aim is not apparently to get Osama Bin Laden (just watch that daily show vid a guy posted here a while back). 

It has nothing to do with 9/11.  It has to do with making the Mid. east safe for Israel.  As far as the middle east/israeli conflict goes, I'm not really sure who I support, but I sure as hell don't support wars or foreign aid.  That money could be much better spent here at home. 

We have underfunded schools, enormous deficits, and runaway spending coming from both parties, and I can't see how giving out MORE money in the form of foreign aid or war is justfiable in our present economic situation - to Israel or anyone else. (Not to mention the obvious that foreign aid doesn't help the poor - but rather props up the horrible dictators and governments that are the reason they are poor to begin with, imo.)

The war isn't good either, but again, the republicans are a package deal.  Maybe an anti-war republican will step up in 08 and put a stop to it somehow, who knows. 

Bush's economic policies are good, for the most part.  He should more agressively cut corporate welfare, welfare, social security, govt medical shit, etc.  It all just costs too much.  Again, look at the link I posted above.  We clearly can't sustain this.  Our national debt is fucking out of control, and the dems are talking about Nationalized medicine?

Bush was one of the advocates of cutting the farm subsidy.  Many people don't know about it, but the vast majority of money from this subsidy is funneled into corporate-style factory farms, not to the idyllic farm scene you imagine when you imagine some little family run operation.  It doesn't help the little farmers, it helps the BIG farmers, the corporate ones, yet the dems are parading around going to co-ops and shit getting their food, whining about little farmers.  This makes no sense to me.   

How economically out to lunch can we get? Where do they think this money will come from? Raise taxes, and take more money from the pockets of the already not-so-well-off middle and lower classes? Reaganomics and supply side economics apparently works, and it seems to benefit just about everyone.  Who DOESN'T want the economy to boom?

Economically speaking, neither major party is perfect, but as far as economics goes, the republicans are apparently superior.   I had doubts about it until I read the NYTimes article, but it's all falling into place.  Even with the war factored in, the deficit actually went DOWN in response to Bush's tax cuts, recently. 

All the presidents that slashed taxes and cut spending had economic boom following them.  (It's not just partisan politics either, the same thing happened with Kennedy, and he followed this economic idea as well.)

Also, Bush's tax cuts favor the rich because the rich pay more taxes... it makes perfect sense. 

The top 1% of people in terms of income in the USA pay 30-40% of the taxes.  Obviously they should get a larger share of the tax cut.

Even with this in mind, the middle and lower classes pay the most of the taxes.  The conclusion? Individually, taxes hurt the rich more, yes.  Collectively? They hurt the poor and middle classes more.

This is all on top of the fact that Reaganomics is apparently being proven right. 

Our national debt is fucking out of control, and the dems are talking about Nationalized medicine?
If the government stopped throwing billions into overseas adventures and pork-barrel military (~50% of world's military expenditure is by the US), maybe it could afford a few nice things for its citizens.

I can wish, can't I?

>>37
You're certainly right.  There's no need for overseas adventures, as I implied... I'm against the war, and there's no reason for us to spend so much on the military. 

Although, something to consider is, in light of the North Koreans with their nukes, military spending MIGHT* just be justifiable.  I'll agree with you on one thing right away though - the war in iraq isn't. 

Nonetheless, that money should be given back to the citizens, or used to pay off the national debt, not spent on Nationalized Health care or foreign aid of any kind, to anyone..  History shows us that not only does Reaganomics work, but that the private sector is much more efficient.

GODLESS HEATHENS!!!! YOU ALL SHOULD GIVE MONEY TO THE CHURCH CUZ GOD KNOWS HOW TO USE YOUR MONEY!!!! HE LIKES TO BUILD STATUES OF HIMSELF, MILLIONS OF THEM, MOTHER FUCKERS HEATHENS!!!!

>>36 You should immediately transform your health system into a national single-payer one. Also, Bush are one of the biggest reasons all the government institutions are faring so bad. That's a vicious circle, the neo-cons destroy all institutions until privatization on the spot is the ONLY possible solution.   People blame the dems for all the bureaucracy, but this time it's the privatization that is causing all the unneccesary overhead costs (with all the paperwork coming from insurers and employers trying to loop the workers, the US has the highest overhead costs in the first world not to mention the total budget cost per capita, and this time it is not caused by the government but by profit-yearning)