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. 

>>40
Social Security was doomed to die a long time ago, this isn't recent stuff.  It's just that now we are coming to terms with the fact that we are going to have to either raise taxes, inflate our currency, or cut back on promised benefits, because we simply can't afford to keep this up. 

I don't know if privatization is good or bad.  But for sure, no programs at all outside of the necessary ones would be better. 

>>40
Democrats are for democracy right? Do you realise that democracy means rule by the people? How exactly can the people rule if a small armed group runs everything and claims to own all of their essential services? You are either a huge idiot or you don't give a fuck about democracy and are just trying to prove to people that it's raining when you piss on them.

>>42 Oh... Kay. The very reason health care is so fucked is mostly due to the paperwork the insurers and the employers impose on the people they are supposed to help (but do not want to). So much for mercantilism improving consumer choice. America has the highest overhead costs in the world when it comes to health care. And how is the current system working anyway? Health care is a birthright, especially in America where half of the children are breathing inadequate air and mercury going everywhere (oh, I forgot, it's their own fault and giving them money for health care is just going to make them lazy.)

>>43
You should be in prison, if you knew that there is widespread fraud amongst insurance companies, criminals poisonning the water supply with mercury and polluting the air and did fuck all to stop it.

>>44 I am a Swede, buddy.

>>45
And? Oh wait I forgot, you believe morality is inconvenient and make up feeble excuses not to have to bother with it even though children are getting mercury poisonning.

>>40
However, a good question to ask would be, with everything figured in, such as overhead, does the simple efficiency of adding the market to government programs pay off? I think it very well might.

>>43
"Health care is a birthright"

There's no such thing as 'right' to the labor of another human being.  The beauty of Capitalism is that it's just.

"America where half of the children are breathing inadequate air"

There's nothing wrong with the air here.  Kinda smells around Gary, Indiana, but other than that....

Children are poisoned with mercury at the very onset in the US, it's in immunization shots.  Just look at the rise of ADD and ADHD as compared to when mercury started being used in shots.

>>46 My fellow citizens aren't getting mercury in their veins.
>>47 I don't think so. We'll see, considering we have comparatives and such.

>>6

Wow, quoting Jung as fact, good game fag.

>>11
LOL at Democrats being described as "socalists"

>>51 Socialism = Majority of democrats = Communism with slightly more affluence, prosperity and some more liberty.

>>51
As long as the dems are parading around supporting Social Security  & Nationalized industries, and in general more government programs, I don't think that "Socialists" would be an innapropriate term. 

>>52
Dems don't offer any more amount of liberty than the republicans.  They both offer about the same amount, it's just different liberties are being offered.  Republicans offer you economic liberty and SOME personal freedom (i.e. gun rights).

Dems offer you a few personal freedoms(but not gun rights, and not a few other things, such as voluntary hiring, among others) but very little economic freedom.  They are just two different sides of the same coin, or maybe describable by one of these: 

http://www.csusm.edu/rms/images/yingyang.gif

I have a love-hate relationship with my CA senators. This is one of those hate moments.

>>54
Why don't you Californians vote them out? Are they really that unbeatable or something? Feinstein is the worst.  Get her out of there first.

>>55
It's notoriously difficult to get ANY senator or representative voted out of office.  The incumbancy rate is something in the high 90's.  You have to really fuck something up to get voted out of office.  Even then it's no guarantee.

>>56
Damn.  Stupid Feinstein will probly be in there until she croaks... and all the other anti-gun senators I guess.  Well, at least there's a republican majority in the Senate ATM.

>>57
A republican majority may be a good thing for gun rights, but that's about all it's good for.  And even then there are rebuplicans willing to restrict them. 

>>58
I disagree that that's all its good for, but for the sake of argument, assuming I agree, I'd still rather have them there solely to keep the dems hands off my guns & weapons.

The 2nd amendment is the most important right because it protects all the others. 

>>58 & 59
Exactly, we don't want the USA to turn into Canada, do we?

Seriously, if Canada is so great, just move there.  Canada can be democrat-land, and the conservatives can have the USA. 

We get our guns and freedom, and you get your bureaucracy, taxes, and gun control. 

>>60 Women's rights, more tolerance for non-heterosexuals, sound fiscal policy, people who at least try to govern instead of ruining the systems until they have to be strapped altogether, health care that doesn't siphon money for paperwork, non-regressive taxation, better air, better schools and so on.

The United States of Canada is awesome.

Jesusland can go fap while waiting for their Rapture.

>>59
>>60
I'm not willing to settle for either the liberals or the conservatives views of this land.  I agree gun rights is the most imporant right, but I'm not gonna tolerate all the corporate whoreship and Jesus worship that comes with the republicans.  Both groups hate freedom in their own way, so we have to work to stop both.

>>63 You can't have gun rights while condoning a party that tries to limit the liberty of 10 % of the population, that is a philosophical dead end. So it's great you are a libertarian.

>>64
Black and white NRA members stopped KKK riders, stop trying to claim all whites are closet-racists and all NRA members are ex-KKK. The facts go completely against all of your lies.

http://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBPrintItem.asp?ID=2960

>>65 Que? You were just inferring what you wanted me to  have said. I was talking about the resistance to the gay cause, you doye.

>>61
How is Canada better on WOMEN's right when compared to US? What's wrong with women's rights on US anyway? Gay rights situation is bit better, but not really better especially considering heavy censorship there. I don't say Canada is really bad place, but it has it's dark side and it's actually worse than in US.

>>66
o rite yeah sorry lulz

>>66
NRA supports gay rights, or more specifically their right to defend their rights.

http://www.pinkpistols.org/

Shouldn't we encourage more ways to secure rights than simply violent revolution?  Revolution with guns should be a backup or last resort plan, not THE plan.

>>64
There's nothing wrong with the Republican party with regards to women's rights, if that was what you were implying. 

>>71
Uh, he was talking about gay rights.  Women make up a little bit more than 10% of the population.

>>70
Sure.  But the democrats want to take away that backup plan, or last resort, whatever you want to call it.  Not many gun owners are wanting a violent revolution.  They only want it as a security measure.

>>64
Gun control trumps any qualms you may have with the republicans, or should.  Which is worse, restricting the 'rights' of 10% of the population, or restricting the rights of 100% of the population (including that 10 percent, obviously) through gun control?

>>69
Yes, exactly. 

>>65 Nice link.

>>61
"Women's rights, more tolerance for non-heterosexuals, sound fiscal policy, people who at least try to govern instead of ruining the systems until they have to be strapped altogether, health care that doesn't siphon money for paperwork, non-regressive taxation, better air, better schools and so on."

High taxing and high spending is not "sound fiscal policy."  Cutting taxes & spending, and returning the money to the hands of those who earned it is the best idea. 

Nationalized health care is a shitty idea.  There is nothing wrong with letting the market handle health care.  People who eat right, exercise, and take care of their health shouldn't have to pay for the consequences of the actions of those who don't. 

"more tolerance for non-heterosexuals"

You can't legislate tolerance.  Tolerance is something that people need to learn.  If gays were armed and had the self-defense rights commonly denied them throughout the USA (thanks to your liberals), they would be better able to defend themselves from the gay haters. 

The next time some gay man gets assaulted in a bathroom, and has a toilet plunger shoved up his ass by a bunch of homophobic jocks, and isn't able to defend himself because the democrats denied concealed carry rights for the area in which he lives, who are you going to direct your critisizm at, the republicans who fought for his right to carry concealed weaponry and defend himself, or the democrats who fought to take it away?

>>73
Do you seriously believe that the republicans being pro-gun absolves them of all their other flaws?  That's fucking insane.  If gun rights are all you care about you should NOT be supporting the republicans, many of them are just as bad as some democrats and they WILL enact gun control when they find it suits them.  The ONLY group to support for true self defense and gun rights are the libertarians.  Seriously, think about it.  With all the civil liberties they are willing to violate and the rights of citizens they will take away, how long do you think the republicans will really let you keep your gun?  Only as long as it takes to soldify their fascist power base.

Do you seriously believe that the republicans being pro-gun absolves them of all their other flaws?  That's fucking insane.
While I'm not in favour of libertarians, I firmly agree with the above.

Some people desperately need perspective.

>>74
"Do you seriously believe that the republicans being pro-gun absolves them of all their other flaws?"

I'm seriously saying that they are better than the democrats, for one thing.  Until the democrats change their policy on such an essential human right as the right to self defense, they should be voted out wholesale. 

Once the democrats have learned that they simply won't get elected unless they support the 2nd amendment, and the natural human right known as self defense, they will start to. 

The democrats have recently been trying to make it LOOK like they support these rights.  If self defense rights supporters keep up the pressure, the democrats may seriously change. 

At that point, the 2nd amendment will no longer be an issue, gun control will be pretty much dead, and everyone can move on to other issues. 

Until the democrats change their policy on such an essential human right as the right to self defense
Translation: my defining issues are guns, guns, and... guns!

tl;dr: self-defense == guns!

>>77
You need to diversify your issues and stop voting for fascists.

>>73 I can't disagree with anything.
>>78 "You need to diversify your issues and stop voting for fascists." Um, that would be the libertarians. They are the only non-fascists left.

bump for defeat of spammer