Gun control extremist Diane Feinstein is one of the best gifts conservatives and Republicans could have hoped for, as her pressuring of Democrats not in a safe state as she is will result in them being thrown out by voters in the next election if they vote for her bill on so-called assault rifles.
The bill has never had a chance to be passed, and Harry Reid noted he can only guarantee, in the best-case-scenario, about 40 votes. Still Feinstein whiningly presses on, seemingly oblivious to the career-ending results awaiting her colleagues. It doesn't get better than this for those of us wanting more of these radicals thrown out of office.
If they do in fact vote for Feinsteins bill, it will be their last year as politicians.
What's hilarious about this is Feinstein is stomping her feet and throwing a tantrum over the possibility the bill won't even be brought to the floor for a vote by Reid, who understands the dilemma he faces, and will probably make a political enemy out of Feinstein, who is being made to look like a bigger fool every day that passes.
Americans don't want this bill, as evidenced by the fact so few politicians are willing to vote for it. They have heard from their constituents, and even though some believe wrongly in the bill, they will have to vote against the people they represent to assuage those beliefs.
Now the question comes down to whether or not they're bold enough to vote their beliefs or to vote in a way that goes along with the wishes of the people they represent. Poor politicians.
There is no way out for any of them. Either Harry Reid will made to look a liar for telling Feinstein he will bring the legislation to the floor for a vote; the liberal Democrats will vote for the bill if it is brought to the floor; or Feinstein will look extremely weak and without influence.
All of this is great for conservatives and Republicans. It doesn't get much better than this.
We can hope the Democrats are forced to vote on the bill, which will alter the political landscape in favor of more conservative politicians. It's a win now no matter what happens in the outcome.
This is another reason why Bill Clinton warned his fellow Democrats to not aggressively pursue gun control. They're learning through hard experience why.
guns
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Bill Clinton. Show all posts
Friday, March 22, 2013
Thursday, March 21, 2013
Inclusion of Expanded Background Checks in Debates Called Victory
Only a bizarre media outlet like Bloomberg could call the inclusion of an expansion of federal background checks in proposed legislation to be debated a victory.
Think of it. Including something in bill to be debated is somehow considered a victory for opponents of Second Amendment rights. What a strange assertion; one that isn't even intellectually cohesive.
It shows the failure of Democrats and liberals in the attempt to trash the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. If a victory is allowing something to be debated, it is already a defeat.
This is why Harry Reid is calling it a victory for proponents of restricting the use of guns in America. He's attempting to save face for the misguided and delusional Democratic Party, which was warned by former President Bill Clinton they shouldn't attempt to take on Americans concerning guns. It's part of our lives, and no one is going to take away our freedom to own guns for protection, hunting, and recreational use.
The silly Bloomberg article is so blinded by their hatred of the Second Amendment that it Alan Fram to even assert this as being "an aggressive approach" by the Democrats. Does he disrespect his readers so much that he would make such an ignorant comment?
Reid continued to ram the idea down American throats that he has the upper hand, saying this: "I want to be clear: In order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks." Let me make it clear Harold: there will be no bill passed then. Who cares?
What all this says is Reid and the Democrats are running scared. They know they've bitten off more than they can chew, and are starting to see this will be a deal-changer in the next election.
The reason I say that is the endless changes to the legislation which gives the appearance the Democrats are moving forward, when in fact they're being pushed backwards, as evidenced by the removal of a ban on automatic rifles championed by the clueless Dianne Feinstein, who is still licking her wounds over her very public defeat.
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa sees this, "I don't know how the leader expects members to vote on an ever-changing piece of legislation that has yet to gain bipartisan support."
Again, all the changes are attempts of Democrats to make it look like they're battling, when in effect they're really in an organized retreat that they are fighting to keep from being viewed as the route it in fact is.
The public doesn't buy the nonsense proffered by liberals that guns are what kill people. Everyone knows it's people that kill people, whether it's using a gun, fists, knives, or other potential weapon.
In the end, the best policy is to have trained people in public situations that are licensed to pack and protect those under their care. That is the only answer to a world that includes evil.
Criminals and crazies will always have access to guns and other potential weapons, so criminalizing or banning the use of firearms only takes away the freedoms and liberties of law-abiding citizens. We aren't going to let that happen.
Think of it. Including something in bill to be debated is somehow considered a victory for opponents of Second Amendment rights. What a strange assertion; one that isn't even intellectually cohesive.
It shows the failure of Democrats and liberals in the attempt to trash the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. If a victory is allowing something to be debated, it is already a defeat.
This is why Harry Reid is calling it a victory for proponents of restricting the use of guns in America. He's attempting to save face for the misguided and delusional Democratic Party, which was warned by former President Bill Clinton they shouldn't attempt to take on Americans concerning guns. It's part of our lives, and no one is going to take away our freedom to own guns for protection, hunting, and recreational use.
The silly Bloomberg article is so blinded by their hatred of the Second Amendment that it Alan Fram to even assert this as being "an aggressive approach" by the Democrats. Does he disrespect his readers so much that he would make such an ignorant comment?
Reid continued to ram the idea down American throats that he has the upper hand, saying this: "I want to be clear: In order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks." Let me make it clear Harold: there will be no bill passed then. Who cares?
What all this says is Reid and the Democrats are running scared. They know they've bitten off more than they can chew, and are starting to see this will be a deal-changer in the next election.
The reason I say that is the endless changes to the legislation which gives the appearance the Democrats are moving forward, when in fact they're being pushed backwards, as evidenced by the removal of a ban on automatic rifles championed by the clueless Dianne Feinstein, who is still licking her wounds over her very public defeat.
Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa sees this, "I don't know how the leader expects members to vote on an ever-changing piece of legislation that has yet to gain bipartisan support."
Again, all the changes are attempts of Democrats to make it look like they're battling, when in effect they're really in an organized retreat that they are fighting to keep from being viewed as the route it in fact is.
The public doesn't buy the nonsense proffered by liberals that guns are what kill people. Everyone knows it's people that kill people, whether it's using a gun, fists, knives, or other potential weapon.
In the end, the best policy is to have trained people in public situations that are licensed to pack and protect those under their care. That is the only answer to a world that includes evil.
Criminals and crazies will always have access to guns and other potential weapons, so criminalizing or banning the use of firearms only takes away the freedoms and liberties of law-abiding citizens. We aren't going to let that happen.
Saturday, March 9, 2013
Democrat Senators Feeling Pro-Gun Heat
Whether you like former president Bill Clinton or not, he is as politically astute as a person can get, and when he saw the Democrats move towards gun control, he warned the party they shouldn't take that route. They didn't listen. It would cost them the Senate in 2014 if Democrat senators in gun rights states are pressured and cave.
The problem for the Democrats is they have gone all in on this, as the liberal media quickly and ferociously joined the cause, with the usual lack of understanding and interest in the millions of Americans whom don't line up with their ideology, and the media don't understand or care about.
That has raised the stakes for Democrats in states with a majority which resist the gun control efforts of the national Democrats, who are rightly perceived as being out of touch with them.
Vulnerable Democratic senators include Max Baucus of Montana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Begich of Alaska and Tim Johnson of South Dakota.
The big question lingering in the minds of many people is the career sacrifices forced on Democrats in the Obamacare fiasco, where those refusing to represent the states they were supposed to either refused to run because they were going to get slaughtered by their opponents, or they ran and got voted out.
Will the national, Obama Democrats force this upon there fellow Democrats again, even though it would no doubt cost them the Senate? That seems to be the real question people are waiting to have answered.
These Democrats especially, and others as well, know they don't have the luxury of being coy over time, as these decisions are being forced upon them now, not after the next elections.
For national, liberal Democrats, they will view them as traitors because they don't care at all about them or the people they serve. They are driven by ideology, and the people in mid-America, the south, and parts of the west know this.
Mainstream media are attempting to create the illusion of a consensus and overwhelming support for gun legislation, but that's a complete fabrication, other than in the obvious liberal bastions in parts of the country.
Because the extremist went all in, they now can't back down. This is a fight they will continue no matter what it costs their colleagues. In the end their overreach could be a good thing for freedom, as it would sweep Democrats out of power and a more conservative U.S. House and Senate would be the result.
Bill Clinton sees all this, but thankfully he wasn't heeded, as this is going to end badly for the Democrats, who are now locked into a battle they can no longer disengage from. Some of them are so delusional as to believe the media reports that Americans are behind their push to crush the Second Amendment and take away the right to bear arms.
They can say what they want, the majority of Americans know this is there end game, with so-called assault weapons and universal background checks the Trojan Horse to get them in.
Whatever happens, this will be a win/win for Second Amendment supporters, as either the Democrats will cave and they'll be voted out of office, or they'll decide to represent their constituents and vote against the draconian gun restrictions trying to be imposed on the American people.
Even if they vote for gun control, it's likely not to affect gun supporters, as it doesn't appear there are enough votes to get anything significant passed at the federal level. What it would do is open the door for Republican and/or Tea Party candidates to come into office.
As far as it relates to the right to bear arms, that is a far better scenario than exists now.
The problem for the Democrats is they have gone all in on this, as the liberal media quickly and ferociously joined the cause, with the usual lack of understanding and interest in the millions of Americans whom don't line up with their ideology, and the media don't understand or care about.
That has raised the stakes for Democrats in states with a majority which resist the gun control efforts of the national Democrats, who are rightly perceived as being out of touch with them.
Vulnerable Democratic senators include Max Baucus of Montana, Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Kay Hagan of North Carolina, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Begich of Alaska and Tim Johnson of South Dakota.
The big question lingering in the minds of many people is the career sacrifices forced on Democrats in the Obamacare fiasco, where those refusing to represent the states they were supposed to either refused to run because they were going to get slaughtered by their opponents, or they ran and got voted out.
Will the national, Obama Democrats force this upon there fellow Democrats again, even though it would no doubt cost them the Senate? That seems to be the real question people are waiting to have answered.
These Democrats especially, and others as well, know they don't have the luxury of being coy over time, as these decisions are being forced upon them now, not after the next elections.
For national, liberal Democrats, they will view them as traitors because they don't care at all about them or the people they serve. They are driven by ideology, and the people in mid-America, the south, and parts of the west know this.
Mainstream media are attempting to create the illusion of a consensus and overwhelming support for gun legislation, but that's a complete fabrication, other than in the obvious liberal bastions in parts of the country.
Because the extremist went all in, they now can't back down. This is a fight they will continue no matter what it costs their colleagues. In the end their overreach could be a good thing for freedom, as it would sweep Democrats out of power and a more conservative U.S. House and Senate would be the result.
Bill Clinton sees all this, but thankfully he wasn't heeded, as this is going to end badly for the Democrats, who are now locked into a battle they can no longer disengage from. Some of them are so delusional as to believe the media reports that Americans are behind their push to crush the Second Amendment and take away the right to bear arms.
They can say what they want, the majority of Americans know this is there end game, with so-called assault weapons and universal background checks the Trojan Horse to get them in.
Whatever happens, this will be a win/win for Second Amendment supporters, as either the Democrats will cave and they'll be voted out of office, or they'll decide to represent their constituents and vote against the draconian gun restrictions trying to be imposed on the American people.
Even if they vote for gun control, it's likely not to affect gun supporters, as it doesn't appear there are enough votes to get anything significant passed at the federal level. What it would do is open the door for Republican and/or Tea Party candidates to come into office.
As far as it relates to the right to bear arms, that is a far better scenario than exists now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)