ChiefsPlanet

ChiefsPlanet (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/index.php)
-   D.C. (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/forumdisplay.php?f=30)
-   -   U.S. Issues The Dramatic Dem Hypocrisy on Gun Control (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=267895)

petegz28 12-21-2012 07:27 AM

The Dramatic Dem Hypocrisy on Gun Control
 
Pelosi: Harry Reid and 'Big Money' Are the Reasons I Didn't Hold Any Votes on Gun Control from 2009 to 2011

At a press conference in the Capitol on Wednesday, House Democrats lashed out at opponents of new gun control measures.

“There are no arguments against doing something,” said Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut. “The notion that more Americans, quote unquote, in the words of Governor Perry ‘packing heat’ will make us safer is not founded in reality, facts, or history. It is founded in the fantasy of testosterone-laden individuals who have blood on their hands for articulating that idea.”

Rep. John Larson, another Democrat from Connecticut, agreed with his colleague and said that "to do nothing is to be complicit" with mass murder.

But when nearly 260 Democrats controlled the House from 2009 to 2011, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi didn't hold a single vote on gun control. Why not?

“Perhaps you’re familiar with the 60-vote rule in the Senate," Pelosi told me. "Our members are very courageous. They’ll walk the plank on any tough vote. But I don’t want them to walk the plank on something that’s not going to become the law.”

“This is a very high priority for us," Pelosi continued. "But because of what is—money. Let’s face it. Big money out there on the side of those would be opposed to gun safety.”

“The fact is if there was no prospect of success, we wanted the members to be here to continue to make the fight, so that when there was a prospect of success they would be here rather than being cleared out by the NRA,” Pelosi added.

Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado, the Democrats' chief deputy whip, chimed in to support Pelosi. “We had the votes to pass sensible gun legislation through the House, but when the Senate said that they couldn’t do it with the 60 votes, the leader made the decision that this really wasn’t the thing to do at the time," said DeGette. "We were trying to pass health care reform and other issues."

From 2009 to 2011 there were either 59 or 60 Democrats in the Senate, plus five Republicans who had voted for the "assault weapons ban" in 2004 (Judd Gregg, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, and Dick Lugar). In other words, it was Democratic opposition in the Senate, chiefly from Majority Leader Harry Reid, that disuaded Pelosi from holding a single vote on gun control from 2009 to 2011.

Of course, Pelosi was more than willing to vote on other measures, such as cap-and-trade, that stood little chance of passing the Senate. Why did Pelosi choose to ratchet up pressure on Senate Democrats over cap-and-trade but not gun control? "Well, I’m not going to speculate about that," DeGette told me following the press conference.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ds_690733.html

petegz28 12-21-2012 07:30 AM

It was his fault..

No, it was your fault...

No, it was your fault but not really

No, it was his fault but not really

NRA, bad, boo, money


Then the whole "if you pack heat you have blood on your hands" crap.

JFC, what a bunch of dramatic, pussies.

donkhater 12-21-2012 07:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 9229265)
Pelosi: Harry Reid and 'Big Money' Are the Reasons I Didn't Hold Any Votes on Gun Control from 2009 to 2011

At a press conference in the Capitol on Wednesday, House Democrats lashed out at opponents of new gun control measures.

“There are no arguments against doing something,” said Rep. Jim Himes of Connecticut. “The notion that more Americans, quote unquote, in the words of Governor Perry ‘packing heat’ will make us safer is not founded in reality, facts, or history. It is founded in the fantasy of testosterone-laden individuals who have blood on their hands for articulating that idea.”

Rep. John Larson, another Democrat from Connecticut, agreed with his colleague and said that "to do nothing is to be complicit" with mass murder.

But when nearly 260 Democrats controlled the House from 2009 to 2011, then-Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi didn't hold a single vote on gun control. Why not?

“Perhaps you’re familiar with the 60-vote rule in the Senate," Pelosi told me. "Our members are very courageous. They’ll walk the plank on any tough vote. But I don’t want them to walk the plank on something that’s not going to become the law.”
“This is a very high priority for us," Pelosi continued. "But because of what is—money. Let’s face it. Big money out there on the side of those would be opposed to gun safety.”

“The fact is if there was no prospect of success, we wanted the members to be here to continue to make the fight, so that when there was a prospect of success they would be here rather than being cleared out by the NRA,” Pelosi added.

Rep. Diana DeGette of Colorado, the Democrats' chief deputy whip, chimed in to support Pelosi. “We had the votes to pass sensible gun legislation through the House, but when the Senate said that they couldn’t do it with the 60 votes, the leader made the decision that this really wasn’t the thing to do at the time," said DeGette. "We were trying to pass health care reform and other issues."

From 2009 to 2011 there were either 59 or 60 Democrats in the Senate, plus five Republicans who had voted for the "assault weapons ban" in 2004 (Judd Gregg, Olympia Snowe, Susan Collins, George Voinovich, and Dick Lugar). In other words, it was Democratic opposition in the Senate, chiefly from Majority Leader Harry Reid, that disuaded Pelosi from holding a single vote on gun control from 2009 to 2011.

Of course, Pelosi was more than willing to vote on other measures, such as cap-and-trade, that stood little chance of passing the Senate. Why did Pelosi choose to ratchet up pressure on Senate Democrats over cap-and-trade but not gun control? "Well, I’m not going to speculate about that," DeGette told me following the press conference.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/...ds_690733.html

Our members are courageous, but only if it is a slam dunk it will pass.ROFL

petegz28 12-21-2012 07:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donkhater (Post 9229294)
Our members are courageous, but only if it is a slam dunk it will pass.ROFL


Yeah, I found that so hillarious. "We are courageous, as long as we know we will win"

Prison Bitch 12-21-2012 11:29 AM

1. Something bad happens
2. Find group that you hate
3. Blame it immediately on them


It's rather annoying, but predictable when they behave in this manner.

KC native 12-21-2012 11:31 AM

Pete thread is pete thread

BucEyedPea 12-21-2012 01:48 PM

If guns are so bad by Obama's government, then why did it recently purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition and sniper rounds? What are they planning or planning for?

This is a reason to get more guns.We're dealing with an out-of-control gang of tyrants in the White House.


http://lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m27.1.html

Fish 12-21-2012 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by petegz28 (Post 9229274)
It was his fault..

No, it was your fault...

No, it was your fault but not really

No, it was his fault but not really

NRA, bad, boo, money


Then the whole "if you pack heat you have blood on your hands" crap.

JFC, what a bunch of dramatic, pussies.

Not even that. Simply articulating the idea resulted in blood on the hands..

WTF?

Reaper16 12-21-2012 01:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea (Post 9230271)
If guns are so bad by Obama's government under , then why did it recently purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition and sniper Rounds? What are they planning or planning for.

This is a reason to get more guns.We're dealing with an out-of-control gang of tyrants in the White House.


http://lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m27.1.html

This is something I've been wondering for a few years now: if one believes that the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government -- if it is the duty of the citizenry to, as is stated in the Declaration of Independence, "alter or abolish" any government that becomes tyrannical -- then what the Hell are we waiting for? Why aren't we raising our arms en masse to overthrow the tyrants?

Fish 12-21-2012 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea (Post 9230271)
If guns are so bad by Obama's government under , then why did it recently purchase 1.6 billion rounds of ammunition and sniper Rounds? What are they planning or planning for.

This is a reason to get more guns.We're dealing with an out-of-control gang of tyrants in the White House.


http://lewrockwell.com/adams-m/adams-m27.1.html

Why? Because they needed ammo for numerous departments, and made a deal to acquire a large supply that would last them for over 5 years. It's as simple as that.

|Zach| 12-21-2012 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 9230304)
This is something I've been wondering for a few years now: if one believes that the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government -- if it is the duty of the citizenry to, as is stated in the Declaration of Independence, "alter or abolish" any government that becomes tyrannical -- then what the Hell are we waiting for? Why aren't we raising our arms en masse to overthrow the tyrants?

It is easy to talk.

BucEyedPea 12-21-2012 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Reaper16 (Post 9230304)
This is something I've been wondering for a few years now: if one believes that the 2nd Amendment's purpose is to allow citizens to protect themselves from a tyrannical government -- if it is the duty of the citizenry to, as is stated in the Declaration of Independence, "alter or abolish" any government that becomes tyrannical -- then what the Hell are we waiting for? Why aren't we raising our arms en masse to overthrow the tyrants?

Well, private gun sales are soaring. Some speculate a civil war if we get any social unrest as more unravels. I hear the bond market it going to bust. I give things 6 months before we see anything like that.

BucEyedPea 12-21-2012 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fish (Post 9230329)
Why? Because they needed ammo for numerous departments, and made a deal to acquire a large supply that would last them for over 5 years. It's as simple as that.

Various departments? It was the DHS. There's a pdf link in that link I showed showing their order. Besides, just what do any of the various departments need 450 million rounds of .40 hollow point ammo and the rest of what they purchased for ? Is this a common and routine thing?

And if that is for armed defense, then why do they get to practice self-defense but not the people?

Amnorix 12-21-2012 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea (Post 9230413)
Well, private gun sales are soaring. Some speculate a civil war if we get any social unrest as more unravels. I hear the bond market it going to bust. I give things 6 months before we see anything like that.


How long have you been "speculat[ing] civil war". Seems like since day 1 of you being on this board...

Fish 12-21-2012 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea (Post 9230422)
Various departments? It was the DHS. There's a pdf link in that link I showed showing their order. Besides, just what do any of the various departments need 450 million rounds of .40 hollow point ammo and the rest of what they purchased for ? Is this a common and routine thing?

And if that is for armed defense, then why do they get to practice self-defense but not the people?

Shouldn't you know the answers to that before suggesting that White House tyrants are buying bullets in bulk to use against the people?


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 12:18 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.