The Dramatic Dem Hypocrisy on Gun Control

[petegz28]

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

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Self-Aggrandizement - Self-Aggrandizement is a pattern of pompous behavior, boasting, narcissism or competitiveness designed to create an appearance of superiority.

Targeted Humor, Mocking & Sarcasm - Targeted Humor is any sustained pattern of joking, sarcasm or mockery which is designed to reduce another individual's reputation in their own eyes or in the eyes of others.

Baiting and Picking Fights - Baiting and Picking Fights is the practice of generating a provocative action or statement for the purpose of obtaining an angry, aggressive or emotional response from another person.

Eh, I can live with those. But to be fair, reducing your reputation in the eyes of others is something you mostly take care of all by yourself.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Eh, I can live with those.

Those were just those three from that category's set of traits. You need to look up the other 7 under the other category.

But to be fair, reducing your reputation in the eyes of others is something you mostly take care of all by yourself.

Another generality—which is another anti-social trait. Sorry, Comrade, I still get quite a bit of pos rep. I can't expect everyone to agree.
And I never expect the left to. So who thinks that, is a net positive. I think like our Founders—am suspicious of govt power and there's more reason to today than back then because our govt is doing worse things than that king.

Meanwhile, you're the one who had a red rep panel for a long time—until some lefties came to change it.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fish

Of course. I forgot who I was talking to.

You see, the DHS is host to many different divisions. Including, but not limited to:

Federal Law Enforcement Training Center
United States Customs and Border Protection
United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement
United States Coast Guard
United States Secret Service

And when someone in the DHS needs training, like say a Federal Law Enforcement cadet, they have to do things like practice shooting guns.

Which begs the question, why do we even need a 65,000 DHS agents?
When we have FBI, CIA, BATF not to mention those you cite and our army.
It's perverse.

[CoMoChief]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Which begs the question, why do we even need a 65,000 DHS agents?
When we have FBI, CIA, BATF not to mention those you cite and our army.
It's perverse.

Because our govt has created a myth that Bin Laden and these radical muslim extremists are hiding in everyone's closets.