Home FAQ Search Memberlist User Groups Register Login   

BloggingTories.ca Forum IndexBloggingTories.ca Forum Index
    Index     FAQ     Search     Register     Login         JOIN THE DISCUSSION - CLICK HERE      

*NEW* Login or register using your Facebook account.

Not a member? Join the fastest growing conservative community!
Membership is free and takes 15 seconds


CLICK HERE or use Facebook to login or register ----> Connect



Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  

Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1179
Reputation: 111.1
votes: 1

PostPosted: Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:07 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I just don't see what's wrong with knew gun laws.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4158
Reputation: 239
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sat Apr 13, 2013 12:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

None of the changes proposed would have prevented any of the recent massacres.

These legal changes are a combination of magic thinking and an effort to disarm the law-abiding so that the outlaws won't get hurt in the kind of home invasions we have in Canada.

Disarming the public is one of the first things that dictators do when they mean to usurp Constitutions. The Zimbabwean dictator, Mugabe, for instance, disarmed the white farmers before unleashing his 'militia' on them, and ultimately expropriating their farms from them. It may seem far-fetched, but it's not.

Quote:
Here’s a little history lesson regarding gun-grabbing and the carnage that ensued: In 1929, the Soviet Union established gun control. From 1929 to 1953, about 20 million dissidents, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

In 1911, Turkey established gun control. From 1915 to 1917, 1.5 million Armenians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Germany established gun control in 1938 and from 1939 to 1945, a total of 13 million Jews and others who were unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

China established gun control in 1935. From 1948 to 1952, 20 million political dissidents, unable to defend themselves were rounded up and exterminated.

Guatemala established gun control in 1964. From 1964 to 1981, 100,000 Mayan Indians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Uganda established gun control in 1970. From 1971 to 1979, 300,000 Christians, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Cambodia established gun control in 1956. From 1975 to 1977, one million educated people, unable to defend themselves, were rounded up and exterminated.

Defenseless people rounded up and exterminated in the 20th century because of gun control: 56 million.
http://patdollard.com/2013/01/.....the-world/


That's the argument.

There's another part of the argument. Restrictive gun laws have little to do with the number of gun deaths, and often show an inverse relationship. Many of the cities where the murder rate is very high are places where guns are totally banned -- like Obama's home town of Chicago.

This is a lot like Alan Rock's long-rifle registration plan. The officials mean to choke off the supply of guns, and to make it too expensive for most people to keep licensed firearms. Background checks are felt to be the first step in creating a gun registry, which could be used to confiscate guns later.
Progressive Tory





Joined: 04 Dec 2010
Posts: 1179
Reputation: 111.1
votes: 1

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well they need something done down there because their gun crimes are not normal.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4158
Reputation: 239
votes: 8

PostPosted: Sun Apr 14, 2013 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Actually, the greatest part of the USA is no more prone to violence than Canada is.

But this thread isn't about that. It's about a possible split in the Republican Party.
Bugs





Joined: 16 Dec 2009
Posts: 4158
Reputation: 239
votes: 8

PostPosted: Mon Apr 15, 2013 12:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

New addition, on the developing split in the Republican Party.

Quote:
Boehner: There’s no rule that says I need a Republican majority in order to pass bills in the House

This is exactly what you want to hear with bills on gun control and immigration in the pipeline.

Dude, I’m nervous.

Quote:
House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) signaled Thursday that he may continue to bypass a House Republican rule [i.e. the "Hastert Rule"] that has required any legislation being voted upon to have the support of a majority of the GOP conference…

He said at a news conference Thursday that he will continue to try and follow it in spirit, but also suggested he might well violate it for upcoming votes on guns, immigration and the budget.

“Listen: It was never a rule to begin with,” Boehner said. “And certainly my prerogative – my intention is to always pass bills with strong Republican support.”


He’s violated the Hastert Rule several times on budgetary matters, most notably the fiscal-cliff deal (and as recently as two days ago), but caving on cultural hot-buttons like background checks and amnesty has the makings of a Category Five shinolastorm among the base. Some House conservatives are already warning him not to cross the line:

Quote:
The effort is being led by Reps. Paul Broun, a Senate hopeful gunning for Georgia’s open seat, and Steve Stockman, a Texas Republican who gained notoriety earlier this year for inviting rocker/2nd Amendment-defender Ted Nugent to the State of the Union.

“We are writing to express our strong opposition to legislation requiring private sale background checks for firearms purchases,” the letter reads. “Under the precedents and traditions of the House, we would ask that no gun legislation be brought to the floor of the House unless it has the support of a majority of our caucus.”…

A spokesman for Rep. Stockman says more than 45 Republicans have signed the letter, although it’s doubtful a “Hastert majority” of the House GOP will endorse it.


Other House members are warning him to follow regular order on immigration and not try to rush the bill through. Could a bill even get through GOP-dominated House committees, though? The only way to get something passed might be to violate both the Hastert Rule and regular order: Bypass the committees, rush something to the floor, and then hope that a unanimous Democratic caucus and critical mass of 30 or so GOP squishes rams it through. The question is, what if that happens? Will the caucus, under the microscope of a shady amnesty vote, be forced to oust him as Speaker? Or is Jonathan Bernstein right that tea-party congressmen kind of like the idea of seeing popular legislation pass, which arguably helps the party in the aggregate, while being able to vote no on it, which helps them in their home districts? It’s certainly true that, for all of Boehner’s anti-Hastert-Rule heresies, there’s been no serious effort to depose him. But maybe on immigration and, especially, on guns, the caucus would have no choice. If a bad bill passes and they don’t dump him, conservatives back home might hold it against them regardless of whether they voted no on the bill itself.
http://hotair.com/archives/201.....the-house/


It sounds to me as if party discipline in the Republican Party is collapsing over gun control.

Comments?
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3  


 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You can attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Are the Republicans splitting?

phpBBCopyright 2001, 2005 phpBB