‘I Don’t Understand It’: McCain Blasts GOP Threat to Filibuster Gun Bill

[MrsPincince]

http://news.yahoo.com/don-t-understand-mccain-blasts-gop-threat-filibuster-194023898.html

Sen. John McCain on Sunday once again found himself at odds with Republican colleagues Rand Paul and Ted Cruz when he slammed their intention to filibuster any gun legislation.

"I don't understand it," the Arizona Republican said on CBS' "Face the Nation." "The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand."

A number of GOP senators, including Paul (Ky.), Cruz (Texas), Mike Lee of Utah and Marco Rubio of Florida, signed a letter to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) vowing to filibuster any gun bills.

"I don't understand it," McCain repeated. "What are we afraid of?...If this issue is as important as all of us think it is...why not take it up and debate?"

He added that "everybody wants the same goal, to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally disabled."

McCain previously ran afoul of the group when he referred to them as "wacko birds" following Paul's filibuster John Brennan's confirmation as CIA director.

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), also on "Face the Nation" agreed that it would be "very wrong" to filibuster and said senators should at least be allowed to debate.

"Please let us go to the floor," Schumer said. "If we go to the floor, I'm still hopeful that what I call the sweet spot, background checks, can succeed...hopefully people will rise to the occasion."

[Barb135]

"The only party forcing their beliefs on anyone is the republican party because they REFUSE to accept that the country is changing and will continue to change."  Many of us don't think it's changing in a positive direction, but I do agree with those who say the tea partiers are making it impossible for the Republicans to compromise.  The problem is, there are a lot of people who actually agree with these radical thoughts (that's how they got elected) and they think everyone should be forced adhere.  But then we have the left that keeps wanting to add more and more laws to the ones we already have that either don't work or aren't being enforced.  IMO, both sides are equally guilty of trying to push their own agenda.  

"the recent stabbing/slashing doesn't have anybody throwing out their steak knives..."  No, but if guns kill people, then ink pens make writing errors and spoons make people fat...... I can make my ink pens behave, but my spoons have to go.  :-)

"Maybe a stricter background might have revealed that the deputy was a bona fide moron"  Fortunately for most of us being a moron isn't against the law.  I don't know of anyone who hasn't done something stupid/idiotic at one time or another.  You'd think a law officer would know better than to put a loaded gun on a bed in reach of a toddler, but then you'd also expect that toddler's parents to make sure they knew exactly where he was/what he was doing at every moment.  It wasn't only the law officer that was negligent.  

[brice1967]

I'm not trying to pick a fight here, but I don't know as if you are aware of what you are saying.  You agree with the majority of democrats (and the majority of republicans for that matter) that the country is changing.

Whats different here is your belief system (democrat/liberal) compared to the other side (republican/conservative).  The liberals are saying "times are changing" and that is their belief.  They want more people to come around to their way of thinking.  (That would be the sugar coated way to say "pushing an agenda".)

Both sides to this all of the time.  It's what sways voters from time to time.

[R Glass]

Here’s one example,

Chris Murphy Asks Rupert Murdoch Not To Air 'NRA 500' NASCAR Race

"Murdoch has himself called for stricter gun control laws several times over the past year, but his media properties have not always echoed him.

In his letter, Murphy, a Democrat, cited Murdoch's views on the issue and pleaded with him to cancel the broadcast:"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/12/chris-murphy-rupert-murdoch-nra-500-nascar-race_n_3068426.html

[Proactive]

Without compromise it's pretty difficult for a democratic system to function at all, let alone in a productive way.

[rivll]

Each side thinks they have the solutions to the nations ills and spend billions during the election cycle trying to tell us what makes "them" the reasonable alternative. --------------------------------------------------------------
I have to agree with you Brice.

I personally would be a lot more open to conservative views if the Tea party ilk were out of the picture. They really get my back up and I react.
Imo, they are responsible for much of the polarization in this country.

[specialmom]

I think it is all in one's perception.  I feel the Democratic party is just as big on forcing their ideas down my throat as Democrats feel the Republicans are.  

[MrsPincince]

"The only party forcing their beliefs on anyone is the republican party"
That was about as far as I could Stomach."

Why? because its the truth and I guess you don't want to admit it...

[Proactive]

"Obama's plan might hit more IRAs than you think"
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2013/04/10/presidents-budget-plan-iras-cap/2071529/

[R Glass]

"The only party forcing their beliefs on anyone is the republican party"
That was about as far as I could Stomach.

[MrsPincince]

The only party forcing their beliefs on anyone is the republican party because they REFUSE to accept that the country is changing and will continue to change. The left does not force anything on anyone. The only thing I can say that I know of that the left is "stuck  on" is probably the thought of cutting SS and Medicare. However, the majority of Americans agree with them..According to the last 2 election cycles, the majority of people have agreed with the left's views and rejected the right's views..IF the republican party would just be open to the changes occurring and not alienating people with the ridiculous things they say, they would probably have a  better shot with connecting with the Majority of American people instead of the minority. I mean, Regan did it, and Bush did it twice..It can be done. But unfortunately for them, the extreme right has the rest of the moderate right in a choke hold...I personally believe our country is a center-left country.The polls and elections prove it. I'm very anxious to see what happens in the mid-terms..It will be something....Just my 2 cents for what its worth..

[R Glass]

"is when (not if) the Left starts trying to force their views onto everyone."

That's been going for quite awhile! They're just to blind to see it.

[brice1967]

Interesting.... I've seen both the left and right trying to force their opinions on each other and the populace for...uhm, well, forever.  Each side thinks they have the solutions to the nations ills and spend billions during the election cycle trying to tell us what makes "them" the reasonable alternative.

[specialmom]

No dems or republicans would do much with the issue of gun control due to backlash from gun owners for a long time.  Dems were just as guilty.  They've got a bit more support now but it's still a touchy issue on both sides for their supporters.  

I personally kind of feel like the Left already is trying to force their views on everyone but agree in general with your statement, desrt.  

[desrt]

Better a Chicago politician in the White House than the kid with the scissors.
I think McCain understands what's going on. It's called bullying. Can you imagine what would be forced onto 'the 47%' if the GOP ever gained control of the Senate and the White House? It's the whole quease factor the Right can't escape. As long as they're willing to expend their time and fortune trying to force their morality on people, people will vote against them. The only thing that will bring the GOP back into power is when (not if) the Left starts trying to force their views onto everyone.

[Proactive]

"Because I voted for Obama?" Say what!!!!..oh the shame, the disappointment.

[MrsPincince]

Chafee, top RI lawmakers seek assault weapons ban
http://news.yahoo.com/chafee-top-ri-lawmakers-seek-150517683.html

Good Job RI....

[brice1967]

Uhm, it certainly ain't paying off yet.

[mikesimon]

So you did board that Obama Express.
Congratulations!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[brice1967]

Because I voted for Obama?

[mikesimon]

{"It's the usual stuff," Vernick said. "Historically politicians have feared even the smaller group of pro-gun folks more than the pro-gun violence prevention movement."

That's because the gun advocates are motivated by that single issue and are far more likely than their more liberal-leaning gun control counterparts to be outspoken on that particular issue, policy experts said.

"What happens is that the gun owners, the gun enthusiasts are one-issue voters, and there's been research done that shows that if you ask gun owners if they oppose gun control and you ask how vehement they are, they say 'it matters,'" said Alan Lizotte, dean and professor at the State University of New York at Albany's School of Criminal Justice. "Then you ask 'what have you done in opposing gun control.' They say 'I donated money. I wrote to my congressman. I've called my senator.'"

Those who support stricter gun controls are motivated by a broader mix of issues.

"When you ask the gun control people the same thing they're like 'what do you mean.' They have a bunch of things that matter," Lizotte said....}

http://www.cnn.com/2013/04/10/politics/background-checks-disconnect/index.html?hpt=hp_t2

I think we can see the truth in that clearly right here in our tiny little CE world.

[brice1967]

People believe this will deter crime simply because of the "need" to do something in the wake of these crimes.  Things like 26 children getting cowardly mowed down plays on almost everyone's emotions....  (the recent stabbing/slashing doesn't have anybody throwing out their steak knives... I wonder why???  It's not as sad as 26 children getting mowed down, and the fact that even anti gun people need a knife sometimes.)

There was nothing rational during the Brady Ban.  Brady was shot with a .22 revolver and the ban went after semi autos with high capacity magazines.  (I am missing the logic there.)  Gun crimes did not go down during the ban.  

So there is no looking at this with logic.  It's emotions, its misinformation (did you hear of the lady politician who thought high capacity magazines are throw aways?  Yeah, just shoot up all of the bullets in them and they are useless... as per this politician.)  Instead of the uninformed getting an education (they don't want one because of emotions) they will continue to go this route.

That's beyond sad to me because I have heard quite a few people say things about becoming "educated", but they aren't willing to become educated regarding this subject.  Sad all day long....

[R Glass]

"I know this is going to sound like a conspiracy theory, but I think the government really wants to know who has guns, hence background checks and gun registration."

Say it again!!
The next step will be, having all of your guns registered. Then they will know everyone that has a Gun. The best way to stop a second step is to not allow the first one. It blows my mind to think people actually believe this will deter crime.

[brice1967]

"So it makes sense to arm them to the teeth?"  

I don't think RGlass is saying anything close to that.  I know that I'm not.  Across the board background checks are a sticking point for some people, and I guess I can understand that.  The only place that I know of that there isn't a back ground check is private sales between 2 individuals.  (I keep hearing about "gun shows" and I can tell you from my experience with gun shows is, I've bought 2 guns in 2 different states from 2 different gun shows and had to go through the background checks.)  So, I suppose you could require background checks with private individual sales between 2 parties, but how is that going to stop crime?

Criminals typically do not go to gun shops to buy guns, so that is a strike out when trying to keep guns out of the hands of a criminal.  Criminals may purchase a gun through a private sale, but they are criminals and would do everything possible to avoid the background check that would be required if that became a law.  They would either find someone else to purchase a gun from who is equally as lawless as they are or.... go about getting guns the traditional way a criminal does and steal them.

That is the problem with across the board back ground checks.  Criminals will avoid them at all cost.  No criminal is going to register a gun.

Now, (and maybe RGlass agrees with me... if not, this is just my opinion)  if any gun dealer sells a gun without doing the back ground check, that person is a criminal and should be prosecuted.  But heres the deal with a gun dealer doing that.  A "legal" gun dealer has gone through an intense process in order to become a gun dealer.  As a dealer, he is required to have a registered inventory of his guns for sale.  Because the way the program is set up, the government also knows what this gun dealer should have as an inventory.  If a gun ends up "missing" from an inventory, normally....normally an audit takes place and there is an investigation.  If it is proved or even assumed that there was an ounce of fraud or criminal activity, the gun dealer loses his license and is probably going to be prosecuted.  If not, he is for sure on the government $hit list and his license will still be revoked and this person will be monitored forever.  In a lot of cases, his personal weapons will also be confiscated....  So there are those things to contend with already.

Criminals are going to steal guns and not register them.  Personally, I think that gun registration is a way for the government to collect more funding.  The government already knows what guns I've purchase and there is a very short paper trail with the guns I've received as gifts.

I know this is going to sound like a conspiracy theory, but I think the government really wants to know who has guns, hence background checks and gun registration.  The only down side to that is the criminal.... who will not register a gun nor purchase one legally.

[teko]

"My point is this.  Criminals do not follow laws......"
If Criminals are not following the Laws we have adding more would be futile.

So it makes sense to arm them to the teeth? That makes no sense to me. sorry.

If you give someone a gun or sell one to a private sale with no background check needed, how do you know that who you are making that sale to or giving that gun to is going to use it in a legal way? You cannot know. I see no harm in making background checks mandatory for all gun sales across the board. It should not be restricted to just gun dealers imo. But we will agree to disagree on this one. respectfully