Ohio Chatter
Ohio Chatter

Forums

All Threads Serious Business Sports Politics Archive Pick 'ems Wordio
Log In Create Account

The CT shooting and gun control

Home ▸ Archive ▸ Politics ▸ The CT shooting and gun control
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Apr 18, 2013 1:13 PM
Is there any way we can see who voted for it and who voted against it?
Apr 18, 2013 9:13am
W

wkfan

Senior Member

1,641 posts
Apr 18, 2013 1:26 PM
FatHobbit;1427992 wrote:Is there any way we can see who voted for it and who voted against it?
http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gun-control-amendment-votes-041713

[LEFT]For:
  • Baldwin (D-WI)
  • Bennet (D-CO)
  • Blumenthal (D-CT)
  • Boxer (D-CA)
  • Brown (D-OH)
  • Cantwell (D-WA)
  • Cardin (D-MD)
  • Carper (D-DE)
  • Casey (D-PA)
  • Collins (R-ME)
  • Coons (D-DE)
  • Cowan (D-MA)
  • Donnelly (D-IN)
  • Durbin (D-IL)
  • Feinstein (D-CA)
  • Franken (D-MN)
  • Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Hagan (D-NC)
  • Harkin (D-IA)
  • Heinrich (D-NM)
  • Hirono (D-HI)
  • Johnson (D-SD)
  • Kaine (D-VA)
  • King (I-ME)
  • Kirk (R-IL)
  • Klobuchar (D-MN)
  • Landrieu (D-LA)
  • Lautenberg (D-NJ)
  • Leahy (D-VT)
  • Levin (D-MI)
  • Manchin (D-WV)
  • McCain (R-AZ)
  • McCaskill (D-MO)
  • Menendez (D-NJ)
  • Merkley (D-OR)
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  • Murphy (D-CT)
  • Murray (D-WA)
  • Nelson (D-FL)
  • Reed (D-RI)
  • Rockefeller (D-WV)
  • Sanders (I-VT)
  • Schatz (D-HI)
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  • Shaheen (D-NH)
  • Stabenow (D-MI)
  • Tester (D-MT)
  • Toomey (R-PA)
  • Udall (D-CO)
  • Udall (D-NM)
  • Warner (D-VA)
  • Warren (D-MA)
  • Whitehouse (D-RI)
  • Wyden (D-OR)
Against:
  • Alexander (R-TN)
  • Ayotte (R-NH)
  • Barrasso (R-WY)
  • Baucus (D-MT)
  • Begich (D-AK)
  • Blunt (R-MO)
  • Boozman (R-AR)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Chambliss (R-GA)
  • Coats (R-IN)
  • Coburn (R-OK)
  • Cochran (R-MS)
  • Corker (R-TN)
  • Cornyn (R-TX)
  • Crapo (R-ID)
  • Cruz (R-TX)
  • Enzi (R-WY)
  • Fischer (R-NE)
  • Flake (R-AZ)
  • Graham (R-SC)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • Hatch (R-UT)
  • Heitkamp (D-ND)
  • Heller (R-NV)
  • Hoeven (R-ND)
  • Inhofe (R-OK)
  • Isakson (R-GA)
  • Johanns (R-NE)
  • Johnson (R-WI)
  • Lee (R-UT)
  • McConnell (R-KY)
  • Moran (R-KS)
  • Murkowski (R-AK)
  • Paul (R-KY)
  • Portman (R-OH)
  • Pryor (D-AR)
  • Reid (D-NV)
  • Risch (R-ID)
  • Roberts (R-KS)
  • Rubio (R-FL)
  • Scott (R-SC)
  • Sessions (R-AL)
  • Shelby (R-AL)
  • Thune (R-SD)
  • Vitter (R-LA)
  • Wicker (R-MS)
[/LEFT]
Apr 18, 2013 9:26am
fish82's avatar

fish82

Senior Member

4,111 posts
Apr 18, 2013 1:56 PM
gut;1427681 wrote:CNN headline: "Obama: Opponents willfully lied"

Said Mitt Romney: "that sucks, bro"
LOL. Reppage.

Once again, Obie's go-to combo of leadership fail/cry & blame others shines brightly.
Apr 18, 2013 9:56am
FatHobbit's avatar

FatHobbit

Senior Member

8,651 posts
Apr 18, 2013 2:02 PM
wkfan;1428006 wrote:http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/gun-control-amendment-votes-041713

[LEFT]For:
  • Baldwin (D-WI)
  • Bennet (D-CO)
  • Blumenthal (D-CT)
  • Boxer (D-CA)
  • Brown (D-OH)
  • Cantwell (D-WA)
  • Cardin (D-MD)
  • Carper (D-DE)
  • Casey (D-PA)
  • Collins (R-ME)
  • Coons (D-DE)
  • Cowan (D-MA)
  • Donnelly (D-IN)
  • Durbin (D-IL)
  • Feinstein (D-CA)
  • Franken (D-MN)
  • Gillibrand (D-NY)
  • Hagan (D-NC)
  • Harkin (D-IA)
  • Heinrich (D-NM)
  • Hirono (D-HI)
  • Johnson (D-SD)
  • Kaine (D-VA)
  • King (I-ME)
  • Kirk (R-IL)
  • Klobuchar (D-MN)
  • Landrieu (D-LA)
  • Lautenberg (D-NJ)
  • Leahy (D-VT)
  • Levin (D-MI)
  • Manchin (D-WV)
  • McCain (R-AZ)
  • McCaskill (D-MO)
  • Menendez (D-NJ)
  • Merkley (D-OR)
  • Mikulski (D-MD)
  • Murphy (D-CT)
  • Murray (D-WA)
  • Nelson (D-FL)
  • Reed (D-RI)
  • Rockefeller (D-WV)
  • Sanders (I-VT)
  • Schatz (D-HI)
  • Schumer (D-NY)
  • Shaheen (D-NH)
  • Stabenow (D-MI)
  • Tester (D-MT)
  • Toomey (R-PA)
  • Udall (D-CO)
  • Udall (D-NM)
  • Warner (D-VA)
  • Warren (D-MA)
  • Whitehouse (D-RI)
  • Wyden (D-OR)
Against:
  • Alexander (R-TN)
  • Ayotte (R-NH)
  • Barrasso (R-WY)
  • Baucus (D-MT)
  • Begich (D-AK)
  • Blunt (R-MO)
  • Boozman (R-AR)
  • Burr (R-NC)
  • Chambliss (R-GA)
  • Coats (R-IN)
  • Coburn (R-OK)
  • Cochran (R-MS)
  • Corker (R-TN)
  • Cornyn (R-TX)
  • Crapo (R-ID)
  • Cruz (R-TX)
  • Enzi (R-WY)
  • Fischer (R-NE)
  • Flake (R-AZ)
  • Graham (R-SC)
  • Grassley (R-IA)
  • Hatch (R-UT)
  • Heitkamp (D-ND)
  • Heller (R-NV)
  • Hoeven (R-ND)
  • Inhofe (R-OK)
  • Isakson (R-GA)
  • Johanns (R-NE)
  • Johnson (R-WI)
  • Lee (R-UT)
  • McConnell (R-KY)
  • Moran (R-KS)
  • Murkowski (R-AK)
  • Paul (R-KY)
  • Portman (R-OH)
  • Pryor (D-AR)
  • Reid (D-NV)
  • Risch (R-ID)
  • Roberts (R-KS)
  • Rubio (R-FL)
  • Scott (R-SC)
  • Sessions (R-AL)
  • Shelby (R-AL)
  • Thune (R-SD)
  • Vitter (R-LA)
  • Wicker (R-MS)
[/LEFT]
thank you
Apr 18, 2013 10:02am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Apr 19, 2013 9:32 AM
Admit it...you want to grab a gun and drive to Boston
Apr 19, 2013 5:32am
tk421's avatar

tk421

Senior Member

8,500 posts
Apr 19, 2013 9:51 AM
gut;1428925 wrote:Admit it...you want to grab a gun and drive to Boston
No, but I would damn sure want a gun in my house at a time like now. People always ask why you need to be armed, this is the reason. Shelter in place, armed, and don't open the door unless it is an IDed police officer.
Apr 19, 2013 5:51am
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Apr 19, 2013 10:58 AM
tk421;1428929 wrote:No, but I would damn sure want a gun in my house at a time like now. People always ask why you need to be armed, this is the reason. Shelter in place, armed, and don't open the door unless it is an IDed police officer.
Basically. My comment was more political ;)
Apr 19, 2013 6:58am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Apr 19, 2013 12:20 PM
tk421;1428929 wrote:No, but I would damn sure want a gun in my house at a time like now. People always ask why you need to be armed, this is the reason. Shelter in place, armed, and don't open the door unless it is an IDed police officer.
Reps.
Apr 19, 2013 8:20am
justincredible's avatar

justincredible

Nick Mangold

32,056 posts
Apr 19, 2013 1:37 PM
tk421;1428929 wrote:No, but I would damn sure want a gun in my house at a time like now. People always ask why you need to be armed, this is the reason. Shelter in place, armed, and don't open the door unless it is an IDed police officer.
Abso-fucking-lutely.
Apr 19, 2013 9:37am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Apr 19, 2013 1:40 PM
tk421;1428929 wrote:No, but I would damn sure want a gun in my house at a time like now. People always ask why you need to be armed, this is the reason. Shelter in place, armed, and don't open the door unless it is an IDed police officer.


Wait, you think that is better than calling a dumba$$ bureaucrat at 911?
Apr 19, 2013 9:40am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Apr 19, 2013 4:08 PM
QuakerOats;1429142 wrote:Wait, you think that is better than calling a dumba$$ bureaucrat at 911?
Now, that's kind of harsh. Some cops are genuinely good cops.

But even still, if you had to choose between the two options below, it's a slam dunk:

- You with a gun present in 0 seconds.
- Someone else with a gun there in 5-10 minutes.
Apr 19, 2013 12:08pm
HitsRus's avatar

HitsRus

Senior Member

9,206 posts
Apr 19, 2013 7:57 PM
No, but I would damn sure want a gun in my house at a time like now. People always ask why you need to be armed, this is the reason. Shelter in place, armed, and don't open the door unless it is an IDed police officer.
yep.

We were talking about the very same thing in the office this AM.
Apr 19, 2013 3:57pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Apr 20, 2013 4:26 AM
ccrunner609;1430321 wrote:unreal. How is this tard still in office? Just ignore the constitution and the body of elected officials that protect it.
Disagree with it all you want, but Obama didn't invent legislating by executive order and I don't believe he's done more or less of it than his predecessors
Apr 20, 2013 12:26am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Apr 20, 2013 1:07 PM
gut;1430345 wrote:Disagree with it all you want, but Obama didn't invent legislating by executive order and I don't believe he's done more or less of it than his predecessors
Which makes it no less wrong.
Apr 20, 2013 9:07am
Q

QuakerOats

Senior Member

8,740 posts
Apr 20, 2013 1:20 PM
ccrunner609;1430321 wrote:unreal. How is this tard still in office? Just ignore the constitution and the body of elected officials that protect it.

Yes, it is [almost] unreal. The government forbids The People from sharing health information (Hippa), but will demand it themselves when attempting to control you and exert government force. The Constitutional wall built around The People to protect The People from government tyranny is being attacked on all fronts by the radicals in this administration. It is [almost] unreal what is happening to The People by the radicals who crave complete power and control over The People. We have seen this play out on the world stage before; the masses can be fooled.
Apr 20, 2013 9:20am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Apr 20, 2013 3:09 PM
WebFire;1430383 wrote:Which makes it no less wrong.
Agreed, but it also shows that doing it is apparently not enough to keep someone out of office (or get the removed).

The precedect was set before he got there.
Apr 20, 2013 11:09am
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Apr 20, 2013 3:13 PM
O-Trap;1430425 wrote:Agreed, but it also shows that doing it is apparently not enough to keep someone out of office (or get the removed).

The precedect was set before he got there.
So you are ok with it? We should just keep letting Presidents doing this since the previous ones did?
Apr 20, 2013 11:13am
Devils Advocate's avatar

Devils Advocate

Brudda o da bomber

4,539 posts
Apr 20, 2013 3:14 PM
Break out the "signing statements!!!!"
Apr 20, 2013 11:14am
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Apr 20, 2013 4:30 PM
WebFire;1430431 wrote:So you are ok with it? We should just keep letting Presidents doing this since the previous ones did?
Not at all. I'm just saying that it's not unreal. This is the status quo ... the precedent. There is nothing any more outlandish about his behavior than there has been about prior presidents' behaviors in this regard.

So it should come as no surprise. Neither should we be blind-sided by it. In fact, we should expect it with each administration until such time as something is done to change it.
Apr 20, 2013 12:30pm
G

gut

Senior Member

15,058 posts
Apr 20, 2013 9:05 PM
O-Trap;1430470 wrote:Not at all. I'm just saying that it's not unreal. This is the status quo ... the precedent. There is nothing any more outlandish about his behavior than there has been about prior presidents' behaviors in this regard.

So it should come as no surprise. Neither should we be blind-sided by it. In fact, we should expect it with each administration until such time as something is done to change it.
But help me out here. Executive Orders are intended to lay out/organize, or whatever you want to call it, how the POTUS will enforce the laws passed by Congress. Every LEGAL executive order must therefore have it's roots in existing law, and they do (as do Obama's). The issue, obviously, is how much leeway they take in doing so, and whether it amounts to setting new law.

Is Obama doing and end-around here? Obviously. Is it illegal or an abuse of power? That's much more uncertain.
Apr 20, 2013 5:05pm
O-Trap's avatar

O-Trap

Chief Shenanigans Officer

14,994 posts
Apr 20, 2013 10:50 PM
gut;1430577 wrote:But help me out here. Executive Orders are intended to lay out/organize, or whatever you want to call it, how the POTUS will enforce the laws passed by Congress. Every LEGAL executive order must therefore have it's roots in existing law, and they do (as do Obama's). The issue, obviously, is how much leeway they take in doing so, and whether it amounts to setting new law.

Is Obama doing and end-around here? Obviously. Is it illegal or an abuse of power? That's much more uncertain.
I don't disagree with anything you've said here.
Apr 20, 2013 6:50pm
W

WebFire

Go Bucks!

14,779 posts
Apr 24, 2013 2:21 PM
And people wonder why pro-gun people fight so hard against ANY legistation. Most anti-gun people have NO clue what they are evening trying to ban. :rolleyes:
In an odd display of ignorance during a Denver Post forum on gun control, CO Rep. Diana DeGette (D)didn’t seem to understand the obvious basics of how firearms work, all the while being a lead sponsor on a federal ban of high-capacity magazines. As you can see in the video above, the Congresswomen seems to think magazines and ammunition are somehow one and the same and that after their initial use will no longer exist.

“I will tell you these are ammunition, they’re bullets, so the people who have those now they’re going to shoot them, so if you ban them in the future, the number of these high capacity magazines is going to decrease dramatically over time because the bullets will have been shot and there won’t be any more available.”
http://www.guns.com/2013/04/03/lead-sponsor-of-federal-high-capacity-ban-was-unaware-magazines-could-be-reloaded-video/
Apr 24, 2013 10:21am