The LuLac Edition #2402, April 17th, 2013
COWARDS ALL
The U.S. Senate said yes to the power of the NRA and no to 90% of the public (even members of the NRA who approved of background checks) by being cowards to their own ambition. Ambition trumps saving kids any day for these people.
In addition, four Democrats, Begich of Alaska, Baucus of Montana, (the same guy that screwed the President on Health Care early on in 2009) Heitkamp in North Dakota and Pryor in Arkansas ceased to become real Democrats.
To Sandy Hook families, Mayor Bloomburg and President Obama’s political arm…..destroy these cowards when and if they have the balls to run again 2014. Fund a challenge from the left on this issue asking just one question.
Why did you vote no for background checks that would be stringently enforced to stop gun runners, rapists, possible terrorists and people with mental issues from getting guns? Explain why you favor what this guy says over 90% of the American people.
Tonight we got Chinese and I opened my Fortune Cookie. It read, “Wise men learn more from fools than fools from wise men”.
Apparently the wise men and women of the Senate are the fools for not listening to the common sense wisdom of the American people. It is time to rid the Democratic party of these disloyal and timid cowards.
FROM THE HUFFINGTON POST
NO JUSTICE OR DEBATE FOR VICTIMS
SHAME ON YOU-THE 46 COWARDS
YOU ARE NOTHING BUT EMPTY SUITS WITH A SHINY PLAQUE ON YOUR OFFICE DOOR. WHEN THE HISTORY OF THIS PERIOD IS WRITTEN, THE ONLY THING YOU WILL BE REMEMBERED FOR, IF AT ALL, IS YOUR COWARDLY BEHAVIOR. DON'T EVER DARE CALL YOURSELF A PATRIOT OR DARE SAY YOU LOVE THIS COUNTRY. BECAUSE YOU ARE FRAUDS. (That's from LuLac).
THE NO VOTES
These are the Senators who voted no on the Background checks.
1. Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN)
2. Sen. Kelly Ayotte (R-NH)
3. Sen. John Barrasso (R-WY)
4. Sen. Max Baucus (D-MT)
5. Sen. Mark Begich (D-AK)
6. Sen. Roy Blunt (R-MO)
7. Sen. John Boozman (R-AR)
8. Sen. Richard Burr (R-NC)
9. Sen. Saxby Chambliss (R-GA)
10. Sen. Dan Coats (R-IN)
11. Sen. Tom Coburn (R-OK)
12. Sen. Thad Cochran (R-MS)
13. Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN)
14. Sen. John Cornyn (R-TX)
15. Sen. Michael Crapo (R-ID)
16. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX)
17. Sen. Mike Enzi (R-WY)
18. Sen. Deb Fischer (R-NE)
19. Sen. Jeff Flake (R-AZ)
20. Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC)
21. Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA)
22. Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT)
23. Sen. Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND)
24. Sen. Dean Heller (R-NV)
25. Sen. John Hoeven (R-ND)
26. Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK)
27. Sen. Johnny Isakson (R-GA)
28. Sen. Mike Johanns (R-NE)
29. Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)
30. Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT)
31. Sen. Mitch McConnell (R-KY)
32. Sen. Jerry Moran (R-KS)
33. Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-AK)
34. Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)
35. Sen. Rob Portman (R-OH)
36. Sen. Mark Pryor (D-AR)
37. Sen. James Risch (R-ID)
38. Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS)
39. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-FL)
40. Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC)
41. Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL)
42. Sen. Richard Shelby (R-AL)
43. Sen. John Thune (R-SD)
44. Sen. David Vitter (R-LA)
45. Sen. Roger Wicker (R-MS)
posted by David Yonki @ 8:58 PM
20 comments
20 Comments:
Will someone PLEASE explain how any background check would have prevent Adam Lanza from stealing his mothers firearms.
How about the nutjob military guy who shot up Fort Hood? They even HAD mental background evidence and they are the ARMY for cryinoutloud!.
Oh and know that I do not support, approve or condone the mass murders but I'm NOT willing to grab my ankles for emotional expediency or manufactured outrage.
We have TWO HOUSES that the founders put in place in order to temper public outrage-driven reaction. Plus a Court, in case something makes it through - and an executive veto too.
As pissed as you are, like it or not you MUST support the process Yonk.
I would feel the same if anyone tried the same tactic on blog authors.
BTW: They are frauds for more substantial reasons than this.
Much of the recent gun control debate around the country has been centered around “high capacity magazines,” which begs the question, just how many rounds of ammunition should a law abiding citizen be legally capable of putting into their gun?
The answer is, as many rounds as it takes to stop a violent threat.
The will to survive mindset of those intent on doing harm is strong, and it’s important to have and use enough ammunition to stop it.
Gallup Poll: Only 4% agree guns and gun control are a top priority.
Liberals may not support a woman's right to carry a gun, but they certainly believe she should be able to get an abortion if she is impregnated by rape. Pro-life conservatives (many of whom do support exceptions for rape, incest and life of the mother) would prefer that a woman avoid getting raped in the first place by being able to blow her attacker away with a gun.
Consider:
Abortion/choice proponents may argue that the freedom to own guns means that a lot of innocent people will get killed. But pro-lifers would respond that, with abortion, an innocent person is always killed.
the Ultimate picture of the Cowardly Lion right down to the look on his face.
Wonderful choice, David.
My thought as to the "shooting" down of the background check bill is,
We have no balls! Our politicians have no balls and no souls or so it seems to me...
Cassidy
I agree with two things, first off those Democrats need to be challenged in primaries. Obama needs to use his power as a Democratic force and crush these wussies. Ed Rendell won three huge elections twice by antagonizing the NRA. Your choice of the Lion was good but the NRA is nothing but Oz behind the curtain.
Secondly, history will remember this current Congress, with a few exceptions like Casey, Cartwright and now Toomey as little pissants who are weak as a 2 week old baby.
And finally, the comment on abortion, rape and high capacity magazines is unreal. The problem with high capacity magazines is that the nuts are the people who have them. Normal people don't even think about them for protection because normal people don't want to get their jollies off shooting many rounds. A gun check would have prevented the nuts from raping the woman. And you know abortion and guns are two different issues. Abortion is a choice that should be used in rare circumstances. A killing, like Sandy Hook and other mass killings are a calculated evil decision for acclaim that these sorry bastards would never otherwise recieve.
David, I will get to my point but first I will make note that I refuse to even acknowledge this 9:02 goof. Apparently he knows nothing about what's going on but does read the bullshit put out by the NRA.
What I wonder is wy be so upset with just the idiot Democrats who caved? Just at look at where tey come from and it is easy to read their votes. What I'm upset with are the Republicans who come from states sporting regular people and not all Red Necks. They should all be ashamed but guys like Mitch McConnell realy do need a trip to the woodshed.
Yonk, it would be a great public service if you can publish the name and state of all who stopped gun reform. Thanks
IN RESPONSE
Yonk, it would be a great public service if you can publish the name and state of all who stopped gun reform. Thanks
WILL DO. LOOK FOR IT SOMETIME THIS WEEKEND.
It is perfectly fine with those who support gun control to partially deliver an innocent baby, stick an ice pick into its skull and scramble the brains, after all that is the mother's choice.
Wanted to read why one senator would vote against this bill. He said the law was to vague and written so you couldn't understand it. Point well taken. This is how they write bills today. No one in DC wants to actually make a decision. Harry Truman said he had a do nothing congress. We still have a do nothing congress and a no idea president. A president who taught law can't even tell you one good idea for this bill.
EDITOR'S NOTE:
IT APPEARS THAT THE REPORTS OF THE GOOD PROFESSOR'S DEMISE WERE NOT TRUE. HE HAS POSTED ONCE AGAIN. WELCOME BACK FROM WHEREVER YOU WERE.
Professor Milburn Cleaver, IV has left a new comment on your post "The LuLac Edition #2402, April 17th, 2013":
Good morning,
It appears that 9:02 hit the nail on the head, because no one will answer that one, very important question.
Would these new laws have prevented the Sand Hook massacre?
Would they have prevented Columbine?
Would they have prevented Virgina Tech?
Would they have prevented Oklahoma City?
Would they have prevented what just occurred at the Boston Marathon?
It could be argued the answers are a resounding NO!
While you would all like to think yourselves experts, you are nothing more than a mass of idiots.
Mental health is the least exact of all medical diagnosis. Mental illnesses are diagnosed via almost elusively subjective opinion. For the most part you can't take a blood test, do an MRI, x-ray or ultrasound. The diagnosis is made almost completely at the determination of the psychiatrist or psychologist OPINION.
Imagine if Stephen King's writing were analyzed in his youth. Some quack may have deemed him mentally disturbed and had him medicated.
If you can show that any of these laws would have prevented any of these tragic mass murders, please do so.
The recent rhetoric by people like the President, vice-President, bloggers etc... has probably done more to boost the sale of arms and ammunition.
The next mass murderer may actually now have in his or her possession the weapons to carry out their destruction simply because the felt the need to rush out and make the purchase.
Take emotion out of the argument.
Feminist,rightfully educate people that simply because of the way a woman is dressed, does NOT mean she is asking to be raped, we must blame the rapist.
Using that same logic, the weapon is not responsible, the person wielding is, and often times it is not possible to determine who would do such a horrendous crime.
Good day class.
11:23 AM, Yes, the background check would have stopped the Virginia Tech shooter who had issues from doing the damage that he did.
We are never going to eliminate gun violence..but if we cut down on the number of killings, then that's progress. A concept obviously foreign to you.
All I have to say is that this is getting to be a pretty stupid country when 90% of the will of the people is ignored by the U.S. Senate. You mentioned history, when the time comes, Obama is going to look like a giant compared to these so called "leaders".
I listened to your buddy Sue Henry today. Love her but her callers are dumb as dirt. So idiot from the Back Mountain called and said he was celebrating the defeat of the gun bill. He said he was standing in his backyard thinking of Adams, Washington, the battle of Trenton and how they would be proud that are guns are saved. Okay, maybe, I might buy it.
Then he lost me when he said that those men of liberty took the guns and sent England packing back home. Hey bud, we were the English. We were the Colonists. They came here in the 1600s. We weren't sending ourselves home.
We defeated our ancestors, the Monarchy but we didn't defeat the English.
And the colonists, of English ancestry didn't need freaking bushmasters to win.
After hearing that call today, I concluded two things.
Sue needs a big raise..and there is no hope for America with guys like this!
11:23 AM: No way is that the Prof's posting.
It is so obvious since it lacks his wit and biting sarcasm.
Nice try.
I noticed an IV after his name, so perhaps it was supposed to be an in memorioum posting.
Perhaps the Professor has tired of engaging in a battle of wits with the unarmed.
How 'bout this? When a law is passed requiring voter ID then maybe we can use that as a template for a gum permit.
In other words: if you are too crazy to vote you are too crazy to "pack".
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.
Post a Comment
<< Home