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

Some speculate a civil war if we get any social unrest as more unravels.

"Some" have got to be the dumbest ****ing people on the planet, not to mention the people who refer to them.

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Well, private gun sales are soaring. Some speculate a civil war if we get any social unrest as more unravels. I hear the bond market it going to bust. I give things 6 months before we see anything like that.

Originally Posted by Amnorix

How long have you been "speculat[ing] civil war". Seems like since day 1 of you being on this board...

She's not speculating. Its just "some" people she heard about.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

"Some" have got to be the dumbest ****ing people on the planet, not to mention the people who refer to them.

And your constant routine response of calling people dumb and stupid is your idea of intelligence?
Somehow you have a hard time making that case, Mr. Classic Projection who rarely refutes a post with any real arguments except logical fallacies, ad hominems or lying. They take you off your meds?

[|Zach|]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

And your constant routine response of calling people dumb and stupid is your idea of intelligence?
Somehow you have a hard time making that case, Mr. Classic Projection who rarely refutes a post with any real arguments except logical fallacies, ad hominems or lying. They take you off your meds?

He should probably just make up history and pretend people are on ignore.

[CoMoChief]

"if you pack heat you have blood on your hands"

These are fools who have never shot a gun in their life.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

She's not speculating. Its just "some" people she heard about.

That gun sales are soaring, has been reported even in the mainstream press.
As for the rest, read the link—don't shoot the messenger alone.

Now tell me what do you think is the reason for all that ammunition that was purchased under the Obama regime?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

And your constant routine response of calling people dumb and stupid is your idea of intelligence?
Somehow you have a hard time making that case, Mr. Classic Projection who rarely refutes a post with any real arguments except logical fallacies, ad hominems or lying. They take you off your meds?

I'm sorry about being so mean. I meant to say that "some" people feel that way. Not me of course. I'm just blindly quoting "some" people. Don't shoot the messenger.

[CoMoChief]

People inside congress have said the admin. is preparing for massive civil war.

Why else would they be buying billions of rounds of ammo?

[La literatura]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

That gun sales are soaring, has been reported even in the mainstream press.
As for the rest, read the link—don't shoot the messenger alone.

Now tell me what do you think is the reason for all that ammunition that was purchased under the Obama regime?

Systematic execution of Republican voters within 6 months. A classic Democratic strategy.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

I'm sorry about being so mean. I meant to say that "some" people feel that way. Not me of course. I'm just blindly quoting "some" people. Don't shoot the messenger.

I didn't quote "some" people as if it was anonymous. There's a name of an author in that link. I asked what they were planning or needed that for. It's a valid question. But it's fact that much ammo was purchased. The link to the purchase paperwork by DHS was
within that link. You can dismiss that part all you want, but it doesn't change that fact. Now what is it for is anybody's guess.

As usual, your reading, as well as Amnorix's is needs improvement judging from the amount of straw man arguments you use.

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

People inside congress have said the admin. is preparing for massive civil war.

Why else would they be buying billions of rounds of ammo?

Jeezaz H., who was that?

[cosmo20002]

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

People inside congress have said the admin. is preparing for massive civil war.

Some people said that? I wonder if they know BEP's some people. Anyway, what is important here is what Alex Jones says.

Originally Posted by CoMoChief

People inside congress have said the admin. is preparing for massive civil war.

Why else would they be buying billions of rounds of ammo?

Must be for civil war. There is absolutely no other reason that anyone could think of.

[Fish]

Originally Posted by BucEyedPea

Now tell me what do you think is the reason for all that ammunition that was purchased under the Obama regime?

Why haven't you investigated the reasoning yourself before making all these statements?

DHS contracted with a manufacturer for 40 caliber ammunition not to exceed 450 million rounds. Like with most of their contracts, prior to negotiating DHS headquarters in Washington reaches out to all the agencies under their umbrella, including state and local police forces, Customs and Border Patrol (CBP), etc, and asks them all how much of a certain item they need. Once they have an account of the full amount of an item needed and have reviewed those requests, they put out a request for an “Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity” (IDIQ) contract. This contract allows them to purchase up to a certain number of needed items without requiring them to purchase a specific item and allows them to purchase this item over a certain number of years. This is a common form of contract used by DHS for many of their needed supplies, including working dogs, computer equipment, vehicles, etc.

In this case, DHS entered into a contract that allows them to purchase up to 450 million rounds of 40 caliber ammunition over the next five years. They cannot exceed 450 million rounds and are not required to purchase 450 million rounds. Basically, they have a tab with a manufacturer to order more rounds as they are needed over the next five years – not a onetime ammunition order.

Setting up contracts in this manner allows for a cheaper purchase price, saving money over the long-term. In fact, contracts like this one saved taxpayers $336 million in FY2011 alone. Additionally, purchasing in bulk like this helps DHS headquarter conduct better oversight over its agencies and ensures consistency among all the agencies under DHS. So, in this case CPB, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), the U.S. Secret Service, and other DHS agencies will all use the same 40 caliber round so these rounds can move between agencies if need be – another way to potentially save money down the road.

To put this more concisely, just like you and your family take that monthly trip to Sam’s Club or Costco to get your bulk needs cheaply, DHS also buys in bulk because it saves the American taxpayers money.

http://westmoreland.house.gov/index....642&Itemid=372

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by cosmo20002

Some people said that? I wonder if they know BEP's some people. Anyway, what is important here is what Alex Jones says.

Another irrelevancy and logical fallacy. Hey, can you do anything but mock people and rely on cross-thread straw men? Are you thread grudge collector or something? Or just on Obama's payroll to stir up animosity as part of agit prop?

[BucEyedPea]

Originally Posted by Fish

Why haven't you investigated the reasoning yourself before making all these statements?

What statements? "All" is overgeneralized.

As to your quote—so? It still doesn't say why it's needed by them.