Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire
Ah, but I did read the link. If you had actually read it you would admitted you were wrong on your original assertion that "more people than ever are against Obamacare"... but I guess you must have read it and now do not want to admit your error as your defense is to try to obfuscate the issue by changing the subject. Whether someone was Democrat or not was NOT your original assertion, which was:
There are questions about the honesty of the polls and the questions raised. What sort 'reasonable' regulations, for example.
Yes, the majority of Americans are against abortion, and opposition is growing. More people than ever are against Obamacare and the drag it is on the economy. and opposition is growing.........
But nothing will be done.
Again, to refute your assertion, more people than ever are NOT against ObamaCare. More people than ever just don't know. Since you could not defend your own assertion, I assume you now understand this statement is incorrect.
The elected officials who passed Obamacare didn't understand. The Dems didn't even read it and Pelosi said that they would have to pass it to read it.
The ACA impacts me directly as an employer of some 60-70 part-time people working in the health care industry. I see some very good things within it and many unknown things. I think the "I don't know" position, right now, is the intelligent position as few people understand the bill or its ramifications (positive and negative). Most of those that are adamantly for it or against it are largely operating out of political loyalty and ignorance.
I agree that its a water down piece of legislation that will likely fall far short of fixing the problem. I blame the Conservatives for their wonton dereliction of duty for choosing to wash their hands of healthcare reform early on in the process instead of being part of the solution. Our healthcare system is the most expensive (in the first world) and one of the most inefficient in the world.... in 2011 it was almost 18% of GDP (the next most expensive in the 1st world is France, at 11.6% of GDP with a robust national healthcare system)
Health expenditure, total (% of GDP) | Data | Table
Almost all economist believe that our long-term economy can not become healthy without a fix to our inefficient healthcare system (one link, you can find a ton that will say the same thing)
The U.S. Can
The Cons had a chance to shape an important piece of legislation that might have actually helped fix our economic infrastructure, but it required to much work, gray matter political will for the average Con. They certainly are the party of do-nothings.... What is the old adage, ".... if you are not a part of the solution, you are a part of the problem...?" Enough about healthcare, I am a bit off topic.
Pro abortion people argue about 'freedom of choice'. Gun owners want that same freedom of choice, a choice that is actually guaranteed in the Constitution. No such guarantee ever existed for abortion.
Not everyone dies when people own a gun but someone always dies, 100% of the time, when there is an abortion.
First off, I don't think there is a "pro-abortion" person.... they are called pro-choice for an important reason. As the polls indicate, people have a moral issue with an abortion but recognize the need for it to be legal.
Second, I will step up my simile about abortion and divorce.... in the eyes of God (the moral authority), they are fundamentally the same thing. In each case, man is putting asunder God's will. If you read the Gospel, God speaks of marriage as two becoming one... So, the moral and legal treatment of these should be consistent (not consistent between moral and legal, as they are different things, but treated legally in a similar way)
As for gun rights, no where does is say that gun rights are unlimited. In fact, it was not until 2010 that the Supreme Court even established gun ownership as an individual right (DC v Heller). Even in this ruling, the court specifically said gun ownership is not an unlimited right.
From opinion:
"
....2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons......" Pp. 54–56.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/29/us/29scotus.html?_r=0
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller
