Expanded background checks fails in Senate

[koshergrl]

Yes more republicans than dems naturally but I think he was stunned that members of his own party didn't vote for it.

Hahahaha. He's not the god he thinks he is.

 

[LoudMcCloud]

The government will win the spin. They just call everyone else conspiracy theorist. lol.

If you don't believe the government, your a racist, conspiracy theorist, and an extremist.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Yes more republicans than dems naturally but I think he was stunned that members of his own party didn't vote for it.

Hahahaha. He's not the god he thinks he is.

i was surprised that not more dems voted for

the vets must be adjudicated before losing their rights bill

 

[koshergrl]

There are a lot of wealthy dems who have no interest in gun control, and their congressmen and women know it.

 

[JimH52]

And even more Americans will be alive because they used their personal firearm to save themselves from the criminals who laugh at the idea of following laws in the first place.

Where is the credible totally independent source to verify that allegation. The NRA has obstructed all meaningful gun crime statistics therefore there is none.

National Crime Victims Survey, conducted by the census bureau for the DOJ says 2.5 million people use firearms in self defense each year. Look it up.

And what does that have to do with expanded background checks? Why would law abiding gun owners be against something that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill? Why?

 

[Nova78]

Look at that douchebag Boiking throwing his little temper tantrum in the Rose Garden....Look at that nitwit Biden, doing his best Walter...

Lol! My husband and i were watching that and said the same thing!!! Biden IS Walter!!!!

Biden and Obama looked like someone took there toy away from them....

 

[Nova78]

You would swear someone farted next to them.

 

[007]

Look at that douchebag Boiking throwing his little temper tantrum in the Rose Garden....Look at that nitwit Biden, doing his best Walter...

Lol! My husband and i were watching that and said the same thing!!! Biden IS Walter!!!!

Biden and Obama looked like someone took there toy away from them....

POOOoooor little Hitler junior and his bubble headed side kick were MAAAD... AAaaaw... I think they needed a tissue.

Disgusting sons a bitches. Now it's not only that pesky constitution thingie limiting them, it's those pesky damn American people.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Very rarely, just like the ones that falsify a background check form. There were more than 15,000 fraudulent forms submitted last year with 44 prosecutions. A few gun traffickers are caught but very few of their clients.

So I guess if they save just a few lives it's not worth it then either eh?

Sorry, there is a price to be paid for freedom, just ask the millions of our military dead and wounded. There is evil in the world and no law will change that, but would you dishonor our dead by freely relinquishing the rights they died for simply for imaginary security? I think it was Franklin that said something like anyone willing to give up liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security. The current NICS system data base is so lacking because states can't afford to input their information, increasing the burden on that system would be a waste of resources. The emphasis should be on prosecuting criminals and figuring out a way to make it more cost effective for states to update the system, just adding more requirements on the states and threatening current funds will make the problem worse, not better.

What right do you relinquish if the government doesn't let felons have guns legally? Are you a felon?

 

[Desperado]

Thank God for small favors.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Lol! My husband and i were watching that and said the same thing!!! Biden IS Walter!!!!

Biden and Obama looked like someone took there toy away from them....

POOOoooor little Hitler junior and his bubble headed side kick were MAAAD... AAaaaw... I think they needed a tissue.

Disgusting sons a bitches. Now it's not only that pesky constitution thingie limiting them, it's those pesky damn American people.

a bunch of other gun control amendments are up for votes today

 

[007]

The best part about this is, the gun grabbing, constitution hating, commie leftist democrats spent a TON of political capitol on trying to infringe on the second amendment, and they got slapped down like a red headed step child. They may as well FORGET any more STUPID laws infringing on our gun rights. My guess is those that did vote for it will pay next year. They're gone. The tide is turning against these filthy, leftist, shit stains in office that are CHOKING the American people and this nation with their STUPID new regulations and LAWS, like OBAMACARE, which the FEAR that it's a TICKING TIME BOMB is getting worse BY THE DAY. The kenyan is going to lose that sooner or later too. It's the worse law to EVER come out of our government on a scale that DWARFS anything and everything else. 1/6 of our economy, now on the fast track to DESTRUCTION, all because of DEMOCRATS!

By the time obama leaves office, the words LIBERAL and PROGRESSIVE will be DIRTY WORDS. Nobody will want anything to do with them. If you speak them in public, you'll probably get your ass kicked.

 

[Oddball]

It would have saved a few lives, but destroyed more. They just wanted it to be harder to get a gun. When you make it harder to get guns, poor people have a harder time getting them.

Wouldn't it really just make it harder for criminals to get a gun? And probably not even that much harder for them given what I've heard about the bill.

Doesn't get any easier than stealing, Corky.

 

[007]

So I guess if they save just a few lives it's not worth it then either eh?

Sorry, there is a price to be paid for freedom, just ask the millions of our military dead and wounded. There is evil in the world and no law will change that, but would you dishonor our dead by freely relinquishing the rights they died for simply for imaginary security? I think it was Franklin that said something like anyone willing to give up liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security. The current NICS system data base is so lacking because states can't afford to input their information, increasing the burden on that system would be a waste of resources. The emphasis should be on prosecuting criminals and figuring out a way to make it more cost effective for states to update the system, just adding more requirements on the states and threatening current funds will make the problem worse, not better.

What right do you relinquish if the government doesn't let felons have guns legally? Are you a felon?

They don't NOW. Why is a new law needed if a law for it already exists?

 

[jon_berzerk]

Sorry, there is a price to be paid for freedom, just ask the millions of our military dead and wounded. There is evil in the world and no law will change that, but would you dishonor our dead by freely relinquishing the rights they died for simply for imaginary security? I think it was Franklin that said something like anyone willing to give up liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security. The current NICS system data base is so lacking because states can't afford to input their information, increasing the burden on that system would be a waste of resources. The emphasis should be on prosecuting criminals and figuring out a way to make it more cost effective for states to update the system, just adding more requirements on the states and threatening current funds will make the problem worse, not better.

What right do you relinquish if the government doesn't let felons have guns legally? Are you a felon?

They don't NOW. Why is a new law needed if a law for it already exists?

you know they have been hit hard

when they cant pass a law that already exists

--LOL

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry, there is a price to be paid for freedom, just ask the millions of our military dead and wounded. There is evil in the world and no law will change that, but would you dishonor our dead by freely relinquishing the rights they died for simply for imaginary security? I think it was Franklin that said something like anyone willing to give up liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security. The current NICS system data base is so lacking because states can't afford to input their information, increasing the burden on that system would be a waste of resources. The emphasis should be on prosecuting criminals and figuring out a way to make it more cost effective for states to update the system, just adding more requirements on the states and threatening current funds will make the problem worse, not better.

What right do you relinquish if the government doesn't let felons have guns legally? Are you a felon?

They don't NOW. Why is a new law needed if a law for it already exists?

Ok, you're an idiot, but for argument's sake let's pretend you have a point.

Let's pretend this law has limited impact. Let's pretend this law merely closes some loopholes in the requirements to undergo a background check whenever and wherever you buy a gun,

oh wait, that's what the law does...anyway, so this law only tightens up the already in place background check system,

tries to make it more efficient in a small way...

The question is, why are you idiots acting like it would be the end of the world if this law passed?

Why are you idiots acting as though this is the most colossal infringement of gunrights in the history of the Republic?

Put another way, how can you be so stupid as to oppose a law that only makes small changes in the background check system, and is supported by 90% of Americans,

all because you believe it's signaling the end of the world?

What is wrong with you, exactly?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Sorry, there is a price to be paid for freedom, just ask the millions of our military dead and wounded. There is evil in the world and no law will change that, but would you dishonor our dead by freely relinquishing the rights they died for simply for imaginary security? I think it was Franklin that said something like anyone willing to give up liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security. The current NICS system data base is so lacking because states can't afford to input their information, increasing the burden on that system would be a waste of resources. The emphasis should be on prosecuting criminals and figuring out a way to make it more cost effective for states to update the system, just adding more requirements on the states and threatening current funds will make the problem worse, not better.

What right do you relinquish if the government doesn't let felons have guns legally? Are you a felon?

They don't NOW. Why is a new law needed if a law for it already exists?

Are you a felon?

 

[Papageorgio]

What right do you relinquish if the government doesn't let felons have guns legally? Are you a felon?

They don't NOW. Why is a new law needed if a law for it already exists?

Ok, you're an idiot, but for argument's sake let's pretend you have a point.

Let's pretend this law has limited impact. Let's pretend this law merely closes some loopholes in the requirements to undergo a background check whenever and wherever you buy a gun,

oh wait, that's what the law does...anyway, so this law only tightens up the already in place background check system,

tries to make it more efficient in a small way...

The question is, why are you idiots acting like it would be the end of the world if this law passed?

Why are you idiots acting as though this is the most colossal infringement of gunrights in the history of the Republic?

Put another way, how can you be so stupid as to oppose a law that only makes small changes in the background check system, and is supported by 90% of Americans,

all because you believe it's signaling the end of the world?

What is wrong with you, exactly?

Ask Harry Reid, he might have the answer.

 

[007]

What right do you relinquish if the government doesn't let felons have guns legally? Are you a felon?

They don't NOW. Why is a new law needed if a law for it already exists?

Ok, you're an idiot, but for argument's sake let's pretend you have a point.

Let's pretend this law has limited impact. Let's pretend this law merely closes some loopholes in the requirements to undergo a background check whenever and wherever you buy a gun,

oh wait, that's what the law does...anyway, so this law only tightens up the already in place background check system,

tries to make it more efficient in a small way...

The question is, why are you idiots acting like it would be the end of the world if this law passed?

Why are you idiots acting as though this is the most colossal infringement of gunrights in the history of the Republic?

Put another way, how can you be so stupid as to oppose a law that only makes small changes in the background check system, and is supported by 90% of Americans,

all because you believe it's signaling the end of the world?

What is wrong with you, exactly?

OK... just once... just for you and every libroid jackass like you that doesn't get it... first of all this 90% bull shit you're throwing around is just that, BULL SHIT! This new legislation dying off is PROOF of that. Second of all, there was FAR MORE than just expanded back ground checks in this bill. It was the beginning push for a NATIONAL GUN REGISTRY, and don't act all like EVERYONE didn't KNOW IT. Third, the second amendment states, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED," what fucking part of that don't you morons get? We have laws on top of laws about gun control and back ground checks now, and LESS THAN HALF OF THEM ARE ENFORCED. Now you answer me, WHY in the FUCK do you think passing NEW laws is going to fix anything when the EXISTING laws AREN'T BEING ENFORCED? For God's sake... get a fucking clue. People aren't buying your PATHETIC lines of SHIT anymore.

What right do you relinquish if the government doesn't let felons have guns legally? Are you a felon?

They don't NOW. Why is a new law needed if a law for it already exists?

Are you a felon?

Are you?

 

[Antares]

Can felons own guns? Is this governed by state or federal law? Does this apply to only certain types of guns or all guns?

In 1934 the government passed a law banning any person who had been convicted of a violent felony from owning a gun. This was in addition to an existing ban keeping violent felons from owning machine guns - the new law basically said that violent felons couldn't own any type of firearm.

This restriction was expanded in 1968 to include all felonies (not just violent ones). This practice continues to this day - except in rare circumstances where your civil rights are "restored" (this is only a possibility in a few states), or until your felony is expunged, you are not eligible under federal law to legally own a firearm.

Owning a Gun - Felony Restrictions

There is only Political Party arguing to restore Rights to felons and it isn't the Republicans kid.....

So I guess if they save just a few lives it's not worth it then either eh?

Sorry, there is a price to be paid for freedom, just ask the millions of our military dead and wounded. There is evil in the world and no law will change that, but would you dishonor our dead by freely relinquishing the rights they died for simply for imaginary security? I think it was Franklin that said something like anyone willing to give up liberty for security deserves neither liberty or security. The current NICS system data base is so lacking because states can't afford to input their information, increasing the burden on that system would be a waste of resources. The emphasis should be on prosecuting criminals and figuring out a way to make it more cost effective for states to update the system, just adding more requirements on the states and threatening current funds will make the problem worse, not better.

What right do you relinquish if the government doesn't let felons have guns legally? Are you a felon?