Expanded background checks fails in Senate

[M14 Shooter]

I love seeing him with his panties in a wad. Maybe we can piss him off enough to quit.

How DARE the Senate defy ME!! Who do they think they are?!?!?

 

[Vast LWC]

Backgrounds checks are a form of prior restraint in that they restrain an individual from exercising his right until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.
Prior retraint is an infringement and is constitutionally permissible only in specific and extreme circumstances.

That is utter and complete crap.

If that's true, then 5 year olds should be given the vote.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Backgrounds checks are a form of prior restraint in that they restrain an individual from exercising his right until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.
Prior retraint is an infringement and is constitutionally permissible only in specific and extreme circumstances.

That is utter and complete crap.

Please feel free to show how it is unound - else, you're just huffing and puffing.

 

[Vast LWC]

Do background checks prevent anyone who is a criminal from getting a firearm?

No.

Yes. Yes they do.

So, background checks are anti-logical and as well all know, the first step in universal registration.

Pass.

Since the answer to your first question is "yes", the second question is null and void.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

It has to do with Americans being alive through their personal use of firearms, that was the source requested, still having reading comprehension problems I see.

 

[Mustang]

I mean look at the guy, he looks like he's about to throw a tantrum right in front of the press and everybody!

I love seeing him with his panties in a wad. Maybe we can piss him off enough to quit.

You don't even realize how childish you sound, do you?

 

[Vast LWC]

Please feel free to show how it is unound - else, you're just huffing and puffing.

Please feel free to include the second part of my statement, which was integral to the point, when refuting my post.

If you included it, then you would have your answer.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Please feel free to show how it is unound - else, you're just huffing and puffing.

Please feel free to include the second part of my statement, which was integral to the point, when refuting my post.

If you included it, then you would have your answer.

Nope. Does nothing at all to negate the soundness of my statement.
Disagree?
Show how.

 

[OKTexas]

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?

The government already prohibits felons from having guns legally this bill would not have really enhanced that and would have put undue unfunded burdens on the States and would have put existing funds in jeopardy. It was not a good bill. And no I'm not a felon, I carry a gun daily, legally.

 

[Vast LWC]

Nope. Does nothing at all to negate the soundness of my statement.
Disagree?
Show how.

Being able to vote is the most basic of constitutional rights.

Without the right to vote, all other rights may as well not exist.

And yet, in order to vote, one must wait 18 years, be registered, and in many cases, obtain and show a valid photo ID.

Those are "prequalifcations".

So, do you believe 10-year-olds should be allowed to vote?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Nope. Does nothing at all to negate the soundness of my statement.
Disagree?
Show how.

Being able to vote is the most basic of constitutional rights.
Without the right to vote, all other rights may as well not exist.
And yet, in order to vote, one must wait 18 years, be registered, and in many cases, obtain and show a valid photo ID.
Those are "prequalifcations".
So, do you believe 10-year-olds should be allowed to vote?

None of this has anything to do with prior restraint, and so does nothing to negate the soundness of my statement.
Please do try again.

 

[OKTexas]

I mean look at the guy, he looks like he's about to throw a tantrum right in front of the press and everybody!

I love seeing him with his panties in a wad. Maybe we can piss him off enough to quit.

You don't even realize how childish you sound, do you?

I think you have mistaken me for someone who might give a crap about what you think.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Why would law abiding gun owners be against something that will keep guns out of the hands of criminals or the mentally ill? Why?

Because, at the insistence of gun control advocates, it also provides for this:

`(4)(A) Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, the Attorney General may implement this subsection with regulations.

`(B) Regulations promulgated under this paragraph--

`(ii) shall include a provision requiring a record of transaction of any transfer that occurred between an unlicensed transferor and unlicensed transferee accordance with paragraph (1).'.

You remove that provision, you will obtain bacckground checks. Here is a link to the text of the actual legislation voted upon:

Bill Text - 113th Congress (2013-2014) - THOMAS (Library of Congress)

 

[eflatminor]

Do background checks prevent anyone who is a criminal from getting a firearm?

No.

Yes. Yes they do.

Riiight...you go with that. Criminals are't obeying current laws, but if we had just one more on the books...that'd do the trick.

 

[Oddball]

I mean look at the guy, he looks like he's about to throw a tantrum right in front of the press and everybody!

The look on Biden's face was priceless...

 

[tjvh]

Bu... But... Gun control is about the ch... Children...

 

[Vast LWC]

None of this has anything to do with prior restraint, and so does nothing to negate the soundness of my statement.
Please do try again.

Let me use the definition of "Prior Restraint" that you provided to illustrate my point. I'll just substitute the subject:

Minimum voting ages are a form of prior restraint in that they restrain an individual from exercising his right until such a time that the state determines that said exercise is not illegal.

Is this statement true?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yeppers..

Biden and Walter.... Separated at the felling of the tree.

Thing is Walter is much smarter and more lovable and makes sense.
Bidens just the dummy

I see him referred to as a dummy a lot. But it's funny that he won both his vice presidential debates...

Biden is one of the most stupid vice president we have ever had. Maybe you should listen to him once in a while and stop sniffing obama's ass.

 

[Mustang]

Thing is Walter is much smarter and more lovable and makes sense.
Bidens just the dummy

I see him referred to as a dummy a lot. But it's funny that he won both his vice presidential debates...

Biden is one of the most stupid vice president we have ever had. Maybe you should listen to him once in a while and stop sniffing obama's ass.

Priceless!

 

[Vast LWC]

Riiight...you go with that. Criminals are't obeying current laws, but if we had just one more on the books...that'd do the trick.

It's not the criminals who will start obeying the laws, it's the sellers of guns.

Right now, selling to a criminal is not illegal, unless you know for a fact that he is a criminal.

Therefore there is no deterrent at all for people to sell guns to criminals, because even if they do know that the person they are selling to is a criminal, there is no way to PROVE that they know.

Therefore, the law it moot, as it is unenforceable.

So, yes, "if we just had one more on the books" that can actually be enforced, it will actually provide a reason for people not to sell guns to criminals.

And it's not "one more on the books", it would replace the old law, thus the same number of laws would exist.