Kelly Ayotte, staunch advocate for gun safety? Not.

[Political Junky]

Ayotte pulled this stunt with the help of an NRA ad. She's as crooked as a dog's hind leg.
[My Comment.]

Kelly Ayotte, staunch advocate for gun safety? Not.

A bit of a dispute has broken out over just how much pressure Kelly Ayotte is feeling over her vote against the Manchin-Toomey compromise to expand background checks. The gun control forces have organized to pressure her at town hall meetings and on the air, but conservative media have argued that the pressure on her from the left has been exaggerated.
It’s interesting, then, that the major efforts to defend Ayotte by gun rights groups and fellow Republicans tend to emphasize her supposed support for background checks. That seems like a pretty good sign of which way the political winds are blowing on the issue.
Here, for instance, is a new ad that Marco Rubio’s Reclaim America PAC is running in New Hampshire. It says this: “Safety. Security. Family. No one understands these things like a mom. Ayotte voted to fix background checks, strengthen mental health screenings and more resources to prosecute criminals using guns.”

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7nXGiWrSnaI&feature=player_embedded]Quite - YouTube[/ame]

That message echoes a recent NRA ad that thanks Ayotte for her vote, but also says: “Kelly Ayotte voted for a bipartisan plan to make background checks more effective.” Ayotte herself recently defended her vote on the same grounds that she supports.
It’s hard not to notice that the thrust of these defenses center on Ayotte’s support for background checks, and not her opposition to expanding them.
<more>

 

[OriginalShroom]

She voted for an amendment that would actually had done something.. The Toomey bill was a waste of paper.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Dems need to drop the gun issue. It's a majorly losing issue and in a country of free people one should be allowed to own a gun.

Automatic weapons will never be legalized. And that's all that matters.

 

[Political Junky]

Dems need to drop the gun issue. It's a majorly losing issue and in a country of free people one should be allowed to own a gun.

Automatic weapons will never be legalized. And that's all that matters.

No one has said you can't own a gun. You simply have to pass a background check.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Dems need to drop the gun issue. It's a majorly losing issue and in a country of free people one should be allowed to own a gun.

Automatic weapons will never be legalized. And that's all that matters.

No one has said you can't own a gun. You simply have to pass a background check.

Oh well I'm fine with that. I've told the story before on this site about how I was in and out of the store in less than 15 minutes when I bought my shotgun. It felt really surreal.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Dems need to drop the gun issue. It's a majorly losing issue and in a country of free people one should be allowed to own a gun.

Automatic weapons will never be legalized. And that's all that matters.

No one has said you can't own a gun. You simply have to pass a background check.

Oh well I'm fine with that. I've told the story before on this site about how I was in and out of the store in less than 15 minutes when I bought my shotgun. It felt really surreal.

That is all the longer it should take.

Remember, in a free country, the Government has to prove you can't own something. You don't have to prove that you can.

 

[TheOldSchool]

No one has said you can't own a gun. You simply have to pass a background check.

Oh well I'm fine with that. I've told the story before on this site about how I was in and out of the store in less than 15 minutes when I bought my shotgun. It felt really surreal.

That is all the longer it should take.

Remember, in a free country, the Government has to prove you can't own something. You don't have to prove that you can.

I understand that sentiment but I think the counterargument is stronger. Guns are dangerous things and their only purpose is to inflict harm. Responsible people should ABSOLUTELY be allowed to own them. Hell even some former criminals should be able to own them (and I emphasize SOME). But if you have "crazy" in your background the seller should be forced to stop the transaction.

Look at fireworks! Their purchase is more restricted than guns.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Oh well I'm fine with that. I've told the story before on this site about how I was in and out of the store in less than 15 minutes when I bought my shotgun. It felt really surreal.

That is all the longer it should take.

Remember, in a free country, the Government has to prove you can't own something. You don't have to prove that you can.

I understand that sentiment but I think the counterargument is stronger. Guns are dangerous things and their only purpose is to inflict harm. Responsible people should ABSOLUTELY be allowed to own them. Hell even some former criminals should be able to own them (and I emphasize SOME). But if you have "crazy" in your background the seller should be forced to stop the transaction.

Look at fireworks! Their purchase is more restricted than guns.

Knives are dangerous. Look at that crazy bitch in Arizona.. She stabbed him 27 times then slit his throat before shooting him twice.

Look at the number of women who have cut their husband's penis off over the past few years. Just had one do it because he filed for divorce.

Then cars. How many people are killed, maimed, mangled, and injured every year because of cars and trucks.

5 gallon buckets. Bath Tubs. Swimming Pools. How many people drown every year?

Baseball bats, tire irons, 2x4s, iron pipe, etc. How many people are killed or injured by those?

Then there are a person's hands. How many people are injured every year because someone hit them with their bare hands?

Being "dangerous" isn't a reason to make me prove that I have the right to own a product.

 

[Lakhota]

Lawrence O'Donnell really smacked Ayotte down over her background check lies - as she makes it sound like she voted FOR instead of AGAINST. Ayotte is a lying scumbag.

 

[TheOldSchool]

That is all the longer it should take.

Remember, in a free country, the Government has to prove you can't own something. You don't have to prove that you can.

I understand that sentiment but I think the counterargument is stronger. Guns are dangerous things and their only purpose is to inflict harm. Responsible people should ABSOLUTELY be allowed to own them. Hell even some former criminals should be able to own them (and I emphasize SOME). But if you have "crazy" in your background the seller should be forced to stop the transaction.

Look at fireworks! Their purchase is more restricted than guns.

Knives are dangerous. Look at that crazy bitch in Arizona.. She stabbed him 27 times then slit his throat before shooting him twice.

Look at the number of women who have cut their husband's penis off over the past few years. Just had one do it because he filed for divorce.

Then cars. How many people are killed, maimed, mangled, and injured every year because of cars and trucks.

5 gallon buckets. Bath Tubs. Swimming Pools. How many people drown every year?

Baseball bats, tire irons, 2x4s, iron pipe, etc. How many people are killed or injured by those?

Then there are a person's hands. How many people are injured every year because someone hit them with their bare hands?

Being "dangerous" isn't a reason to make me prove that I have the right to own a product.

All of the things you mentioned are regulated accordingly. Cars? You need proof that you know what you're doing (a license). Swimming pool? Insurance will charge you extra for diving boards and such. Sorry but guns are more dangerous my man.

I mean shit when I bought that shotgun I damn well had the right to buy it and to do whatever I want with it. But I would have been fine with it taking 45 minutes instead of 15 for them to make sure I wasn't a nut.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Lawrence O'Donnell really smacked Ayotte down over her background check lies - as she makes it sound like she voted FOR instead of AGAINST. Ayotte is a lying scumbag.

Talk about lying asshole scumbags.. O'Donnell's photo is next to the words in the dictionary.

Are you aware that there were 10 bills up for a vote that day? All dealing with guns?

I didn't think so.

 

[Lakhota]

Lawrence O'Donnell really smacked Ayotte down over her background check lies - as she makes it sound like she voted FOR instead of AGAINST. Ayotte is a lying scumbag.

Talk about lying asshole scumbags.. O'Donnell's photo is next to the words in the dictionary.

Are you aware that there were 10 bills up for a vote that day? All dealing with guns?

I didn't think so.

Yes, I was aware - O'Donnell laid them all out - including the FAKE NRA background check bill that would have made things even worse. That's the one Ayotte vote FOR to give herself political cover - but it was pure bullshit.

 

[OriginalShroom]

Lawrence O'Donnell really smacked Ayotte down over her background check lies - as she makes it sound like she voted FOR instead of AGAINST. Ayotte is a lying scumbag.

Talk about lying asshole scumbags.. O'Donnell's photo is next to the words in the dictionary.

Are you aware that there were 10 bills up for a vote that day? All dealing with guns?

I didn't think so.

Yes, I was aware - O'Donnell laid them all out - including the FAKE NRA background check bill that would have made things even worse. That's the one Ayotte vote FOR to give herself political cover - but it was pure bullshit.

According to you and O'Donnell, gun grabbers both, it was fake. But she did vote for it. There is no lie except by you and O'Donnell.

Voting Record | Kelly Ayotte - United States Senator

105 1 4/18/13 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 730 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013)
Amendment Agreed to (95-2, 3/5 majority required) Yea
104 1 4/18/13 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 717 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013)
Amendment Agreed to (67-30, 3/5 majority required) Yea
103 1 4/17/13 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 714 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013)
Amendment Rejected (46-54, 3/5 majority required) Nay
102 1 4/17/13 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 720 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013)
Amendment Rejected (56-44, 3/5 majority required) Yea
101 1 4/17/13 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 711 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013)
Amendment Rejected (40-60, 3/5 majority required) Nay
100 1 4/17/13 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 719 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013)
Amendment Rejected (57-43, 3/5 majority required) Yea
99 1 4/17/13 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 713 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013)
Amendment Rejected (58-42, 3/5 majority required) Nay
98 1 4/17/13 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 725 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013)
Amendment Rejected (52-48, 3/5 majority required) Yea
97 1 4/17/13 On the Amendment S.Amdt. 715 to S. 649 (Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of2013)
Amendment Rejected (54-46, 3/5 majority required) Nay
95 1 4/11/13 On Cloture on the Motion to Proceed S. 649
A bill to ensure that all individuals who should be prohibited from buying a firearm are listed in the national instant criminal background check system and require a background check for every firearm sale, and for other purposes. Cloture on the Motion to Proceed Agreed to (68-31, 3/5 majority required) Yea

 

[Lakhota]

Another lying wingnut...

Ohio’s Rob Portman is the latest Republican senator caught trying to cloud his opposition to expanding background checks for gun sales.

Portman Clouds Opposition To Gun Background Checks In Letter To Constituent | TPMDC

 

[Political Junky]

All those that voted NO are suffering, so now they decided to lie to the gullible.

 

[buckeye45_73]

yeah we can trust the government


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

 

[buckeye45_73]

All those that voted NO are suffering, so now they decided to lie to the gullible.

Thats the only way democrats win. Keep em stupid and in poverty....wooohoooo

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Oh well I'm fine with that. I've told the story before on this site about how I was in and out of the store in less than 15 minutes when I bought my shotgun. It felt really surreal.

That is all the longer it should take.

Remember, in a free country, the Government has to prove you can't own something. You don't have to prove that you can.

I understand that sentiment but I think the counterargument is stronger. Guns are dangerous things and their only purpose is to inflict harm. Responsible people should ABSOLUTELY be allowed to own them. Hell even some former criminals should be able to own them (and I emphasize SOME). But if you have "crazy" in your background the seller should be forced to stop the transaction.

Look at fireworks! Their purchase is more restricted than guns.

At the risk of being called a black helicopter wing nut (and admitting that background checks sounds perfectly reasonable to me in theory) I'm just not sure I trust the government to do a good job or not to overreach. It's bad enough that my taxes are being raised by people who can't balance a budget. It's bad enough that I'm a conservative who is beholden to the same IRS who seems to operate under a political agenda. I just don't know. If we had a more competent and less corrupt government then I would think more seriously about background checks.

 

[Politico]

I see someone got their talking points.

 

[JohnL.Burke]

Talking points? Do I look like Susan Rice?