There Is Overwhelming Support For Increased Security Checks To Buy A Gun

[Little-Acorn]

Does it matter that the country will be a lot worse off with government having the authority to decide who can or can't have a gun, than with govt having no such authority (as the Constitution demands) and we have to face an occasional insane murderer? Which is about as likely as getting struck by lightning?

Does it matter to any of these people, that their proposed laws are unconstitutional?

And they say CONSERVATIVES are the ones without principles?

Of course, the gun-rights-haters know full well that their proposals violate the 2nd amendment. So they wait until someone blows away a bunch of people, and then try to fool people into thinking their proposals are OK, or the 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says, etc.

They've even managed to get some of their illegal proposals through, using their hysterically terrified, disingenuous methods. But that doesn't change what the 2nd says.

Of course, the rights-haters could persuade 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify their proposal as a constitutional amendment. Then they would be legal. For a change.

But they also know full well that the American people do NOT want the 2nd amendment modified, and that they (the rights-haters) would lose huge if they tried that.

So rather than letting the Constitution be obeyed, they try to lie their way into violating it.

 

[PredFan]

So why was this bill defeated by the GOP Establishment?

Because they are doing their jobs.

 

[OldLady]

“The law already requires licensed gun dealers to run background checks, and over the last 14 years that’s kept 1.5 million of the wrong people from getting their hands on a gun,” said Mr. Obama, when he announced his gun-violence task force results on Jan. 16. “But it’s hard to enforce that law when as many as 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted without a background check.”

The 40 percent figure that Mr. Obama and Sen. Dianne Feinstein, California Democrat, cite so frequently comes from a 1997 Justice Department survey. A closer look at that 40 percent number reveals it includes 29 percent of gun owners who said they got their guns from family members or friends and acquaintances.

That leaves 11 percent of firearms obtained through unfamiliar people. Of these, 3 percent reported they got their firearms “through the mail,” a process that requires a background check from a federally licensed firearms dealer. Four percent said “other,” and 4 percent made their purchase at a gun show.

The “gun-show loophole” is an exaggeration designed to foster the false impression that this is how the bad guys acquire firearms. A 2001 Justice Department survey found 0.7 percent of state and federal prison inmates bought their weapons at a gun show.

MILLER: The gun-show loophole myth

And next you'll explain how laws aren't actually about majority rule, huh?

Which is why you supported Jim Crow, right?

As we already discussed, laws aren't about majority rule. If that's what the Founders wanted we'd be a direct democracy instead of a representative republic. They were wise enough to understand that the general public, like yourself, doesn't always have a strong grasp of the issues at hand.

I know the difference between a direct democracy and a representative republic. The Senators and Congressmen/women in Washington who craft, propose and vote on our laws are all elected by a majority of people in their home states and districts. This is what I meant by majority rule. But you knew that.

The Seventeenth Amendment (Amendment XVII) to the United States Constitution established the popular election of United States Senators by the people of the states. The amendment supersedes Article I, §3, Clauses 1 and 2 of the Constitution, under which senators were elected by state legislatures.

On a national level, the head of state, the President, is elected indirectly by the people, through an Electoral College. Today, the electors virtually always vote with the popular vote of their state. All members of the federal legislature, the Congress, are directly elected.

 

[blackhawk]

Polls taken after an incident like Orlando when emotions are running hot always show an increase in support for new gun laws after emotions cool down that support tends to drop.

Take a look at the chart in the OP. It goes back to 2011.

Public opinion isn't going to cool from 92% to less than 50%. There are just too many mass shootings for that to ever happen.

It doesn't matter how many polls are cited or how far a chart goes back your still talking about the opinions of a very small number of people.

 

[OldLady]

Does it matter that the country will be a lot worse off with government having the authority to decide who can or can't have a gun, than with govt having no such authority (as the Constitution demands) and we have to face an occasional insane murderer? Which is about as likely as getting struck by lightning?

Does it matter to any of these people, that their proposed laws are unconstitutional?

And they say CONSERVATIVES are the ones without principles?

Of course, the gun-rights-haters know full well that their proposals violate the 2nd amendment. So they wait until someone blows away a bunch of people, and then try to fool people into thinking their proposals are OK, or the 2nd amendment doesn't mean what it says, etc.

They've even managed to get some of their illegal proposals through, using their hysterically terrified, disingenuous methods. But that doesn't change what the 2nd says.

Of course, the rights-haters could persuade 2/3 of Congress and 3/4 of the states to ratify their proposal as a constitutional amendment. Then they would be legal. For a change.

But they also know full well that the American people do NOT want the 2nd amendment modified, and that they (the rights-haters) would lose huge if they tried that.

So rather than letting the Constitution be obeyed, they try to lie their way into violating it.

occasional? LOL

 

[g5000]

Polls taken after an incident like Orlando when emotions are running hot always show an increase in support for new gun laws after emotions cool down that support tends to drop.

Take a look at the chart in the OP. It goes back to 2011.

Public opinion isn't going to cool from 92% to less than 50%. There are just too many mass shootings for that to ever happen.

It doesn't matter how many polls are cited or how far a chart goes back your still talking about the opinions of a very small number of people.

You really don't know the science behind polls, do you.

 

[g5000]

So why was this bill defeated by the GOP Establishment?

Because they are doing their jobs.

For the 8 percent. Not the 92 percent Will of the People.

They did it for the NRA special interest who funds their campaigns.

Since the vast majority of Americans support increased background checks, including a vast majority of Republicans, then the GOP Establishment are literally Republicans In Name Only.

 

[chikenwing]

92 %of the people support more gun control , numbers on paper with little meaning.gun control legislation has been kryptonite to the bills sponsors everytime.
The polls say one thing,reality something very different.

 

[OldLady]

Well, it sure had nothing to do with pants. Cheered me up, actually.

 

[Brain357]

So why was this bill defeated by the GOP Establishment?

Because they are doing their jobs.

For the 8 percent. Not the 92 percent Will of the People.

They support the NRA and gun companies. Screw the people.

 

[Little-Acorn]

occasional? LOL

Yes, occasional.

You are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be the victim of a mass murderer.

And LOLing won't change your odds.

"Facts are stubborn things."

 

[g5000]

occasional? LOL

Yes, occasional.

You are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be the victim of a mass murderer.

You are even less likely to be killed by a Muslim, as I have been pointing out to your ilk for many months.


LIBTARD: Guns just killed some more people. We must ban them.

RUBE: Cars kill a lot more people than guns. So I guess we should ban them, too, right? Right? Right?

FOX NEWS: Some more Muslims just killed some more people. Every time any Muslim anywhere kills someone, we will be right here to tell you all about it, with doom music.

RUBE: WE MUST BAN MUSLIMS!!!

"Facts are stubborn things."

Indeed.

 

[g5000]

Donald Trump wants to ban guns. He also wants to ban Muslims. He's a great American who is consistent in his "logic".

 

[Seawytch]

occasional? LOL

Yes, occasional.

You are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be the victim of a mass murderer.

You are even less likely to be killed by a Muslim, as I have been pointing out to your ilk for many months.


LIBTARD: Guns just killed some more people. We must ban them.

RUBE: Cars kill a lot more people than guns. So I guess we should ban them, too, right? Right? Right?

FOX NEWS: Some more Muslims just killed some more people. Every time any Muslim anywhere kills someone, we will be right here to tell you all about it, with doom music.

RUBE: WE MUST BAN MUSLIMS!!!

"Facts are stubborn things."

Indeed.

Except most "libtards" I know don't actually want to ban guns, just make it harder for terrorists and criminals to buy them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[miketx]

Except most "libtards" I know don't actually want to ban guns, just make it harder for terrorists and criminals to buy them.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

LOL! How will it make it harder for terrorists an criminals to buy guns? I can't wait to hear your bullshit answer. Most terrorists and criminals don't go to gun stores to buy guns. LOL!

 

[chikenwing]

occasional? LOL

Yes, occasional.

You are more likely to be hit by lightning than to be the victim of a mass murderer.

You are even less likely to be killed by a Muslim, as I have been pointing out to your ilk for many months.


LIBTARD: Guns just killed some more people. We must ban them.

RUBE: Cars kill a lot more people than guns. So I guess we should ban them, too, right? Right? Right?

FOX NEWS: Some more Muslims just killed some more people. Every time any Muslim anywhere kills someone, we will be right here to tell you all about it, with doom music.

RUBE: WE MUST BAN MUSLIMS!!!

"Facts are stubborn things."

Indeed.

Why bring up Muslims?

 

[miketx]

They are the terrorists. Doncha know nuithin?

 

[g5000]

If you point out Donald Trump dropped to his knees and fellated Barack HUSSEIN Obama on gun control, you are a RINO!

Like Paul Ryan.

If you point out Donald Trump was "very pro choice", you are a RINO!

If you point out Donald Trump wanted to cut-and-run from Iraq, giving rise to ISIS, you are a RINO!

If you point out Donald Trump donated to all of Hillary's campaigns, you are a RINO!

If you point out Donald Trump said Hillary was the best Secretary of State ever, you are a RINO!

If you point out Donald Trump said Hillary would make a good President, you are a RINO!

If you point out Donald Trump said he supports the assault weapons ban, you are RINO!

If you point out these and other far left positions Donald Trump held all the way up to when he changed his party registration to Republican, you are a RINO!

That's how the delusion is maintained. Donald Trump knows if you put an R after your name, you can't do any wrong as far as the retards who have hijacked the GOP are concerned.

The liberals were never going to get their agenda enacted as long as legislation was proposed by people with D's after their names. But it can be passed if you become an R and tell the tards what they want to hear and teach them that every single other Republican who tries to point out who Trump really is is a RINO, the parroting brainless rubes will go for it. Big time.

 

[g5000]

Chris Christie was seen shaking hands with Obama, and his chances for President went all to shit in the minds of the retards.

But shaking hands with Obama is nothing. Donald Trump gave Obama head!!!

SLURP SLURP SLURP GOBBLE GOBBLE GOBBLE...

 

[g5000]

Join the Friends of Obama, won't you? And let's ban some guns.