Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+ Spineless vermin in the Senate kill, Background Checks by filibuster

[RGBII]

" The gunman who killed 20 children and six adults at a Connecticut elementary school fired 154 rounds in less than 5 minutes, selecting high capacity magazines from a home arsenal . . ."

That pretty much sums up the definition of "inane."

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

[RGBII]

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/...f_46_senat.html

Money talks . . .

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

[mjda]

http://www.nj.com/times-opinion/index.ssf/...f_46_senat.html

Money talks . . .

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

You mean that article left off all of the money given to Democratic Senators who voted for the proposal? You don't say!

[RGBII]

Obviously, my concern is with those that voted against the amendment.

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

[mjda]

Obviously, my concern is with those that voted against the amendment.

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

The problem, though, is that you're blaming the NRA like they were the reason this proposal was rejected. The money the NRA gave to those Senators had little to nothing to do with their vote. If it did, all the Senators that received money from them would have voted against it. That simply wasn't the case, such as the article you posted suggested. I guess it never dawned on you that maybe they voted against it because that's what their voters wanted/demanded, and that they didn't want to be out of a job at the end of their term.

[RGBII]

The problem, though, is that you're blaming the NRA like they were the reason this proposal was rejected. The money the NRA gave to those Senators had little to nothing to do with their vote. If it did, all the Senators that received money from them would have voted against it. That simply wasn't the case, such as the article you posted suggested. I guess it never dawned on you that maybe they voted against it because that's what their voters wanted/demanded, and that they didn't want to be out of a job at the end of their term.

Various polls had 90-94% voter approval on Universal Background Checks.

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

[RGBII]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIkw6TmX2ZA...player_embedded

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

[mjda]

Various polls had 90-94% voter approval on Universal Background Checks.

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

Universal Background Checks: Yes.
National Gun Registry: Heck no!

[RGBII]

Universal Background Checks: Yes.
National Gun Registry: Heck no!

I support that.

The amendment contained no language concerning a "National Registry."
NRA scare tactics.

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

[RGBII]

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2013/...so-cause-worry/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fi...ical-slam-dunk/

http://www.politifact.com/texas/statements...ercent-america/

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

*Can't get the URL for Gallup to load

[mjda]

I support that.

The amendment contained no language concerning a "National Registry."
NRA scare tactics.

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

Yes, but when one man (the US Attorney General), who is appointed, can promote regulations on the Universal Background Check system, it can lead to it. I know that doesn't mean it will, but it is a possibility. One that most Americans aren't willing to risk, and evidently neither are the majority of sitting Senators.

If the left doesn't want a National Gun Registry, why not change the proposal to explicitly prevent it? Maybe then it would be a LOT more likely to pass. It's pretty clear, at least to me, that is the top reason why most people do not like this proposal.

[RGBII]

74% of NRA members support Universal Background Checks.

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

[mjda]

74% of NRA members support Universal Background Checks.

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

...and they'd still, most likely, vote against this proposal unless it contained language that would guarantee there would be no National Gun Registry.

[mjda]

I know plenty of gun-totin' NRA members. Hey, I'm from Texas! Most of them, as you say, agree that background checks are an absolute must. They also agree, like I say, that they'd only vote for it if they were assured (by more than just a politician's word) there would be no Gun Registry.

[RGBII]

Wayne LaPierre is a mouthpiece for gun and ammo manufacturers. He is not a spokesman for the vast majority of NRA members.

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

[mjda]

Wayne LaPierre is a mouthpiece for gun and ammo manufacturers. He is not a spokesman for the vast majority of NRA members.

Collect Hard!,
RGBII

Yet, despite your beliefs, he expresses the same concerns as myself, and my NRA card carrying friends.

He's on the record stating that he's for universal background checks for all sales, including all gun shows, with zero loopholes for anyone.

[randall]

I own around 40 guns. Handguns ,shotguns, rifles and even an ar 15. It doesn't matter what law is passed or what style of weapons are banned if a criminal or a mentally insane person decides to shoot a bunch of people they will get their hands on a weapon one way or another.

Their is no way to totally weed out the people that shouldn't own a gun. I mean how many times has someone in the armed services shot people ? You know they go through a really good background check. I guess that you could be totally sain when your tested then later own you could snap.

[randall]

What I'm saying is that guns don't kill people. People kill people. If you think guns do and they should be banned then we also need to ban cars,planes, trains, alcohol, atvs, mossy all household cleaners

I know a lot of people are not going to like my comments but that's fine. All killers have some sort of mental illness, their has been crazy people since the beginning of time that kill. They always find ways to kill no matter what the weapon is.

[northicehero99]

Drugs are illegal. Heck, we have a "war on drugs". They're still here. They also kill more people than rifles do. Drunk driving is illegal. Does that mean we don't have drunk drivers? Nope! In fact, drunk driving kills a LOT more people than rifles do!! Where is the outrage to strengthen the penalty for driving intoxicated!?

Michael your examples here do not match up. You see DUI checkpoints all the time, and you see drug busts all the time, usually when you see drug busts you see some guns confiscated, but there are no raids for illegally owned guns, no legal pull overs on highways for illegal guns, they merely turn up as after effects or worse after the damage has been done and even then they are sometimes legally owned before these instances. With the other two at least there are attempts to maintain lawfulness. Beyond that ownership of a gun is protected by the second amendment, drinking alcohol or using drugs are not protected by the amendments, maybe if our country would have been founded in 1970 our 2nd amendment would be the right to legally be drunk or high off our keesters??? Beyond that I bet there will be new regulations on fireworks after the Boston bombings before anything regarding guns happens.

[Ilovetheheat]

Unbelievable...

Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity.
-MLK

Richard, what have you done?