Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Oh bull crap. My husband was a prosecuting attorney for 6 years, and we have a ton of friends on every level of law enforcement. LE officers and prosecutors LOVE background checks because they keep more crazy and violent people from buying guns. It doesn't stop all of them, but it stops some.
The right wingers said the same thing in 2012 and look how that turned out
The right was so confident they would sweep the government that they agreed to let the tax cuts expire in 2013 thinking they would be in power to renew them.
Oh bull crap. My husband was a prosecuting attorney for 6 years, and we have a ton of friends on every level of law enforcement. LE officers and prosecutors LOVE background checks because they keep more crazy and violent people from buying guns. It doesn't stop all of them, but it stops some.
I'm looking at this in the short-term because that's the only available scope through which to look at it.
The Manchin-Toomey compromise lost because it was not, in fact, what it was promoted to have been; the significant failure of the Feinstein and Lautenberg amendments are also beautiful indicators that most Senators fear not only withdrawal of NRA support, but also the support of their constituents (oh, how hilariously you people discard the 1994 mid-terms).
I'm quite confident that 2014 will not see more big changes, and, additionally, I'm quite sure that these anti-gun PACs will swiftly be reduced to the same respecatbility plank as CodePink in the years to come (that's just speculation, I realize).
And the thing about MADD is, well, that they weren't a political force in opposition to an issue that concerned any sort of consititutional question (correct me if I'm wrong, but not one amendment or section of the U.S. Constitution guarantees the right to operate a vehicle whilst intoxicated or otherwise).
As has been widely reported over the last few months, the issue of gun control is one of electoral importance for a whopping 3-5% of the American electorate--would you seriously claim this to be indicative of a mass political movement?
I doubt it. A lot has changed since the 90s, pal.
And what, may I ask, should I assume that gun owners will be losing in the next ten years if they fail to compromise with provably idiotic legislation that does nothing to address underground arms trading, which only hurdles those who are willing to undergo background checks in the first place?
Should I be concerned that you and your political camp will eviscerate firearm ownership rights to the tune of that which followed Australia's National Firearms agreement? UK-style handgun bans?
Do tell, sir.
And the problem, as many on my end of this debate have acknowledged, is medicated, obviously problematic adolescents and young adults who are constantly shielded from forced committment to psychiatric care.
Simple.
No consitutional issues with DWI checkpoints, you realize there other amendments beside the 2nd.
The republicans gained a majority in the house for the first time in 50 years and it was all about 20 guns in the AWB?
People are murdered in rural areas also, if there is someone in their district murdered that senator will be complicit. There is no sane reason for not expanding background checks at gun shows and internet sales.
Yes, right, Senator Baucus (a Senator from my state who helped to block the Manchin-Toomey amendment yesterday), the third most senior Senator in the U.S. Senate, is going to suffer electorally in 2014 if anyone in the state of Montana is murdered by a gun.
God, are you for real?
And, as usual, it's never any subject of interest that most rural states do, incidentally, contain populations that tend to exist quite safely with high per-capita rates of gun ownership and lenient carry laws (we also require no universal background checks on private exchanges between friends, family or otherwise).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight
By the way Senator Manchin was on today and indicated the big hurdle to background checks on internet sales was resistance from the NRA, familiy members would be restricted from selling over the internet to relatives without a background check, unbelieveable.
How does the legislation, in your estimation, manage to exempt non friend/family member exchanges without background checks? In theory, couldn't, well, pretty much anyone claim to have received a firearm from a friend or family member with no background check, regardless of whether or not such a contention were true?
And yes, if someone announced their firearm on the internet as being for sale and ultimately sold it to a family member, there would still be a background check required because the sale was publically advertised prior to the transaction between family members.
Well NRAers, just like the GOPer, know they can lie to their followers without worry about being called out by them. Only people who know otherwise call the lies out and it doesn't matter when they do. As time goes on their echo chamber is getting smaller and smaller. Just point out the lies and don't worry about trying to persuade them to stop the lying, because, hey, that's all they got.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Classy! 
