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.
Nothing in this bill or any new bill would prevent mass shootings. How many more bill of rights will they try to take? How about a bill to help the mentally ill?
A total of 71 percent of American voters say they are either "dissatisfied" or "angry" over the U.S. Senate rejection of expanded background checks for gun buyers.
It's time for the Congress to represent the wishes of the people ... and not the anti-American NRA.
Here's a note to the ignorant. Maybe you will pass it along:
The United States House of Representatives is controlled by the Republican Party.
In other words, who gives a **** what a bunch of anti-2nd Amendment Senators want to do to try to pass the bill? It will NEVER pass the House.
If you could corral your liberal colleagues and fill them in on this tiny little tidbit, then perhaps it will prevent a few people from exploding heads.
I believe every human being except criminals or crazies has a right to own a gun. I support background checks but not laws specifying what guns are suitable for self defense or any other use. The criminals and crazies give all gun owners a bad reputation and should not be legally allowed to purchase guns under any conditions.
I'm VERY pro-gun, and I was against passage of that bill, but I'm also one of the "90%" who believes background checks should be expanded. Several parts of the bill, most importantly the fact that it laid the groundwork for a national registry, were objectionable.
Yes, I know, the bill specifically forbade the creation of a registry. But those words could be removed simply by inserting a rider in a future unrelated bill, along with the requirement that all FFLs now have to send in all their copies of form 4437 to the gub'mint. That form includes name, addresses, and gun specifics. I put the chances of that happening at about the same as getting a rider called the "Monsanto Protection Act" through a democratically-controlled senate and signed by a democrat president.
But I'm still in favor of expanding background checks, and I'd be interested in how they plan on "sweetening the deal".
All this is is a complete watering down of the bill so that it actually does nothing so politicians can say that they passed something.
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.
