Background Checks: Senate Republicans In Disarray Over Popular Gun Control Measure

[M14 Shooter]

60% of the guns sold get background checks and 40% don't.

NO was just a dumbass tangent to avoid the issue of gun confiscation.

You might be singing a different tune if you were in NO with no gun my friend.

From what folks who were there told me guns were needed big time. Self defence plus.

No one will confiscate guns in this country. To many voters have guns. Votes are all that count to the Clowns in DC. Anyones vote will do. Even a gun owner.

Just a bunch of kneejerk reaction.

Guns don't kill people. PEOPLE kill people and always will.

Guns also kill people, because when laws don't allow criminals to get guns, people aren't killed as often

This is a lie; guns do not kill people, they are used by people to kill.
Its already illegal for criminals to have guns. So much for that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Very few criminals buy their guns on street corners. They just get someone who can pass a background check, if they can't pass one themselves.

Prove this to be true.
Then expalin on how the state and federal laws against straw purchases haven't stopped this.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Holy shit, why would any sane person be against background checks?

Easy:
Background checks are a form of prior restraint and prior restraint violates the constitution.
Why woud any sane person support violating the constitution?

He capitulates easily and often. He needs govt to make his decisions.

Actually...
Its pretty clear that he's more than happy to make decisions for others regarding subjects he knows little or nothing about.

What sane person allows the ignorant to make decisions regarding the limits placed on their rights?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Guns also kill people, because when laws don't allow criminals to get guns, people aren't killed as often. Guns make it easy to kill. Once the trigger is pulled that bullet doesn't know who you were targeting.

These are bullshit objections to solutions that would work or reduce homicide by firearms. One guy was talking about making your own shotgun, but only 356 of 8,583 homicides by firearms involved a shotgun. A shotgun doesn't leave a ballistic trace, so why weren't they used more often?

It all boils down to the NRA filling people with propaganda and telling them, you can't do anything to solve the problem, so let's keep everything the way it is so we can keep making money off the status quo.

Government can do things to solve the problems of gun violence in America. It's just not in the NRA's interest to have it changed.

Oh paleeze. Do you thinka criminal gets his gun legally?? Most of em get their guns on street corners and from other criminals or they steal em.

It all boils down to the legal, law abiding gun owner having to jump through hoops to own a gun and the criminal getting his from the huge blackmarket on guns.

If you don't want a gun thats up to you.

My weapon of choice is the shotgun. Lets see how long it takes a 911 call to get a LEO to your residence to save your ass from a gun wielding criminal.

Me? I'll take the opportunity to introduce the criminal up close and personal to my shotgun. If he can get by my dogs that is. Believe me. I will not bat an eye when I stop him. If he dies in the process, Oh well.

As for the NRA? They are a business and do what business does. You don't have to like it but it is what it is.

Very few criminals buy their guns on street corners. They just get someone who can pass a background check, if they can't pass one themselves. Getting someone else to buy the weapon means the weapon can't directly be traced to them, even if they can pass a background check. What do you think is stopping criminals from going to guns stores or shows? Even a felon could take someone there who can pass a background check and buy any weapon on sale. You can't look at someone and tell they are a felon.

Law abiding citizens don't do this. You're hopelessly grasping.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh paleeze. Do you thinka criminal gets his gun legally?? Most of em get their guns on street corners and from other criminals or they steal em.

It all boils down to the legal, law abiding gun owner having to jump through hoops to own a gun and the criminal getting his from the huge blackmarket on guns.

If you don't want a gun thats up to you.

My weapon of choice is the shotgun. Lets see how long it takes a 911 call to get a LEO to your residence to save your ass from a gun wielding criminal.

Me? I'll take the opportunity to introduce the criminal up close and personal to my shotgun. If he can get by my dogs that is. Believe me. I will not bat an eye when I stop him. If he dies in the process, Oh well.

As for the NRA? They are a business and do what business does. You don't have to like it but it is what it is.

Very few criminals buy their guns on street corners. They just get someone who can pass a background check, if they can't pass one themselves. Getting someone else to buy the weapon means the weapon can't directly be traced to them, even if they can pass a background check. What do you think is stopping criminals from going to guns stores or shows? Even a felon could take someone there who can pass a background check and buy any weapon on sale. You can't look at someone and tell they are a felon.

Law abiding citizens don't do this. You're hopelessly grasping.

Boils down to this:
In a free society, it is impossible to pre-empt crime.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Easy:
Background checks are a form of prior restraint and prior restraint violates the constitution.
Why woud any sane person support violating the constitution?

He capitulates easily and often. He needs govt to make his decisions.

Actually...
Its pretty clear that he's more than happy to make decisions for others regarding subjects he knows little or nothing about.

What sane person allows the ignorant to make decisions regarding the limits placed on their rights?

That too and those like him who throw in false shocked outrage into the flawed argument.

 

[Dubya]

Oh paleeze. Do you thinka criminal gets his gun legally?? Most of em get their guns on street corners and from other criminals or they steal em.

It all boils down to the legal, law abiding gun owner having to jump through hoops to own a gun and the criminal getting his from the huge blackmarket on guns.

If you don't want a gun thats up to you.

My weapon of choice is the shotgun. Lets see how long it takes a 911 call to get a LEO to your residence to save your ass from a gun wielding criminal.

Me? I'll take the opportunity to introduce the criminal up close and personal to my shotgun. If he can get by my dogs that is. Believe me. I will not bat an eye when I stop him. If he dies in the process, Oh well.

As for the NRA? They are a business and do what business does. You don't have to like it but it is what it is.

Very few criminals buy their guns on street corners. They just get someone who can pass a background check, if they can't pass one themselves. Getting someone else to buy the weapon means the weapon can't directly be traced to them, even if they can pass a background check. What do you think is stopping criminals from going to guns stores or shows? Even a felon could take someone there who can pass a background check and buy any weapon on sale. You can't look at someone and tell they are a felon.

Law abiding citizens don't do this. You're hopelessly grasping.

What does law abiding citizens have to do with a post only talking about criminals?

What the hell makes right-wingers think you have to be caught to be a criminal?

 

[Dubya]

He capitulates easily and often. He needs govt to make his decisions.

Actually...
Its pretty clear that he's more than happy to make decisions for others regarding subjects he knows little or nothing about.

What sane person allows the ignorant to make decisions regarding the limits placed on their rights?

That too and those like him who throw in false shocked outrage into the flawed argument.

You idiots claimed laws couldn't stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals and I showed you how laws could do it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are just too stupid.
New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms as Water Recedes
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Hey, dumbass, that was a local state matter during a state of emergency - not the federal government.

He was asked for an example of confiscation; he provided one.
Why do you want to move the goalposts?

I provided it and the shit stain bitched about it.

 

[Dubya]

Holy shit, why would any sane person be against background checks?

No sane person is. The states already have background checks.

60% of the time is not always.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Holy shit, why would any sane person be against background checks?

No sane person is. The states already have background checks.

60% of the time is not always.

BITCH
How many times must I explain private sales for the most part are done between friends, you don't need a god damn background check from a government agency of a friend that you are going to sale a firearm too, you already know their back ground. The government does not need too know what I do with my private property

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Actually...
Its pretty clear that he's more than happy to make decisions for others regarding subjects he knows little or nothing about.

What sane person allows the ignorant to make decisions regarding the limits placed on their rights?

That too and those like him who throw in false shocked outrage into the flawed argument.

You idiots claimed laws couldn't stop guns from getting into the hands of criminals and I showed you how laws could do it.

And you're still wrong.

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Holy shit, why would any sane person be against background checks?

No sane person is. The states already have background checks.

60% of the time is not always.

You have no proof for that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Hey, dumbass, that was a local state matter during a state of emergency - not the federal government.

He was asked for an example of confiscation; he provided one.
Why do you want to move the goalposts?

I provided it and the shit stain bitched about it.

He's clearly more interested in giving neg reps than defending his positions from arguments that destroy them, outright..

 

[Desperado]

They were evacuating an area with the potential of looting going on. Why would they want people running around with guns?

Maybe, just maybe to deter the looters?

Removing those guns makes it safer for the national guard, the police and the public.

Made it so much safer for the looters too.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

He was asked for an example of confiscation; he provided one.
Why do you want to move the goalposts?

I provided it and the shit stain bitched about it.

He's clearly more interested in giving neg reps than defending his positions from arguments that destroy them, outright..

And misinformation.

 

[hazlnut]

By Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- Ask a Senate Republican if he or she supports an assault weapons ban and you'll likely get a "no." But ask about tighter background checks -- one of few items in President Barack Obama's gun violence package with a shot at passing Congress -- and you'll likely get a vague response about needing more information, if you get a response at all.

"Uh, I don't know what you mean," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who then ended the conversation by turning around and walking into a room where senators were having lunch, closing the door behind him.

"I need to have more details. I, you know, I just need -- you need to ask me after I've talked to our judiciary staff in our office," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), also heading to the Senate lunch. "I hate to respond just in the hallway, so I won't."

"I've got -- my wife's here. I'm sorry. I've gotta -- thanks," said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).

In the days since Obama spoke to the nation about gun violence and put forward proposals to address it, lawmakers in both parties have signaled support for stricter background checks -- mostly Democrats, but some key Republicans, too -- and the White House has made the proposal a top priority. Public support for universal background checks is extremely high, possibly even at 92 percent, per a recent CBS News/New York Times poll.

The provision would require anyone selling a firearm to run a background check on the prospective buyer. Under current federal law, background checks are only required for guns sold by licensed firearm dealers, whose sales make up an estimated 60 percent of U.S. gun sales. Private dealers sell the remaining 40 percent without checks -- at gun shows, via the Internet or just between individuals.

Some Republicans said they don't support universal background checks because they don't think the government should have any more control over people's access to guns.

"Probably not," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said when asked if he could support the proposal. "I don't want a national list of people selling guns ... My reasoning is that we have too much government as it is, and frankly, I don't believe it's the guns that are the problem. I think there are many other reasons behind the problem."

"I don't know how much tighter they could be," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) said of background checks, brushing off a question specifically about the gun show loophole. "I'm not getting down in the weeds."

Others simply said they don't know where they are on the issue.

"I'm going to look at it," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

More: Background Checks: Senate Republicans In Disarray Over Popular Gun Control Measure

Those suckers scurried like cockroaches when the kitchen light goes on.

 

[zeke]

You are just too stupid.
New Orleans Begins Confiscating Firearms as Water Recedes
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/08/national/nationalspecial/08cnd-storm.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

Hey, dumbass, that was a local state matter during a state of emergency - not the federal government.

He was asked for an example of confiscation; he provided one.
Why do you want to move the goalposts?

Talk about moving goal posts. Why you all want to deny criminals guns? It does not say anyhwhere in the COTUS that criminals can't have guns. I take it that if it doens't say "take guns away from criminals" in the COTUS, no restrictions apply, to anyone, about anything guns.

And don't go down that slippery slope of taking guns away from criminals cause you know damn good and well that you will be next. Arms for all, 100% compliance should be the goal.

Think of what a nice polite society we will be when we are all armed. It'll be so cool.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Hey, dumbass, that was a local state matter during a state of emergency - not the federal government.

He was asked for an example of confiscation; he provided one.
Why do you want to move the goalposts?

Talk about moving goal posts. Why you all want to deny criminals guns? It does not say anyhwhere in the COTUS that criminals can't have guns. I take it that if it doens't say "take guns away from criminals" in the COTUS, no restrictions apply, to anyone, about anything guns.

And don't go down that slippery slope of taking guns away from criminals cause you know damn good and well that you will be next. Arms for all, 100% compliance should be the goal.

Think of what a nice polite society we will be when we are all armed. It'll be so cool.

So disarming people during an emergency makes people safe? talk about having your head up your ass

This should be easy biggie. Just go ahead and link to all the bad things that happened in NO when the big bad policemen confiscated weapons. Does the red dawn web sites have the story of rape murder and pillage in NO. AFTER the guns were taken? I want to read about it.

James Letten, the chief federal prosecutor in New Orleans, said Tuesday's indictment offered "compelling evidence" against officers who "abused their power in committing violent crimes against unarmed citizens they were sworn to protect."-USA Today
New Orleans indictments further vindicate Bellevue group's post-Katrina lawsuit - Seattle gun rights | Examiner.com

Police officers convicted over Katrina bridge shootings | World news | The Guardian

New Orleans officers guilty in Katrina shootings | Reuters

Here you go.

 

[M14 Shooter]

By Jennifer Bendery

WASHINGTON -- Ask a Senate Republican if he or she supports an assault weapons ban and you'll likely get a "no." But ask about tighter background checks -- one of few items in President Barack Obama's gun violence package with a shot at passing Congress -- and you'll likely get a vague response about needing more information, if you get a response at all.

"Uh, I don't know what you mean," said Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who then ended the conversation by turning around and walking into a room where senators were having lunch, closing the door behind him.

"I need to have more details. I, you know, I just need -- you need to ask me after I've talked to our judiciary staff in our office," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), also heading to the Senate lunch. "I hate to respond just in the hallway, so I won't."

"I've got -- my wife's here. I'm sorry. I've gotta -- thanks," said Sen. John Barrasso (R-Wyo.).

In the days since Obama spoke to the nation about gun violence and put forward proposals to address it, lawmakers in both parties have signaled support for stricter background checks -- mostly Democrats, but some key Republicans, too -- and the White House has made the proposal a top priority. Public support for universal background checks is extremely high, possibly even at 92 percent, per a recent CBS News/New York Times poll.

The provision would require anyone selling a firearm to run a background check on the prospective buyer. Under current federal law, background checks are only required for guns sold by licensed firearm dealers, whose sales make up an estimated 60 percent of U.S. gun sales. Private dealers sell the remaining 40 percent without checks -- at gun shows, via the Internet or just between individuals.

Some Republicans said they don't support universal background checks because they don't think the government should have any more control over people's access to guns.

"Probably not," Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) said when asked if he could support the proposal. "I don't want a national list of people selling guns ... My reasoning is that we have too much government as it is, and frankly, I don't believe it's the guns that are the problem. I think there are many other reasons behind the problem."

"I don't know how much tighter they could be," Sen. Thad Cochran (R-Miss.) said of background checks, brushing off a question specifically about the gun show loophole. "I'm not getting down in the weeds."

Others simply said they don't know where they are on the issue.

"I'm going to look at it," said Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.)

More: Background Checks: Senate Republicans In Disarray Over Popular Gun Control Measure

Those suckers scurried like cockroaches when the kitchen light goes on.

Says she who has yet to put up a meaningful post on the issue.