Did obama lie? Yes he did.

[NYcarbineer]

What if the number was 20%, or 10%?

Is there some rational argument for not wanting to reduce that number?

What if the background checks used by places like daycare centers, places where employees work with children,

checks to screen out child molesters, what if they had an inefficiency in them that allowed 10 or 20 or 40% of unqualified applicants to slip through...

...why would you fiercely defend such an inadequate system? What would be your motive?

So tell me how going after Law abiding citizen's guns is going to change that?

A person trying to buy a gun he is not legally qualified to own is not a law abiding citizen.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you know the number is wrong,

then you must know the correct number and must be able to prove why your number is correct.

Otherwise you don't know that 40% is a bad number.

 

[Meister]

With all this hoopla about gun/ammo control, one forgets that these new regulations if they were in place beforehand wouldn't have saved any lives in the two previous mass shootings. The guns in both instances were stolen by the perps.

So just keep pushing regulations on the very people you don't have to worry about in the first place....oh, and tax the hell out of them in the process.
This isn't about saving lives...it's a political agenda driven regulation....period

 

[NYcarbineer]

With all this hoopla about gun/ammo control, one forgets that these new regulations if they were in place beforehand wouldn't have saved any lives in the two previous mass shootings. The guns in both instances were stolen by the perps.

So just keep pushing regulations on the very people you don't have to worry about in the first place....oh, and tax the hell out of them in the process.
This isn't about saving lives...it's a political agenda driven regulation....period

Yes, and child molesters still molest children even though we have laws against it.

Should we use your logic and repeal those laws?

 

[Meister]

With all this hoopla about gun/ammo control, one forgets that these new regulations if they were in place beforehand wouldn't have saved any lives in the two previous mass shootings. The guns in both instances were stolen by the perps.

So just keep pushing regulations on the very people you don't have to worry about in the first place....oh, and tax the hell out of them in the process.
This isn't about saving lives...it's a political agenda driven regulation....period

Yes, and child molesters still molest children even though we have laws against it.

Should we use your logic and repeal those laws?

How are those laws against child molesters impacting the innocent?

Now....ask yourself how the new gun laws would impact the innocent?

I think you're capable of connecting the dots....I think.

 

[kaz]

What is the rationale for having gun purchase loopholes in the background check system?

Who here has ever made a decent argument FOR that?

Government getting to decide whether to give you a permit to allow you to exercise a constitutional right, requiring you to take classes and then charging you a fee. Suppose the government had to give you a permit to protect you from illegal searches. It's up go government whether you get the permit, you have to take say 15 hours of classes and pay a $100 application and ongoing fees to maintain your permit. Otherwise you don't get that particular Constitutional right.

I know you won't agree with that analogy because you're a liberal, but I'll make you a deal. If you can clearly demonstrate you grasped the question, I'll donate $100 to the ACLU.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

No, I'm tired of pussies thinking they have some golden nugget of inside information that none of the rest of us know about, for one. For two, they hate Obama so much, and I mean HATE on a personal level, why don't they either A) take him out, or B) expect anyone to take them seriously when they're so blind with hate?

Politicians lie? Gee, I never knew that!

Makes my point. If Obama lies and it's pointed out, they wont care.

I can still hear the left's mantra, "Bush lied, people died". The left are a bunch of hypocrites.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Did obama lie? Yes he did.

Obama criticized for using dated, disputed gun stat to sell background checks | Fox News

FAUX Noise??!!!!

So what of all these Liberal news networks you watch?

FAUX OUTRAGE??!!!!

 

[Lonestar_logic]

What is the rationale for having gun purchase loopholes in the background check system?

Who here has ever made a decent argument FOR that?

First show there is a loophole.

 

[iamwhatiseem]

Obama criticized for using dated, disputed gun stat to sell background checks | Fox News

As President Obama prepares to head to Colorado on Wednesday to push gun control legislation, some are calling into question the validity of a key statistic he’s using to tout his message on near-universal background checks.
During several speeches, Obama has said 40 percent of all gun purchases were made without a background check.
But that number is nearly two decades old and comes from a poll with a relatively tiny sample size. Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, as well as The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” are calling out the president’s stat, saying his numbers on background checks need a background check of their own.

The surprise is that we haven't vomited him out by now.

Ah..so the NRA which has lobbied successfully to corrupt the data on gun violence is now the "fact checker"?

It's sort of like a fox fact checking chickens..

The Executive Order the NRA Should Fear the Most - Elspeth Reeve - The Atlantic Wire

In 1996, some members of Congress tried to completely defund the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which was doing gun research, Live Science explains. Instead, lawmakers stripped $2.6 million from the CDC's budget -- the exact amount it had spent on gun injury research the year before. Congress forbade research that might "advocate or promote gun control." In 2003, Kansas Rep. Todd Tiahrt forbid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from giving researchers data about guns used in crime. Last year, the National Institutes of Health was blocked from funding gun research. The efforts have had impressive results. According to a letter to Biden signed by 100 researchers, the NIH has funded just three studies on gun injuries in the last 40 years. Hey, that's three whole studies, right? Hardly censorship! Well, the researchers point out that guns have injured 4 million people since 1973, while four infectious diseases have affected just 2,000 -- and the NIH has funded almost 500 studies on them. The letter protests that "legislative language has the effect of discouraging the funding of well-crafted scientific studies."

Ahh...so if a special interest group lies - then it is ok for the President of the United States to lies as well...gotcha.

 

[JimH52]

The Supreme Court feels that reasonable limits to the 2nd Amendment can be allowed. So, go ahead and express your partisan feeling. They will count for ....nothing.

 

[TemplarKormac]

With all this hoopla about gun/ammo control, one forgets that these new regulations if they were in place beforehand wouldn't have saved any lives in the two previous mass shootings. The guns in both instances were stolen by the perps.

So just keep pushing regulations on the very people you don't have to worry about in the first place....oh, and tax the hell out of them in the process.
This isn't about saving lives...it's a political agenda driven regulation....period

Yes, and child molesters still molest children even though we have laws against it.

Should we use your logic and repeal those laws?

Criminals will still obtain weapons and ammo despite all of these newfangled gun laws

Should we just use your logic and repeal the 2nd Amendment?

 

[Avatar4321]

With all this hoopla about gun/ammo control, one forgets that these new regulations if they were in place beforehand wouldn't have saved any lives in the two previous mass shootings. The guns in both instances were stolen by the perps.

So just keep pushing regulations on the very people you don't have to worry about in the first place....oh, and tax the hell out of them in the process.
This isn't about saving lives...it's a political agenda driven regulation....period

Yes, and child molesters still molest children even though we have laws against it.

Should we use your logic and repeal those laws?

Molesting children isn't a constitutional right.

Owning a firearm is.

 

[Avatar4321]

The Supreme Court feels that reasonable limits to the 2nd Amendment can be allowed. So, go ahead and express your partisan feeling. They will count for ....nothing.

The Supreme court also said that Segregation was Constitutional. Doesn't mean the Constitution says that.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Supreme Court feels that reasonable limits to the 2nd Amendment can be allowed. So, go ahead and express your partisan feeling. They will count for ....nothing.

Keyword being "reasonable." Which is the last thing you have on your liberal mind at the moment.

 

[KevinWestern]

With all this hoopla about gun/ammo control, one forgets that these new regulations if they were in place beforehand wouldn't have saved any lives in the two previous mass shootings. The guns in both instances were stolen by the perps.

So just keep pushing regulations on the very people you don't have to worry about in the first place....oh, and tax the hell out of them in the process.
This isn't about saving lives...it's a political agenda driven regulation....period

Yes, and child molesters still molest children even though we have laws against it.

Should we use your logic and repeal those laws?

Well, the thing is if we're trying to stop child molesters we'll probably implement a law that makes it a highly punishable offense (to deter). Molestations will occur, but at least we tried.

I think the point Meister's making is that if we're trying to stop a mass shooting with perpetrators who stole guns, how does implementing incremental registration laws prevent that (because obviously the criminal won't care)? It's an illogical attempt at trying to fix the situation, you know?

And if you can't justify the action through logic, one has to assume the motivation is politically driven under (perhaps) an ulterior agenda..

.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

Obama criticized for using dated, disputed gun stat to sell background checks | Fox News

As President Obama prepares to head to Colorado on Wednesday to push gun control legislation, some are calling into question the validity of a key statistic he’s using to tout his message on near-universal background checks.
During several speeches, Obama has said 40 percent of all gun purchases were made without a background check.
But that number is nearly two decades old and comes from a poll with a relatively tiny sample size. Gun rights groups like the National Rifle Association, as well as The Washington Post’s “Fact Checker,” are calling out the president’s stat, saying his numbers on background checks need a background check of their own.

The surprise is that we haven't vomited him out by now.

Ah..so the NRA which has lobbied successfully to corrupt the data on gun violence is now the "fact checker"?

It's sort of like a fox fact checking chickens..

The Executive Order the NRA Should Fear the Most - Elspeth Reeve - The Atlantic Wire

In 1996, some members of Congress tried to completely defund the CDC's National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, which was doing gun research, Live Science explains. Instead, lawmakers stripped $2.6 million from the CDC's budget -- the exact amount it had spent on gun injury research the year before. Congress forbade research that might "advocate or promote gun control." In 2003, Kansas Rep. Todd Tiahrt forbid the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives from giving researchers data about guns used in crime. Last year, the National Institutes of Health was blocked from funding gun research. The efforts have had impressive results. According to a letter to Biden signed by 100 researchers, the NIH has funded just three studies on gun injuries in the last 40 years. Hey, that's three whole studies, right? Hardly censorship! Well, the researchers point out that guns have injured 4 million people since 1973, while four infectious diseases have affected just 2,000 -- and the NIH has funded almost 500 studies on them. The letter protests that "legislative language has the effect of discouraging the funding of well-crafted scientific studies."

Ahh...so if a special interest group lies - then it is ok for the President of the United States to lies as well...gotcha.

You think if you stop Obama or just one politician lying that's going to solve the problem? Do you? You may as well ask dogs to not bark. Most of them are lawyers, for Christ sake - their TRAINED liars.

 

[edthecynic]

If you know the number is wrong,

then you must know the correct number and must be able to prove why your number is correct.

Otherwise you don't know that 40% is a bad number.

They know it's wrong but won't give the correct number because they know the number is probably closer to 80%.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

So you're OK with politicians lying, you're not OK with someone calling them out for that. Isn't that bassakwards?

No, I'm tired of pussies thinking they have some golden nugget of inside information that none of the rest of us know about, for one. For two, they hate Obama so much, and I mean HATE on a personal level, why don't they either A) take him out, or B) expect anyone to take them seriously when they're so blind with hate?

Politicians lie? Gee, I never knew that!

Why did you start with "no" if you were going to turn around and clarify that you agree with what I said? Politicians can lie, you're OK with that. Pointing that out makes you a moron. I got it.

Look at my avatar, quiz kid. Then, kindly go fuck yourself.

 

[KnobbyWalsh]

No, I'm tired of pussies thinking they have some golden nugget of inside information that none of the rest of us know about, for one. For two, they hate Obama so much, and I mean HATE on a personal level, why don't they either A) take him out, or B) expect anyone to take them seriously when they're so blind with hate?

Politicians lie? Gee, I never knew that!

Makes my point. If Obama lies and it's pointed out, they wont care.

Congratulations about being right about the obvious. You tell me what can be done about it. No one's solved that in over 200 years in this country.