BREAKING: King Obama to wave his scepter and create new gun purchase background checks

[Wry Catcher]

And no where in COTUS is anything allowing the government to regulate biological weapons, nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. Or to regulate Marijuana or opium poppies.

Even Saint Ronald understood the need for sane policies on the issue of gun proliferation:

Did Reagan support an assault-weapons ban?

The correct answer to the person you were replying to is:

The Commerce Clause in the constitution. The government clearly has the constitutional right and power to regulate commerce.

When goods or services are exchanged for money, that's commerce.

So the constitution most certainly says the government can regulate gun sales.

Which is why the courts of our nation have upheld gun regulations laws.

Printz v. United States restricted congressional legislative authority by striking down the many provisions of the brady handgun violence prevention act

That doesn't show that background checks are unconstitutional.

If they were they would have been struck down.

You can't be that stupid. Can you?

it is not a crime for a felon to have a back ground check done

just how many felons have gone to jail for failing a background check

Please show me where I said it was illegal to fail a background check.

I never said that.

I said that background checks help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental problems.

So stop lying and changing my words.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone pay any attention to anything you say?

I"m not sure he lies, at least intentionally. Methinks the dude is mentally ill.

 

[Dana7360]

The correct answer to the person you were replying to is:

The Commerce Clause in the constitution. The government clearly has the constitutional right and power to regulate commerce.

When goods or services are exchanged for money, that's commerce.

So the constitution most certainly says the government can regulate gun sales.

Which is why the courts of our nation have upheld gun regulations laws.

Printz v. United States restricted congressional legislative authority by striking down the many provisions of the brady handgun violence prevention act

That doesn't show that background checks are unconstitutional.

If they were they would have been struck down.

You can't be that stupid. Can you?

it is not a crime for a felon to have a back ground check done

just how many felons have gone to jail for failing a background check

Please show me where I said it was illegal to fail a background check.

I never said that.

I said that background checks help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental problems.

So stop lying and changing my words.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone pay any attention to anything you say?

I"m not sure he lies, at least intentionally. Methinks the dude is mentally ill.

I agree the person is mentally ill.

However that person is also a liar. I never said anything about it being illegal to fail a background check.

 

[PredFan]

What you don't know is that what you and your idiot president plan to do won't save a single life

Not my president, and I don't much like him, but he has this right.
You, on the other hand, have it wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

The vast majority of guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including at least two of the guns used in the San Bernardino attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

New. stronger checks will help prevent many or most of the massive gun mass murders you see in the US.
Of course, the NRA and its dodgy pals don't want any gun control at all because when the US public realise the truth, they'll eventually force votes to dump the lot - and that's a lot of lost profit.

The so called stronger checks won't do anything, since most of the mass shootings were done with legally owned firearms.

Then if it won't do anything what's your problem with it?

There is a HUGE problem with it. One, it infringes on my 2nd Amendment rights, and two, since it won't do anything, it will lead to additional restrictions, laws, and infringement.

 

[guno]

this thug doesn't have this power to CHANGE our laws and I hope to see the States stand up to him again over this. he is not a DICKTATOR. Though he dreams of being one. All I see from him: he's just a lowlife street thug

as compared to white trailer trash?

 

[JimBowie1958]

No one is stopping anyone from selling anything privately.

All that's being done is requiring a background check.

It's been required in my state since 2014. No one has stopped private sales. All that's happening now is a proper background check.

So stop lying.

So if you lack the resources to do a background check, YOU CANT SELL YOUR PROPERTY.

So stop lying.

 

[JimBowie1958]

as compared to white trailer trash?

What is wrong with white trailer trash?

 

[Wry Catcher]

What you don't know is that what you and your idiot president plan to do won't save a single life

Not my president, and I don't much like him, but he has this right.
You, on the other hand, have it wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

The vast majority of guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including at least two of the guns used in the San Bernardino attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

New. stronger checks will help prevent many or most of the massive gun mass murders you see in the US.
Of course, the NRA and its dodgy pals don't want any gun control at all because when the US public realise the truth, they'll eventually force votes to dump the lot - and that's a lot of lost profit.

The so called stronger checks won't do anything, since most of the mass shootings were done with legally owned firearms.

Then if it won't do anything what's your problem with it?

There is a HUGE problem with it. One, it infringes on my 2nd Amendment rights, and two, since it won't do anything, it will lead to additional restrictions, laws, and infringement.

How huge a problem do you think the parents of those 5 & 6 year olds' slaughtered at Sandy Hook Elementary experienced?

 

[Wry Catcher]

No one is stopping anyone from selling anything privately.

All that's being done is requiring a background check.

It's been required in my state since 2014. No one has stopped private sales. All that's happening now is a proper background check.

So stop lying.

So if you lack the resources to do a background check, YOU CANT SELL YOUR PROPERTY.

So stop lying.

I bet you can. Do you deny the sale of stolen guns doesn't occur in alleys and back streets?

 

[PredFan]

What you don't know is that what you and your idiot president plan to do won't save a single life

Not my president, and I don't much like him, but he has this right.
You, on the other hand, have it wrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/10/03/us/how-mass-shooters-got-their-guns.html?_r=0

The vast majority of guns used in 15 recent mass shootings, including at least two of the guns used in the San Bernardino attack, were bought legally and with a federal background check. At least eight gunmen had criminal histories or documented mental health problems that did not prevent them from obtaining their weapons.

New. stronger checks will help prevent many or most of the massive gun mass murders you see in the US.
Of course, the NRA and its dodgy pals don't want any gun control at all because when the US public realise the truth, they'll eventually force votes to dump the lot - and that's a lot of lost profit.

The so called stronger checks won't do anything, since most of the mass shootings were done with legally owned firearms.

Then if it won't do anything what's your problem with it?

There is a HUGE problem with it. One, it infringes on my 2nd Amendment rights, and two, since it won't do anything, it will lead to additional restrictions, laws, and infringement.

How huge a problem do you think the parents of those 5 & 6 year olds' slaughtered at Sandy Hook Elementary experienced?

Irrelevant.

 

[JimBowie1958]

No one is stopping anyone from selling anything privately.

All that's being done is requiring a background check.

It's been required in my state since 2014. No one has stopped private sales. All that's happening now is a proper background check.

So stop lying.

So if you lack the resources to do a background check, YOU CANT SELL YOUR PROPERTY.

So stop lying.

I bet you can. Do you deny the sale of stolen guns doesn't occur in alleys and back streets?

Not LEGALLY stupid ass, which is the WHOLE fucking point.

 

[jon_berzerk]

And no where in COTUS is anything allowing the government to regulate biological weapons, nuclear weapons or chemical weapons. Or to regulate Marijuana or opium poppies.

Even Saint Ronald understood the need for sane policies on the issue of gun proliferation:

Did Reagan support an assault-weapons ban?

The correct answer to the person you were replying to is:

The Commerce Clause in the constitution. The government clearly has the constitutional right and power to regulate commerce.

When goods or services are exchanged for money, that's commerce.

So the constitution most certainly says the government can regulate gun sales.

Which is why the courts of our nation have upheld gun regulations laws.

Printz v. United States restricted congressional legislative authority by striking down the many provisions of the brady handgun violence prevention act

That doesn't show that background checks are unconstitutional.

If they were they would have been struck down.

You can't be that stupid. Can you?

it is not a crime for a felon to have a back ground check done

just how many felons have gone to jail for failing a background check

Please show me where I said it was illegal to fail a background check.

I never said that.

I said that background checks help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental problems.

So stop lying and changing my words.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone pay any attention to anything you say?

I said that background checks help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental problems.

i say it doesnt

the California terrorists obtained plenty of firearms

in one of the most restrictive states in the nation

where everyone buying a firearm is required to have a background check

that is one of thousands of examples

look at Chicago another one of the most restrictive places in the nation

where any felonious gangster can obtain a firearm without a background check

 

[jon_berzerk]

The correct answer to the person you were replying to is:

The Commerce Clause in the constitution. The government clearly has the constitutional right and power to regulate commerce.

When goods or services are exchanged for money, that's commerce.

So the constitution most certainly says the government can regulate gun sales.

Which is why the courts of our nation have upheld gun regulations laws.

Printz v. United States restricted congressional legislative authority by striking down the many provisions of the brady handgun violence prevention act

That doesn't show that background checks are unconstitutional.

If they were they would have been struck down.

You can't be that stupid. Can you?

it is not a crime for a felon to have a back ground check done

just how many felons have gone to jail for failing a background check

Please show me where I said it was illegal to fail a background check.

I never said that.

I said that background checks help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental problems.

So stop lying and changing my words.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone pay any attention to anything you say?

I"m not sure he lies, at least intentionally. Methinks the dude is mentally ill.

kiss my ass you lying asshole commie

 

[jon_berzerk]

Printz v. United States restricted congressional legislative authority by striking down the many provisions of the brady handgun violence prevention act

That doesn't show that background checks are unconstitutional.

If they were they would have been struck down.

You can't be that stupid. Can you?

it is not a crime for a felon to have a back ground check done

just how many felons have gone to jail for failing a background check

Please show me where I said it was illegal to fail a background check.

I never said that.

I said that background checks help to keep guns out of the hands of criminals and those with mental problems.

So stop lying and changing my words.

If you have to lie how valid is your point and why should anyone pay any attention to anything you say?

I"m not sure he lies, at least intentionally. Methinks the dude is mentally ill.

I agree the person is mentally ill.

However that person is also a liar. I never said anything about it being illegal to fail a background check.

stop your lying creep

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Cruz said he will rescind EVERY Obama executive order on day one of his Presidency. I hope he declares it in his inauguration speech in front of Obama and his whole fucking family.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Once again...while Congress flounders

Obama kicks some ass

Wait until President Cruz "kicks some ass".

 

[skookerasbil]

Lead on DRUDGE right now....................


GUN SALES SET ALL-TIME RECORD

 

[Geaux4it]

The below is from the ATF form. You can answer yes to the felon question and you'll be denied and sent on your way. Now if you're a felon and LIE about it and its caught, that is a felony.

Not one felon I would think is dumb enough to answer yes to the felony question. So, the majority of denials, relative to felons, are when they are caught lying on the form yet the Government does not prosecute


-Geaux

============
I certify that my answers to Section A are true, correct, and complete. I have read and understand the Notices, Instructions, and Definitions on ATF Form 4473. I understand that answering “yes” to question 11.a. if I am not the actual buyer is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to any of the questions 11.b. through 11.k. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm. I understand that a person who answers “yes” to question 11.l. is prohibited from purchasing or receiving a firearm, unless the person also answers “Yes” to question 12. I also understand that making any false oral or written statement, or exhibiting any false or misrepresented identification with respect to this transaction, is a crime punishable as a felony under Federal law, and may also violate State and/or local law. I further understand that the repetitive purchase of firearms for the purpose of resale for livelihood and profit without a Federal firearms license is a violation of law (See Instructions for Question 16).

 

[Stephanie]

Anyone see what the king is putting out there? The usual, growing more government and expecting us to PAY FOR IT. He want's to hire 230 more agents for his visions on us, give 500 million to mental health which would only pay for the people working at the places, and blaaa blaaa blaaa. and you voted for this. way to freaking go