Gun Control Bill Dies in the Senate

[Conan71]

Funny how you ignore victims and go straight to penetraters.

Disarming people dramatically increases their odds of becoming victims.  The right to carry has kept millions from becoming victims.

Who's ignoring victims here?

[Gaspar]

Again, this is less about guns and more about control.

An armed person is a citizen. An unarmed person is a subject.  When you remove the people's right to bear arms, you create slaves.

Gun bans don't disarm criminals, gun bans attract them. – Walter Mondale

[heironymouspasparagus]

You have an issue with preventative law?

Exactly what is it you mean by preventative law?  You do realize that this law was in place for 10 years and had NO effect as promoted by the liars promoting it.  How is it you never address that particular "inconvenient truth"??  And perhaps discuss exactly what it is you think there is about this that would actually accomplish something?  And how would it do that...especially since we have an extended time frame proving the opposite...?


There is no such thing in the Constitution.  It DOES however say that all things not specifically mentioned are reserved to the states - but that still isn't the case here.  And you know it.  This is about the fundamental ongoing right for law abiding citizens to enjoy the shooting sport or sports of their choice without undo government intervention.

It's all about the fact that Blobama and his good buddies at the "Brady Bunch Organization" want to eliminate private ownership of firearms.  Period.  A sentiment he has expressed support for on several occasions.

Hey, didn't I make some comments about Blobama and his anti-gun fanatics a few months ago before the election - and a whole slew of people jumped on that saying how he never has shown any intention of trying to take away guns.  Except for the fact that he has talked about it for a long, long time - just not in 2008, so you could be "disarmed" into thinking his intentions were something else...

[heironymouspasparagus]

Funny how you ignore victims and go straight to penetraters.

Really not so funny how you ignore reality and go straight to the fantasy.  I still think you must be shadows in disguise....


I bet you really meant perpetrators, didn't you?  But maybe not....

[guido911]

Guido, look at the racist comments under the article you posted. You are known by the company you keep.

Please, for all of us, just shut up once and a while.

[Gaspar]

Exactly what is it you mean by preventative law?  You do realize that this law was in place for 10 years and had NO effect as promoted by the liars promoting it.  How is it you never address that particular "inconvenient truth"??  And perhaps discuss exactly what it is you think there is about this that would actually accomplish something?  And how would it do that...especially since we have an extended time frame proving the opposite...?


There is no such thing in the Constitution.  It DOES however say that all things not specifically mentioned are reserved to the states - but that still isn't the case here.  And you know it.  This is about the fundamental ongoing right for law abiding citizens to enjoy the shooting sport or sports of their choice without undo government intervention.

It's all about the fact that Blobama and his good buddies at the "Brady Bunch Organization" want to eliminate private ownership of firearms.  Period.  A sentiment he has expressed support for on several occasions.

Hey, didn't I make some comments about Blobama and his anti-gun fanatics a few months ago before the election - and a whole slew of people jumped on that saying how he never has shown any intention of trying to take away guns.  Except for the fact that he has talked about it for a long, long time - just not in 2008, so you could be "disarmed" into thinking his intentions were something else...

My only disagreement is that it has nothing to do with "sport."  The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others. 

It is hard to legislate against an armed populous with the right to protect themselves against threats to their individual liberty.

If the constitution is a fence designed to restrain government, the right to bear arms is the fence post.

[heironymouspasparagus]

My only disagreement is that it has nothing to do with "sport."  The Second Amendment is in place in case they ignore the others.  

It is hard to legislate against an armed populous with the right to protect themselves against threats to their individual liberty.

If the constitution is a fence designed to restrain government, the right to bear arms is the fence post.

That is the even bigger part of it.  While it really isn't at all likely an armed insurrection would ever succeed, the are myriad other areas of problems where the single best solution - or the only solution - is the ability to defend oneself with a firearm.  


And the intended use is irrelevant anyway.  As long as it is a lawful use, it really is no one's business what I do with a gun, where I do it (see the preface before getting all excited about 'where') or anything else related to the use of a firearm.   I can hang them from the ceiling with a light socket and make a chandelier out of it - nobody's business except mine.

[Teatownclown]

You reactionaries here at TNF quit taking things out of context and above all else please stop saying we advocate gun control. I have never taken that position nor has POTUS OBAMA.

American guns are here to stay. But we can do better about filling out forms to insure the wrong people do not buy any more than they already have.

Why do you hate comprehensive background checks?

[Teatownclown]

Disarming people dramatically increases their odds of becoming victims.  The right to carry has kept millions from becoming victims.

Who's ignoring victims here?

Can you source this "fact?" Looks to me like the villain was featured...not his victims.

Who has called for disarming?

[heironymouspasparagus]

You reactionaries here at TNF quit taking things out of context and above all else please stop saying we advocate gun control. I have never taken that position nor has POTUS OBAMA.

American guns are here to stay. But we can do better about filling out forms to insure the wrong people do not buy any more than they already have.

Why do you hate comprehensive background checks?

Yes, he has.  You really should go back more than 4 weeks on your "research".  Sense and knowledge of history moment.

And how is it that a form (which is already required - an affadavit that is a legal document that can and is used in court - Form 4473) will make any difference?  Other than a support item in a court of law.  So, I ask again - since you have advanced the idea that "we can do better about filling out forms to insure the wrong people do not buy any more than they already have" - HOW is it that better filling out of forms will ensure anything at all??  Or...you could just dodge the question, like you have dodged all the others...


So,...since "better filling out of forms" is an inane, ineffective, non-event in any real world context, just exactly what is it that you ARE advocating??  Once the silliness of that effort is shown, what is the NEXT step in your mind??

There...3 MORE questions to avoid/ignore.


As for me, I'm am not against background checks.  Neither is the NRA - that is why they supported them.  That is one of the reasons we have them.  Oh,...didn't know that?  Hmmm....big surprise....

[Conan71]

You reactionaries here at TNF quit taking things out of context and above all else please stop saying we advocate gun control. I have never taken that position nor has POTUS OBAMA.

American guns are here to stay. But we can do better about filling out forms to insure the wrong people do not buy any more than they already have.

Why do you hate comprehensive background checks?

D'oh!!!

Reuters) - President Barack Obama turned to law enforcement on Monday for support in his push to tighten gun laws, meeting at the White House with police chiefs from cities scarred by mass shootings and calling for more officers nationwide.

Obama, who has made stricter gun control measures a top policy goal for this year, reiterated his desire that lawmakers pass measures he recently unveiled to curb gun violence, including an assault weapons ban and universal background checks for gun purchases.

The meeting was the latest in a series of discussions that Obama is using to try to build political support for tighter gun control after 20 young children and six adults were killed in December by a gunman at a school in Newtown, Connecticut.

Newtown's police chief, Michael Kehoe, attended the meeting along with his counterparts from Aurora, Colorado, where 12 people were killed and 58 wounded in a mass shooting at a movie theater last July, and from Oak Creek, Wisconsin, where six people were killed and four wounded at a Sikh temple in August.

In remarks to reporters at the start of the meeting, Obama noted that the police chiefs realized the problem of gun violence extends beyond high-profile mass shootings.

"That's why part of the conversation that we're going to be having today relates not only to the issue of new laws or better enforcement of our gun laws, it also means what are we doing to make sure that we've got the strongest possible law enforcement teams on the ground?" Obama said.

"What are we doing to hire more cops? What are we doing to make sure that they're getting the training that they need?" he said.

Obama wants to ban military-style assault weapons and ensure that all gun buyers are subjected to background checks. But he needs Congress to pass legislation on the politically tricky issues.

The Senate Judiciary Committee will hold its first hearing on Wednesday on the measures.

"The only way that we're going to be able to do everything that needs to be done is with the cooperation of Congress," Obama said.

"That means passing serious laws that restrict the access and availability of assault weapons and magazine clips that aren't necessary for hunters and sportsmen and those responsible gun owners who are out there. It means that we are serious about universal background checks," he said.

The National Rifle Association, the country's most powerful pro-gun lobby group, has vowed to defeat the plan, which it says would infringe on gun ownership rights protected by the U.S. Constitution.

Monday's meeting included Vice President Joe Biden, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder and Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano.

Obama and Biden have said their plan would not affect the rights of responsible gun owners. Biden traveled to Richmond, Virginia last week with that message.

That's gun control no matter how you slice it.

Stronger background checks, you bet!  Just be prepared for the gubmint to be more privy to things in your background you may not want them to know.

[Breadburner]

At least Obama will go down at being the best at something...The best gun salesman in the history of the world.....!!!

[Teatownclown]

Conan, it is not gun control. It is controlling the manufacture and distribution of military armaments to civilians.

You gun nuts are crazy. Even Reagan would distance himself from your stench.

Isn't it time for you to start harping on immigration?

[Conan71]

Conan, it is not gun control. It is controlling the manufacture and distribution of military armaments to civilians.

You gun nuts are crazy. Even Reagan would distance himself from your stench.

Isn't it time for you to start harping on immigration?

You are all over the place.  "...it is not gun control. It is controlling.."

Bahahaha!

I'm just waiting for you to start howling about government intrusion into privacy when you figure out the sort of confidential medical info they will want to tap into for their "comprehensive" checks.  I hate to disappoint, but you will find this will be just like the Clinton era control measures, window dressing and little else.  Sick people will still seek out and kill the weak and defenseless amongst us.

[Teatownclown]

You are all over the place.  "...it is not gun control. It is controlling.."

Bahahaha!

I'm just waiting for you to start howling about government intrusion into privacy when you figure out the sort of confidential medical info they will want to tap into for their "comprehensive" checks.  I hate to disappoint, but you will find this will be just like the Clinton era control measures, window dressing and little else.  Sick people will still seek out and kill the weak and defenseless amongst us.

You fill out information for home insurance? Health insurance? Licenses? Passports? Taxes? Is it just the lazy people who fear the forms? Why do you like to exaggerate what the outcome may be? Why do you use fear in the manner in which you do?

I support the rights of citizens to own firearms.

I'm just waiting for your hate and fear act on the immigration issue...again.