Universal background checks fails - GC bill to be shelved for the rest of the year!!! - Page 4
Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 49

Thread: Universal background checks fails - GC bill to be shelved for the rest of the year!!!

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    3,832
    Originally Posted by cluznar
    This is a setback, now criminals can continue buying guns at gun shows. They make all the wrong moves in Congress.
    Expanded background checks was needed for better gun control and they failed to pass it. Well you know they are not gonna ban assault rifles if the background check failed. I don't see them passing anything for mag limitations either.
    Except for NY that is.
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    OK -- maybe I'm just not that good recognizing sarcasm sometimes when I see it. Is this sarcasm, or is this what you really believe?
    I was about to ask the same thing. It's inconceivable if this is what he really believed.
    "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well armed lamb contesting the vote."
    ~ Benjamin Franklin (maybe)

  2.   
  3. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by Kramer1113 View Post
    A bipartisan proposal to expand background checks to gun shows and Internet sales fails in the Senate in a 54-46 vote, in major setback for gun control push.

    Now if we can just get the mentally ill from shooting people we will be OK!
    And preventing the mentally ill from holding political office...

  4. #33
    ezkl2230 Guest
    I fully expect to see the president make a determined effort to find a way to use executive orders at this time. The most likely scenario would involve him taking a page from FDR's book: declaring a national emergency, and then issuing an EO limiting or completely removing our Second Amendment rights. That is how FDR got the gold. He declared a national emergency, and then issued an EO outlawing the "hoarding" of gold. It was a completely unconstitutional abuse of presidential power (EO's are only supposed to be used to modify the way government agencies function), but he got away with it and forced everyone to turn in any gold in their possession that exceeded a pre-determined amount. It stayed on the books for years until Ford issued a new EO that rescinded FDR's EO and congress passed legislation making it legal once again to own unlimited quantities of gold.

  5. #34
    Owning a gun or guns does not put me above the law. As a gun owner I wanted more expanded background checks.
    If you are a legal gun owner then background checks should not bother you. Loop holes which allow criminals to buy guns need to be closed. How many mass shootings must happen before we expand background checks? Will background checks stop all criminals from getting guns? No, but it will stop some which makes it worthwhile. Get with it, peoples lives are at stake.


  6. #35
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by cluznar View Post
    Owning a gun or guns does not put me above the law. As a gun owner I wanted more expanded background checks.
    If you are a legal gun owner then background checks should not bother you. Loop holes which allow criminals to buy guns need to be closed. How many mass shootings must happen before we expand background checks? Will background checks stop all criminals from getting guns? No, but it will stop some which makes it worthwhile. Get with it, peoples lives are at stake.

    Please explain how universal background checks will stop "some" criminals from getting a gun? I'm sincerely interested in the logic... especially since even the politicians who are pushing for all the new gun control have said themselves that none of the new laws they want would have prevented shootings like Sandy Hook.

    A general comment directed at no one individual follows..........

    The whole idea of universal background checks is based on the silly notion that criminals will obey the universal background check law. Well... if a criminal is willing to break 41 laws, including killing his own mother (isn't there a law against killing people?) in order to get guns so he can shoot up a school, why would anyone think that "the universal background check law #42" would have stopped him from getting guns?

    There is a basic lie that has been instilled into people in society. That lie is laws will protect people from criminals. And it is a terrible lie because it offers a false sense of security... simply because criminals do not obey the laws that are supposed to protect people.

    Here is a plain fact, an inescapable fact, an "in your face" slap of reality.....

    Criminals are called criminals because.................. they DO NOT obey the law. No matter how many laws there are criminals will NOT obey them.

    And believing that adding more laws on top of the multitude of laws that criminals already disobey will suddenly make criminals obey the law has to be a uniquely intensely strong form of ... denial of reality.

  7. #36
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,419
    Quote Originally Posted by ezkl2230 View Post
    Haven't seen too many of them. So is he one of the shills to which the recent GunsAmerica email refers?
    Perhaps this will help answer that question for you.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    A general comment directed at no one individual follows..........

    There is a basic lie that has been instilled into people in society. That lie is laws will protect people from criminals. And it is a terrible lie because it offers a false sense of security... simply because criminals do not obey the laws that are supposed to protect people.
    I understand you don't like to make things personal, but I think you know that cluznar has been informed of the blatant lie of which you speak, Bikenut. Many times in fact. Some by gentle nudging, and some by angry, accusatory and personal verbal attacks, as well as everything in between. His intransigence to recognizing or understanding the lie, and his rather strange internet history as-chronicled in the link above, is what leads many to the suspicion (at least) or conclusion that he is, indeed, a government shill.

    Generally-speaking, when one is informed of the inaccuracy and/or dishonesty of a given position, and consistently repeats the lie in spite of being informed, they are referred to (legitimately) as a liar. Cluznar is a trolling liar.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  8. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Saginaw, Michigan
    Posts
    3,355
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    I understand you don't like to make things personal, but I think you know that cluznar has been informed of the blatant lie of which you speak, Bikenut. Many times in fact. Some by gentle nudging, and some by angry, accusatory and personal verbal attacks, as well as everything in between. His intransigence to recognizing or understanding the lie, and his rather strange internet history as-chronicled in the link above, is what leads many to the suspicion (at least) or conclusion that he is, indeed, a government shill.

    Generally-speaking, when one is informed of the inaccuracy and/or dishonesty of a given position, and consistently repeats the lie in spite of being informed, they are referred to (legitimately) as a liar. Cluznar is a trolling liar.

    Blues
    I'm not too concerned with why folks say the things they say. I am highly concerned with presenting the truth to counter lies, mistruths, intentional misdirection, and the use of insults and ridicule in hopes of shoving some kind of agenda through.

    And my opinion is.. it really doesn't matter if a person is pushing an agenda or is just woefully naive/living in a world of unicorns and cotton candy... what is vitally important is to reply with facts and truth so the folks who read the agenda driven or naive denials of reality postings will also get to read the facts and truth.

    I believe we should all endeavor to always instantly counter naivete, lies and intentional propaganda by presenting truthful facts with cites and/or links to back them up so people have the opportunity to see the reality of ... well... reality. And...

    And I also believe we should all insist on folks providing cites and/or links to back up what they say simply because if they can't man up and prove what they say is factually true... well... that pretty much lets everyone know that poster has absolutely no credibility what so ever so the validity of what they say is suspect.

    However... if a person makes it clear what they are saying is their personal opinion or their personal belief well.... everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs and to voice them too.. but opinions and beliefs should NEVER be presented as facts.

  9. #38
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    SE FL and SE OH
    Posts
    5,602
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    I'm not too concerned with why folks say the things they say. I am highly concerned with presenting the truth to counter lies, mistruths, intentional misdirection, and the use of insults and ridicule in hopes of shoving some kind of agenda through.

    And my opinion is.. it really doesn't matter if a person is pushing an agenda or is just woefully naive/living in a world of unicorns and cotton candy... what is vitally important is to reply with facts and truth so the folks who read the agenda driven or naive denials of reality postings will also get to read the facts and truth.

    I believe we should all endeavor to always instantly counter naivete, lies and intentional propaganda by presenting truthful facts with cites and/or links to back them up so people have the opportunity to see the reality of ... well... reality. And...

    And I also believe we should all insist on folks providing cites and/or links to back up what they say simply because if they can't man up and prove what they say is factually true... well... that pretty much lets everyone know that poster has absolutely no credibility what so ever so the validity of what they say is suspect.

    However... if a person makes it clear what they are saying is their personal opinion or their personal belief well.... everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs and to voice them too.. but opinions and beliefs should NEVER be presented as facts.
    And your last line holds double for those in the WH. But to get him to quit telling tall tales is not possible.
    NRA Certified Pistol Instructor
    NRA Certified RSO
    Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly.

  10. #39
    Quote Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
    Please explain how universal background checks will stop "some" criminals from getting a gun? I'm sincerely interested in the logic... especially since even the politicians who are pushing for all the new gun control have said themselves that none of the new laws they want would have prevented shootings like Sandy Hook.

    A general comment directed at no one individual follows..........

    The whole idea of universal background checks is based on the silly notion that criminals will obey the universal background check law. Well... if a criminal is willing to break 41 laws, including killing his own mother (isn't there a law against killing people?) in order to get guns so he can shoot up a school, why would anyone think that "the universal background check law #42" would have stopped him from getting guns?

    There is a basic lie that has been instilled into people in society. That lie is laws will protect people from criminals. And it is a terrible lie because it offers a false sense of security... simply because criminals do not obey the laws that are supposed to protect people.

    Here is a plain fact, an inescapable fact, an "in your face" slap of reality.....

    Criminals are called criminals because.................. they DO NOT obey the law. No matter how many laws there are criminals will NOT obey them.

    And believing that adding more laws on top of the multitude of laws that criminals already disobey will suddenly make criminals obey the law has to be a uniquely intensely strong form of ... denial of reality.
    I wish we had a popcorn machine. Seeing his response should be quite entertaining, and it would be a shame to have to read it without the benefit of condiments.

  11. #40
    Expanded background checks can do no harm so why would people be against it? What is the sense in having most people take a background check but not all? This is all so silly to me. Like having expanded background checks is gonna hurt gun owners or something. It is no big deal, extend background checks already. Sometimes I feel that many gun owners believe the only important thing in the world are the guns they own. Human life is important, food is important, money is important, a place to live is important, etc.

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst ... 2345 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast