Senate blocks deal on gun background checks

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


Well. A serial number can be filed off to the point where no amount of forensic science can retrieve it...

Real life is not like on TV.

I don't know if you have ever laid eyes on an illegal gun but it's a safe bet the serial numbers will be filed off...

Moot point for gun registration.

---------------

In the state of Wyoming and many other states... you are not required to register your weapons. Moot point for gun registration.

reply to post by macman


The bigger the black market the more crime there will be. If some people can purchase as many guns as they want and not have to register them then the trend will continue. I do consider myself somewhat of a progressive, as I am more left than liberal in most regards(except guns).

Progressive as in green party or constitution party, not democrat party. Statism itself isn't the problem, overblown and mismanaged statism is however. Evil RICH people control government directly/indirectly and give wall street a free pass.

The democrats should be focusing on stopping insider trading and bringing back jobs to america. Instead they are HELLBENT on pushing totalitarian gun control and that DOES annoy me.

The second amendment is somewhat outdated in that it gives too much leeway. Still I DO respect the second amendment as it IS the law. I am not going to debate you on details of what I like as I have done so in the past and it becomes a bit boring.

The Senate rejected a compromise proposal to expand background checks on gun purchases, dealing a blow to the core of legislative efforts to curb massacres such as the one at a Connecticut school in December

reply to post by PatriotGames2


Interesting media slant.
How about, "Government upholds 2nd Amendment"?
I'm from the UK, by the way

reply to post by EarthCitizen07


It makes no sense to me when you say the Government is ran by evil rich people yet you believe in Gun registration.

Gun registration itself is only a form of tax. Every firearm is logged to the ATF with the serial number, make, model, caliber, type of firearm, with the persons current address, height, weight, etc etc etc (all information on their 4473 form) that was sold anytime you purchase from a dealer; and in a sense "registered" .

If they find a weapon at a crime scene... then trust me there is a paper trail with existing laws.

Some of you should find this interesting.

link

Originally posted by Covertblack
Wait for propaganda. It's going to be how evil the Senate is for not passing this.

aren't we seeing the start of it in the OP article?

making it out to have been a measure to save the children? the implication is that the senate are bastards for not passing it..

Originally posted by minkmouse

Originally posted by CALGARIAN
I think background checks would be a good idea, as long as having "adhd" or something common like that wasn't grounds to not own one.

I tend to agree with you on this as that's the way we run things in Canada. Having said that, my room mate is working on a gun collection that scares me...Oh he passed his background check alright but he's just a lucky dude who never got caught in the past. If those who need to know knew what I know, he'd be lucky to own a pellet gun

and you're talking about it in a public forum, that's most likely being monitored by government agencies because.......

Originally posted by muse7


Don't let the Right Wing fringe fool you.

This was never going to infringe on anyone's rights. No database of gun owners was going to be created and no Gun confiscation was going to happen either.

This was simply aimed to making it more difficult for individuals with mental illnesses and criminals to buy guns.

ANY restriction on guns to free citizens is an infringement of rights...and NO law is going to keep a criminal from buying a gun

do you live in the real world, or do you just spend your days daydreaming?

Originally posted by network dude
Do you mean to tell me that the Senate actually voted the will of the people?
fascinating idea.

I agree with the sentiment, but the Senate voted to the will of the States they represent and by extension, the People. The Senate is NOT the Peoples' House.

Once we correct that, and push back on that notion, we can again instill a solid checks-and-balances countermeasure to fight encroaching legislation; specifically from the House that is supposed to represent the States.

To me, the way I see this, is the Senators who voted against this believe it is a State issue (or at least, some of them; some are looking out for reelection; which still leaves it to how the State feels itself, just not directly the People).

The 2nd Amendment, given the language used and comparing it to the language used in other amendments, it is clear that the it applies to, in this order: The Federal Government cannot deny a State from a militia (that is accepted; National Guard), it applies to both the States and the Federal Government from not denying the People from their right to self-defense (that is what is in contention but backed by the Supreme Court).

What is in play, is semantics to get around the latter. If they cannot deny arms outright, move to make it extremely lengthy, extremely bureaucratic and extremely costly.

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by benrl
Slanted reporting, nothing in these bills would of prevented the recent shootings, these guns DID NOT BELONG to the shooters.

So how in the hell would that have prevented the shootings, enforcement of existing laws is whats needed not more laws restricting law abiding citizens.

Wrong. In the Colorado shooting all of the weapons legally belonged to the shooter. If a background check was done on him chances are it never would have happened.

WRONG!

Harris and Klebold's weapons were acquired through a combination of straw purchases, and grey market purchases....

they DID NOT go to a proper gun shop, and purchase the weapons....because they were minors..

nice try.

where do you get your information from?

Originally posted by projectvxn

Originally posted by buster2010

Originally posted by benrl
Slanted reporting, nothing in these bills would of prevented the recent shootings, these guns DID NOT BELONG to the shooters.

So how in the hell would that have prevented the shootings, enforcement of existing laws is whats needed not more laws restricting law abiding citizens.

Wrong. In the Colorado shooting all of the weapons legally belonged to the shooter. If a background check was done on him chances are it never would have happened.

If the law allowed for the diagnosis of severe psychosis to be used by the NICS system then it may not have happened. But that isnt the case, and his weapons were purchased using a gun shop and a NICS check was done on him.

Im not saying theres no room for improvement, but the notion that background checks aren't conducted is bogus.

edit on 18-4-2013 by projectvxn because: (no reason given)

not to argue, but those shooters were still minors when they were acquiring their arms...as i recall, harris was the older of the two, and had only just turned 18 at the time of the shooting..

i'm not sure on colorado law, but i'm pretty sure minors can't walk into a gun shop, and purchase..

Originally posted by muse7

Originally posted by MrJohnSmith
reply to post by projectvxn

 

With respect, why on earth should American citizens need to legitimately possess hand grenades ?

What are you going to do with them ?

Why stop at hand grenades ?

Perhaps you should be allowed RPG's too ? ...Or maybe a personalised Abrams tank,
for those with the cash...Yes, I'm being flippant now, in case you think it's a good idea.

Glad I live in Britain. And you're right, I wouldn't understand, it's an American thing.

Do you expect any better from a country that does not even have paid maternity leave?

We might be the wealthiest country financially, but socially we're right there with the likes of somalia, Ethiopia and Iran

do you ever get tired of lying?

paid maternity leave is completely dependent on what company you work for. it is indeed rare...but not non-existent, as you claim...

reply to post by Daedalus


Correct, the acquired the guns as would a teenager getting ready to go to their first house-party and wanting to bring beer. They used someone else to purchase their arms. Which was already a Federal law prohibiting such purchases. At the time, handguns were prohibited of such transfers in Colorado, but "long-guns" were excluded, without the consent of the minor's guardian(s).

In any case, the law was already in place, but people will circumvent any law to carry out their plan. As we see with Columbine and how the kids procured the weapons.

Originally posted by Daedalus
do you ever get tired of lying?

paid maternity leave is completely dependent on what company you work for. it is indeed rare...but not non-existent, as you claim...

I don't want to side-track, but they are most likely referring to the "mandated" paid-maternity leave whereas you correctly pointed out that companies indeed offer such.

Never mind these companies who do it though; BofA (10 weeks; and is offered to fathers and adoptive parents), Deloitte, Discovery Communications, Ernst & Young, LLP (39 weeks to new mothers!), General Mills (offers 2 weeks paid, but allows 26 job-guaranteed weeks), TriHealth, etc, etc.

Not to mention the millions of small companies who value their employees, So yes, the poster is speaking out of their rear-end. Good call.

reply to post by ownbestenemy


yeah, i stated that they were acquired through straw, and grey market purchases....

the system that was in place could not possibly have stopped what they did....coincidentally, it's the same system we have in place now, lol

WHAT'S MORE...the system they WANT doesn't do anything to improve on the old system, so even the NEW system wouldn't be able to stop something like columbine from happening....


but we're not supposed to point stuff like that out....apparently, doing that makes us ignorant bloodthirsty american devil-spawn..

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) on Thursday said passage of tougher gun controls is "inevitable," projecting optimism less than 24 hours after the Senate voted down legislation central to President Obama's strategy to reduce gun violence. Read more: thehill.com... Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

"It's a matter of time," Pelosi said Thursday during a press briefing in the Capitol. "It might be inconceivable to the NRA that this might happen; it's inevitable to us." Read more: thehill.com... Follow us: @thehill on Twitter | TheHill on Facebook

They ain't ever going to stop they need to get a clue.

Obama on Senate gun vote: 'A shameful day
An angry President Obama vented his frustrations with Congress after several of his fellow Democrats helped block gun-control legislation in the Senate. Denouncing the "lies" of his political opponents and calling the day "shameful," Obama vowed to fight on.
But there seems to be little fear of Obama's anger.
The president promised that he would mobilize his supporters to push his agenda, defy history to make midterm election gains and thereby avoid lame-duck status. But it's apparent that many of his fellow Democrats either don't think he is serious or don't believe he can make it stick.
There's reason for them to disbelieve.
Obama's strategy of battering Republicans with a series of painful votes to make midterm gains for his party depends on getting Democrats to take politically risky stances. If Obama cannot threaten or entice Democrats to vote his way, though, the plan cannot work.
As the vote on gun control approached, Obama did hit the campaign trail as promised to speak in support. But it was a muted measure. Obama didn't visit the home states of Democratic holdouts or use his online network to hold major rallies or organize his community to knock on doors.
After the first test of Obama's new model, he has nothing to show. Had Obama brought 15,000 to the streets in New Orleans for a gun-control rally, Sen. Mary Landrieu might have flinched in her opposition to the president's agenda. But he didn't. Had 1,000 Organizing for Action volunteers fanned out across Arkansas to drum up support for the package, Sen. Mark Pryor might have hesitated in bucking the president for fear of a primary challenge. But the doorsteps were empty.


Read more: www.foxnews.com...

I'm sure this has been said here before, but the legislation had no chance in the House anyways. It's unlikely a Senator would stick his/her neck out for a piece of legislation they know will fail anyways. In a House full of Representatives we it's safe to say there was almost no chance of this going through to the President, regardless of the Senate.

Yes, justice hold them off as long as you can

the bill had more than just back ground checks in it......attached was a magazine ban, semi auto ban, mental health requirements.

the president and media keep lying that it was just about back round checks.

now the executive orders will be signed bypassing congress and destroying the constitution.

gun bans and confiscation might just happen!

and something more to think on......

Bill Clinton: anti 2nd amendment president: had approx. 11 mass shootings during his 8 years.

George Bush: pro 2nd amendment: had approx. 4 mass shootings in 8 years.

Obama: the most anti constitutional president in American history: approx. 9 mass shootings in 4 years!??

this doesnt make sense!

after all this president allowed "Fast and furious" to allow the smuggling of guns into mexico with the express purpose of destroying the 2nd amendment!!