Senate Slaps Down Obama's Gun Grab

Senate Slaps Down Obama's Gun Grab

Posted in the Keavy Forum

First Prev
of 2
Next Last
Ralph

Mount Vernon, KY

#1 Apr 17, 2013
"Senate Republicans backed by a small band of rural-state Democrats scuttled the most far-reaching gun control legislation in two decades on Wednesday, refusing to tighten background checks on firearms buyers or ban assault weapons as they spurned the personal pleas of families of the victims of last winter's elementary school shootings in Newtown, Conn.

"This effort isn't over," President Barack Obama vowed at the White House moments after the defeat on one of his top domestic priorities. Obama, surrounded by Newtown relatives, said opponents of the legislation "caved to the pressure" of special interests in casting their votes."

http://www.dailyherald.com/article/20130417/n...

Explain to me why our Congress went against 87% of the peoples' will?

Because that was a made up propaganda percentage which only the blind fools could believe.
Ralph

Mount Vernon, KY

#2 Apr 17, 2013
"Obama, surrounded by Newtown relatives, said opponents of the legislation "caved to the pressure" of special interests in casting their votes."

Get all that blood publicity you can you sideshow hawker.

Followed the Bill of Rights would have been more appropriate.

NRA polled LEOs across the nation and found 80% stating: "Question 7:“Do you think that a federal law prohibiting private, non-dealer transfers of firearms between individuals would reduce violent crime?”

That was the question asked by Police-1 to it's known law enforcement officers.
Ralph

Mount Vernon, KY

#3 Apr 17, 2013
80% said prohibiting private transfer would have no effect.

Where does the left get their numbers? Do they poll outside the white house or Plaza One San Francisco? The only thing congress ever did against the majority peoples' will was that tax burden shoved upon us by a corrupt community organizer. Now they have entertained their flock by thumbing their noses at the Constitution. Isn't this about the place where hehe gets a snooby snack?
Balls

Madisonville, KY

#4 Apr 17, 2013
Does my heart good to see osama slapped down. osama's 90% bullcrap, 10% idiot!
wow

Maidenhead, UK

#5 Apr 17, 2013
thats what im saying!
Stank Williams JR

Paducah, KY

#6 Apr 17, 2013
dont worry we will get it done, it took 7 years for the Brady Bill.....and you know what.....next election you will have ANOTHER dem pres and we will vote out whatever Repubs are left.....

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.......A ll reoubs will be out on their asses soon.

Kiss my Dem ass. We ALWAYS have to educate you "christians" on how to be moral.....You have always been morally inferior.
Bill

Mount Vernon, KY

#7 Apr 17, 2013
Stank Williams JR wrote:
dont worry we will get it done, it took 7 years for the Brady Bill.....and you know what.....next election you will have ANOTHER dem pres and we will vote out whatever Repubs are left.....
Hahahahahahahahahahaha.......A ll reoubs will be out on their asses soon.
Kiss my Dem ass. We ALWAYS have to educate you "christians" on how to be moral.....You have always been morally inferior.
Kiss your life partner at the abortion clinic fundraiser moral democrat.
WillyP

Bowling Green, KY

#8 Apr 17, 2013
Ralph wrote:
80% said prohibiting private transfer would have no effect.
Where does the left get their numbers? Do they poll outside the white house or Plaza One San Francisco? The only thing congress ever did against the majority peoples' will was that tax burden shoved upon us by a corrupt community organizer. Now they have entertained their flock by thumbing their noses at the Constitution. Isn't this about the place where hehe gets a snooby snack?
The poll numbers Obama and friends have been quoting are complete BS. Even the Dems know they're a pack of lies. Four of the five Dems who voted nay on expanding background checks are up for re-election in 2014. Does anyone believe they wouldn't have voted the other way if the polls were for real?
hmmm

Siauliai, Lithuania

#9 Apr 17, 2013
Balls wrote:
Does my heart good to see osama slapped down. osama's 90% bullcrap, 10% idiot!
the dems are just as angry at osama as the republicans are.
nono

Houston, TX

#10 Apr 17, 2013
you mean those good dems.

not the turd lickers like hehe.
Stank Williams JR

Hopkinsville, KY

#11 Apr 17, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
Kiss your life partner at the abortion clinic fundraiser moral democrat.
Hahahahha.....nah I have been married for over 11 years to the opposite sex and I have never been preg....

Sooooo you are full of shit. Whenever faced with logic you christ-tards feel backed into a corner and you can only depend on attacking the other person.

You have no facts, just keep trustin in jeebus for info.

Republicans are morally inferior....always have been. Most are war lovers and death lovers and worship the book (bybull) that loves blood and death.

You aint nothing new....your newz is old newz and your god is dead.

Education killed your god for good. And the republican party has killed the republican party.
the one

Flat Lick, KY

#12 Apr 18, 2013
Pop Quiz: What do the Aurora shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter, the Newtown shooter, the Tucson shooter, and BOTH sets of parents of the Columbine shooters all have in common? If you answered "they're all batsh*t crazy registered Democrats", you just won today's prize! In other words, YOU ARE FAR MORE LIKELY to get gunned down in a mass shooting by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, or by Ashley Judd than by any legal gun owner.
Fox News

London, KY

#13 Apr 18, 2013
the one wrote:
Pop Quiz: What do the Aurora shooter, the Virginia Tech shooter, the Newtown shooter, the Tucson shooter, and BOTH sets of parents of the Columbine shooters all have in common? If you answered "they're all batsh*t crazy registered Democrats", you just won today's prize! In other words, YOU ARE FAR MORE LIKELY to get gunned down in a mass shooting by Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Hillary Clinton, or by Ashley Judd than by any legal gun owner.
Lay the crack pipe down you are already BATCHIT crazy......some republican will get a pressure cooker and blow you up.
WillyP

Bowling Green, KY

#14 Apr 18, 2013
Fox News wrote:
<quoted text>Lay the crack pipe down you are already BATCHIT crazy......some republican will get a pressure cooker and blow you up.
Do you have any facts to refute the previous post or to support your statement? No? I didn't think so.
walt

Pine Knot, KY

#15 Apr 18, 2013
It wasn't the senate who did the slapping down, it was the American people and the hundreds of thousands of petition signers. If the claim that 90+% of Americans support enhanced background checks were true then why would the senate go against that? The poll numbers are false, the lies they tell reach to the high heavens and fools fall for it hook line and sinker.

We already have background checks but the govt. refuses to prosecute those who lie, cheat, and steal to obtain guns.

We even have idiots trying to link republicans to pressure cookers when it was a Saudi National who was the person of interest who was injured at the scene of the Boston bombing, now he is to be deported very quickly before he gets asked too many questions. Wake up America!

Below is a true American story.

A black conservative, author, radio host, public speaker and "political warrior" is giving away an AR-15, informs U.S. News & World Report. The move is meant to highlight the importance of guns in resisting tyranny and, for African-Americans in particular, resisting racist intimidation.

"In the sesquicentennial year of the Republicans freeing blacks from slavery, I am proud to offer this AR-15 rifle in commemoration of our freedom," writes Kevin Jackson at his site, The Black Sphere. "Freedom we have, because we have the 2nd Amendment, and our God-given right to protect ourselves."

http://politix.topix.com/homepage/5633-popula...
Bill

Mount Vernon, KY

#16 Apr 18, 2013
Stank Williams JR wrote:
<quoted text>
Hahahahha.....nah I have been married for over 11 years to the opposite sex and I have never been preg....
Sooooo you are full of shit. Whenever faced with logic you christ-tards feel backed into a corner and you can only depend on attacking the other person.
You have no facts, just keep trustin in jeebus for info.
Republicans are morally inferior....always have been. Most are war lovers and death lovers and worship the book (bybull) that loves blood and death.
You aint nothing new....your newz is old newz and your god is dead.
Education killed your god for good. And the republican party has killed the republican party.
All that about something that doesn't exist? Are you one of them fanatics I hear about? It would seem so. NGFY
hehe

London, KY

#17 Apr 18, 2013
Bill wrote:
<quoted text>
All that about something that doesn't exist? Are you one of them fanatics I hear about? It would seem so. NGFY
Hey Ralph...
Yeah, I know it's you
You may think it's looks like their are a bunch of dumbasses on here - but as I just proved... it's only you.
hehehehehe

hehe
CatDog

Mount Vernon, KY

#18 Apr 18, 2013
FoxNews wrote:
<quoted text>
Hey Ralph...
Yeah, I know it's you
You may think it's looks like their are a bunch of dumbasses on here - but as I just proved... it's only you.
hehehehehe
hehe
Was it really a mystery to you? I am so very pleased you have eased your mind of this burden. I also am thankful I get to you so damned bad you imagine this great quest to "expose" me using different names. ROFLMAO NGFY
Joe

Somerset, KY

#19 Apr 18, 2013
This was written by one of the top gun law scholars in the country. Perhaps it will shed some light on why the bill was not good

> The “Pro-Gun” Provisions of Manchin-Toomey are Actually a Bonanza of Gun Control
>
> David Kopel • April 15, 2013 2:20 am
>
> The Toomey-Manchin Amendment which may be offered as soon as Tuesday to Senator Reid’s gun control bill are billed as a “compromise” which contain a variety of provisions for gun control, and other provisions to enhance gun rights. Some of the latter, however, are not what they seem. They are badly miswritten, and are in fact major advancements for gun control. In particular:
>
> 1. The provision which claims to outlaw national gun registration in fact authorizes a national gun registry.
>
> 2. The provision which is supposed to strengthen existing federal law protecting the interstate transportation of personal firearms in fact cripples that protection.
>
> Let’s start with registration. Here’s the Machin-Toomey text.
>>
>> (c) Prohibition of National Gun Registry.-Section 923 of title 18, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
>> “(m) The Attorney General may not consolidate or centralize the records of the
>> “(1) acquisition or disposition of firearms, or any portion thereof, maintained by
>> “(A) a person with a valid, current license under this chapter;
>> “(B) an unlicensed transferor under section 922(t); or
>> “(2) possession or ownership of a firearm, maintained by any medical or health insurance entity.”.
>
> The limit on creating a registry applies only to the Attorney General (and thus to entities under his direct control, such as the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives). By a straightforward application of inclusio unius exclusio alterius it is permissible for entities other than the Attorney General to create gun registries, using whatever information they can acquire from their own operations. For example, the Secretary of HHS may consolidate and centralize whatever firearms records are maintained by any medical or health insurance entity. The Secretary of the Army may consolidate and centralize records about personal guns owned by military personnel and their families.
>
> The Attorney General may not create a registry from the records of “a person with a valid, current license under this chapter.” In other words, the AG may not harvest the records of persons who currently hold a Federal Firearms License (FFL). Thus, pursuant to inclusio unius, the AG may centralize and consolidate the records of FFLs who have retired from their business.
>
> Under current law, retired FFLs must send their sales records to BATFE. 18 USC 923(g)(4); 27 CFR 478.127. During the Clinton administration, a program was begun to put these records into a consolidated gun registry. The program was controversial and (as far as we know) was eventually stopped. Manchin-Toomey provides it with legal legitimacy.
>
> The vast majority of FFLs are small businesses, often single proprietorships. Only a tiny fraction of FFLs are enduring corporate entities (e.g., Bass Pro Shops) which will never surrender their FFL. By consolidating and centralizing the records of all out-of-business FFLs, BATFE will be able to build a list of most people in the U.S. who have bought a gun from a store. The list will not be fully up-to-date for every gun owned by every individual, but the list will identify the very large majority of gun owners.
>
> (The maxim discussed above is sometimes rendered as Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.)
Joe

Somerset, KY

#20 Apr 18, 2013
Now for transportation. The 1986 Firearms Owners’ Protection Act immunizes from state law prosecution the transportation of an unloaded and inaccessible (e.g., in the trunk of your car) firearm through a state. 18 USC 926A. So if you are driving from Pennsylvania to Vermont to go hunting there, you can travel through New York State without needing to acquire a NY pistol permit.(Which NY won’t issue anyway, since NY only issues to residents.) Toomey-Manchin includes some explicit language to make clear what was already implicit in FOPA, that such travel can include situations in which, while traveling, you stop to eat, refuel, or rest:
>>
>> SEC. 128. INTERSTATE TRANSPORTATION OF FIREARMS OR AMMUNITION.
>> (a) In General.-Section 926A of title 18, United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
>> “926A. Interstate transportation of firearms or ammunition
>> “(a) Definition.-In this section, the term ‘transport’-
>> “(1) includes staying in temporary lodging overnight, stopping for food, fuel, vehicle maintenance, an emergency, medical treatment, and any other activity incidental to the transport; and
>> “(2) does not include transportation-
>> “(A) with the intent to commit a crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding 1 year that involves a firearm; or
>> “(B) with knowledge, or reasonable cause to believe, that a crime described in subparagraph (A) is to be committed in the course of, or arising from, the transportation.
>
> But notice part (2) of the new definition: a new exclusion for any firearms crime punishable by more than year of imprisonment. In some states, such a crime includes merely not having a state-issued gun permit. So now let’s suppose that the Pennsylvanian is going to Maine. On the way, he travels through Massachusetts. Under current law, FOPA protects him. Under Manchin-Toomey, Massachusetts can arrest and imprison him, and he will have no federal defense. In Massachusetts, possession of a firearm without a state permit is punishable by imprisonment up to to 2 years. Possession outside one’s home or business is a sentence of 2.5 to 5 years, with a mandatory minimum of 18 months. New Jersey and New York City also have penalties of over one year for simple possession without a local permit.
>
> Maybe the Pennsylvanian might qualify for some exemption under the laws of Mass., NYC, or NJ. Or perhaps not. What we know for sure is that today the Pennsylvanian is protected by FOPA, and if Manchin-Toomey passes, he will not be.
>
> There are several other states where the relevant penalty is up to one year. Every one of them can exempt itself from FOPA by simply increasing the penalty to 367 days.
>
> The 1986 FOPA is also known as Volkmer-McClure, for its prime sponsors, Democratic Rep. Harold Volkmer of Missouri, and Republican Sen. James McClure of Idaho. Michael E. Hammond was McClure’s manager for the bill. Hammand has identified a variety of other potential problems in Manchin-Toomey.
>
> There are fairly small number of attorneys with serious expertise on federal firearms laws. Senator Charles Schumer, who works closely with Michael Bloomberg’s lobby, is likely to have had the full legal resources of that very well-funded organization. Conversely, based on off-the-record inquiry, I have not found any indication that Senator Toomey had any specialist expertise on his own side.
>
>

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Keavy Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Single woman over 40 (Aug '15) 2 hr LonelyLady 183
CNN staff reportedly on suicide watch 2 hr ha ha ha ha 1
dem gubernatorial candidate will not support cr... 2 hr Thomas J 1
Russia connection 2 hr Thomas J 2
News Bible study rules for public schools proposed (Feb '10) 2 hr umoron 151,667
Laurel Cookie Factory -- what do you think? (Jun '08) 2 hr DD dang 9,285
Ricky Smallwood friend 2 hr lawn mower man 79

Keavy Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Keavy Mortgages