Bkrnd checks or bust for Dems

Bkrnd checks or bust for Dems

There are 185 comments on the The Washington Post story from Mar 22, 2013, titled Bkrnd checks or bust for Dems. In it, The Washington Post reports that:

When the book is written on the gun debate of 2013, one thing seems clear. The overall success or failure of gun-control advocates will largely rest on one question: Were they able to pass a measure to substantially expand background checks during gun purchases? Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid on Thursday announced that the full Senate will soon ... (more)

Join the discussion below, or Read more at The Washington Post.

“Happiness comes through giving”

Since: Feb 08

Location hidden

#123 Apr 1, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>Woff Woff you have never read the 2nd amendment "...the right of the people(same as the people in 1st and 4th amendment meaning individual people)right to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". what part of Shall not be infringed do you lib pinheads not understand? Since newspapers was the press when constitution was written, "using lib logic" then TV, radio and internet is not covered. When constitution was written the flintlock musket was THE military arm of the day.So if one can claim we can allow for technology as relating to the press, the same should be applied to firearms.
What part of "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" do you troglodytes not understand Paper Patriot?
see the light

United States

#124 Apr 1, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
I NEVER do that unless provoked by some gay-sex-obsessed Rightie like au Spambot. And no, he's NOT better than that, and neither are you.
No such thing as a gay Rightie.
Patriot

Nashville, TN

#125 Apr 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>What part of "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" do you troglodytes not understand Paper Patriot?
The CITIZENS made up the militia. Remember reading about the minutemen? the citizens were "on call" and at a "minutes notice" they could assemble and take care of things. The lame argument of the militia meaning the national guard does not hold water. Woffy, answer this..if the national guard was meant why was it not established until the early 1900's?
Patriot

Nashville, TN

#126 Apr 2, 2013
See the LIght. It is funny that the libs do not understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed" as in reference to 2nd amendment. But if there was an amendment granting gay rights/marriage they sure would jump up and fight if even a period or a comma were to come up missing from that amendment if it said their gay rights should not be infringed.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#127 Apr 2, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>What part of "WELL REGULATED MILITIA" do you troglodytes not understand Paper Patriot?
I am well regulated moron, and my right will not be infringed as guaranteed by the constitution. Deal with it loser or you can always riot like you've threatened before.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#128 Apr 2, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>The CITIZENS made up the militia. Remember reading about the minutemen? the citizens were "on call" and at a "minutes notice" they could assemble and take care of things. The lame argument of the militia meaning the national guard does not hold water. Woffy, answer this..if the national guard was meant why was it not established until the early 1900's?
Liberals always like to change the definitions so they can control the vocabulary and language of the argument. Ignore the heckler.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#129 Apr 2, 2013
see the light wrote:
<quoted text>No such thing as a gay Rightie.
Liberals are engaged in creating new rights not listed or shown in the constitution while at the same time attacking the bill of rights that is in the constitution.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#130 Apr 2, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>YOU and many others live in a fantasy world! Criminals will not submit to paperwork and background checks.JUST ANSWER THIS QUESTION. IF(AND THAT IS A BIG IF)A CRIMINAL IS TURNED DOWN BY A LEGITIMATE DEALER AND HE GOES AND STEALS OR BUYS A FIREARM ILLEGALLY, WILL THE BACKGROUND CHECK LAW HAVE KEPT A FIREARM OUT OF HIS HANDS..NOPE!
i don't give a damn what criminals do...they'll be arrested and their guns seized and destroyed. It's up to YOU to OBEY THE DAMN LAW.

At least you admit that a lot of illegal guns come out of gun-owners homes, that's something you rarely see a gun-nut admit! Do you see how big gun collections are a problem, then? LOL

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#131 Apr 2, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Liberals are engaged in creating new rights not listed or shown in the constitution while at the same time attacking the bill of rights that is in the constitution.
Liberals have always defended the Bill of Rights from Conservatives. Again, you lie because you hate the truth, au Spambo.

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#133 Apr 2, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Liberals have always defended the Bill of Rights from Conservatives. Again, you lie because you hate the truth, au Spambo.
Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.

He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.

Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.

Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.
Patriot

Nashville, TN

#134 Apr 2, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Liberals always like to change the definitions so they can control the vocabulary and language of the argument. Ignore the heckler.
Libs thrive on emotion and knee jerk hysteria to guide them through things. Facts to a liberal is what sunlight is to a vampire.
Patriot

Nashville, TN

#135 Apr 2, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
i don't give a damn what criminals do...they'll be arrested and their guns seized and destroyed. It's up to YOU to OBEY THE DAMN LAW.
At least you admit that a lot of illegal guns come out of gun-owners homes, that's something you rarely see a gun-nut admit! Do you see how big gun collections are a problem, then? LOL
If a criminal were to steal a gun from a lawful owner and steal a car from another legal car owner then car ownership enables crimes to be committed too, right. The law is not for a lawful person but for the criminals. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books and have they stopped crime? Neither the law written by God himself against murder (on the tablet of stone)stopped murders,stealing,etc. If I obey the law and commit no crime BUT if someone else does not obey the law and commits crime thus my obedience to the law does not revent the crime being committed. Just use a little thought please.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#136 Apr 2, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Obama regularly supported gun-control measures, including a ban on semiautomatic "assault weapons" and a limit on handgun purchases to one a month.
He also opposed letting people use a self-defense argument if charged with violating local handgun bans by using weapons in their homes. The bill was a reaction to a Chicago-area man who, after shooting an intruder, was charged with a handgun violation.
Supporters framed the issue as a fundamental question of whether homeowners have the right to protect themselves.
Obama joined several Chicago Democrats who argued the measure could open loopholes letting gun owners use their weapons on the street. They said local governments should have the final say, but the self-defense exception passed 41-16 and ultimately became state law.
Regulating dangerous guns which are used to kill people isn't an attack on the Constitution, it's responsible lawmaking.

The point of your post is obscure at best, nothing new there.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#137 Apr 2, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>If a criminal were to steal a gun from a lawful owner and steal a car from another legal car owner then car ownership enables crimes to be committed too, right. The law is not for a lawful person but for the criminals. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books and have they stopped crime? Neither the law written by God himself against murder (on the tablet of stone)stopped murders,stealing,etc. If I obey the law and commit no crime BUT if someone else does not obey the law and commits crime thus my obedience to the law does not revent the crime being committed. Just use a little thought please.
Please stick the point and stop arguing about cars, they are not under discussion.

Cars are all registered, identified by s/n, insured, their owners licensed. Most of that is not true of guns. Are you saying you now support such regulation of guns?

No one said "gun laws will stop crime," either, just to take care of THAT thoughtless straw man of yours.

“Stop the Brain Rot”

Since: Jan 12

Take a Looonng Vacation

#138 Apr 2, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>Libs thrive on emotion and knee jerk hysteria to guide them through things. Facts to a liberal is what sunlight is to a vampire.
In fact those things are rarely as true of liberals as they are of conservatives like you, who worship the COnstitution, adore guns, roadblock sensible regulation, and become hysterical if your guns are "threatened."

“Hillary, thirty years of lying”

Since: Nov 08

Paris

#139 Apr 2, 2013
Patriot wrote:
<quoted text>If a criminal were to steal a gun from a lawful owner and steal a car from another legal car owner then car ownership enables crimes to be committed too, right. The law is not for a lawful person but for the criminals. There are over 20,000 gun laws on the books and have they stopped crime? Neither the law written by God himself against murder (on the tablet of stone)stopped murders,stealing,etc. If I obey the law and commit no crime BUT if someone else does not obey the law and commits crime thus my obedience to the law does not revent the crime being committed. Just use a little thought please.
Tinkerbell isn't worth using logic on. She is dumber than a sea urchin.
Patriot

Nashville, TN

#140 Apr 2, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
In fact those things are rarely as true of liberals as they are of conservatives like you, who worship the COnstitution, adore guns, roadblock sensible regulation, and become hysterical if your guns are "threatened."
you libs call conservatives obstructionists when we do not stand for pin-head limp wristed liberal policies that are dangerous for freedom,and are a pipe dream. liberals just want a feel good namby pamby world, that is a nice dream. As our founding fathers said that if one gives up their freedom for security they will have neither. If you want to give up your rights and freedom and be a sheep you are welcome to do so.
Patriot

Nashville, TN

#141 Apr 2, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Tinkerbell isn't worth using logic on. She is dumber than a sea urchin.
Libs are notorious for using a short cut to thinking. They always say when asked how they stand on things "Well, I feel...."
Patriot

Nashville, TN

#142 Apr 2, 2013
tha Professor wrote:
<quoted text>
Please stick the point and stop arguing about cars, they are not under discussion.
Cars are all registered, identified by s/n, insured, their owners licensed. Most of that is not true of guns. Are you saying you now support such regulation of guns?
No one said "gun laws will stop crime," either, just to take care of THAT thoughtless straw man of yours.
How in the world did you twist things to this point? Well by your inane argument, registering, licensing cars does not stop drunk driving nor cars used in crime. So the same would not keep guns from being misused.
Patriot

Nashville, TN

#143 Apr 2, 2013
Professor, the first amendment give freedom of press. Would you feel if you were a newspaper editor that you had to have your stories be checked out and pass background checks before they can be reported? If so you would be hollering your 1st amendment rights were violated.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

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.

US Senate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Shutdown extends into workweek, as Senate talks... 3 min BHM5267 5
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing (Mar '17) 3 min Bongo 52,813
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 3 min sonicfilter 1,684,707
News Bipartisan deal would create 12-year citizenshi... 8 min Impeach the Creep 252
News Across the globe, rallies against Trump, sexual... 14 min Erl 16
News With Congress divided, US governemnt heads for ... 16 min Impeach the Creep 61
News Oprah speech has Democrats buzzing about possib... 25 min CodeTalker 636
More from around the web