arma virumque cano (et alia)
Maybe you should take the time to listen to the voices of opposition, and realize it is not people complaining that they won't be able to buy a gun, but rather they don't want to be thrown in jail for SELLING a gun to another good person. That and registration.
Yeah, it would be the law's fault.
"In case you forgot, professional licenses reguire background checks." That doesn't necessarily reassure me considering that recently the California Supreme Court ruled that the state had to issue a license to practice law to someone who wasn't in the country legally. But getting back to the subject of background checks. I'm sort of surprised that you didn't trot out the standard mythical 80 to 90 percent of Americans support universal background checks, and the equally mythical 40% gun show loophole figure. Last year, there was an opportunity fot advocates of "common sense" gun control to put their money where their mouth was. A congresscritter from Oklahoma proposed a background check law that would have allowed citizens to access the NICS to perform background checks on potential buyers when they engaged in a private sale. Needless to say, it didn't go anywhere. It the numbers gun control advocates throw around about the popularity of background checks are true, then this would have resulted in the immediate drop in gun sales not undergoing a background check from that supposed 40% to 10 to 20%. It was a golden opportunity for gun control advocates to both take the high ground and offer a meaningful compromise that would have accomplished their claimed goals, and it would have put the onus on gun rights advocates because it addressed their concerns regarding privacy. Unfortunately, it had to be their way, or the highway. Also called the not invented here syndrome.
They made it clear. They'd rather have nothing than a system which enhances background checks without adding crimes that make it more onerous to participate in the gun culture. Agreeing to Colburn's amendment would have taken their "background checks" leverage off the table for good.
What garbage.Did you get your degree from a correspondence school?
More likely Greg was your teacher.
Apparenlty, the Anonymous commenters don't read the news.
You are easily duped. No surprise for paranoid liars.
Laci, you talk about passing background checks as though you're the only one to have done that. Do you recall that Tennessean is a lawyer? And do you recall that I've passed several such checks for jobs?But as TS and Sarge pointed out, our objection to background checks is based primarily on the way that your side insists on doing them. You want it to be a backdoor registry, and since you deny that gun ownership is a right, we can't trust what your side will do with that.
That's nonsense Greg. Eliminating private sales would only make it harder for disqualified people to get guns. To comply with that law would not inconvenience you and your gun-rights buddies much at all.
These gun loons claim because Congress hasn't acted, the 90% figure (that has not changed) is bogus. This Congress has made history as the worst Congress in American history and has done nothing. This Congress has earned its single digit approval rating with the American people. Many things have not been done because of their hate for Obama. They won't even pass issues that the Republican majority has backed in previous years. The Congress clearly doesn't represent the wants, or needs of the American people.
Why did those supporting gun control not jump on board with Colburn's amendment? Reid said he would bring it up for a vote- then didn't. Obama pretended it never happened- he never said a word about it. The media ignored it, as well as the gun control organizations. They can't exactly be on record opposing a background check bill after all that blustering they did.
Because they knew it wouldn't pass the Republican majority.Then dishonest people like you use it as something they are against. A total lie, and you wonder why people call you a liar.Laughable.
Huh? That didn't stop them from putting M-T up for a vote. Colburn's amendment was sponsored by an actual pro-gun Republican. And these were Senate bills- where the Democrats have the majority. Why didn't the gun control people at least talk about it? Ask around? See how many votes they would get? They didn't even do that.
TS, Coburn was actually in serious talks about Manchin-Toomey and eventually walked away from it saying that it would impose new taxes and allow de facto registration. And as you said, hardly peep about his proposal.
A Republican proposal wouldn't pass, but a proposal that Republicans opposed had a chance? Anonymous, do you even try to make sense?For the sake of entertainment, tell us what the word, lie, means to you.
Lie in the dictionary says TS, SS, and Greg the lying criminal cowards
The more I think about Steve's explanation for why the Democrats blew off Colburn's bill, the more obvious it is how little thought he put into it before saying it. The idea that Democrats would want to shield Republicans from having to make a public vote on this issue is the truly laughable part. Don't you remember Obama's "pretty shameful day in Washington" speech? Their narrative has been all about how Republicans said no to something that "90% of America wanted". So they clearly had to hide the fact that Democrats didn't want a bill that actually expanded background checks for private use. They didn't like it because it wasn't tough on gun ownership. It just amazes me how much the media let them get away with it.
The games of politics. About the same as the games you liars play here.
And the game revealed that Democrats don't actually want an expansion of the background check system.
No, the game is to get Republicans to vote against what democrats know the people want. Makes them look bad, as if they needed help for that.
By the way, I'm not Steve, but you seem to be a congenital liar and just blame anyone for your feud. Typical for a lying criminal coward. Yes, I got that from Steve.
Ok, so then why not put Colburn's amendment up for a vote and let the Republicans vote against it against the will of the people? You just said the Democrats didn't push it because it wouldn't pass. Now you're saying they want Republicans to vote against these bills so they can blame them. Which is it?
Enough negative publicity to just announce it and watch the Republicans respond by proving what hypocrites they are. Just as you and the rest of the gun loons on this site do. I'm not surprised you fell for that.
But they didn't "announce it". The Dems were completely silent about the bill. There was no publicity. The press pretty much ignored it too, other than slight one-time coverage at its introduction. How do you explain that?
Sounds more like perhaps the gun control advocacy groups don't have the confidence in their statistics that they say they do."It's unworkable," said Ladd Everitt of the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence, "and there would be no incentive for any private seller to do a background check under the legislation."Another problem for gun control advocates: There would be no lasting record of the sale. "When there's a crime committed, a police agency can go to a manufacturer and ask, 'Hey, where did this gun go?'" said Mark Kelly, who founded Americans for Responsible Solutions with his wife, former Rep. Gabby Giffords. The manufacturer can point to a federally licensed dealer, who would have a paper record of the sale, "and then they can help them solve some crimes," Kelly said. Coburn's proposal "is something we'll have to think long and hard about," Kelly said. "We could get to the point where this is so watered down that our organization will not support it."http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/04/27/do-it-yourself-background-checks/2088479/
"Sounds more like perhaps the gun control advocacy groups don't have the confidence in their statistics that they say they do."Quite a statement since your figure (2/3rds of all gun shot deaths are suicides) has been proven wrong, yet, just the other day you were still pushing that number.
I stand corrected Sid, according to the CDC stats for 2010, the most current year available, all firearm deaths were 31,672. Of those, 19,392 were firearm suicides. That gives a percentage of 61.2%. Thanks for keeping me straight.
Steve made a good comment about this just a little while ago on the other post about this. His points are good. You have been using the 50% figure for months, not just a few threads ago. Your numbers seem to change all the time. And 14 studies compared to 1 does win the point.
Sid, you're wrong about the numbers. The report in question said that half of suicides are done with a firearm. But about two-thirds of gunshot deaths are suicides. Two-thirds is a good approximation, since those number vary a bit over the years.
Both Sid and Steve wrong at the same time? What are the odds of that?
One says he stands corrected, the others continue to say I'm wrong. Laughable in its obvious dishonesty.Hey guys hows that anon thing going for you? HA HA HA HA HAI love that others have jumped on the wagon and have you guys making stupid asses of yourselves. Keep it up. Wrong? There are 14 studies that agree with me, you only have one study that agrees with you.Why do you keep changing the number from 50% to 2/3rds, and now you change that.Why do you need to lie to make your points?By, buy, bye, guys HA HA HA HA HA HA
Half of suicides are done with a firearm.Two-thirds of gunshot deaths are suicides.Can you anonymous commenters see how those are two different numbers?
"One says he stands corrected, the others continue to say I'm wrong. Laughable in its obvious dishonesty." Of course Steve, anyone with a sixth grade education can see that 62% is much closer to half than it is to two thirds......
That's if you accept your figures, which have just been proven wrong. Now coward, tell us how many people have you killed?
Well, according to this article, their study only looked at 16 states. That's thirty four states they didn't look at. The CDC counts every death in all fifty states. How exactly does the less complete study prove me wrong?
Just claim, as you always do, 14 studies are all lies.
No, Steve, calling something a lie is your specialty.
Being a liar is your specialty. Yes, I expose your lies. Yes, you have no come back, because they are criminal lies. It's easy to prove you own words lies, you just make shit up when you claim others are lying. That's that great mind of yours that graduates the dumbest students in the nation. Congratulations on your failure as a teacher and a human being.
What do you want Laci, a gold star sticker?
Many background check services offer a vast array of investigative tools. Some services offer you unlimited access to their databases and records, putting state, federal, and county records at your fingertips. Other services will prepare detailed reports for you on the individual you have asked them to research. volunteer background checks