Jump to content

Extended Gun Background Check Defeated In Senate.

FirefightnRick
 Share

Recommended Posts

THOR Proficient

THOR

Posted
Posted

extended background checks won't stop a nut...a nut already knows they are nutty and won't even apply...a criminal knows they won't be able to pass a background check, so they will get a weapon illegally. the kid who shot up newtown got the weapons from his mother...she had them legally...NOTHING WILL STOP A NUT THAT WANTS TO COMMIT A CRIME!!!

  • Upvote 3
  • Downvote 1
UNTLifer Grand Master

UNTLifer

Posted
Posted

extended background checks won't stop a nut...a nut already knows they are nutty and won't even apply...a criminal knows they won't be able to pass a background check, so they will get a weapon illegally. the kid who shot up newtown got the weapons from his mother...she had them legally...NOTHING WILL STOP A NUT THAT WANTS TO COMMIT A CRIME!!!

Amen. Don't tell that to Reid and Pelosi.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
adman Apprentice

adman

Posted
Posted

It is interesting that Sandy Hook is held up as a reason we need another round of gun laws.

Yet the current gun laws of Connecticut already made Adam Lanza's possession of any guns illegal.

  • Upvote 3
THOR Proficient

THOR

Posted
Posted

It is interesting that Sandy Hook is held up as a reason we need another round of gun laws.

Yet the current gun laws of Connecticut already made Adam Lanza's possession of any guns illegal.

to me, it's just political rhetoric...each side trying to look good and make the other side look bad.

situations like colorado, arizona, and connecticut suck, but nothing can be done to stop them 100% of the time.

i think the problem with governmental reactions to violence is that they look at it in a legal/illegal way...not a crazy/sane or moral/unethical person way. of course, i have no idea what the answer is to the crazies/unethical people having weapons. we can't institutionalize them all nor can we truly prevent them from obtaining weapons.

  • Upvote 1
KRAM1 Rookie

KRAM1

Posted
Posted

If the bill HAD actually been about extended background checks it might have passed. This was simply Obama and the Dems playing on the emotions of the day. This bill would have done NOTHING to stop the Adam Lanza's of the world...all show and some politicians wanting to be able to say "well we did something...aren't we super"...nver mind that the bill was really never going to pass...even in the Dem controlled Senate.

Now O gets to stand up and tell the world how he tried and what bad folks that mean ole Senate is...until, of course, he needs the Senate to help him pass his next "bad idea".

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
GreenBat Newbie

GreenBat

Posted
Posted

Emotion.

The left's trump card.

Stupidity, the right's only card!

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
GreenBat Newbie

GreenBat

Posted
Posted

My bad, I forgot the lefts other trump card.

Name calling.

My Bad I forgot, the other card the right plays.

TELL LIES OVER AND OVER LOUDLY AND IT BECOMES FACT!

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
UNT90 Newbie

UNT90

Posted
Posted

My Bad I forgot, the other card the right plays.

TELL LIES OVER AND OVER LOUDLY AND IT BECOMES FACT!

So now conservatives are stupid liars.

Proud liberal name-calling, right there.

I don't think you are stupid, I just think you are wrong.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
DeepGreen Grand Master

DeepGreen

Posted
Posted

A visibly upset Obama tells the viewing audience how disappointed he is, blah, blah, blah.......................and the lies that the "other side" is using to defeat the gun control bill......blah, blah, blah.

Like the conservative host said today about Obama and the left, "you live by the lie, and you die by the lie".

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
GreenBat Newbie

GreenBat

Posted
Posted

Gunshot wounds cost around $2.5 billion per year. Tax payers pickup about $1.1 billion of the cost. Gunshot wounds are a major burden on the US health care system. Don't want background checks. How about mandatory insurance. You must have insurance when you own at automobile. Why can you carry an instrument that could cause a person to be maimed or die and not have insurance?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
THOR Proficient

THOR

Posted
Posted

I have never met a politician that states the truth and doesn't attack the other side. Its inherit in politics....politics sucks...nothing but a band of liars trying to make themselves look good...

Honesty is amazing and fun...

  • Upvote 1
UNT90 Newbie

UNT90

Posted
Posted (edited)

Like Thor said, Mrs. Lanza passes all background checks you throw at her and Newtown still happens.

Shame on the White House and the democrat party for trying to politicize this terrible tragedy from the get go. They can't even get a background check through a Senate they control.

They tried to strike whole emotions were high to restrict every Americans' 2nd amendment rights. Thank god cooler heads prevailed.

And Kudos to the NRA for holding their tongue for a full 2 weeks after the tragedy and quietly going about protecting the rights of American citizens to bear arms.

In most arguments, loudness equates to ignorance, and this is a classic example of that philosophy.

Edited by UNT90
  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1
MeanGreenTexan Grand Master

MeanGreenTexan

Posted
Posted (edited)

Did any of you really think Congress would do anything of value?

It doesn't matter your political leaning, the Sandy Hook tragedy will pass without any meaningful legislation occurring. And that is a downright shame.

This particular bill would have been a nice little bill (I was all for it), but in reality, it wouldn't do anything meaningful. Window dressing like "making it more difficult to obtain a gun" is not going to stop this type of thing from happening.

The legislation needs to target the shooters. Just like a 'hate crime' has stricter punishment than the same exact crime done without the 'hate' motive, these mass shootings/bombings/whatever in public places need extremely harsh penalties like an immediate, shameful death (just spitballin' here, but something like: castration, then "lethal injection" of some painful elixir, or something like that).

Whatever it takes to make it understood that this type of act will not be tolerated. Period. Then, the good guys can keep their guns and the bad guys die. Everyone wins!

Edited by MeanGreenTexan
UNT90 Newbie

UNT90

Posted
Posted

Did any of you really think Congress would do anything of value?

It doesn't matter your political leaning, the Sandy Hook tragedy will pass without any meaningful legislation occurring. And that is a downright shame.

This particular bill would have been a nice little bill (I was all for it), but in reality, it wouldn't do anything meaningful. Window dressing like "making it more difficult to obtain a gun" is not going to stop this type of thing from happening.

The legislation needs to target the shooters. Just like a 'hate crime' has stricter punishment than the same exact crime done without the 'hate' motive, these mass shootings/bombings/whatever in public places need extremely harsh penalties like an immediate, shameful death (just spitballin' here, but something like: castration, then "lethal injection" of some painful elixir, or something like that).

Whatever it takes to make it understood that this type of act will not be tolerated. Period.

The media not glorifying the shooter would go a long way to curtailing the problem. Treat them like we treat rape victims. Don't bane them.

Takes away a huge attention seeking incentive that many of these loons possess.

But the media would never do that, because they couldn't sensationalize the shooting and the victims' families for their ratings. And they also couldn't beat the drum to create and cover side news stories from the event (gun control debate).

Sadly, this will never happen.

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2
UNT90 Newbie

UNT90

Posted
Posted (edited)

Oh, hey. Congrats on you near 9,000th post!

Thx, but that's as dumb as the whole plus minus thing.

And yes, I meant your premise.

Edited by UNT90
  • Downvote 3
MeanGreenTexan Grand Master

MeanGreenTexan

Posted
Posted

The media not glorifying the shooter would go a long way to curtailing the problem. Treat them like we treat rape victims. Don't bane them.

Takes away a huge attention seeking incentive that many of these loons possess.

But the media would never do that, because they couldn't sensationalize the shooting and the victims' families for their ratings. And they also couldn't beat the drum to create and cover side news stories from the event (gun control debate).

Sadly, this will never happen.

I agree with this, but if congress were to try and enact some kind of bill around curtailing media coverage of the perpetrator... you wouldn't believe how quickly FOX & MSNBC would start holding hands to knock it down. All the while, they would make themselves look like the "people's voice" in all of it. Not to mention, whoever is brave enough to try and introduce this kind of legislation would have their ENTIRE history exposed and every single issue brought to light and bashed by all sides: "According to reports, Senator John Doe, made an 'F' in his freshman Spanish class one time. Is this really the kind of guy we need in congress?"

Never gonna happen.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share
Go to topic listing

WE BELIEVE IN THE MEAN GREEN!

News

Recruiting

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Please review our full Privacy Policy before using our site.