Yep.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 12/27/2016 07:57PM by WingNut.

Funny, no?

http://cdn.rollcall.com/news/senate_torpedoes_background_check_deal-224103-1.html?popular=true&zkPrintable=true&cdn_load=true&zkPrintable=1&nopagination=1

Democrats didn't like the bill.

Republican did what they usually do... junked up the bill so nothing would get accomplished. Nothing new.

FUCK BACKGROUND CHECKS!

The mentally ill have the rights to own too! So what is they shot of a mall or school. It's their right!

Mentally ill Win Big Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUCK BACKGROUND CHECKS!
>
> The mentally ill have the rights to own too! So
> what is they shot of a mall or school. It's their
> right!


Interestingly, every mall or school shooter in recent years passed a background check or stole the guns.

Those damn obstructionist Democraps!!!

Mentally ill Win Big Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUCK BACKGROUND CHECKS!
>
> The mentally ill have the rights to own too! So
> what is they shot of a mall or school. It's their
> right!
Attachments:

Mentally ill Win Big Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUCK BACKGROUND CHECKS!
>
> The mentally ill have the rights to own too! So
> what is they shot of a mall or school. It's their
> right!


Ironically from your post someone could say youre being serious campaigning for your own rights.

Score one for the mentally ill shooters!
Attachments:

Thank you republicans, us bitches can are guns easier now, bro.
Attachments:

Criminals Get Guns Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thank you republicans, us bitches can are guns
> easier now, bro.


LOL. They were having such a hard time getting them before. Think before you type, dumbass.

Obama on TV now, what a punk.

Talk to your own party loser, they bailed on you.

This is too bad. The law would have stopped guns from getting into criminals hands. Unless its the federal government selling them to gangs in Mexico that is ok.

Obaba says Republicans lied to win. You mean like how many lies you told about obamacare which the majority of Americans did not want but you forced on them anyway?

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama on TV now, what a punk.
>
> Talk to your own party loser, they bailed on you.

He is crying like a french school girl. Now he is saying how he will pass his own laws to circumvent the separation of powers.

Yes, by all means please continue to let gangs get their guns over the internet, privates sales and gun shows with no background checks.

Basically it just royally fucked over every gun store.

A great day for the United States. A victory for the Constitution.

Mentally ill Win Big Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Yes, by all means please continue to let gangs get
> their guns over the internet, privates sales and
> gun shows with no background checks.
>
> Basically it just royally fucked over every gun
> store.

Nonsense, the law FORCES background checks at gun shows. The premise of a "gun show loophole" is a liberal creation.

sore loser. Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obama on TV now, what a punk.
> >
> > Talk to your own party loser, they bailed on
> you.
>
> Now he is saying how he will pass his own laws to circumvent
> the separation of powers.

Then it's impeachment time! King Barry won't be able to shred the Second Amendment.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mentally ill Win Big Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Yes, by all means please continue to let gangs
> get
> > their guns over the internet, privates sales
> and
> > gun shows with no background checks.
> >
> > Basically it just royally fucked over every gun
> > store.
>
> Nonsense, the law FORCES background checks at gun
> shows. The premise of a "gun show loophole" is a
> liberal creation.

I'm guessing you have never been to gun show??? It's three questions and proof of citizenship. Private sales are the same way.

You might want to lookup your facts next time.

U.S. federal law requires persons engaged in interstate firearm commerce, or those who are "engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, to hold a Federal Firearms License and perform background checks through the National Instant Criminal Background Check System maintained by the FBI prior to transferring a firearm. Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals "not engaged in the business" of dealing firearms, or who only make "occasional" sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).

Im a gun owner and I have no problem with background checks FOR EVERY TRANSACTION. Listen, I bought a 12 gauge last year and I had to wait 3 days for the approval because the VA State Police were so backed up. It bothered me at the time but I found out it was because they wouldnt spend the money to get proper staffing for the background checks. If I have to go thru, so should everyone else...... PERIOD!

The problem in Congress is too many members have their hands in the pockets of lobbyists and special interest groups. We need to fire every one of those worthless fuckers.

I wasn't aware the Democrats also controlled the House of Representatives. Is Nancy the speaker again?

Hooloo Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I wasn't aware the Democrats also controlled the
> House of Representatives. Is Nancy the speaker
> again?


It was rejected in the SENATE because it did not have enough DEMOCRAT support.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama on TV now, what a punk.
>
> Talk to your own party loser, they bailed on you.


Actually you are full of shit. Even with the 4 democrats who didnt vote yes, it would have been 58. 90% of GOP was against this. But go on, tell us how the democrats were against this you fucking tool douche lying hitler youth bitch

GOP is for Hitler Youth Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> WingNut Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obama on TV now, what a punk.
> >
> > Talk to your own party loser, they bailed on
> you.
>
>
> Actually you are full of shit. Even with the 4
> democrats who didnt vote yes, it would have been
> 58. 90% of GOP was against this. But go on, tell
> us how the democrats were against this you fucking
> tool douche lying hitler youth bitch


Why this bill needed 60 votes, instead of 51 as is normal (50 actually with Dem in white house) is because of bullshit rules procedures that... SHOCKER the GOP pulled. Again robbing the american people of democracy to support their own pockets from the NRA and gun makers.

YAAAAAY FUCK YOU AMERICA YAAAAAAY

- This message brought to you by 90% of the GOP senate

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Im a gun owner and I have no problem with
> background checks FOR EVERY TRANSACTION. Listen, I
> bought a 12 gauge last year and I had to wait 3
> days for the approval because the VA State Police
> were so backed up. It bothered me at the time but
> I found out it was because they wouldnt spend the
> money to get proper staffing for the background
> checks. If I have to go thru, so should everyone
> else...... PERIOD!
>
> The problem in Congress is too many members have
> their hands in the pockets of lobbyists and
> special interest groups. We need to fire every one
> of those worthless fuckers.


Oh you mean the 90% of republicans who voted against this? You couldnt mean the 90% of democrats who voted FOR background checks. Please explain that when you say "congress" you mean the douchebag GOP.

Thanks a bunches

GOP douch bags, not "congress" Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> Oh you mean the 90% of republicans who voted
> against this? You couldnt mean the 90% of
> democrats who voted FOR background checks. Please
> explain that when you say "congress" you mean the
> douchebag GOP.
>
> Thanks a bunches


Hey shithead, if 90% of democrats voted for this (55 x 0.9 = 45.9) and 10% of republicans voted for this (45 x 0.1 = 4.5), if would pass. But it wasn't 90% of democrats and 15 Republicans voted to go ahead and have a vote (tho only a handful would have voted for it). Another lie by another lying liberal douche.

Democrats have to defend 8 seats in states that voted for Romney. That's why this didn't come up for a vote asswipe.

So they are not taking people's guns? All these fucktards be yelling for nothing? This is America bitches... they ain't getting around the constitution. Fox news done fucked ya again.

hysteria Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So they are not taking people's guns? All these
> fucktards be yelling for nothing? This is America
> bitches... they ain't getting around the
> constitution. Fox news done fucked ya again.


They tried and failed when some Dem senators realized theyd lose their next election if they voted for something that had no chance in the House anyway

Lying Liberal Losers Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> GOP douch bags, not "congress" Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> >
> >
> > Oh you mean the 90% of republicans who voted
> > against this? You couldnt mean the 90% of
> > democrats who voted FOR background checks.
> Please
> > explain that when you say "congress" you mean
> the
> > douchebag GOP.
> >
> > Thanks a bunches
>
>
> Hey shithead, if 90% of democrats voted for this
> (55 x 0.9 = 45.9) and 10% of republicans voted for
> this (45 x 0.1 = 4.5), if would pass. But it
> wasn't 90% of democrats and 15 Republicans voted
> to go ahead and have a vote (tho only a handful
> would have voted for it). Another lie by another
> lying liberal douche.
>
> Democrats have to defend 8 seats in states that
> voted for Romney. That's why this didn't come up
> for a vote asswipe.


No you fucking ignorant cunt. It had 54 votes. It didnt pass because the GOP made a rules order that required it to have 60 votes by saying it was a modification to an existing law. You stupid cunt.

It had 54 votes. This is known fact that you can look up if your ignorant cunt ass wasnt such a stupid cunt YOU FUCKING CUNT BITCHED CHODE SUCKING WHORE

But please, keep lying to the people. One day will be your judgement you lying CUNT WHORE

The amendment, offered by Republican Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West Virginia, got 54 votes, short of the 60 required. Forty-six senators voted against it.

Your lies will get your people fired in 2014. So please, keep lying, keep obfuscating you little douches. Pretend like the democrats failed america on this when 90%, 90 fucking percent, of the republicans voted against this and 90% of democrats voted for it.

KEEP YOUR SPIN LYING GOING YOU WHORE

Just like how the sequester was Obama, when Boehner got 99% of what he wanted.

YOU FUCKING LYING CUNTS ARE RUINING OUR COUNTRY. GET THE FUCK OUT YOU WHORES, or atleast stop lying to people. If you cant win on the merits of your argument then you LOSE. THATS HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS. YOU ARE TURNING OUR COUNTRY INTO A FUCKING OLIGARCHY CONTROLLED BY MONEY YOU DOUCHES

LYING WHORE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lying Liberal Losers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > GOP douch bags, not "congress" Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh you mean the 90% of republicans who voted
> > > against this? You couldnt mean the 90% of
> > > democrats who voted FOR background checks.
> > Please
> > > explain that when you say "congress" you mean
> > the
> > > douchebag GOP.
> > >
> > > Thanks a bunches
> >
> >
> > Hey shithead, if 90% of democrats voted for
> this
> > (55 x 0.9 = 45.9) and 10% of republicans voted
> for
> > this (45 x 0.1 = 4.5), if would pass. But it
> > wasn't 90% of democrats and 15 Republicans
> voted
> > to go ahead and have a vote (tho only a handful
> > would have voted for it). Another lie by
> another
> > lying liberal douche.
> >
> > Democrats have to defend 8 seats in states that
> > voted for Romney. That's why this didn't come
> up
> > for a vote asswipe.
>
>
> No you fucking ignorant cunt. It had 54 votes. It
> didnt pass because the GOP made a rules order that
> required it to have 60 votes by saying it was a
> modification to an existing law. You stupid cunt.
>
> It had 54 votes. This is known fact that you can
> look up if your ignorant cunt ass wasnt such a
> stupid cunt YOU FUCKING CUNT BITCHED CHODE SUCKING
> WHORE
>
> But please, keep lying to the people. One day will
> be your judgement you lying CUNT WHORE


You're an idiot. Keep watching MSNBC.

Reid could have brought it to the floor directly if he'd wanted. He didn't. He still can since he voted no. But he won't.

And Feinstein's AWB amendment didn't even get close.

"The final vote was 54 in favor to 46 opposed with four Republicans joining most Democrats in supporting the compromise. With the outcome obvious, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nevada, cast a "no" vote to secure the ability to bring the measure up again.

Meanwhile, four Democrats from pro-gun states voted with most Republicans in opposition.

On the proposal by Democratic Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California to update a 1994 ban on semi-automatic weapons that expired in 2004, the vote was 40-60, showing opposition by several Democrats as well as the chamber's Republican minority."

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17

LEARN TO READ AND STOP LISTENING TO GOP LIES

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17

THE GOP IS WILLINGLy LYING TO US AND PEOPLE KEEP VOTING FOR MORE OF IT

http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17 http://www.marketwatch.com/story/gun-bill-dealt-setback-as-amendment-fails-2013-04-17

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases

LEARN TO READ AND SEE HOW THE GOP LIES AND TELLS US THEY WERENT RESPONSIBLE

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background-checks-on-gun-purchases

LEARN TO READ YOU DOUCHES

LYING WHORE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Lying Liberal Losers Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > GOP douch bags, not "congress" Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > Oh you mean the 90% of republicans who voted
> > > against this? You couldnt mean the 90% of
> > > democrats who voted FOR background checks.
> > Please
> > > explain that when you say "congress" you mean
> > the
> > > douchebag GOP.
> > >
> > > Thanks a bunches
> >
> >
> > Hey shithead, if 90% of democrats voted for
> this
> > (55 x 0.9 = 45.9) and 10% of republicans voted
> for
> > this (45 x 0.1 = 4.5), if would pass. But it
> > wasn't 90% of democrats and 15 Republicans
> voted
> > to go ahead and have a vote (tho only a handful
> > would have voted for it). Another lie by
> another
> > lying liberal douche.
> >
> > Democrats have to defend 8 seats in states that
> > voted for Romney. That's why this didn't come
> up
> > for a vote asswipe.
>
>
> No you fucking ignorant cunt. It had 54 votes. It
> didnt pass because the GOP made a rules order that
> required it to have 60 votes by saying it was a
> modification to an existing law. You stupid cunt.
>
> It had 54 votes. This is known fact that you can
> look up if your ignorant cunt ass wasnt such a
> stupid cunt YOU FUCKING CUNT BITCHED CHODE SUCKING
> WHORE
>
> But please, keep lying to the people. One day will
> be your judgement you lying CUNT WHORE


Look this up asscrack: Democrats have to defend seats in - Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Alaska, South Dakota, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri, Lousiana, West Virginia, Michigan and Iowa. All pro-gun states. So, my fucking little bitch, democrats killed this bill because, once again, they want to lie to the American voters about their agenda in red and purple states. So fuck you, fuck that bitch that hatched your fucking douchebagged ass and fuck you again for good measure. And btw, fuck you.

LOOK YOU DOUCHE

4 DEMOCRATS VOTED AGAINST IT

So you can say whatever you want, but only 4 did this is known. READ THE FUCKING INFORMATION

Even with those 4 votes the bill would have DIED 58 to 42

Do you understand?

The democrats didnt do shit, it was the GOP who voted 90% against this bill you douche.

It was the 60 vote rule that Mitch McConnell asked for that killed this

And you FUCKING KNOW IT YOU LYING CUNT

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46 http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46 http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46 http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46 http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46 http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46 http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46 http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46 http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46 http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46 http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46 http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46 http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46

Lying Liberal Losers Crying Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LYING WHORE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Lying Liberal Losers Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > GOP douch bags, not "congress" Wrote:
> > >
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> >
> > > -----
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Oh you mean the 90% of republicans who
> voted
> > > > against this? You couldnt mean the 90% of
> > > > democrats who voted FOR background checks.
> > > Please
> > > > explain that when you say "congress" you
> mean
> > > the
> > > > douchebag GOP.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks a bunches
> > >
> > >
> > > Hey shithead, if 90% of democrats voted for
> > this
> > > (55 x 0.9 = 45.9) and 10% of republicans
> voted
> > for
> > > this (45 x 0.1 = 4.5), if would pass. But it
> > > wasn't 90% of democrats and 15 Republicans
> > voted
> > > to go ahead and have a vote (tho only a
> handful
> > > would have voted for it). Another lie by
> > another
> > > lying liberal douche.
> > >
> > > Democrats have to defend 8 seats in states
> that
> > > voted for Romney. That's why this didn't
> come
> > up
> > > for a vote asswipe.
> >
> >
> > No you fucking ignorant cunt. It had 54 votes.
> It
> > didnt pass because the GOP made a rules order
> that
> > required it to have 60 votes by saying it was a
> > modification to an existing law. You stupid
> cunt.
> >
> > It had 54 votes. This is known fact that you
> can
> > look up if your ignorant cunt ass wasnt such a
> > stupid cunt YOU FUCKING CUNT BITCHED CHODE
> SUCKING
> > WHORE
> >
> > But please, keep lying to the people. One day
> will
> > be your judgement you lying CUNT WHORE
>
>
> Look this up asscrack: Democrats have to defend
> seats in - Colorado, New Mexico, Montana, Alaska,
> South Dakota, Virginia, North Carolina, Missouri,
> Lousiana, West Virginia, Michigan and Iowa. All
> pro-gun states. So, my fucking little bitch,
> democrats killed this bill because, once again,
> they want to lie to the American voters about
> their agenda in red and purple states. So fuck
> you, fuck that bitch that hatched your fucking
> douchebagged ass and fuck you again for good
> measure. And btw, fuck you.

FUCK YOU DOUCHE

The bill would have passed 54-46 if the

DOUCHE GOP

didnt use a rules call to FORCE a 60 vote super majority to pass it

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46

YOU LIE TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE YOU GOP DOUCHE. JUST ADMIT IT. ADMIT IT YOU FUCKING CUNT YOU HITLER YOUTH DOUCHE WANNA BE FASCIST PRICK LITTLE DICKED COCK SUCKER

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46

54 to 46 GUN BILL FAILS EVEN THOUGH IT HAD MAJORITY OF SENATORS VOTING YES

Look ASSHOLE, the democrats, after their asskicking in 1994, know that gun control is a losing issue for them. You're a bigger fucking loser than they are because at least they know when to tuck tail and run. You're so fucking stupid and blind that you'll let them lose the Senate just so you can dismantle the 2nd Amendment. So once again, fuck you bitch. Now dance for me douche. Dance like the pussy puppet on the end of my strings.

Vince is back. Look how butthurt this stupid lib is.

LEARN TO READ YOU DOUCHE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Just like how the sequester was Obama, when
> Boehner got 99% of what he wanted.


It was Obama who insisted that be part of a previous deal. However only liberals are complaining about the sequester, everyone else realizes it wasnt a big deal despite whatever temper tantrum closing of white house tours want you to believe

54 to 46

EXPLAIN YOU DOUCHE GO AHEAD EXPLAIN YOUR LIES YOU DOUCHE

54 to 46
54 to 4654 to 46
54 to 46
54 to 46
54 to 46
54 to 46
54 to 46
54 to 46
54 to 46
54 to 46
54 to 4654 to 4654 to 46
DEMOCRACY!!!!!!

You will all burn in hell one day I promise you

54 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 46v

54 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 4654 to 46

lmao!

What about it didn't have enough DEMOCRAT support don't you understand?

You're forgetting that a number of Republicans voted for the bill.

It failed because of the DEMOCRATS who voted against it.

Your day will come GOP, you are barely holding on to a party in the first place. You are now defying the will of 90% of americans. Your day will come you are on the wrong side of history.

Kiss the millennial generation good bye from ever voting for conservatives you morons

But by all means, keep thinking you are winning the war, but taking down cheap, rules driven wins by using tricks instead of merit

Poor Butthurt Libtard Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> lmao!
>
> What about it didn't have enough DEMOCRAT support
> don't you understand?
>
> You're forgetting that a number of Republicans
> voted for the bill.
>
> It failed because of the DEMOCRATS who voted
> against it.

THAT IS JUST A FUCKING LIE YOU DOUCHE

THERE WERE ONLY 4 remaining democrats you FUCKING LYING DOUCHE

why would someone really lie to people what are you gaining by not being honest about something that is public record? YOU FUCKING DOUCHE

4 demorats

the vote had to be 60

it had 54 votes

are you really this fucking dense? Seriously you moron you must be some alabama redneck dumbass who cant do math you douche

What democratic support would have won this?

6 democrats. THERE WERE ONLY 4 WHO VOTED AGAINST IT. So I agree, if 2 douchebag GOP members, as well as their remaining 90% didnt vote against it, then it would have passed.

WHAT KIND OF LYING BULLSHIT, is it to blame a bill that you people ARE PROUD of blocking on democrats. This isnt america you faggots, you people are terrible and I wish you nothing but pain in karma

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46

Your day will come

FUCK YOU BITCH

Obamacare passed with 51 votes douchebag. A $8 Trillion drain on the economy that is destroying decent health care in the US passes by 1 vote with democrats buying votes left and right. Start your pussy whining there douche.

God is pro-gun. Hell is for liberals.

~
Attachments:

Lying Liberal Loser Still Cryin Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>

FUCK YOU BITCH

>
> Obamacare passed with 51 votes douchebag. A $8
> Trillion drain on the economy that is destroying
> decent health care in the US passes by 1 vote with
> democrats buying votes left and right. Start your
> pussy whining there douche.
>
> God is pro-gun. Hell is for liberals.


Yea it did, because 51 is the rules by the constitution required to pass a law. NOT 60 YOU DOUCHE

YOU DOUCHES CANT WIN BY THE RULES SO YOU MAKE UP BULLSHIT SO YOU CAN GREASE YOUR NRA POCKETS YOU DOUCHES

IT DOESNT TAKE 60 to pass something, it should be 50! you douche

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46

http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46
http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46http://nation.foxnews.com/gun-control/2013/04/17/senate-defeats-manchin-toomey-gun-bill-54-46

DESPITE MAJORITY GUN CONTROL BILL FAILS IN CONGRESS BECAUSE OF GOP RULES PROCEDURE. ONLY 4 democrats voted against, and even with ALL democrats voting for, it would have failed because there arent 60 democrats in the senate YOU DOUCHES!!!!!!!!!!!!

Your liberal crying makes me very happy. Keep it going. I smile every time I see one of your crybaby posts. LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL

Why all the lying by the GOP. Shouldnt they be proud of their work?

Why are they trying to pretend as if the Democrats stopped this? It is circular logic. The democrats did something that the GOP is proud of? Or is it that they want their cake and to eat it to. They want to get the money from the NRA, but lie to the american people and pretend as if they supported it.

In reality all but 4 GOP members voted against common sense background checks on internet gun sales.

In reality all but 4 democrats voted FOR the measure. so please tell me, geniuses, which party is the lying scum bag douches?

54- 46 is a majority Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> Yea it did, because 51 is the rules by the
> constitution required to pass a law. NOT 60 YOU
> DOUCHE

Thank Harry Reid. You should really learn what the fuck youre talking about.

Or is the washington post now a GOP mouth piece too?

"But, to end debate, on even one amendment, requires 60 votes — a process known as invoking cloture. Rallying 60 Senators to any cause is very difficult in such a polarized body. And even if cloture is invoked on an amendment, there can be up to 30 hours of debate on it. That’s a time consuming process for one amendment – let alone nine, which is what the Senate is considering beginning today.


Given that, another route is to require a 60-vote threshold on the final vote for each individual amendment rather than to end debate on each measure. Instead of drawing the process out over days or weeks, the votes then can be taken in quick succession.

The latter scenario is the path Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) chose to take. He asked for the Senate’s unanimous consent to require 60 votes for each of the nine amendments. Since no senators objected, that’s where the bar is set."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2013/04/17/the-gun-amendments-need-60-votes-to-pass-but-why/

PS

I dont care if it makes you feel great that I am "butt hurt" about this. This is the central focus that will kill the GOP. This lying that is easy to catch in the act, this manipulation of our founding rights and rules of the constitution while acting as if they are protecting the constitution is what will bring it down.

You fuck with the people, and you will get fucked just like Akin did, proper like.

So take your cheap victory, you are losing the war and you know it, and it makes me so happy every time there is an election that your loser candidates lose.

but yea keep going after that latino vote. Cause pushing the one latino guy is gonna save your party HAHAHAAHAHAHAH

Oh man. you people are pathetic, in 20 years even Texas will be democratic. Enjoy this bullshit procedural horse S while it still works

JUST BE HONEST AND PROUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>

In reality all but 4 GOP members voted against
> common sense background checks on internet gun
> sales.
>
> In reality all but 4 democrats voted FOR the
> measure. so please tell me, geniuses, which party
> is the lying scum bag douches?


What every party you belong too because internet sales are already subjected to background checks. But hey why let facts get in the way of a good talking points rant.

Because to do that would have opened the bill up to the very likely possibility that amendments favored by gun rights advocates would be added to it. One, for example, would allow gun owners who receive a state-issued permit to carry a concealed weapon to take that weapon into other states that issue such permits.

Ironic you quote a WaPo article while I quote a fox article. You DOUCHE

AGAIN, which people blocked this? the 90% of democrats who voted for it, or the 90% of GOP who voted against it?

I mean if the democrats did this, then all those states should start voting democrat I guess that currently vote GOP. Those democrats are really staunch GUN rights folks right?

JUST COME OUT AND ADMIT THAT YOU GOP DOUCHE BAGS ARE SO HAPPY ABOUT THIS BEING SHUT DOWN. AND FOR WHAT? SO THAT PEOPLE DONT HAVE TO GET BACKGROUND CHECKS ON INTERNET SALES AND GUN SHOWS?

PS internet sales do not need a background check, see 3rd party sites that act like ebay for guns

JUST BE HONEST AND PROUD Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why all the lying by the GOP. Shouldnt they be
> proud of their work?
>
> Why are they trying to pretend as if the Democrats
> stopped this? It is circular logic. The democrats
> did something that the GOP is proud of? Or is it
> that they want their cake and to eat it to. They
> want to get the money from the NRA, but lie to the
> american people and pretend as if they supported
> it.
>
> In reality all but 4 GOP members voted against
> common sense background checks on internet gun
> sales.
>
> In reality all but 4 democrats voted FOR the
> measure. so please tell me, geniuses, which party
> is the lying scum bag douches?


Hey dumbfuck, look at the states the Republicans have to defend in 2014. Safe as can be. No worries for the GOP. But the democrats have to defend at least 10 and possibly up to 13 seats that could go to republicans. The GOP won't run away from this vote.

Nobody gives a shit about this but a few leftwing nutcases. And no one gives a shit what they think anyway. Enjoy being a loser douchebag. The GOP wins on guns AGAIN

Harry Reid set the stage for needing 60 votes period.

It didnt get 60 period.

Of course the GOP is happy that the rights of Americans were protected and this stupid bill was stopped.

Your either and idiot or lying about gun shows and internet sales, both of which are already subjected to background checks.

The compromise bill wasn’t even strict as it could be–it’s not universal background checks, which President Obama has pushed for and is favored by 90% of Americans. Failure of the initiative, which is being seen as the most meaningful gun legislation in 20 years—will be seen as a setback for the families of those shot in the Newtown massacre, but a victory for the National Rifle Association. Obama said that Americans who support “commonsense” background checks must let their representatives know that they support this legislation, and that the battle for gun reform is not over. Now it is up to the public to make their views clear, he said.

You ignorant assholes don't even realize you've been played by the NRA. You won today, but your ignorant hillbilly mindset is dying. Right now you're an anachronism - soon you'll be obsolete. And when you are, gun control will be enacted.

Karma's a Bitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You ignorant assholes don't even realize you've
> been played by the NRA. You won today, but your
> ignorant hillbilly mindset is dying. Right now
> you're an anachronism - soon you'll be obsolete.
> And when you are, gun control will be enacted.


Lol this is good. I hope you post more youre at least entertaining.


I love it the country is somehow controlled by the NRA and Fox News lol.

GOP douch bags, not "congress" Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> >
>
> Oh you mean the 90% of republicans who voted
> against this? You couldnt mean the 90% of
> democrats who voted FOR background checks. Please
> explain that when you say "congress" you mean the
> douchebag GOP.
>
> Thanks a bunches

I think they all are lazy idiots. Dems and Reps alike. These bozos need term limits like YESTERDAY. Anytime you let the same douchbag keep his job for 4,5,6 terms you are asking for trouble.

.
Attachments:

Karma's a Bitch Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You ignorant assholes don't even realize you've
> been played by the NRA. You won today, but your
> ignorant hillbilly mindset is dying. Right now
> you're an anachronism - soon you'll be obsolete.
> And when you are, gun control will be enacted.


LOL. You're butthurt is showing

8=====>
Attachments:

ANY OTHER LIES YOU DOUCHE? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Because to do that would have opened the bill up
> to the very likely possibility that amendments
> favored by gun rights advocates would be added to
> it. One, for example, would allow gun owners who
> receive a state-issued permit to carry a concealed
> weapon to take that weapon into other states that
> issue such permits.
>

Yeah? And? If they had support they would pass. If not, they would fail. You're whining about Republicans using the rules to their favor and ignoring that Reid chose the path. In addition to being the one who pioneered using the exact same rule to his advantage when he was in the minority.


> JUST COME OUT AND ADMIT THAT YOU GOP DOUCHE BAGS
> ARE SO HAPPY ABOUT THIS BEING SHUT DOWN. AND FOR
> WHAT? SO THAT PEOPLE DONT HAVE TO GET BACKGROUND
> CHECKS ON INTERNET SALES AND GUN SHOWS?
>
> PS internet sales do not need a background check,
> see 3rd party sites that act like ebay for guns


You're clueless like most of the rest of you anti-gun nuts.

Internet sales to interstate buyers by dealers or private parties require a background check.

In-person sales by a dealer require background checks, including those at gun shows.

The only sales which do not require background checks, whether they happen at a gun show or otherwise, are private party, in-person, intra-state sales.

The "gun show" loophole mostly is bs.

Bud Hertz Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ANY OTHER LIES YOU DOUCHE? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Because to do that would have opened the bill
> up
> > to the very likely possibility that amendments
> > favored by gun rights advocates would be added
> to
> > it. One, for example, would allow gun owners
> who
> > receive a state-issued permit to carry a
> concealed
> > weapon to take that weapon into other states
> that
> > issue such permits.
> >
>
> Yeah? And? If they had support they would pass.
> If not, they would fail. You're whining about
> Republicans using the rules to their favor and
> ignoring that Reid chose the path. In addition to
> being the one who pioneered using the exact same
> rule to his advantage when he was in the
> minority.
>
>
> > JUST COME OUT AND ADMIT THAT YOU GOP DOUCHE
> BAGS
> > ARE SO HAPPY ABOUT THIS BEING SHUT DOWN. AND
> FOR
> > WHAT? SO THAT PEOPLE DONT HAVE TO GET
> BACKGROUND
> > CHECKS ON INTERNET SALES AND GUN SHOWS?
> >
> > PS internet sales do not need a background
> check,
> > see 3rd party sites that act like ebay for guns
>
>
> You're clueless like most of the rest of you
> anti-gun nuts.
>
> Internet sales to interstate buyers by dealers or
> private parties require a background check.
>
> In-person sales by a dealer require background
> checks, including those at gun shows.
>
> The only sales which do not require background
> checks, whether they happen at a gun show or
> otherwise, are private party, in-person,
> intra-state sales.
>
> The "gun show" loophole mostly is bs.


You can't buy a gun over the internet from an FFL dealer. They sell/transfer it to a local FFL dealer, who then sells it to you. That's why Walmart doesn't sell guns over the Internet. It's already the law. This whole thing was a red herring to make it look like someone was doing something.

Undecided about deciding Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Bud Hertz Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > ANY OTHER LIES YOU DOUCHE? Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > Because to do that would have opened the bill
> > up
> > > to the very likely possibility that
> amendments
> > > favored by gun rights advocates would be
> added
> > to
> > > it. One, for example, would allow gun owners
> > who
> > > receive a state-issued permit to carry a
> > concealed
> > > weapon to take that weapon into other states
> > that
> > > issue such permits.
> > >
> >
> > Yeah? And? If they had support they would
> pass.
> > If not, they would fail. You're whining about
> > Republicans using the rules to their favor and
> > ignoring that Reid chose the path. In addition
> to
> > being the one who pioneered using the exact
> same
> > rule to his advantage when he was in the
> > minority.
> >
> >
> > > JUST COME OUT AND ADMIT THAT YOU GOP DOUCHE
> > BAGS
> > > ARE SO HAPPY ABOUT THIS BEING SHUT DOWN. AND
> > FOR
> > > WHAT? SO THAT PEOPLE DONT HAVE TO GET
> > BACKGROUND
> > > CHECKS ON INTERNET SALES AND GUN SHOWS?
> > >
> > > PS internet sales do not need a background
> > check,
> > > see 3rd party sites that act like ebay for
> guns
> >
> >
> > You're clueless like most of the rest of you
> > anti-gun nuts.
> >
> > Internet sales to interstate buyers by dealers
> or
> > private parties require a background check.
> >
> > In-person sales by a dealer require background
> > checks, including those at gun shows.
> >
> > The only sales which do not require background
> > checks, whether they happen at a gun show or
> > otherwise, are private party, in-person,
> > intra-state sales.
> >
> > The "gun show" loophole mostly is bs.
>
>
> You can't buy a gun over the internet from an FFL
> dealer. They sell/transfer it to a local FFL
> dealer, who then sells it to you. That's why
> Walmart doesn't sell guns over the Internet. It's
> already the law. This whole thing was a red
> herring to make it look like someone was doing
> something.


Not exactly.

You buy it from whomever, dealer or private party.

It must be transferred to you though an FFL.

The FFL acts as a transfer agent but doesn't "sell" you the gun. They are not party to the business transaction itself, they serve only as a transfer agent.

But the details of that are beyond the point of people thinking that you can buy guns over the Net with no background check.

Well, regardless of what the real implications of the law would have been and whether you are into guns or not, any law NOT PASSED is a victory for the American people.

People do not trust the government.


Skepticism is healthy of you ask me.

idontlikebeingrightaboutshitlikethisbutiam



Edited 21 time(s). Last edit at 5/31/1967 05:57AM by WingNut.

Last edit at 11/30/2015 01:37PM Last edit at 5/14/2015 03:52PM Last edit at 1/28/2014 05:57AM Last edit at 11/29/2015 01:10PM Last edit at 3/14/2011 11:52PM Last edit at 7/20/2012 04:07AM
Last edit at 6/29/2013 11:18PM Last edit at 3/19/2011 01:02PM Last edit at 3/26/2012 09:07PM

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, regardless of what the real implications of
> the law would have been and whether you are into
> guns or not, any law NOT PASSED is a victory for
> the American people.
>
> People do not trust the government.
>
>
> Skepticism is healthy of you ask me.

I don't trust the Government either, but I recognize common sense when I see it. I also recognize craven cowardice when I see it, which we all did today.

Not all Laws are Bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I don't trust the Government either, but I
> recognize common sense when I see it. I also
> recognize craven cowardice when I see it, which we
> all did today.


Then you can also recognize that criminals and psychos don't give a shit whether this or any other law was passed or not.

Stabitha Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Im a gun owner and I have no problem with
> background checks FOR EVERY TRANSACTION.

You're a fucking stooge. I bet you line right up and bend over for every goon in a uniform.

Reality Stik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not all Laws are Bad Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I don't trust the Government either, but I
> > recognize common sense when I see it. I also
> > recognize craven cowardice when I see it, which
> we
> > all did today.
>
>
> Then you can also recognize that criminals and
> psychos don't give a shit whether this or any
> other law was passed or not.

You're absolutely right. Let's just riscind all laws because criminals won't obey them. This is what you people call logic?

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Well, regardless of what the real implications of
> the law would have been and whether you are into
> guns or not, any law NOT PASSED is a victory for
> the American people.
>
> People do not trust the government.
>
>
> Skepticism is healthy of you ask me.


HAHAHA, thanks for clarifying you anarchist DOUCHE. Cant wait to see you perpetrate some douche bag bombing of your own you DOUCHE. I hope it blows up in your basement and you die in a horrifying way.

Champ

Republican logic 102 (GAAAAAY) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> HAHAHA, thanks for clarifying you anarchist
> DOUCHE. Cant wait to see you perpetrate some
> douche bag bombing of your own you DOUCHE. I hope
> it blows up in your basement and you die in a
> horrifying way.
>
> Champ


Why are liberals always so angry and wishing death on anyone who doesnt follow their brainwashing?

Not all Laws are Bad Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Reality Stik Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Not all Laws are Bad Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > >
> > > I don't trust the Government either, but I
> > > recognize common sense when I see it. I also
> > > recognize craven cowardice when I see it,
> which
> > we
> > > all did today.
> >
> >
> > Then you can also recognize that criminals and
> > psychos don't give a shit whether this or any
> > other law was passed or not.
>
> You're absolutely right. Let's just riscind all
> laws because criminals won't obey them. This is
> what you people call logic?


We already have background checks for the vast majority of gun sales. Likewise, straw purchases also are illegal. Most people don't have any problem with that.

The "gun show loophole" is a contrived effort to extend regulation more generally which grew out of Bloomberg's crew's publicity stunt where they went to gun shows and purchased a bunch of crap at ridiculous prices to make it appear that it was a much larger problem than it is because they wanted to shut down gun shows.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> Why are liberals always so angry and wishing death
> on anyone who doesnt follow their brainwashing?


That's why they lost on this issue.

All they have are emotion-driven talking points which don't hold up to any real discussion. When challenged they just yell louder. Doesn't really make for a very effective argument.

HAHAHAHA

Yea liberals are the ones who are brainwashed. Not the backwater rednecks in alabama that vote for the GOP. Yea those guys are the ones in the know

Reality Stik Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > Why are liberals always so angry and wishing
> death
> > on anyone who doesnt follow their brainwashing?
>
>
> That's why they lost on this issue.
>
> All they have are emotion-driven talking points
> which don't hold up to any real discussion. When
> challenged they just yell louder. Doesn't really
> make for a very effective argument.

They are driven entirely on emotion which everyone knows is the best way to make decision.

Facts and logic and reason wont ever slow them down but eventually people figure out they were just lying and are full of it.

This boards a perfect example of how they just make things up as they go along.

Obama is taking the wrong approach. Instead of trying to strengthen background checks (a sensible step, but one that arguably does impinge on 2nd amendment rights), he and the Democrats should repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. This law has nothing to do with protecting constitutional rights, it shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability for the intentional misuse of their products -- say the deliberate shooting up of an elementary school.

Let the good people of Newtown, Aurora, Blacksburg, etc. seek redress in court for the pain and suffering inflicted on them by manufacturers and dealers who should and do know what their products can do if used incorrectly. We Americans have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms (though perhaps we need to be serving or eligible to serve in some sort of Militia, which the mentally ill are not) BUT the first amendment clearly and unequivocably articulates our right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances -- sue in court. To protect the manufacturers (that is who the NRA represents after all), the Bush administration abrogated our first amendment rights with the PLCA. I for one want them back.

Till the south is asked to remove themselves from the US. And they can stew in their right wing utopia, with the GDP of kenya. Enjoy while the rest of America, the part that actually knows things and does stuff leaves you behind you backwater douches

What ever losers.

You totally rocked our worlds in the 2012 election

Lost the presidency... but that of course was because of Romney being a loser right? I thought it was a lock though, with unemployment so high.

And can you explain why the senate wasn't won by the GOP, and why the house they lost seats?

Im so confused about how the GOP is still relevant considering they are one more argument away from imploding into a crazy right wing religious party and a crazy right wing corporate party.

Oh man, 2014 is gonna be fun. Keep up all the great "grass roots" ground work, cant wait to see what Roves projections are this time.

I quit the NRA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> This law has nothing to do with
> protecting constitutional rights, it shields gun
> manufacturers and dealers from liability for the
> intentional misuse of their products -- say the
> deliberate shooting up of an elementary school.
>
> So tell me, when was the last time Ford or GM or Toyota was held liable for injuries or death caused by one of their products INTENTIONALLY MISUSED (i.e drunk driver)?????

That's right......NEVER!



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/17/2013 10:20PM by Stabitha.

I quit the NRA Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama is taking the wrong approach. Instead of
> trying to strengthen background checks (a sensible
> step, but one that arguably does impinge on 2nd
> amendment rights), he and the Democrats should
> repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms
> Act of 2005. This law has nothing to do with
> protecting constitutional rights, it shields gun
> manufacturers and dealers from liability for the
> intentional misuse of their products -- say the
> deliberate shooting up of an elementary school.


That has everything to do with protecting rights. That would put gun companies out of business creating a band.

By that logic though you would put every company out of business. GM would have to be sued every time someone dies in a car crash or gets hurt, same with knife companies, baseball bats, medical companies, doctors if they dont save someone even if they cant be saved, first responders for not putting out a fire that causes death or a paramedic who has someone die in the back of the ambulance.

The people that committed those acts are the only ones who should be sued. No one else did it, guns didnt cause it them being psychopathic killers caused it.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I quit the NRA Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Obama is taking the wrong approach. Instead of
> > trying to strengthen background checks (a
> sensible
> > step, but one that arguably does impinge on 2nd
> > amendment rights), he and the Democrats should
> > repeal the Protection of Lawful Commerce in
> Arms
> > Act of 2005. This law has nothing to do with
> > protecting constitutional rights, it shields
> gun
> > manufacturers and dealers from liability for
> the
> > intentional misuse of their products -- say the
> > deliberate shooting up of an elementary school.
>
>
>
> That has everything to do with protecting rights.
> That would put gun companies out of business
> creating a band.
>
> By that logic though you would put every company
> out of business. GM would have to be sued every
> time someone dies in a car crash or gets hurt,
> same with knife companies, baseball bats, medical
> companies, doctors if they dont save someone even
> if they cant be saved, first responders for not
> putting out a fire that causes death or a
> paramedic who has someone die in the back of the
> ambulance.
>
> The people that committed those acts are the only
> ones who should be sued. No one else did it, guns
> didnt cause it them being psychopathic killers
> caused it.


If only there was a background check to ask the same stuff that for instance, a DRIVERS LICENSE requires

you fucking douche

NO ONE IS COMING AFTER YOUR GAY ASS PENIS EXTENDERS. NO ONE GIVES A FUCK ABOUT YOUR GUN BECAUSE YOU ARE A SHIT SHOT

THIS WAS A BILL ON BACKGROUND CHECKS YOU FAGGOT. Way to go you guys WON!

Wooooo

You protected us from the tyranny of background checks, something that you douchebags supported 10 years ago.

WOOOOOO!!!

We get it, the black man wants it, so you cant support it. Shits getting old, at some point the GOP is going to have to legislate and do something that america actually wants.

Faggots

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> They are driven entirely on emotion which everyone
> knows is the best way to make decision.

You just described how Obama won the election. He didn't win on the issues; he won because he was able to convince people that Romney was a plutocrat.

> Facts and logic and reason wont ever slow them
> down but eventually people figure out they were
> just lying and are full of it.

Margaret Thatcher said it best: "Welfare states are great until you run out of other people's money." The Democrats and Republicans who stood up against this bill are (for the most part) principled.

> This boards a perfect example of how they just
> make things up as they go along.

Absolutely, try getting into a debate with one of the anti-gun zealots. I don't own a gun, and I probably never will. I hate how Obama is trying to infringe upon other people's rights.

Great obfuscation. Wooo!

BTW, shocking now YC is here. Could it be because they are ALL the SAME fucking IP and person

DOUUUUUUUCHES

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
Its nice to see a mature adult for once, the idiots or idiot is out in full force tonight angrier than ever.

> You just described how Obama won the election. He
> didn't win on the issues; he won because he was
> able to convince people that Romney was a
> plutocrat.

Thats exactly right. He never ran on his own plans or anything the game plan was always just to attack the other side while never saying anything of substance, much like the idiots on here. Sadly that worked that time.

> Margaret Thatcher said it best: "Welfare states
> are great until you run out of other people's
> money." The Democrats and Republicans who stood up
> against this bill are (for the most part)
> principled.

At least on this issue they were. Thatcher was 100 percent correct. Eventually those that are being used as a blank check dwindle in numbers or get tired of it and leave.

Were fine for now but in a generation or two if we dont change that entitlement attitude they are going to run into a very rude awakening

> Absolutely, try getting into a debate with one of
> the anti-gun zealots. I don't own a gun, and I
> probably never will. I hate how Obama is trying to
> infringe upon other people's rights.

Calling it a debate is an insult to debates. Its just one side stating facts the occasional anti gun nut stating lies and then idiots like gordon and that dude that thinks im yucky spewing off talking points posting stupid memes. More substantive discussions have taken place in pre schools.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:

> Calling it a debate is an insult to debates. Its
> just one side stating facts the occasional anti
> gun nut stating lies and then idiots like gordon
> and that dude that thinks im yucky spewing off
> talking points posting stupid memes. More
> substantive discussions have taken place in pre
> schools.


It's all they got mang - dumb pics and penis cracks.

Not even capable of any creative trolling.

i love how when you dems get your way and stuff gets passed, you bad mouth the republicans. then when your bills dont pass, you act like a bunch of cry babies that got your candy taken from you on the playground. if dems would get their head out of their asses, instead of jumping the gun and trying to pass bills that wont solve anything (take ny for instance), you mght actually do some good. banning high cap mags and asslt rifles was not the answer to these mass shootings. criminals do not buy guns legally, and all these killings were committed by mentally ill people. mmmm..... lets put two and two together now. stay with me. maybe instead of taking things from the good people, we should find a way to treat the bad people who are mentally ill. omg. if we take care of their issues, they would never kill a bunch of innocent kids. hopefully i didnt loose all the dems who only want to ban things instead of dealing with the real problem.

i see some talk about the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. so should we allow familys to sue the company who makes the vehicle that a drunk driver was driving when they kill someone? its the same thing and dont try to say its not. its just like the stupid idiot who spilled their mcd's coffee in their lap and sued for millions. that was their own fault, but because there wasnt a warning that it was hot (any non retarded person would know that), they became rich. guns dont kill people, just like cars, knives, heavy machinery..... its the people using it that kill others.

Live with it Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Hooloo Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > I wasn't aware the Democrats also controlled
> the
> > House of Representatives. Is Nancy the speaker
> > again?
>
>
> It was rejected in the SENATE because it did not
> have enough DEMOCRAT support.


He was referring to the thread title, idiot - "Democrat Controlled CONGRESS".

obfuscate Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Great obfuscation. Wooo!
>
> BTW, shocking now YC is here. Could it be because
> they are ALL the SAME fucking IP and person
>
> DOUUUUUUUCHES

Liberal Logic and I are different people. We do disagree, for example, he hates Obamacare. I think Obamacare can have some benefits.

Yucky24 and I are different people.

If you really want Cary to do an IP trace on all of us, he can. He'll find that we're different people.

u idiots Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> i see some talk about the Protection of Lawful
> Commerce in Arms Act of 2005. so should we allow
> familys to sue the company who makes the vehicle
> that a drunk driver was driving when they kill
> someone? its the same thing and dont try to say
> its not. its just like the stupid idiot who
> spilled their mcd's coffee in their lap and sued
> for millions. that was their own fault, but
> because there wasnt a warning that it was hot (any
> non retarded person would know that), they became
> rich. guns dont kill people, just like cars,
> knives, heavy machinery..... its the people using
> it that kill others.

Protection of Lawful Commerce Act is a good thing. If I buy a gun and kill someone, how is it the manufacturer's fault?

DUDE, DON'T FUCKING DEBATE THESE FILTHY TROLLS ON HERE, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE GET THESE MOTHERFUCKERS OUT OF THE STATEHOUSE SO WE CAN REDISTRICT AND TAKE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES BACK. ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL.

WE NEED STATE GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND IT'S IMPORTANT. FUCK TIT FOR TAT FUCKING ARGUEMENTS WITH FILTHY FUCKIN RAT BASTARD DISGUSTING LYING CHEATING DECEIVING REPUBLICANS. WOULD YOU DEBATE POLITICS WITH A THEIF? A CROOK? THAT'S WHAT LIES ARE, THEY ARE THEFT. LOW LIFE THIEVES. STATE GOVERNMENT STARTS OPPOSING CUCCINELLI, VERY IMPORTANT.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Thats exactly right. He never ran on his own
> plans or anything the game plan was always just to
> attack the other side while never saying anything
> of substance, much like the idiots on here. Sadly
> that worked that time.

Elections aren't on the issues anymore. Kerry campaigned on issues and lost. Romney campaigned on issues and lost. People don't give a damn about the actual issues. Instead, they care about social crap like "gay marriage" or abortion. Face it, none of these issues is going to make or break our nation. Now not having a budget? Having a massive debt and a 760 billion dollar deficit? That's going to break our nation.

People complain that taxes are high. For the amount of services the average person gets from his government, he pays too little. Taxes should increase, but we need to cut spending as well.

> Calling it a debate is an insult to debates. Its
> just one side stating facts the occasional anti
> gun nut stating lies and then idiots like gordon
> and that dude that thinks im yucky spewing off
> talking points posting stupid memes. More
> substantive discussions have taken place in pre
> schools.

Talking points vs. Facts

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> DUDE, DON'T FUCKING DEBATE THESE FILTHY TROLLS ON
> HERE, WE HAVE TO MAKE SURE WE GET THESE
> MOTHERFUCKERS OUT OF THE STATEHOUSE SO WE CAN
> REDISTRICT AND TAKE THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
> BACK. ALL POLITICS IS LOCAL.

More importantly, just re-take the governorship. Even if you have a slight minority in one house, you can do a lot by holding the governorship.

> WE NEED STATE GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND IT'S
> IMPORTANT. FUCK TIT FOR TAT FUCKING ARGUEMENTS
> WITH FILTHY FUCKIN RAT BASTARD DISGUSTING LYING
> CHEATING DECEIVING REPUBLICANS. WOULD YOU DEBATE
> POLITICS WITH A THEIF? A CROOK? THAT'S WHAT LIES
> ARE, THEY ARE THEFT. LOW LIFE THIEVES. STATE
> GOVERNMENT STARTS OPPOSING CUCCINELLI, VERY
> IMPORTANT.

Obama has lied dozens of times during the whole gun control debate. The NRA hasn't. End of story. Cuccinelli sucks, I agree. McAuliffe is too liberal for most of Virginia.

Fuck Liberal Logic, fuck Curmudgon or cumguzziler whatever his name is, fuck the anonymous Republican trolls on here. Vote, that's what you need to do. 90 percent of you fellow Americans stand with you. You are voting for your rights to representation. The Republican politicians are protecting the gun lobby and don't give a fuck if every one of your fucking children gets shot in incidents like this.

VOTE these fuckers out for good, they need a lesson in democracy.

FUCK THESE FILTHY FUCKIN DIRTY REPUBLICANS TROLLS ON HERE, DON'T BOTHER, VOTE, VOTE HARD, VOTE THEIR ASS'S OUT, VOTE EM OUT NOW, DO ALL YOU CAN AS A CITIZEN AND AS A VIRGINIAN, 90 PERCENT OF AMERICA STANDS UNITED.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck Liberal Logic, fuck Curmudgon or cumguzziler
> whatever his name is, fuck the anonymous
> Republican trolls on here. Vote, that's what you
> need to do. 90 percent of you fellow Americans
> stand with you. You are voting for your rights to
> representation. The Republican politicians are
> protecting the gun lobby and don't give a fuck if
> every one of your fucking children gets shot in
> incidents like this.
>
> VOTE these fuckers out for good, they need a
> lesson in democracy.

Do you realize that I'm a Conservative Democrat? You know, the type that morons like you threw out of the party during the 90s? You have never added anything of value to this board. I have. End of story.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUCK THESE FILTHY FUCKIN DIRTY REPUBLICANS TROLLS
> ON HERE, DON'T BOTHER, VOTE, VOTE HARD, VOTE THEIR
> ASS'S OUT, VOTE EM OUT NOW, DO ALL YOU CAN AS A
> CITIZEN AND AS A VIRGINIAN, 90 PERCENT OF AMERICA
> STANDS UNITED.


90% of the few 'Morning Joe' viewers anyway. lmao

The Republican party filibustered a petty background checks reform bill supported by 90 percent of America, they didn't even let it proceed to the house for a vote. After the multiple gruesome shootings.

The Republican Party has now officially taken ownership and responsibility for all future incidents of mass murder that are certain to occur. Next time someone kills innocent people in this country, the Republican Party said yesterday, we don't care. We are indifferent and we will not affect the business of the gun industry to improve public safety.

These stupid fuckin Republicans don't know the burden they've placed themselves now. You want to fuck around for special interests in obstruction and filibuster legislation of devastated families in support of 90 percent of the nation.

A bare minimum of requiring background checks and gun shows an such. This was the minimum we could of done in response.

I can see something, I can sense something, I feel like. I feel people are getting really sick of the GOP. Can't wait until the next election. These fuckin Republicans are their own worst enemies and they will drag the country down unless the country forces them into reform. They can come back but right now politically they need a time out.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Fuck Liberal Logic, fuck Curmudgon or
> cumguzziler
> > whatever his name is, fuck the anonymous
> > Republican trolls on here. Vote, that's what
> you
> > need to do. 90 percent of you fellow Americans
> > stand with you. You are voting for your rights
> to
> > representation. The Republican politicians are
> > protecting the gun lobby and don't give a fuck
> if
> > every one of your fucking children gets shot in
> > incidents like this.
> >
> > VOTE these fuckers out for good, they need a
> > lesson in democracy.
>
> Do you realize that I'm a Conservative Democrat?
> You know, the type that morons like you threw out
> of the party during the 90s? You have never added
> anything of value to this board. I have. End of
> story.

I know what you are. You're a stupid faggot that needs to practice shutting his fucking face more often.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
>
> I know what you are. You're a stupid faggot that
> needs to practice shutting his fucking face more
> often.


^ Yet another 'tolerant' Progressive.

lulz

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I know what you are. You're a stupid faggot that
> needs to practice shutting his fucking face more
> often.

YOU KNOW FUCKING NOTHING. You have talking points. Say something valuable, dumb fuck. Not some talking point. Show me evidence. Show me evidence of an ACTUAL gun show loophole. Tell me that 60% of all gun violence isn't committed by black males between 18-35.

You're ignorant and dangerous. Thank God people like you tend to pontificate but not vote.

lulz@u Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> >
> > I know what you are. You're a stupid faggot
> that
> > needs to practice shutting his fucking face
> more
> > often.
>
>
> ^ Yet another 'tolerant' Progressive.
>
> lulz

When you can't answer with knowledge, attack the other person.

C'mere GerryTard, I'll tell you a little secret that you're too fucking stooopid to figure out for yourself...

Reid didn't want it to pass. If he did he could have handled the voting differently. Like the two-faced slimeball politician that he is, he wants to be able to look like he's supporting it now that it's front and center and to be able to later go back to voters in NV and say that he voted no. Obama and the rest of the Dems don't really want it to pass either. Passing it hurts them in close races. Not passing it lets them keep it as a talking point for 2014. They don't really care about gun control, all they care about is politics.

Look at these motherfuckers, 90 percent of republicans voted against 90 percent of the American people and he blames Harry fuckin bitch Reid.. I just want to know one thing. When will you fuckin people take responsibility for something?

I mean, the whole entire fucking existence of the Republican party in conflict with the economic interests of the vast middle class for the elite and is the idea that people "taking responsibility" is what benefits society most therefore they should be left out with no government help.

"Take responsibility" is the central theme of this despicable Darwinistic ideology. It's what this piece of shit party is solely based on.

So, you go around telling everyone to take responsibility and bail out the billionaires with corporate welfare.

When will you fucking Republicans take some of you own advice? When will you take some responsibility for your politics?

Is the irony here that the only way the party of "take responsibility economically" can function is if they never "take responsibility" politically? Basically lying is necessary and avoiding accountability.

Obama lied about Mitt Romney in 2012.

Lied about his taxes.

Lied about offshore bank accounts.

Lied about Bain Capital closing a factory and causing a woman to die of cancer.

And now he is accusing the NRA of lying?
Attachments:

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Obama lied about Mitt Romney in 2012.
>
> Lied about his taxes.
>
> Lied about offshore bank accounts.
>
> Lied about Bain Capital closing a factory and
> causing a woman to die of cancer.
>
> And now he is accusing the NRA of lying?

I am WashingtonLocian..

Always have been, always will be.

Vexxxed Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I am WashingtonLocian..
>
> Always have been, always will be.

LEARN TO READ YOU DOUCHE Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The amendment, offered by Republican Pat Toomey of
> Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West
> Virginia, got 54 votes, short of the 60 required.
> Forty-six senators voted against it.
>
> Your lies will get your people fired in 2014. So
> please, keep lying, keep obfuscating you little
> douches. Pretend like the democrats failed america
> on this when 90%, 90 fucking percent, of the
> republicans voted against this and 90% of
> democrats voted for it.
>
> KEEP YOUR SPIN LYING GOING YOU WHORE
>
> Just like how the sequester was Obama, when
> Boehner got 99% of what he wanted.
>
> YOU FUCKING LYING CUNTS ARE RUINING OUR COUNTRY.
> GET THE FUCK OUT YOU WHORES, or atleast stop lying
> to people. If you cant win on the merits of your
> argument then you LOSE. THATS HOW DEMOCRACY WORKS.
> YOU ARE TURNING OUR COUNTRY INTO A FUCKING
> OLIGARCHY CONTROLLED BY MONEY YOU DOUCHES
Attachments:

Ralph Pootawn Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> LEARN TO READ YOU DOUCHE Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > The amendment, offered by Republican Pat Toomey
> of
> > Pennsylvania and Democrat Joe Manchin of West
> > Virginia, got 54 votes, short of the 60
> required.
> > Forty-six senators voted against it.
> >
> > Your lies will get your people fired in 2014.
> So
> > please, keep lying, keep obfuscating you little
> > douches. Pretend like the democrats failed
> america
> > on this when 90%, 90 fucking percent, of the
> > republicans voted against this and 90% of
> > democrats voted for it.
> >
> > KEEP YOUR SPIN LYING GOING YOU WHORE
> >
> > Just like how the sequester was Obama, when
> > Boehner got 99% of what he wanted.
> >
> > YOU FUCKING LYING CUNTS ARE RUINING OUR
> COUNTRY.
> > GET THE FUCK OUT YOU WHORES, or atleast stop
> lying
> > to people. If you cant win on the merits of
> your
> > argument then you LOSE. THATS HOW DEMOCRACY
> WORKS.
> > YOU ARE TURNING OUR COUNTRY INTO A FUCKING
> > OLIGARCHY CONTROLLED BY MONEY YOU DOUCHES

Yes celebrate in the fact that you are selling out future generations to the controls of 20 or so CEOs sitting in a room wringing their hands that people are stupid enough in the south to keep voting these bozos in.

CELEBRATE! WOOOO! YOU WON!!!!

How'd that work for you in 2012? Cant wait for 2014. Talk about sour grapes haha

Shame.
Attachments:

And Big Business Lobbies always win against the little guy or common sense.


There were moments of courage on the Senate floor Wednesday. Sen. Frank Lautenberg (D-N.J.), seriously ill with cancer, had traveled to Washington to cast his vote. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave an uncharacteristically moving speech explaining why he was reversing his position and would vote for a ban on military-style assault rifles (the proposal failed, 40 to 60). Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) defied most in his party to speak, and vote, in favor of the background-check measure.

Bravest of all were Manchin and Toomey, both risking their “A” ratings from the NRA to follow their consciences. “This isn’t gun control, this is common sense,” Toomey told his colleagues in the closing minutes of Wednesday’s debate.

Just last week, lobbying efforts by Newtown families helped beat back a Republican filibuster

DrLou1
9:32 AM EDT
Americans need to seriously consider what just happened in the Senate because it was simultaneously a precedent and a tragedy.

Despite the FACT that an overwhelming majority of Americans supported what actually were rather minimal changes in gun registration, the Senate refused to support the legislation because all they were able to see was the next election fund raising cycle. Even though it actually WON...54 - 46...it still lost due to GOP manipulation of existing rules.

We agreed to go to war with Britain in 1812 by less of a margin. The Founding Fathers are spinning and the Senate set a record today for cowardice....

And for those confused, this was NOT an example of democracy but horrifying demagoguery and the exact factionalism so feared by the Founding Fathers from Washington to Hamilton. To call today’s vote ‘democracy’ is to demonstrate a lack of understanding of the American system of governance which is embarrassing and an exact example of the willful ignorance that has done so well by the GOP.

The reasons given for voting against this legislation by key GOP members were lies…not exaggerations but outright lies.

For those clearly confused by it all, the U.S. is not a true democracy but a Republic whereby elected representatives of all Americans are expected to follow what their electorate expects. And our Republic, per the original framers, was designed EXACTLY so that the 'tyranny of the minority would not overwhelm the majority.'

In this instance, it wasn't even a 'minority' of Americans but an even smaller minority of wealthy special interests. What happened yesterday in the Senate would have horrified Hamilton and Madison.

That the Senate has become little more than another factionalized special interest group should horrify ALL Americans. And for those whose only focus is the perception that Obama 'lost,' you are pathetic and wrong.

America lost....not Obama and this was a spit in the face of America.

Fuck these Republicans, let them dig their own hole. Why do you want to stop them? They just got trounced, why? Because the American people were too smart to get fooled by their obstruction. So what do they do? They double down and obstruct on issues with 90% support from the American public. Unless they are taught a harsh lesson at the polls, this will continue. Oh man, I see it commin. Watch them celebrate there demise today and take comfort in knowing that a biblical tsunami awaits them.

Obama said we can't do nothing. There wasn't anything in the compromise bill that would have prevented what happened at Newtown, because it doesn't address the root causes of violence. When you do something in response to an event, and that "something" would not have prevented the event, that is the same as doing "nothing". If you have back pain and someone hands you a bandaid, it doesn't help. Same thing.

So basically you are complaining that nothing was done, and had something been done it still would have effectively been nothing.

Meanwhile those who fail background checks are not being prosecuted. Blame government for not doing as much as they legally can now, not that they didn't pile more crap they wouldn't enforce on the existing crap heap.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Fuck these Republicans, let them dig their own
> hole. Why do you want to stop them? They just
> got trounced, why? Because the American people
> were too smart to get fooled by their obstruction.

Most of them are probably doing what their constituents want. The senators aren't representing the citizens of the Unites States collectively; they are representing the voters of their state. My guess is that a Democratic senator from some plains state is probably at greater risk for voting in favor of this than a Republican senator from South Carolina is for voting against it.

Gerrymanderer2 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> FUCK THESE FILTHY FUCKIN DIRTY REPUBLICANS TROLLS
> ON HERE, DON'T BOTHER, VOTE, VOTE HARD, VOTE THEIR
> ASS'S OUT, VOTE EM OUT NOW, DO ALL YOU CAN AS A
> CITIZEN AND AS A VIRGINIAN, 90 PERCENT OF AMERICA
> STANDS UNITED.
Attachments:

It's ridiculous that republicans don't want gun show and internet loopholes closed.

The fact that private sellers and "partial sellers" can sell guns with out background checks on the internet and at gun shows it crap!

It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders and gun stores.

Mentally ill & Felons Win! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's ridiculous that republicans don't want gun
> show and internet loopholes closed.
>
> The fact that private sellers and "partial
> sellers" can sell guns with out background checks
> on the internet and at gun shows it crap!
>
> It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders and
> gun stores.


If you really want just that part closed then tell the dems to just put a bill with that up and not let Feinstein tack on her absurd bans.

Or better yet set up a way where through a gun store the citizens could run a back ground check for the sale and still sell to each other not being at the mercy of the stores trade prices.

If the dems would do something like that it would pass, but they dont. They start with something small and by the time its done its a ban on multiple things that they try and sneak through acting like all it did was backgrounds

Mentally ill & Felons Win! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> It's ridiculous that republicans don't want gun
> show and internet loopholes closed.

Every gun I have purchased online and at a gun show required a background check.

> The fact that private sellers and "partial
> sellers" can sell guns with out background checks
> on the internet and at gun shows it crap!

Why?

> It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders and
> gun stores.

How so?

@jerrytard, you are one to talk about democracy. obama is a socialist and is trying to bypass all democracy to achieve his agenda. look at the health care bill. most americans didnt want it, but he got it done. where was the democracy in that. your just another democrat fucktard that doesnt get how democracy works. hope you enjoy your kool-aid, because you drank it.

u idiot Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> @jerrytard, you are one to talk about democracy.
> obama is a socialist and is trying to bypass all
> democracy to achieve his agenda. look at the
> health care bill. most americans didnt want it,
> but he got it done. where was the democracy in
> that. your just another democrat fucktard that
> doesnt get how democracy works. hope you enjoy
> your kool-aid, because you drank it.


Ignore gerrytroll. He's no-doubt ferfux. He is irrational and can not be reasoned with.

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mentally ill & Felons Win! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's ridiculous that republicans don't want gun
> > show and internet loopholes closed.
> >
> > The fact that private sellers and "partial
> > sellers" can sell guns with out background
> checks
> > on the internet and at gun shows it crap!
> >
> > It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders
> and
> > gun stores.
>
>
> If you really want just that part closed then tell
> the dems to just put a bill with that up and not
> let Feinstein tack on her absurd bans.
>
> Or better yet set up a way where through a gun
> store the citizens could run a back ground check
> for the sale and still sell to each other not
> being at the mercy of the stores trade prices.
>
> If the dems would do something like that it would
> pass, but they dont. They start with something
> small and by the time its done its a ban on
> multiple things that they try and sneak through
> acting like all it did was backgrounds

Hey moron. They had separate votes you piece of trash.

The feinstein bill failed with 65 votes against.

So please tell me conservative logic, tell me you fucking worthless maggot what has to happen to GET A FUCKING BACKGROUND CHECK DONE YOU DOUCHE. HOW MUCH MORE COMPROMISE DO YOU FASCIST FUCKS NEED

Douche

Whatever, see you in 2014. Everyone to their corners, government will be dysfunctional until a few more of your pals lose their seats. Thats how you want to play, then bring it on fuck faces, a war of attrition is won by the populous movement. You think you have that douches with your bible thumping, your gay bashing, your brown person hating, your retarded economic ideas that ended up in the worst economy since the depression?

Good luck, see you in 2014

You liberal sheep are so brainwashed by the lamestream media there is no such thing as a gun show or internet loophole go try for yourelf this was a moot issue from the beginning yet obummer still wants to parade the newtown families around as pawns to tear at the heartstrings of you liberals now its time for him and his buddies in hollywood to continue the whining while continually portraying violent characters and glorifying violence lol! Gotta love watching obama and biden crying on tv get used to it liberals you elected a grown baby thats why north korea is making us look like pussies and china is taking over!!
Attachments:

good luck fucks Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mentally ill & Felons Win! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It's ridiculous that republicans don't want
> gun
> > > show and internet loopholes closed.
> > >
> > > The fact that private sellers and "partial
> > > sellers" can sell guns with out background
> > checks
> > > on the internet and at gun shows it crap!
> > >
> > > It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders
> > and
> > > gun stores.
> >
> >
> > If you really want just that part closed then
> tell
> > the dems to just put a bill with that up and
> not
> > let Feinstein tack on her absurd bans.
> >
> > Or better yet set up a way where through a gun
> > store the citizens could run a back ground
> check
> > for the sale and still sell to each other not
> > being at the mercy of the stores trade prices.
>
> >
> > If the dems would do something like that it
> would
> > pass, but they dont. They start with something
> > small and by the time its done its a ban on
> > multiple things that they try and sneak through
> > acting like all it did was backgrounds
>
> Hey moron. They had separate votes you piece of
> trash.
>
> The feinstein bill failed with 65 votes against.
>
> So please tell me conservative logic, tell me you
> fucking worthless maggot what has to happen to GET
> A FUCKING BACKGROUND CHECK DONE YOU DOUCHE. HOW
> MUCH MORE COMPROMISE DO YOU FASCIST FUCKS NEED
>
> Douche
>
> Whatever, see you in 2014. Everyone to their
> corners, government will be dysfunctional until a
> few more of your pals lose their seats. Thats how
> you want to play, then bring it on fuck faces, a
> war of attrition is won by the populous movement.
> You think you have that douches with your bible
> thumping, your gay bashing, your brown person
> hating, your retarded economic ideas that ended up
> in the worst economy since the depression?
>
> Good luck, see you in 2014


WOW. You are REALLY mad. This is hilarious. You are so butthurt. LoLz

The sad thing is, you still dont get it. Your fucking yourselves over by being the party of crotchity old white men. You are still attacking the invisible obama in the chair and loving it.

You are like the guys at the party that think everyone is cracking up at the jokes you are telling while drunk, when its really that they are making fun of how you smell like shit cause you crapped yourself and are a loser.

Its chess dumb nuts, enjoy another loss coming real soon.

Just do me a favor, go around telling everyone your opinions on politics and how you support GOP members because they also agree with you.

Troll Blaster Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The sad thing is, you still dont get it. Your
> fucking yourselves over by being the party of
> crotchity old white men. You are still attacking
> the invisible obama in the chair and loving it.
>
> You are like the guys at the party that think
> everyone is cracking up at the jokes you are
> telling while drunk, when its really that they are
> making fun of how you smell like shit cause you
> crapped yourself and are a loser.
>
> Its chess dumb nuts, enjoy another loss coming
> real soon.
>
> Just do me a favor, go around telling everyone
> your opinions on politics and how you support GOP
> members because they also agree with you.
Attachments:

not so much.... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Mentally ill & Felons Win! Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > It's ridiculous that republicans don't want gun
> > show and internet loopholes closed.
>
> Every gun I have purchased online and at a gun
> show required a background check.
>
> > The fact that private sellers and "partial
> > sellers" can sell guns with out background
> checks
> > on the internet and at gun shows it crap!
>
> Why?
>
> > It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders
> and
> > gun stores.
>
> How so?

If you buy from a Federally licensed gun seller, yes, they have to a background check.

However if you buy from a private seller the seller doesn't have to do a background check. Any "private seller" can setup a table at a gun show and sell guns with no background checks.

A private seller is not suppose to sell to a felon but doesn't have to do any background check. I simple "Your not a felon right or anything like that???" NOPE. Ok. $300... here's your gun.

The new gun law would of closed that hole.

Accuratley enforce the current laws first.
Fix the problem from within.

NRA Helps Felons Again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> not so much.... Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Mentally ill & Felons Win! Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> > > It's ridiculous that republicans don't want
> gun
> > > show and internet loopholes closed.
> >
> > Every gun I have purchased online and at a gun
> > show required a background check.
> >
> > > The fact that private sellers and "partial
> > > sellers" can sell guns with out background
> > checks
> > > on the internet and at gun shows it crap!
> >
> > Why?
> >
> > > It's a slap in the face to legal gun holders
> > and
> > > gun stores.
> >
> > How so?
>
> If you buy from a Federally licensed gun seller,
> yes, they have to a background check.
>
> However if you buy from a private seller the
> seller doesn't have to do a background check. Any
> "private seller" can setup a table at a gun show
> and sell guns with no background checks.
>
> A private seller is not suppose to sell to a felon
> but doesn't have to do any background check. I
> simple "Your not a felon right or anything like
> that???" NOPE. Ok. $300... here's your gun.
>
> The new gun law would of closed that hole.


Great. You told me everything I knew before you typed your message. But you still didn't say how it was a slap in the face to gun holders (whatever a gun holder is) and gun stores or why it was crap.

I get it, you're not too bright and are parroting talking points you've heard before. Try thinking for yourself.

not so much...... Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> > If you buy from a Federally licensed gun
> seller,
> > yes, they have to a background check.
> >
> > However if you buy from a private seller the
> > seller doesn't have to do a background check.
> Any
> > "private seller" can setup a table at a gun
> show
> > and sell guns with no background checks.
> >
> > A private seller is not suppose to sell to a
> felon
> > but doesn't have to do any background check.
> I
> > simple "Your not a felon right or anything like
> > that???" NOPE. Ok. $300... here's your gun.
> >
> > The new gun law would of closed that
> hole.
>
>
> Great. You told me everything I knew before you
> typed your message. But you still didn't say how
> it was a slap in the face to gun holders (whatever
> a gun holder is) and gun stores or why it was
> crap.
>
> I get it, you're not too bright and are parroting
> talking points you've heard before. Try thinking
> for yourself.

It hurts gun store sales because the absence of the law gives an advantage to "private sellers." If I need a gun where's the easiest place to buy it and cheap?

A gun show or private seller because they don't have the overhead of background checks.

If I'm a felon or have a mental illness where I'm I going to buy a gun? A gun show or the internet from a private seller.

How does it hurt legal gun owners?

The new law would stopped more felons and mentally ill from getting guns at guns shows and off the internet with no background checks.

Less guns in the hands of felons and mental ill people makes gun owners look more respectable.

With the exception of the NRA, do want felons and mentally ill people owning guns???

I know I don't!!!!

NRA Helps Felons Again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you buy from a Federally licensed gun seller,
> yes, they have to a background check.
>
> However if you buy from a private seller the
> seller doesn't have to do a background check. Any
> "private seller" can setup a table at a gun show
> and sell guns with no background checks.

No they cant. Theyre the guys walking around with guns on their backs, few and far between. Not even 1 percent of sales at those sales and more realistically not even half a percent.

> A private seller is not suppose to sell to a felon
> but doesn't have to do any background check. I
> simple "Your not a felon right or anything like
> that???" NOPE. Ok. $300... here's your gun.

No actually if they sell to someone who wasnt supposed to have it and they commit a crime with it the seller is legally responsible.

What generally happens is the seller will ask to see your concealed carry as a way to prove youve past a background check.

Its always funny hearing what people think happens at gun shows from people who have never bought a gun or been to one.

> The new gun law would of closed that hole.

Its not a a loop hole and it the amount of private sales are greatly exaggerated

Every time the Left tries to blame you for gun violence in America, remember this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Djx1OlpPFk

Who's really to blame? White conservative NRA members? Or the Left's "Diversity is Strength" schemes?

The sad thing is, you still dont get it. Your fucking yourselves over by being the party of crotchity old white men. You are still attacking the invisible obama in the chair and loving it.

You are like the guys at the party that think everyone is cracking up at the jokes you are telling while drunk, when its really that they are making fun of how you smell like shit cause you crapped yourself and are a loser.

Its chess dumb nuts, enjoy another loss coming real soon.

Just do me a favor, go around telling everyone your opinions on politics and how you support GOP members because they also agree with you.

l Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Americans need to seriously consider what just
> happened in the Senate because it was
> simultaneously a precedent and a tragedy.

Not a tragedy nor a precedent. The Senate is not beholden to the American public at large, it is beholden to the state. Also, we have something called elections in this country. Unfortunately, money plays a big role. This is not the first (nor will it be the last) time that something the public wants has been defeated in the Senate. 100% of Americans want a budget. Ryan's budget gets defeated in the Senate every year. The Democratic budget gets defeated in the House every year.
> Despite the FACT that an overwhelming majority of
> Americans supported what actually were rather
> minimal changes in gun registration, the Senate
> refused to support the legislation because all
> they were able to see was the next election fund
> raising cycle. Even though it actually WON...54 -
> 46...it still lost due to GOP manipulation of
> existing rules.

The existing rules clearly state that you need 3/5ths of all Senators sworn and voting to pass a bill. If a motion to make it a 3/5ths bill is not objected to, it's the way the Senate works. Just because something "wins" doesn't mean it becomes law. This is basic government, people. You need a "super-majority" in order to do anything. There was no GOP manipulation, because having a 51-49 vote in the Senate (or a 51-50 vote, in the event of a tie) doesn't actually do anything.

> And for those confused, this was NOT an example of
> democracy but horrifying demagoguery and the exact
> factionalism so feared by the Founding Fathers
> from Washington to Hamilton. To call today’s
> vote ‘democracy’ is to demonstrate a lack of
> understanding of the American system of governance
> which is embarrassing and an exact example of the
> willful ignorance that has done so well by the
> GOP.

It's democracy in the way that the American people have made it. We make everything dependent on money these days. You have chosen this, America. Good men are forced to do terrible things because they need money to be re-elected. It's the way our system works, and personally, it sickens me.

> The reasons given for voting against this
> legislation by key GOP members were lies…not
> exaggerations but outright lies.

Ideological reasons are never outright lies.

> For those clearly confused by it all, the U.S. is
> not a true democracy but a Republic whereby
> elected representatives of all Americans are
> expected to follow what their electorate expects.
> And our Republic, per the original framers, was
> designed EXACTLY so that the 'tyranny of the
> minority would not overwhelm the majority.'

No, you have it backwards. The tyranny of the MAJORITY is safeguarded against. This is why we have things like the filibuster and the super-majority in the Senate. It's why the Senate was originally elected by state legislatures. The minority can be overruled, it just takes a large percentage of the majority to do it.

> That the Senate has become little more than
> another factionalized special interest group
> should horrify ALL Americans. And for those whose
> only focus is the perception that Obama 'lost,'
> you are pathetic and wrong.

All politics have devolved into factions. Yes, the Founding Fathers would be appalled, but it's the way all countries work. You're going to have some people against things and some people for them. Factionalization is just another fact of politics, regardless of what the Framers intended.

> America lost....not Obama and this was a spit in
> the face of America.

America lost in that it had the majority defeated by money. I believe that the background checks were fine. I opposed all of the other measures. If only the background checks had gone through, it would have been fine.

I don't deny that people's consciences shouldn't be clean. Regardless, having the background checks wouldn't stop someone like Adam Lanza. His mother purchased the weapons, not him. A lot of the "background check" argument was political posturing as well. The gun show loophole is a false dichotomy. So is the online loophole. You have to pass a background check to own a gun. Rather than institute draconian measures, the best way to deal with the situation is threefold: 1. Update the database in states; 2. Make the database universal; 3. Limit the amount of ammunition someone can have. Nobody needs 10,000 rounds if he/she is just hunting, collecting, or shooting for pleasure.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Nobody needs 10,000
> rounds if he/she is just hunting, collecting, or
> shooting for pleasure.

Ammunition has absolutely nothing to do with anything. Its cheaper to buy in bulk and stock pile so you dont even up paying absurd prices when things like this happen and it tries to get banned.

Either you should be allowed to own a gun or you shouldnt. A law abiding person wont kill people even if you give them a 50 cal fully auto vehicle mounted machine gun with unlimited ammo. A murderer will kill people if all they have is a hand gun with a single clip.

A ammo limit would be nothing more than an extension of the fienstein attempted bans. Not needing something is never an argument to take someone away from people. People dont really need 4 cars, or a large house, or luxury items, all you really need is a basic amount of food and water to survive. That doesnt mean you shouldnt be able to get other things because you dont need them

> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> Nobody needs 10,000
> rounds if he/she is just hunting, collecting, or
> shooting for pleasure.

Okay, I will bite. How many rounds does someone need it they are just hunting, collecting or shooting for pleasure?

Liberal Logic 102 Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Ammunition has absolutely nothing to do with
> anything. Its cheaper to buy in bulk and stock
> pile so you dont even up paying absurd prices when
> things like this happen and it tries to get
> banned.

So it's cheaper. Who cares?

> Either you should be allowed to own a gun or you
> shouldnt. A law abiding person wont kill people
> even if you give them a 50 cal fully auto vehicle
> mounted machine gun with unlimited ammo. A
> murderer will kill people if all they have is a
> hand gun with a single clip.

I disagree, the government can (and should) impose reasonable limits on what you can and cannot own. It's not a matter of "are you law abiding or not?" It's more a matter of how safe it is, which does have a law abiding factor. I think some of these people are emboldened by the fact they have a ridiculous amount of ammunition.

> A ammo limit would be nothing more than an
> extension of the fienstein attempted bans. Not
> needing something is never an argument to take
> someone away from people. People dont really need
> 4 cars, or a large house, or luxury items, all you
> really need is a basic amount of food and water to
> survive. That doesnt mean you shouldnt be able to
> get other things because you dont need them

Not really, an ammo limit would fall more under a reasonable restriction. The Feinstein bans were completely unreasonable and unconstitutional. You cannot prevent people from owning a LEGAL semi-automatic rifle. You can ban people from owning a machine gun, a RPG, or unseemly amounts of ammunition. The issue with the 2nd Amendment is the "well-regulated militia" part. What constitutes a well-regulated militia?

All rights have limits, and you can be limited as to what you can possess and how much you can possess.

Oy vey Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Okay, I will bite. How many rounds does someone
> need it they are just hunting, collecting or
> shooting for pleasure?

It depends on how frequently you do any of those things. Collectors don't frequently fire collectible guns because it decreases the value.

I would say that 5,000 rounds is a reasonable threshold.

Libtards are trying to redfine gun ownership to mean "hunting" and "collecting" and "target shooting".

Can they imagine a world where people need to protect themselves with guns?

That the public protection like the police are not the be all end all?

I am scared of guns we should ban them it makes my pussy hurt. Also airplanes they kill people and i dont like them so no one else should ride them either. Allah akbar

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Oy vey Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Okay, I will bite. How many rounds does
> someone
> > need it they are just hunting, collecting or
> > shooting for pleasure?
>
> It depends on how frequently you do any of those
> things. Collectors don't frequently fire
> collectible guns because it decreases the value.
>
> I would say that 5,000 rounds is a reasonable
> threshold.


So, at a practical level, what do you think that your proposed 5,000 round limit accomplishes? What's the objective?

Beyond just limiting what people can have because you think that it's reasonable.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> So it's cheaper. Who cares?

People buying it. Why would you pay more for something than you dont have too. If your at the store and two items are the exact same sitting next to each other are you going to put the one that costs more in your cart?


> I disagree, the government can (and should) impose
> reasonable limits on what you can and cannot own.
> It's not a matter of "are you law abiding or not?"
> It's more a matter of how safe it is, which does
> have a law abiding factor. I think some of these
> people are emboldened by the fact they have a
> ridiculous amount of ammunition.

You restrict a right on the fact that you think something. Reasonable restrictions means there has to be a clear and present danger from allowing people to have it.

There is absolutely zero proof that the amount of rounds correlates to any increased danger or a danger at all. Having 10000 rounds doesnt make those rounds any more dangerous than if you only had 100.

> > A ammo limit would be nothing more than an
> > extension of the fienstein attempted bans. Not
> > needing something is never an argument to take
> > someone away from people. People dont really
> need
> > 4 cars, or a large house, or luxury items, all
> you

> Not really, an ammo limit would fall more under a
> reasonable restriction. The Feinstein bans were
> completely unreasonable and unconstitutional. You
> cannot prevent people from owning a LEGAL
> semi-automatic rifle. You can ban people from
> owning a machine gun, a RPG, or unseemly amounts
> of ammunition. The issue with the 2nd Amendment is
> the "well-regulated militia" part. What
> constitutes a well-regulated militia?

No it wouldnt theres nothing reasonable about restricting ammunition. Thats a de facto gun ban.

Theres no difference between the idea of saying you can only have 100 rounds and saying you cant have a gun, both are limiting access.

The ONLY way you can justify any sort of limit or restriction is to prove without a doubt that there is an increased danger and such a limit would remove that danger.

That proof without a doubt does not exist for ammo because its just simply not true. The machine gun ban was stupid as well, an RPG ban is reasonable but actually you can get licenses for things like that in some states if youre willing to go through a stringent enough background check and the right tax stamps.

Theres no issue with the well regulated militia part, that part is separated by commas from the people making it its own clause. Only people that want gun bans reinterpret it differently than it has been since day one. The same founding fathers that wrote that also vote the VA constitution which makes no mention to militias neither do many of the other ones from the states. If they wanted it to be militas only it would have not only been interpreted that way from day 1 it would have said that as its own sentence.

> All rights have limits, and you can be limited as
> to what you can possess and how much you can
> possess.

Only if the government can prove that not doing so would result in choas and that its has an overwhelming public interest in doing so. You cant even ban porn from public libraries because its considered an expression of free speech, guns are right behind free speech in the bill of rights and subjected to that kind of burden of proof for any restriction.

WingNut Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Libtards are trying to redfine gun ownership to
> mean "hunting" and "collecting" and "target
> shooting".
>
> Can they imagine a world where people need to
> protect themselves with guns?
>
> That the public protection like the police are not
> the be all end all?

I'm not a libtard, let's start with that. Most self-defense cases are not legitimate. I respect the use of guns for self-defense. The fact is that the majority of the cases reported as "self-defense" are not.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> I'm not a libtard, let's start with that. Most
> self-defense cases are not legitimate. I respect
> the use of guns for self-defense. The fact is that
> the majority of the cases reported as
> "self-defense" are not.


Based on what exactly?

And, again, what is the purpose of your limit?

Why? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > I'm not a libtard, let's start with that. Most
> > self-defense cases are not legitimate. I
> respect
> > the use of guns for self-defense. The fact is
> that
> > the majority of the cases reported as
> > "self-defense" are not.
>
>
> Based on what exactly?
>
> And, again, what is the purpose of your limit?

The purpose is twofold. 1. Stop the price inflation and stockpiling of ammunition. It's a price control measure. 2. Stop people from having more firepower than cops do.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The purpose is twofold. 1. Stop the price
> inflation and stockpiling of ammunition. It's a
> price control measure. 2. Stop people from having
> more firepower than cops do.


WTF does price inflation and stockpiling have to do with gun control or public safety?

Or maybe I just misunderstood what you were suggesting but then you go on to talk about more firepower than cops. Which also is kind of silly.

And you again provided no substantiation for your claim re self-defense uses.

You're sounding more and more like you're just in favor of controls for the sake of control.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

> The purpose is twofold. 1. Stop the price
> inflation and stockpiling of ammunition. It's a
> price control measure. 2. Stop people from having
> more firepower than cops do.

Number 1 isnt the governments job. If it was WWII and they needed to do it for a time to provide the necessary military supply that would be reasonable.

Number 2 is a false argument. People already can and do have more firepower than an individual officer, a lot of police departments use crappy 9mm all youd need is a 40 cal and you have more firepower. But no amount of ammo will give you more firepower than the department as a whole or swat teams.

Its also a lot like the misnomer than an assault rifle is deadlier than a normal rifle. You cant walk around with 10k round or 8k round or 5k rounds on your person so its irrelevant. Further more your own arbitrary number was 5k not a single shooting has ever approached ammo in that quantities making it an arbitrary ban which is the same thing Feinstein tried to do

Why? Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
>
> > The purpose is twofold. 1. Stop the price
> > inflation and stockpiling of ammunition. It's a
> > price control measure. 2. Stop people from
> having
> > more firepower than cops do.
>
>
> WTF does price inflation and stockpiling have to
> do with gun control or public safety?
>
> Or maybe I just misunderstood what you were
> suggesting but then you go on to talk about more
> firepower than cops. Which also is kind of
> silly.
>
> And you again provided no substantiation for your
> claim re self-defense uses.
>
> You're sounding more and more like you're just in
> favor of controls for the sake of control.

"On both surveys combined, 2.9% of gun owners, 0.3% of those living in the home with someone who owns a gun, and 0.4% of non-gun owners reported a self defense gun use."

http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.full

It's like oil; most of the price (recently) has been speculation.

Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Why? Wrote:
> --------------------------------------------------
> -----
> > Young Curmudgeon Wrote:
> >
> --------------------------------------------------
>
> > -----
> >
> > > The purpose is twofold. 1. Stop the price
> > > inflation and stockpiling of ammunition. It's
> a
> > > price control measure. 2. Stop people from
> > having
> > > more firepower than cops do.
> >
> >
> > WTF does price inflation and stockpiling have
> to
> > do with gun control or public safety?
> >
> > Or maybe I just misunderstood what you were
> > suggesting but then you go on to talk about
> more
> > firepower than cops. Which also is kind of
> > silly.
> >
> > And you again provided no substantiation for
> your
> > claim re self-defense uses.
> >
> > You're sounding more and more like you're just
> in
> > favor of controls for the sake of control.
>
> "On both surveys combined, 2.9% of gun owners,
> 0.3% of those living in the home with someone who
> owns a gun, and 0.4% of non-gun owners reported a
> self defense gun use."
>
> http://injuryprevention.bmj.com/content/6/4/263.fu
> ll
>
> It's like oil; most of the price (recently) has
> been speculation.


Sorry, pulling some random stat that mentions the term "self-defense" uses in no way supports your claim which was:

"Most self-defense cases are not legitimate. I respect the use of guns for self-defense. The fact is that the majority of the cases reported as "self-defense" are not."

And whether it's speculation or not isn't really any justification for establishing some arbitrary limit.

NRA Helps Felons Again Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> If you buy from a Federally licensed gun seller,
> yes, they have to a background check.
>
> However if you buy from a private seller the
> seller doesn't have to do a background check. Any
> "private seller" can setup a table at a gun show
> and sell guns with no background checks.
>
> A private seller is not suppose to sell to a felon
> but doesn't have to do any background check. I
> simple "Your not a felon right or anything like
> that???" NOPE. Ok. $300... here's your gun.
>
> The new gun law would of closed that hole.

Possibly, but it would still have no effect. It does not prevent straw sales, which is how most of the criminals get their guns when they actually buy them and not steal them. It doesn't stop a private seller from saying "meet me in the parking lot to finalize the sale". In other words, it fails for all the reasons gun owners have been saying for years. It is a feel-good law, not an effective law.