This very gun bill would have done nothing to prevent the recent tragedies.
Criminals do not submit to background checks. Nor do they submit to expanded
background checks. All this bill would do is threaten law-abiding
Americans' ability to defend themselves. And I don't care
if Barrack Hussein Obama promised that a registry would never materialize as a
result of implementation of this bill. He also has made known is utter disdain
for the Constitution and the rule of law and tramples upon both freely with
regard to immigration law and its enforcement for example. I have plenty of
basis to not trust Barrack Hussein Obama in the slightest.
The Washington Post, said that there was not one portion of this bill; not one
clause; not one section; that would have prevented the shootings in Newtown. But
the question wasn’t really whether or not Obama's gun control
measures would work, was it? The point was that he wanted to take an incremental
step toward confiscation How do we know? Obama once told a fellow professor at
that Chicago law school that he didn’t believe that people should be
allowed to own guns. His name was John Lott. Professor Lott hasn’t
forgotten. Pesky things, those memories. Anyway … you knew that the
troublesome Second Amendment was going to be problematic, so take anything you
can get, right?
Obama's claim that the bill's opponents "willfully lied" is
the absolute pinnacle of arrogance and deeply misleading.Like
millions of Americans, 46 senators honestly and sincerely disagreed with
Obama's opinion of the bill. They reasonably believe, as I do, that it
will do absolutely nothing to prevent the next massacre. Nothing whatsoever.
That is not a "lie", which requires knowing you are wrong and still
repeating a falsehood that you already understand to be wrong. Stating a
differing opinion is not a "lie". It may even be a MISGUIDED opinion,
but it is NOT a "lie." The word "lie" is way
overused in politics today. A difference of opinion, however misguided you may
think it to be, is NOT a lie.
What a waste of ink. Pompous platitudes from media elites, who probably never
even read the bill or any of the amendments to understand what it actually
contained.This was bad legislation, with no benefits, and only
advancing the leftist agenda to establish the basis for a registration
system.Just by looking at Chicago and Washington DC with their near
total gun bans for decades should be sufficient proof that gun control is a
failed concept that needs to be dropped. Instead, we need criminal control.
And, despite the willful refusal by the media to even mention the
topic, we really need to look at the demographics of gun violence and try to fix
the cultural basis that has some segments of our society thinking that killing
is acceptable, along with other forms of self destructive behavior.It's not the guns, it's the criminals!
Obama's temper tantrum over not getting his way is a statement on him, not
the bill in the senate. As far as a registry, it already exists.
Stores have to keep the records of who buys guns and have for years. It is an
outright lie for the President to say there is no registry in the bill. It adds
to the existing registry, which is real and does exist.The parading
of victims, who's outcomes would not have been changed by more restrictions
on guns, is what is shameful. It re-victimizes them. It is hasn't been for
just one day, It has been several shameful months. And the president promised to
keep this shameful behavior up.He got his vote. It should be over.
Let's work on mental illness, where the real problem is.
It isn't President Obama who didn't get his way. It's most of us.
The legislative process got hijacked, mostly by the NRA. We need to make our
elected officials fear us, the voters, more than they fear the NRA.
MountanmanHayden, IDThe Washington Post, said that there was not one
portion of this bill; not one clause; not one section; that would have prevented
the shootings in Newtown. But the question wasn’t really whether or not
Obama's gun control measures would work, was it? -----------It was NOT to prevent Newtown, it is to prevent the next big one - even
if it only saves one more person, it is worth it.Also, this was NOT
Obama's gun control measures. Why don't you find out who wrote these
measures (Both a Rep and a Dem worked on them)? And finally, WHY
can't we debate these issues? Why are our Senators so scared of allow a
debate? Why do they think they need a supermajority to pass this? Why are they
afraid of the NRA instead of the people they represent?
Obamas outrage has nothing to do with gun control. What he was expecting was
that this would pass the Dem. Senate knowing full well it would not pass the
House. That said he has missed that wedge issue to help him win the House in
2014 which is his opportunity to completely bring the Nation to its knees and
convert us to Socialism/Communism. Obama does nothing that does not benefit him
and only him.
@Hutterite, et alIt wasn't the NRA that got in the way. You
should understand that. Turn off MSNBC for awhile and think this issue
through.It was the Constitution that got in the way. Read the 2nd
Amendment again, then come back and provide some worthwhile discourse. It is
unconstitutional for the government to infringe a citizen's right to bear
arms. What happened in the Senate was patriotic. The behavior of 54
senators and our president was shameful.
Maple Don..perhaps you should read the second amendmend again and the bill and
then tell me how a bill that merely "expands" a process that all ready
effects 60% of gun purchases and that has been deemed constitutional by the
supreme court, violates the second amendment. The second amendment
clearly says that a citizens "right" to bear arms shall not be
infringed. It doesn't in any way say that a specific individual can't
be deemed unworthy of that right. It's the same thing as an incarcirated
felons right to vote. As a civil society you can and must protect citizens
constitutional rights while at the same time denying individual citizens the
opportunity to exercise that right when they prove themselves unworthy of that
right.This bill does nothing to "infringe" on the right of
law abiding citizens to own a gun. It simply does what we can as a society to
further keep guns out of the hands of criminals, those charged with domestic
violence and those deemed mentally unstable.
This bill is a bad idea from the get go. First off gun regulation should be done
on the state level. Federal enforcement leads to federal prosecution which
means more cases on the docket of an already overwhelmed system. Not to mention
the fact that most of the states that have had these incidence already have gun
safety laws. Connecticuts being by far one of the most far reaching states as
far as gun control is concerned.This bill would have done nothing to
prevent the Newtown tragedy and whats worse is that it would likely harm law
abiding citizens and businesses who own and trade guns. There should be no
federal background check which will ultimately lead to a federal database and
registry (despite the bills wording) and then heavy handed federal law which
infringes on state and 2nd ammendment rights.
Lane Meyer,the bill would have done nothing to prevent the next one,
either.What is truly shameful, as other have said, is BO holding up
dead children and grieving parents as a political prop then throwing a
north-korea-leader like temper tantrum when he doesn't get his own way.
Re: "The U.S. Senate's handling of a gun safety package was cowardly
and contemptible."Agreed.The bill should have been
overwhelmingly defeated, rather than simply allowed to go away, for now, to be
brought back again and again as the left's attempt to sway low-information
voters in the upcoming Congressional elections.The bill was
trash.Everyone, even the left, admits it would not have made the
slightest difference in any of the incidents being exploited to drum up support.
The only people affected by its provisions would be the law-abiding. It's a
dangerous part of the regime's agenda to "fundamentally transform"
America into a brave, new, 1984 world.
Let's be honest, there is no way prudent gun control ever has or would ever
violate any reasonable interpretation of the 2nd Amendment, let alone weaken the
Constitution and hasten the downfall of the government. And regardless of what
federal policies under consideration are adopted, there is no legitimate reason
to suspect that we won't be at least as protected and as free as ever. So
why the conniption?Obviously hidden under a welter of competing
facts are deeper issues influencing the debate. All of us
(regardless of how objective we fancy ourselves to be) mostly believe what we
want to believe and find what we look for. Researchers have even suggested a
genetic component to a person's conservative or liberal leanings.Key to our understanding is recognizing that the way we see our world is very
much a projection of our inner selves. To an important degree it is our inner
insecurity that drives our outward bluster and aggression. Blaming others is
often more a rationalization of our own deficiencies than reality.You could say like Pogo of old that, "We have met the enemy and he is us.
Reason and good sense notwithstanding, probably most fundamental to the gun
controversy is the irrational fear-induced ideology of some that
"government" is conspiring against them. What they openly contend are
mostly distracting rationalizations. To argue over the particulars of the likes
of the 2nd Amendment, safety and freedom when the real issue stems from deluded
thinking is a waste of time, recalling the biblical adage of straining at gnats
while swallowing camels.
@Hutterite "We need to make our elected officials fear us, the voters, more
than they fear the NRA."This is where Obama met with failure.
Those who had strong feelings about his legislation far outnumbered those who
didn't. It is one thing to be one of 90% answering a poll question, and it
is wholly another thing to be willing to take a firm stand motivated by deep
conviction.Unfortunately for Obama, his constituency is largely made
up of disengaged people who don't pay that much attention to political
matters. This enables him to win elections, but not necessarily to carry out his
agenda. It also may have caused him to misread his mandate.His
evident frustration with the constitutional process is a continual delight for
me. I believe the Constitution will win out in the end.
@pragmatistferlifeWhat you said makes complete sense...to a
What was more shameful was the day Obama Care was rammed down our throats. Many
more people will die in the future due to the passage of Obama Care than ever
were killed with guns. Just wait and see.
What is "shameful" is that a newspaper would support the violation of
the Constitution. What is the purpose of the "4th Estate"? Is it not
to stand for truth? Is it not to stand for the Supreme Law of the Land? Then,
why would a newspaper call for an infringement on the absolute right of citizens
of America to keep and bear arms? Who gave that newspaper the right to set
aside the Constitution and to decide that the Supreme Law of the Land is of no
importance and that government has the right to restrict our rights when the
people, who hold all rights, has expressly forbidden government from doing that
very thing?When loud voices who reject the Constitution become the
only voices heard, those voices will destroy this nation. That newspaper should
be rejected by every citizen in America. Those who subscribe to that newspaper
should immediately remove their financial support - unless they truly believe
that our rights come from government and unless they can show in the
Constitution where we have given government that authority.
Around 10,000 people are killed by guns each year. Just because a proposal
wouldn't have stopped Newtown doesn't mean it wouldn't have
stopped some of those other 10,000.
@ atl134. According to Wikipedia your numbers are way high! But isn't it
the least bit interesting to you that a huge portions of those murders are
committed in Chicago, which coincidently has the strictest gun laws in the
nation? Why don't those gun control laws work? The same answer to that
question will help you understand why THESE gun control laws will not work
either! THESE gun control laws only serve to punish law abiding citizens not
America will continue to lead the western world in gun deaths. Remember this,
the proliferation of guns in this country will not lead to a safer society. All
you have to do is look at the statistics. But I realize many of you do not
follow the logic of rational thought.
Maple Don, then you are in favor of being able to threaten to kill someone,
yelling fire in a crowded theatre, publishing the most graphic of pornogrphy,
all first amendment activities that are regulated. You must also be in favor of
giving a convicted murder on death row the right to vote. All of
these activites are constitutionaly protected rights that have been regulated by
society, and and the regulations have been validated by the supreme court..so
you must also believe that the supreme court is a communist
organization...right?Lastly when a background check only prevents
the purchase of a fire arm by a convicted felon, someone with a history of
domestic violence, or someone with a documented mental illness please explain
how the only people affected by its provisions would be the law-abiding? So
what if it doesn't keep guns out of the hands of "all" criminals.
Are you in favor of having loopholes in the law that allow some criminals and
mentally ill to obtain guns freely and lawfully?
@Mountanman"According to Wikipedia your numbers are way high!"From Wikipedia's article about 'gun violence in the
US'... [In 2010, there were 19,392 firearm-related suicide deaths, and
11,078 firearm-related homicide deaths in the United States]"Why
don't those gun control laws work?"Most of the guns used in
Chicago crimes are from out of state. That's why we need stricter federal
Mike Richards..Congress shall make no law to abridge the right of free speech
yet SCOTUS has validated restrictions on that very right. Do you think SCOTUS
got it wrong and that it should be perfectly legal to print the most grapic of
pornoraphy, or there should be no boundaries on liable and hate speech?
Or....is the second amendment the only part of the constituion that should be
above any restrictions?
article obviously written by a non gun owning liberal. The fact is - all this
gun bill did was restrict the law observing citizen more than he already is and
did absolutley nothing to curb gun violence. Liberals want a total gun ban as
their ultimate goal and this bill was step #1 in a series of steps toward that
goal. The NRA correctly recognized the real strategy of the left and used
it's influence to stop this thing before it got any roots. Let's work
on ways that parents can get help for their mentally ill kids. Let's STOP
trying to take guns out of the hands of law biding citizens. People have the
right to protect themselves and their families...it is called the 2nd
ammendment. By the way - we already have background checks...we don't need
more. Bad guys don't get guns legally - they get them ILLEGALLY and that
isn't going to change.
@atl134 Your statistics (2010) from Wikipedia are ancient. Try more recent
numbers! As to guns coming to Chicago from other states, then the obvious
question is; why don't other states (with all those guns) have the crime
problems that Chicago does? After all, doesn't that prove my point that
guns are not the problem, its the people who are the problem? Why don't the
criminals in Chicago obey the law that buying guns anywhere is illegal? How can
you solve a problem if you don't even know what the problem is?
@pragmatistferlife,When anyone puts himself above the law and
demands that his law is binding on anyone else, that person has exceeded his
God-given authority to act only for himself. No justice can legislate. That is
the law. No justice can disregard the Constitution when citing precedence
without admitting that he/she is using a political "ruler" to establish
new law. The role of the Court is not to establish new law; it is to see that
Congress and the President do not exceed the limits that the people have placed
on government.If you want to misuse speech or if you want to view
pornography, that is your right as a human being who has agency extended to him
from his Creator; however, the day will come when you must account for every
thought and for every deed to that Creator. You can fool yourself into thinking
that someone else is responsible for your actions and for your thoughts, but at
that day, when just you and your creator are examining the events of your life,
nobody else will be there to offer you an excuse.America was founded
on principles requiring self-control - not force.
@MountanmanMore recent than 2010? Gun violence levels haven't changed
much since then. After all it's only been two years. Even a 10% drop
(taking it from 11k to 9.9k) didn't happen but if it did that'd be
amazing progress and I'd still be correct in saying 10k a year."As to guns coming to Chicago from other states, then the obvious question
is; why don't other states (with all those guns) have the crime problems
that Chicago does? "Some of them do. Gun crime is higher in
southern states than northern states. There are other factors at play such as
inner-city poverty and illegal drug related violence. Even our best states still
have gun violence many times worse than nations like Japan, Germany, and the
UK."Why don't the criminals in Chicago obey the law that
buying guns anywhere is illegal?"That's not illegal. The
Chicago law banned possession in the city which is different (by the way,
Chicago gun laws have gotten less strict the last couple years thanks to the
Supreme Court overturning their ban, so much for reducing regulation...)
Here's the lie "The first step must be reminding obstructionist
senators at every chance that almost nine of 10 Americans support universal
background checks."If that was the case, the bill would of swept
right on by the Senate, and thru the House. Maybe a slight majority supports
background checks, not enough to fear re-election for the Senate.Article after article, comment after comment. I still hav'nt seen how
the Bill will prevent criminals from obtaining guns, and why would anybody want
to punish law abiding citizens? Unless your a supporter of NDAA.
So Mike...yada, yada, yada..who knows what you were saying to..."The role of
the Court is not to establish new law; it is to see that Congress and the
President do not exceed the limits that the people have placed on
government." In essence the legislators, and courts have been wrong for the
last 200 years when they placed individual restrictions on the general rights of
freedom of speech gun ownership, and voting. uninfringed, and unabridged should
mean that society allows anyone to say anything, anywhere, at anytime, to
anyone..carte blanche, and that the chaos and pain that ensues will be sorted
out by God on an individual basis at a later time. Let me first ask which
God..remember we're talking about America here so it could Alla, Eloheim,
or God the Father..all of whom have different rules. And secondly isn't
this establishiment of religion prohibited by the first amendment?
Republicans have taught us that there is NO LAW that PREVENTS someone from doing
whatever they want to do...Let's do away with all law since NO
LAW PREVENTS someone from doing whatever they want to do!
Time to get rid of the filibuster and procedural technicality. The obstruction
need to stop.
@Happy Valley Heretic "The only thing that offended you was mine?"Well, you *are* the only one who called me a paranoid gun worshiper.Here's what I've noticed: there's a conceit out there on
the left that they're the rational, enlightened ones, while everyone else
is angry, irrational, and stupid. It's just not so. Your descent into
name-calling is only a tiny illustration.Watch Obama's news
conference again (the one he gave after the gun control Senate vote was
announced), and note the number of appeals to emotion. You could even count the
number of times he says the word "emotion." The community organizer is
trying to stir up something other than a rational response. It's not
working for him, but that's what he's trying to do. It's strange
that you don't see that.
Those of us who support the 2nd amendment should take just a minute and email at
least one of the democratic senators who went against Obama's wishes to
thank them for their vote AGAINST "background checks".Those
Senators will be taking a lot of heat from their party and Obama.The
Senators are: Begich, Baucus, Pryor, and Heitkamp.No doubt the
liberal progressives will be back at some point with another scheme to erode 2nd
amendment rights. Hopefully we'll be just as organized next time it
...well, come election time, we the people can say "NO" also. In fact
it should be no to any incumbent, always say no. ELECT DON'T
RE-ELECT' until we the people have a more perfect union!!!
The Senate did the right thing.Taking away guns from good people
does nothing to further the cause safety. It puts good people at greater risk
of being a victim to a criminal. It pita families at risk.
Many of these right wing comments suggest that the bill would have done nothing.
That is pure speculation because the bill will never go into effect and I
don't think that these fine citizens are prophets. But they are
disingenuous in their claim because they would never support stronger measures
to remove from circulation these weapons of mass destruction. This patently
foolish inaction will just mean more and more gun violence. Gun violence that
is already killing more than 30,000 people a year in this country. Yes the Senate has shamed itself, and some of these comments are even more
atl134: Explain please why fewer people will be killed by uncontrolled guns in
the hands of criminals when fewer law-abiding citizens are able to defend
themselves. The second amendment was placed in the Constitution because we, the
people, can't trust the government. Well, it becomes less trustworthy
every day BHO reigns. The time may come when free and independent states will
call up the "well regulated [citizen] militia" referenced in the 2nd
Amendment. Remember that the "Minutemen" of Concord were armed citizens
who rose up to thwart the Redcoats on their errand of arms confiscation.
It is a hard thing to deal with and Americans, I believe, have mixed feelings
about it. On one hand, nobody wants to take away the rights of gun owners. At
the same time, what does it look like when people are dying and no action is
being taken!I think it is one of the harder issues that leaders face. People are
afraid that changes will be made and then something will happen that make it
seem like it has worked. I don't envy them on this one.