Senate rejects expanded gun background checks

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

show me the part of the constitution that says government is allowed to imprison anyone.

I see.

[SMOKE 1,426]

Should they also keep their guns while in the joint?

damn dude take a pill. you seem to losing your senses, at least your common sense.

first it was: 2 different things. employment and gun control.

now its: 3 different things. rights, privileges, and penalties.

[justashooter 430]

America speaks...

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

America speaks...

....but the Senate is not listening.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

....but the Senate is not listening.

Most Senators were listening. Only a minority of Senators doesn't care what America is saying.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

Most Senators were listening. Only a minority of Senators doesn't care what America is saying.

I don't know. 57 of them voted to let Gary carry a handgun in California. We were all saying, "Hell, no!"

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't know. 57 of them voted to let Gary carry a handgun in California. We were all saying, "Hell, no!"

Gary has no time to come to California. He's is busy sucking on Uncle Sam's teat.

[himher 634]

Pointing out obvious hypocrisy is butthurt? I see.

Whining (and whining and whining and whining some more) about losing is the BEST demonstration of butthurt.

There's no constitutional right to purchase a firearm either.

Not what the courts said. Still hurting?

It shouldn't. Felons should be able to vote.

Felons can't purchase firearms. But when they illegally try and it is referred for prosecution the libs ignore that violation because they care more about felons than dying children.

[himher 634]

It's not a far reach. We're told that universal background checks will be effective to fight illegal employment but not to fight illegal firearm purchases and sales. That makes no sense.

Demonstrated by 77,000 failed background checks that were unprosecuted in 2009 alone. Background checks aren't being used to fight anything. Which makes them a waste of time. Go cuddle with the criminals you love to defend or find a tree to hug and stop whining about the wishes and rights of law abiding people. It's pathetic.

Edited April 19, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not what the courts said.

Where in the Constitution is the right to purchase a firearm mentioned? And which court upheld that right in what decision?

Felons can't purchase firearms.

Yes they can. They do it every single day. And nobody would ever know because there is no background check required if they purchase that firearm from a private seller at a gun show or if they purchase it online. No prosecutor would ever know that they purchased a firearm because no record of that transaction exists.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Demonstrated by 77,000 failed background checks that were unprosecuted in 2009 alone.

These are 77,000 transactions that weren't completed because the buyer failed to pass the required background check. If there were required background checks for all transactions, then these 77,000 people would not be buying firearms. Instead, they can just go across the street to the next gun show or go online and buy all the firearms they want because there are no background checks required in those transactions. Background checks can work but they must be universal. What we have now is so fcuking silly it's unbelievable. It's like requiring ID checks for alcohol purchases in at the liquor store but not at the ball park.

[himher 634]

These are 77,000 transactions that weren't completed because the buyer failed to pass the required background check. If there were required background checks for all transactions, then these 77,000 people would not be buying firearms. Instead, they can just go across the street to the next gun show or go online and buy all the firearms they want because there are no background checks required in those transactions. Background checks can work but they must be universal. What we have now is so fcuking silly it's unbelievable. It's like requiring ID checks for alcohol purchases in at the liquor store but not at the ball park.

Because the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to purchase them. Stop whining. Good grief. Focus on the thousands of criminals that are already referred for prosecutiona and stay out of our personal lives.

Edited April 19, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Because the right to keep and bear arms includes the right to purchase them.

Which court made that ruling? Can you quote it?

[himher 634]

Which court made that ruling? Can you quote it?

(laughing) Actually sitting on the winning side comfortably exempts me from the requirement to quote anything. But hopefully you can read.

The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

Here is where it was later applied to the individual states. It's not storytime and you ain't a child so you can peruse it yourself. Skip the arguments and go to the rulings and justification for the rulings.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Some notes from settled cases:

"It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."

NOW: Go find something to soothe your worn-out butt and while you're out pick up a pacifier or something else to suck on so that we don't have to listen to your e-whining.

UPDATE: Guns and ammo are still flying off the shelf which makes your job OH so much harder - but makes our homes safer, even from our own government. As the Supreme court says it should.

Edited April 20, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

(laughing) Actually sitting on the winning side comfortably exempts me from the requirement to quote anything. But hopefully you can read.

The decision extended the court's 2008 ruling in District of Columbia v. Heller that "the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home." That decision applied only to federal laws and federal enclaves such as Washington; it was the first time the court had said there was an individual right to gun ownership rather than one related to military service.

Here is where it was later applied to the individual states. It's not storytime and you ain't a child so you can peruse it yourself. Skip the arguments and go to the rulings and justification for the rulings.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

Some notes from settled cases:

"It is clear that the Framers . . . counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty."

"the Second Amendment protects a personal right to keep and bear arms for lawful purposes, most notably for self-defense within the home."

NOW: Go find something to soothe your worn-out butt and while you're out pick up a pacifier or something else to suck on so that we don't have to listen to your e-whining.

UPDATE: Guns and ammo are still flying off the shelf which makes your job OH so much harder - but makes our homes safer, even from our own government. As the Supreme court says it should.

So you have absolutely no court case to quote in support of your ridiculous claim that there is a constitutional right to purchase firearms. Thank you for confirming that.

You could have done that in a short sentence.