Senate rejects expanded gun background checks

[himher 634]

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.

Not nearly as ridiculous as your claim that there is a constitutional right to own and keep them but no right to purchase them

That's hilarious

Edited April 20, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Not nearly as ridiculous as your claim that there is a constitutional right to own and keep them but no right to purchase them

That's hilarious

If there is such a constitutional right and if the court has indeed spoken to that as you claim, then tell me where that is. Obviously, it's not in the Constitution. And you cannot back up your claim that the court has ruled that there is such a constitutional right. The reason why you can't back that up is because the court has not made such a ruling.

[himher 634]

If there is such a constitutional right and if the court has indeed spoken to that as you claim, then tell me where that is. Obviously, it's not in the Constitution. And you cannot back up your claim that the court has ruled that there is such a constitutional right. The reason why you can't back that up is because the court has not made such a ruling.

My point is that the court doesn't need to except to the terminally stupid. The ruling that you can purchase them is implied with the ruling that you have a fundamental right to have/own them.

Edited April 20, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

My point is that the court doesn't need to except to the terminally stupid. The ruling that you can purchase them is implied with the ruling that you have a fundamental right to have/own them.

Is it? Because you say so?

[himher 634]

Is it? Because you say so?

You see anything around you that would imply differently sport? Alrighty then.

Edited April 20, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

You see anything around you that would imply differently sport? Alrighty then.

You've got nothing. I understand. No need to repeat that in many different ways. It's okay.

[himher 634]

You've got nothing. I understand. No need to repeat that in many different ways. It's okay.

Well it appears that actually YOU got nothing (see thread title) and since there are millions of variations of wording this I guess we will go on for hours.

Disclaimer: The words "crybaby", "tantrum", "loser", "dud", "impotent", and "failure" were deliberately left out of the above to avoid offending the poster

Edited April 20, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well it appears that actually YOU got nothing (see thread title) and since there are millions of variations of wording this I guess we will go on for hours.

Disclaimer: The words "crybaby", "tantrum", "loser", "dud", "impotent", and "failure" were deliberately left out of the above to avoid offending the poster

The issue is that you keep talking out of your ####### making claims that you can't back up. All hat, no cattle. You should consider making that your screen name.

[himher 634]

The issue is that you keep talking out of your ####### making claims that you can't back up. All hat, no cattle. You should consider making that your screen name.

You should make "sore loser" yours. Summary from gun owners point of view:

Here is the poll report:

CBS News/New York Times Poll

Now, normally this would be rather eye opening. In fact, just about every gun grabbing gun control advocate in the free world has been citing this poll as evidence that EVERYONE wants to require background checks on EVERY gun sale transaction. Even Obama has used these poll numbers to try and push his gun control agenda, and quoted them this very afternoon in his temper tantrum after Congress rebuked his efforts. Everyone wants you to believe that 90% of Americans, and 85% of the NRA wants universal background checks.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The truth is in the question asked. Go to the second page of the document, and you will find that the one and only question asked of the 1110 adults nationwide was:

Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all potential gun buyers?

Are you kidding me?

First of all, there is already a federal law requiring background checks on potential gun buyers. It's called the Brady Law. And it requires background checks on all gun purchases made from a gun dealer or gun shop.

What the law doesn't require is a background check for a private sale. But the question did not ask "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all sales, including private sales of guns?"

Because if it had been worded like that, the results would likely have been much different.

But CBS and the New York Times knew this. That's why they worded the question in such a manner that even NRA members, who DO support background checks would agree.

Nor did they ask if they support background checks that would require completing FFL forms, or paying additional fees up to $125 dollars to the transaction. Because this is what the NRA, and NRA member and non member gun owners oppose. If they had asked that, again, the results would have been much different.

That is EXACTLY what was communicated to Congress. So all you want

Edited April 20, 2013 by himher

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

What the law doesn't require is a background check for a private sale. But the question did not ask "Do you favor or oppose a federal law requiring background checks on all sales, including private sales of guns?"

Because if it had been worded like that, the results would likely have been much different.

Really? Just so happens that CNN asked just that question and the answer breaks down 70/30 in favor of requiring background checks for those sales as well. Hell, there's even a majority in favor of requiring background checks for in-family transfers.

Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for a prospective gun buyer under each of the following circumstances.

"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun at a gun show." Favor: 83 percent. Oppose: 17 percent.

"If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them." Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent.

"If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift." Favor: 54 percent. Oppose: 45 percent.

The NRA supports criminals. That is the bottom line.

[himher 634]

Really? Just so happens that CNN asked just that question and the answer breaks down 70/30 in favor of requiring background checks for those sales as well. Hell, there's even a majority in favor of requiring background checks for in-family transfers.

The NRA supports criminals. That is the bottom line.

It's always the same libs who want gun control who support the privacy rights of the mentally ill and freed criminals

OH you really smacked me again with that poll but the senate vote was what? Guess you showed me didnt you

Edited April 20, 2013 by himher

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

The NRA supports criminals. That is the bottom line.

It is true. We have a former FFL holder that stated he could have bought weapons legally as a dealer, sell them to himself as a dealer, and then turn around and sell them to anyone he wants, as a private party, without a background check, all legal, because the NRA doesn't want to plug that loophole.

[I AM NOT THAT GUY 5,715]

You know though if the ATF took a look at the bound book and there was alot of that they would probably go after the FFL.

I guess that poster was lucky, that the 50 piece collection that he bought as a dealer, to sell to himself to get the one piece he wanted to keep and the 49 pieces he sold as a private party, didn't garner that sort of attention. Or perhaps, that is why he only got to keep his FFL for 6 years.

Edited April 20, 2013 by The Patriot