Obama Says Gun Lobby Willfully Lied After Senate

Submitted by: fancylad 4 years ago in

Obama criticizes those responsible for the Senate"s failure to pass expanded gun-sale background checks yesterday. Ouch!
There are 90 comments:
Male 8,526
scheckydamon-" The ocean is a harsh mistress."

I thought that was The Moon....
0
Reply
Male 1,324
MeGrendel and Squrlz, right and right. I actually did a trade with my barber for my 9mm. I have known him for 6+ years and he is a good guy. I would not ever do a craig`s list sale of a weapon. Those that do are usually shills for selling guns to the folks that shouldn`t have them in the first place.
I have never had an issue with back round checks in the most general of terms. BUT then I am a law abiding person who has nothing to hide. My current work requires me to have a security screening every 2 years that would put a gun check to shame. I do worry that MY government would use the information acquired for other things.
Squrlz, it was an honor to serve and save lives. Have to say though that 50% of our rescues could have been avoided if folks just had a little common sense. The ocean is a harsh mistress.
0
Reply
Male 10,338
Petulant baby, throwing a fit because the bill he was sure his Senate would pass, let it fail. He was planning for the House to kill it, so he could blame Conservatives.

Sorry Barry. Didn`t work.
0
Reply
Male 8,526
Squrlz4Sale-"I don`t think you should be selling a gun to a felon or a mentally ill person"

Two points: I don`t plan on selling a gun to anyone I don`t know and trust.

But us Law Abiding citizens are not the problem. Criminals, on the other hand, are. Why, they`ve occasionally been know to break the law.

So, who exactly are these laws aimed at? The law abiding citizen. So the law will not do any good.

Second point: You CAN NOT POSSIBLY enforce a law controlling person-to-person sales. Hell, you can`t enforce a law controlling person-to-person sales of automobiles, which are much larger and much more traceable.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@MeGrendel: "It doesn`t matter if the transaction takes place in a gun show or in a McDonald`s."

EXACTLY. I don`t think you should be selling a gun to a felon or a mentally ill person at a gun show OR in the parking lot of McDonald`s. You do?
0
Reply
Male 8,526
Squrlz4Sale-" is that anyone can purchase a gun at a gun show from a private seller without a background check."

Well, seeing that anyone can purchase a gun OUTSIDE of a gun show froma private seller without a background check means that the so-called `gun-show loophole` is a fallacy.

The law does not change when you enter a gun-show. If, by law, I can buy a gun from my friend without a background check, it doesn`t matter if the transaction takes place in a gun show or in a McDonald`s.

lauriloo-"If things like that need an ID, shouldn`t a dangerous weapon?"

They don`t require an ID, they require a proof of age. When you buy alcohol, tobacco or movie tickets your name is not run through a database.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@lauriloo

[quote]Doing without all the things in this post because you don`t have ID would have little to no impact on a person`s life.[/quote]
That`s really an opinion more than anything. There are many activities that require licensing or permits that are arguably as important as voting; for example: a bar owner needs an alcohol license (his/her livelihood is on the line), fishermen need permits to fish, and so on.

I still do not think you`ve offered a reasonable explanation why voter ID laws are racist and other such laws are not.

[quote]The right to vote is WAY more important in the big scheme of things than having a gun, especially in our current society.[/quote]
Again, this is your opinion viewed through your own bias. Many people require licenses and permits in order to do the work they do to feed their families. Is this not at least as important to them as voting?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@lauriloo

[quote]If things like that need an ID, shouldn`t a dangerous weapon?[/quote]
Whoa now - that`s an entirely different argument. We can discuss it further if you`d like, but my response is ID laws should be controlled by the states.

My question was regarding the nature of ID laws. You claim that the act of requiring an individual to have an ID in order to vote is racist; yet, on the other hand, in most other cases, it is not racist to require an individual to have an ID before performing an action. My question was: how do you justify seemingly opposing logic?

[quote]I`m not sure why you think needing an ID to get a gun is racist in the first place.[/quote]
I don`t... I don`t think it is racist to require someone to have an ID to vote either.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Scheckdamon: First of all, thank you for your service in the USCG.

I have no problem whatsoever with your gun ownership, nor do I think you should have to register them in a federal database. Pat Toomey (R, PA) and Joe Manchin (D, WV), the sponsors of S.649, ALSO have no problem with your gun ownership, nor do they think you should have to register them. They included provisions in their bill SPECIFICALLY to forbid the creation of any such database.

What their proposed legislation would have prevented you and other gun owners from doing was selling your firearms to someone who is a convicted felon or who has mental disabilities making him a danger to himself or to others.

I cannot understand why any responsible gun owner would have an issue with that.
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"Alcohol, tobacco, movie tickets all require an ID. Are these laws racist?"

If things like that need an ID, shouldn`t a dangerous weapon?

I`m not sure why you think needing an ID to get a gun is racist in the first place. Doing without all the things in this post because you don`t have ID would have little to no impact on a person`s life. Not being able to participate in determining who makes the laws and policies that impact your life does. The right to vote is WAY more important in the big scheme of things than having a gun, especially in our current society. Might be different in current day Syria, but not in the USA.
0
Reply
Male 1,324
I joined the USCG at 17. I flew helicopters to rescue DumbAZZ`SES from their own stupidity. I served in what most consider an " UN-traditional " branch of the military. BUT we SERVED to protect everyone`s constitutional freedoms. I have guns. Not a lot. A 9mm, an old 22 rifle I`ve had since I was 15 and a 12ga single barrel shotgun. I have purchased them legally from Kmart, the shot gun and 22, and the 9mm from my barber. I have never had to draw down on anyone in self protection or in anger. I will not willingly or otherwise register, surrender or give up my guns to any one. I also agree that anyone may have the opinion that I should not have them. I will respectively disagree but I will not yield that option to anyone. I vote, every election, and I communicate with my elected officials in that if they do not do what I put them in office to do, I will do everything in my power to remove them.
That is government for and by the people.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Megrendel:

"If I buy a gun from a dealer at a store, I have to have a background check. If I buy a gun from a sealer at a gunshow, I have to have a background check. If I buy a gun from my brother, or a neighbor, I am not required to have a background check."

The scenario you fail to mention--despite the fact that it was the MAIN FOCUS of S.649--is that anyone can purchase a gun at a gun show from a private seller without a background check.

I would encourage anyone who doubts that this loophole exists watch THIS video. For $2800, the investigators purchased three semi-auto handguns, one semi-auto rifle, and an assortment of clips. The transactions were conducted in cash with no receipts or records of any kind. No ID was required, no names were given.

If that doesn`t strike you as a problem, it should.
0
Reply
Male 75
BOOYAA!! Put that bitch down like a rabid dog.
See where YOUR senators stand on gun control.
Here

Here

Here

Here

Male 379
@scapegoat7
...i got a job without a background check.
0
Reply
Male 8,526
scapegoat7-"can`t get a job w/out background check but can get all the guns you want, wtf???"

A background check is not required for a job (outside of sensitive government jobs). If a company decides to run a background check, that`s for theirr own purpose, and has nothing to do with any legislation.

Plus, it`s entirely possible to get a job without a background check. So your equivalency is flawed.

If I buy a gun from a dealer at a store, I have to have a background check.
If I buy a gun from a sealer at a gunshow, I have to have a background check.

If I buy a gun from my brother, or a neighbor, I am not required to have a background check (which makes sense, as you could never regulate such an asanine requirement, anyway).
0
Reply
Male 99
He get`s that 90% number from 1 poll of 1,000 people.If he really has the support of 90% of the people, that`s enough change the constitution. So what`s stopping him? He also claimed 90% of law enforcement backed him, the policeone polls show police are 95% against his proposals.
When Sen Murphy was speaking before the vote he mentioned military style weapons like Lanza used capable of firing 6 rounds a second. That`s a lie. He`s representing a fully automatic assault weapon as the type of rifle he`s trying to ban.
The next amendment to come up was grassleys(r)for mental health, school safety and funding so police could enforce the current laws. That one failed too. But it was the same crowd that wanted background checks that sank Grassleys amendment.Diane Fienstien voted against funding to enforce current laws while Calif. has 39,000 guns in the hands of 19,700 criminals or mental patients because there`s no money to go out and collect them.
0
Reply
Male 210
can`t get a job w/out background check but can get all the guns you want, wtf???
0
Reply
Male 8,526
5Cats-"Coyotes and @Squrlz... getting along."

Fire and brimstone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling!
Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes...
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together... mass hysteria!
0
Reply
Male 1,949

0
Reply
Male 1,949
Don`t worry about it, Obama. You`re just not that strong of a leader. Some sort of legislation will get passed one day, but not under your watch.
0
Reply
Male 40,728
O_o @Coyotes and @Squrlz... getting along... agreeing to disagree?

It`s a crazy world today! Crazy! ;-)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
It`s still racist. ~shoos Random off the stage~

(I keed, I keed!)
0
Reply
Male 1,293
So now Obama complains about lies. Can Republicans complain about his lies too now, or is that still racist?
0
Reply
Male 14,331

0
Reply
Male 40,728
What a crybaby!!

Hey Obama! Did you parade the people who SAVED lives WITH guns? No? Then STFU because what you did WAS just a "publicity stunt" and nothing short of emotional blackmail too!

Honestly: This is indeed a "disgraceful moment" in US History, but it`s because of the President`s actions, NOT congress...

Oh yeah, he didn`t mention Democrats who voted it down? What a surprise!

90% support? Bullshiite! The "concept" had support, but THIS BILL was nothing like what the US Public wants!
0
Reply
Male 2,988
~shakes paw~
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CoyoteKing: We`re cool. I appreciate the civil response. =^.^= ~shakes paw~
0
Reply
Male 2,988
fair enough. no hard feelings. it just appeared you jumped the gun (no pun intended) in your assumption. and sorry for the uncalled for remark.

when i read CJ`s call for impeachment i believed it not to be about having background checks at gun shows but rather because the pres "wants to take your guns if you happen to take anxiety meds or ever been diagnosed with depression" which is "an attempt at gun grabbing and usurping our rights, while parading victims around for emotional effect"

his words, not mine. but we interpreted them differently.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CoyoteKing: We`re going to have to agree to disagree here.

My original statement was that someone on here was "calling for the *impeachment* of a president because he supported legislation that required background checks for gun purchases." That`s a true statement that I stand by. You responded that I should "hold [my] tongue" because (as best as I can understand you) the issue wasn`t background checks.

No ill will towards you, friend. But my position is that I made a valid statement and your response that I should "hold [my] tongue" was uncalled for.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
@Squrlz4Sale because you started making unfounded claims of what CJ had written because I assume you missread or didnt read all of what he had said.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
see his claim was not impeachment because of background checks but rather what CJ sees as an attack on the Constitution which he took an oath to uphold. and using victims to push his point in stricter laws that wouldnt have prevented the tragedies of said victims.
0
Reply
Male 8,526
chalket-"Great argument, MeGrendel."

So you get upset that a guy you called `idiotic` responds with `idiot`?

chalket-"Sorry you`re so butt-hurt"

Why would I be butt-hurt when Obama gets pissy because he didn`t get his new toy? (Any time Obama fails to forward his agend of course lifts my spirits.)
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CoyoteKing: My apologies if I misunderstood you.

For clarity`s sake, why were you telling me to "hold my tongue"?
0
Reply
Male 2,988
@Squrlz4Sale: "So far today, I`ve been told:

(1) that I should "hold my tongue" because the defeated bill had nothing to do with background checks."

Read again what I said and try not to be so forgetful: "hold your tongue before you start making claims like that because no one is saying background checks in general are bad."

said claim you made was: "(People are) Calling for the *impeachment* of a president because he supported legislation that required background checks for gun purchases?"

You seem to be quite forgetful. I`ll forgive it.

And the "call for impeachment" was via CrakrJak: "an attempt at gun grabbing and usurping our rights, while parading victims around for emotional effect is outrageous.

His oath says, "..preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He`s failed that oath and failed us all. He should be impeached."
0
Reply
Male 6,227
It`s amusing to be given stern lectures by the clueless.

So far today, I`ve been told:

(1) that I should "hold my tongue" because the defeated bill had nothing to do with background checks.
REALITY: S.649`s main focus was to close the loophole allowing for private sales of firearms at gun shows to occur without background checks.

(2) that the bill states that it "will be referred to as the `Assault Weapons ban of 2013.`"
REALITY: The short title of the bill is the "Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013." Nowhere in the bill do the phrases "assault weapon" or "assault weapons" appear. The person providing the misinformation helpfully points out "it is on the Library of Congress, you and everyone else can read it"--when, clearly, he himself hasn`t even looked at S.649`s text, much less read it.

Any other low-information voters out there want to play?
0
Reply
Male 2,694
Don`t know why PBO`s so mad. He knew damn well this wasn`t getting past the House anyway.

0
Reply
Male 2,988
@chalket: at the time i was not talking about gun shows but buying a gun in general. so yes, with this supposed gun show loophole that in some states allows people to possibly be able to get a gun without a background check, then yes I can see 90% in favor. the president did not address it in that manner but rather that 90% were in favor of the whole bill. at least thats what it sounded like when i heard him talk, he may have meant different
0
Reply
Male 2,711
Great argument, MeGrendel. lol!
Sorry you`re so butt-hurt, you poor thing, but I guess it`s to be expected when you overwork that tiny little brain so much. Take a break, go play with your Hot Wheels and you`ll feel better.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@Lovinitmtboy: "It states in the text that it will be referred to as `Assault Weapons ban of 2013` and is many pages long covering many things."

HERE is the exact text of the S.649, the defeated bill.

On PAGE 1, for crying out loud, it states that it will be referred to as the "Safe Communities, Safe Schools Act of 2013."

NOT ONCE in the entire text of the bill do the phrases "assault weapon" or "assault weapons" appear.
0
Reply
Male 3,908
@lovinitmtboy - Thank you for the making the point I was about to make, I`m surprised no one brought that up yet. When I heard him and everyone else last night I couldn`t help but notice the ONLY thing they talked about was the expanded background checks part of the legislation. They failed to mention that there`s more to it.

Take this article titled "Senate Rejects Explanded Gun Background Checks" for example. The HEADLINE only mentions background checks to get your attention but in the first paragraph it says a "proposal to ban some semi-automatic weapons modeled after military assault weapons" was included in the vote.

That`s why you should always read the fine print.
0
Reply
Male 8,526
chalket-"How about you try addressing reality for a change"

In reality, you`re an idiot.

Everyone is sure about that.
0
Reply
Male 2,711
"I`m sure he did throw a tantrum in private"

The things you are so sure of, that are actually true, might just fill a thimble. How about you try addressing reality for a change, and not just baseless conjecture that you are so sure of? Just because that`s how YOU`D react doesn`t mean sane people would.
0
Reply
Male 8,526
lauriloo-"It was particularly racist when the GOP tried to enact it a month before the 2012 election hoping poor and elderly people "

Actually, different states have been trying for years, so it was not `a month before the election`.

And how does `poor and elderly` equate to `racist`?

chalket-"You call that a tantrum?"

I`m sure he did throw a tantrum in private, complaining about the meanies that wont do what he wants.

0
Reply
Male 14,331
[quote]@McGovern1981
The truth? I seriously doubt even one tiny shred of truth can get through that sealed-off concrete bunker y[/quote]

I think the bunker cut this text off early.
0
Reply
Male 16
I must address this. The bill was not "an increase on background checks." To claim it boils down to a one liner is condescending, lieing and manipulative. Squrlz4sale, it is on the library of congress, you and everyone else can read it, It states in the text that it will be reffered to as "Assault Weapons ban of 2013" and is many pages long covering many things. He lied to the public by saying "the only thing this bill was about is background checks." Because the majority does not read. I no longer trust or respect our commander in chief in any capacity.
0
Reply
Male 363
To all you LIberals, please remove your head from Obama`s crotch for a few minutes and listen. The man lies about everything to promote his own agenda. This agenda may appear to appeal to you, but in the end it will be the destruction of America as we know it.
0
Reply
Male 4,099
This legislation had many flaws in it, one I know was that if in a disaster situation like Katrina where people were told to evacuate, if they brought their guns along with them, they would legally become arms traffickers and could become felons and fugitives. Another flaw was that it had no stipulations with regards to mental illness. If the bill had been perfected more it very well might have got the extra votes.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
[quote]Markust...I doubt anyone would be apposed to getting rid of the whole lot and starting over with term limits for all and the removal of benefits. Serving your country should not be a career it should be an honor.[/quote]

I was actually going to tack the exact thought onto my previous post. I knew we could agree on something! :)

0
Reply
Male 2,711
@spanz
Yeah, we all know the Prez can just "twist the words" of a bill passed by Congress. Do you even read what you write? Sheesh, go back to school, will ya?

@MeGrendel
You call that a tantrum? You reaffirm your idiocy on a daily basis, at least you`re consistent.

@gymcoach29
Might be taking lessons from Boehner and Cantor? But the real secret to it is... he wasn`t lying!

@DromEd
Gallop Poll, Dec 19-22, 2012 Near the middle: Do you favor or oppose "A law which would require background checks before people - including gun dealers - could buy guns at gun shows" 92% IN FAVOR, 7% OPPOSED. So YOU`RE the liar.

@CoyoteKing
See above, and admit that you`re wrong.

@McGovern1981
The truth? I seriously doubt even one tiny shred of truth can get through that sealed-off concrete bunker y
0
Reply
Male 5,189
"I LOVE you passionate zealots...you really, really, intrigue me. I wish that I could be so viscerally inflamed about my opinions. It`s not as if I`m apathetic, I just never seem to manage to accumulate enough resolve to be persuaded from my neutral stances. I swear, it`s not cowardice, `cause I`m certainly not afraid to take on an unpopular perception...but you guys, your identities are so well formed, it`s incredible. (No sarcasm here, I`m being genuine.)"

Geogypsy, well said. It is sad how they all fit so easily into a mold. Nothing spills. So...predictable they are. It`s sad really. I bet if they were all the same grey blobs they`d argue who was more grey.

Take notes IAB
0
Reply
Female 4,396
what lie did the nra tell??? I can`t find it
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@lauriloo

[quote]It was particularly racist when the GOP tried to enact it a month before the 2012 election hoping poor and elderly people wouldn`t be able to get an id in time to vote because they know these people tend to vote democratic.[/quote]
I get this argument; I don`t necessarily agree that it was a racist intention, but, the argument is reasonable. That being said, if the legislation was proposed again today, would you consider it racist?

[quote]Well, one person`s vote won`t kill people. That`s why.[/quote]
OK - there are tons of other examples we can use that satisfy your requirement. Alcohol, tobacco, movie tickets all require an ID. Are these laws racist?
0
Reply
Male 2,988
@lauriloo: i get the argument for the poor not being able to get IDs and that hurts the Dems and not Reps, but rural and elderly? am I mistaken in thinking that a lot of rural country folk and a lot of elderly are conservative and often vote Rep?
0
Reply
Female 1,803
"Anyone have a reasonable argument for why Voter ID is racist"

It was particularly racist when the GOP tried to enact it a month before the 2012 election hoping poor and elderly people wouldn`t be able to get an id in time to vote because they know these people tend to vote democratic. If the IDs are convenient to get and free or low cost so the poor, rural, elderly (especially in retirement homes) are able to get them, I don`t have a problem with voter ID requirements.

vs. requiring gun id? Well, one person`s vote won`t kill people. That`s why.
0
Reply
Male 8,526
markust123-"Serving your country should not be a career it should be an honor."

Now THAT I can agree with.
0
Reply
Male 5,000
"Markust, you seem to be laboring with the notion that we IAB conservatives actually agree with what most of those imbeciles in DC with an R next to their name are doing."

Now I`m really procrastinating. Same can be said about what most of those imbeciles in DC with an D next to their name are doing. I doubt anyone would be apposed to getting rid of the whole lot and starting over with term limits for all and the removal of benefits. Serving your country should not be a career it should be an honor.
0
Reply
Male 5,000
"I think the 90% stat is probably accurate in that 90% of Americans want some level of background checks."

Yet many people on here are screaming liar at the president for quoting this number. From everything I have read this was a reasonable bill it`s just the stigma from all the other crap made it fail. It will be back and get through. Speaking of reasonable, thanks for the reasonable responses. That is refreshing here on IAB. Now I really have to get started working.
0
Reply
Male 2,548
I LOVE you passionate zealots...you really, really, intrigue me. I wish that I could be so viscerally inflamed about my opinions. It`s not as if I`m apathetic, I just never seem to manage to accumulate enough resolve to be persuaded from my neutral stances. I swear, it`s not cowardice, `cause I`m certainly not afraid to take on an unpopular perception...but you guys, your identities are so well formed, it`s incredible. (No sarcasm here, I`m being genuine.)
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@MeGrendel

[quote]And yet the latter has been declared `racist` by democrats.[/quote]
Ha - that is a very good point. Anyone have a reasonable argument for why Voter ID is racist and Gun-Purchase ID is not?
0
Reply
Male 2,357
@markust

[quote]Looking around the net at different polls it looks like 90% isn`t that far off - I`ve found between 86% and 92%.[/quote]
Thanks for the link - definitely an interesting read.

I think the 90% stat is probably accurate in that 90% of Americans want some level of background checks. The issue I take with it is that it doesn`t do much to distinguish the level or type of background check desired. For example, a "Yes" response may be given from a person who simply wants a photo ID to be presented as well as a person who wants all the stops - FBI check, medical record check, full blown registry, etc.

I haven`t had a chance to read the actual proposal to see exactly what it says, but I`m interested in knowing the extent of background checks suggested in it.
0
Reply
Male 8,526
markust123-"Expanding background checks for would-be gun owners is a commonsense proposal much like requiring a photo ID before someone is allowed to vote"

And yet the latter has been declared `racist` by democrats.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
Markust, you seem to be laboring with the notion that we IAB conservatives actually agree with what most of those imbeciles in DC with an R next to their name are doing.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
@CoyoteKing: There are no background checks for the sale of guns at gun shows. The main purpose of the Manchin-Toomey bill was to address that loophole--while at the same time PREVENTING the creation of a federal gun registry.

My original comment stands: The President supported legislation that required background checks for gun purchases. Period.
0
Reply
Male 5,000
"Actually - that begs a question: if 90% of Americans are "for" this law, why would anyone need to vote against it to protect their reelection chances? Food for thought."

Actually the article I linked to goes into why. And this is not some "liberal" like some of the people on here like to scream it is Scott Rasmussen.
0
Reply
Male 579
So, what is BO, Reid, et al, really trying to accomplish here? I wonder if they would vote for legislation that clearly stated it was for the purposes of keeping guns out of the hands of felons and the people who are unstable mentally. Then, made it clear it was not making a national gun registry, not going after trained legal owners, not taking away their rights to handle weaponry in a legal and safe manner. Would the lefties vote for that? Or are they trying to take away guns? "Ooooh!! We`re not trying to take anyone`s guns away!", they all claim. Well, your actions continue to eat away at constitutional rights, nibble by nibble. That speaks way louder than your words.

Oh, and I also wonder where was Obama`s passion and emotion at the Boston Bombing speech? Again, actions speak way louder than words.
0
Reply
Male 5,000
Here`s a quote from the article below, "Expanding background checks for would-be gun owners is a commonsense proposal much like requiring a photo ID before someone is allowed to vote. Both have overwhelming support" Scott Rasmussen
0
Reply
Male 5,000
"Actually - that begs a question: if 90% of Americans are "for" this law, why would anyone need to vote against it to protect their reelection chances? Food for thought."

I`ve got to jump off here but I wanted to throw out something interesting. I found an article by Scott Rasmussen where he mentions the poll that people are quoting the 90% support for more background checks from yet nowhere in this pollster`s article does he try to disprove that number. Looking around the net at different polls it looks like 90% isn`t that far off - I`ve found between 86% and 92%.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
@Squrlz4Sale: "he supported legislation that required background checks for gun purchases?"

there is already legislation that requires background checks. they are just trying to make it more difficult for people to get guns. be it good or bad, its already there. NO ONE is trying to amend getting rid of the background checks. some think it goes too far, some not far enough. but hold your tongue before you start making claims like that because no one is saying background checks in general are bad.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]You know one of those 5 votes was Reid`s so he could bring the amendment up again.[/quote]
I do, but 5 sounds so much better than 4. Reid actually voted for it originally but then changed his vote for that exact reason.

[quote]My point was if this bill was as horrific as some of the people on here are screaming why would any GOP Senator vote for it?[/quote]
I need to look into it (who all voted), but, probably the same reason as the Democrats who voted "Nay": reelection. All of the Democrats who voted against represent "conservative leaning" constituencies.

Actually - that begs a question: if 90% of Americans are "for" this law, why would anyone need to vote against it to protect their reelection chances? Food for thought.

[quote]Crakrjak wants him impeached over this[/quote]
Crakrjak always wants Obama impeached - nothing new here ;-)
0
Reply
Male 5,000
"What some others on here may forget to tell you is that 5 Democratic Senators voted "Nay". As in, more Democratic Senators voted against the bill than GOP Senators voted for it."

Come on man. You are a smart guy. You know one of those 5 votes was Reid`s so he could bring the amendment up again. My point was if this bill was as horrific as some of the people on here are screaming why would any GOP Senator vote for it? Crakrjak wants him impeached over this, yet 4 GOP senators voted for it? There`s something seriously wrong with this picture.
0
Reply
Male 2,357
[quote]What none of the nutters on her will tell you is that 4 GOP Senators voted for the bill.[/quote]
What some others on here may forget to tell you is that 5 Democratic Senators voted "Nay". As in, more Democratic Senators voted against the bill than GOP Senators voted for it.

Additionally, what seems to have also been neglected is the fact that the Senate blocked (52-48) a GOP-sponsored bill that would have: funded school safety programs; enhance prosecution of existing gun laws; and improve mental health records for gun owners.
0
Reply
Male 1,442
@CrakrJak: I know whatever other right wing people tell you is carved into your heart like the stubborn patriotic republican you are, but when you compare the head of the country to a schizophrenic office worker... anything else said is lost in how bad that statement is.

Like taking a dump on a cake, it no longer matters if the bottom of the cake still tastes fine. The big turd on the top of it has ruined any possible goodness.
0
Reply
Male 6,227
Wow. This is a new low on here. Calling for the *impeachment* of a president because he supported legislation that required background checks for gun purchases?

Sometimes when I read through I-A-B political comments, I wind up feeling like I need to take a shower to get the stupid off. This is one of those times.

Honest to God, I think some of you ought to build a compound called "Whacko," stock it full of guns, and set it on fire. Everyone`s out to get you, apparently--but you`re your own worst enemy.
0
Reply
Male 363
Markurst, seriously you are such a dumb liberal twit how do you manage to keep breathing?
0
Reply
Male 5,000
"and he wants to talk about lies... 90% of americans can`t agree on the color of sh.it much LESS whether or not they want to increase gun registry..."

Now who is lying. This bipartisan compromise included language to bar the creation of such a federal registry.
0
Reply
Male 5,000
What none of the nutters on her will tell you is that 4 GOP Senators voted for the bill.
0
Reply
Male 159
crackrjak is 10000% correct...

don`t ya feel sorry for obama? him wanted to take our guns... him is failing... him is throwing tantrums on national t.v.....


and he wants to talk about lies... 90% of americans can`t agree on the color of sh.it much LESS whether or not they want to increase gun registry...
0
Reply
Male 5,000
"Ummm...I made it to :15 when he said 90% of the American People supported it. If you want to tell others about a lie it`s bet not to start your accusations with a whopper of your own."

Not really sure of the full context since the video left out what led up to this comment. The 90% number lines up with what he has said before that 90% of the American people want some form of improved background checks. The number I have seen is closer to 86% so he is padding it a bit.
0
Reply
Male 14,331
90% huh?

0
Reply
Male 202
"THOSE PEOPLE ARE EVIL!!!"
Says the man that has assassinated 3 times as many people as G W Bush ever did, and pushed through the NDAA.
0
Reply
Male 2,988
Kettle calling the pot black. He`s pissed off that he didn`t get everything HE wanted. And talking about people lying about the bill? Right after he says 90% of the American public supported it? So its okay for him to tell that lie about the bill and then tries to call out others lying. because his lie helps his cause, or the other peoples lies hurts his cause.
0
Reply
Male 17,511
He depends upon very well armed men for his safety, yet wants to take your guns if you happen to take anxiety meds or ever been diagnosed with depression.

None, absolutely NONE of these extra background checks would`ve stopped Lougher or Lanza. Acting as if they would have, and blaming legal gun owners for the criminal actions of others is insidiously dangerous to our rights as citizens.

This was an attempt at gun grabbing and usurping our rights, while parading victims around for emotional effect is outrageous.

His oath says, "..preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." He`s failed that oath and failed us all. He should be impeached.
0
Reply
Male 2,694
Ummm...I made it to :15 when he said 90% of the American People supported it. If you want to tell others about a lie it`s bet not to start your accusations with a whopper of your own.

0
Reply
Male 363
How does he lie to millions of people and actually sound like he believes it?
0
Reply
Male 8,526
Awww....he didn`t get his way....time to throw a tantrum.
0
Reply
Male 5,000
I like pissed off Obama.
0
Reply
Male 1,412
Lied about the bill? Its not the bill that scared everyone so much. It is knowing that Obama would twist the words around in its implementation to turn it into a disaster for the second amendment. It was also, as many dems said, "only a first step" towards more gun grabbing legislation. WHO was really doing the lying?????
0
Reply
Male 3,419
It`s Hollywood`s fault. People insisting that assault weapons are for their protection have watched too many die hard movies. They think they can take on a legion of baddies if they have an ar-15 (with 30 round mag).
0
Reply
Male 315
Say what you want about him, but you just can`t deny that he is an excellent public speaker. I wish I could be that calm and collected.
0
Reply
Male 20,900
Link: Obama Says Gun Lobby Willfully Lied After Senate [Rate Link] - Obama criticizes those responsible for the Senate`s failure to pass expanded gun-sale background checks yesterday. Ouch!
0
Reply