Sure, they're being "used" - I mean, why would somebody who got SHOT IN THE GODDAMNED FACE like Gabby Giffords by a mentally ill person wielding a firearm, or a parent who's six year old got riddled full of bullets in the classroom by a mentally ill person with an AR-15 otherwise support reform of our country's laughable system of firearm regulation to make it harder for crazy people to obtain weapons - obviously these folks are being hoodwinked by BIG CITY SLICKER politicos like Fast Barry Obama and Lady Di Feinstein and being "used" . . . or maybe they are have a direct connection to the issue of getting shot up by crazy people. Which do you think is more likely? Your cynicism is inaccurate, lazy, baseless and probably offensive to many. I want the supply of guns to be limited because I want fewer peopel to be killed and the world to be safer for me & my family, not to score jack-off rep points on clutch bbs. I suspect the same is true of Giffords, the President, and the 90% of the coutnry that is on the right side of this issue. The opposition is shamed not because of anything that the President is doing. The opposition is shamed because their behavior is not defensible - that's reality.
I would oppose that as well. Thank goodness it hasn't happened in any of the cases we're talking about. The people from Sandy Hook don't take advice on what to say or support from politicians. They started getting active on particular issues because their lives were affected. I'm not sure how them appearing with politicians who are doing their bidding is in anyway them being 'used'. Why don't you read their interviews and see if they feel like they are being used or are puppets.
Agreed Because judging by the comments by some here, there are definitely people on this board who would be denied access to weapons if there was such a law.
I don't know if you have a disability or if you just choose not to read posts. Without that information I think it wise for me to refrain from responding to your typical jerk response with the same. You have no idea what position I take on gun control as I have not offered an opinion on the bills that were voted on yesterday because I haven't finished reading them. (I just got the information this morning in this thread) I already said I support expanded background checks though. Again, I'm not sure if your failure to catch that in the post is intentional on your part or unavoidable. I'll help you out though: I support expanded background checks. My only issue with her article and with the president's speech is the direct implication that if this bill was the law of the land then Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened. You have chosen to ignore that and it's ok. That's your right.
Yes, especially the part where she says "if only we had this bill and a tiime machine, Sandy Hook wouldn't have happened!" SO your only issue is the part that doesn't exist, that you are fabricating for internet funz.
Why do you think the Democrats "shot down" the mental health component? Substitute for background check bill that increases enforcement and reporting on mentally ill people
Disingenious reply It was voted down by Dems AND Repubs that are on the NRA's payroll. But that doesnt fit your narrative now does it?
I'll refer you back to the initial post - but the short answer is, those who voted against it did so because they are weak and cowardly.
pure campaigning from the left the purpose of the vote itself was purely to score political points for the left, anyhow that's the true source of shame in all of this
You both do realize that it was Democrats that voted it down don't you? Substitute for background check bill that increases enforcement and reporting on mentally ill people Link It failed to get the 60 votes it needed because 44 Democrats voted against it. 43 Republicans voted for it. Good grief.
go ahead and target all those Democrats who voted for the bill. I wouldn't mind seeing those turn red
Please correct me if I am wrong but I believe this is what you were referring to - Link to Mental Health component The title of the bill states... "Senate Vote 98 - Grassley-Cruz Substitute for Background Check Proposal" According to http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294447-grassley-cruz-gun-bill-eases-rules-on-transporting-firearms - "Grassley-Cruz gun bill allows interstate transport of firearms"
So it does these things Gives more resources to prosecutors to go after people who violate Gun laws Give the ability to prosecute people who fail criminal background checks Criminalizes Straw purchases and trafficking Seeks to increase school safety Keep guns out of the hands of the mentally ill The bill would allow for the interstate sale of firearms, and for the interstate transportation of firearms providing certain conditions are met. Guns transported across state lines will have to be unloaded, locked in a vehicle or kept in the trunk. It allows me to take my firearm with me when I am on a road trip for protection. This is the reason that Democrats voted all of those other wonderful things down? How shameful!
The Toomey Manchin Amendment did include Mental Health as part of the background checks. [rquoter]Summary: The Public Safety and Second Amendment Rights Protection Act would require states and the federal government to send all necessary records on criminals and the violently mentally ill to the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS). It also extends the existing background check system to gun shows and online sales[/rquoter] https://www.popvox.com/bills/us/113/x120 The Cruz Amendment while adding $200 million to mental health services would've also made it easier to transport guns across state lines without expanding background checks. http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews....sens-ted-cruz-and-john-cornyn-push-back.html/ [rquoter]His package would make it easier to transport guns across state lines, and would crack down on felons who try to buy guns, without expanding background checks. [/rquoter] His amendment was basically a poison pill considering that he tried to filibuster the bill a few days ago. I see Bongman beat me to it.
