Gun control measure defeated

[Col Hogan]

One thing I really want to understand. Why do Pubs oppose back ground checks for gun control, but are 100% in favor for drug checks for welfare recipients?

Where is the right to receive welfare or to do drugs protected in the Constitution???

The RKBA is specifically listed and SCOTUS has ruled it is an individual right several times...I can't find that for welfare or druggies...

[Baldy]

One thing I really want to understand. Why do Pubs oppose back ground checks for gun control, but are 100% in favor for drug checks for welfare recipients?

[death dealer]

One thing I really want to understand. Why do Pubs oppose back ground checks for gun control, but are 100% in favor for drug checks for welfare recipients?

Yeah, he's yours Baldy. Says so right in his name. Enjoy that.

[eagleskins]

Nice retort. Can't have background checks for gun owners, but those seeking financial help are a menace to society.

[Ibanez]

Well speak of the White Devil........lol Its you. I knew this would draw you out...lol And yes the N word is funny as hell when I hear a red neck say it. Its dayum Funny

The racist Black Devil has drawn me out...

OK, klean is on record for not having a problem with people using, "nigger". There's hope for him yet.

Now, about "redneck"...do you reference the upper class that had free time and spent that time enjoying the great outdoors or are you referring to the working class folks in the fields?

He's stated before that nigger isn't offensive to him. I bet he calls other blacks nigger or nigga.

[mrklean]

The racist Black Devil has drawn me out...

OK, klean is on record for not having a problem with people using, "n*****". There's hope for him yet.

Now, about "redneck"...do you reference the upper class that had free time and spent that time enjoying the great outdoors or are you referring to the working class folks in the fields?

He's stated before that n***** isn't offensive to him. I bet he calls other blacks n***** or n****.

And why Mr.Azzhat, would you say this? Like you really know me.

[Ibanez]

I have to register my truck in June. That means Obama wants to confiscate it.

Your truck cant defend you from a tyrannical government and its not guaranteed by an amendment in the constitution.

Can't one argue that under the Necessary and Proper Clause, passing these laws are not only legal, but vital to protect the population? Surely you can agree that the circumstances facing an 18th Century colonist is vastly different then yours today. Surely we should understand that we are living in a different time and that our laws should reflect change. I don't want to lose the 2nd Amendment and I doubt we will. Anyway, a law that strengthens background checks doesn't take away your right to own a gun.

I don't hear anyone complaining about the 2nd Amendment not being a right for convicted felons, those convicted of domestic violence and dishonorably discharged veterans. (Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code).

Don't flame away at me. I'm playing devils advocate.

Spoiler: show

* Note that in Title 18, people with mental defects aren't allowed.

[Ibanez]

He's stated before that n***** isn't offensive to him. I bet he calls other blacks n***** or n****.

And why Mr.Azzhat, would you say this? Like you really know me.

Am I wrong? Have you never called another black person nigger or nigga?

[mrklean]

And why Mr.Azzhat, would you say this? Like you really know me.

Am I wrong? Have you never called another black person n***** or n****?

Have I in the Past, Yes. Do i do it now....NO!

Have you ver used the N word?................................I can't wait for his answer

[Ibanez]

Am I wrong? Have you never called another black person n***** or n****?

Have I in the Past, Yes. Do i do it now....NO!

Have you ver used the N word?................................I can't wait for his answer

I have used it. But i'm not a member of the race that gets angry and violent over it's use and then turnaround and uses it. You don't see white people getting blacks fired b/c they said, "honkey" or "cracker".

[mrklean]

Have I in the Past, Yes. Do i do it now....NO!

Have you ver used the N word?................................I can't wait for his answer

I have used it. But i'm not a member of the race that gets angry and violent over it's use and then turnaround and uses it. You don't see white people getting blacks fired b/c they said, "honkey" or "cracker".

TYPICAL EXCUSE

[Ibanez]

I have used it. But i'm not a member of the race that gets angry and violent over it's use and then turnaround and uses it. You don't see white people getting blacks fired b/c they said, "honkey" or "cracker".

TYPICAL EXCUSE

It isn't an excuse, i'm not black. Then again, it's a word. I don't believe in bad words.

[ASUMountaineer]

TYPICAL EXCUSE

It isn't an excuse, i'm not black. Then again, it's a word. I don't believe in bad words.

The only bad word Kleany believes in is "tolerance."

[UNI88]

Nice retort. Can't have background checks for gun owners, but those seeking financial help are a menace to society.

I'm not a gun owner but I don't think it's so much about the background checks themselves but what they could lead to (... registry of gun owners ... eventual confiscation). I don't think most gun owners are opposed to steps that help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable but they don't want their rights infringed upon in the process. Enforce the laws already on the books, find a way to eliminate straw purchasers and take better care of the mentally ill.

And it's not about those seeking financial help being a menace to society. Many working Americans have to pass drug tests in order to be hired and/or to maintain employment. Why is it wrong to expect it of those who are receiving financial assistance for being un or underemployed? If you are taking drugs, it could impact your job search, your ability to be hired or your focus on training that makes you more employable. If the government is giving you assistance it has a vested interest in making sure that you are able to make the most of that assistance. Requiring drug testing as a pre-condition of that assistance is not unreasonable.

[eagleskins]

Nice retort. Can't have background checks for gun owners, but those seeking financial help are a menace to society.

I'm not a gun owner but I don't think it's so much about the background checks themselves but what they could lead to (... registry of gun owners ... eventual confiscation). I don't think most gun owners are opposed to steps that help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable but they don't want their rights infringed upon in the process. Enforce the laws already on the books, find a way to eliminate straw purchasers and take better care of the mentally ill.

And it's not about those seeking financial help being a menace to society. Many working Americans have to pass drug tests in order to be hired and/or to maintain employment. Why is it wrong to expect it of those who are receiving financial assistance for being un or underemployed? If you are taking drugs, it could impact your job search, your ability to be hired or your focus on training that makes you more employable. If the government is giving you assistance it has a vested interest in making sure that you are able to make the most of that assistance. Requiring drug testing as a pre-condition of that assistance is not unreasonable.

Why is it so wrong for those purchasing extremely deadly weapons to be subject to a background check?

[Col Hogan]

I'm not a gun owner but I don't think it's so much about the background checks themselves but what they could lead to (... registry of gun owners ... eventual confiscation). I don't think most gun owners are opposed to steps that help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable but they don't want their rights infringed upon in the process. Enforce the laws already on the books, find a way to eliminate straw purchasers and take better care of the mentally ill.

And it's not about those seeking financial help being a menace to society. Many working Americans have to pass drug tests in order to be hired and/or to maintain employment. Why is it wrong to expect it of those who are receiving financial assistance for being un or underemployed? If you are taking drugs, it could impact your job search, your ability to be hired or your focus on training that makes you more employable. If the government is giving you assistance it has a vested interest in making sure that you are able to make the most of that assistance. Requiring drug testing as a pre-condition of that assistance is not unreasonable.

Why is it so wrong for those purchasing extremely deadly weapons to be subject to a background check?

You do understand that the vast majority of sales already are covered by background checks???

And several people have provided you with the answer...why do you keep asking the question??? I know the answer, but would love to hear it from you...

[Baldy]

Nice retort. Can't have background checks for gun owners, but those seeking financial help are a menace to society.

Much of what you say isn't worth a retort, just facepalms, pity, and empathetic embarrassment.

[D1B]

Nice retort. Can't have background checks for gun owners, but those seeking financial help are a menace to society.

Much of what you say isn't worth a retort, just facepalms, pity, and empathetic embarrassment.

Baldy's kids



Yep, this fucker shouldn't be inconvenienced with a background check.



Conk douchebag shortly before ejaculation

[CAA Flagship]

TYPICAL EXCUSE

It isn't an excuse, i'm not black. Then again, it's a word. I don't believe in bad words.

You clearly don't understand my people.

[grizzaholic]

It isn't an excuse, i'm not black. Then again, it's a word. I don't believe in bad words.

You clearly don't understand my people.

Guidos? The spray tan crowd? Canadians?

[CAA Flagship]

You clearly don't understand my people.

Guidos? The spray tan crowd? Canadians?

Big dick-ed.

[AZGrizFan]

I'm not a gun owner but I don't think it's so much about the background checks themselves but what they could lead to (... registry of gun owners ... eventual confiscation). I don't think most gun owners are opposed to steps that help keep guns out of the hands of criminals and the mentally unstable but they don't want their rights infringed upon in the process. Enforce the laws already on the books, find a way to eliminate straw purchasers and take better care of the mentally ill.

And it's not about those seeking financial help being a menace to society. Many working Americans have to pass drug tests in order to be hired and/or to maintain employment. Why is it wrong to expect it of those who are receiving financial assistance for being un or underemployed? If you are taking drugs, it could impact your job search, your ability to be hired or your focus on training that makes you more employable. If the government is giving you assistance it has a vested interest in making sure that you are able to make the most of that assistance. Requiring drug testing as a pre-condition of that assistance is not unreasonable.

Why is it so wrong for those purchasing extremely deadly weapons to be subject to a background check?

Let's see if this is clear enough for you: because it's none of the government's fucking business what I buy when that purchase is protected by an amendment to our fucking constitution.

[AZGrizFan]

One thing I really want to understand. Why do Pubs oppose back ground checks for gun control, but are 100% in favor for drug checks for welfare recipients?

I like how he keeps his emotions under check.

[BDKJMU]

Your truck cant defend you from a tyrannical government and its not guaranteed by an amendment in the constitution.

Can't one argue that under the Necessary and Proper Clause, passing these laws are not only legal, but vital to protect the population? Surely you can agree that the circumstances facing an 18th Century colonist is vastly different then yours today. Surely we should understand that we are living in a different time and that our laws should reflect change. I don't want to lose the 2nd Amendment and I doubt we will. Anyway, a law that strengthens background checks doesn't take away your right to own a gun.

I don't hear anyone complaining about the 2nd Amendment not being a right for convicted felons, those convicted of domestic violence and dishonorably discharged veterans. (Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code).

Don't flame away at me. I'm playing devils advocate.

Spoiler: show

* Note that in Title 18, people with mental defects aren't allowed.

There were plenty of people that complained about that one, especially since the Lautenberg amendment was retroactive when it passed in 1996. You could have been convicted of a MISDEMEANOR DV in the 80s, 70s, 60s, or 50s, otherwise been a law abiding citizen, lawfully possessing firearms, and as soon as that bill was passed, you could no longer legally possess those firearms that you had legally possessed for years, and you could no longer purchase firearms. And I believe if 1 person in the household had a misdemeanor DV conviction, there could be no firearms in the house.

[AZGrizFan]

Your truck cant defend you from a tyrannical government and its not guaranteed by an amendment in the constitution.

Can't one argue that under the Necessary and Proper Clause, passing these laws are not only legal, but vital to protect the population? Surely you can agree that the circumstances facing an 18th Century colonist is vastly different then yours today. Surely we should understand that we are living in a different time and that our laws should reflect change. I don't want to lose the 2nd Amendment and I doubt we will. Anyway, a law that strengthens background checks doesn't take away your right to own a gun.

I don't hear anyone complaining about the 2nd Amendment not being a right for convicted felons, those convicted of domestic violence and dishonorably discharged veterans. (Chapter 44 of Title 18 of the United States Code).

Don't flame away at me. I'm playing devils advocate.

Spoiler: show

* Note that in Title 18, people with mental defects aren't allowed.

Agreed. 18th century colonists didn't have to worry about a socialist, tyrannical government wanting them to register their guns and know every stinking thing about them. They had it fucking EASY.