A Senate in the Gun Lobby?????s Grip

[_subgenius]

...(snip)...guns are dangerous weapons whose primary function is to hurt or kill people. ...

to be fair, even our government agrees that some people need to be hurt or killed....guns are an efficient method to satisfy that need.

[_Kevin Graham]

I don't have a problem with making guns harder to get, so if you were hoping I could help you out with that, I can't .

So does that mean you supported the proposed legislation?

This article does a pretty good job of explaining the logistics of what happened

I'm not asking you about the "logistics" of what happened. I'm asking you or any other self-professing Conservative to provide a coherent argument against the Bill. The entire right Wing is ecstatic that it didn't pass. My question is simple. Why? What is it such bad thing to do background checks? So far everyone in this thread has avoided the question. Your link doesn't answer this question.

Darth, I have no earthly idea why you're throwing so many irrelevant questions my way. Your comment "Since you believe that the individual right to possess a firearm is a fraud perpetrated by the NRA" is not something I have said. I can't even fathom how you got that from anything I've written.

The NRA lied about the Bill in order to scare people away from it. It also used strong arm politics to get its way. The majority of Americans want background checks, and in fact so did the NRA, once upon a time. But they flipped their position, and now they are willing to fall on their sword to see that it doesn't happen. I have simply asked someone to provide an argument that would justify shooting down this Bill.

Your diatribe of questions are dealing with a straw man that has no interest to me. On the legal side, there was a Gun related Bill passed in 1968 that made it illegal for illegal immigrants, convicted criminals, and the mentally ill to own firearms. Why make a law that cannot ever be reasonably enforced? If we cannot provide background checks on those purchasing firearms, then what's the point of the law?

P.S. I'm in favor of making it harder for felons and people with dangerous psychological conditions to buy firearms.

So does this mean you supported the Bill?

[_Kevin Graham]

[_Kevin Graham]

At least some NRA supporters are coming to their senses on this one.

WASHINGTON -- Adolphus Busch IV, heir to the Busch family brewing fortune, resigned his lifetime membership in the National Rifle Association on Thursday, writing in a letter to NRA President David Keene, "I fail to see how the NRA can disregard the overwhelming will of its members who see background checks as reasonable."

The resignation, first reported by KSDK, came a day after the Senate rejected a series of amendments to a gun control bill, including a bipartisan deal to expand background checks for gun sales. The NRA had vigorously opposed all those measures.

"The NRA I see today has undermined the values upon which it was established," wrote Busch. "Your current strategic focus clearly places priority on the needs of gun and ammunition manufacturers while disregarding the opinions of your 4 million individual members."

Reached for comment on Busch's resignation, NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam told The Huffington Post, "We disagree with his characterization, but we wish him all the best."

Busch joined the pro-gun organization in 1975 and has spoken before of his love of hunting. But the NRA has moved in a direction that Busch would not follow. "One only has to look at the makeup of the 75-member board of directors, dominated by manufacturing interests, to confirm my point. The NRA appears to have evolved into the lobby for gun and ammunition manufacturers rather than gun owners," he wrote.

Busch told Keene, "It disturbs me greatly to see this rigid new direction of the NRA." He singled out the gun lobby's reversal of its 1999 position in favor of universal background checks, as well as its opposition to an assault weapons ban and a ban on high-capacity magazines. "I am simply unable to comprehend how assault weapons and large capacity magazines have a role in your vision," he wrote.

"Was it not the NRA position to support background checks when Mr. LaPierre himself stated in 1999 that NRA saw checks as 'reasonable'?" Busch wrote, referring to NRA CEO Wayne LaPierre's testimony at a Senate Judiciary Committee hearing in the wake of the 1999 Columbine High School shooting.

At that time, LaPierre said the NRA believed that universal background checks were a "reasonable" choice. The group even took out ads in major newspapers that read, "We believe it's reasonable to provide for instant background checks at gun shows, just like gun stores and pawn shops."

One week after that hearing, LaPierre rolled out the same argument that he would use 14 years later to attack President Barack Obama's gun safety proposals -- namely, that until the government prosecutes more background check violations, there is no point in expanding them.

[_cinepro]

So does that mean you supported the proposed legislation?

Yes, I support the legislation.

I'm not asking you about the "logistics" of what happened. I'm asking you or any other self-professing Conservative to provide a coherent argument against the Bill. The entire right Wing is ecstatic that it didn't pass. My question is simple. Why?

If you think "the entire right Wing is ecstatic", then I don't blame you for being frustrated. I would expect anyone with such an outlook on politics to frequently feel frustrated about such things.

[Guest]

After successfully defending the Second Amendment and the future possibility of gun roundups (which have happened historically exposing today's Liberals and Democrats as Regressives), the next thing on our plate is the the sinking of the latest faux immigration bill. Rubio has exposed himself as a RINO.

Yes, I support the legislation.

The Church doesn't even support it according to what they were told and ended up supporting before the bill came out. The actual bill turned out to be significantly different than advertised which is what I predicted when liberals crowed about the supposed Church's support.

[_Kevin Graham]

If you think "the entire right Wing is ecstatic", then I don't blame you for being frustrated. I would expect anyone with such an outlook on politics to frequently feel frustrated about such things.

Is my outlook not reality? From every corner of the party all I see are people gloating about the Bill's failure to pass. From every corner of the Right Wing Media as well, that's all I see. You're the only Conservative I know who has said he supports what the Bill tried to do. Darth may be the second, assuming he's a self-professing Conservative (I don't know that he is).

[_3sheets2thewind]

Kevin,

How about you drop your irrational emotionalism, and articulate whether the failed covered ONLY background checks.

Take your lips off Obamas bunghole and stop assuming that that the billed failed SOLELY and ONLY because of background checks.


Aslo, the Supreme Four of the United States has and does support individual right to firearms.

[_cinepro]

If you think "the entire right Wing is ecstatic", then I don't blame you for being frustrated. I would expect anyone with such an outlook on politics to frequently feel frustrated about such things.

Is my outlook not reality? From every corner of the party all I see are people gloating about the Bill's failure to pass. From every corner of the Right Wing Media as well, that's all I see. You're the only Conservative I know who has said he supports what the Bill tried to do. Darth may be the second, assuming he's a self-professing Conservative (I don't know that he is).

I don't spend a lot of time reading the Congressional Record, so correct me if I'm wrong, but it looks like the GOP introduced an amendment to the original bill (S 649) called the "Grassley Amendment".

http://projects.washingtonpost.com/cong ... /votes/98/

43 Republicans and 9 Democrats voted for it, but it didn't pass.

It looks like this introduced clarification and changes to the original bill, so I would suspect that by reviewing the amendment you could see exactly what the Republican senators were objecting to:

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/C?r ... r113699chi

Or to ask another question, what was up with those Democrat senators? What is their problem that they couldn't vote for this bill!? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!

[_Kevin Graham]

Kevin,

How about you drop your irrational emotionalism, and articulate whether the failed covered ONLY background checks.

Take your lips off Obamas bunghole and stop assuming that that the billed failed SOLELY and ONLY because of background checks.


Aslo, the Supreme Four of the United States has and does support individual right to firearms.

Oh, so the village idiots decide to come crawling out of the woodwork. Your last remark makes no sense and has absolutely nothing to do with anything we're discussing. So why don't you go ahead and articulate for us exactly why these folks rejected the Bill? You suggest it wasn't because they opposed background checks? OK, so what was it then? I've been asking someone to make sense of this all along and no one has stepped up to the plate. Why don't you guys start producing instead of throwing me hyperlinks and assertions.