It would be a substitute for the main bill, and wouldn’t included expanded background checks like the amendment proposed by Democratic U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Republican U.S. Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania. That proposal isn’t a good one because it would lead to a national gun registry, Grassley said.
But this is horse crap because, as Obama already outlined, the proposed Bill would outlaw a national registry. I know the Right Wing Media hawks are crying "liar liar" on this one, but politifact has already tackled the issue and concluded that what Obama said was in fact 100% true.
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.
Pahoran, please stop avoiding the issue and trying to deflect.
What was to total text of amendment? And why Democrats reject it as well.
cinepro wrote: 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".
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:
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!!
Cinepro, the amendment turned out to be an entirely different Bill altogether as the original's primary purpose was to enforce existing laws by requiring back ground checks, and the amendment removed that requirement completely. You seem to be thinking that maybe they objected to "something else," and in reality have no problem with background checks. Well, then you need to support that theory with evidence.
Everything I've read on this tells me the amendment was nothing more than a reworked Bill designed by the NRA. When places like ammoland.com is supporting it, you know it can't be similar to the original. The justification for the amendment is one of myth. Again, it is assumption driven based on no facts.
The position is simply:
"Oh, the Left wants background checks, which must mean the precious "rights" of "law abiding" citizens will be infringed. Somehow. We can't say how. We just know it must be true, because the NRA says so."
Pahoran, please stop avoiding the issue and trying to deflect.
No, comments like: "the Supreme Four of the United States has and does support individual right to firearms." That's deflecting and avoiding the subject. You're like a child who wanders into a discussion he knows nothing about and just starts spouting absurd rhetoric.
What was to total text of amendment?
You mean you haven't read it, and you had the audacity to suggest there were other details in the text that caused its failure to pass? How exactly is that my problem?
And why Democrats reject it as well.
Why don't you start paying attention to what has already been said. I already pointed out that politicians on both sides have fallen prey to the NRA's bullying tactics. Senator Coons already admitted that the NRA scares Senators.
Bond James Bond wrote:So I guess the real question is: Are murdered people, including kids, an acceptable consequence for the rights of people to bear arms?
Topping my question for...anyone.
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07
MASH quotes I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it. I avoid church religiously. This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.
Bond James Bond wrote:So I guess the real question is: Are murdered people, including kids, an acceptable consequence for the rights of people to bear arms?
Bond James Bond wrote:So I guess the real question is: Are murdered people, including kids, an acceptable consequence for the rights of people to bear arms?
Topping my question for...anyone.
Yes. It's just the price we all have to pay so that infantile adults can play army with real weapons. I'm hoping the ban on grenades and rocket launchers will be lifted soon.
This, or any other post that I have made or will make in the future, is strictly my own opinion and consequently of little or no value.
"Faith is believing something you know ain't true" Twain.
Quasimodo wrote: Yes. It's just the price we all have to pay so that infantile adults can play army with real weapons. I'm hoping the ban on grenades and rocket launchers will be lifted soon.
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."
......
Kevin, just because some people are convinced of Obama/liberal brainwashing and lying on these issues related to the NRA and the rest of us, doesn't mean the NRA and us are actually "against" things that are reasonable.
Obama's "speech" was contemptible all the lying he did about the NRA etc. People who have to lie and pervert and misrepresent others and issues in order to get their way are not moral people, you should be ashamed.
"Socialism is Rape and Capitalism is consensual sex" - Ben Shapiro
ldsfaqs wrote:Listening to Obama simply made me sick, no different than watching Anti-mormon "Christian" "love" videos, especially the Jesus Christ/Joseph Smith one.
Almost every word out of his mouth he was utterly LYING about those who believe in freedom, including the freedom to protect life, even with guns.
Even worse still is the LIE that the "bill" was going to "help" in almost ANY way actually stop recent mass shootings. The vast majority of the Bible went to NOTHING to stop actual gun shooting especially mass shootings, and further, the small amount such as the mental health aspects of the bill was just that, "small". That's the reason the bill fell, because it was just EVIL and STUPID.
And THANK GOD for actual FREEDOM, to Lobby FOR OUR FREEDOMS!!!! As usual, liberals the Fascists they are want to take away freedom, such as the "gun lobby". They call good evil and evil good as usual, placing "blame" where the blame doesn't belong, be it guns or pro-gunners.
criminal and insane talk. I hope there really is a judgement day.
when believers want to give their claims more weight, they dress these claims up in scientific terms. When believers want to belittle atheism or secular humanism, they call it a "religion". -Beastie
yesterday's Mormon doctrine is today's Mormon folklore.-Buffalo
