Sell Out Republicans

[rdhood]

I don't understand why anyone would want to remove the background checks

Okay, I'll tell you why I want to remove background checks: because they are untrustworthy. I was erroneously denied because a clerk in a town of less than 5000 people incorrectly marked my record with a felony when they were transferring their files to digital media in the early 1990s.. It took me a year and the good will of that same town's police department to clear it up. Had they not voluntarily agreed to help me (after THEY made the mistake), it would have cost tens of thousands of dollars at my expense to sue the city/state to fix the problem. Since I don't have that kind of money, my 2nd amendment rights were in the hands of clerks/police chief/judge.

A citizen of the U.S.A should not lose their Constitutional rights over a clerk's mistake. A citizen should not have to hire a lawyer at his own expense to fix mistakes made by the government. There should be a clear, government funded path to restore rights that were removed due to the governments own mistakes.

YOU might think its is perfectly okay to label YOU a FELON, and to have your rights removed simply to prevent ~92 real disallowed persons for getting a hold of gun (one source's estimate of false positives is about 7%).

I did not think it was perfectly okay for the government to label me a FELON and remove my rights.

 

[RX-178]

I would like to point out, that the 'general public' is not the litmus test for Constitutionally guaranteed rights.

The 'general public' does not grant nor are they required to approve of your right to free speech. They do not grant or approve the right to worship as you choose. They do not grant or approve the right of speedy trial without the threat of double jeopardy.

In fact the Constitution recognizes that these rights are granted to people by their creator, God. This isn't meant to respect any form of religion over another, this is merely a statement that insofar as inalienable rights, no group, nation, state, individual, or political party that falls short of literally being God can take them away.

The general public is a far cry from that.

I'll also point out that you don't need a background check to check out a library book, or to go to Church, or to write blog posts, or to post on THR, you don't need to submit to a background check before refusing to incriminate yourself, and you don't need to submit to a background check before refusing to allow troops to live in your home.

So in light of that, I will stand firm on this position, you do not need to submit to a background check to keep and bear arms.

If a person with a license to trade in firearms, and engage in interstate commerce for the purpose of profit, now THAT person may be required to perform a background check on a customer before he can perform a SALE. I may personally disagree with it, but it barely squeaks by as not being a direct 2nd Amendment issue.

Requiring everyone to submit to a background check before OWNING a gun on the other hand is directly infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.

 

[Gaucho Gringo]

I wrote my two Senators and my Representative from Oregon expressing my feelings that if voted for any gun bills, I would never vote for another Democrat for as long as I live. There replies basically said good riddance. I am changing my voter registration to Independent.

 

[Old Fuff]

I think you probably did right, but keep in mind that as a registered Democrat you can vote in their primaries. This presents a chance to dump the legislators-in-question before they get a chance to run again.

Nowhere is it written that you have to "vote Democrat" in an election just because you are registered as such.

 

[NC-Mike]

Requiring everyone to submit to a background check before OWNING a gun on the other hand is directly infringing on their right to keep and bear arms.

But remember, Heller said otherwise. Heller said it was OK to restrict the second amendment and as we all know, it is already restricted quite heavily.

I mentioned before, hopefully we get a couple SCOTUS cases and nail down exactly what restrictions the government can and can not place on the SA. Right now, that has not been decided.

 

[NC-Mike]

I wrote my two Senators and my Representative from Oregon expressing my feelings that if voted for any gun bills, I would never vote for another Democrat for as long as I live

I certainly respect your right to your position, even if I find it extreme.

One point I have tried to convey is we have a pretty solid pro-gun congress right now and I would hate to see that change because some of our lawmakers are going to vote to expand background checks.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but to me, that brings the old adage of "cutting off your nose, to spite your face" into play.

 

[NC-Mike]

Okay, I'll tell you why I want to remove background checks: because they are untrustworthy. I was erroneously denied because a clerk in a town of less than 5000 people incorrectly marked my record with a felony when they were transferring their files to digital media in the early 1990s.. It took me a year and the good will of that same town's police department to clear it up. Had they not voluntarily agreed to help me (after THEY made the mistake), it would have cost tens of thousands of dollars at my expense to sue the city/state to fix the problem. Since I don't have that kind of money, my 2nd amendment rights were in the hands of clerks/police chief/judge.

That's a really good point and it has been given a lot of consideration and there is an appeal process in place that should not require a lawyer, unfortunately it will still be a pain the rear but it is something that you obviously want to get corrected right away because it could cause you other grief as well.

 

[rdhood]

That's a really good point and it has been given a lot of consideration and there is an appeal process in place that should not require a lawyer, unfortunately it will still be a pain the rear but it is something that you obviously want to get corrected right away because it could cause you other grief as well.

Wrong. The appeals process is an unfunded sham. You know what the appeals process is? Its "I appeal", where they come back in six months and say, "yes, its you. Now go and fix it if you want your rights".

It is obvious that a heckuvalot of people in THR have never dealt with this. Until YOU have incorrectly been branded a FELON, you speak from ignorance, and your opinions (to me) are worthless. Until your 2nd amendment rights have been erroneously suspended, your opinions advocating for UBC sound hollow and stupid.

 

[HoosierQ]

Gun control has only relatively recently become even remotely partisan. Back in the 60's and 70's, when the South was firmly Democratic, the thing was completely non-partisan. In fact, in those days, southern Democrats were probably the group most associate with RKBA championing. Republicans then seen as effete city dwellers and rich folks that looked down upon the gun owning public as either rubes or criminals.

Since the Reagan administration, somehow, the thing began to trend...a little bit...along party lines.

So, to answer the OP question, it think any politician, regardless of party, should be tossed out when possible.

The Republicans are not our friends and the Democrats are not our enemies...again, despite some trending in that direction. Antis are antis regardless of what side of the aisle they sit on in Washington.

 

[Old Fuff]

Bloomberg is reporting this morning that Sen. Reed will reverse his previous position and vote in favor of an AWB/Magazine limit ban. Quotes him as saying:

Assault weapons have one purpose and one purpose only, to kill a large number of people really quick,” Reid said on the Senate floor. “This goes well beyond the purpose of self- defense.

:banghead:

 

[waterhouse]

Bloomberg is reporting this morning that Sen. Reed will reverse his previous position and vote in favor of an AWB/Magazine limit ban.

seems true, article here:


http://dailycaller.com/2013/04/17/reid-announces-support-for-assault-weapon-ban/

 

[dalepres]

The only reason for voting for ending the filibuster while intending to vote no on the bill is so that you can be sure the bill passes while you get to cast a no vote. We didn't need an up or down vote on the bill to know which senators support gun control. We know for certain that 68 senators, including 16 Republicans, voted in support of gun control. We know all we need to know.

 

[rpchevy02]

I remember some time ago picking up my NRA magazine,only to see Wayne slappin Sen Reid on the back for securing federal funds for a gun range. I thought WTH????

 

[mtrmn]

Has anybody else noticed that the 2 Republican senators who received ricin in the mail also voted with the Democrats to move forward on the background check debate? (Obama also received ricin)

I fully expect them to accuse the NRA and "extremist right wing gun nuts" for the letters containing ricin.

 

[xfyrfiter]

Harry Reid and John McCain are both turncoats imo. They both say just what they think their listener at the time wants to hear.

 

[NC-Mike]

Well, even the "limited amendment" on expanded background checks did not pass 60 votes and that amendment even excepted private sales!

So what happened after Sandy Hook?

NOTHING... They couldn't even

So maybe we can be thankful for the congress we have and hopefully the Senators that voted no are doing as the NRA says and working toward more effective solutions.



Personally, I agree with McCain's take: "I don't understand it," McCain said on CBS' "Face the Nation" Sunday. "The purpose of the United States Senate is to debate and to vote and to let the people know where we stand."

McCain said he would encourage Republicans to drop their threat of a filibuster.

"I would not only encourage it, I don’t understand it. What are we afraid of?" he said, noting that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has said he will allow amendments to be introduced to any bill.

"Why not take it up and amend it and debate? The American people would profit from it. I do not understand why United States Senators want to block debate when the Leader has said we can have amendments."

Watch McCain's comments below, via CBS:

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/gun-...d-paul-ted-cruz-john-mccain-nra#ixzz2Qm7ORJ3b

 

[NC-Mike]

I didn't see this coming. I thought the expanded checks would pass easily, I was wrong but no, I'm not sorry about that, I'm a little awestruck.

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Harry Reid is a cipher in my book. Even the votes that look plainly anti-gun, such as the AWB and magazine ban, served the purpose of blocking those measures from reconsideration. On the other hand, Reid's No vote on background checks keeps that issue alive, even though it looks pro-2A.

And Reid's original schedule of votes was not favorable for grabbers either. I would classify Reid as a very savvy politician who knows how to work both sides of the aisle.

 

[JRH6856]

Harry Reid is a cipher in my book. Even the votes that look plainly anti-gun, such as the AWB and magazine ban, served the purpose of blocking those measures from reconsideration. On the other hand, Reid's No vote on background checks keeps that issue alive, even though it looks pro-2A.

And Reid's original schedule of votes was not favorable for grabbers either. I would classify Reid as a very savvy politician who knows how to work both sides of the aisle.

The better one knows the Senate rules and how the Senate works, the better one can play the political game. Those who play the game well control a lot of power and can get things done. Those who don't spend a lot of time doing this: :banghead: and accomplishing nothing.

 

[phil dirt]

John "hands across the aisle" McCain

 

[HighExpert]

Has anyone considered that congress is basically irrelevant as far as crime prevention is concerned. They can pass all the laws they want and it will still not stop a criminal from doing his thing. They can background check their little hearts out and not stop a criminal from stealing a gun. They can ban "assault weapons and large capacity mags" and not stop a criminal from using them. It must be really sapping to one's manhood or womanhood to realize you are totally helpless to stop any of these crimes. The title of all their legislative endeavors should be "More B.S.". I was told years ago that locks keep honest people honest and laws restrict only the law abiding in our populace. I have started following a new line of retort when challenged about my views on firearms. I merely ask the antigun nut the following..Can I have your name and address? When they ask for what I say I want to put them on the list...the list of those who are not to be protected with anyone's guns since they have a strong dislike of guns. We don't want to offend them by using our guns for their benefit. Funny, I have had no takers.

 

[Highland Ranger]

Desite the theater, the goal of the elites is to outlaw guns in the hands of private citizens.

"Elites" includes most politicians of any flavor.