E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSDisagreement over details of how universal background checks track firearm purchases in the United States has halted momentum on further legislation, dimming -- for now -- prospects that Congress will pass major new gun laws in the wake of the Newtown shootings.
Senate Democrats negotiating a bill to require all gun buyers to get a background check have abandoned discussions with GOP Sen. Tom Coburn, leaving the legislation -- at least for now -- without backing from a pro-gun Republican.
That means a key Senate committee will start discussing and voting on gun laws Thursday morning without a workable, bipartisan version of what's become the centerpiece of President Barack Obama's proposed package of new gun laws.
And it will make it harder to convince a wide swath of GOP senators that it's politically safe to back any major new requirements or restrictions on gun sales.
The blow for gun control advocates comes on a day that former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords appeared at the Safeway supermarket in Tucson, Ariz., where she was shot in the head in 2011 as she met with constituents.
"Be bold. Be courageous. Please support background checks. Thank you very much," were all the words Giffords could muster as she stood at a podium with husband Mark Kelly. Her new political action committee, Americans for Responsible Solutions, is running ads in Arizona and Iowa pushing senators to vote for expanded background checks.
Sen. Lindsey Graham holds a press briefing on Wednesday to stress the importance of keeping guns out of the hands of mentally disturbed individuals.
Coburn, who carries an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association, has been negotiating with Democratic Sens. Charles Schumer and Joe Manchin on a bill that would require all gun buyers to get a background check. Under current law, Americans only have to get a background check if they're buying a gun from a licensed dealer.
A Schumer aide on Wednesday said that lines of communication with Coburn are still open -- but that the senators can't agree on whether private gun sellers should be required to keep records of gun sales.
As a result, Schumer has started aggressively looking for other pro-gun Republicans to sponsor the legislation. Republican Sen. Mark Kirk of Illinois has already signed on; as negotiations with Coburn have continued, Schumer has shared potential compromise language with Sens. John McCain, Jeff Flake and Susan Collins.
Having an NRA A-rated senator on board would lend political cover to other Republicans to vote in favor of expanding background checks; that's why Coburn was such a promising partner in negotiations. Without him, it's unclear if another Republican would step forward -- and even Senate Democrats are wary of pushing hard on gun legislation if it wouldn't get overwhelming support.
The developments also will leave the Senate Judiciary Committee -- meeting Thursday morning to consider four gun bills -- to "mark up" and vote on an old version of the background check bill. Schumer introduced the bill in the last Congress, and the full Senate will likely never vote on the language it will include.
Senate Democratic aides say they expect the Senate to consider gun legislation on the floor during the first week in April.
At Thursday's markup, much of the Republican ire is likely to be directed at the assault weapons ban, sponsored by Sen. Dianne Feinstein. Democratic aides expect that a gun trafficking bill with bipartisan support will pass through the committee relatively quickly. Senators will also consider a school safety measure.
This story was originally published on Wed Mar 6, 2013 6:21 PM EST
Leave a Comment:
I haven't seen anything stated of how a background check would be conducted.
Who would do the checking and how? We already don't have enough money to run the post office.
Thousands of private sales are conducted everyday. Where would a private seller get the background check from and forms to fill out?
FFL dealers have to call the ATF for the background check if the check hasn't already been approved by the local sheriff. FFL forms are filled out and kept with the dealer as long as they are in business. That can be decades. Never to be seen by anyone unless an ATF agent makes a visit. (My neighbor has a home business since 1975 and only ever been visited once (with a prior warning/phone call). If they go out of business, then the completed forms and bound book is sent to ATF headquarters.
Would a private seller keep the records at their house "forever"? That's how long a real FFL dealer has to keep their records.
OMG here we go yet again ! A background check will NOT address every instance. NO one is saying that it will, however IF it reduces the amount by ONE person that should not have a weapon, that subsequently results in ONE life saved. Is it not worth it ? In regard to private sales, if two persons of legal age wish to engage in a sale of a fire arm. The seller would take all needed info. to a FFL dealer. The dealer would precess the paperwork and if the buyer passes it, the sale would go forward. If the buyer can not or will not consent to that, I am not sure about anyone else. But that would be HUGE red flag, especially if they are in a hurry to purchase the weapon. The forms for the check would most likely be posted on the Internet, hell everything else is ! LOL !
Gusotto, I would think that your neighbor has been paid only one visit by the ATF, is because he is conducting his business well within the law. I say to him "Good for you" and all those who take the responsibility of gun ownership seriously ! Did I understand you correctly, when you said that you neighbor is required to send his "Bound Book" to ATF HQ should he go out of business ? I would assume that book contains the name, address and type of weapon with serial number that every customer of his has bought over the years. So does that not mean those weapons ARE registered with ATF as Fire Arm owners ?
Yes,
What Gussoto said is correct. In fact the collection of records from out of business FFL dealers has created an amazing stash of records. By the ATF's own accounts, they have "several hundred million" records collected this way since 1968. Of course it isn't "registration", it is just a database containing records of people's names, addresses and the weapons they purchased. It is all part of their firearms tracing database.
I have heard of anonymous reports from supposed FFL dealers who have had visits from ATF who come in and copy their records. Seems to me they aren't supposed to be able to do that. I can not say if this is in anyway true or not. I suppose that an FFL dealer just might be a bit hesitant to formally report it as they could make life miserable for them. Might be complete BS, but it has been suggested that some secret portion of the Patriot Act might authorize this. If they were to be issued a National Security Letter, it would be a serious crime for them to even talk about. Can't even discuss it with a lawyer if you get one of these.
Seems to me that they have a fairly big database, but they are missing one big piece. Private sales. If they can get that information, then it is a pretty safe bet that after a few years their database will have records on guns and owners for about 95% or better of all guns out there.
The Firearms Owner's Protection Act of 1986, which also banned any post 1986 "machine guns" from being legally possessed as a class 3 weapon under the NFA, gave FFL dealers some protection against harassment. It is debatable just what owner protections this law actually did. The machine guns ban was snuck in through a "bait and switch" maneuver. That Amendment had the same number as one that was supposed to ease some restrictions on interstate sales. But the Bill that Reagan signed into law had the machine guns ban in it instead. The part of the law that bans machine guns is known as the Hughes Amendment. Look it up.
The FOPA has this clause in it though:
That is supposed to mean that they can't register guns. However, I suppose that when the lawyers pick it apart, you can find that it has loopholes. I suppose you might call it the "no registration loophole".
So although there officially is no federal registration, there in fact is a significant database that pretty much could serve the same purpose.
Here's the proof right from the ATF.
http://www.atf.gov/publications/factsheets/factsheet-national-tracing-center.html
I am not a government conspiracy nut and I am in fact a big Progressive and Obama supporter, but I do not agree with the legislation being proposed. I have listened very carefully to Obama on the topic and I don't hear him being as radical as the far left on this, I don't see him as trying to circumvent the 2nd Amendment as many on the right claim, but he would like to do something about gun violence. Nonetheless, I can't support a position that keeps so called "assault weapons" only in the hands of criminals and police. I know "assualt weapons" is a made up term that has nothing to do with the gun's capability. If you can justify that, I see no reason why you couldn't justify any semi-automatic weapon, which accounts for about 90% of everything out there. The basic idea of universal background checks sounds good until you try to write it in a Bill. If you could make it work, you pretty much need registration or at least the quasi-registration already in the hands of the ATF. To me gun ownership to provide for personal protection, is a personal right. Scalia actually got this one pretty much right for a change. I see it as no different than the rights of minorities, woman, gays, etc. I also see any form of registration of law abiding citizens as an invasion of privacy. The government has no business with that information of law abiding citizens than it does a right to register your DNA. Having everyone's DNA would be a huge help to law enforcement. Pretty hard to deny that. But they have no business with that information from law abiding citzens. (BTW, look up DNA databases while your at it. You might be surprised.)
I believe in the government we have, but I don't trust at least some politicians. The FOPA of 1986 was supposed to help protect gun owner's rights, but arguably it did more to protect the FFL dealers, who when you get right down to it, are businesses. It was a Republican Bill and Reagan signed it. I do applaud those on both sides of the aisle who see the gun issue as a personal rights issue, but I also suspect that not all those on the right are really looking out for citizens issues as much as they are looking out for a very large business and a lucrative lobby. However, I will welcome their no votes on the legislation being proposed.
All that said, you have to question the fact that the kind of things we are talking about have virtually no impact on the tragic mass shooting that started all the flurry of discussion. And you have to question why one of the proposed outcomes would just happen to fill in the big missing link on a database of guns and gun owners, that "isn't registration."
I have problems with both the far right and the far left. Both extremist wings have tried before and succeeded to sneak things into legislation that fits their agendas and it is typically disguised as something else. Or under some other pretext. Personally, I believe the far right is considerably more guilty of this, but the far left isn't exempt from it either. It is dangerous when we start playing with personal rights, especially those guaranteed in the Constitution. If you mess with the rights "just a little bit", it is still wrong. For example, women have equal rights, but some think it is OK to overrule what they can do with their bodies. I don't want to turn this into an abortion debate, but when we talk about personal rights, I just think that they should be off limits from tweaking on them. I only cite that example because it is full of back door attempts to modify it.
The only other comment I will make is that this discussion seems to be turning very nasty and very political. When you make an intelligent comment in favor of gun rights and then mess it up with nasty comments about the President or Democrats, you can be sure the value of your comment will be missed. And likewise as someone looking for reasonable, sensible regulations to help combat gun violence, don't make comments like "we should ban all guns". You should realize that as the Constitution has the 2nd Amendment in it, that kind of statement is about as offensive as saying we should bring back slavery. Name calling and extremist comments are seen as having little or no value by the side you are trying to convince to see your viewpoint.
I know this is an emotional issue, but if we at least try to stay constructive, we could all learn something from each other. I personally try hard to do that, but I've been known to slip a time or two also. I at least try to keep it in a post with little or no useful information.
that sure was a lot to write for no one to read, lol....got a lot of time on your hands I see ;)
1,
Finally a sensible comment on the subject.
Just a slight correction. The FBI conducts the NICS background checks on firearm purchases, not the ATF.
There are 3 different scenarios:
1. In most states the firearm dealers contact the FBI NICS operation center directly
2. Some states require the dealer to contact a state POC (point of contact) who then contacts NICS to conduct the background check
3. Other states require their dealers to contact the NICS operation center directly for long gun (i.e. rifle) sales & their in-state POC for handgun sales.
Though it is true that a firearm dealers bound book does need to be sent to the ATF National Tracing Center in Martinsburg, WV within 30 days if they close their business down.
Oneslaker,
You are correct. The NCIS is the FBI's system. And at least according to the law, they are supposed to "destroy" the background check "record". In theory, when they run one on you today, they have no idea if they did one on you two days ago that was approved. The date and associated record number with the FFL licensee are maintained. In reality, the can maintain an "audit log" of approved checks for up to six months for audit purposes. Denied check information is retained for 10 years to indefinitely.
A lot of people don't trust that the information regarding the check gets "destroyed" nor do they trust that the ATF doesn't maintain a registry of guns and gun owners. I know some folks who have no problem passing a background check, but prefer to buy in private transactions because they don't believe that the intent of the laws prohibiting registration, are in reality being followed. Based on what the ATF says it does, that may be a legitimate concern. Although I don't think the government is working toward some master confiscation plan, having great records that essentially serve the purpose of a registry, sure would make it easier.
I think the biggest problem about maintaining records on law abiding citizens is the potential abuse. Some records of course are necessary like those of Social Security and the IRS. The key is not allowing anything but the necessary intent of the records. Interestingly enough the BATF was originally part of IRS because their role was about collecting the taxes on classified weapons. Since restructuring associate with homeland security, they now work for the Justice Department.
Come back when there are background checks to purchase a vehicle. The drunk divers of America kill far far more than guns. This is grandstanding, not legislating.
concur
Vehicles are not manufactured to kill. Since the invention of the early guns to today's sophisticated mass killers guns have been made to kill, PERIOD. Cars were made for transportation, commerce and fun.
Unless, of course, you would need one to murder.
Yhuba,
Irrelevant. Fertilizer is not made to kill but it sure can when abused.
Cars kill many more but they are ok? Guns are made to shoot projectiles. Either can kill when misused.
At least TRY to thiink.
Actually they are, you MUST be a "Licensed" Driver to purchase a motor vehicle. Unlike pistols in some states and rifles in all. Now if ALL prospective gun owners regardless if they wish to carry or not, were mandated by law to be "Licensed". I quite sure all of you wit the "they are after my guns" would claim that your 2nd Amendment rights were being violated. Now think about this for a minute, you can pass all the laws you want. However IF gun owners are do NOT take the ownership of their weapon as a VERY serious responsibilty. By that I mean, if your weapon(s) are not under lock and key when not in use. Please get a trigger lock one for each of your weapons, you'll sleep better :)
Trigger Locks work, I know each of my weapons have one and all are locked in a "Vault".
I don't mean and it is not my intent to speak ill of the dead. However if the mother of that young man who killed those 26 people and her in CT, had secured her weapons in a "Gun Vault" and made sure that her son could not gain access. Those people would still be alive today !
Where did you find out that information?
I have seen no "Official" report from any Law Enforcement organization detailing how Lanza had her weapons stored.
I have seen some false claims in local media outlets, and yes I'm local to the area, that were all debunked in Police Interviews.
Cars were also made to drown little children in. Ask Susan Smith of South Carolina who backed her car into a pond and then blamed it on a black man.
Cars were also made to run over husbands. Ask Holly Soloman of Arizona who ran over her husband for not voting.
Cars were also made to be used as a weapon. Ask Anthony Green of California who rammed his car into a delivery truck multiple times and threatened the driver. He was charge with assault with a deadly weapon (his car).
Let it die if the Damocrats want it until they learn to compromise
Can someone...ANYONE, quote me one piece of legislation, one gun ban or one gun law or regulation that has prevented criminals using guns to commit crimes??? Anyone???
Yes, NYC. Several years back Former Mayor Rudie Giuliani passed a city wide recall back in the middle 1990's on all illegal weapons. If they were surrendered to a local PD Sta. in a plain brown bag, there would be NO questions asked. They were given 30 days if memory serves and believe it or not, weapons came in. That had a direct affect on crime in the city. He also put more Police officers on the street, which didn't hurt either.
This is all part of the plan! Read "Conspirators' Hieraracy: The Story of The Committee of 300"! More gun laws and eventually no guns! The US is the Committee of 300's biggest hurdle and eliminating the right to bear opens the gates to their agenda!!!!! It is time to wake up! All you sheep are following shepards who are wolves in disquise. The media is their main tool for keeping you sheep corralled. Fear and distractions is all they project. You all are blind Idiots!!!!!!!
the new legislation would include police officers who sell and swap their personal weapons so they can stay on the cutting edge of technology. The hold up is not related to the GOP or NRA its the millions of democrats who don't want the government tracking their personal weapon transactions.
Thank you!
No reason not to have universal background check. The technology is there, if the political will is there as well, background checks can be ran from a smart phone and be done virtually instantly.
The record keeping could be a simple 1 page documents listing the names of the buyer and seller, the background check confirmation number, the date of the transaction, the serial number of the guns and the purchase price and can be used as a receipt as well.
Buying a gun will be simple and easy - if you are law abiding citizen and difficult and dangerous if you are a criminal.
Exactly what everyone wants...
when you do a background check your leaving a trail that says such and such tried to buy a firearm. those records are then kept. that my friend is gun registration which leads to ilegal gun confiscation so im against the background checks until such a time as say they pull up on a screen everybody that has the same last 7 SS# as you do and your are never selected the person can only see you on the list and it says yes or no , if no then no sale and its over, no record created or kept. something like that would be an ok background check. But lets be real do you realy think that some crazy person that may or may not kill somebody is gonna tell their shrink about it if their shrink is required by law to tell on them?
Background check is nothing like gun registration. Background check does leave a record that such and such tried to purchase a firearm, but it does not indicate if the purchase took place, nor it shows the number and type of guns purchased.
Not to mention that a requirement can be added to delete the background records after certain period of time.
The idea that someone will try to confiscate guns is laughable. If a simple background check generates so much opposition, confiscation problem will probably trigger a revolution.
If anything a new background check system will make it easier to buy guns because will probably speed things up and not require waiting periods etc.
FFL delers have to keep their records as long as they are in business. That can be decades!
Why should a private seller be anything different?
why do you need records about whether or not such and such got permission or not. Why keep records? what is the point of keeping records forever?
AND the idea that they may try to confiscate your guns is laughable?!?!?! you are not very up to date are you. its happened more than once in our fine country. Just you tube guns confiscated during hurricane Katrina . That is almost as funny as the part about how if we go ahead and let them do background checks it will speed it up and make things nice and sweet for us. that is hilarious.
Crime investigation. How else do you prove gun ownership? You need to keep the records.
The Katrina confiscation as disturbing as it was, was very limited. They confiscated about 1000 guns and it lasted 2 weeks before a judge shut it down.
The idea of large scale confiscation is indeed laughable.
Laughable indeed...
Large scale as in maybe the size of NY State?
Or California?
You need to educate yourself on the new New York Firearms laws.
Then take a look at the legislation Feinstein is trying to push in CA.
You can also look at some of the proposals on the table in Connecticut.
Your anti-gun "catch phrase" is old and outdated.
Please pass that on to your ilk.
Not so laughable afterall, huh?
back round checks would not have helped her nut job checks might have but then we would not have anyone left in Washington d.c.
When it comes to knee jerk gun legislation snags are good.
Seems like the paid democratic brown-shirters got out to this site first once again!!!! Seems like the 80% pro democratic twitters have this board tied up too!!!!!! You think maybe that NBC and all the other left wing sites get the word out to the PAID lefties which are hired to overwhelm normal debates with their pre-edited speeches!!! Well, da!!!!!!!!!!!!
But at least the senate is coming to it's senses and that some stupid bill that will ban weapons that are no more damgerous than other weapons, and a lot of the time LESS dangerous than others, will go down in flames!!!!!!!!! Yes the assault rifle which fires no faster than most other rifles, has less sighting ability and killing distance than all sniper rifles, has no faster shooting ability and less punch than a semi-automatic shotgun, but looks sleak so it MUST be more dangerous and thus banned!
What a group of smart lefties came up with this horse manure bill!!!!!!!!
And how about that CO legislature bovine, who had the audascity to tell that young coed that she should have considered herself lucky that she only got raped on the college grounds and that if the CO law had said she could haved carried her pistol on the campus that her attacker would have taken HER weapon and killed HER!!!
Well miss bovine faced beech, who would have to pay someone to rape you, and would blind any man who saw you naked, there are thousands of cases a year where someone, especially women, who defend themselves with pistols!!!!!! And dumbarse, the attacker already had a pistol, even though your group of legislatures demanded that HE could not have a pistol, and could have killed HER at anytime since she was totally defenseless---just like you like it!
And the next women, who again in your state was totally defenseless, WAS MURDERED by this thug!!!! So why wasn't SHE allowed to have a pistol since she was already doomed without one!!!!!!
You gun haters really don't mind if women get raped, children get raped NOR that anyone gets murdered as long as youu dumb arsed thinking is law!!!!!!! You are always right so to hell with the consiquenses of your actions!!!!!!!
This legislature with the bovine face, body and brain had this, (aw isn't to bad you got raped, te he he - I really don't mind that at all attitude, while she was chastizing the rape victum for wanting one of those awful things whether they'd kept you from getting raped or murdered!!!
Should CO, whose is trying to pass a bill to sue gun manufactures, who sell a legal products, when a viscius criminal commits a crime!!!!! Well how about sueing legislatures and states who ban weapons and then a viscius criminal commits a crime, while using a pistol, in that state???????
If a state blocks the second admendment and then has a crime commited with a gun that state should be liable for the damages, including jail time if the weapons used commit violent crimes!!!!!!!!!
And Joe biden should be sued and jailed for handing out defense tactics to the general public which get the person jail time!!!!!! A VA man used Biden's fire a double barrel shotgun and scare the bad guys away!!! The person did that and got charged for unsafe use of a firearm!!!!!!!!
HA!
The NRA is kicking the ass of the sperm-swallowing sheep again!
I have bought and sold lots of guns over the last 40 years, mostly shotgun and deer rifles. I think it would be a real cluster fluck if private owners had to make checks and keep records. At that point we wouldn't need the federally licensed gun dealers.
You keep tax records, birth records, credit card records, bank records, auto transaction records etc. Tell me brutish cry baby, will keeping a record of who bought one of your guns that may end up in a murder, mugging, grand theft or in the hands of a terrorist keep you from drinking your six pack?
Excuses excuses...for a bunch of brave men, you surely act like little girls when it comes to use common sense.
You can now accept credit card with your cell phone. It takes 1 minute for the transaction to clear.
It could be the same with the background check - you enter the buyers information and get a confirmation number if approved.
The record keeping can be satisfied with a simple one page form that lists the names of the buyer and the seller, the background confirmation number, the types of guns and serial numbers and the amount paid.
Something like that would take 5 minutes to fill out...
Libertarian,
And becomes gun registration. No way.
why ? why keep track that i tried to buy a gun if i was aproved? why do you or anyone else need to know that i tried to and was approved to purchase a firearm if that fire arm does not need to be registered?
Its actually simple. don't stop private gun sales, just have all gun sales completed through a gun dealer.
That way there is a background check, the dealer holds the weapon until background clears and state keeps the records.
A possibility but there will be a charge. Nobody does it for free.
I have always been for background checks and mandatory training, but seeing what was done in New York and what is proposed in Congress, I have to conclude that the proposed legislation is not about making us safer but disarming the population. Today Eric Holder had to be pressured to say that drone strikes on Americans within our borders that posed no threat to the safety of anyone were a violation of our laws. That should have been an instant answer affirming citizens rights to due process, but it wasn't and he had to be pushed to finally say it. I think based on his testimony before Congress that we are headed for dark times and I believe now that the Justice Department believes it is ok to kill Americans without due process or any kind of review under any circumstances.
Politicians are like smoking weed and eating all the cookies out of the cookie jar and wounder what the @!$%# happened to the cookies in the cookie jar. Simple Gun Control Basics don't @!$%# with the honest guy
Well, slant the story a bit and leave out details. Anti-freedom liberals want the "Background checks" to be used as a record keeping data base. (Hitler did this) NOT expanding the current check which requires that your info is NOT collected or kept by the gov. Simple, ounce background is approved by FBI for purchase, it is then deleted after 72 hours to keep from registration, which history shows leads to confiscation.Not 1 part of any current Democrat plan makes persons safer or toughens sentences against criminals.
Wow Trent, where did you ever get your misinformation ? First off "Liberals" are NOT anti-freedom. It was a group of "Liberals" back in 1776 in PA, that wanted to break from the parent stem. I think they just might take offence at you calling them "Anti-Freedom".
Back Ground Check Information is NOT kept by the Government. Some states not sure which, do depict the weapon(s) you carry (concealed) on the back of the permit. If you purchase your weapon from a FFL Dealer, they are required by law to keep a book of every weapon they sell. Another person who posts to this blog, stated that when a FFL dealer goes out of business they are required to send that book to ATF HQ. The ATF also inspects Dealers to ensure that they are in compliance of present Federal Law.
They haven't gotten to it yet, because they are so caught up with the other side of the isle not liking this or that. So give it time, am pretty sure it will get ironed out.
Typical cowardly @!$%#ing republican
they don"t care about criminals with guns!!!!! they are focused at law biding citizens having a means to stop them!!!!!
there are hundreds of things such as dwi's that kill more per year than guns!!!!! so why is there no focus by congress on any of these other issues?
because drinking and driving is not a threat to overthrowing an oppressive government!!!!!
why are so many so blind to this? because the media has trained you with fear!!!!! it is time to wake the phuck up!!!!!
What do you know about oppressive government you prissy bigot
@ Yhbua I'll tell what I know about oppressive gov. It has a hell of less chance, happening here in the U.S.A. because of the Second Amendment. Hooligan ,has a point why are they so focused on gun control? When they have far more pressing issues to address. The media is biased, they either left supporting or right and it shows.
Just another Lucy, pulling the ball away, just before it's time for Charlie to kick it...and it was the party of Lucy's that pulled away, at the last second. No American should act surprised. It is the trademark of the Republican Lucy Party to be for something, unless President Obama decides to agree with them, at which point all bets are off.
Yes, it's the kind of folks they are, without honor, integrity, and core values......Republicans.
@jack-295117 You are completely right ,how dare the republicans walk away from something, they don't support. Wow kiss my, without honor, intergrity, and core values, gun nut, NRA , illuminati Republican A$$!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Some one reading your post might think that every piece of new legislation is being "snagged".
Fortunately, there are some pieces of the legislation that are moving forward with Bi-Partisan support.
Looks like YOU are the one without Honor and Integrity.
How about "OBAMA" control? This "Street Scum"? is clearly out of control!! He cries "Doesn't Gabby deserve a vote!" Well,how about the MILLIONS of gun owners? Don't they deserve MANY votes? IMPEACH this Muslim Terrorist!!
If he wanted, he could drone your sorry racist ass out of the solar system. What vote do you need little worm? You and your ilk have pushed too far with your gun sexual fantasy...get a woman or suck on a gun barrel until it ejaculates gun powder in your mouth in a huge BANG!
Idiot!!!!!
Yhbua not k.aluha
HOOLI your name says it all. Time for you to embrace your lovely bullets with ALL your Heart, even better, let them penetrate it , they would feel welcome at home
Yhbuba- Guns are now racist and sexual? Whatever turns you on.
Yhbua,
Your not an idiot and what makes this counrty great is we can voice our opinions no matter what feelings we might hurt! May we never lose those rights!!!!!
But without tools and a means for us to keep that from happening it will be inevitable. Histroy has shown this and history repeats.
Good luck to you and many great post!
I have got one thing to say to you "SHUT YOUR IGNORANT STUPID MOUTH" if you knew anything about the Pres. you would know that he is NOT a "Muslim". Why don't you take your racist ignorant butt out and get lost on the nearest freeway.
Boo -hoo. Fight for the Bill of Rights: 2013
Americans 1 Progressives 0
If we are going to require ID's and background checks for a Constitutional Right, WE MUST HAVE THESE for all ourrights...
1. All Abortions must wait for a through background check. Id's must be verified with parents.
2. All Voting MUST have the use the same database.
3. All Illegals must use this database.
4. All Religious organizations must be registered as well.
5. All Children attending school must be vetted. Any illegals found must be deported at once.
Sorry, but this is the type of police state the democrats seem to want... Restricting our CONSTITUTIONAL rights is illegal. Those that propose these laws, regulations and executive orders are clearly Traitors, plain and simple.
Patriots recognize the CONSTITUTION is the supreme law of the land. We must ignore any and all treasonous attempts to subvert the Constitution. Not since the democrats began the civil war has such high treason been seen. Abe Lincoln would know how to deal with such traitors...
We know who runs the GOP in the Senate>>>the Tea Party and their Daddy Big Bucks aka NRA. Align yourselves with the merchants of death at your own risk.
Idiot!!!!!
Merchants of Death ???OH,you mean Obama and Holder who want to use Drones to kill American Citizens here on American Soil.
HEY HEY HEY! POTUS Barry won a Nobel Peace Prize...Don't you forget iZZZzZzzzzz...zz.z.zzzzzz..zzzz.
I see Alaska skank is at it again . get off the computor , i am sure your mom needs it to find more customers off of craiglist . lol
It seems strange that the NRA will not support laws getting background checks and gun registrations for all sales and transfers mandatory. If they are willing to have dealers abide by these rules, wouldn't it make sense for all gun transfers to have to provide the same information. What is the problem? It would treat everyone equal and would go a long way to stop the insane from obtaining guns and tracking guns that have been involved in murders and other shootings. Why not do the right thing and support these measures. It would do nothing to infringe upon the sane, law abiding people from obtaining weapons.
If it's up to them, a gun will be handed to every newborn within 5 minutes of the umbilical cord being cut.
They have no common sense what so ever.
@ liberal_libertarian If it was up to you what?? What do u propose then? You prefer to be defenseless right? Cool that's your life but I prefer to defend myself and my life with whatever means necessary. So we disagree? Well, lets agree to disagree ,you be defenseless, I'll keep my weapon and you'll quit coming after the second amendment. More guns in law abiding citizens hands then criminals and mentally I'll hands, does equal safer environment. Are you going to go attack someone ,when they possibly have a gun and if you do then "that's all she wrote"?Funny, that does seem to make sense.