Looks like Reid doesn't have the votes...

[CosmicCowboy]

Gun Fellators WIN!

SUCK IT , Boutons!

[boutons_deux]

go suck yourself, asshole

[boutons_deux]

Seeking Gun or Selling One, Web Is a Land of Few Rules

The want ads posted by the anonymous buyer on Armslist.com, a sprawling free classified ads Web site for guns, telegraphed urgency.

Feb. 20: "Got 250 cash for a good handgun something.reliable."

Feb. 27: "I got 200 250 cashlooking for a good handgun please let me know what u got."

Feb. 28: "Looking to buy some 9 mm ammo and not at a crazy price."

The intentions and background of the prospective buyer were hidden, as is customary on such sites. The person posting these ads, however, left a phone (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.xml?f=24#) number, enabling The New York Times to trace them to their source: Omar Roman-Martinez, 29, of Colorado Springs, who has a pair of felony convictions for burglary and another for motor vehicle theft, as well as a misdemeanor domestic violence conviction - all of which bar him from having guns. Yet he was so determined he even offered to trade a tablet computer or a vintage Pepsi machine for firearms.

When questioned in a telephone interview, Mr. Roman-Martinez said he ultimately decided not to buy a weapon. He also insisted that a 9-millimeter handgun he posted for sale on the Web site last month belonged to someone else.

"I'm a felon," he said. "I can't possess firearms."

The mere fact that Mr. Roman-Martinez was seeking to buy and sell guns on Armslist underscores why extending background checks (http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.xml?f=24#) to the growing world of online sales has become a centerpiece of new gun legislation being taken up in the Senate this week. With no requirements for background checks on most private transactions, a Times examination found, Armslist and similar sites function as unregulated bazaars, where the essential anonymity of the Internet allows unlicensed sellers to advertise scores of weapons and people legally barred from gun ownership to buy them.

The bipartisan Senate compromise under consideration would require that background checks be conducted through federally licensed dealers on all Internet and gun show sales. Gun control advocates argue that such checks might have prevented shootings like that of Zina Haughton, 42, who was killed in October with two other women by her husband, Radcliffe, even though a restraining order barred him from having guns. Mr. Haughton simply contacted a private seller on Armslist and handed over $500 in a McDonald's parking lot for a .40-caliber semiautomatic pistol and three magazines.

Seeking a glimpse into the largely hidden online gun market, The Times assembled a database and analyzed several months of ads from Armslist, which has become the dominant player in the arena, and examined numerous smaller sites.

Over the past three months, The Times identified more than 170,000 gun ads on Armslist. Some were for the same guns, making it difficult to calculate just how many guns were actually for sale. Even so, with more than 20,000 ads posted every week, the number is probably in the tens of thousands.

Notably, 94 percent of the ads were posted by "private parties," who, unlike licensed dealers, are not required to conduct background checks.

Besides Mr. Roman-Martinez, the Times investigation led to Gerard Toolin, 46, of Walterboro, S.C., who is a fugitive from the Rhode Island police and has two outstanding felony warrants as well as a misdemeanor warrant. His legal status bars him from owning guns, but he was recently seeking to buy an AK-47 assault rifle on Armslist and was also trying to trade a Marlin rifle. He posted photos to his Facebook account of an AK-47 he had already purchased, along with a variety of other guns.

There was also Martin Fee, who has a domestic battery conviction in Florida and other arrests and convictions in Florida and New Jersey, including for drug possession, burglary and larceny. He was selling a Chinese SKS rifle on the classified section of another Web site, BudsGunShop.com.

The examination of Armslist raised questions about whether many sellers are essentially functioning as unlicensed firearms dealers, in contravention of federal law. The law says that people who "engage in the business" of selling firearms need to obtain a license and conduct background checks on customers. While the definition of engaging in business is vague, The Times found that more than two dozen people had posted more than 20 different guns for sale in a several-month span.

Among them was Joshua Lovejoy, 32, who since November has advertised more than 100 guns on Armslist, mostly in Canton, Ohio, ranging from AR-15 assault rifles to Glock 19 semiautomatic pistols. He once listed more than 20 guns in a single ad. He insisted in a telephone interview, however, that he had sold only a few.

Then there was Ron Metz, 49, who has advertised more than 80 guns from Anderson, S.C., since February. Mr. Metz said in an interview he had needed money, so he started selling some guns and trading for others. He also bought other guns, which he turned around and sold as well. He said he had no real idea how many he had sold, guessing that it was more than a dozen. He never keeps any records and does not do any background checks, explaining: "I can just sort of read people."

"You think I broke a law?" he asked.

'A Gun Show That Never Ends'

Armslist was the brainchild of Jonathan Gibbon and Brian Mancini, friends who attended the United States Air Force Academy and then transferred to the University of Pittsburgh.

Mr. Gibbon, who did not respond to requests for comment, said in a 2010 interview with Human Events, a conservative Web site, that he got the idea for Armslist during the summer of 2007 when he saw that the classifieds Web site Craigslist.com had decided to ban gun-related ads "because a few users cried out for it." Mr. Gibbon, who went on to law school at the University of Oklahoma, where he founded the Second Amendment Club, said he had been inspired to "create a place for law-abiding gun owners to buy and sell online without all of the hassles of auctions and shipping."

Mr. Mancini, who designed the site, recently left the company. Mr. Gibbon remains the site's owner, while also practicing law in Pennsylvania, according to his profile on LinkedIn. Armslist LLC, registered with the Oklahoma secretary of state, lists an office suite in Pittsburgh as its business address.
When asked by Human Events to describe the site, Mr. Gibbon said: "Imagine a gun show that never ends."

Gun shows have long been a source of concern for gun control advocates and law enforcement officials, because many allow unregulated sales without background checks. Web sites make such transactions far more widely available, with just a few clicks of a mouse.

A 2011 undercover investigation by the City of New York examined private party gun sellers on a range of Web sites, including Armslist, to see if they would sell guns to someone who said that they probably could not pass a background check. (Federal law bars sales to any person the seller has reason to believe is prohibited from purchasing firearms). Investigators found seventy-seven of 125 online sellers agreed to sell the weapons anyway.

Armslist posts a disclaimer on its home page, urging users to "comply with local, state, federal, and international law." But it also makes clear that the site "does not become involved in transactions between parties."

What the site does do is make it simple for anyone seeking to buy a gun without a background check, enabling users to filter gun ads in their state by ones being sold by private parties.

Federal law places one significant restriction on transactions among private parties, barring people from directly selling guns to people in other states who are not licensed firearms dealers. Licensed dealers must act as intermediaries in transactions across state lines and perform background checks. But an examination of ads on the Web site shows that illegal interstate transactions can occur.

An ad for a "new in box" Ruger rifle posted on April 1 in Indianapolis stated that if the buyer was out of state, the seller would ship to the buyer's "front door," "person to private person."

A seller on another ad, posted April 2, in Brighton, Colo., vented about repeated no-shows in his previous attempts to sell the gun, so he made clear, "No more out of state."

Many ads simply require the transactions occur "face to face." Some even provide assurances: "no questions asked" and "no paperwork."

The loose online atmosphere was evident in the case of an Arizona gun dealer, Walter Young, who pleaded guilty last week to a federal gun charge stemming from an investigation into his sale of a .50-caliber rifle, dozens of gun kits and thousands of rounds of ammunition to an anonymous buyer who contacted him on Gunbroker.com.

Mr. Young - a Tea Party activist who posted a YouTube video in February suggesting he was being persecuted for criticizing the government - told federal agents he shipped everything to an address in Texas near the Mexican border, without even knowing the identity of the recipient, according to court records. After initially lying to investigators, he admitted looking the other way in his online dealings, records show.

"Young stated there was a general 'don't ask, don't tell' policy in the gun world when it came to wanting to know why a person was purchasing a particular item, and for that reason he did not question people he sold items to," federal prosecutors said in a court filing.

Other cases have had deadly consequences.

In 2011, Dmitry Smirnov, a Canadian resident, contacted Benedict Ladera, from Kent, Wash., via Armslist, expressing interest in a Smith & Wesson .40-caliber pistol that Mr. Ladera had posted for sale.

Mr. Ladera, who had sold about 20 guns on Armslist over the previous year, agreed to meet at a casino but increased the price of the handgun to $600, from $400, because he was from out of state, according to court records. After buying the gun, Mr. Smirnov drove to Chicago, where he stalked Jitka Vesel, a woman he had briefly dated a few years earlier, and on April 13, 2011, shot and killed her. Mr. Smirnov turned himself into authorities and was later sentenced to life in prison.

Federal authorities also arrested Mr. Ladera, who pleaded guilty to making an illegal transfer of a firearm to a nonstate resident and was sentenced to one year in prison. Last year, the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence filed a wrongful-death lawsuit against Armslist on behalf of Ms. Vesel's family.
In the case of Radcliffe Haughton, the Wisconsin man who killed his wife, the person who sold him the gun on Armslist told federal investigators that he had checked Mr. Haughton's driver's license to make sure he was a Wisconsin resident. He also said he asked Mr. Haughton if he was prohibited from having firearms, but he indicated he was not.

Despite these cases, it appears that prosecutions of people who illegally buy and sell guns on the Internet are relatively unusual. A review of nearly 100 court cases in which federal authorities seized guns over the last year found that in very few instances were Internet transactions the focus of the investigations.

Anonymity Is the Rule

Identifying the people who buy and sell guns on these online forums is impossible in most cases because the sites protect the anonymity of their users.
On Armslist, potential buyers can contact sellers directly through the Web site, without making their contact information public. In some cases where people included phone numbers in their ads, The Times tried to trace them - a task made more difficult because most were unlisted cellphones - and determine if the people had criminal records or other firearms prohibitions.

Many numbers led nowhere. Among the ones that were traceable, most people examined had clean records, or had only misdemeanor convictions that did not disqualify them from having weapons. In some cases that raised questions, it was impossible to conclusively verify identities. But several people emerged who clearly should not be buying or selling guns.

Omar Roman-Martinez spent a little more than a year in prison, getting out in 2010, after pleading guilty to second-degree burglary for breaking into a car with some friends, taking a key and an address, and then going to the person's house, where they made off with jewelry, a safe and electronics. He had prior felony convictions for burglarizing an auto-parts store and for stealing a car from a car dealership, and a misdemeanor assault conviction for biting and repeatedly using a telephone receiver to hit the woman he was living with, according to court and police records.

Mr. Roman-Martinez initially posted general inquiries on Armslist, looking to buy a handgun for cash and then ammunition. He also tried to sell a Jimenez Arms 9-millimeter handgun. In mid-March, he offered to trade a tablet computer that "has the works" for a handgun or pistol grip shotgun. Later, he posted an ad offering a "working condition 1970s pepsi machine" for "nice firearms or one nice one."

He explained in the ad: "These machines are very wanted and most dont work mine does shot me an offer."

When queried, Mr. Roman-Martinez initially acknowledged the ads but tried to sidestep, saying that he never acquired a gun and that the one he was trying to sell was not his. By the end of the conversation, however, he denied he had anything to do with the ads.

"I've heard of Armslist," he said. "Of course, everybody has. I don't have anything posted on there."

The conversation unfolded similarly with Gerard Toolin, the man with outstanding felony warrants from Rhode Island who is now living in South Carolina.

The charges against Mr. Toolin, which date to 2002, relate to allegations he defrauded people through his heating and cooling business. He skipped out on court appearances and fled the state, records show.

He posted an ad on Armslist on April 9, in which he wrote, "I am looking to buy A ak-47." Initially unaware of who was calling, Mr. Toolin eagerly explained to a reporter that he already had one and was looking to acquire a second.

After the reporter identified himself and asked about his warrants, Mr. Toolin said, "Who says I'm buying a weapon for myself?"

But Mr. Toolin had also posted several ads in March, seeking to trade a Marlin 336SC rifle for a 12-gauge tactical shotgun - a combat-style weapon. Pictures posted on Mr. Toolin's Facebook page, in which he "likes" Armslist's Facebook page, made clear that he possessed an array of weapons. He posted a picture of an AK-47 in mid-March, saying: "I would like everyone to welcome the newest member of my family ... I adopted her yesterday." Another photo posted in late November showed him loaded down with weapons, including an assault rifle and several pistols strapped to his body. He captioned the snapshot: "I don't think I have enough maybe one or two more."

When asked about the photographs, Mr. Toolin said: "You sure they're real guns? How do you know they're not reproductions?"

Minutes after the conversation, he took his Facebook account offline.

The Times also found Martin Fee, of Vero Beach, Fla., while examining a listing for a Chinese SKS rifle on Budsgunshop.com. In the ad, Mr. Fee said he would not sell to anyone living in New York, New Jersey or "the People's Republic of California." A Twitter account belonging to "Marty Fee" of Vero Beach is filled with vitriolic postings about President Obama and liberals, including one that says the president and attorney general "should be chained n shot."
Mr. Fee, 45, has an arrest record dating back decades, and it is difficult to verify which charges resulted in convictions. But a domestic battery conviction from 1999, resulting from a dispute between Mr. Fee and his then-wife that turned physical, appeared to disqualify him from possessing firearms.

Reached by phone last week, Mr. Fee said he had sold the gun and had it shipped to a licensed dealer. When a reporter asked him how he could own a gun with his domestic violence conviction, he backpedaled, insisting that the SKS rifle was not actually his, and that he "posted it up there for a friend of mine."
"I never saw the weapon, I never touched the weapon," he said, declining to identify the friend. He then ended the call. Shortly thereafter, his ad disappeared from the Web site.

'When Is a 'Seller' a 'Dealer'?

Under current law, the question of when a background check must occur depends on who is selling the gun. Federal regulations require licensed dealers to perform checks, but the legal definition of who must be licensed is blurry. Regulations define a dealer as a "person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit." People engaged in only "occasional sales" for their personal collections, or for a hobby, are exempted.

But precisely how many guns it takes for the "occasional" seller to become a dealer is not specified.

The design of the Armslist site makes it difficult to tie together all of the ads of individual sellers in order to identify the most active. Again, a phone number makes the task easier. Using phone numbers, as well as computer analysis, The Times connected all the ads for some sellers, including Mr. Lovejoy, who has advertised scores of guns for sale on Armslist over the last few months. One ad in January listed more than 20 guns, including several AR-15 assault rifles and an array of AMD-65s, a Hungarian variant of the AK-47.

In a telephone interview, Mr. Lovejoy, who is a paramedic and is studying to become a nurse, described his buying and selling of guns on Armslist and other sites as a "hobby."

"A lot of times when I get rid of something that I have, I don't make a penny on it," he said.

Mr. Lovejoy said he always made sure to look at buyers' driver's licenses to check that they were Ohio residents and that he would occasionally record a bill of sale, with phone numbers, but no names and addresses. He said he supported proposals to require background checks on Internet sales.

"It would give me more peace of mind," he said.

While Mr. Lovejoy was willing to discuss his ads with a reporter, other Armslist sellers reacted differently. Noel Lee Velarde, who has advertised more than 30 guns out of Flint, Mich., on Armslist dating back to late January, twice hung up on a reporter.

Bob Vivona, 69, who describes himself as an Army veteran and retired police detective sergeant, has advertised more than 20 guns on Armslist out of Missouri going back to February. Even though it is not required by law, he said, he takes it upon himself to look people's names up in a statewide online court database. He said he was simply getting rid of guns he had bought but found he did not like, insisting there was nothing wrong with the number of guns he was selling.

"It's not an issue," he said. "It's the Second Amendment."


http://mobile.nytimes.com/2013/04/17/us/seeking-gun-or-selling-one-web-is-a-land-of-few-rules.xml?f=24


dickless CC with his penis-subsitute guns supports anybody selling guns to anybody anytime, with no background checks.

go suck a Glock, asshole

[TeyshaBlue]

lol...brace for RSS storm 2013

[CosmicCowboy]

Armslist, huh?

Thanks for the link.

[CosmicCowboy]

go suck yourself, asshole

:lmao

[TSA]

Armslist, huh?

Thanks for the link.
+1 :lol

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

Talk about blowing up in his face!

Looks like the Republican amendment to allow anyone with a state concealed handgun licence to have it recognized nationwide could pass...:lol

[Sportcamper]

Is there any state that does not require a BG check and 15 day wait period to buy a handgun, rifle or shotgun?

[CosmicCowboy]

Is there any state that does not require a BG check and 15 day wait period to buy a handgun, rifle or shotgun?

Texas

[CosmicCowboy]

Q: How long is the waiting period to buy a Handgun / Shotgun / Rifle in Texas?

A: There is no waiting period for purchasing a firearm in the state of Texas.

Q: I just moved to Texas, do I have to register my firearms?

A: No, there is no state registration of firearms.

Q: I just inherited / bought a gun from someone in Texas, do I need to transfer the gun to my name?

A: No, there is no state registration of firearms, thus there is no requirement transfer the firearm in your name.

Q: What is required to purchase a firearm in the state of Texas?

A: You will need a valid state-issued ID. Many FFLs will not sell to out-of-state residents. This is due to the FFL's requirement to uphold your resident state's gun laws, and the inherient complexity associated with many states.

Q: Can I carry a firearm on my person?

A: Yes, with proper licensing (Concealed Handgun License) you may carry a pistol or revolver on your person so long as it remains concealed. Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed, but must be carried in a manner not calculated to cause alarm, and do not require a license.

Q: Can I strap a gun on my hip in Texas?

A: No, with some exceptions. Open carry is not legal in Texas, but you may open carry on your own property, in the commission of a sporting activity (competition, shooting ranges, etc.), and while engaged in hunting.

Q: Can I carry a firearm in my vehicle?

A: Yes. With the passage of the Motorist Protection Act you may now readibly carry handguns, loaded and within reach, so long as you conceal the firearm. Long guns (rifles / shotguns) do not have to be concealed and may be loaded and within reach.

Q: Are machine guns / suppressors / short-barreled firearms, etc. legal in the state of Texas?

A: Yes. All NFA rules apply. See this FAQ for more info regarding Class III / Title II items.

Q: Are "assault weapons" banned in Texas?

A: No. Texas abides by Federal law which at this time has no restrictions on so-called "assault weapons" such as semi-auto AR15, FAL, G3 / HK91 rifles.

Q: Is there a limit on the number of rounds a magazine may hold?

A: No. The only limit on magazines in Texas is the number of rounds you are physically able to cram into the thing and/or carry and/or afford.

[CosmicCowboy]

Still :lmao @ Boutons.

[Sportcamper]

DANG! God Bless Texas...

[spursncowboys]

I had to do a BG check about five years ago. Took about 30 min.

[jack sommerset]

Obama is very upset. He believes this is a shameful day for america. I pray he does not lose hope.

Jeremiah 17:7-8 NIV "But blessed is the man who trusts in the LORD whose confidence is in him. He will be like a tree planted by the water that sends out its roots by the stream. It does not fear when heat comes; its leaves are always green. It has no worries in a year of drought and never fails to bear fruit."

God Bless

[td4mvp2k]

:cry obuma :cry

[clambake]

holy shit, jack!

you made parole?

[jack sommerset]

holy shit, jack!

you made parole?

Brother, I have been working very hard these past few months. God has giving us all gifts. My gift is my voice and enthusiasm for life. I'm sharing my gift all over the Dallas metroplex. God bless

[clambake]

Brother, I have been working very hard these past few months. God has giving us all gifts. My gift is my voice and enthusiasm for life. I'm sharing my gift all over the Dallas metroplex. God bless

ah, work release.

[BobaFett1]

I have still have no problem with a good background check law. If it helps I think it is a great idea.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Why are you applauding the down vote on the background check amendment?

This wasn't the gun or magazine ban or even the registration amendment.

[cheguevara]

:lmao ppl thinking the USA will give up any gun rights

USA will give up and is giving up pretty much every other right before giving up right to own guns. Free speech? gone. Free internet? soon to be gone. Free to make bank transactions? partly gone and going soon. Free to travel without patdown? gone.

How good is a gun when you pretty much gave up everything else? :lmao

[TSA]

Why are you applauding the down vote on the background check amendment?

This wasn't the gun or magazine ban or even the registration amendment.
Who's applauding it?

[Drachen]

Who's applauding it?

probably the guy with the 72 pt font in the OP talking about winning.

[TSA]

I took that as laughing at boutons.

[mavs>spurs]

:lmao ppl thinking the USA will give up any gun rights

USA will give up and is giving up pretty much every other right before giving up right to own guns. Free speech? gone. Free internet? soon to be gone. Free to make bank transactions? partly gone and going soon. Free to travel without patdown? gone.

How good is a gun when you pretty much gave up everything else? :lmao

true we need to expand the liberty movement now that we've won round 1 and gained momentum. lets kick the fuckheads out of the airport next..isn't texas talking about trying this again?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I took that as laughing at boutons.

I realize that nuance and subtlety is lost on you but look up "mutually exclusive" and decide whether or not that is the case here.

If you need help, while sad, I will help you.

[TSA]

I wish I could have seen the tears rolling down your cheeks when you heard the measure was voted down.

[TSA]

http://i1311.photobucket.com/albums/s679/thefuzzylumpkins/hippypotustears_zps59c34b68.jpg (http://s1311.photobucket.com/user/thefuzzylumpkins/media/hippypotustears_zps59c34b68.jpg.html)

[DMC]

Told you. Good thing you guys sold high.

[DMC]

Why are you applauding the down vote on the background check amendment?

This wasn't the gun or magazine ban or even the registration amendment.

The background check is a no brainer. You cannot give Joe Schmoe the ability to check the background of random people. You need to have your background checked and be registered to get background information, and the federal government cannot handle the increase in requests.

Magazine restrictions might happen, but big deal. I still have the same magazines as before the first ban. I can buy hundreds of high cap mags legally even after the ban.

It's all bullshit. You faggots jerk off to this placebo shit. When it's all said and done, nothing has changed except now you have a record number of guns sold over the hype you've generated and even ammo is moving like fucking crazy.

Good job rearming the country.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

and another individual that does not seem to know what was voted on today.

[lefty]

Gun owners who compensate their low self-esteem and tiny dicks with weapons, REJOICE !

[CosmicCowboy]

The background check is a no brainer. You cannot give Joe Schmoe the ability to check the background of random people. You need to have your background checked and be registered to get background information, and the federal government cannot handle the increase in requests.

Magazine restrictions might happen, but big deal. I still have the same magazines as before the first ban. I can buy hundreds of high cap mags legally even after the ban.

It's all bullshit. You faggots jerk off to this placebo shit. When it's all said and done, nothing has changed except now you have a record number of guns sold over the hype you've generated and even ammo is moving like fucking crazy.

Good job rearming the country.

:lmao

X2

Now I just hope ammo prices finally come down. I fear they have realized that stupid people will pay stupid prices for ammo.

[TSA]

and another individual that does not seem to know what was voted on today.I wonder if your empirical tears would work well as a lubricant for my AR.

[Das Texan]

Why the fuck is it a fucking problem to do background checks when purchasing firearms anyway?


I mean if you are going to fucking pass it, then big fucking deal.


Its kinda like what happens in class when one dumbfuck does something stupid, all pay. A few have done some dumb shit with guns, just pass a background check.

if you want to debate what should prohibit you from buying a gun, then thats another argument. there are numerous felons out there that are able to get guns, I mean how do you explain half the fucking violence in San Antonio, I would bet at least 1/3 are committed by felons that shouldnt be able to obtain a gun.


I dont get it, I mean ya its a pain in the ass, so is airport security which is a royal pain in the ass now after 9/11.

[Das Texan]

For the record, I have no clue if the background check thing voted down was just a background check or if there was more stupidity in it.


if its just a background check, then the above stands.


if its more, then i'm not overly shocked about what happened.

[BobaFett1]

Gun owners who compensate their low self-esteem and tiny dicks with weapons, REJOICE !

I own a gun and have nothing wrong with a background check. A crook should not go to a gun show and buy a gun with no questions asked.

[lefty]

I own a gun and have nothing wrong with a background check. A crook should not go to a gun show and buy a gun with no questions asked.
the goods

[BobaFett1]

the goods

I agree that it will not stop all crooks from getting guns but it is a start. Big deal if you have to wait to get a gun. I am disgusted that these NRA folks and crooked senators could not pass this background check despite what happened in Sandy Hook.

[TSA]

I own a gun and have nothing wrong with a background check. A crook should not go to a gun show and buy a gun with no questions asked.

Agreed, but they can't and don't prosecute the failed background checks now, how does it make sense to run millions more?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I wonder if your empirical tears would work well as a lubricant for my AR.

Tears? Hardly. I just find it interesting that you guys are applauding something being voted down that most gun advocates claim to support fully. It's like you guys asses hurt so much from previous discussion that you will applaud anything your 'opponents' deem as a negative.

You ever look up 'mutually exclusive' or you still trying to figure that out?

[Th'Pusher]

Agreed, but they can't and don't prosecute the failed background checks now, how does it make sense to run millions more?
While they may not prosecute them, they also don't sell them the the gun they were attempting to purchase.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Agreed, but they can't and don't prosecute the failed background checks now, how does it make sense to run millions more?

The solution to that is not 'do nothing.' You guys do a great job of regurgitating the NRA narrative though.

[TSA]

Tears? Hardly. I just find it interesting that you guys are applauding something being voted down that most gun advocates claim to support fully. It's like you guys asses hurt so much from previous discussion that you will applaud anything your 'opponents' deem as a negative.

You ever look up 'mutually exclusive' or you still trying to figure that out?Your tears must be clouding your memory, I've stated repeatedly that I was for stricter background checks, you forgetful fuck.

[DMX7]

Gun Fellators WIN!

SUCK IT , Boutons!

lol, gun manufacturer's lobby minion.

[Wild Cobra]

:lmao

Talk about blowing up in his face!

Looks like the Republican amendment to allow anyone with a state concealed handgun licence to have it recognized nationwide could pass...:lol
Seem like to me, it should be an easy win:


Article. IV.

Section. 1.

Full Faith and Credit shall be given in each State to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State. And the Congress may by general Laws prescribe the Manner in which such Acts, Records and Proceedings shall be proved, and the Effect thereof.

Section. 2.

The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States.

[ElNono]

Told you.

Ditto. The other good news is no more "they're coming for our guns" threads for a while.

[Winehole23]

don't hold your breath, they might still turn this thread into one . . .

[BobaFett1]

While they may not prosecute them, they also don't sell them the the gun they were attempting to purchase.

Bingo. We have a winner here.

[Sportcamper]

I still have no problem with a good background check law. If it helps I think it is a great idea.

I have a problem with corrupt, far left politicians & celebrities from California trying to dictate their agenda in other states…

[BobaFett1]

I have a problem with corrupt, far left politicians & celebrities from California trying to dictate their agenda in other states…

Sportcamper I agree with you on that. I have no issue with folks owning a AR 15 but what is wrong with a background check?

[Sportcamper]

Sportcamper I agree with you on that. I have no issue with folks owning a AR 15 but what is wrong with a background check?

I am for states rights…Cali has a BG check & 15 day waiting period on all firearms…You cannot buy a handgun without a pre gun safety certificate…You can’t even get a firearm in Chicago…Two states with the deadliest gun violence…Now the corrupt politicians from Cali, Illinois & New York want to tell people from Texas, Montana or Alaska how they should run things…Gun laws only effect people who play by the rules…The bad guys will always get around BG checks…

Cali used to be the 5th largest economy in the world…Corrupt politicians have voted themselves fat pensions, pay raises & have driven business to other states… Cali, Illinois & New York are broke yet we should listen to these politicians who have run their states into the ground?

For the record Dianne Feinstein purchased an UZI in the 1980’s…She is guarded by an entourage armed with fully automatic weapons…It is all a farce…

[Th'Pusher]

Cali used to be the 5th largest economy in the world…Corrupt politicians have voted themselves fat pensions, pay raises & have driven business to other states… Cali, Illinois & New York are broke yet we should listen to these politicians who have run their states into the ground…

You don't think prop 13 has anything to do with the financial shape California is in? The blame does not solely rest on politicians and big bad government. That was a direct ballot measure voted on by the citizens of California.

[Sportcamper]

You don't think prop 13 has anything to do with the financial shape California is in? The blame does not solely rest on politicians and big bad government. That was a direct ballot measure voted on by the citizens of California.

Perhaps you do not understand Prop 13…Corrupt politicians were throwing widows out of their homes and then offering them welfare…

[Th'Pusher]

Perhaps you do not understand Prop 13…Corrupt politicians were throwing widows out of their homes and then offering them welfare…

Ah yes. More government boogie man rhetoric. No responsibly or accountably for the people who voted to approve the measure.

[Sportcamper]

A person who purchased a home in 1960 & had a payment of $200.00 dollars per month was being taxed in 1977 @ $400.00 per month to pay for Politicians pay raises & Non Funded State & City Pensions…U have bad understanding…

[Th'Pusher]

A person who purchased a home in 1960 & had a payment of $200.00 dollars per month was being taxed in 1977 @ $400.00 per month to pay for Politicians pay raises & Non Funded State & City Pensions…U have bad understanding…
I have bad understanding? This is such a ridiculous oversimplification of the drivers of California's financial issues it's not really worth discussing.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

:lmao ppl thinking the USA will give up any gun rights

USA will give up and is giving up pretty much every other right before giving up right to own guns. Free speech? gone. Free internet? soon to be gone. Free to make bank transactions? partly gone and going soon. Free to travel without patdown? gone.

How good is a gun when you pretty much gave up everything else? :lmao
:lmao truth bombs. There's no reason why Obama would try to take guns away when he's been able to strip people of other fundamental constitutional rights that people think they still have because their gun protects it! Gun control is a debate that's been settled in this country way before Obama became president. Having a gun debate is nothing but dancing in circles distracting Americans from issues that actually matter (like 1st amendment rights and 4th amendment rights for example).

[leemajors]

:lmao truth bombs. There's no reason why Obama would try to take guns away when he's been able to strip people of other fundamental constitutional rights that people think they still have because their gun protects it! Gun control is a debate that's been settled in this country way before Obama became president. Having a gun debate is nothing but dancing in circles distracting Americans from issues that actually matter (like 1st amendment rights and 4th amendment rights for example).

:tu

[boutons_deux]

Courageous Senators Stand Up to American People


In the halls of the United States Senate, dozens of Senators congratulated themselves today for having what one of them called “the courage and grit to stand up to the overwhelming wishes of the American people.”

“We kept hearing, again and again, that ninety per cent of the American people wanted us to vote a certain way,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Kentucky). “Well, at the end of the day, we decided that we weren’t going to cave in to that kind of special-interest group.”

“It was a gut check, for sure, but we had to draw a line in the sand,” agreed Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S. Carolina).

“If we had voted the way the American people wanted us to, it would have sent the message that we’re here in Washington to be nothing more than their elected representatives.”

Calling yesterday’s Senate action “a bipartisan effort,” Senator Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) said, “This proves that on a matter that affects the safety of every man, woman, and child in the nation, we can reach across the aisle to defy the interests of all of them.”

Senator McConnell agreed that yesterday’s vote “sent a powerful message,” adding, “If the American people think that just because they voted us into office and pay our salaries, benefits, and pensions, we are somehow obliged to listen to them, they are sorely mistaken.”


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/04/courageous-senators-stand-up-to-american-people.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20%28109%29


The plutocrat whores in govt are owned by corps/finance/1% whose vote$$ are the only ones counted.

[CosmicCowboy]

90%

:lmao

Obama got his shit pushed yesterday.

Get over it, Boutons....:lol

[Th'Pusher]

90%

:lmao

Obama got his shit pushed yesterday.

Get over it, Boutons....:lol

I get that you don't support background checks, but why would you cheer that the will of the American people can be so easily thwarted by special interests? Do you think federal background checks are unconstitutional?

[CosmicCowboy]

Saying it doesn't make it true.

[TSA]

I get that you don't support background checks, but why would you cheer that the will of the American people can be so easily thwarted by special interests? Do you think federal background checks are unconstitutional?
Although I am for stricter background checks, that 90% in favor of background checks figure Obama was throwing around was complete bullshit, just like his 40% of gun sales done without background check.

[Th'Pusher]

Although I am for stricter background checks, that 90% in favor of background checks figure Obama was throwing around was complete bullshit, just like his 40% of gun sales done without background check.
Can you explain whats wrong with the polls that show support is at 90% instead of just saying the number is bullshit?

[CosmicCowboy]

Can you explain whats wrong with the polls that show support is at 90% instead of just saying the number is bullshit?

Can you tell us what the EXACT poll question was?

[Th'Pusher]

Can you tell us what the EXACT poll question was?

Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/institutes--centers/polling-institute/national/release-detail?ReleaseID=1847

92% support.

[CosmicCowboy]

:lmao

read question 40

[CosmicCowboy]

Whose position on guns do you support? Obama's or the NRA?

Obama 43%
NRA 46%

:lmao

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao

read question 40
That has nothing to do with background checks. Why is it bullshit to say 90% of Americans want universal background checks?

[BobaFett1]

That has nothing to do with background checks. Why is it bullshit to say 90% of Americans want universal background checks?

CosmicCowboy is having selective reading.

[BobaFett1]

Courageous Senators Stand Up to American People


In the halls of the United States Senate, dozens of Senators congratulated themselves today for having what one of them called “the courage and grit to stand up to the overwhelming wishes of the American people.”

“We kept hearing, again and again, that ninety per cent of the American people wanted us to vote a certain way,” said Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell (R-Kentucky). “Well, at the end of the day, we decided that we weren’t going to cave in to that kind of special-interest group.”

“It was a gut check, for sure, but we had to draw a line in the sand,” agreed Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S. Carolina).

“If we had voted the way the American people wanted us to, it would have sent the message that we’re here in Washington to be nothing more than their elected representatives.”

Calling yesterday’s Senate action “a bipartisan effort,” Senator Mark Pryor (D-Arkansas) said, “This proves that on a matter that affects the safety of every man, woman, and child in the nation, we can reach across the aisle to defy the interests of all of them.”

Senator McConnell agreed that yesterday’s vote “sent a powerful message,” adding, “If the American people think that just because they voted us into office and pay our salaries, benefits, and pensions, we are somehow obliged to listen to them, they are sorely mistaken.”


http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/borowitzreport/2013/04/courageous-senators-stand-up-to-american-people.html?mbid=nl_Borowitz%20%28109%29


The plutocrat whores in govt are owned by corps/finance/1% whose vote$$ are the only ones counted.


Senator McConnell is out of touch. Old fucking fart.

[CosmicCowboy]

That has nothing to do with background checks. Why is it bullshit to say 90% of Americans want universal background checks?

of course it does. Does the NRA support background checks?

[Th'Pusher]

of course it does. Does the NRA support background checks?

Not in the form of the bill that failed yesterday, but what is your point? The poll I posted showed 92% of Americans support background checks for ALL gun buyers. The bill that failed yesterday, which both you an the NRA are celebrating, would have expanded background checks. You are celebrating special intersts thwarting the will of the people because you agree with those special interests. Just call a spade a spade dude.

[CosmicCowboy]

The same poll had two questions with completely contradictory answers. I pointed that out to you. No need to get all butthurt.

BTW, you lost.

Bwahahahaahahahahaha!

[BobaFett1]

Not in the form of the bill that failed yesterday, but what is your point? The poll I posted showed 92% of Americans support background checks for ALL gun buyers. The bill that failed yesterday, which both you an the NRA are celebrating, would have expanded background checks. You are celebrating special intersts thwarting the will of the people because you agree with those special interests. Just call a spade a spade dude.

Mitch is a old fart.

[Th'Pusher]

The same poll had two questions with completely contradictory answers. I pointed that out to you. No need to get all butthurt.

Not really. The NRA has previously supported background checks. Regardless, when specifically asked about background checks for all gun buyers 92% support. Sorry, but you're one intellectually dishonest motherfucker.

[CosmicCowboy]

Not really. The NRA has previously supported background checks. Regardless, when specifically asked about background checks for all gun buyers 92% support. Sorry, but you're one intellectually dishonest motherfucker.

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/01/03/u9a3u9a7.jpg

[TSA]

Can you explain whats wrong with the polls that show support is at 90% instead of just saying the number is bullshit?
Sure.


"From January 30 - February 4, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,772 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.3 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and the nation as a public service and for research."

[Th'Pusher]

Sure.


"From January 30 - February 4, Quinnipiac University surveyed 1,772 registered voters with a margin of error of +/- 2.3 percentage points. Live interviewers call land lines and cell phones.

The Quinnipiac University Poll, directed by Douglas Schwartz, Ph.D., conducts public opinion surveys in Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and the nation as a public service and for research."

And that makes the results of the poll bullshit how? Sample size? Not a representative sample? You do know how polling works, right?

[Th'Pusher]

http://img.tapatalk.com/d/13/01/03/u9a3u9a7.jpg
Ahh, the old butthurt meme (read white flag).

[TSA]

And that makes the results of the poll bullshit how? Sample size? Not a representative sample? You do know how polling works, right?

Yes to all of the above. Anyways, this discussion is a waste of my time, you're elected officials have spoken. You, and Obama need to get over it. It was put to a vote and failed, that's how government works. Time to move on.

[CosmicCowboy]

And that makes the results of the poll bullshit how? Sample size? Not a representative sample? You do know how polling works, right?


Pennsylvania, New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Florida, Ohio, Virginia and the nation

:lmao

The language certainly suggests that the polling was done disproportionally in the northeast and Florida

[CosmicCowboy]

Yes to all of the above. Anyways, this discussion is a waste of my time, you're elected officials have spoken. You, and Obama need to get over it. It was put to a vote and failed, that's how government works. Time to move on.

:lmao wasn't even close.

Hopefully the idiots that have been hoarding ammo will finally stop.

[Th'Pusher]

Yes to all of the above. Anyways, this discussion is a waste of my time, you're elected officials have spoken. You, and Obama need to get over it. It was put to a vote and failed, that's how government works. Time to move on.

My only dog in this hunt is my dislike for special interest groups dictating policy against what appears to be the will of the people. And when I see people like CC, who claim to be rational and pragmatic, cheering this type of stuff on, it's a little perplexing.

[Th'Pusher]

:lmao

The language certainly suggests that the polling was done disproportionally in the northeast and Florida

PA, FL, OH, VA are not exactly bastions of liberal thought.

[CosmicCowboy]

My only dog in this hunt is my dislike for special interest groups dictating policy against what appears to be the will of the people. And when I see people like CC, who claim to be rational and pragmatic, cheering this type of stuff on, it's a little perplexing.

In my opinion it's pretty simple. The feds have a pretty simple setup now as it relates to guns. The states are well within their rights to regulate guns more strenuously as they see fit above and beyond the fed rules as long as the laws they pass can pass 2nd amendment scrutiny. If you want to live in a state where guns are heavily regulated that option is certainly available to you. I just don't think the people in the Northeast have a right to tell Texas how to regulate guns. And unfortunately the only people that comply with gun laws are law abiding citizens. The criminals are already criminals...they don't give a shit about gun laws.

[CosmicCowboy]

PA, FL, OH, VA are not exactly bastions of liberal thought.

Weren't all the states listed "blue" states in the last election?

[Th'Pusher]

In my opinion it's pretty simple. The feds have a pretty simple setup now as it relates to guns. The states are well within their rights to regulate guns more strenuously as they see fit above and beyond the fed rules as long as the laws they pass can pass 2nd amendment scrutiny. If you want to live in a state where guns are heavily regulated that option is certainly available to you. I just don't think the people in the Northeast have a right to tell Texas how to regulate guns. And unfortunately the only people that comply with gun laws are law abiding citizens. The criminals are already criminals...they don't give a shit about gun laws.

Would you eliminate the current federal law requiring a background check and leave that up to the states as well?

[CosmicCowboy]

I can honestly say I have an issue with the federal government stockpiling data on citizens period.

[Th'Pusher]

I can honestly say I have an issue with the federal government stockpiling data on citizens period.
Are they stockpiling data in the existing required background check system?

[CosmicCowboy]

Are they stockpiling data in the existing required background check system?

I don't know.

Are they?

[Th'Pusher]

I don't know.

Are they?
Probably. They have to know whose guns to confiscate.

[CosmicCowboy]

Probably. They have to know whose guns to confiscate.

Probably not in my lifetime, but then again I never thought the USA would elect such a fervent anti gun President, either. Of course he didn't play THAT card until he got elected again.

[cheguevara]

as a nonbiased spectator, I agree Obama's war on guns is not only blatantly politicized, but a very bad choice. Even El Che knows you don't mess with americans and their guns. They rather lose every other right given to them, including the right to shit, piss and fuck freely, but they won't give up their guns. It's ingrained in their DNA. Not surprised a Kenyan failed to see this, but LOL at his staff.

You can quote me on this. Obama is going nowhere on this war. And it will just be a huge distraction from more important matters and a huge waste of taxpayers $.

Hopefully somehow the Kenyan will see the light soon and move on to better arenas.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Probably not in my lifetime, but then again I never thought the USA would elect such a fervent anti gun President, either. Of course he didn't play THAT card until he got elected again.

:lol fervent

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Weren't all the states listed "blue" states in the last election?

:lol what do swing state mean

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol fervent

fer·vent
/ˈfərvənt/
Adjective
Having or displaying a passionate intensity.
Synonyms
ardent - hot - passionate - fervid - fiery - torrid

[CosmicCowboy]

:lol what do swing state mean

They sure looked blue on the map after the election.

[CosmicCowboy]

You don't call flying those dead kids parents around the country on Air Force One and sticking microphones in their faces and asking them about their dead babies and what they thought about guns wasn't fervent? I thought I was being generous.

OK, I won't sugarcoat it.

Obama is a callous, media whoring asshole.

[TSA]

My only dog in this hunt is my dislike for special interest groups dictating policy against what appears to be the will of the people. And when I see people like CC, who claim to be rational and pragmatic, cheering this type of stuff on, it's a little perplexing.
Our government is fucked as all decisions are ultimately made with special interest groups in mind. But I blame the background checks failing more on Obama than the NRA. Obama made a knee jerk reaction after sandy hook that scared waaaaaaaay too many gun owners with all the talk of bans and restrictions. That shit backfired big time as seen in the failure of this bill and the rush to buy more guns. If the pussy would have played it cool I don't see how the background check measure would have failed. He riled up too many people, and the people's reps spoke.

[DMC]

While they may not prosecute them, they also don't sell them the the gun they were attempting to purchase.

While at the gun show...

jesus you folks are dense

[spursncowboys]

Can you explain whats wrong with the polls that show support is at 90% instead of just saying the number is bullshit?
Probably the fact that nothing in america is 90%. 80% of people atleast believe that while 10% responded with "what" and the last 10% said "get the F*** away from me, I don't want to take a survey!"

[TSA]

While at the gun show...

jesus you folks are dense
Wonder if anyone can find a stat of crimes committed with guns acquired at a gun show with no background check. I'm guessing the percentage is around .05%

[FuzzyLumpkins]

They sure looked blue on the map after the election.

If you mean "voted Obama over Romney" then I agree. Then you look at the make up of their legislatures and electoral history and it paints a completely different picture. But hey they didn't like Romney so they must be flaming liberals. :rolleyes:

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wonder if anyone can find a stat of crimes committed with guns acquired at a gun show with no background check. I'm guessing the percentage is around .05%

Have you met WC? It's like you are channeling him.

[Thread]

The NRA delivered this. They kicked that hump's ass all over DC.

Wiped the fuckin' floor with his ass.

[TSA]

Have you met WC? It's like you are channeling him.fuck off and leave the country already. It's a legitimate question considering the small percentage of guns sold at shows without background checks.

[Wild Cobra]

fuck off and leave the country already. It's a legitimate question considering the small percentage of guns sold at shows without background checks.
He's just a troll. It sure would be nice if the forum owner banned trolls.

[TSA]

He's no troll, he's just a pompous hypocritical bitch.

[Wild Cobra]

He's no troll, he's just a pompous hypocritical bitch.
I'd say the presumptive retard is both.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

See, TSA, your post was like the siren's song for dumbasses. Lo and behold: the dimwit!

[boutons_deux]

NRA spends record money on lobbying this year
As gun control debates raged in Congress early this year, the National Rifle Association increased its federal government lobbying expenditures to record levels, new filings with the U.S. Senate indicates.

The NRA and affiliated National Rifle Association of America Institute for Legislative Action together spent at least $800,000 lobbying the federal government during the year's first quarter — more money than they've together spent during the same time period from any past year, according to federal records available Saturday afternoon.

Such aggressive advocacy preceded a major legislative victory Wednesday for gun advocates, as the U.S. Senate defeated (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/20/us-usa-guns-nra-idUSBRE93J05Z20130420) a proposal (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/politics/senate-obama-gun-control.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) to expand gun background checks (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29#).

And it came as gun control advocates — from President Barack Obama and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the families of children killed last year in Newtown, Conn. — pressured (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/04/18/177793124/newtown-residents-senate-gun-votes-a-slap-in-the-face) lawmakers (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-takes-senate-task-failed-gun-control-measure/story?id=18981374#.UXLqBoLe7YE) to pass laws restricting firearm purchases and useage.

The NRA groups' first-quarter lobbying expenditures have ben steadily increasing in recent years, but never cracked the $700,000 mark.

During the first three months of 2012, they spent $695,000. That follows $675,000 in 2011 and $615,000 in 2010.

This year, the NRA's lobbying efforts were exclusively directed at the House and Senate, according to federal disclosures, and it lobbied on numerous U.S. House and U.S. Senate bills proposed by federal legislators.

Among them:


H.R. 751, the Protect America's Schools (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29#) Act of 2013
H.R. 274, the Mental Health First Act of 2013
H.R. 329, the Strengthening Background Checks Act of 2013
H.R. 575, the the Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013
S. 54, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013
S. 374, the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013
S. 146, the School and Campus (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29#) Safety Enhancements Act of 2013
S. 174, the Ammunition Background Check (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29#) Act of 2013
S. 480, the NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013
H.R. 138 and S. 33, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
H.R. 142 and S. 35, the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013
H.R. 437 and S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013


The NRA itself spent $700,000 lobbying the federal government during the year's first quarter, federal records show (http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=2e249df5-6a71-4f07-8d08-74bba2e6f5b2&filingTypeID=51). Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive, was among 12 in-house NRA officials to lobby during the year's first three months.

Several contract lobbying firms, including Crossroads Strategies (http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=18df81e8-2ddf-4c1f-a7d3-faffc27a9b3d&filingTypeID=51), Prime Policy Group (http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=f9dea82a-634d-415c-9c93-aabf4fdd10d0&filingTypeID=51), FTI Government Affairs (http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=30db28dd-d51f-4c9f-ae4f-9b5ff55917e5&filingTypeID=51) and Shockey Scofield Solutions (http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=8056e32b-70a5-4350-869c-d55ce909086e&filingTypeID=51), combined to spend at least another $100,000 lobbying on behalf of the NRA or National Rifle Association of America Institute for Legislative Action from January through March.

Companies, unions and special interest groups that lobby the federal government have until Monday to submit (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29#) mandatory first quarter lobbying disclosure reports to Congress.

The NRA and affiliate spent nearly $3 million on federal-level lobbying in 2012 — more than it has during any previous year, according to data maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

But NRA spending during this year's first quarter puts it on pace to exceed that mark.


http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29

[boutons_deux]

The Fight Over Gun Control Has Revealed America's New Civil War
http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/shutterstock_105934337.jpg


The deeper message here is that rural, older, white America occupies one land; younger, urban, increasingly non-white America lives in another.

the spinelessness of the four Senate Democrats who voted against the measure (Mark Begich, Max Baucus, Mark Pryor, and Heidi Heitkamp),

Begich, Baucus, Pryor, and Heitkamp may be Democrats but they’re also from rural, older, white America. That land has disproportionate political power in the Senate, and a gerrymandered House — which may not bode well for immigration reform over the next few months, and suggests continuing battles over “state’s rights” to determine who can marry and when human life begins.

Over time, though, older, rural, white America is losing ground to a nation becoming ever younger, more urban, and increasingly non-white — a fact that threatens the former so much that it’s in full backlash against the forces of change.


http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/fight-over-gun-control-has-revealed-americas-new-civil-war

[Thread]

The Fight Over Gun Control Has Revealed America's New Civil War


http://www.alternet.org/files/styles/story_image/public/story_images/shutterstock_105934337.jpg


The deeper message here is that rural, older, white America occupies one land; younger, urban, increasingly non-white America lives in another.

the spinelessness of the four Senate Democrats who voted against the measure (Mark Begich, Max Baucus, Mark Pryor, and Heidi Heitkamp),

Begich, Baucus, Pryor, and Heitkamp may be Democrats but they’re also from rural, older, white America. That land has disproportionate political power in the Senate, and a gerrymandered House — which may not bode well for immigration reform over the next few months, and suggests continuing battles over “state’s rights” to determine who can marry and when human life begins.

Over time, though, older, rural, white America is losing ground to a nation becoming ever younger, more urban, and increasingly non-white — a fact that threatens the former so much that it’s in full backlash against the forces of change.

True. And we remain::: "...the greatest people who has trod this earth."

[Thread]

NRA spends record money on lobbying this year


As gun control debates raged in Congress early this year, the National Rifle Association increased its federal government lobbying expenditures to record levels, new filings with the U.S. Senate indicates.

The NRA and affiliated National Rifle Association of America Institute for Legislative Action together spent at least $800,000 lobbying the federal government during the year's first quarter — more money than they've together spent during the same time period from any past year, according to federal records available Saturday afternoon.

Such aggressive advocacy preceded a major legislative victory Wednesday for gun advocates, as the U.S. Senate defeated (http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/20/us-usa-guns-nra-idUSBRE93J05Z20130420) a proposal (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/18/us/politics/senate-obama-gun-control.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0) to expand gun background checks (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29#).

And it came as gun control advocates — from President Barack Obama and New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg to former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and the families of children killed last year in Newtown, Conn. — pressured (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2013/04/18/177793124/newtown-residents-senate-gun-votes-a-slap-in-the-face) lawmakers (http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/obama-takes-senate-task-failed-gun-control-measure/story?id=18981374#.UXLqBoLe7YE) to pass laws restricting firearm purchases and useage.

The NRA groups' first-quarter lobbying expenditures have ben steadily increasing in recent years, but never cracked the $700,000 mark.

During the first three months of 2012, they spent $695,000. That follows $675,000 in 2011 and $615,000 in 2010.

This year, the NRA's lobbying efforts were exclusively directed at the House and Senate, according to federal disclosures, and it lobbied on numerous U.S. House and U.S. Senate bills proposed by federal legislators.

Among them:



H.R. 751, the Protect America's Schools (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29#) Act of 2013
H.R. 274, the Mental Health First Act of 2013
H.R. 329, the Strengthening Background Checks Act of 2013
H.R. 575, the the Second Amendment Protection Act of 2013
S. 54, the Stop Illegal Trafficking in Firearms Act of 2013
S. 374, the Fix Gun Checks Act of 2013
S. 146, the School and Campus (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29#) Safety Enhancements Act of 2013
S. 174, the Ammunition Background Check (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29#) Act of 2013
S. 480, the NICS Reporting Improvement Act of 2013
H.R. 138 and S. 33, the Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device Act
H.R. 142 and S. 35, the Stop Online Ammunition Sales Act of 2013
H.R. 437 and S. 150, the Assault Weapons Ban of 2013


The NRA itself spent $700,000 lobbying the federal government during the year's first quarter, federal records show (http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=2e249df5-6a71-4f07-8d08-74bba2e6f5b2&filingTypeID=51). Wayne LaPierre, the NRA's chief executive, was among 12 in-house NRA officials to lobby during the year's first three months.

Several contract lobbying firms, including Crossroads Strategies (http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=18df81e8-2ddf-4c1f-a7d3-faffc27a9b3d&filingTypeID=51), Prime Policy Group (http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=f9dea82a-634d-415c-9c93-aabf4fdd10d0&filingTypeID=51), FTI Government Affairs (http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=30db28dd-d51f-4c9f-ae4f-9b5ff55917e5&filingTypeID=51) and Shockey Scofield Solutions (http://soprweb.senate.gov/index.cfm?event=getFilingDetails&filingID=8056e32b-70a5-4350-869c-d55ce909086e&filingTypeID=51), combined to spend at least another $100,000 lobbying on behalf of the NRA or National Rifle Association of America Institute for Legislative Action from January through March.

Companies, unions and special interest groups that lobby the federal government have until Monday to submit (http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29#) mandatory first quarter lobbying disclosure reports to Congress.

The NRA and affiliate spent nearly $3 million on federal-level lobbying in 2012 — more than it has during any previous year, according to data maintained by the Center for Responsive Politics.

But NRA spending during this year's first quarter puts it on pace to exceed that mark.


http://www.publicintegrity.org/2013/04/20/12534/nra-spends-record-money-lobbying-year?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+publici_rss+%28The+Center+for +Public+Integrity+Latest+Stories%29

You didn't get the gun shows & subsequent gun registry. Hussein Obama shoulda moved when those Hook children we're still warm on the hoof. That extra 30 days saved us.

Next time, come hard, else stay on the porch with Dukakis, Hillary Clinton and AlGore.

[boutons_deux]

Like Repugs, right-wingers, and bubba rabble rousing in general, NRA must lie, because it has not case

NRA Misrepresents Police Survey, LegislationOn the day the Senate voted down a series of gun control bills, the National Rifle Association made false and misleading claims in opposing a measure to expand background checks.




Online ads from the NRA wrongly claimed that “80% of police say background checks will have no effect” on violent crime. The survey cited in the ads by the NRA says nothing of the sort.


Before and after the vote, the NRA said the measure “would have criminalized certain private transfers of firearms” and required “lifelong friends, neighbors and some family members to get federal government permission” to exchange guns. The measure didn’t expand background checks to such private transfers. It applied to sales by unlicensed individuals at gun shows and on the Internet.



http://factcheck.org/2013/04/nra-misrepresents-police-survey-legislation/

[boutons_deux]

...

[boutons_deux]

The Power of False Narratives
Over the past several decades, the American Right has invested heavily in media outlets and think tanks with the goal of imposing right-wing historical narratives on the nation. That investment has now paved the way for defeat of modest gun-control legislation in the U.S. Senate.

Because of this well-financed right-wing propaganda, millions of Americans have been convinced that the Framers of the U.S. Constitution wanted individual Americans armed to the teeth so they could kill policemen, soldiers and other government representatives. Thus any restriction on gun ownership, no matter how sensible, is deemed as going against the nation’s Founding Fathers.


http://consortiumnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/washington-whiskey-rebellion-300x208.jpg

President George Washington pictured leading state and federal troops against the Whiskey
Rebellion in western Pennsylvania in 1794.


The fact that the key Framers, such as James Madison and George Washington, actually believed that the people would be protected against tyranny through a representative Republic operating within the rule of law and the checks and balances of a Constitution has been lost amid the Right’s propaganda and paranoia.

Madison only grudgingly agreed to incorporate a Bill of Rights at all as a deal to secure the necessary votes for the Constitution’s ratification, with the Second Amendment essentially a concession to the states which wanted to protect their right to maintain citizen militias.

At the time, the right to bear arms within the context of “a well-regulated Militia” was not understood as a “libertarian” right to have an unregulated arsenal in your basement or the right to stride into public gatherings with a semi-automatic assault rifle with a 100-bullet magazine over your shoulder. In 1789, when Congress approved the Second Amendment, muskets were single-shot devices requiring time-consuming reloading.
And, as the Second Amendment explains, its purpose was to maintain “the security of a free State,” not to undermine that security with mass killings of civilians or insurrections against the elected government representing “We the People of the United States.” Under the Constitution, such insurrections were defined as “treason.”

But the Right has successfully abridged the Second Amendment as it is now understood by many ill-informed Americans. The 12-word preamble – explaining the point of the amendment – gets lopped off and only the last 14 words are left as the unofficially revised amendment.

So, when the likes of Tea Party favorite Sen. Ted Cruz lectures fellow senators on the Second Amendment, he doesn’t include the preamble, “A well-regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State.” He only reads the rest: “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.” Nor do the Tea Partiers note that to Madison and the Framers the term “bear Arms” meant to participate in a militia, not to have as many guns as you want.
The real history has gotten lost in a swamp of false narrative, the sort of ideological deceptions that have come to dominate the current American political scene and have given us an Orwellian present in which he “who controls the past” really does “control the future.”

http://consortiumnews.com/2013/04/18/the-power-of-false-narratives/

LIES LIES LIES to prop the guns-and-ammo industry's profits.

NRA is SOFT ON CRIME

[TSA]

Do you get a kickback for every shit article you link?