Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | All Access e-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

The Absurdity Of ‘Universal’ Background Checks

April 14, 2013

Those who favor “universal” background checks on gun buyers make some ridiculous arguments....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(73)

GioAllie

Apr-25-13 5:28 PM

in this case, I had the complete quote, not just the selected portion you posted............

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-25-13 4:41 PM

that comment is irrelevant to the argument, --since you chose to post as you stated a "CHERRY PICKED " QUOTE.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-24-13 1:18 PM

and I am "smart enough" and so is everyone else here to see that you were so interested in spacing, that you merely posted the portion that made it appear that Bloomberg wished to "change the constitution." Nice try.......

1 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-24-13 12:52 PM

in Sonoma's case--2 more words would have helped--in your case 2 more sentences--you both chose to attempt to embarrass biden and or Bloomberg, at least be fair in your reporting.

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-24-13 12:10 PM

I don't take any degree of pleasure following Sonoma's and lonrdr's selective quotes, but someone has to do it. As far as the limited quote from Bloomberg, one can clearly see he was speaking in reference to interpretations dealing with enhanced security in view of recent attacks. Here is a segment of what lonrdr felt not relevant--"We're going to have to have more cameras and stuff. That's good in some sense, but it's different from what we're used to. Please check this out, before falling for the rightie "spin" on the comments. The rest of the story.......

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sonoma

Apr-23-13 8:40 PM

DavidVA-----With the way representation is allocated in Washington the rural states could keep that happening for a long time. However you are probably correct that it will happen at some point.

The sad fact is that it does not matter how long it takes because the liberals have been trying to eliminate all guns since the mid seventies at least. In fact they were closer to making it happen then than now. It is just the difference in lifestyles and experiences between mostly city dwellers and rural Americans.

It's hard to imagine the thought process of someone who wants to ban cigarettes and legalize pot or increase background checks at the same time they won't spend the money already approved to fix the current check system.

I think we are all to well aware that one more liberal on the supreme court changes everything.

4 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-23-13 7:32 PM

so we have an Obama hater who uses msnbc as a source, but not Olielly, the shower sponge expert, or coward Hannity---now that's funny---real funny, almost "Absurd."

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-23-13 4:47 PM

some of us choose to use multiple sources both credible and not so credible---including O'lielly and that cowardly Hannity--some prefer, well you know.........

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Apr-23-13 4:39 PM

Let's talk about inevitablity. At some point, the growing number of pro gun control votes will get large enough in enough places to overwhelm the pro NRA gun rights voters, and the political landscape will shift. This may take 30 years, but it will happen at some point. When it does, how will those folks feel about the absolute obstructinism of all those years from 20 years ago up to then? And don't count on a favorable SCOTUS either. 5 votes is about all you can get.

So what then? Will exasperation lead to total confiscation? It might. The SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment was a real stretch refer to the conter-argument by Garry Wills), and won't stand forever.

So, are you OK with that, or are you planning to be dead by then?

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

DavidVA

Apr-23-13 4:12 PM

If background checks are so benign, then what's the problem? If they aren't benign, then they really work.

You can't have it both ways.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-23-13 3:19 PM

now where did I hear that "kool aid" stuff? Oh yeah I remember, it was on the Olielly program about 3, or was it 4 years ago?......

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

formerlyphil

Apr-23-13 1:53 PM

hey does anybody know if adam lanza was a convicted felon?

does anybody know if dylan klebold was a convicted felon?

how about seung-hui cho? was he a convicted felon?

was james holmes a convicted felon?

tell me more how your feel good would prevent mass shootings please!!!!

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-23-13 1:07 PM

I believe that loneridr would have a great deal more success matching wits with 50's and see dog--just an observation.......

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-23-13 7:57 AM

in the first place, background checks have absolutely nothing to do with the constitution or bill of rights. Secondly I see your soros, and I raise ya 2 Koch boys--it's time for you to fold. And I plan on another nice day, thank you.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sonoma

Apr-23-13 4:54 AM

Does that mean you agree it is quite normal and legitimate for folks to donate a bit of money to the canidates who support the constitution and bill or rights.

What about a progressive billionaire who tries to flood the process with his own money to promote his own liberal agenda. Have a nice day

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-22-13 9:21 PM

Sonoma --that's the reason I do not care to engage you in this debate any longer---see ya.

0 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sonoma

Apr-22-13 8:10 PM

Your words, no one else's-------

QUOTE:were bought and paid for by NRA $$$$$$$, THAT'S WHAT AN A+ RATING REFLECTS.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-22-13 7:47 PM

---votes----

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-22-13 7:46 PM

Sonoma--please don't distort my comments--the term "bribe" was introduced by someone else---my reference to NRA $$$$$ was in tune only with campaign $$$$$$ used by the nra, FOR OR AGAINST ELECTED OFFICIALS, depending on their voted and rating.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sonoma

Apr-22-13 6:30 PM

BTW Gioallie---you may want to go easy on all that NRA money you claim went to bribe those four senators. The total for all four their last election cycle was $7,400. Three didn't get anything.-----Mayor Bloomberg spent TWO MILLION against the NRA's preference in Democratic Chicago. Who is doing the bribing? LOL LOL LOL -----You should do more research and less typing.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-22-13 4:07 PM

Sonoma-I don't think we have any agreeable grounds on the issue of background checks and the subsequent senate vote, and the will of the people, so I'll take my leave of this discussion with you--perhaps someone else may be more interested.

0 Agrees | 5 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sonoma

Apr-22-13 3:45 PM

It's not an assumption, "IT'S A FACT" and one you can easily research. As far as "possibly saving just one life" the answer is NO. That statement is typically used by those liberals who cannot win an argument based on facts. Many Democrats have tried passing all kinds of lousy bills using the "perhaps save just one life" including the president. It's a false premise to begin with and you can use it to ban or restrict nearly everything we do or use.

The current background check system is broken and the president has taken no steps to fix it in five years. It was all about politics and him putting a check mark beside another item on his second term liberal agenda.

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-22-13 2:19 PM

Sonoma-I find your assumption totally false--I believe I have made clear the facts on background checks, including loopholes etc. and my reasons for challenging that shameful senate vote, and the flow of $$$ from the NRA TO THOSE SENATORS----and to date no one has responded to the question--"if background checks save a single innocent death, aren't they worth a try?"

1 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

sonoma

Apr-22-13 1:50 PM

ALLIE--because they, and apparently you, don't know the facts about background checks. Congress approved 1.3 Billion when they passed the NICS improvement act to bring the CURRENT SYSTEM up to date after one of the recent mass murders showed the flaws in the system.

Since 2009 OBAMA has spent 50 million of that and is going to increase it to 20 million this year.

That is completely inadequate for the current checks and there is lots of information on the problems with the current system for anyone interested enough to read it.

Why would you want to increase the workload on the system when you won't even fund what is necessary now. "POLITICS" that's why

4 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

GioAllie

Apr-22-13 1:04 PM

"yada, yada ,yada guns and felons" Why do the majority of those polled support background checks, if not for "guns and felons" and of course mentally unstable.

0 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 73 comments Show More Comments
 
 

Post a Comment

You must first login before you can comment.

*Your email address:
*Password:
Remember my email address.
or
 
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web