Boy, are the gun-haters unhinged about their "best" hope for federal "gun control" going ignominiously down in flames today. Angry editorials in the Chicago Tribune are one thing. Obama throwing a tantrum, like a petulant, spoiled 6-year-old, is also to be expected.
Sadly, though, this venomous, hateful, vitriol should probably not be considered surprising, either:
Senator, May you live to see one of your family gunned down in front of you while you watch the life pour out of them onto the street. You are a coward and you disgust me!That was David Stachelksi, expressing his wish to U.S. Senator Heidi Heitkamp (D-ND) that someone she loves will be murdered, in punishment for her courageous willingness to defy the anti-gun bullying she has endured for months, with her vote today against a vastly expanded federal ban of private gun sales.
They want forcible citizen disarmament, and they don't care who has to die for them to get it.
Stumble it!
17 comments:
No federal ban was proposed. This was a common sense reasonable bill.
Moat Americans (90%) support background checks. Most NRA members too. I think NRA members and responsible gun owners should support this too because most of them I know are sick of bad people doing horrible things with guns.
Obviously Mr. Bravely Anonymous missed that whole 'semi-auto' ban bit.
These were all pet bills introduced to try and take advantage of the shooting at Sandy Hook. Not a single one of which would have stopped it.
But notice no remarks on the wishing of death against the opponents of the bills. Why would that be I wonder?
Any expansion of background check requirements is an expansion of private sales bans, and therefore most definitely neither "reasonable," nor "commonsense."
Besides, it's your "reasonable" ally calling for the murder of Sen. Heitkamp's loved ones.
Anonymous Cow-herd also forgets -- or just chose to lie -- that we already have background checks.
Yeah--I noticed that, too.
Hi - me again.
I'll let you guys simmer in your reality distortion zone in a minute. But until then, a few points:
- David Stachelksi is an asshole. NO ONE should say something like this.
- I'm looking specifically at the background check - it is a reasonable and common-sense step to limiting guns from the people who should not have them.
- I support ownership of guns and I believe the proposed background check bill would have co-existed with the 2nd amendment.
We already HAVE background checks.
When I transferred a pistol to my wife, one that I bought for her use several years ago before we were married, we had to submit to the entire process again, including turning the pistol over to the gun shop, where they held it for 10 days.
The whole process is already an arcane, convoluted mess. Adding more "common sense" laws to it will do NOTHING to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, who by definition, don't obey the law.
They want forcible citizen disarmament, and they want all free citizens to die for them to get it.
FTFY.
The point is that none of the proposed bills are, by definition, "common sense". Unless repeating something over and over makes it common sense. If so, we need to call Webster.
Look at the actual survey that gave the 90% supporting background checks. The sample size was not large enough for any accuracy. The respondents were hand picked. Again, invalidating the results. And the actual question asked did not ask Amy specifics and was worded to specifically manipulate the outcome for the survey. Bottom line is that number may as well have been made up by someone.
Background checks are required for sales through FFL's nationwide. Some states require them. Mine does not. But try to buy firearms in my state without a concealed Carry Permit which shows the background check has been done and you passed.
These were all feel good, political crap bills that would have only added to the regulation and made real restrictions easier to pass later on.
We won the battle today but the "war" on gun control is not over. We need to organize and prepare for the next round. Every time gun control becomes vogue we seemed to be caught flat footed. Let's get out in front of this and be proactive against the gun control fanatics.
Correction above. National law requires FFL's to run back ground checks everywhere. My state does not require it for personal sales. However, it would be difficult to purchase without one or a CWP, CCP or whatever your state calls them.
I'm forgetting the name of it, but what's that background check a criminal passes when they steal a gun? Or they murder a police officer and take his gun? Or the form that gets filled out when they build a gun of their own, or buy it from another criminal who had it smuggled in from another country?
It's escaping me.... can anyone help?
That "90% support UBC" survey was obviously skewed (too small a database, and hand-picked respondents). Also, the media have tried to make it appear that police support new gun laws. timesdaily.com said that "the men and women who patrol our streets" know the "urgency" of gun control. But every "police officer" they quoted was a chief or commissioner (i.e., politically appointed bureaucrat with a desk job), not a street cop. A survey by PoliceOne.com of real cops found that over 80% were skeptical of new gun laws, and most were in favor of an armed citizenry.
Dear Mr. Anonymous,
While you're technically correct - 90% of Americans DO support background checks - this is a mis-reported number.
90% of Americans support SOME KIND OF background check - you know, like the ones we already have. That's not what you're claiming. You're saying that 90% support EXPANDED background checks, which is false. The people who support expansion are a very small minority within the 90%.
That's just one example. Once you get your facts straight, you begin to see why gun control bills failed in the Senate once the Senators listened to their constituents.
May Peace favor you.
Another increasingly common tactic is for anti-gunners to post comments on blogs, or to write to the letters-to-the-editor columns of magazines, saying, "I'm a gun owner and I'm pro-Second Amendment, but I support reasonable, common sense laws." Then they parrot the Obama/Bloomberg/Feinstein party line. You've probably seen that TV ad with the "gun owner" holding the shotgun on his lap with his finger on the trigger while kids are playing nearby. These wolves in sheep's clothing are not fooling anyone. But, as Herman Cain said, "They think you're stupid."
Anonymous, F-Off. You obviously don't really speak as a gun owner. You aren't even willing to stand behind your words, that's why you're posting as anonymous.
As for the background check bill. Get real. There was nothing reasonable about it. It was merely a method to make law abiding citizens felons and provide yet another way to criminalize otherwise honest Americans.
Let's look at the one amendment that had a slim chance in hell of making it palatable. It ends up it gutted the FOPA and actually made a registry possible outside the DOJ.
Can you read and comprehend on your own or do you just spout the lies they tell you?
The title of "background check" in the name of this bill was a ruse just the same as using the word Patriot in the Patriot Act.
If you want to continue arguing for your position, stop being anonymous or it is obvious you're merely an anti-gun troll crying in your beer. Upset that the people saw through your lies and misdirection and were able to successfully defend their rights.
Notice you're the only person in this thread hiding behind anonymity and frankly if I was Kurt, I would boot and ban your ass for not being willing to publicly stand behind what you say you sniveling coward.
I don't mind letting Mr. Bravely Anonymous spout his ignorance from cover, MinuteMan. It's fun to watch you guys destroy him with facts and logic.
Post a Comment