LIAR!

H

Howey

Banned
Here's a heartfelt letter to a constituent of Rep. Jeff Flake, (R), Arizona signifying his support of stricter background checks.



But.

He didn't vote for the bill. I wonder how much cash the NRA sent him?

One of the U.S. senators who voted against gun control legislation Wednesday lied to a heartbroken mother whose son was killed in the Aurora, Colo., movie massacre, she says.

Arizona Sen. Jeff Flake sent Caren Teves a handwritten note last week saying he was “truly sorry” for the loss of her son and that “strengthening background checks is something we agree on.”

Then, just days later, he helped kill a bill that would do just that.
Click to expand...
 
Why should anybody vote for more background checks when the feds don’t even bother to prosecute the majority criminals in violation of the ones already on the books? Is there any evidence that background checks have prevented anything except making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase a logical means of self-protection?

Leftist politicians don’t want to protect Americans, they want to disarm them so they’ll be easier to control.
 
Classic Liberal said:
Why should anybody vote for more background checks when the feds don’t even bother to prosecute the majority criminals in violation of the ones already on the books? Is there any evidence that background checks have prevented anything except making it more difficult for law-abiding citizens to purchase a logical means of self-protection?

Leftist politicians don’t want to protect Americans, they want to disarm them so they’ll be easier to control.
Click to expand...

Are you going to poison another thread with that lameness??
 
there is no other reason to implement gun control legislation except to provide better control over the people. those who can't see it are just slavish statists.
 
Howey said:
Are you going to poison another thread with that lameness??
Click to expand...

Hardly. He is correct that criminals attempting to buy guns are hardly ever prosecuted. It is a crime for the criminals to attempt to buy a gun but there were only 44 prosecutions from 4,732 cases! Obama's agenda put a stop to the prosecution of those criminals. We should be asking why?

http://forums.scout.com/mb.aspx?s=7&f=1405&t=11318467

Prosecution for gun crimes down 40% under Obama
Walking guns to Mexico while publicly claiming a need to have restrictions, asking for new laws while not enforcing the old ones...
makes one wonder it the real objective is to curb the flow of weapons to criminals or whether it's to infringe on the rights of citizens. It would certainly appear that the focus of the Obama administration is NOT criminals but someone else. Why squawk about "saving one life" while letting criminals flaunt the law without even trying to enforce it? Simple IMO... they're lying about the goal they're trying to reach.

"However, recent studies show the Obama administration has not enforced many gun laws already on books -- with gun crime prosecutions hitting a decade low in 2011, down 40 percent from their peak under President George W. Bush in 2004, according to federal data crunched by Syracuse University."

"The GOP letter also cited data from the National Criminal Justice Reference Service (NCJRS), which found in 2010, of 6 million Americans who applied to buy a gun, less than 2 percent -- or 76,000 -- were denied. Of those, the ATF referred 4,732 cases for prosecution. Of them, just 44 were prosecuted, and only 13 were punished for lying or buying a gun illegally."

LINK to entire article- http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...secutions-on-decline-amid-call-for-more-laws/
 
Howey said:
Are you going to poison another thread with that lameness??
Click to expand...

For some reason you fail to rationally oppose or debunk the so-called lameness with any facts or rational points of argument. But that’s never suspicious coming from a leftist, their usual attempts at debate are simply slogans, irrationality, insults, feeble statements and absurd accusations.

So for your feeble consideration, answer me this, what affect would more background checks have on the safety of the American people and how would it have prevented the atrocity at Sandy Hook?
 
Classic Liberal said:
For some reason you fail to rationally oppose or debunk the so-called lameness with any facts or rational points of argument. But that’s never suspicious coming from a leftist, their usual attempts at debate are simply slogans, irrationality, insults, feeble statements and absurd accusations.

So for your feeble consideration, answer me this, what affect would more background checks have on the safety of the American people and how would it have prevented the atrocity at Sandy Hook?
Click to expand...

The need for better background checks, including a comprehensive identification of those mentally ill and closing the gun show loophole, could result in fewer future Sandy Hooks.

So answer me this: What effect will the failure to pass extended background checks have on the safety of Americans?
 
and, instead of turning this thread into an argument about background checks, why doesn't someone from the right address the hypocrisy of the senator who, in a hand written, apparently heartfelt note to his constituent, said one thing, and then, on the senate floor, did exactly the opposite?
 
Howey said:
The need for better background checks, including a comprehensive identification of those mentally ill and closing the gun show loophole, could result in fewer future Sandy Hooks.
Click to expand...

How so since the government fails to prosecute the vast majority of the felons and mentally ill who attempt to buy guns now? And how would Sandy Hook been prevented when the guns used were legally owned and the thief that stole and used them evidently never was subjected to a background check and even if he had been government was not likely to ever follow up on the results thereof?

So answer me this: What effect will the failure to pass extended background checks have on the safety of Americans?
Click to expand...

None one way or the other! However, armed citizens, teachers and school security would very well have a resounding positive effect on A SAFER America for FREE Americans.
 
maineman said:
are sellers at gun shows required to perform a background check prior to sale? are sellers of guns over the internet required to perform a background check prior to sale?
Click to expand...
the law requires licensed dealers to perform background checks for sales. the law specifically prohibits non licensed individuals from accessing the NICS system and specifically exempts sales between two private individuals. If the specific exemption/prohibition is written in to the law, there can be no loophole.
 
There isn't a gun show loophole. There's a private sale loophole....and yes, private sales can happen at gun shows

So theoretically..a person could go and purchase a large quantity of firearms and resell them via private sales to criminals, gang bangers and psychopaths for a tidy profit.

THAT'S the loophole.
 
Steelplate said:
There isn't a gun show loophole. There's a private sale loophole....and yes, private sales can happen at gun shows

So theoretically..a person could go and purchase a large quantity of firearms and resell them via private sales to criminals, gang bangers and psychopaths for a tidy profit.

THAT'S the loophole.
Click to expand...

Similar to the government’s “Fast & Furious” scam, huh?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top