Here comes Obama! Background checks for all!

[spacemanvic]

Some of us knew this was coming back in 2008. Some squealed, "No way. Obama is pro gun."

Id like to publicly thank the imbeciles who have stated on other threads that Obozo isn't after our guns. Bet they dont even own guns.

Progressive pricks.

[bluedog46]

Let me see if i get this right. Obama is concerned about law abiding citizens getting background checks ( most of us do) on things like personal sales and things of that nature, but he sues a state for trying to protect their borders?

Is there something wrong with this, or am I the only one that sees it?

This disgrace needs to go or learn his place.

EDIT: Removed content in violation of Forum Rules

[spacemanvic]

Let me see if i get this right. Obama is concerned about law abiding citizens getting background checks ( most of us do) on things like personal sales and things of that nature, but he sues a state for trying to protect their borders?

Is there something wrong with this, or am I the only one that sees it?

This disgrace needs to go or learn his place.

EDIT: Removed content in violation of Forum Rules

What the hell does this guys race have anything to do with his stupidity? My dislike and distrust of Obumbo is in no way tied to his race. It's his politics that I detest.

This president is an embarrassment to all U.S. citizens, regardless of skin tone.

[phillykev]

Quick...someone queue the NRA to send out requests for donations and ammo and gun dealers to jack their prices.

Did any of you read the oped? All I saw him suggest was that the background check system should be up to date and accurate. I support that.

[legendarylorot]

Interestingly he didn't even suggest waiting periods or other common annoyances. Instead he says that background systems should be fully up to date. This does actually relate to faster checkout times with fewer instances of the honest individual being confused for the prohibited.

But I'll be watching for any suggestion of new legislation, especially when he's said he'd rather enforce existing law.

[AxiTech]

[QUOTE=twoguns;1528792
Waiting now for the NRA to make a compromise.[/QUOTE]

That is why it is called the NRA! Negotiating Rights Away!

[ChamberedRound]

Waiting now for the NRA to make a compromise.

Quick...someone queue the NRA to send out requests for donations and ammo and gun dealers to jack their prices.

That is why it is called the NRA! Negotiating Rights Away!

I'm not a fan of the NRA when it comes to their involvement in state-level politics, but as far as the federal stage goes, they're the best we've got, and they're pretty good for the most part. Obama supposedly invited the NRA to the discussions, and here's the response from Wayne LaPierre:

http://www.nraila.org/pdfs/obamaletter314.pdf

[twoguns]

"I'm not a fan of the NRA when it comes to their involvement in state-level politics, but as far as the federal stage goes, they're the best we've got, and they're pretty good for the most part."

Yeah and apparently, in the past, Bob Dole and John McCain were the best and now Huckabee, Newt, Sarah and Romney are the best the Republicans can offer too.

Sorry, not for me.

[phillykev]

From NRA letter:

There are additional steps you can take to prevent tragic events such as the Tucson shooting from occurring in the future. One of these is to call on the national news media to refrain from giving deranged criminals minute-by-minute coverage fo their heinous acts, which only serves to encourage copycat behavior.

That is a completely ridiculous and stupid statement. Sacrifice the 1st to protect the 2nd? Or are they simply implying he make an unenforceable (and thus useless) request? And I don't recall the news covering the Tucson shooting during the minute the shooting took place.

Sorry, but that entire letter sounds like someone sticking their fingers in their ears and shouting "NANANNANANANANA I'm not listening to you." They propose discussions on criminal justice and mental health issues. Last I checked, they didn't have any expertise or mandate regarding those issue. They're abdicating their role as lobbyists supporting gun owners by saying they refuse to participate in any discussions with the administration unless unrelated demands are met first.

I agree with their ideas regarding prosecuting violent criminals federally. But that does not have to be done BEFORE the background check system is modernized.

[ChamberedRound]

Sorry, not for me.

To each his own.

That is a completely ridiculous and stupid statement. Sacrifice the 1st to protect the 2nd? Or are they simply implying he make an unenforceable (and thus useless) request? And I don't recall the news covering the Tucson shooting during the minute the shooting took place.

The suggestion wasn't to legislate against it. THAT would be sacrificing the 1st. Media outlets don't print and broadcast EVERYTHING that the journalists come up with, they never have. There's a difference between slaughtering freedom of the press and calling for more responsible and ethical editorial review.

I don't think there's anything wrong with pointing out the fact that making celebrities out of maniacs, all in the name of ratings, is going to make more maniacs hurt innocent people looking for their 15+ minutes of fame.