Senators seek back room deal on firearm background checks

[mcurrier]

Senators seek back room deal on firearm background checks

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/02/08/senators-seek-back-room-deal-on-firearm-background-checks

[strickj]

Course they are. The NRA caved on backgrounds checks before it was even on the table.

[RED333]

Just sent this to my Reps.

 

"A bipartisan quartet of senators, including two National Rifle Association members and two with "F" ratings from the potent firearms lobby, are quietly trying to find a compromise on expanding the requirement for gun-sale background checks.

WE THE PEOPLE KNOW OF THIS.
WE THE PEOPLE VOTED YOU INTO OFFICE.
WE THE PEOPLE WILL VOTE YOU OUT OF OFFICE.
DO AS WE WANT!
The laws on the books are enough, we need no more, WE NEED LESS!!!
We have the right giving from GOD, you
SHALL NOT INFRINGE!!!"

 

WE HAVE TO STAND AS ONE

[Guest nra37922]

Just sent this to my Reps.

 

"A bipartisan quartet of senators, including two National Rifle Association members and two with "F" ratings from the potent firearms lobby, are quietly trying to find a compromise on expanding the requirement for gun-sale background checks.

WE THE PEOPLE KNOW OF THIS.
WE THE PEOPLE VOTED YOU INTO OFFICE.
WE THE PEOPLE WILL VOTE YOU OUT OF OFFICE.
DO AS WE WANT!
The laws on the books are enough, we need no more, WE NEED LESS!!!
We have the right giving from GOD, you
SHALL NOT INFRINGE!!!"

 

WE HAVE TO STAND AS ONE

We the people don't vote anyone out of office very often.  Politicians know and count of this, as long as they are mostly bland and/or are in a real safe district they stay and stay and STAY....  Hell Barney Frank could have been caught running naked down a street chasing a sheep and his district would have re-elected him.

[Guest 270win]

Where is the 'compromise' so that we get something we want and the antis get something they want.  That's right it isn't compromise.  You don't see the Hughes 86 machine gun ban being repealed, silencers taken off NFA.  It is all what one group wants.

[Garufa]

Where is the 'compromise' so that we get something we want and the antis get something they want.

 

Background checks are the compromise on a national level....this year.  NRA's got no cards left after that.  The next few years will be very interesting.

 

Meanwhile, States and municipalities have already started proposing and passing so many absurd laws the Supreme Court will be tied up for years, if anyone challenges them.

[RED333]

We the people don't vote anyone out of office very often.  Politicians know and count of this, as long as they are mostly bland and/or are in a real safe district they stay and stay and STAY....  Hell Barney Frank could have been caught running naked down a street chasing a sheep and his district would have re-elected him.

This is the problem with the American public, we dont care, WELL, WE HAVE TO START CARING!

[mikegideon]

Course they are. The NRA caved on backgrounds checks before it was even on the table.

 

I'm not getting that out of any NRA folks. From Chris Cox on Wednesday...

 

Right now, we need to prove to every Senator on Capitol Hill
that American gun owners are UNITED and READY TO FIGHT against any
freedom-killing proposal to ban our guns, ban our magazines, criminalize private
firearms transfers, or force us to register our firearms.

And that means
letting both of your U.S. Senators hear from YOU. It means calling them and
flooding their offices with emails.

[mikegideon]

Background checks are the compromise on a national level....this year.  NRA's got no cards left after that.  The next few years will be very interesting.

 

Meanwhile, States and municipalities have already started proposing and passing so many absurd laws the Supreme Court will be tied up for years, if anyone challenges them.

 

There is already at least one lawsuit in New York that I'm aware of.

[Oh Shoot]

Where is the 'compromise' so that we get something we want and the antis get something they want.  That's right it isn't compromise.  You don't see the Hughes 86 machine gun ban being repealed, silencers taken off NFA.  It is all what one group wants.

 

Yep, "compromise" on gun issues means that we lose something else. When's the last time we "gained" anything? The only thing I can think of are a few things in the Firearm Owners Protection Act. Which of course also Protected us by making machine guns illegal.

 

- OS

[strickj]

I'm not getting that out of any NRA folks. From Chris Cox on Wednesday...

 

Right now, we need to prove to every Senator on Capitol Hill
that American gun owners are UNITED and READY TO FIGHT against any
freedom-killing proposal to ban our guns, ban our magazines, criminalize private
firearms transfers, or force us to register our firearms.

And that means
letting both of your U.S. Senators hear from YOU. It means calling them and
flooding their offices with emails.

 

LaPierre supports it and the NRA was accepting of it up until a few days ago.

 

"Yes, the NRA has changed its position," Sandy Froman, the organization's former president, told CNN.
"And the reason its changed its position is because the system doesn't
work. The [background check system] is not working now. We have to get
that working before we can add any more checks to that system." Froman
was president of the NRA from 2005 to 2007 and currently sits on the
board of directors.
 

[mikegideon]

Obammy is pushing this thru his Organizing for Idiots campaign too. Background checks only. Since we kinda expected this even before their gift massacre, I sure wouldn't be surprised if it passes now.

[mikegideon]

LaPierre supports it and the NRA was accepting of it up until a few days ago.

 

"Yes, the NRA has changed its position," Sandy Froman, the organization's former president, told CNN.
"And the reason its changed its position is because the system doesn't
work. The [background check system] is not working now. We have to get
that working before we can add any more checks to that system." Froman
was president of the NRA from 2005 to 2007 and currently sits on the
board of directors.
 

 

I read that when it came out. It's not their position now. Just not sure it will matter anyway. A large block of people have to be against it, and I don't know if that block is there.

[LowBb]

We got our AR's and AK's back in 04. The compromise will be they "let" us keep them. IMHO.

[Chief07]

Senators seek back room deal on firearm background checks

http://www.gopusa.com/news/2013/02/08/senators-seek-back-room-deal-on-firearm-background-checks

NO MORE!

My 2nd Amendment rights are not open for compromise. 

No more talk, what part of no don't they understand.

Washington needs an enema to flush the crap out.

This whole bunch needs to go.

[Garufa]

NO MORE!

My 2nd Amendment rights are not open for compromise. 

No more talk, what part of no don't they understand.

Washington needs an enema to flush the crap out.

This whole bunch needs to go.

 

So what are ya gonna do? 

 

Your 2nd Amendment rights have been regulated since 1791.

[Seabeejason]

Another couple Senators are saying that they may "compromise". Making a deal with a snake like Chuck Schumer is like making a deal with the devil. He is a sniveling little weasel.

I will say this, if EITHER of our Tennessee Senators sign on to any "compromise" that retricts our right to bear arms they will lose my vote. And I will go out of my way to tell EVERYONE not to vote for them.

Compromise is not an option, we have "compromised" enough.

[LowBb]

Gentlemen, with all due respect, I believe we will have to make some compromises. That is how politics works. There are two sides to this matter. It is not Obama and the liberals vs. us. In recent polls, a majority of Americans believe in some form of "control". Background checks on all fire arms sold seems to be the one that has the most support among Americans. In my opinion, the key is to continue what we are doing. Write to congress, attend rallies, create new and informed gun owners that want to act responsibly. We can't let them see us sweat and above all, we must stay cool.

Enclosed is a link to a poll from Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE9160LW20130207

[Garufa]

Gentlemen, with all due respect, I believe we will have to make some compromises. That is how politics works. There are two sides to this matter. It is not Obama and the liberals vs. us. In recent polls, a majority of Americans believe in some form of "control". Background checks on all fire arms sold seems to be the one that has the most support among Americans. In my opinion, the key is to continue what we are doing. Write to congress, attend rallies, create new and informed gun owners that want to act responsibly. We can't let them see us sweat and above all, we must stay cool.

Enclosed is a link to a poll from Reuters.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/02/07/us-usa-guns-poll-idUSBRE9160LW20130207

 

What you must understand is gun owners have nothing to gain in the never ending game of "compromise". We will lose every time.

 

Giving up one thing for the sake of another is not good.  Eventually you will have nothing.

 

The way this country works now is just about anyone can make some kind of complaint and somebody else has to give something up to shut them up.  That is not right.

Edited February 9, 2013 by Garufa

[LowBb]

Good point. I'm going to find out what the latest ruling by the Supreme Court is on the language of the second amendment. If anyone has clarification handy please post. We must make sure they don't over step the ruling and we must understand the amendments intent. At least I need to if I can intelligently debate.

I just bought two 20 round mags. I'll be damned if I want to give them up.

[Oh Shoot]

Good point. I'm going to find out what the latest ruling by the Supreme Court is on the language of the second amendment. If anyone has clarification handy please post. We must make sure they don't over step the ruling and we must understand the amendments intent. At least I need to if I can intelligently debate.

I just bought two 20 round mags. I'll be damned if I want to give them up.

 

McDonald vs Chicago basically says the 2A guarantees that you can have some kind of long guns and/or some kind of handguns in your home, subject to some degree of hoops to jump through to have them .That's about as far as it went.

 

- OS

Edited February 9, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[Guest ThePunisher]

I'm tired of jumping through hoops to keep my Constitutional rights. It's time to start drawing the line in the sand to find out who our enemies are in our own country. You're either with us or you're against us. Tired of this compromise, and surrendering our liberties and freedoms.

[LowBb]

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2010/rpt/2010-R-0314.htm
http://www.examiner.com/article/a-full-summary-and-analysis-of-the-mcdonald-v-chicago-supreme-court-case

And because its fun: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._Chicago

Hummmmm. Gran Torino goes to court. A guy in a big city who has been robbed a number of times challenges the Chicago hand gun ban. No where in the case do they name specific fire arms that are banned.

Terms like liberty, state by state, fundamental, militia of the states, etc. The rulings are actual cases where someone used a gun to defend themselves in a proper mannor


Also D.C. Vs. Heller.

It sounds like some elected officials want to challenge the original intent of the 2nd, especially the "militia" wording, and the 14th interpretation of "due process" as it pertains to fire arms. They also want to frame "self defense" and define or limit what they consider acceptable self defense weapons. This will be debated again and again.

[Oh Shoot]

....No where in the case do they name specific fire arms that are banned.

 

Nowhere did they state that 2A allows one to own any specific type of firearm either.

 

Distressingly, Scalia has said in interviews "we'd have to look at that" regarding whether some types of currently legal weapons could be constitutionally banned. So you can imagine what the decision of the lib judges on there would be, and by the time a case works its way up, SCOTUS has good chance of having liberal majority.

 

'Course, the way Roberts ruled on ObamaCare, may be liberal enough as is.

 

- OS

Edited February 9, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[LowBb]

Based on the current climate and a majority of what the media says is public consensus (which probably makes no difference because our politicians are bought) and the stance that the libs are taking, I'd say they will try to do something. From a jaded point of view it will all come down to who can buy the most votes as to who's agenda will be passed.

I think your statement "nowhere did they state that 2A allows..... " Is their angle this time. Edited February 9, 2013 by LowBb