Manchin-Toomey Bill.

[LowBb]

http://www.grantcunningham.com/blog.html

Here is a cut from Grant Cunningham's blog on the background check bill. His opinion is that overall the bill is benificial to fire arms enthusiasts and a compromise between sides. Edited April 15, 2013 by LowBb

[10-Ring]

Interesting read.  I hate to compromise at all but the man has some good points.  Still not saying that I agree with him 100%.  We must realize that we don't live in a perfect world and realistically some of our rights ARE going to be taken away from us, as has been the case for decades.  If we can get something in return for giving up something I guess that's a good thing.  Sure, I'd like to have my cake and eat it too, no background checks and having all of the goodies in this bill would be great but that just ain't gonna happen.

[Chief07]

Here is the problem with this so called bill.

Toomey and Mansion bill. Both of these phony Conservatives think they need to "compromise" with the gun grabbing liberals.

Chuck Schumer, the most anti-gun anti 2nd amendment progressive on the left wrote the bill. He is bought and paid for by Bloomberg.

Toomey won't even be seen on stage with Schumer in fear his base won't approve. Both of them are posturing with both parties in their districts 

hoping not to offend them in hopes they get re-elected.It has nothing to do with safety or "protecting the children".

These politicians must be told that they work for us. The Constitution which includes the bill of rights is not up for compromise and shall be protected 

at all costs.  

And another fact is, the bill isn't even written yet, these politicians are going to vote on a bill then write it.after the fact. Just like "Obamacare' remember 

Pelosi's famous quote "we have to vote on it to see what is in it: 

This bunch of incompetent idiots have got to go before we don;t have an America we even recognize.

:usa:

[macville]

We supposedly got a good deal in the 1986 bill that banned new machine guns and gave us travel protection. However, as we've found since then all the deal did was ban new machine guns and we really don't have travel protection in states like NY, NJ, etc. So no compromises because we won't actually get anything in return. All that would problem happen is the courts would knock down the little good we got and leave the crap. Plus, what good is being able to carry in all states if we get our guns taken away-which IS the real purpose no matter what the liberals claim they don't want to do. These people LIE LIE LIE-even so much as easily proven lies like Obama's "full auto rifle" use at sandy hook lie last week.

[Oh Shoot]

...

And another fact is, the bill isn't even written yet, these politicians are going to vote on a bill then write it.after the fact.

 

???  First draft released to public Friday:

 

http://www.tngunowners.com/forums/topic/64081-anyone-read-through-s-649-yet/

 

- OS

Edited April 15, 2013 by Oh Shoot

[jughead]

A-men to NO more compromise

[Guest 6.8 AR]

I guess that article makes me an absolutist. Not one bit of that bill needs to be enacted. The only thing

that needs to be done is nullifying and simplifying the existing laws that make everyone inside our boundaries

a criminal, whether or not they even know it.

 

We need to break the mentality in DC, and in state and local government, that something new always needs

to be enacted. There is no reason for it. Leave the burden for socialistic tyrants and totalitarian dictators on

another continent. We have too much of it around here, now.

 

People need to do for themselves with a much simpler set of laws. I'll never get tired of saying that.

 

If a senator thinks he always has to come up with something new, he needs to be back home more often and

quit trying to tell you and I how to live. He costs more than he is worth.

[JayC]

How many millions of dollars is spent performing the background checks today?  Not just on the make work for government employees, but also on wasted time and added expense on the private sector...  It's a lot more than 10 million a year, probably close to 100 million a year...  All of that to arrest and convict 44 people last year?  That doesn't seem like a good return on investment to me.