See complete forecast
Copy and paste the link:
Our senators have no brain of their own. Whether or not they sell their votes is hard to prove, but they certainly listen to Mitch McConnell, when ever he speaks and he spoke out about this bill and it was defeated. When do we do the right thing instead of the expedient thing? Our senators should never be reelected, no matter what.
And, as Jon Stewart pointed out, 90% of the people were for background checks, the Senate voted 54 to 46 for background checks, and somehow the majority vote loses, thanks to Senate rules that allow minority rule to decide. This vote was shameful on several levels, including many GOP senators' responses to the families of the Newtown victims, telling them to go to "*@#$" or calling them "props" as if they had no right (to free speech) to weigh in on this issue.
Thank you Senators Roberts and Moran for representing me. I called, you listened and you did good.
Did the majority of Kansans support the proposed gun control bills? Roberts and Moran work for the people of Kansas.
The majority of KS voters who put them in office did.
Last I checked, they represented all of Kansas, and not just the ones who voted for them.
That aside, background checks are favored even with Republicans. 89% of Republicans surveyed favored background checks in this CBS poll, for instance. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-57564386-10391739/9-in-10-back-universal-gun-background-checks/
Explain to me how a politician can represent all Kansans when they have opposing view points? If a politician runs on a platform of protecting the 2nd amendment and wins election do you think they will vote for gun control?
I am against the ACA - why did Obama not represent me and not push it forward. Isn't he my president too? Of course he is my president but like the senators he can't represent all on every issue.
If Obama had only represented the people that voted for him, we'd have a @#$# public option with our ACA. Maybe even a single-payer system.
chootspa, please. The public option not being in the ACA has nothing to do with representing me. It was about politics. The bill was dead if he left it in.
But please, tell me how he represents me when I disagree with just about all he stands for? He doesn't and I understand that it is just life - I don't whine and cry about it. A politician creates a platform and is either elected or defeated on it. if elected, he better represent those that voted for him and not throw them under the bus.
He passed Romneycare in spite of having a majority in both chambers and a filibuster-proof majority in the senate for a short span of that debate. If he'd wanted to pass real health reform, he'd have held his party's feet to the fire and done it. Instead, he's made the deliberate choice to be Captain Compromise and passed something that was previously supported by the Heritage Foundation.
You could Google it. Or, you know, follow the multiple links that people have posted here.
Stewart pointed out a widely known statistic. I never said that it was true because he said it
What is the source of this widely known statistic? I'm not certain that I've ever heard the 90% figure before.
How do you get Internet underneath that rock?
They voted against it because it was a bad bill. There was potential for misuse, such as creating a nationwide database of gun owners. That is against the law already, but that doesn't mean the emperor wouldn't do it. No matter what the emperor says, most of it is a lie. There are many of us who do not trust him, or his anti-gun cohorts. An example is the Attorney General participating in "fast and furious" which got a couple of hundred mexican citizens killed, plus one of our border patrol agents. When it came time to own up to his illegal activities before the Congress, the emperor pulled him from the fire. This man is the chief law enforcement officer of this nation, it appears he is a liar and a crook. I am a life member of the NRA and GOA, I was opposed to this badly written bill.
The paranoia about a supposed gun registry is laughable. The government wouldn't need a list to quash you, so what difference does it make?
90 percent of Americans, including a significant majority of National Rifle Association members, support these checks.
I'm guessing there is support of that claim somewhere
Sorry, markoo. Armstrong wasn't the one who argued 90%. That was appleday--it was appleday's figure to support, not Armstrong's to refute. LarryNative is right below--Jon Stewart is "the source," but hardly credible.
You and chootspa missed the point. I don't care whether or not the 90% figure is valid. I don't care where it comes from. My point is simply this: appleday gave the figure. appleday needs to say where it comes from. He doesn't, from an argumentation standpoint, get to throw out numbers and then say "prove them wrong." He has an affirmative burden to show that they are correct. Doesn't matter how quick a google search is. Doesn't matter whether Jon Stewart reported it--if appleday wants to cite that figure, he is responsible to back it up.
And that makes five seconds of Googling invalid how?
Spend sometime reading a newspaper or watching any news outlet except Fox and you would know that the numbers are the result of several valid polls.
""If the buyer is trying to purchase a gun from another person who is not a gun dealer but owns one or more guns and wants to sell one of them." Favor: 70 percent. Oppose: 29 percent.
"If the buyer is purchasing a gun from a family member or receiving it as a gift." Favor: 54 percent. Oppose: 45 percent.
"Please tell me whether you would favor or oppose a background check for anyone who wants to buy ammunition for a gun." Favor: 55 percent. Oppose: 44 percent."
Do you see 90 there? The liars will babble 90% and hope nobody notices that the 90% garbage doesn't apply to private sellers. That statistic is is not close to 90.
The left gets no more gun laws because every time they open their collective mouths about guns a lie comes out. We don't need our rights curbed based on lies repeated hard and fast by leftist ideologues and their apologists. Get lost. Your president is a lame duck and you have nowhere to go in congress. You are done.
The M-T amendment only required them for Internet and gun show sales, which has reliably gotten overwhelming support in polling. (86% in one poll) Speaking of manipulation, you're also leaving out these results.
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
• CBS News poll, March 20-24, 2013. "Would you favor or oppose background checks on all potential gun buyers?" Favor: 90 percent. Oppose: 8 percent.
Which still makes the 90% answer honest. It doesn't bother you to be a radical with fringe opinions on other issues, so I'm really not sure why it's bothering you so much to be a radical with fringe opinions on this one. Cognitive dissonance is such a strange thing.
No, you are tossing around this 90% number as if it applies to private sales when that is not the case. Your statistics are not adequate lies to base law on. More importantly, public opinion has no relevance law until the next election.
The left overplayed it's hand with the "assault weapon" ban, now they are overplaying it cherry picking statistics to support the 90% lie.. Like I said, you are out of luck. Nobody is buying into your plan except would-be gun grabbers, and right now is the time to shut them down.
You have lost. Go cognitive dissonance that for a while.
All means all. That inclues private sales. Tossing it around as if it means "all" is entirely appropriate, because that was the question. Didn't even have to choose one poll. There were several. That's not cherry picking, and calling people that want to increase background checks "gun grabbers" is a total stretch. "Gosh, no it's only 70% who support the private sales bit specifically in one poll I found so therefore the 90% statistic found in other polls is a lie" is actually cherry picking, you big cherry picker.
Like I said. You're an extremist that supports a radical position. You're used to that by now. I'm not sure why the notion makes you so uncomfortable now. Well, other than perhaps the chilling realization that a massively popular bill being defeated for the sake of a lobby group that is now even out of touch with its own membership's views may, in fact, mark the tipping point of the influence of that particular organization. I see the 2014 campaign attack ads already.
Lots of measures don't pass the first time around. Go cognitive dissonance that one. Oh, I see you already are.
Here is my 2 cents. Yes, you can purchase a firearm off the Internet, but they will only ship it to somebody who has a Federal Firearms License. The person with the Federal Firearms License will run a background check on you, and you will pay them a small fee for their service. You can also purchase a firearm at a gun show without any kind of background check. This is allowed so gun owners can sell their weapons privately to other gun owners without having to go through a Federal Firearms License dealer. If a convicted felon purchases a firearm from another person privately, they are breaking a federal law and could go back to prison for doing so. Please tell me of one instance, where somebody committed one of these mass murders, and they purchased their weapons at a gun show or privately from another person. Name me just one instance. I don't believe there are any instances, but please let me know if I'm wrong. They either stole them or purchased them from a dealer who ran a background check on them, and they passed the background check. It's not the weapon that needs to be controlled; it's the loose nut behind the trigger who needs to be controlled. The nut job that is responsible for the Sandy Hook Elementary incident broke more than one law. He murdered his mother and stole her guns. What other silly law would have prevented him for doing what he did? It seams to me that he didn't care about any laws, or he wouldn't have broken them. Maybe we need to include mental records, when a background check is performed. The problem is that the bill that was presented to the US Senate contained all these other silly agendas, which are included to slowly eat away at our rights to own firearms. These agendas include limiting the magazine capacities or outlawing anything that could be considered an assault weapon. I have a 22-caliber rifle that may be included in an assault weapons ban, just because I can purchase a 50 round magazine for it. It's a peashooter for Christ sake! Lets end the madness and pass laws that make sense or stop letting criminals out of prison because of overcrowding or commit those who are a danger to our society.
• Quinnipiac University poll, March 26-April 1, 2013. "Do you support or oppose requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Support: 91 percent. Oppose: 8 percent."
So which statistic do you want to use?
Well, the first one has to do with ammunition, and the second with gun purchases.
A vote for would have prohibited debate on the dumb little Senate bill, with only a few pre-approved amendments. A vote against, as Moran and Roberts voted, would open it up to 30 hours of debate with no limit on the amendments that could be offered. Obama, after making such an abject ass of himself, couldn't allow that. Cloture failed so rather than proceed with the 30 hours of debate, Reid has pulled the bill entirely.
The press thinks you're too stupid to find this out - and they hope you stay that way.
The minority filibustered the Toomey-Manchin amendment, not the bill itself. The purpose of voting no was not to actually extend debate in this age of the silent filibuster. It was to kill the amendment and kill the bill. Reid voted against cloture, so he could bring the amendment up for another vote. Amendments are usually limited in legislation like this, because filling up the amendment tree with infinite numbers of garbage amendments nobody will vote for is another common stalling tactic used by the minority.
If you're going to accuse the press of misinformation, it might help to not be peddling it yourself.
The majority also wanted the filibuster to avoid other pro gun amendments from passing.
No. If the majority wanted to avoid other pro-gun amendments from passing, they'd have just voted against them. That's how this voting thing works.
Wrong again chootspa. The majority voted to protected veterans rights, but failed because of the fillibuster rule. I believe other amendments suffered the same fate.
The Senate failed Wednesday to pass legislation preventing veterans from losing gun ownership rights simply for being incapable of handling their financial affairs.
Under special rules for Senate debate on the gun bill, 60 votes were required for passage. The vote was 56-44.
Doesn't that prove that a minority blocked that amendment from passing, so isn't it still a minority that wanted the filibuster? PS - the VA didn't support that measure, either.
My real concern is how dysfunctional our Congress is. For every problem, each "side" takes a position, they fight over who is right and who is wrong, they play legislative games, one side "wins," and then the problem goes on being a problem and the citizens are left without workable solutions. Until members of Congress on both sides start working together become willing to compromise, we're left with this dysfunction.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Did anyone here get involved in this 90% poll, where was it taken and when, and how was it worded??? Something like, do you support the so called back ground check, or do you want a jab in the eye with a sharp stick.
It amazes me that when someone doesn't agree with the results of a poll the poll must be wrong or it asked the wrong question . It sure worked for the pundits on Fox news who said that the polls were wrong and that Mitt would win in a landslide didn't it.
Granted, bad polls and bad questions are real things, but the results on these particular polls have been pretty consistent, no matter who does the asking. Turns out gun owners favor background checks, Republicans favor background checks, and people in houses with an NRA member favor background checks.
What amuses me is the willful ignorance. People who haven't heard these results haven't bothered trying to look.
Markoo, I thank you, I did not see or hear of them, again thanks, bud.
The science of sampling attempts to get a group that represents the population as a whole. Polling 100 people at a gun show is hardly a cross section of the entire US population.
Most of us favor background checks.
The issue is to what extent
a. Background check and registration of weapon. (one of the proposals)
b. Background check (to include mental health)
c. Background check with no consequence of failing
d. Background checks where private sellers do not have to keep records (or where they do)
The favor/ oppose ratios vary depending on exactly what kind of background check is to be made, how much record is maintained, what happens when you fail, whose included.
AS always the main stream media asks a simplistic question and runs with the result without any caveats. We should do better if we are going to cite polls as reflecting “truth” on such a complex question.
Again. Look at the polling. They've asked finer grained questions on this, too. You can't dismiss it all as not asking nuanced enough questions, just because the news blurbs didn't give you the full results. Background checks on family member purchases was the least popular option, and even it found 54% support. And that particular aspect was not in the filibustered M-T amendment.
Yep, that was my point. The actual number is something less than 90% nationally.
I am also not sure as to how the legislation was handled. Since the bi-partisan option was an amendment what was in the basic bill. Could it have led to the failure because there was a poison pill in there somewhere.
In the case of our senators could the polling numbers in Kansas be different from the national polls? If so, could it be that our senators voted the way their constituents wanted (We do differ from the rest of Kansas in what we profess).
this has become a country where simple minded constituents can let the rest
of the country go while being concerned with three or four issues being
guns, abortion, immigration, and religion. it's hard to use empirical data
when these people do nothing except react emotionally to the words
that spineless and cowardly politicians say to the them like the pied piper.
they don't think much. it's basically their only defense to fifty three percent
of the country electing a person they call an elitest because they have no
intellect. if you've broken no laws then background checks don't affect you.
it's the same logic as the voting id nonsense that herr kobach and his goose
steppers have put on us when voting. I've voted since 1988 and I don't need
a pathetic attempt at precinct intimidation and a non issue except with non
thinking voters who believe the immigration malarkey. maybe these clowns
should check to see if my deceased mother is voting. talk about a non issue.
I've been a gun owner since I was eight when I got my first shotgun to hunt
with in Louisiana from my dad. I did hunters safety at eleven years of age
and I've helped collect antique guns as a lifelong Democrat whose against
a bunch of chest thumping doomsday prepper NRA ar 15 owners politicizing
the gun issue, Nothing like seeing the anti Obama NRA posters in gun shops
here and in Tulsa flaming the fear of brother issue that I've seen in the last
three years. Background checks affect no one except those who shouldn't
be allowed to buy guns. This is just a knee jerk reactions by those whom
the coward politicians have programmed to react with paranoia. I let
both the OVPK and DC offices of Pat Roberts have it this week.
What was it that Mr. Kerry said about nuance?? The details matter. Too many people fall for the top level "good idea" without any consideration of the rest of the package.
Moron and bobblehead voted as they were told to vote by those whom they worship, which on this matter, was not the people they were elected to represent.
I would like to personally thank them for the next Newtown and their staunch support of the potential murderers of our children and other innocent americans. You don't have to tell me who the real terrorists are. Roberts and moron and their ilk.
This ilk thinks that no matter what we do, since we can't stop these senseless acts of murder we should do nothing to help prevent as many as possible. The more the better.
The more you do, the more you make it harder for Americans to exercise their constitutional rights. The onus is on you gun-grabbers to convince us that this garbage law will do enough good to offset the barrier to the exercise of a right. You haven't done that, Reid hasn't done that, Feinstien hasn't done that and Obama hasn't done that.
All you see are senseless acts of murder and it has you so hysterical that you are willing to carelessly place barriers to an enumerated right. How about we place barriers to due process since it can allow murderers to go free on technicalities? If everyone had to pass a background check to have a jury trial, we could prevent lots of crime.
Go have a candlelight vigil. That's all you have left.
Your circular argument doesn't cure anything. You want to continually pretend that any of the proposed laws will cause you not to be able to defend yourself and no one is reasonably proposing that. Your flaw is that you want to paint everything with your great big fat 2nd amendment brush. No one and I repeat no one involved in writing the constitution or subsequent 2nd amendment had the benefit or knowledge of automatic or semi-automatic weapons or the quantity of rounds that could be immediately accessed w with the weapons in question. Your argument falls apart when you try to gloss over this. All of you simply insist on misinterpreting the 2nd amendment to your liking.
What I find as one if the achilles heal of your argument is that many or most of the people posting in favor of "voter id" laws will argue aganist their own argument when it comes to any sort of identification for gun purchases or ownership. You want it both ways. There is no law that will keep crazy people from doing crazy things. What we can do is try to reduce the occurrence and frequency of these peoples acts. The current legislation would help in that effort without deminshing yours or anyones right to defend themselves. All you try to make the argument that talk of gun regulation will take your right to defend yourself away and the fact is none of it even attempts to go there. Frenzied Paranoia is your real argument.
......Next thing you know we will be required to stop at red lights, it's communism. Our freedom is slowly being ripped from our hands.
Rights in the Constitution are not up to polls done by news media performed in liberal areas. Rights are not subject to people's opinions. The listed Rights in the Constitution are areas where government is not allowed to make legislation. The Senators simply supported the Constitution and the Preamble to the Bill of Rights. It wasn't just the NRA or the progressives (communists). It was people calling their Senators and asking them to uphold the Constitution against those that would violate it.
None of the proposed gun legislation impedes any of your rights so what is your point?
Any kind of gun control would violate the 2nd amendment. That's why it was voted down.
42of the 46 Senators who voted against this bill receive money from the NRA. That told me all I needed to know.
Background checks have yet to take the guns out of criminals hands... Also your 90% is completely fabricated... If liberals don't like guns there is a place where guns are illegal, the people are liberal and they dye the river green!!! Chicago is beautiful!!! With its high rise buildings, beautiful lake, shopping, and what's that?? Oh, the highest murder rate in the country... How can that be, guns are illegal in Chicago??? Wait, criminals don't follow laws?? I'm shocked!!! What?? Registered gun owners are rarely charged with gun crimes... Background checks don't solve the problem!! Where in this bill did it punish the criminal?? Where was the plan to get guns out if criminals hands?? Oh, those things weren't addressed?? Maybe next time...
As a gun owner this bill made zero sence... None!! I'm all for getting guns out of criminals hands however, Obama failed to mention anything regarding this... Liberals went on the anti-gun mission seconds after children were killed by a sick man who's mother failed to protect her guns... The rifle was never used in Newtown, never... It was in his car... It is obvious liberals have no clue when they use the term "assault weapon" to describe a rifle... Every gun is an assault weapon, almost every gun made is semi-automatic, and nothing will change because liberals don't want murderers to receive the death penalty and they are it of jail faster than a guy with marijuana!!
CBS sorry not CNN
It's not fair to compare cities? Is this because it goes against your views? Must be tough when facts go against your theory and phd's... Campus was brought up because most university's are extremely liberal as are most of the sources you cited... Your assumptions that I am angry are completely false as are your theories... Sorry to prove your 90% wrong by using your own source but it is a fact...
Actually, your link shows 40% of gun sales without background checks.
The 80% figure is from guns used in crimes.
Both still make a good point, just a little clarification.
And I showed you a poll from one of your sources that show 47% of Americans want changes made in gun control laws and that's down from 54% after the shooting... Are you conceding that?? I mean really?
Please mention the added measures in this bill as well... Background checks already exist, and no matter how many laws you have about who, what gun, and where it is purchased you make your still not getting guns out of the hands of criminals! That's the whole point here right?? Protect people... Well, lets start by passing laws that punish criminals (I know it sounds crazy), longer sentences for felons caught with a gun, give officers the tools and resources(yep, maybe a few cents in taxes to pay for extra officers in high crime areas, undercover officers, etc), and finally educate people about guns because clearly some of the people pushing for these laws have no clue what they are talking about... Maybe then this country can make progress in keeping people safer...
There isn't a federal system? Shows you know nothing about the process and your doing nothing but spewing liberal rhetoric with zero knowledge how the system works... When I purchased my first glock the FBI did a background check and 3 days later I returned and purchased my gun... A few years later I purchased another gun and the FBI had to do another check and i waited and the next week purchased another gun... So again, you are completely false when it comes to how the process works with purchasing guns in Kansas and obviously other liberals are as well... Background checks don't scare me, what scares me is that this plan doesn't do anything to stop the crime or even slow it now! By expanding checks your theory is that time will get guns out of the hands of criminals and that just isnt factual at all... Make everyone do background checks, fine... But it does nothing to keep guns out of criminals hands, nothing to stop the mass shootings, and doesn't punish anyone for illegally having a gun... Nothing, why are you so concerned about background checks and not worried about the guns NOW? That's what's killing people, not background checks and politics... It is criminals with guns that are killing people (over 530 in Chicago).. tell them that you will get to the criminals but first were going to argue about weapon bans, background checks, and buy over 12 million rounds of ammo... I'm sure they will understand...
Again please use your own source CBS and see that only 47% of Americans agree with gun regulation and that after the shootings it was only 54%...
Yes the liberal answer is background checks and ban weapons... How exactly does that stop crime? It does nothing to get guns out of criminals hands but you dont care about that because some of the idiots pushing for this dont know the difference between semi-auto and auto, think mags are the issue, and want to grand stand with children behind you and all along never passing anything to help get these guns off the streets... Why wont Obama work with law enforcement to do this? Everything he has planned does nothing to stop crime now... Background check all you want!! Have a parade and celebrate!! You did nothing to stop the real problem of disarming felons... I know hating the nra and republicans is fun but at some point you have to attack the real problem... Not one thing (background checks, banning "assault wepons", smaller mags) these idiots are pushing will stop the next mass shooting... Hold gun owners who's weapons end up in criminals hands more responsible, force trigger locks be sold with each gun purchased, punish gun crimes like you care instead of letting them out so fast, help law enforcement, and yet none of this was mentioned... Background checks, banning some guns, and smaller mags is all you want to focus on... As a gun owner I have trigger locks, and would have no problem paying a couple cents to help police and the govt catch, punish, and sentence individuals who should not have guns...
I sure like how Liberals throw Obama's 90% figure around all the time. Might want to look at this one AP/roper http://ap-gfkpoll.com/main/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/AP-GfK-April-2013-Topline-Posted-FINAL_guns.pdf
If you are a law-abiding citizen, what do you have to fear from a background check? And since criminals don't obey the law, why make any at all? You folks amaze me.
Punish the innocent??
Do voter ID laws punish the innocent?
No they protect the innocent by limiting the devaluation of our vote. Is asking for an ID when you withdraw money from your bank account punishing the innocent or protecting the innocent?
Then, background checks before buying a gun don't either.
I think we are missing the point. I support background checks where
it is not registration
it is inclusive of the mentally ill
there are consequences for failing
individuals who sell or give away a weapon or two do not have to keep records.
The punish the innocent applies to requiring background checks of the good guys while not punishing the bad guys for
purchases under false identity
repeated testing of the system with no consequences
illegal gun ownership
I want the system to work and not be another feel good exercise that makes liberals happy but does little of nothing to reduce gun violence.
Yes, and history proves that the sanctity of your vote has been repeatedly violated by felons and illegal immigrants as well as the dead.
And yet again, by kicking, screaming and dragging our heels, we allow a lobbyist group to yet again dictate federal law.
Is there a reason that we elect Congressmen/women or is it just a chance for the average citizen to be a bigger pain in the neck?
The NRA is just doing the latter - like the NEA or the ADA or the Teamsters Union or a whole lot of other groups
I believe in this case you mean to say freedom of $peech...
Ironic in this case that "free" is a portion of the word "freedom". Freedom comes with a price, but it shouldn't be one with terms set by lobbyists-on either side of the aisle.
Actually I meant freedom to petition. I believe we all have a right to do so and to organize to make our petitions more effective.
Commenting has been disabled for this item.
Find more businesses on Marketplace
Arts & Entertainment ·