• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks...[W: 349]

Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

mak2 said:
I dont know why. What security am I keeping by allowing nuts and felons to buy guns. This is a really really dumb thing for the NRA to do. It will cost us in the long run. Google more famous sayings and find something a bit more appropriate.
Click to expand...

1: It wasn't googled. I have studied my history long before I even got interested in politics. (btw, the quote was paraphrased..those are not the exact words said by Benjamin Franklin..something which you would have known had you actually known the quote and your history)

2: You asked the wrong question in response to my post. The question should have been "What liberty am I loosing by allowing the federal government to dictate that I must pass a test before I am allowed to exercise my right to own a gun?".
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
93% of Americans are in favor of background checks. Sad that 46 Senators lack a backbone to stand up to the NRA and the wacko gun lobby.
Click to expand...

Says a poll of 1000 americans. Did you actually ask 100%? Of course not. Why don't you put it to a real vote, and try and get a constitutional amendment passed?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

A rare win for the Constitution and the people against the government.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
93% of Americans are in favor of background checks. Sad that 46 Senators lack a backbone to stand up to the NRA and the wacko gun lobby.
Click to expand...
That would be 54 Senators...
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

It was a dumb statement. I don't care if you mis pharsed it, it still doesn't apply.
Kal'Stang said:
1: It wasn't googled. I have studied my history long before I even got interested in politics. (btw, the quote was paraphrased..those are not the exact words said by Benjamin Franklin..something which you would have known had you actually known the quote and your history)

2: You asked the wrong question in response to my post. The question should have been "What liberty am I loosing by allowing the federal government to dictate that I must pass a test before I am allowed to exercise my right to own a gun?".
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

mak2 said:
It was a dumb statement. I don't care if you mis pharsed it, it still doesn't apply.
Click to expand...

Actually, yes, it does.

Your original words that made me say that quote...

I am afraid this will have severe push back in the future. This bill actually would have made any sort of registry illegal. I bet the next one dont. The NRA has gone a bridge too far.

You basically stated that they should have let the bill pass (gave up some liberty to get some security) in order to "save" another liberty. I prefer to not let them make a law for either UBC's OR gun registration.

And whats the matter? Didn't like the question I posed in my 2nd point? Oh wait...let me guess..."it wasn't worth responding to"...amiright?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

No I am not giving up any liberty, I am not a nut (ok that's debatable) nor am I a felon. I gave up nothing. I dont think selling guns to either group is a good idea. You are right about one thing, #2 wasnt worth responding to.
Kal'Stang said:
Actually, yes, it does.

Your original words that made me say that quote...

I am afraid this will have severe push back in the future. This bill actually would have made any sort of registry illegal. I bet the next one dont. The NRA has gone a bridge too far.

You basically stated that they should have let the bill pass (gave up some liberty to get some security) in order to "save" another liberty. I prefer to not let them make a law for either UBC's OR gun registration.

And whats the matter? Didn't like the question I posed in my 2nd point? Oh wait...let me guess..."it wasn't worth responding to"...amiright?
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

jonny5 said:
Says a poll of 1000 americans. Did you actually ask 100%? Of course not. Why don't you put it to a real vote, and try and get a constitutional amendment passed?
Click to expand...

Reasonable restrictions don't require a Constitutional Amendment. An Amendment would only be necessary for infringments that could not be supported by a compelling governmental interest. Not the case here.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Jack Fabulous said:
That would be 54 Senators...
Click to expand...

No...actually 54 senators voted in favor....it fell 6 votes short of the 60 votes necesssary for the amendment.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

mak2 said:
No I am not giving up any liberty, I am not a nut (ok that's debatable) nor am I a felon. I gave up nothing. I dont think selling guns to either group is a good idea. You are right about one thing, #2 wasnt worth responding to.
Click to expand...

Yes, you are giving up some liberty. The 2nd point showed that. At one point in our history states tried to require that a person must pass a test in order to exercise their right to vote knowing full well that most blacks were not educated enough to pass those tests. The only difference between that and background checks is that one was written while the other is based on what you did in your past. Both are are about testing someone before a right can be exercised.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Reasonable restrictions don't require a Constitutional Amendment. An Amendment would only be necessary for infringments that could not be supported by a compelling governmental interest. Not the case here.
Click to expand...

You're right, reasonable restrictions do not require an amendment. But they DO have to pass SCOTUS and the test they have put in place to deem an infringement acceptable or not.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

I'll be accused of being obsessed with Obama hatred, but I have to say I found the President's "speech" earlier this evening to be his typical hypocrisy on issues requiring courage. Suddenly, after he got re-elected and doesn't face the electorate again, he's out there on a limb expending political capital and chiding Senators and Congress members for not joining him out there.

Where was his push for these laws after the Colorado shooting when he was still running for reelection? Where was his push for these laws after the Wisconsin temple shooting when he was still running for reelection? Where was his push for these laws after the child who sang at his 2009 Inaugural was gunned down in Chicago, among thousands of other children murdered in Chicago, while he was still running for reelection?

I'll bet you his advisors told him not to touch the issue because it could cost him his reelection, but now that he's got nothing on the line, no electorate to face, he's all holier than thou criticizing those who aren't prepared to sacrifice their careers for his legacy tour.

This President is utterly irrelevant and he proves it again and again when he tries to lead and nobody follows. What a waste of four more years.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Somewhat true....but with 93% of the country favoring it...I have a strong suspicion that they are more afraid of the NRA than they are of their constituents.
Click to expand...
More afraid of the voters who are members of the NRA. Why would they be afraid of the NRA? Always wondered about that. If it's a financial thing, I am sure it would be pretty easy to put numbers to candidates. While they may get some political contributions, in the long run they have to answer to their voters regardless of NRA donations and the voters know that.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Kal'Stang said:
You're right, reasonable restrictions do not require an amendment. But they DO have to pass SCOTUS and the test they have put in place to deem an infringement acceptable or not.
Click to expand...

Absolutely. But that's something that a lot of the people on this site do not understand. They think ANY restriction automatically is unconstitutional. They refuse to be educated.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

BretJ said:
More afraid of the voters who are members of the NRA. Why would they be afraid of the NRA? Always wondered about that. If it's a financial thing, I am sure it would be pretty easy to put numbers to candidates. While they may get some political contributions, in the long run they have to answer to their voters regardless of NRA donations and the voters know that.
Click to expand...

Easy...Big Money and the NRA is very good at slimeballing people in elections. A lot of the red state politicians are deathly afraid of the NRA even when their constituents support reasonable restrictions.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Easy...Big Money and the NRA is very good at slimeballing people in elections. A lot of the red state politicians are deathly afraid of the NRA even when their constituents support reasonable restrictions.
Click to expand...

If their constituents supported truly support the BGCs, they won't be re-elected...
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

CanadaJohn said:
I'll be accused of being obsessed with Obama hatred, but I have to say I found the President's "speech" earlier this evening to be his typical hypocrisy on issues requiring courage. Suddenly, after he got re-elected and doesn't face the electorate again, he's out there on a limb expending political capital and chiding Senators and Congress members for not joining him out there.

Where was his push for these laws after the Colorado shooting when he was still running for reelection? Where was his push for these laws after the Wisconsin temple shooting when he was still running for reelection? Where was his push for these laws after the child who sang at his 2009 Inaugural was gunned down in Chicago, among thousands of other children murdered in Chicago, while he was still running for reelection?

I'll bet you his advisors told him not to touch the issue because it could cost him his reelection, but now that he's got nothing on the line, no electorate to face, he's all holier than thou criticizing those who aren't prepared to sacrifice their careers for his legacy tour.

This President is utterly irrelevant and he proves it again and again when he tries to lead and nobody follows. What a waste of four more years.
Click to expand...



You nailed it. Politics.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Reasonable restrictions don't require a Constitutional Amendment. An Amendment would only be necessary for infringments that could not be supported by a compelling governmental interest. Not the case here.
Click to expand...

Where is the words "compelling government interest" in the second amendment?

A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Click to expand...
Please take the time to bold where those words are. I might just needing reading glasses after all.

Btw, that is rather subjective way to decide anything of any real value. The words "Compelling government interest" mean nothing.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
Absolutely. But that's something that a lot of the people on this site do not understand. They think ANY restriction automatically is unconstitutional. They refuse to be educated.
Click to expand...

Because it is. :lamo
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Henrin said:
Where is the words "compelling government interest" in the second amendment?


Please take the time to bold where those words are. I might just needing reading glasses after all.
Click to expand...

Pick up a Constitutional Law Textbook....any of them that are used at any law school in the United States and you might learn something. You might actually find out a thing or two about Constitutional Law and the analysis that the SCOTUS undergoes when reviewing laws to see whether they pass Constitutional muster.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Henrin said:
Because it is. :lamo
Click to expand...

LOL....you must be part of the group referenced. Pick up a textbook sometime.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

AlabamaPaul said:
If their constituents supported truly support the BGCs, they won't be re-elected...
Click to expand...

:agree: They usually get a feel for what their constituents really want before they vote. Landrieu and others who voted for the bill are probably hoping that voters' memories are short! We'll see.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

So whats the plan now for you Americans? Wait and see and talk about it again after the next school shooting?
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

disneydude said:
LOL....you must be part of the group referenced. Pick up a textbook sometime.
Click to expand...

Open up a dictionary, learn english, and learn logic.
 
Re: The Senate has defeated a compromise proposal to expand background checks on fire

Higgins86 said:
So whats the plan now for you Americans? Wait and see and talk about it again after the next school shooting?
Click to expand...

Explain to me, if you can, how this amendment would have changed anything about what happened at Sandy Hook? The perp murdered his mother and used her weapons to commit the crime...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom