Democrats Stage Sit-In On House Floor Over Gun Bills

You're just a internet troll. No links. Just opinions and mischaracterizations that you try to pass off as facts.
I know what you mean. This happens all the time. Rather than ignite the powder keg by posting links and example of this behavior you've pointed out which will just hijack the thread, I'll accept your premice.

Are you a member of the media, summarizing what "Republicans want?" Plantation dweller, please. BTW, the large majority of guns sold legally in Texas are sold "with a background check." Despite what the Idiot In Chief says.

As are the firearms in all states.

Exactly. A few days ago, four bills were introduced, 2 by Dims, 2 by Repubs. Each bill was voted down by party line pretty much. I believe one bill was actually "approved" by the NRA.
Just one problem with the NRA approved bill. It is impossible to conduct an investigation (not a background check) in 72 hours.

If passed, the attorney general can delay a weapons purchase by any person who is either a known or suspected terrorist, or has been subjected to a terrorism-related investigation within the past five years for three days. Law enforcement would need to get a court order within that three-day window in order to stop the sale, should probable cause be shown before a judge. The bill also allows for the attorney general to take the buyer into custody if a judge determines probable cause.

The Cornyn bill, which is the last version that I saw, creates a really impossible hurdle for the FBI. If they have someone under investigation, they're going to have three days to mount a court challenge to block them, expose their investigation, and create an environment where that terrorist, now being notified, will say, "You know what? Instead of going to that brick-and-mortar federally licensed gun dealer, I'm just going to go buy off the internet." That's where it falls down.
http://www.businessinsider.com/senat...l-bills-2016-6

Again you have no concern about your intellectual dishonesty. The NRA leadership doesn't no cheer everytime is shot but would likely make an exception in a few cases. Originally Posted by gnadfly

Complete with on topic link.

Just like video surveillance at Walmart doesn't prevent crime. It helps solve a crime.
Stopping all crime is impossible. Reducing crime is possible.
Claiming that an attempt at reducing crime (possible) is actually an attempt at stopping crime (impossible) is a complete mischaracterization used by obstructionists and naysayers.
Originally Posted by I B Hankering
It's hilarious the way you lib-retards fantasize that a law will prevent a criminal from breaking the law. FYI, suckclown, laws only define criminal behavior: they don't prevent criminal behavior.

0zombies, Trey Gowdy has a message for you...

Trey Gowdy
8 hours ago

Democrat members are certainly free to stage a sit-in and shut down House floor activities as they have done. What would be infinitely more productive would be asking this Administration and the Department of Justice in particular why prosecutions of current gun law violations has decreased under their watch. There are already broad categories of persons prohibited from possessing firearms or ammunition and those lists go largely without prosecution. Now House Democrats are asking for yet another list of persons - this time without any due process rights - so this Administration can fail to enforce that list of laws too. How does that make us safer?

0zombies going to prove his point, well he did!

0zombies, Trey Gowdy has a message for you...




Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

That's a dam good point made by Trey Gowdy. I don't think there is a member of Congress who knows the Law better than he does. Gun Laws in this country are quite adequate. What we need is stricter enforcement and prosecution on the violation of those laws. Without that all these other so called "common sense Gun Laws" won't make any difference.

Jim

Just like video surveillance at Walmart doesn't prevent crime. It helps solve a crime.
Stopping all crime is impossible. Reducing crime is possible.
Claiming that an attempt at reducing crime (possible) is actually an attempt at stopping crime (impossible) is a complete mischaracterization used by obstructionists and naysayers.
Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

So, masterdickmuncher, you stupidly imagine that there is some imaginary law that would somehow be superior to the mandated federal background check and three FBI investigations (one of which lasted ten months) the Orlando shooter underwent that would have kept that suicidal Islamic jihadist from killing faggots in the name of Allah? Are you stupidly claiming that there are presently no federal laws mandating background checks or proscribing murder, assault, kidnapping, etc, and that somehow manufacturing a new, additional law would have kept the Orlando shooter from committing murder? Is that what you and your ilk are stupidly arguing, masterdickmuncher?

0zombies going to prove his point, well he did!





Originally Posted by IIFFOFRDB

Haha, nice video that should shut up these Liberal jackasses, they are nothing but trouble makers. In fact the article below proves Democrats are the ones who blocked Background Checks for Terror watch lists.

Jim


http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/06...ch-list-bills/

We need to enforce, vigorously, our current firearm laws. We need to keep guns away from people on terror watch lists and no fly lists, but they should be entitled to a hearing to make the government show cause why they are on the list. We need to focus on the actor, not the tool. There are many, many law abiding gun owners in this country. We ought not punish them for the actions of a small minority.

49 people were killed in Orlando. In Chicago, they call that "Friday". Where is the outrage there? Oh, those people are black. Never mind. And the guns used are already illegal. Taking action against the gun will not solve the problem of violence. We must focus on the people who use guns to commit crimes.

No, no, no! Never do that. Too many perfectly good Independents and Libertarians running against dimbulbocrats where there is no Republican. You have to go line by line to find the sorry bastards and vote against them.

No dimretards! Ever! Originally Posted by gfejunkie

Damn right! Do not vote for any Republican or Democrat at any level. But I will forgive you if you live in Oregon and vote for Senator Ron Wyden. Every now and then, he takes a very strong stand for Liberty. And I did vote for one Republican in Kansas, Chris Kobach for Secretary of State, but that was mainly because I know him, and he has written most of the voter ID laws, which I wholeheartedly support.

meanwhile we have the gun homicide rate ten times of most other western democracies. . . at least the Dems are trying to prevent further senseless deaths. While NRA leadership cheers everytime anyone is shot. Originally Posted by southtown4488

No use trying to reason with these people dude.

Just like video surveillance at Walmart doesn't prevent crime. Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

The depth of your narrow-minded ignorance continues to amaze all who observe it.

It does if one posts a sign announcing "video surveillance" when one enters!



That's why security companies recommend that a decal go on the window of homes with their security system installed and/or a sign in the yard in front of the house so that want-a-be burglars passing by looking for a target will see it.

Ever speed down the road and come upon one of those "annoying" log jams in the traffic with all the "assholes" doing the speed limit ahead of you, only to discover when you get up there at the head of the "jam" there is a MARKED LE UNIT IN THE LEAD?




In the "law enforcement force continuum" ... "mere presence" is a deterrent!

No use trying to reason with these people dude. Originally Posted by SassySue

Should we pass a law that prohibits females from possessing or buying a firearm?

I rest my case.