Senate Rejection of Background Checks

Yesterday, Washington suffered a significant defeat in regards to the latest attempts in gun control reform. While compromise is certainly on the minds of most Americans, this top is incredibly subjective, yet there is also the very important element of protecting the Constitution. There’s something to be said for preserving the foundation of our county.

It has been a horrible week in the United States, and that's arguably the understatement of the year 2013. However, our Capital is in disarray, and our President continues to throw more fuel into the fire with bills containing subject matter that our nation has disagreed on for decades. Therefore, forcing a bill down the throats of Congress in an instant reaction to a horrifying school shooting isn't an immediate solution. This is his presidency in a nutshell.

Yes, Congress needs to find a way to compromise, but reforming the Second Amendment changes the entire foundation and history of this nation. A nation that in recent years has been under serious distress. That's not to be taken lightly, and it's also not to be rushed in a matter of 3 months. You can't change the constitution and then 6 months later make more revisions. I'll never agree to that.

Because I'm so sick of Obama's voice, and his speeches, and his rambling on his high horse, a small part of me enjoyed watching him so defeated yesterday. Not because of the context of the issue, but because I'm just so sick of his antics, irrationality, lack of accountability and leadership. At some point, something had to burst his bubble. He needs to get his feet back on the ground.

Posted by bigtex at April 18, 2013 10:28 PM
Comment #364501

Some things we know:

1. Obama used the Newtown incident to further his political agenda.

2. Obama and the Democrats have lied and deceived in many of their recent legislations.

3. After the initial cries of gun control after the Newtown incident, the American people began to understand the gun control measures that Obama was trying to do, and support for gun control began to wane.

4. The strategy of the left is all wrapped up with a pretty bow in the words of Rahm Emanuel, “never let a crisis go to waste”, and the American people are identifying Obama’s plans with this strategy.

5. Obama forgot his own words, that bitter Americans cling to their guns and religion.

6. Democrat strategy was not helped by the shrill language coming out of the mouths of the Holly Wood crowd, the MSM talking heads, and radical low level Democrat politicians who have been calling for an all out confiscation of firearms (the list is in the blue column).

7. And lastly, the American support for the NRA…even non-members have sent money in support of he NRA’s fight against gun grabbers.

This is a pertinent comment on the results of the gun legislation by the president of the NRA:

“David Keene told Secrets that the president and his team misplayed their hand because they don’t have a sense of the public’s attitude toward gun control. “They just can’t gauge the public reaction to what they do because they don’t have any sense that the public has feelings different than they do,” said Keene.

“He thought and his folks thought that Newtown changed everything. Newtown was a tragedy but that doesn’t change people’s basic values and feelings,” added the NRA president. “What he learned is that he bit off a lot more than he can chew and that you can’t just talk your way to a victory. You have to have something that makes some sense and he what he was proposing just didn’t make much sense.”

The loss devastated the president, who ranted about the NRA’s power during his Rose Garden address after Wednesday’s vote.

Keene, however, saw it differently. “It was the biggest legislative defeat he suffered but that does not justify the unseemly picture of a president of the United States throwing a public tantrum.”

Keene said that many lawmakers who voted against the background check expansion felt that if it passed, gun control advocates would simply return to the issue to chip away more at the Second Amendment, so they decided to “just stop it now.”

Two thoughts on this: first, the left cannot wrap their minds around the American people’s desire to be able to defend themselves from evil; and secondly, the American people understand the Federal Government will abuse any power they have, meaning a crack in the armor of 2nd amendment rights is an opening for the socialist left to invade our legitimate rights.

I have used this point several times, but have yet to have one liberal defend what was done. The Federal government used a backdoor means through the Social Security Administrator’s office to gain the names of conceal carry citizens in Missouri…for the purpose of checking against mental illness. How do the Feds have a record of mental illness, when doctors are not allowed to give out this information.

Lastly; I read the Manchin/Toomey Amendment and it is so full of loopholes that Obama and Holder could do just about anything they wanted to do. The NRA is the last line of defense against the gun grabbers.

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 9:47 AM
Comment #364516

What a shame that you cant see past your distaste for Obama to see that back ground checks do not infringe on the right to own a gun. If you have a car, its registered, want to drive it? well you need a license. Got a house? also registered and you pay taxes. You’d see it differently if it was a conservative proposal. Probably even praise it. Time’s have changes since the constitution was written, too bad some people perspectives haven’t.

Posted by: Paul at April 19, 2013 11:47 AM
Comment #364520

“Time’s have changes since the constitution was written, too bad some people perspectives haven’t.”

Paul, I missed the part in the Constitution about gun registry. I’m assuming that is what you are talking about when you use the “house” and “car” analogy?

You might want to see Rhinehold’s comments on this subject in the socialist column; there’s no need in repeating it.

By the way, did you read the Manchin/Toomey Amendment? Or are you just repeating liberal drivel?

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 12:28 PM
Comment #364534


You seem to think that gun registration would be obviously unconstitutional. But, that is hardly the consensus of legal scholars from not only anti-gun advocates but also from gun advocacy and libertarian groups.

One of the more interesting points is that registration was commonly practiced at the time of the drafting of the Constitution. If you think about it, that makes sense if one of the primary purposes of the 2nd Amendment was to provide the capability for citizen militias. How could you maintain such a militia without an inventory of available guns?

Posted by: Rich at April 19, 2013 1:24 PM
Comment #364535

Rich, I am not saying registration is constitutional or unconstitutional; but what I a saying is that during the Manchin/Toomney vote days ago; Toomey, Manchin, Reid, and a host of other Democrats denied that gun registration was even pat of the Senate Bill. I watched and heard the debate. We have Obama, his talking heads, the liberal MSM, and politicians like Schumer making fun of those who think any of this legislation would lead to gun confiscation, and here you are defending a point (gun registration) that your side vehemently denies will ever happen. And then you wonder why conservatives do not trust Obama. You are defending a tactic from the left that was not supposed to be part of the bill. Can you explain why???

Posted by: DSP2195 at April 19, 2013 1:31 PM
Comment #364555

Rich, thank you for the CBS link. I found the discussion very interesting.

Posted by: Royal Flush at April 19, 2013 3:35 PM
Comment #364574

Royal Flush,

Thanks for your thanks. It was indeed an interesting discussion of the registration aspect and its historical context.

The 2nd Amendment issues present legal minefields for all sides. It is probably why the Supreme Court has been historically reluctant to definitively rule on many key issues.

Posted by: Rich at April 19, 2013 6:33 PM
Comment #364640

“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.”

Perhaps this is a silly question, but where exactly in this amendment does it say that actually owning a gun is a right?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 20, 2013 2:43 PM
Comment #364641

The first 10 amendments of the constitution are commonly called the BILL OF RIGHTS, Rocky. So technically the 2nd amendment being part of that group gives people the right to own a gun if they so choose. Besides you answered your own question by quoteing THE “RIGHT” OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.

Posted by: KAP at April 20, 2013 3:53 PM
Comment #364642


“Besides you answered your own question by quoteing THE “RIGHT” OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS.”

I hate to break it to you but neither of the words “keep”, or “bear” are synonyms of the word own.

Thanks for playing.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 20, 2013 4:47 PM
Comment #364643

How do you expect PEOPLE to KEEP arms if they don’t own them. You expect someone to loan them to you? Rocky. Thanks for being silly!

Posted by: KAP at April 20, 2013 4:58 PM
Comment #364645


You are doing the same thing that you accuse liberals of doing. You are interpreting the words to fit what you think they should be.

A “militia” would allow a member to “keep” a weapon, and “bear” it if necessary. Especially if that member was an urban dweller. Few, if any of the Founders were hunter gatherers. People living in cities didn’t openly carry weapons.

I think you are trying to define a “right” by your thinking, and not necessarily that of the Founders.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 20, 2013 5:18 PM
Comment #364647

Rocky, A militia (untrained military) in the time of our founders were a group of people who were armed, meaning they already OWNED THEIR OWN GUNS. Also when our founders came to this country they didn’t have a local supermarket to do their grocery shopping from, so guess what they had to do, or at least have someone else do it for them HUNT AND FARM. They either had to OWN their own gun or someone who did OWN one did their hunting for them. Today most gun owners like to use their guns for purposes of hunting for wild game thus OWNING their own gun, or for protection. So IMO it is YOU who is using words to YOUR own liberal meaning of the word KEEP. By the way you can’t tell me our founders didn’t own a gun for either protection or hunting.

Posted by: KAP at April 20, 2013 5:40 PM
Comment #364648

PS, Rocky when someone gives you something to KEEP, he is in a sence transferring the RIGHT of ownership to you

Posted by: KAP at April 20, 2013 5:47 PM
Comment #364649


“Also when our founders came to this country they didn’t have a local supermarket to do their grocery shopping from, so guess what they had to do, or at least have someone else do it for them HUNT AND FARM.”

This is an interesting, if wrong perception of who the founding fathers actually were.

IMHO, the most important of the founders were (and no order of importance), Jay, Franklin, Monroe, Hamilton, Madison, Adams, Jefferson, and Washington.

Franklin was a publisher. Monroe, Adams, Jay and Hamilton, were lawyers. Jefferson, and Madison likewise studied law. Jefferson at Kings Collage, which later became Colombia University, Madison at the Collage of New Jersey, which became Princeton.
Madison, considered to be the “father of the Constitution”, was a politician for most of his adult life.
Washington came from a wealthy tobacco farm to be a surveyor and soldier.
These gentlemen were of the gentry, hardly the frontiersmen you might make them out to be, and hardly needed to depend on the hunt to put food on the table.

I challange you to find a picture of any one of these, with the exception of Hamilton who famously died in a duel with Aaron Burr, with a gun in their hands.

Washington has been pictured with a saber, but never a gun.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 20, 2013 8:51 PM
Comment #364650


“PS, Rocky when someone gives you something to KEEP, he is in a sence transferring the RIGHT of ownership to you.”

Pleae look up the definition of keep as to it’s relation to ownership.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 20, 2013 8:53 PM
Comment #364651

Rocky, It’s pretty stupid and ignorant to assume our founding fathers never had a gun because of a few pictures or because they were gentry as you say. They never went hunting because they were gentry? That’s laughable! Yes I did look up the definition of KEEP. According to the mcmillian dictionary KEEP, in the transident to posess or to own.

Posted by: KAP at April 20, 2013 9:49 PM
Comment #364652

By the way Rocky just googleing our founding fathers and guns one article claimed Gorge Washington owned 50, 40 rifles and 10 pistols. Thomas Jefferson gave 2 guns he owned to one of Madison’s sons. So maybe you need to revisit your history and find out the truth about our founding fathers instead of looking at pictures. Also go find you a dictionary, because everyone I looked at says KEEP, to have or posess or in other words OWN, as one of the many meanings of the word KEEP.

Posted by: KAP at April 20, 2013 10:57 PM
Comment #364653


“as one of the many meanings of the word KEEP”

Merriam Webster;

Definition of KEEP
transitive verb
1: to take notice of by appropriate conduct : fulfill: as a : to be faithful to b : to act fittingly in relation to c : to conform to in habits or conduct d : to stay in accord with (a beat)
2: preserve, maintain: as a : to watch over and defend b (1) : to take care of : tend (2) : support (3) : to maintain in a good, fitting, or orderly condition —usually used with up c : to continue to maintain d (1) : to cause to remain in a given place, situation, or condition (2) : to preserve (food) in an unspoiled condition e (1) : to have or maintain in an established position or relationship —often used with on (2) : to lodge or feed for pay f (1) : to maintain a record in (2) : to enter in a book g : to have customarily in stock for sale
3a : to restrain from departure or removal : detain b : hold back, restrain c : save, reserve d : to refrain from revealing
4a : to retain in one’s possession or power b : to refrain from granting, giving, or allowing c : to have in control
5: to confine oneself to
6a : to stay or continue in b : to stay or remain on or in usually against opposition : hold
7: conduct, manage
intransitive verb
1chiefly British : live, lodge
2a : to maintain a course, direction, or progress b : to continue usually without interruption c : to persist in a practice
3: stay, remain : as a : to stay even —usually used with up b : to remain in good condition c : to remain secret d : to call for no immediate action
4: abstain, refrain
5: to be in session
6of a quarterback : to retain possession of a football especially after faking a handoff
— keep an eye on
: watch
— keep at
: to persist in doing or concerning oneself with
— keep company
: to go together as frequent companions or in courtship
— keep house
: to manage a household
— keep one’s distance or keep at a distance
: to stay aloof : maintain a reserved attitude
— keep one’s eyes open or keep one’s eyes peeled
: to be on the alert : be watchful
— keep one’s hand in
: to keep in practice
— keep one’s head down
: to avoid attracting notice
— keep one’s nose clean
: to avoid trouble especially through good behavior
— keep pace
: to stay even; also : keep up 1
— keep step
: to keep in step
— keep to
1a : to stay in b : to limit oneself to
2: to abide by
— keep to oneself
1: to keep secret
2: to remain solitary or apart from other people
See keep defined for English-language learners »
See keep defined for kids »
Examples of KEEP
She’s going to keep the money she found.
I can’t decide whether to sell my old car or keep it for another year.
While the company laid off some employees, others had hopes of keeping their jobs.
“The fare is $4.” “Here’s $5. Keep the change.”
I asked them to keep quiet.
The program teaches kids how to keep safe near water.
I tried to keep the children quiet during the ceremony.
The local newspaper keeps people informed about what’s happening in town.
The article offers tips on how to keep kids safe near water.
The movie will keep you on the edge of your seat.
Origin of KEEP
Middle English kepen, from Old English cēpan; perhaps akin to Old High German chapfēn to look
First Known Use: before 12th century
Related to KEEP
celebrate, commemorate, observe
break, transgress, violate
Related Words
bless, consecrate, sanctify, solemnize; fete (or fête), honor, laud, praise; memorialize, remember

There are about 50 meanings for the verb “keep”, and I didn’t even include the deffinition of “keep” as a noun. You assume that the founders meant the the only one that is “to own”.

BTW, I never even implied the founders didn’t “own” or use guns. My point is that they saw them as mere tools, not something to fetish over.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 20, 2013 11:30 PM
Comment #364654

Rocky, Washington himself ordered all adult males to purchaser and OWN a gun. Read what the founders had to say about Gun rights. You are the one who implied that these men didn’t own or went hunting with a gun because they were gentry but as a matter of fact alot of them did own and did hunt. part 4a of your definition states to retain in ones posession or power, loosely OWN. Yes guns were tools and still are to this day. Keeping something in your posession is OWNERSHIP so keep in the 2nd amendment is a right to OWNERSHIP, government cannot take away or prevent you ownership as long as you are a law abiding citizen

Posted by: KAP at April 20, 2013 11:59 PM
Comment #364669

Arguing original intent (funny coming the left) only furthers the impression that that this gun control debate is all about gun registration and/or confiscation and not about the “common sense” legislation being proposed. There’s not one thing Manchin/Toomney does to curb a bad guy’s ability to get a gun. It’s either feel good legislation or it’s kicking the can down the road to registration, and the slippery slope is the only reason to support it. That’s the rub, and Sen Schumer penned an opt ed to that fact some months ago.

The NRA uses the slippery slope to further their registration campaigns. Gun control advocates use tragedy and pain to further theirs. No one is being honest, there is no common sense solution, and until we get real there will be no new gun legislation. And at least from my vantage point (and I guess the NRA) that’s a good thing.

Posted by: George in SC at April 22, 2013 12:42 PM
Comment #364735


“Rocky, Washington himself ordered all adult males to purchaser and OWN a gun.”

I can only assume that what you are speaking of is the “Militia Acts of 1792”. If that is indeed what you meant you are close, but no cigar.

These acts were in response to the fact that the Indian tribes had aligned themselves to the British, and the fact that the tribes had kicked the American army’s ass in what was called “St Clair’s Defeat”.

Notice the word “Militia”. The point of the first act is that the states militias could be called out by the President.
The point of the second act was so that the states could establish organized militias to protect themselves from the other states, and also from invasion from without, not some 21st century yahoo who takes himself way too seriously, huddled in his bunker with his stash of weapons, waiting for the gummmint to roll down his street to take his guns away.

“You are the one who implied that these men didn’t own or went hunting with a gun because they were gentry but as a matter of fact alot of them did own and did hunt.”

No, I didn’t. What I implied was that, for the most part, the founders were city boys, and that they didn’t need a sidearm at the ready to protect themselves from shadows, or that they had to hunt to provide food for the dinner table.

Look, I don’t want to take away your guns. I don’t want you to have to register your guns, hell, I don’t want to register my guns.

I do, however think that all guns sold, be it through a gun shop, or a gun show, should require a background check.
Rhinehold, on the blue side, cited some statistic that criminals only bought a few percentage of their weapons through gun shows.

I would ask so what?

If anyone, everyone, can buy a gun through a gun show without a check, that leaves open hell of a lot of possibilities, now doesn’t it?


Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 23, 2013 3:23 PM
Comment #364737

Rocky, I haven’t bought a gun in years but I do know that if you buy a gun at a gun show you do go through a check just as you do in the gun shop even on line requires a check and the weapon shipped to a FLL where you go through more paperwork. What you are referring to is people at gun shows selling out of their cars, THIS I AGREE HAS TO STOP.

Posted by: KAP at April 23, 2013 4:36 PM
Comment #364744


“but I do know that if you buy a gun at a gun show you do go through a check just as you do in the gun shop even on line requires a check and the weapon shipped to a FLL where you go through more paperwork.”

Not really, and it varies vastly from state to state. In Florida, New Jersey, and Colorado, absolutely. In Texas, Arizona, not so much.

From wikipedia;

“Under the terms of the Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986, however, individuals “not engaged in the business” of dealing firearms, or who only make “occasional” sales within their state of residence, are under no requirement to conduct background checks on purchasers or maintain records of sale (although even private sellers are forbidden under federal law from selling firearms to persons they have reason to believe are felons or otherwise prohibited from purchasing firearms).”

And, although I would allow the sale of weapons between family members or friends without the check, if the gun is used in a crime, I would be all for the seller being prosecuted as an accessory to that crime, with all of the penalties that would entail..

We need some sanity, it seems no one is interested.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 23, 2013 6:20 PM
Comment #364746

Rocky I’m all for background checks but if they are made to stringent then the only ones who will have guns are the criminals. I’d even go more for mental background checks, case point Sandy Hook, Gabby Gifford, Colardo movie house, just to name a few.

Posted by: KAP at April 23, 2013 7:12 PM
Comment #364749


Because of the type of work I do I have had several background checks in the last 20 years, including one from the Secret Service for the 1996 Republican National Convention.

Seems to me that going through the rig-a-ma-role would help weed out the idiots and those that are less stable, those that just can’t wait to get a gun.

You mentioned a mental check. The states would have to co-operate, so far they haven’t.


Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 23, 2013 8:02 PM
Comment #364751

I’ve had background checks to Rocky and not just for guns, my wife did child care through our county and I had to go through the same check as my wife. I work with the kids in my Church and had to go through another. IMO the only check we need to persue is the Mental health check make it federal and the States have to comply.

Posted by: KAP at April 23, 2013 8:25 PM
Comment #364796

Since spring is already here…Sac Longchamp Pas Cher well almost everywhere, it’s time to freshen up our wardrobe and accessories. Every month, Club Couture is giving away a new gift to
all club members and this time they’ve nailed it.During the month of April, you will get a free Louis Vuitton replica wallet and Gucci Ceinture when you shop for your favorite designer
purses on their site. All you need to do is to join their Club and Longchamp Sac Tote make a minimum purchase of $75. It’s that simple! And it’s not a joke!Even if the Louis Vuitton
replica wallet is part of an older collection, it’s a classic piece, for spring and summer. You can even wear this Longchamp Soldes wallet as a clutch, if you feel like it.
This special offer Gucci sacs à main only lasts for a month and I can’t wait to
see what they have prepared for us next month.

Posted by: Longchamp at April 24, 2013 9:27 AM
Comment #365474

A4 Air Max shoes sold 90 years ago, in the 20th century, the basketball shoes. Nike air Max with Jordan basketball shoes is a reasonable price, but the price is according to the style and the seller. If you want the cheap Nike shoes online, you can be in one of our web site. If you are a fan, you can’t miss this style. Other styles waiting for you, too, Nike for sale to ensure that the online payment Nike Jordan shoes and fast shipping!The new Nike air Max air Max Flyposite with more Jordans for sale price discount a controversial background. Many people question, there is no breakthrough in the arrival of the new air Max 2012 shoes. Instead, it only keep on the rails before air Max series. We have to say, Nike Air Jordan shoes for sale no matter how air Max shoes is designed to improve and how to update, essence of the Nike air Max shoes will never change, only be upgraded.

Posted by: nikejordanshoes at May 8, 2013 12:54 AM
Comment #366791

When I was in the sideline watching the game, I regard myself as a student,
I a little bit and learn how to play the best players in the world,
the NBA is like my university, let me learn a lot of things .

Posted by: nike free run cheap at May 31, 2013 2:45 AM
Comment #367315 dre beats cheap 5 things to expect at the mega technology trade show

DH is a bit of a name whore. He’s picky about simple things, like won’t eat certain foods unless
they are name brand. I keep trying to explain to him that just because it’s a name brand doesn’t
mean it’s any better, that he’s buying the name and paying forthe advertising.

Posted by: beats by dre cheap at June 15, 2013 2:58 AM
Comment #414471

I found your this post while searching for some related information on blog search…Its a good post..keep posting and update the information.

Posted by: milano at March 18, 2017 7:03 PM
Post a comment