PDA

View Full Version : Anyone watching Obama live press conference right now?



JDubya
01-05-2016, 12:17 PM
Speaking about his executive orders on gun background checks, etc.
If you listen closely, you can hear right-wing heads exploding in every direction. :biglaugh:

Private Pickle
01-05-2016, 12:21 PM
The executive actions he is putting forth won't make a difference, are for show and wouldn't have stopped any of the mass shootings we've had.

That sound you hear is the bleating of the leftist sheep.

birddog
01-05-2016, 12:25 PM
Obama is lying scum, and those who voted for him still owe the rest of us a big apology!

Cigar
01-05-2016, 12:25 PM
Here comes the Law Suites ... this will keep them busy until Obama is on the back-nine retired

Cigar
01-05-2016, 12:28 PM
Obama is lying scum, and those who voted for him still owe the rest of us a big apology!



:f_cheers::f_sorry: we Kicked Dat-Ass, Twice, Back-2-Back by 9.5 and 5 MILLION Votes

Maybe you'll do better with the Woman or the Real estate Nut :laugh:

Standing Wolf
01-05-2016, 12:41 PM
Toward the end, I heard him slip in a major Strawman...accusing his opponents on the issue of "wanting anyone to be able to have a gun at any time."

JDubya
01-05-2016, 01:02 PM
Toward the end, I heard him slip in a major Strawman...accusing his opponents on the issue of "wanting anyone to be able to have a gun at any time."

Given "his opponents" (Republicans) standing in the way of and blocking any and every attempt to even make incremental improvements in making society safer from gun violence, how is what he said a strawman?

Sounds like it was right on the money to me.

JDubya
01-05-2016, 01:05 PM
Obama is lying scum, and those who voted for him still owe the rest of us a big apology!

Maybe after those who voted for that lying scum Bush give the rest of the apology they owed us first.

Safety
01-05-2016, 01:05 PM
Toward the end, I heard him slip in a major Strawman...accusing his opponents on the issue of "wanting anyone to be able to have a gun at any time."

Have you read some of the comments posted here about gun control?

Standing Wolf
01-05-2016, 01:13 PM
Given "his opponents" (Republicans) standing in the way of and blocking any and every attempt to even make incremental improvements in making society safer from gun violence, how is what he said a strawman?

Sounds like it was right on the money to me.

The vast majority of legal gun owners have no problem with convicted felons and those adjudged mentally incompetent not having access to firearms; to that end, they (and groups like the NRA) already support background checks to weed those folks out, and have for a long time. How is that "wanting anyone to have a gun at any time"?

Mac-7
01-05-2016, 01:15 PM
If you listen closely, you can hear right-wing heads exploding in every direction. :biglaugh:

An American dictator undermining the democratic process is new and sure does make my head explode

Its ok for Africa where they murder the opposition in their sleep and sell the babies into slavery.

or latin America where the peasants are too stupid to know any better.

But not the good old.USA.

Not in my house.

JDubya
01-05-2016, 01:17 PM
Have you read some of the comments posted here about gun control?

It's like a strawman army...

http://photos.upi.com/Features/7d34c7cd05bf5c3d9e0b62ed3249858d/National-Army-Day-is-Celebrated-in-Tehran_2.jpg

...marching in lockstep.

Adelaide
01-05-2016, 01:41 PM
I don't think this is a good direction for Obama to go in. I think he wants a legacy since Obamacare has bombed so badly.

JDubya
01-05-2016, 01:44 PM
The vast majority of legal gun owners have no problem with convicted felons and those adjudged mentally incompetent not having access to firearms; to that end, they (and groups like the NRA) already support background checks to weed those folks out, and have for a long time. How is that "wanting anyone to have a gun at any time"?


The NRA "support" for background checks is a sham, designed as a tactical move to kill other gun control legislation.




History lesson: the NRA’s ‘support’ for expanded background checks

...the NRA worked with a longtime supporter, Rep. John Dingell (D-Mich.), to craft a background-check amendment that the Clinton administration and gun-control groups denounced was a sham that would have actually weakened existing gun laws. His proposal extended background checks to all sales at gun shows but also drastically curtailed the time allowed for the checks — a wrinkle flagged by LaPierre’s use of the word “instant” in his testimony. In response, Democrats voted against the amendment, thus killing it....

....in effect, the NRA’s support for so-called expanded background checks appears to have been a tactical retreat in the aftermath of Columbine. The actual NRA proposal, once it emerged in the form of Dingell’s amendment, was the opposite of what gun-control advocates considered an expansion of background checks.

Still, LaPierre was on record of having called for some version of expanded background checks in 1999.

The Pinocchio Test

On a very technical level,... LaPierre did call for some form of expanded background checks.

Yet at the same time the NRA worked hard to defeat the proposals advanced by President Clinton and other Democrats, just as it has worked hard to defeat Obama’s proposals this year. The net result is the same: stalemate and victory for the NRA.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/history-lesson-the-nras-support-for-expanded-background-checks/2013/04/18/fb2ee58e-a875-11e2-8302-3c7e0ea97057_blog.html



And you talk about Obama slipping in a strawman.... :rollseyes:

JDubya
01-05-2016, 01:48 PM
I don't think this is a good direction for Obama to go in. I think he wants a legacy since Obamacare has bombed so badly.

Obamacare has only "bombed" in the twisted minds and rhetoric of those who've been praying it would bomb since it's inception.

In the real world, it is alive and well.

Standing Wolf
01-05-2016, 02:09 PM
The NRA "support" for background checks is a sham, designed as a tactical move to kill other gun control legislation.

And you talk about Obama slipping in a strawman....

Why don't you explain why the inclusion of a measure that shortened the time necessary to make a background check was a deal-breaker for the Democrats. Then maybe your "History lesson" would have a point.

Incidentally, most gun owners do not belong to the NRA; while something like 43% of Americans are legal gun owners, the NRA's membership is only a bit over five million...so what that organization says or does is not really relevant to the discussion. I only mentioned it in passing, while your "response" focuses on it completely.

Truth Detector
01-05-2016, 02:12 PM
Speaking about his executive orders on gun background checks, etc.
If you listen closely, you can hear right-wing heads exploding in every direction. :biglaugh:

No; what you heard were Conservatives laughing their asses off watching this Imperial dunce creating a tear to convince the gullible dimwits on the left who support him that he really cares more than anyone else on the planet while doing absolutely nothing to protect or prevent any future gun deaths.

This was nothing more than a partisan campaign speech whose audience are gullible naive leftists who think that action merely entails saying you care more than anyone else on the planet regardless of the fact these acts will do absolutely NOTHING other than hand the White House to Republicans in November.

Truth Detector
01-05-2016, 02:14 PM
Here comes the Law Suites ... this will keep them busy until Obama is on the back-nine retired


:f_cheers::f_sorry: we Kicked Dat-Ass, Twice, Back-2-Back by 9.5 and 5 MILLION Votes

Maybe you'll do better with the Woman or the Real estate Nut :laugh:

Translation; you still think Obama is winning and the mess that is his economic, domestic and foreign policy don't matter a hill of beans to you.

This is more ammunition for the Fall when Republicans trounce the idiot the Democrats pick for their candidate.

Truth Detector
01-05-2016, 02:16 PM
Toward the end, I heard him slip in a major Strawman...accusing his opponents on the issue of "wanting anyone to be able to have a gun at any time."

That wasn't his only strawman; but that was a doozy. He spent a lot of time uttering outright lies, falsehoods and dumb claims. But that little tear he was able to force was the highlight of a speech purely intended for idiots.

Truth Detector
01-05-2016, 02:18 PM
Given "his opponents" (Republicans) standing in the way of and blocking any and every attempt to even make incremental improvements in making society safer from gun violence, how is what he said a strawman?

Sounds like it was right on the money to me.

Another false claim; it wasn't just Republicans standing in the way; Democrats also don't support the gun grabbing buffoonery presented by Obama.

These orders, aside from the fact that most are completely unconstitutional, will go nowhere and the first time they are enforced, will be destroyed by the SCOTUS when it arrives. Call it DOA.

The funniest part is that he thinks he can spend a half billion dollars without the Congress. Where do Presidents have the authority to spend taxpayer money JDubya?

Beevee
01-05-2016, 02:19 PM
Obama is lying scum, and those who voted for him still owe the rest of us a big apology!

Presumably, you consider this to be your mission accomplished. It has the same effect as the original mission accomplished. Waffle!

Truth Detector
01-05-2016, 02:20 PM
Maybe after those who voted for that lying scum Bush give the rest of the apology they owed us first.

Bush didn't lie; continually saying he lied after that has been proven itself to be a lie is nothing more than partisan hyperbole.

Unless, of course, you want to call all these Democrats and previous President liars as well:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Truth Detector
01-05-2016, 02:26 PM
The NRA "support" for background checks is a sham, designed as a tactical move to kill other gun control legislation.

And you talk about Obama slipping in a strawman.... :rollseyes:

The strawmen are all yours; but instead of actually reading the law, you rely on a partisan political rag editorial piece from the Washington Post who carries the water for Liberal policies and this Adminstration.

Summary: H.R.2122 — 106th Congress (1999-2000)

Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act - Amends the Federal criminal code to set forth provisions regarding the regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows. Defines "gun show" as an event sponsored to foster the collecting, competitive use, sporting use, or any other legal use of firearms, at which: (1) 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange, if one or more has been transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and (2) there are not less than ten firearm vendors.

Requires a person who is not a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer, and who desires to be registered as an instant check registrant, to submit to the Secretary of the Treasury an application which contains: (1) a certification by the applicant of compliance with specified Federal firearms license requirements; and (2) the applicant's photograph and fingerprints. Requires the Secretary to: (1) approve an application which meets such requirements; (2) issue to the applicant (on approval of the application and payment of a $100 fee for three years, and upon renewal of valid registration a fee of $50 for three years) an instant check registration; and (3) advise the Attorney General of the same. Provides that an instant check registration shall entitle the registrant, for a three-year period, to contact the national instant criminal background check system for information about any individual desiring to obtain a firearm at a gun show from any transferor who has requested the registrant's assistance with respect to the transfer of the firearm.

Sets forth provisions regarding application approval or denial, records, and inadmissibility as evidence pertaining to the use or non-use by a transferor of the services of an instant check registrant.

Grants immunity from a civil liability action to a person who (consistent with code requirements) is: (1) an instant check registrant who assists in having a background check; (2) a licensee who acquires a firearm at a gun show from a nonlicensee, for transfer to another nonlicensee in attendance at the show, for the purpose of effectuating a sale, trade, or transfer between the two nonlicensees; and (3) a nonlicensee disposing of a firearm who utilizes the services of an instant check registrant or licensee. Prohibits a qualified civil liability action (defined as a civil action brought against a person granted such immunity for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the firearm by the transferee or a third party, with exceptions) from being brought in any Federal or State court.

Sets forth additional requirements regarding registration and recordkeeping, time and place of delivery of the firearm to the prospective transferee, penalties for violations of this title, inspection authority of the Secretary, and increased penalties for serious recordkeeping violations by licensees and for violations of criminal background check requirements.

(Sec. 3) Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit an officer, employee, or agent of the United States, including a State or local officer or employee acting on behalf of the United States, from charging or collecting any fee in connection with a background check required in connection with the transfer of a firearm.

Amends the code to prohibit an officer, employee, or agent of the United States, including a State or local officer or employee acting on behalf of the United States, from: (1) performing any national instant criminal background check on any person through the system established under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act if the system does not require and result in the immediate destruction of all information concerning any person determined not to be prohibited from receiving a firearm (except for the retention or transfer of information relating to any unique identification number provided by the national instant criminal background check system and the date on which that number is provided); and (2) continuing to operate the system unless the national instant check system index complies with specified Federal requirements and the agency responsible for the system and the system's compliance with Federal law does not invoke certain exceptions, except if specifically identifiable information is compiled for a particular law enforcement investigation or specific criminal enforcement matter. Grants persons aggrieved by a violation of this section to sue in U.S. district. Directs that any person who is successful with respect to such action receive actual and punitive damages and such other remedies as the court may deem appropriate, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

Child Handgun Safety - Safe Handgun Storage and Child Handgun Safety Act of 1999 - Amends the Brady Act to prohibit a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer from selling, delivering, or transferring a handgun to anyone other than a licensed person unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device, with exceptions.

Entitles a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, who uses a secure gun storage or safety device, to immunity from a civil action brought against a person for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, where: (1) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun; and (2) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device.

Provides for civil penalties, and suspension or revocation of license, for violations of requirements of this title.

Modifies the definition of "secure gun storage or safety device" to include a device that is easily removable from a firearm and that, if removed, is designed to prevent the discharge of the firearm by any person who does not have access to the device.

Specifies that nothing in this title shall be construed to: (1) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or (2) establish any standard of care.

Makes evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with this title inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding, with specified exceptions.

Amends the Brady Act to make the prohibition on the transfer of a firearm to an unlicensed person unless the licensee making the transfer fulfills specified requirements (i.e., before completion of the transfer, the licensee contacts the national instant criminal background check system; the system provides the licensee with a unique identification number, or three business days have elapsed since the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate the Act; and the transferor has verified the transferee's identity by examining a valid identification document of the transferee containing a photograph of the transferee) inapplicable in connection with the redemption from a licensee of a firearm that, during the preceding 365 days, was delivered to the licensee as collateral for a loan.

Amends the Brady Act to: (1) prohibit the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices; and (2) expand the definition of such devices to include those manufactured on or before the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

Community Protection Act - Community Protection Act of 1999 - Amends the code to authorize qualified law enforcement officers carrying the official badge and photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer, notwithstanding State or local laws, to carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Specifies that this title shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that: (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

Sets forth similar provisions authorizing qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms notwithstanding State or local laws.

Prohibits holding a person criminally responsible for the possession of a handgun, or ammunition appropriate to the handgun, if it is established that: (1) the person is a law-abiding individual not under age 18, is the sole owner of the handgun, and is in compliance with all applicable Federal and State registration laws and regulations with respect to the handgun; and (2) the possession occurred in the District of Columbia in the person's place of residence, or, if the handgun is unloaded, while the person was traveling to or from a place of residence of the person solely for the purpose of transporting the handgun in connection with an otherwise lawful transaction or activity relating to the handgun.

Amends the Brady Act to: (1) prohibit firearms possession by persons who have been adjudicated to have committed an act of violent juvenile delinquency; and (2) expand the scope of, and increase penalties for, certain juvenile weapons violations (such as transferring a semiautomatic assault weapon or a large capacity ammunition feeding device to a juvenile).

Prohibits an individual who is not licensed to sell, transfer, or exchange a firearm that is accessible to the person at a gun show, who makes an offer to do so, from subsequently transferring the firearm to another person without meeting specified requirements, where such other person accepts (currently, indicates a willingness to accept) the offer. Reduces from 72 to 24 hours the time required to have elapsed since the registrant contacted the national instant criminal background check system.

Amends the Brady Act to: (1) make an exception to the prohibition against the transfer of a firearm to a person not residing (or a business entity not maintaining a piece of business) in the State in which the transferor resides, with respect to firearms transfers and business away from their business premises with another licensee, without regard to whether the business is conducted in the State specified on the license of either licensee; and (2) increase penalties for using a large capacity ammunition feeding device during a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/2122

Truth Detector
01-05-2016, 02:28 PM
Obamacare has only "bombed" in the twisted minds and rhetoric of those who've been praying it would bomb since it's inception.

In the real world, it is alive and well.

In the REAL world; it is a massive budget busting job killing failure. Arguments to the contrary are based on fantasy and a massive amount of wishful thinking.

The only thing dumber than a PARTISAN law passed along straight party lines is the claim that it will make anyone healthier. It is a mass of pure unadulterated dumb hyperbole on the left.

Matty
01-05-2016, 02:29 PM
Obama's will still have guns protecting him will he not?

Cigar
01-05-2016, 02:30 PM
Obama's will still have guns protecting him will he not?

I still have Guns protecting me.

Truth Detector
01-05-2016, 02:31 PM
Obama's will still have guns protecting him will he not?

Yes, and so will gang bangers, common thugs and criminals. But in loony Liberal land, making it harder for law abiding gun owners will make it harder for gang bangers in urban sewers from getting guns.

What Obama won’t say in his partisan campaign speech filled with lies today is that in almost EVERY case, the guns used were LEGALLY obtained.

Truth Detector
01-05-2016, 02:32 PM
I still have Guns protecting me.

...as do criminals intent on committing crimes. This Imperial action will do nothing to minimize that or make ANYONE safer. But glib willful dunces cheer and celebrate these useless actions in partisan glee and denial.

Standing Wolf
01-05-2016, 02:42 PM
Meanwhile, in an alternate universe, the President's speech went like this:

"After consulting with the Attorney General and other advisors, we have determined that the best, most logic-driven and potentially effective means to eliminating a large portion of our current level of gun violence is to encourage and support, in any way possible, local law enforcement agencies in getting and keeping guns out of the hands of inner city gang members. We will be urging legislatures at all levels to work toward vastly increasing the penalties for unlawful possession of a firearm, and especially when that firearm is present during the commission of any criminal offense. Wherever federal organized crime statutes may apply to those criminal gangs and their suppliers, we will be taking a hard look at employing those laws to further cripple and break up those enterprises. In applying these tough measures directly to where logic dictates they will do the most good - where they will have the best effect in reducing gun-related homicides in our society - we hope to do the most good possible, while at the same time acknowledging that it is the unlawful use of firearms that is the problem, and those who use them unlawfully who are the true enemy."

Cigar
01-05-2016, 02:53 PM
...as do criminals intent on committing crimes. This Imperial action will do nothing to minimize that or make ANYONE safer. But glib willful dunces cheer and celebrate these useless actions in partisan glee and denial.

I'm not concerned with that, are you?

Cigar
01-05-2016, 02:54 PM
Meanwhile, in an alternate universe, the President's speech went like this:

"After consulting with the Attorney General and other advisors, we have determined that the best, most logic-driven and potentially effective means to eliminating a large portion of our current level of gun violence is to encourage and support, in any way possible, local law enforcement agencies in getting and keeping guns out of the hands of inner city gang members. We will be urging legislatures at all levels to work toward vastly increasing the penalties for unlawful possession of a firearm, and especially when that firearm is present during the commission of any criminal offense. Wherever federal organized crime statutes may apply to those criminal gangs and their suppliers, we will be taking a hard look at employing those laws to further cripple and break up those enterprises. In applying these tough measures directly to where logic dictates they will do the most good - where they will have the best effect in reducing gun-related homicides in our society - we hope to do the most good possible, while at the same time acknowledging that it is the unlawful use of firearms that is the problem, and those who use them unlawfully who are the true enemy."

:laugh:

Matty
01-05-2016, 02:56 PM
Yes, and so will gang bangers, common thugs and criminals. But in loony Liberal land, making it harder for law abiding gun owners will make it harder for gang bangers in urban sewers from getting guns.

What Obama won’t say in his partisan campaign speech filled with lies today is that in almost EVERY case, the guns used were LEGALLY obtained.


He's a moron. No getting around it.

Truth Detector
01-05-2016, 03:06 PM
I'm not concerned with that, are you?

Of course you aren't concerned about the Constitution or separation of powers; you're a glib Liberal lefty who blindly and mindlessly applauses any stupid failed thing this President engages in.

Hal Jordan
01-05-2016, 03:12 PM
Obamacare has only "bombed" in the twisted minds and rhetoric of those who've been praying it would bomb since it's inception.

In the real world, it is alive and well.

You wouldn't consider it bombing when there are people that didn't make enough money to qualify for assistance, can't get insurance, and therefore when an emergency comes up they get a hospital bill for almost $200,000?

JDubya
01-05-2016, 03:31 PM
You wouldn't consider it bombing when there are people that didn't make enough money to qualify for assistance, can't get insurance, and therefore when an emergency comes up they get a hospital bill for almost $200,000?

That only happens in states with fuckhead Republican "leadership" where they have refused to expand Medicaid. In the states that have accepted the Medicaid expansion, that same person would have had his $200,000 bill paid for, Hal Jordan.

JDubya
01-05-2016, 03:40 PM
Why don't you explain why the inclusion of a measure that shortened the time necessary to make a background check was a deal-breaker for the Democrats. Then maybe your "History lesson" would have a point.

Incidentally, most gun owners do not belong to the NRA; while something like 43% of Americans are legal gun owners, the NRA's membership is only a bit over five million...so what that organization says or does is not really relevant to the discussion. I only mentioned it in passing, while your "response" focuses on it completely.

Doesn't take a genius to figure that out Standing Wolf. The amount of time the bill allowed was not enough time to do the kind of check needed. It was made to be unrealistic on purpose because they knew the other side would never accept it and vote down the bill, thus giving the NRA cover to falsely claim they were in favor of expanded background checks, when in fact, they purposely crafted a bill that had no chance of passing.

It's called a "poison pill" and it's a common trick that the Republicans resort to all the time in their ongoing quest to baffle and buffalo the simpltons and idiots who vote for them.

JDubya
01-05-2016, 03:40 PM
Double post deleted.

Stupid forum.

JDubya
01-05-2016, 03:44 PM
Bush didn't lie; continually saying he lied after that has been proven itself to be a lie is nothing more than partisan hyperbole.

Unless, of course, you want to call all these Democrats and previous President liars as well:

"One way or the other, we are determined to deny Iraq the capacity to develop weapons of mass destruction and the missiles to deliver them. That is our bottom line."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 4, 1998

"If Saddam rejects peace and we have to use force, our purpose is clear. We want to seriously diminish the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction program."
--President Bill Clinton, Feb. 17, 1998

"Iraq is a long way from [here], but what happens there matters a great deal here. For the risks that the leaders of a rogue state will use nuclear, chemical or biological weapons against us or our allies is the greatest security threat we face."
--Madeline Albright, Feb 18, 1998

"He will use those weapons of mass destruction again, as he has ten times since 1983."
--Sandy Berger, Clinton National Security Adviser, Feb, 18, 1998

"[W]e urge you, after consulting with Congress, and consistent with the U.S. Constitution and laws, to take necessary actions (including, if appropriate, air and missile strikes on suspect Iraqi sites) to respond effectively to the threat posed by Iraq's refusal to end its weapons of mass destruction programs."
Letter to President Clinton, signed by:
-- Democratic Senators Carl Levin, Tom Daschle, John Kerry, and others, Oct. 9, 1998

"Saddam Hussein has been engaged in the development of weapons of mass destruction technology which is a threat to countries in the region and he has made a mockery of the weapons inspection process."
-Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D, CA), Dec. 16, 1998

"Hussein has ... chosen to spend his money on building weapons of mass destruction and palaces for his cronies."
-- Madeline Albright, Clinton Secretary of State, Nov. 10, 1999

"There is no doubt that ... Saddam Hussein has reinvigorated his weapons programs. Reports indicate that biological, chemical and nuclear programs continue apace and may be back to pre-Gulf War status. In addition, Saddam continues to redefine delivery systems and is doubtless using the cover of a licit missile program to develop longer-range missiles that will threaten the United States and our allies."
Letter to President Bush, Signed by:
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), and others, Dec 5, 2001

"We begin with the common belief that Saddam Hussein is a tyrant and a threat to the peace and stability of the region. He has ignored the mandate of the United Nations and is building weapons of mass destruction and th! e means of delivering them."
-- Sen. Carl Levin (D, MI), Sept. 19, 2002

"We know that he has stored secret supplies of biological and chemical weapons throughout his country."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"Iraq's search for weapons of mass destruction has proven impossible to deter and we should assume that it will continue for as long as Saddam is in power."
-- Al Gore, Sept. 23, 2002

"We have known for many years that Saddam Hussein is seeking and developing weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Ted Kennedy (D, MA), Sept. 27, 2002

"The last UN weapons inspectors left Iraq in October of 1998. We are confident that Saddam Hussein retains some stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons, and that he has since embarked on a crash course to build up his chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Intelligence reports indicate that he is seeking nuclear weapons..."
-- Sen. Robert Byrd (D, WV), Oct. 3, 2002

"I will be voting to give the President of the United States the authority to use force -- if necessary -- to disarm Saddam Hussein because I believe that a deadly arsenal of weapons of mass destruction in his hands is a real and grave threat to our security."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Oct. 9, 2002

"There is unmistakable evidence that Saddam Hussein is working aggressively to develop nuclear weapons and will likely have nuclear weapons within the next five years ... We also should remember we have always underestimated the progress Saddam has made in development of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D, WV), Oct 10, 2002

"He has systematically violated, over the course of the past 11 years, every significant UN resolution that has demanded that he disarm and destroy his chemical and biological weapons, and any nuclear capacity. This he has refused to do"
-- Rep. Henry Waxman (D, CA), Oct. 10, 2002

"In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including al Qaeda members ... It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons."
-- Sen. Hillary Clinton (D, NY), Oct 10, 2002

"We are in possession of what I think to be compelling evidence that Saddam Hussein has, and has had for a number of years, a developing capacity for the production and storage of weapons of mass destruction."
-- Sen. Bob Graham (D, FL), Dec. 8, 2002

"Without question, we need to disarm Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal, murderous dictator, leading an oppressive regime ... He presents a particularly grievous threat because he is so consistently prone to miscalculation ... And now he is miscalculating America's response to his continued deceit and his consistent grasp for weapons of mass destruction ... So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real..."
-- Sen. John F. Kerry (D, MA), Jan. 23. 2003

Lotta time and effort there for some cut & paste bullshit nobody will read.

Congratulations.

Lucky your time isn't worth much.

JDubya
01-05-2016, 03:47 PM
The strawmen are all yours; but instead of actually reading the law, you rely on a partisan political rag editorial piece from the Washington Post who carries the water for Liberal policies and this Adminstration.

Summary: H.R.2122 — 106th Congress (1999-2000)

Mandatory Gun Show Background Check Act - Amends the Federal criminal code to set forth provisions regarding the regulation of firearms transfers at gun shows. Defines "gun show" as an event sponsored to foster the collecting, competitive use, sporting use, or any other legal use of firearms, at which: (1) 50 or more firearms are offered or exhibited for sale, transfer, or exchange, if one or more has been transported in, or otherwise affects, interstate or foreign commerce; and (2) there are not less than ten firearm vendors.

Requires a person who is not a licensed importer, manufacturer, or dealer, and who desires to be registered as an instant check registrant, to submit to the Secretary of the Treasury an application which contains: (1) a certification by the applicant of compliance with specified Federal firearms license requirements; and (2) the applicant's photograph and fingerprints. Requires the Secretary to: (1) approve an application which meets such requirements; (2) issue to the applicant (on approval of the application and payment of a $100 fee for three years, and upon renewal of valid registration a fee of $50 for three years) an instant check registration; and (3) advise the Attorney General of the same. Provides that an instant check registration shall entitle the registrant, for a three-year period, to contact the national instant criminal background check system for information about any individual desiring to obtain a firearm at a gun show from any transferor who has requested the registrant's assistance with respect to the transfer of the firearm.

Sets forth provisions regarding application approval or denial, records, and inadmissibility as evidence pertaining to the use or non-use by a transferor of the services of an instant check registrant.

Grants immunity from a civil liability action to a person who (consistent with code requirements) is: (1) an instant check registrant who assists in having a background check; (2) a licensee who acquires a firearm at a gun show from a nonlicensee, for transfer to another nonlicensee in attendance at the show, for the purpose of effectuating a sale, trade, or transfer between the two nonlicensees; and (3) a nonlicensee disposing of a firearm who utilizes the services of an instant check registrant or licensee. Prohibits a qualified civil liability action (defined as a civil action brought against a person granted such immunity for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the firearm by the transferee or a third party, with exceptions) from being brought in any Federal or State court.

Sets forth additional requirements regarding registration and recordkeeping, time and place of delivery of the firearm to the prospective transferee, penalties for violations of this title, inspection authority of the Secretary, and increased penalties for serious recordkeeping violations by licensees and for violations of criminal background check requirements.

(Sec. 3) Amends the Federal judicial code to prohibit an officer, employee, or agent of the United States, including a State or local officer or employee acting on behalf of the United States, from charging or collecting any fee in connection with a background check required in connection with the transfer of a firearm.

Amends the code to prohibit an officer, employee, or agent of the United States, including a State or local officer or employee acting on behalf of the United States, from: (1) performing any national instant criminal background check on any person through the system established under the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act if the system does not require and result in the immediate destruction of all information concerning any person determined not to be prohibited from receiving a firearm (except for the retention or transfer of information relating to any unique identification number provided by the national instant criminal background check system and the date on which that number is provided); and (2) continuing to operate the system unless the national instant check system index complies with specified Federal requirements and the agency responsible for the system and the system's compliance with Federal law does not invoke certain exceptions, except if specifically identifiable information is compiled for a particular law enforcement investigation or specific criminal enforcement matter. Grants persons aggrieved by a violation of this section to sue in U.S. district. Directs that any person who is successful with respect to such action receive actual and punitive damages and such other remedies as the court may deem appropriate, including a reasonable attorney's fee.

Child Handgun Safety - Safe Handgun Storage and Child Handgun Safety Act of 1999 - Amends the Brady Act to prohibit a licensed manufacturer, importer, or dealer from selling, delivering, or transferring a handgun to anyone other than a licensed person unless the transferee is provided with a secure gun storage or safety device, with exceptions.

Entitles a person who has lawful possession and control of a handgun, who uses a secure gun storage or safety device, to immunity from a civil action brought against a person for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of the handgun by a third party, where: (1) the handgun was accessed by another person who did not have the permission or authorization of the person having lawful possession and control of the handgun; and (2) at the time access was gained by the person not so authorized, the handgun had been made inoperable by use of a secure gun storage or safety device.

Provides for civil penalties, and suspension or revocation of license, for violations of requirements of this title.

Modifies the definition of "secure gun storage or safety device" to include a device that is easily removable from a firearm and that, if removed, is designed to prevent the discharge of the firearm by any person who does not have access to the device.

Specifies that nothing in this title shall be construed to: (1) create a cause of action against any Federal firearms licensee or any other person for any civil liability; or (2) establish any standard of care.

Makes evidence regarding compliance or noncompliance with this title inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding, with specified exceptions.

Amends the Brady Act to make the prohibition on the transfer of a firearm to an unlicensed person unless the licensee making the transfer fulfills specified requirements (i.e., before completion of the transfer, the licensee contacts the national instant criminal background check system; the system provides the licensee with a unique identification number, or three business days have elapsed since the licensee contacted the system, and the system has not notified the licensee that the receipt of a firearm by such other person would violate the Act; and the transferor has verified the transferee's identity by examining a valid identification document of the transferee containing a photograph of the transferee) inapplicable in connection with the redemption from a licensee of a firearm that, during the preceding 365 days, was delivered to the licensee as collateral for a loan.

Amends the Brady Act to: (1) prohibit the importation of large capacity ammunition feeding devices; and (2) expand the definition of such devices to include those manufactured on or before the date of enactment of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994.

Community Protection Act - Community Protection Act of 1999 - Amends the code to authorize qualified law enforcement officers carrying the official badge and photographic identification issued by the governmental agency for which the individual is employed as a law enforcement officer, notwithstanding State or local laws, to carry a concealed firearm that has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce.

Specifies that this title shall not be construed to supersede or limit the laws of any State that: (1) permit private persons or entities to prohibit or restrict the possession of concealed firearms on their property; or (2) prohibit or restrict the possession of firearms on any State or local government property, installation, building, base, or park.

Sets forth similar provisions authorizing qualified retired law enforcement officers to carry concealed firearms notwithstanding State or local laws.

Prohibits holding a person criminally responsible for the possession of a handgun, or ammunition appropriate to the handgun, if it is established that: (1) the person is a law-abiding individual not under age 18, is the sole owner of the handgun, and is in compliance with all applicable Federal and State registration laws and regulations with respect to the handgun; and (2) the possession occurred in the District of Columbia in the person's place of residence, or, if the handgun is unloaded, while the person was traveling to or from a place of residence of the person solely for the purpose of transporting the handgun in connection with an otherwise lawful transaction or activity relating to the handgun.

Amends the Brady Act to: (1) prohibit firearms possession by persons who have been adjudicated to have committed an act of violent juvenile delinquency; and (2) expand the scope of, and increase penalties for, certain juvenile weapons violations (such as transferring a semiautomatic assault weapon or a large capacity ammunition feeding device to a juvenile).

Prohibits an individual who is not licensed to sell, transfer, or exchange a firearm that is accessible to the person at a gun show, who makes an offer to do so, from subsequently transferring the firearm to another person without meeting specified requirements, where such other person accepts (currently, indicates a willingness to accept) the offer. Reduces from 72 to 24 hours the time required to have elapsed since the registrant contacted the national instant criminal background check system.

Amends the Brady Act to: (1) make an exception to the prohibition against the transfer of a firearm to a person not residing (or a business entity not maintaining a piece of business) in the State in which the transferor resides, with respect to firearms transfers and business away from their business premises with another licensee, without regard to whether the business is conducted in the State specified on the license of either licensee; and (2) increase penalties for using a large capacity ammunition feeding device during a crime of violence or a drug trafficking crime.

https://www.congress.gov/bill/106th-congress/house-bill/2122

Another cut & paste cop out that doesn't tell anybody shit other than that all you're capable of doing is tap dancing and side stepping, Truth Detector.

You get the ironic screen name of the year award, BTW.

Truth Detector
01-05-2016, 04:00 PM
Lotta time and effort there for some cut & paste bull$#@! nobody will read.

Congratulations.

Lucky your time isn't worth much.

It took no time at all refuting your bold, yet false BS. But you cling to that "Bush lied" meme if it makes you feel warm and fuzzy.

Truth Detector
01-05-2016, 04:02 PM
Another cut & paste cop out that doesn't tell anybody $#@! other than that all you're capable of doing is tap dancing and side stepping, Truth Detector.

You get the ironic screen name of the year award, BTW.

While you bloviate falsely and ignorantly on the amendment, you have the nerve to b!tch that I posted the actual summary? Would you have felt less trite had I re-typed the whole thing?

Dumb and pathetic; you cannot begin to comprehend the irony your whining garners.

Standing Wolf
01-05-2016, 04:02 PM
Doesn't take a genius to figure that out @Standing Wolf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1791). The amount of time the bill allowed was not enough time to do the kind of check needed.

Who told you that and why did you believe them?

Mac-7
01-05-2016, 04:17 PM
Obumer and all the other liberal gun grabbers should do what Trump told hillary to do - disarm her bodyguards and let the SS call 911 in an emergency

lead by example libs

Mac-7
01-05-2016, 04:21 PM
Unfortunately the constitution means whatever five unelected assholes on the supreme court say it means.

hopefully trump or cruz will be the next potus.

and during their term the liberal judges will die off faster than the conservative judges.

but you never know

Peter1469
01-05-2016, 04:23 PM
Obamacare has only "bombed" in the twisted minds and rhetoric of those who've been praying it would bomb since it's inception.

In the real world, it is alive and well.

Most of the co-op insurers failed. The largest insurer is out of Obamacare. Prices are rising. Alive and well?

And a main funding mechanizing, the Cadillac tax was put on hold, again.

:shocked:

nathanbforrest45
01-05-2016, 04:31 PM
Watching Obama Live.

I'm sorry I would but I have a very weak stomach.

silvereyes
01-05-2016, 04:40 PM
Obama's will still have guns protecting him will he not?

Annnnd? So has every president and his family before him. Living ones do until they die. Do you think he doesn't deserve protection? His wife doesn't? His kids don't?

Mac-7
01-05-2016, 04:47 PM
Annnnd? So has every president and his family before him. Living ones do until they die. Do you think he doesn't deserve protection? His wife doesn't? His kids don't?

Obumer deserves as much protection as he allows impndividisl citizens to have.

Which does not include taxpayer supported armed bodyguards.

If obumer thinks we dont need guns then neither does he.

Just dont allow him or the vp to travel together.

that way if obumer gets knocked off biden is able to take his place.

silvereyes
01-05-2016, 04:50 PM
Obumer and all the other liberal gun grabbers should do what Trump told hillary to do - disarm her bodyguards and let the SS call 911 in an emergency

lead by example libs
Are you dumb enough to think that Chump travels without guards...and will do so if elected?

silvereyes
01-05-2016, 04:51 PM
Obumer deserves as much protection as he allows impndividisl citizens to have.

Which does not include taxpayer supported armed bodyguards.

If obumer thinks we dont need guns then neither does he.

Just dont allow him or the vp to travel together.

that way if obumer gets knocked off biden is able to take his place.
*yawn* you'd like that, huh?

Cigar
01-05-2016, 04:52 PM
Obumer deserves as much protection as he allows impndividisl citizens to have.

Which does not include taxpayer supported armed bodyguards.

If obumer thinks we dont need guns then neither does he.

Just dont allow him or the vp to travel together.

that way if obumer gets knocked off biden is able to take his place.


I bet The Political Forum Management thanks you for the exposure also ... :wink:

Mac-7
01-05-2016, 05:03 PM
*yawn* you'd like that, huh?

Being ready to step in is what we pay biden for.

besides according to obumer there is little risk in not having a gun for protection

Beevee
01-05-2016, 05:06 PM
Unfortunately the constitution means whatever five unelected $#@!s on the supreme court say it means.

hopefully trump or cruz will be the next potus.

and during their term the liberal judges will die off faster than the conservative judges.

but you never know

They are liberals. They are there to t o r m e n t you.

JDubya
01-05-2016, 05:11 PM
While you bloviate falsely and ignorantly on the amendment, you have the nerve to b!tch that I posted the actual summary? Would you have felt less trite had I re-typed the whole thing?


Dumb and pathetic; you cannot begin to comprehend the irony your whining garners.


Here.... from your own cut and paste job:



H.R.2122 — 106th Congress (1999-2000)

"Reduces from 72 to 24 hours the time required to have elapsed since the registrant contacted the national instant criminal background check system."


As you can see, the bill reduced the amount of time allocated for completion of a background check from 72 to 24 hours, or 1/3 the previous amount.


You obviously either never read it yourself or, you assumed I wouldn't.


Talk about dumb and pathetic, Truth Detector.


Typical barrel stroking, trigger licking gun goober.



Who told you that and why did you believe them?


See above response to Truth Deflector's attempt to lie and side step the truth he falsely claims to be the detector of.


I remember it being discussed from several sources back when it was in the news, then I sourced it with an article from a respected, legitimate news source and finally, Truth Deflector confirmed it for me by copy/pasting the actual bill, which I posted the relevant clause from, above in this post.


Satisfied Standing Wolf ?

JDubya
01-05-2016, 05:15 PM
Most of the co-op insurers failed. The largest insurer is out of Obamacare. Prices are rising. Alive and well?

And a main funding mechanizing, the Cadillac tax was put on hold, again.

:shocked:

Wrong.

Not most, just some.

IOW, it's not flawless perfection. What else ever is?

When you set standards for a program that are artificially high, it's easy to call it a failure when it doesn't live up to them.

Old trick.

Standing Wolf
01-05-2016, 05:21 PM
Here.... from your own cut and paste job:

As you can see, the bill reduced the amount of time allocated for completion of a background check from 72 to 24 hours, or 1/3 the previous amount.

You obviously either never read it yourself or, you assumed I wouldn't.

Talk about dumb and pathetic, @Truth Detector (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1783).

Typical barrel stroking, trigger licking gun goober.

See above response to Truth Deflector's attempt to lie and side step the truth he falsely claims to be the detector of.

I remember it being discussed from several sources back when it was in the news, then I sourced it with an article from a respected, legitimate news source and finally, Truth Deflector confirmed it for me by copy/pasting the actual bill, which I posted the relevant clause from, above in this post.

Satisfied @Standing Wolf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1791) ?

No, actually I am not, and for good reason. Your statement was, "The amount of time the bill allowed was not enough time to do the kind of check needed." I was not asking who told you that the amount of time allotted to a check would be reduced and why you believed that; I was asking who told you that the reduced time allowed, twenty-four hours, was "not enough time to do the kind of check needed." You seem to believe that the inclusion of the shortened time provision for the "Instant Check" was sufficient justification for the Democrats involved to reject the bill, but you don't seem to know why you believe that.

Peter1469
01-05-2016, 05:33 PM
Wrong.

Not most, just some.

IOW, it's not flawless perfection. What else ever is?

When you set standards for a program that are artificially high, it's easy to call it a failure when it doesn't live up to them.

Old trick.

The standards were not high at all. It still fell far short.

But that was part of the plan. The regime wants Obamacare to fail. Next step is single payer.

Matty
01-05-2016, 05:37 PM
Most of the co-op insurers failed. The largest insurer is out of Obamacare. Prices are rising. Alive and well?

And a main funding mechanizing, the Cadillac tax was put on hold, again.

:shocked:


Why was it put on hold? And by whom?

Peter1469
01-05-2016, 05:44 PM
Why was it put on hold? And by whom?


The regime held off implementation of the "Cadillac tax" (the surcharge for the really good health plans) until after the election. It has been put off before. I assume it was for political reasons. The Unions hate it as well as professionals and the wealthy.

donttread
01-05-2016, 05:44 PM
Speaking about his executive orders on gun background checks, etc.
If you listen closely, you can hear right-wing heads exploding in every direction. :biglaugh:

Yeah, us horrible people that support the Constitution

JDubya
01-05-2016, 05:45 PM
No, actually I am not, and for good reason. Your statement was, "The amount of time the bill allowed was not enough time to do the kind of check needed." I was not asking who told you that the amount of time allotted to a check would be reduced and why you believed that; I was asking who told you that the reduced time allowed, twenty-four hours, was "not enough time to do the kind of check needed." You seem to believe that the inclusion of the shortened time provision for the "Instant Check" was sufficient justification for the Democrats involved to reject the bill, but you don't seem to know why you believe that.

There's this...


The average time it takes for the FBI to determine that illegal purchasers are ineligible to receive firearms is 25 days. As a result, the FBI has recommended extending the research time to complete background checks to reduce the number of prohibited people who are able to purchase firearms by default.

http://smartgunlaws.org/waiting-periods-policy-summary/

And from the FBI website....


In the majority of cases, the results of a background check yield definitive information regarding a subject’s eligibility when the firearm background is initiated. However, not all inquiries can be provided a final status during the initial contact with the NICS Section. Many transactions are delayed because of incomplete criminal history records, e.g., a missing disposition or a missing crime classification status (felony or misdemeanor), which is needed to determine if a transaction may be proceeded or must be denied.


Where a validly matched record is potentially prohibiting but is incomplete, the NICS Section must search for the information needed to complete the record. This process often requires outreach to local, state, tribal, and/or federal agencies (e.g., arresting agencies, court systems). The Brady Act allows the FFL to legally transfer the firearm if the NICS transaction is not resolved within three business days. In some instances, the potentially prohibiting records are completed and the NICS transactions are determined to be denials. The NICS Section notifies the FFL of the denial and determines if the firearm was transferred to the buyer. If it was transferred, the NICS Section transmits this information to the ATF for further handling as a firearm retrieval referral.

https://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/nics/reports/2013-operations-report



It ought to be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that 24 hours is a ridiculously inadequate amount of time, when 72 hours isn't, @Standing Wolf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1791).

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 05:46 PM
Here comes the Law Suites ... this will keep them busy until Obama is on the back-nine retired

that's where he should be.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 05:52 PM
I tried to watch him, but the way he parptronizes and talks down to everyone is just too much to take for me.

JDubya
01-05-2016, 05:54 PM
The standards were not high at all. It still fell far short.

But that was part of the plan. The regime wants Obamacare to fail. Next step is single payer.

More people have health insurance today than ever before. Another half million people signed up during the last open enrollment period. Nearly ten million have enrolled so far.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/260630-another-half-million-people-sign-up-for-obamacare-in-second-week

And that is a "failure".... how?

JDubya
01-05-2016, 05:55 PM
I tried to watch him, but the way he parptronizes and talks down to everyone is just too much to take for me.

Intelligent people don't have that problem.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 05:59 PM
More people have health insurance today than ever before. Another half million people signed up during the last open enrollment period. Nearly ten million have enrolled so far.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/260630-another-half-million-people-sign-up-for-obamacare-in-second-week


From the article you posted.....


A total of 9.1 million people are currently paying for ObamaCare, a figure that officials hope to increase to 10 million

So, 9.1 million people enrolled in the ACA is the most people insured in history?

Before the ACA, we were told there were 30 to 40 million uninsured Americans. Now they say there are 32 non-elderly uninsured Americans.

Success.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 06:00 PM
Intelligent people don't have that problem.

just the opposite. Most intelligent people find him quite condescending and smug.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 06:06 PM
To a liberal, thier ideas are a success if in reality they are just a routine failure.

Matty
01-05-2016, 06:08 PM
From the article you posted.....



So, 9.1 million people enrolled in the ACA is the most people insured in history?

Before the ACA, we were told there were 30 to 40 million uninsured Americans. Now they say there are 32 non-elderly uninsured Americans.

Success.


No, it says 9.1 million are paying for Obamacare. It does not say how many signed up and are not paying. That would include those you have to pay for and those who signed up but did not pay for it.

Common Sense
01-05-2016, 06:35 PM
I tried to watch him, but the way he parptronizes and talks down to everyone is just too much to take for me.

Perception is a hell of a thing...

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 06:36 PM
We have 30 million plus uninsured as we did prior to the ACA.

Cletus
01-05-2016, 06:51 PM
Annnnd? So has every president and his family before him. Living ones do until they die. Do you think he doesn't deserve protection? His wife doesn't? His kids don't?

No more than any other citizen does.

Cletus
01-05-2016, 06:59 PM
Are you dumb enough to think that Chump travels without guards...and will do so if elected?

He is not the one treading on other's Constitutional protections. Obama is.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 07:01 PM
No more than any other citizen does.


I disagree. Former President's are always going to have crazy or angry people out looking to do them harm for whatever reason. Even the freaking incompetent ones like Obama.

Green Arrow
01-05-2016, 07:01 PM
I rarely listen to any of his speeches any more, unless I need to reference one for something.

Green Arrow
01-05-2016, 07:02 PM
No more than any other citizen does.

Yeah, that's a sustainable mentality. How well do you think America will weather its economic and foreign storms if the president is being assassinated every other year?

Matty
01-05-2016, 07:05 PM
I disagree. Former President's are always going to have crazy or angry people out looking to do them harm for whatever reason. Even the freaking incompetent ones like Obama.


I think what was meant that we have as much right to protection as he does. And, we do. It's hypocritical to make it difficult for an American to purchase a gun when you yourself ( Obama) is surrounded by them.

Cletus
01-05-2016, 07:08 PM
Here.... from your own cut and paste job:





As you can see, the bill reduced the amount of time allocated for completion of a background check from 72 to 24 hours, or 1/3 the previous amount.

Yeah, that sounds good, but it isn't really true. If a buyer gets a "Delay" from NICS, the FBI has 3 working days (not including weekends and holidays})to either issue a "Deny" or the sale goes through. The NICS division works 17 hours a day. That means those three working days is actually 51 hours, unless of course, a weekend falls in that period, which would increase it and other 34 working hours. That makes 85 for you Liberals. If it is a 4 day weekend, it may be as much as 102 working hours.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 07:08 PM
I think what was meant that we have as much right to protection as he does. And, we do. It's hypocritical to make it difficult for an American to purchase a gun when you yourself ( Obama) is surrounded by them.

but the average joe doesn't have people out there looking to kill him for purely symbolic or political reasons.

Cletus
01-05-2016, 07:12 PM
I disagree. Former President's are always going to have crazy or angry people out looking to do them harm for whatever reason. Even the freaking incompetent ones like Obama.

Once he leaves office, he should have to pay for his protection like anyone else.

Cletus
01-05-2016, 07:13 PM
but the average joe doesn't have people out there looking to kill him for purely symbolic or political reasons.

He volunteered for the job.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 07:16 PM
Call,me a softie.

Dangermouse
01-05-2016, 07:22 PM
A man bursts into tears describing the loss of 20 murdered children and is dismissed as a radical extremist....

Peter1469
01-05-2016, 07:24 PM
More people have health insurance today than ever before. Another half million people signed up during the last open enrollment period. Nearly ten million have enrolled so far.

http://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/260630-another-half-million-people-sign-up-for-obamacare-in-second-week

And that is a "failure".... how?

They need far more young and healthy people to enroll. Too many older and sicker members and the plans go bust. Unless the government bails them out with tax payer dollars.

Hal Jordan
01-05-2016, 07:27 PM
but the average joe doesn't have people out there looking to kill him for purely symbolic or political reasons.

Or because someone is obsessed with Jodie Foster...

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 07:29 PM
He volunteered for the job.

C'mon. You just can't throw him and his family out there leaf to their own devices. They need to be protected for at least a few years.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 07:30 PM
Or because someone is obsessed with Jodie Foster...


Now days, maybe Kate Hudson?

Matty
01-05-2016, 07:30 PM
A man bursts into tears describing the loss of 20 murdered children and is dismissed as a radical extremist....


Yes, while he turned loose thousands of criminals from our prisons and sent 17 terrorists from Guantanamo back to their battlefields. Cry us a river Obama. Oh, and need I mention he refuses to sign Kare's law?

Matty
01-05-2016, 07:36 PM
but the average joe doesn't have people out there looking to kill him for purely symbolic or political reasons.


And, we're not asking for secret service protection either, just the right to protect ourselves.

Mac-7
01-05-2016, 07:44 PM
Here.... from your own cut and paste job:





As you can see, the bill reduced the amount of time allocated for completion of a background check from 72 to 24 hours, or 1/3 the previous amount.


You obviously either never read it yourself or, you assumed I wouldn't.


Talk about dumb and pathetic, @Truth Detector (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1783).


Typical barrel stroking, trigger licking gun goober.





See above response to Truth Deflector's attempt to lie and side step the truth he falsely claims to be the detector of.


I remember it being discussed from several sources back when it was in the news, then I sourced it with an article from a respected, legitimate news source and finally, Truth Deflector confirmed it for me by copy/pasting the actual bill, which I posted the relevant clause from, above in this post.


Satisfied @Standing Wolf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1791) ?

Jdubya must be under the impression that all the date is printed on index cards and must be searched manually by lazy government workers who would rather be watching porn.

and considering what a mess obumer made of the obamacare website they must at least have computers advanced beyond 1st generation pentium processors and Windows 98

So even computer illiterates like the obama gang should be able to do a database search in minutes if not seconds.

MisterVeritis
01-05-2016, 07:49 PM
Speaking about his executive orders on gun background checks, etc.
If you listen closely, you can hear right-wing heads exploding in every direction. :biglaugh:
The sounds you hear are the Bill of Rights being demolished.

The tyranny is now full blown. And you are way too foolish to recognize that you are no longer free.

MisterVeritis
01-05-2016, 07:50 PM
Here comes the Law Suites ... this will keep them busy until Obama is on the back-nine retired
Lawsuits are not the way. The Congress must impeach and remove the tyrant. Obama is a despot.

MisterVeritis
01-05-2016, 07:53 PM
Given "his opponents" (Republicans) standing in the way of and blocking any and every attempt to even make incremental improvements in making society safer from gun violence, how is what he said a strawman?

Sounds like it was right on the money to me.
When did you realize that living in freedom was just way too hard for you?

Do you believe the Constitution grants the president the power to make laws if the Congress will not do what he wants? If this stands the nation has ended. It will take some time for the nation to die.

MisterVeritis
01-05-2016, 07:54 PM
I don't think this is a good direction for Obama to go in. I think he wants a legacy since Obamacare has bombed so badly.
He will be remembered as a despot.

Green Arrow
01-05-2016, 07:56 PM
He will be remembered as a depot.

What kind of depot, though? Train depot, bus depot, Home Depot...these are the important questions.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 08:07 PM
And, we're not asking for secret service protection either, just the right to protect ourselves.

you and I don't need secret service protection.

all former president's need to be protected for a few years. This really shouldn't be an issue.

MisterVeritis
01-05-2016, 08:08 PM
What kind of depot, though? Train depot, bus depot, Home Depot...these are the important questions.
Sometimes I add letters, usually the letter c, d, or s. Other times I drop letters. Usually it is the letter s. It is a longstanding medical condition. I nearly always catch the adds and drops. Had you waited five more minutes it would have been right, despot, instead of wrong, depot.

Matty
01-05-2016, 08:09 PM
you and I don't need secret service protection.

all former president's need to be protected for a few years. This really shouldn't be an issue.



It's it's not an issue as long as they don't become hypocrites. Like Obummer.

Mac-7
01-05-2016, 08:09 PM
What kind of depot, though? Train depot, bus depot, Home Depot...these are the important questions.

Its a stupid question from someone who Im sure has made typo's too

Green Arrow
01-05-2016, 08:10 PM
Its a stupid question from someone who Im sure has made typo's too

It was a joke, actually, something anyone with a sense of humor would have realized.

MisterVeritis
01-05-2016, 08:12 PM
It was a joke, actually, something anyone with a sense of humor would have realized.
I took no offense.

Mac-7
01-05-2016, 08:15 PM
you and I don't need secret service protection.

all former president's need to be protected for a few years. This really shouldn't be an issue.

I dont mind if obumer and the clintons have SS agents following them around.

but if we dont need guns neither do they

Hal Jordan
01-05-2016, 08:36 PM
Its a stupid question from someone who Im sure has made typo's too

It was a joke from someone who has made typos, but has made jokes about those as well.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 08:40 PM
It's it's not an issue as long as they don't become hypocrites. Like Obummer.

i just want this guy to leave office never to be heard from again. If it takes secret service protection to make that happen, so be it.

Cletus
01-05-2016, 09:24 PM
C'mon. You just can't throw him and his family out there leaf to their own devices. They need to be protected for at least a few years.

I could probably live with 90 days.

President Bush issued an order that made Clinton the last President to receive lifetime protection. All Presidents after Clinton were to receive protection for a maximum of ten years. Obama rescinded that order and restored life time protection.

When SecDef Rumsfeld resigned, President Bush encouraged him to retain his protection detail. He dismissed it and and engaged protection from the private sector, which he pays for himself. There is no reason a President could not do the same.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 09:33 PM
I could probably live with 90 days.

President Bush issued an order that made Clinton the last President to receive lifetime protection. All Presidents after Clinton were to receive protection for a maximum of ten years. Obama rescinded that order and restored life time protection.

When SecDef Rumsfeld resigned, President Bush encouraged him to retain his protection detail. He dismissed it and and engaged protection from the private sector, which he pays for himself. There is no reason a President could not do the same.


I can live with whatever it takes to get him to fade away be per to np e heard from again. Basically. I want his incompetent ass gone

Cletus
01-05-2016, 09:34 PM
I can live with whatever it takes to get him to fade away be per to np e heard from again. Basically. I want his incompetent ass gone

I would even pitch in for a ticket.

texan
01-05-2016, 09:36 PM
Speaking about his executive orders on gun background checks, etc.
If you listen closely, you can hear right-wing heads exploding in every direction. :biglaugh:

I disagree. I will leave the crying alone at this time.

JDubya
01-05-2016, 09:41 PM
i just want this guy to leave office never to be heard from again. If it takes secret service protection to make that happen, so be it.


I can live with whatever it takes to get him to fade away be per to np e heard from again. Basically. I want his incompetent ass gone

Don't you worry your little head over it lil' fella.

He'll be gone just a little over one year from now.

The day Hillary Clinton takes the Oath of Office. :biglaugh:

Green Arrow
01-05-2016, 09:43 PM
Don't you worry your little head over it lil' fella.

He'll be gone just a little over one year from now.

The day Hillary Clinton takes the Oath of Office. :biglaugh:

That sounds soooo much better.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 09:44 PM
I would even pitch in for a ticket.

I think it's too much to hope that he leaves office and maintains a low profile like every other president. He doesn't have the class to do that.

Tahuyaman
01-05-2016, 10:09 PM
He'll be gone just a little over one year from now.


thank God.

Mac-7
01-06-2016, 04:13 AM
It was a joke from someone who has made typos, but has made jokes about those as well.

No, it was lib pettyness by someone who did not have a better response so they attacked the other person by mocking their typing.

Standing Wolf
01-06-2016, 07:58 AM
There's this...



And from the FBI website....



It ought to be obvious to anyone with an ounce of common sense that 24 hours is a ridiculously inadequate amount of time, when 72 hours isn't, @Standing Wolf (http://thepoliticalforums.com/member.php?u=1791).






The FBI may "recommend" it, but 25 days is ridiculous. If access to accurate and timely information is truly that poor, then - as I've been suggesting for years - all efforts need to be concentrated on improving the system. Local LE agencies and courts should concentrate on making all pertinent data concerning criminal convictions and adjudications of mental incompetence immediately accessible to federal databases.

Cigar
01-06-2016, 08:10 AM
That sounds soooo much better.

Would you prefer Trump?

Green Arrow
01-06-2016, 09:08 AM
Would you prefer Trump?

No, I wouldn't.

Hal Jordan
01-06-2016, 01:28 PM
No, it was lib pettyness by someone who did not have a better response so they attacked the other person by mocking their typing.

I'm wondering why you are so determined to take offense when the person you say was attacked knew there was no reason to take offense. There's a huge difference between an attack and joking around with someone.

Mac-7
01-06-2016, 01:52 PM
I'm wondering why you are so determined to take offense when the person you say was attacked knew there was no reason to take offense.

I just call 'em like I see 'em.

MisterVeritis
01-06-2016, 03:41 PM
The FBI may "recommend" it, but 25 days is ridiculous. If access to accurate and timely information is truly that poor, then - as I've been suggesting for years - all efforts need to be concentrated on improving the system. Local LE agencies and courts should concentrate on making all pertinent data concerning criminal convictions and adjudications of mental incompetence immediately accessible to federal databases.
The current background check is pretty quick. Mine took less than ten minutes. The clerk in the store said if it is delayed the agency has 72 hours to decline or approve. If the time lapses it is an automatic approval.

Truth Detector
01-06-2016, 03:46 PM
Here.... from your own cut and paste job:

As you can see, the bill reduced the amount of time allocated for completion of a background check from 72 to 24 hours, or 1/3 the previous amount.

You obviously either never read it yourself or, you assumed I wouldn't.

Talk about dumb and pathetic, Truth Detector.

Typical barrel stroking, trigger licking gun goober.

See above response to Truth Deflector's attempt to lie and side step the truth he falsely claims to be the detector of.

I remember it being discussed from several sources back when it was in the news, then I sourced it with an article from a respected, legitimate news source and finally, Truth Deflector confirmed it for me by copy/pasting the actual bill, which I posted the relevant clause from, above in this post.

Satisfied Standing Wolf ?

^Damned funny rant. :biglaugh:

Truth Detector
01-06-2016, 03:49 PM
The current background check is pretty quick. Mine took less than ten minutes. The clerk in the store said if it is delayed the agency has 72 hours to decline or approve. If the time lapses it is an automatic approval.

You have to be living in Nevada or Arizona to have that. Here in CA it is a 14 day waiting period. Dumb really.

MisterVeritis
01-06-2016, 03:50 PM
You have to be living in Nevada or Arizona to have that. Here in CA it is a 14 day waiting period. Dumb really.
Alabama. Your state is the obstacle.

Truth Detector
01-06-2016, 04:01 PM
Alabama. Your state is the obstacle.

Same as Arizona then; my state is retarded. :biglaugh:

They made my AR15 safer by making me push the clip release with a bullet button and only allowing me ten rounds. ;)

MisterVeritis
01-06-2016, 04:03 PM
Same as Arizona then; my state is retarded. :biglaugh:

They made my AR15 safer by making me push the clip release with a bullet button and only allowing me ten rounds. ;)
Yeah. Training can overcome part of that. Or having a second weapon. The one I bought today is designed for concealment. I do like it.

Peter1469
01-06-2016, 04:21 PM
The FBI has spent a lot of money for an "instant" check. Or maybe at this point, wasted money on it....

instant, more like 30 seconds.

decedent
01-06-2016, 11:21 PM
No; what you heard were Conservatives laughing their asses off watching this Imperial dunce creating a tear to convince the gullible dimwits...

The whole thing was staged. Look closely and you'll see that Obama was just a big dummy.

Tahuyaman
01-06-2016, 11:54 PM
The whole thing was staged. Look closely and you'll see that Obama was just a big dummy.


Actually, the dummies are those who think his crying was authentic.