The people speak!

"An epic national debate over gun rights in Colorado on Tuesday saw two Democratic state senators ousted for their support for stricter laws, a "ready, aim, fired" message intended to stop other politicians for pushing for firearms restrictions. Senate President John Morse and Sen. Angela Giron will be replaced in office with Republican candidates who petitioned onto the recall ballot."

"Colorado Senate President John Morse, state Sen. Angela Giron ousted", Denver Post, 9/10/2013.

If you've spent time in the USA you'll know that asking red neck states to give up their guns is like asking Thai's to obey rules and regulations.

Yes the gun grabbers suffered a defeat. A slap in the face of mikey bloomberg who tried to buy this election.

If you've spent time in the USA you'll know that asking red neck states to give up their guns is like asking Thai's to obey rules and regulations.

Rednecks? What you fail to see is that these gun grabbers were defeated in a liberal state by liberal Democrats and women. The fringe element which wants to take or restrict guns is just that - the fringe element.

Liberals may be liberal on all kinds of things but many still like to own guns. How else could it be that more than 100 million Americans legally own guns? Do you think that's some wacko minority? No, it's a majority of voters. Only 126 million Americans voted in the last presidential election. Link

Colorado is hardly redneck. It is very liberal and elected these far-out gun grabbers who they just disposed of over a single issue - guns.

Not long ago this thread was started when a gun control measure was defeated in the US Congress nationally. The congressmen knew that if they voted for it they wouldn't be re-elected. It was poison to them.

Now Colorado shows the same inclination. No it's not redneck states. It's a national tradition.

TPTB attempts to disarm the American public have failed at every attempt. No different this time. The American public are waking up to the tyranny of an oppressive government. The 2014 mid-terms should be a hoot.

Gun show loop holes in Texas being exploited to put weapons in the hands of cartels.

-----

Rodriguez, agents found, had been selling guns from various tables at SAXET gun shows by exploiting the so-called gun show loophole.

By posing as a private seller disposing of his personal collection, he was circumventing rules that required him to get a license and to conduct background checks on his buyers, authorities contend. And, because he is a convicted felon, Rodriguez should not have had guns in the first place, they argue.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Feds-Zetas-leader-s-gun-came-from-San-Antonio-4808302.php

Gun show loop holes in Texas being exploited to put weapons in the hands of cartels.

-----

Rodriguez, agents found, had been selling guns from various tables at SAXET gun shows by exploiting the so-called gun show loophole.

By posing as a private seller disposing of his personal collection, he was circumventing rules that required him to get a license and to conduct background checks on his buyers, authorities contend. And, because he is a convicted felon, Rodriguez should not have had guns in the first place, they argue.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Feds-Zetas-leader-s-gun-came-from-San-Antonio-4808302.php

So? What you are apparently missing is that it was already illegal for this man to possess a gun. How many times do we have to say that laws including new laws only affect the law abiding? The same is true in every country and every country has bad criminals.

This should be more an indictment of the open S. Border of the US which allows illegal people and illegal guns to cross, where in his case he was trafficking on both sides of the border.

It should also be an indictment of the criminal justice system which put him back on the street after already having a gun related crime for which he was on parole. He was committing many crimes by possessing and selling and buying guns while he was on parole for gun crimes. The only way to manage this problem is to seal the border and keep these criminals locked up.

We don't punish, or take away the rights of law abiding citizens for crimes committed by career criminals.

if the criminal souls would shoot each other, the Planet would be breathing much easily

if the criminal souls would shoot each other, the Planet would be breathing much easily

Or they could just move to Iowa and take their chances ....

http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/3890291

Gun show loop holes in Texas being exploited to put weapons in the hands of cartels.

-----

Rodriguez, agents found, had been selling guns from various tables at SAXET gun shows by exploiting the so-called gun show loophole.

By posing as a private seller disposing of his personal collection, he was circumventing rules that required him to get a license and to conduct background checks on his buyers, authorities contend. And, because he is a convicted felon, Rodriguez should not have had guns in the first place, they argue.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Feds-Zetas-leader-s-gun-came-from-San-Antonio-4808302.php

So? What you are apparently missing is that it was already illegal for this man to possess a gun. How many times do we have to say that laws including new laws only affect the law abiding? The same is true in every country and every country has bad criminals.

This should be more an indictment of the open S. Border of the US which allows illegal people and illegal guns to cross, where in his case he was trafficking on both sides of the border.

It should also be an indictment of the criminal justice system which put him back on the street after already having a gun related crime for which he was on parole. He was committing many crimes by possessing and selling and buying guns while he was on parole for gun crimes. The only way to manage this problem is to seal the border and keep these criminals locked up.

We don't punish, or take away the rights of law abiding citizens for crimes committed by career criminals.

Why don't you chill out. Just posting an interesting article. The 2nd Amendment does not need you to jump and get all obsessive whenever anyone post a gun article. It will be okay with out you.

Gun show loop holes in Texas being exploited to put weapons in the hands of cartels.

-----

Rodriguez, agents found, had been selling guns from various tables at SAXET gun shows by exploiting the so-called gun show loophole.

By posing as a private seller disposing of his personal collection, he was circumventing rules that required him to get a license and to conduct background checks on his buyers, authorities contend. And, because he is a convicted felon, Rodriguez should not have had guns in the first place, they argue.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local/article/Feds-Zetas-leader-s-gun-came-from-San-Antonio-4808302.php

So? What you are apparently missing is that it was already illegal for this man to possess a gun. How many times do we have to say that laws including new laws only affect the law abiding? The same is true in every country and every country has bad criminals.

This should be more an indictment of the open S. Border of the US which allows illegal people and illegal guns to cross, where in his case he was trafficking on both sides of the border.

It should also be an indictment of the criminal justice system which put him back on the street after already having a gun related crime for which he was on parole. He was committing many crimes by possessing and selling and buying guns while he was on parole for gun crimes. The only way to manage this problem is to seal the border and keep these criminals locked up.

We don't punish, or take away the rights of law abiding citizens for crimes committed by career criminals.

Why don't you chill out. Just posting an interesting article. The 2nd Amendment does not need you to jump and get all obsessive whenever anyone post a gun article. It will be okay with out you.

He is not getting "all obsessive", but rather is just stating facts and pertinent observations.

A man brandishing an assault rifle, shotgun and handgun opened fire Monday inside a building at the Washington Navy Yard — killing at least four people and wounding at least eight more, including two police officers, authorities said.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20522196-gunman-opens-fire-at-navy-yard-in-washington-killing-at-least-4?lite

A man brandishing an assault rifle, shotgun and handgun opened fire Monday inside a building at the Washington Navy Yard — killing at least four people and wounding at least eight more, including two police officers, authorities said.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20522196-gunman-opens-fire-at-navy-yard-in-washington-killing-at-least-4?lite

This thread is about the liberal, left wing US Senate refusing to pass a bill that would have extended background checks. That is the topic.

"WASHINGTON: -- US President Barack Obama said Wednesday "was a pretty shameful day for Washington" as an effort to expand background checks on gun purchases was rejected by the Senate." - from the OP.

What does this newest story tell us about these people's backgrounds, or whether they would have passed a background check to buy guns anyway?

What does it tell us about how they got the guns?

What good would background checks do if they had clean backgrounds, or if they stole the guns?

You are so far off-topic with your posts I can't believe they aren't deleted.

A man brandishing an assault rifle, shotgun and handgun opened fire Monday inside a building at the Washington Navy Yard — killing at least four people and wounding at least eight more, including two police officers, authorities said.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20522196-gunman-opens-fire-at-navy-yard-in-washington-killing-at-least-4?lite

This thread is about the liberal, left wing US Senate refusing to pass a bill that would have extended background checks. That is the topic.

"WASHINGTON: -- US President Barack Obama said Wednesday "was a pretty shameful day for Washington" as an effort to expand background checks on gun purchases was rejected by the Senate." - from the OP.

What does this newest story tell us about these people's backgrounds, or whether they would have passed a background check to buy guns anyway?

What does it tell us about how they got the guns?

What good would background checks do if they had clean backgrounds, or if they stole the guns?

You are so far off-topic with your posts I can't believe they aren't deleted.

I am sure you would like to sweep stuff like this under the rug, but it is just ammunition for Bama to go after guns. That is clearly on topic.

Gotta love how you only concern is on topic when there are at least 12 dead.

A man brandishing an assault rifle, shotgun and handgun opened fire Monday inside a building at the Washington Navy Yard — killing at least four people and wounding at least eight more, including two police officers, authorities said.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20522196-gunman-opens-fire-at-navy-yard-in-washington-killing-at-least-4?lite

This thread is about the liberal, left wing US Senate refusing to pass a bill that would have extended background checks. That is the topic.

"WASHINGTON: -- US President Barack Obama said Wednesday "was a pretty shameful day for Washington" as an effort to expand background checks on gun purchases was rejected by the Senate." - from the OP.

What does this newest story tell us about these people's backgrounds, or whether they would have passed a background check to buy guns anyway?

What does it tell us about how they got the guns?

What good would background checks do if they had clean backgrounds, or if they stole the guns?

You are so far off-topic with your posts I can't believe they aren't deleted.

Haha, I am sure you would like to sweep stuff like this under the rug, but it is just ammunition for Bama to go after guns. That is clearly on topic.

Gotta love how you only concern is on topic when there are no at least 12 dead.

You don't understand that this thread is about background checks only, and we know nothing about these people's backgrounds or how they got the guns yet?

If they had clean backgrounds and bought the guns legally, or stole the guns, the new law would have been irrelevant.

If they didn't have clean backgrounds, it was already illegal for them to own guns and the new law wouldn't have made any difference.

Please stay on topic, after you can tell us that they used the "gun show loophole" to buy the guns while they were criminals not allowed to have guns.

Even then I repeat that criminals don't by definition obey laws. A new law doesn't affect them.

A man brandishing an assault rifle, shotgun and handgun opened fire Monday inside a building at the Washington Navy Yard killing at least four people and wounding at least eight more, including two police officers, authorities said.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20522196-gunman-opens-fire-at-navy-yard-in-washington-killing-at-least-4?lite

This thread is about the liberal, left wing US Senate refusing to pass a bill that would have extended background checks. That is the topic.

"WASHINGTON: -- US President Barack Obama said Wednesday "was a pretty shameful day for Washington" as an effort to expand background checks on gun purchases was rejected by the Senate." - from the OP.

What does this newest story tell us about these people's backgrounds, or whether they would have passed a background check to buy guns anyway?

What does it tell us about how they got the guns?

What good would background checks do if they had clean backgrounds, or if they stole the guns?

You are so far off-topic with your posts I can't believe they aren't deleted.

Haha, I am sure you would like to sweep stuff like this under the rug, but it is just ammunition for Bama to go after guns. That is clearly on topic.

Gotta love how you only concern is on topic when there are no at least 12 dead.

You don't understand that this thread is about background checks only, and we know nothing about these people's backgrounds or how they got the guns yet?

If they had clean backgrounds and bought the guns legally, or stole the guns, the new law would have been irrelevant.

If they didn't have clean backgrounds, it was already illegal for them to own guns and the new law wouldn't have made any difference.

Please stay on topic, after you can tell us that they used the "gun show loophole" to buy the guns while they were criminals not allowed to have guns.

Even then I repeat that criminals don't by definition obey laws. A new law doesn't affect them.

You are ad for why there should be gun control.

More entertainment unfortunately tainted by death...

You are ad for why there should be gun control.

This topic is about the US Senate declining to pass a bill that would require background checks at gun shows. There is nothing in your postings or link which say anything about his background or whether he could pass a background check, much less the guns being purchased at a gun show.

You are so far off topic, yet apparently regard yourself as soooo intelligent.

You are ad for why there should be gun control.

This topic is about the US Senate declining to pass a bill that would require background checks at gun shows. There is nothing in your postings or link which say anything about his background or whether he could pass a background check, much less the guns being purchased at a gun show.

You are so far off topic, yet apparently regard yourself as soooo intelligent.

He had an assault rifle. Do you know where he got it at this time. I think not!

Interesting the Thai Buddahist reference.

-----

The man accused of killing 12 people in a gun rampage at the Washington Navy Yard was described by mystified friends and family as a Buddhist and Thai speaker who, in the words of one friend, could not be the shooter.

http://investigations.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/16/20527513-alleged-washington-shooter-served-as-navy-reservist-may-have-recently-lost-job?lite

If you are going to have a discussion, then I suggest that you keep it civil.

You are ad for why there should be gun control.

This topic is about the US Senate declining to pass a bill that would require background checks at gun shows. There is nothing in your postings or link which say anything about his background or whether he could pass a background check, much less the guns being purchased at a gun show.

You are so far off topic, yet apparently regard yourself as soooo intelligent.

He had an assault rifle. Do you know where he got it at this time. I think not!

You are still off topic. This thread is about the US Senate refusing to pass a bill that would require background checks at gun shows.

There is nothing in your rants about gun shows or background checks. There is nothing in the news about it yet either.

There is nothing in the news about him actually having an assault rifle. All news I can find says the he had an AR-15, which many reporters who know little about guns mistake for an assault rifle, perhaps because it is all black. Also, anyone with an agenda can call an AR-15 an assault rifle even if they know it isn't. He also had a hand gun and a shotgun, according to most reports.

I suppose if I attack you with any knife, it becomes an "assault knife."

This one wont get much news and Bama and Oprah probably won't mention even though in Chicago, but 13 shot . . .

Thirteen people, including a 3-year-old boy, were wounded by a flurry of gunfire in a Chicago park late Thursday, the latest round in the citys ongoing fight with gun violence.

http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/20/20593219-boy-3-among-13-victims-shot-near-chicago-basketball-court?lite

You are ad for why there should be gun control.

This topic is about the US Senate declining to pass a bill that would require background checks at gun shows. There is nothing in your postings or link which say anything about his background or whether he could pass a background check, much less the guns being purchased at a gun show.

You are so far off topic, yet apparently regard yourself as soooo intelligent.

He had an assault rifle. Do you know where he got it at this time. I think not!

Aaron Alexis Bought Shotgun Legally; Didn't Have AR-15 Assault Rifle, FBI Says

The Huffington Post | By Andy Campbell Posted: 09/17/2013 4:01 pm EDT | Updated: 09/17/2013 4:19 pm EDT

Link

You don't know much about what happened, and this reporter doesn't know that an AR-15 isn't an "assault rifle," or in his perhaps bias, doesn't care.

He had a shotgun.

Haha, give 5 minutes in a room with this nutbag and I could increase the nations IQ a bit by removing this dumb arse's ability to speak, make other people ignorant and spread his sickness. His rhetoric is generally offensive to those victimized. I think a diet of eating through a straw is about right for him.

-----

NRA's LaPierre calls for more armed personnel after Navy Yard shooting

http://presspass.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/09/22/20636650-nras-lapierre-calls-for-more-armed-personnel-after-navy-yard-shooting?lite

-----

I love the part about US needing to check and clear the mentally ill. Sounds good, but lets please start with him and all the other gun owners. You can tell by looking at this guys eyes and listening to him that he is not stable. So dude, step up and get checked.

You are ad for why there should be gun control.

This topic is about the US Senate declining to pass a bill that would require background checks at gun shows. There is nothing in your postings or link which say anything about his background or whether he could pass a background check, much less the guns being purchased at a gun show.

You are so far off topic, yet apparently regard yourself as soooo intelligent.

He had an assault rifle. Do you know where he got it at this time. I think not!

Aaron Alexis Bought Shotgun Legally; Didn't Have AR-15 Assault Rifle, FBI Says

The Huffington Post | By Andy Campbell Posted: 09/17/2013 4:01 pm EDT | Updated: 09/17/2013 4:19 pm EDT

Link

You don't know much about what happened, and this reporter doesn't know that an AR-15 isn't an "assault rifle," or in his perhaps bias, doesn't care.

He had a shotgun.

Yeah, I have seen preliminary reports were wrong and I posted that as the event was unfolding. Thank God he did not have an AR-15 or more would have been killed. There is a reason he first tried to purchase an AR. And yeah, I saw your lame attempt at saying shot gun is more deadly. Either dishonest or seriously disillusioned by your own politics and agenda. The scarlet part is people like you with small arsenals may be just as crazy as this nut bag, but you guys would never admit that and likely believe you are the only ones sane. That's how crazies role so we basically leave it up to the crazies to decide how many guns they need.

Sane rationale people are not obsessed about having guns and don't think they need 5, 10 or 25 sitting around their house for protection.

You are ad for why there should be gun control.

This topic is about the US Senate declining to pass a bill that would require background checks at gun shows. There is nothing in your postings or link which say anything about his background or whether he could pass a background check, much less the guns being purchased at a gun show.

You are so far off topic, yet apparently regard yourself as soooo intelligent.

He had an assault rifle. Do you know where he got it at this time. I think not!

He must have obtained that "assault rifle" from your imagination. The fact is that he did not have one!

You are ad for why there should be gun control.

This topic is about the US Senate declining to pass a bill that would require background checks at gun shows. There is nothing in your postings or link which say anything about his background or whether he could pass a background check, much less the guns being purchased at a gun show.

You are so far off topic, yet apparently regard yourself as soooo intelligent.

He had an assault rifle. Do you know where he got it at this time. I think not!

He must have obtained that "assault rifle" from your imagination. The fact is that he did not have one!

Posters with a liberal left agenda don't let facts get in the way of their message.

You decide....

Obama is right !