http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...4c4fa6e-a2ed-11e2-82bc-511538ae90a4_blog.html The results of background checks with the laws we CURRENTLY have on the books: 2010: 72,659 denials 34,459 felony convictions/indictments 13,862 fugitives 44 prosecutions (0.06 percent of denials) 2009: 67,324 denials 32,652 felony convictions/indictments 11,341 fugitives 77 prosecutions (0.11 percent) 2008: 70,725 denials 39,526 felony convictions/indictments 9,464 fugitives 105 prosecutions (0.15 percent) 2007: 73,992 denials 23,703 felony convictions/indictments 4,803 fugitives 122 prosecutions (0.16 percent) 2006: 69,930 denials 25,259 felony convictions/indictments 4,235 fugitives 112 prosecutions (0.16 percent) 2005: 66,705 denials 36.8 percent felony convictions/indictments 5.3 percent fugitives 135 prosecutions (0.20 percent) Is this acceptable to you Obama supporters? (although Bush's record on this was abysmal as well) Back to the original question, why enact new laws when we don't enforce the existing ones?
You have a point ... I mean, when did the founding fathers write background checks into the 2nd Amendment ?
They didnt, but there were only a few hundred thousand people here by then. But now we have the technology and there is no issue with the instant checks that are done. But you want "one more law". Followed by another one more law, followed by another one more law till the ban is in effect.
I see ... so when the next Loughner, Holmes and Lanza executes men, women children and kindergartners it was because background checks didn't work.
Can you show me how any background check would have prevented those killings? If you can't, then you are just ranting nonsense. But back on topic, why enact a new law when we are not enforcing the ones we have? You seem to think the ones we have aren't working, well how would you even know if they are effective or not if you don't enforce them? But the left is almost always more interested in passing something symbolic they can claim is making a difference than doing something that ACTUALLY makes a difference.
This background check bill, although passed as a majority ... was symbolic ... even Harry Ried voted no ... this is because he knew that it would never get 60 votes ... this is because he wants a full-on AWB ... so this leaves the issue open to bring it up just before th 2014 electons ...
Back ground check did work for Lanza, he tried to buy a gun shortly before his shooting. So keep trying. And futhermore, as I have said before. None of those incidents,no matter how horrific, trump our 2A rights. - - - Updated - - - You wish.
That would lead to a huge victory for the Republicans if it is brought to a vote in 2014. Remember 1994 and the AWB then?
Ah the old "we meant to lose this fight" speal. I hope you guys do campaign on that, you will lose in a landslide! BTW, since you dodged my question I think it is safe to say that no background check of any kind would have prevented ANY of the mass shootings.
Well, yes and no. The background check didn't prevent him from buying a gun. The waiting period dissuaded him from buying a gun (I guess he had a time schedule), so he chose to steal his mom's guns instead.
Max Baucus is retiring because he voted no to background checks ... it looks like we're weeding-out conservatives who want the mentally-ill & criminals to have the same gun-rights you do ... starting with Blue-Dog Dems ...
Did he go to a gun store and buy a gun? No, so all the BS laws that are in place where he lives worked as laid out. So he commited another crime by theft of guns. Then stole a car. After killing his mother. Crazy people do crazy things. Cant stop that. - - - Updated - - - Come get them, if you think I shouldnt have them? Nut up and come get them.
Actually he did not fail the background check he just did not want to wait 14 days so he never applied. So to claim that the background check worked is a false claim. Because there was no criminal record he would have passed the check. As for violating the second. I guess you think police searching your house every year with no cause or warrant just because you own a gun is ok, how about the gov searching your medical records to determine what rights you have is also ok. This is what is going on right now..
of course the only people that belive that are the uniformed and willfully ignorant of the facts. you wold also like the police searching your medical records and saying sorry you are not allowed to vote because you took a drug when you where 10 years old.
Man, you have never read my posts on medical records have you. Anyway, background checks and wait periods came in at the same time pretty much. So as far as Iam concerned they go hand in hand. Police search my house with no warrant or with one, there will be openings in the dept by nights end.
LOL how silly, err NO it will because bad people don't care about laws, however guns in the hands of good people can and do make a difference. Hope that answers your question and sets you on the path to de truth eh man
