Sign In | Create an Account | Welcome, . My Account | Logout | Subscribe | Submit News | Facebook | Twitter | All Access E-Edition | Home RSS
 
 
 

Checks and Balances

Manchin right on gun background checks

July 7, 2013

U.S. Sen. Joe Manchin’s detractors sometimes have accused him of being more interested in winning elections than doing the right thing, especially if that involves an unpleasant political fight....

« Back to Article

 
 
sort: oldest | newest

Comments

(62)

AaronS

Jul-11-13 8:42 PM

You must grid. You respond to everything I say.

Now if only you had something meaningful to say.

Perhaps when you get out of elementary school.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-10-13 12:14 AM

81 post and they're still scared to answer a simple question.

0 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jul-09-13 7:29 PM

"What political party is owned by the NRA and the Gun manufactures, and who benefits the most from them not having the funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) And who said they would do what ever it took to make sure President Obama was a one term President." The answer is, the republicans. Now what does that tell you?

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-09-13 8:33 AM

Why didn't Nancy Pelosi push for funding when the bill passed or why didn't President Obama follow through on the promises of candidate Obama? Distortion by the radical left doesn't change the facts.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jul-09-13 5:27 AM

When President Obama addressed the people of Newtown, he should have said yes we can do better, Congress can provide the necessary funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System. Then maybe this wouldn't have happened

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RANDOM21

Jul-09-13 12:08 AM

Grid: Budget bills cannot be filibustered, they pass on a majority vote. Maybe hairy is afraid some of his party might pass a House budget so he never brings them up for a vote? You can ask Hairy why he doesn't bring them up for a vote but you have to make an appointment through his secretary. His name is Lucifer, phone #1-666-666-666H.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-08-13 7:54 PM

I'm curious grid, do you honestly think the bill will pass? Denver, with his limited abilities seems to understand that on the off chance the bill passes the Senate that it stands about as much chance of passing the House as you do of answering a simple question.

And should it miraculously pass Congress, if current law cannot be enforced due to funding issues, what makes you think this bill will receive adequate funding?

Seriously, you would have to be as dense as they come to think this bill has any chance of becoming law thus the only logical conclusion is that it is being brought forth to keep the gun debate in the public conversation.

I’d ask you to tell me you’re not that dense but the last person I ask that of really was. I hold little hope the results would be different this time.

I've read enough of your comments that I really don't think your that dense but your comments on this thread have me doubting that.

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jul-08-13 6:26 PM

Well said "Gridiron" about you have to listen to more than Right Wing-Talk Radio.

3 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jul-08-13 6:07 PM

Well little buddy I see you haven't answered my question yet, If you don't know just say so. Now let me ask you one more time, since we like repeating the same questions. OK! "What political party is owned by the NRA and the Gun manufactures, and who benefits the most from them not having the funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) And who said they would do what ever it took to make sure President Obama was a one term President."

Here is clue it starts with a "r"

4 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-08-13 5:01 PM

There’s nothing wrong with my reading comprehension, Reid doesn’t pass a budget because he doesn’t have to, Manchin’s bill will do absolutely nothing to change the debate as that law will be largely ignored as it is nothing more than lip service and I keep asking the same question because no one has answered it yet.

And my reading comprehension is questioned.

Seriously? By a minion of the extreme left?

Child please.

2 Agrees | 4 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-08-13 2:44 PM

Another clarification.

I said "Given the poster, that could easily be considered a lie." I meant the poster making the silly comments, not the poster who referenced the article.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-08-13 2:42 PM

I know I said I was done, but that is with the Marxist asking silly questions. For the 3 people who follow me and value my opinion, I need to clarify a few points from a previous comment.

“How many times are you going to ask the same question?”

Until it gets answered.

“Even tho it's been answered, how many times now?”

No, it has not. A few liberal posters have tried to distort the facts and change the subject, but none have answered the question.

“And RANDOM21 even give you a link with the answer.”

Given the poster, that could easily be considered a lie. The story gave some explanations as why current laws are not being enforced but none have answered the question I have ask. For those few posting on here with reading comprehension problems, I will ask it again with emphasis capitalized.

Given that current background check laws are not being enforced, WHY DO LIBERALS WANT TO ENACT NEW BACKGROUND CHECK LAWS? Wouldn’t it make much more sense to enforce cur

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-08-13 2:23 PM

I know three things regarding this thread.

1) Despite the lying, spinning, moaning, b**ching and complaining, my question remains unanswered.

2) When the individual who refuses to answer questions demands answered, he has ABSOLUTELY nothing to add to the conversation.

3) When any poster has to resort to name calling, they have been defeated in the debate.

That is all.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jul-08-13 11:07 AM

"It's amazing to me that liberals still insist on trying to pass new laws on gun control even though they know current laws are not being enforced" Read comment Jul-07-13 8:04 AM If you can? Then answer my question.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-08-13 10:27 AM

Perhaps the reason Reid can't pass a budget is because he has no interest or desire in passing a budget. Why would he as John Boehner has done nothing to force Reid’s hand as Boehner has capitulated on each every continuing spending resolution that has come forth in his time as speaker. Perhaps if he would stand his ground instead of caving so easily, we would have a budget instead of the runaway spending we’ve faced for the last 3 years.

1 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-08-13 9:42 AM

It's amazing to me that liberals still insist on trying to pass new laws on gun control even though they know current laws are not being enforced as only 1/10th of criminal falsification of background applications being prosecuted. Why on God's green earth would we pass new laws when 99.999% of current law violations are being ignored?

I’ve ask that question a dozen times yet I can’t get an answer. One rube famous for ducking questions is suddenly demanding answers and another is trying to blame a lack of funding on Republicans even though President Obama campaigned on this very issue by promising to strengthen enforcement of current laws. If funding was the issue, the President could have addressed it with the same congress that forced the largest tax increase in American history and a stimulus bill that increased federal spending by almost 20% in on year.

Seems to me the liberals want to keep the topic in the national conversation to further their agenda.

1 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

denver

Jul-08-13 6:04 AM

Well I can see my little buddy didn't answer my question last night, even after I answered his or hers. So I will ask it again, "What political party is owned by the NRA and the Gun manufactures, and who benefits the most from them not having the funding for the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) And who said they would do what ever it took to make sure President Obama was a one term President."

2 Agrees | 3 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RANDOM21

Jul-07-13 9:21 PM

Supermen no, stuperman, maybe. Don't think he's stopped the choom gang yet. Nobody could do the damage he's done without some chemical help.

0 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

RANDOM21

Jul-07-13 9:14 PM

The main problem with funding has been the Senate's(Hairy Reid) inability to not pass a budget and just keep passing continuing resolutions of spending and not funding the authorized spending levels. Funding is basically the same since the Democrats took over Congress and has continued since Obama was elected in 2008. I was mistaken between the amounts authorized and actually appropriated. These amounts are what fund the states by grants to improve their reporting of mentally deficient people who are not supposed to own firearms. Can't even locate how much is appropriated to actually do the checks but $406million is going to help fight domestic abuse. WV even received $1.2million to move records into the system. IF they can't properly fund programs why start new ones that will just overwhelm the existing overwhelmed system?

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-07-13 8:22 PM

So he liberals excuse for not enforcing current law is a lack of funding yet they still want to pass new laws.

How much sense does that make? Seems to me the logical tho g would do would to fix that problem instead of adding to it as new laws. About the only reason I can think of for acting so foolishly is if background checks aren't the objective but instead keeping the gun control conversation on the table is the priority.

It appears those shifty liberals have an agenda after all.

3 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-07-13 7:57 PM

I'm sorry but you will have to provide a link to the article referencing the filibuster of funding for background checks during the 111th Congress.

2 Agrees | 2 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-07-13 7:51 PM

I was wrong about one item. I was quoting 11,000 background violations. As seen in the article, the number is 7 times that, or 77,000 yet the federal government is not prosecuting those who lie on their forms.

So what is the point in passing new laws? No one has yet to answer that simple question.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-07-13 7:49 PM

Also from the article.

Prosecute people who falsify background check information

The Obama Administration Justice Department is also not strongly enforcing prosecutions of people who falsify information on their gun background checks. The FBI reported 71,000 instances of people lying on their background checks to buy guns in 2009. But the Justice Department prosecuted a mere 77 cases, or a fraction of 1%. There's no good reason to not enforce this law and prosecute violators.

This also has strong support, with 99% of non-NRA member gun owners and 95% of NRA members expressing support for punishing traffickers to the full extent of the law. This is another area where the Obama Administration can "do better."

Continued below...

2 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-07-13 7:48 PM

continued from above...

The irony is that gun rights advocates have argued for years that it's not that more gun laws are needed, but that the existing laws need to be better enforced. Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) said, "gun-rights activists [have] been saying for years and years [that] the existing laws should be enforced more effectively and proactively." In line with that, the NRA backed the 2007 NICS Improvement Amendments Act that President Bush signed into law.

---

Wait, who was the President who signed the NCIS Improvements Acts into law?

0 Agrees | 0 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

AaronS

Jul-07-13 7:35 PM

"The One Hundred Eleventh United States Congress was the meeting of the legislative branch of the United States federal government from January 3, 2009, until January 3, 2011. It began during the last two weeks of the George W. Bush administration, with the remainder spanning the first two years of Barack Obama's presidency. It was composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives. The apportionment of seats in the House was based on the 2000 U.S. Census. In the November 4, 2008 elections, the Democratic Party increased its majorities in both chambers, giving President Obama a Democratic majority in the legislature for the first two years of his presidency."

The President had a veto proof Congress with 60 Senators backing him and 256 in the House. Despite that simple fact, President Obama could not follow through on funding for what Candidate Obama promised.

Yet the President still has his apologist for his failures.

1 Agrees | 1 Disagrees | Report Abuse »

Showing 25 of 62 comments Show More Comments
 
 

 

I am looking for:
in:
News, Blogs & Events Web