[Iron Munro]

Sen. Toomey: ‘I Don’t Consider Criminal Background Checks To Be Gun Control’

Pennsylvania Republican Sen. Pat Toomey on Wednesday called for an expansion of required background checks for those who want to buy guns by arguing that the proposal does not actually constitute “gun control.”

“I don’t consider criminal background checks to be gun control,” Toomey said during a press conference at the Capitol. “I think it’s commonsense. If you pass a criminal background check, you get to buy a gun. No problem. It’s the people who fail a criminal or mental health background that we don’t want to have a gun.”

Toomey joined Democratic Sen. Joe Manchin of West Virginia on Wednesday in offering compromise legislation as Congress takes up gun bills. It requires background checks for all commercial transactions, including for those who buy firearms at gun shows and online.

[SeekAndFind]

RE: Sen. Toomey: ‘I Don’t Consider Criminal Background Checks To Be Gun Control’

BTW, Background Checks are NOT the only thing in this gun control legislation under consideration.

[spel_grammer_an_punct_polise]

“I don’t consider criminal background checks to be gun control,”

Yeah, and amnesty is not really amnesty, right, Senator?

Yet another RINO.

[americas.best.days...]

RE:”If you pass a criminal background check,you get to
buy a gun.”

How about this: If you have an IQ over 80,you get to have
freedom of speech.
Which would effectively shut down the mainstream media.

I mean if we’re arbitrarily adjusting our bill of rights.

[supercat]

I might almost go along with background checks if

1. they were conducted by having the federal government publish the database in such a fashion that it wouldn't know who queried it and when, and
2. adding someone in the database required an identifiable employee of the federal government to stake his life on the fact that no harm would befall that person as a consequence of being disarmed. In the event that someone is killed or harmed as a consequence of being disarmed, the life of the employee who denied that person's armament would be forfeit, and anyone who killed that employee would be entitled not only to reimbursement of all consequent costs, but also a year of the late employee's salary. Absent an employee willing to stake his life in such fashion, nobody could be added to the list.

Seem fair?