[marktwain]

Note how entirely partisan the Post is in this article, which is supposed to be about politics, not opinion. Not one word on the questionable constitutionality of the bill. Not one word on the costs. Not one word about the bill being “controversial.

Everything in the Article implies that this bill was entirely desirable and workable.

Then again, this is exactly what we expect from the Obama Administration Post.

[Elsiejay]

“Not one word on the questionable constitutionality of the bill. Not one word on the costs. Not one word about the bill being “controversial.”

And not one word about the relevance of background checks to the actions of the Newtown shooter, or, for that matter, the Colorado theater shooter.
Which category of legal gun purchases presently is not subject to background checks?

[DestroyLiberalism]

marktwain wrote:
<<
Note how entirely partisan the Post is in this article, which is supposed to be about politics, not opinion. Not one word on the questionable constitutionality of the bill. Not one word on the costs. Not one word about the bill being “controversial.

Everything in the Article implies that this bill was entirely desirable and workable.

Then again, this is exactly what we expect from the Obama Administration Post.
>>

************************************************************

Oh, believe me, I noticed! Of course, the Obama-worshiping sycophants at the Post completely ignore the fact that there was also bipartisan OPPOSITION to the bill and only 4% of the American people (according to the latest Gallup survey) consider gun control as the most important problem facing the U.S. today.