Put some ice on it, Dianne.
< /clinton-rapist>
Posted on 04/17/2013 2:46:51 PM PDT by ConservativeInPA
The Feinstein Amendment to ban 157 semi-automatic weapons and high (regular) capacity magazines has massively failed 60-40.
By a vote of 54 to 46, the Senate defeated the Manchin-Toomey Amendment to S649, the gun legislation bill which Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) introduced last week. The amendment would have expanded background checks for the purchase of firearms as well as create a commission to study the causes of mass violence in the U.S. There are eight more amendments to be voted on.
Updated: 7 min. ago
Yeah, I just passed by the TV and I see he’s throwing a presidential hissy fit.
Too soon to post a link, but if I was following it correctly, don't hold me to this, Kirk (R-IL) voted for the amendment. He was the only RINO. The rest were the usual Rat suspects.
Feinstien wants to disarm law abiding Americans. She obviously favors many more murders, rapes and armed robberies.
Yes that is different. They are voting on 6 amendments today, and 2 more tomorrow. The Toomey, Schumer, Manchin amendment was defeated, which is excellent news.
It’s time to start the counter attack and be as politically ruthless as they are.
Make the emperor and his totalitarian toads at every political level, pay and pay dearly!!!
Do you have a link because I’m watching CSPAN too and I didn’t see this.
40 for the amendment, 60 against. Obama is sensing a huge loss on one of his key initiatives and is pissed. His speech patterns and mannerisms are one of a very angry person.
He will probably author more false flag events(yes, I belive some of these shootings might be “inside jobs”) just for the heck of it.
Take THAT you traitor.
Take a hint and let it die, you are only making a liberal fool of yourself, but I repeat myself...
FYI...on the NY Safe Act
Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841, “We respectfully demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.”
The letter:
To: Andrew M. Cuomo / Dean G. Skelos / Neil D. Breslin / John T- McDonald III / Phil Steck / Sheldon Silver / Jeffrey D. Klein / Cecilia Tkaczyk / Patricia Fahy Note; see the formal list of people this letter went to at the bottom.
April 15,2013
Honorable Ladies and Gentlemen:
The Albany Police Officers Union condemns and opposes the New York Secure Ammunition and Firearms Enforcement Act (the SAFE Act) Substantively, we believe that it violates fundamental constitutional rights, that it is unduly and purposely burdensome on law-abiding citizens, and” that it will not deter criminals or menially ill individuals from plotting and carrying out bloodshed and violence. Procedurally, we believe that the way in which the bill was rammed into law via an unjustified and expedient “message of necessity”, which circumvents the right and the ability of the citizens of this State to voice their concerns about the bill and have them addressed, is an outrage. This flawed law’ and the w ay in which it was rushed and passed., shows the apparent contempt that those who govern have for the governed, and. calls into question whether we truly have a representational government. Morally, we believe that this law is about ideology and politics and not about making anyone any safer. We respectfully demand that you do the right thing and repeal the law.
First, while we applaud and support your overall concern for public safety and your desire to improve it. The SAFE Act will not improve public safety. Criminals and the mentally ill will not abide by it, and it is either foolish or dishonest to think or suggest otherwise. While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law and not load a ten-round magazine with more than seven rounds, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence not load ten rounds into a ten-round magazine? While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law that previously legal thirty-round magazines must be sold within one-year to an out-of-state resident or turn in to local authorities, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to sell or turn in his thirty-round magazines? While law-abiding citizens will abide by the law requiring that they register weapons which they already do and which have been deemed “assault weapons”, do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to do so? Do you really expect a criminal or mentally ill individual intent on doing violence to be concerned about any increase in penalties for shooting first responders? Do you really expect that a mentally ill individual who owns firearms and who is intent on doing violence will voice his intentions to his or her mental health professional and thus put into motion the confiscation of his or her firearms? Do you-really expect that a mentally ill individual will “safely store” his firearms? Of course you don’t. Again, only law-abiding citizens, who are not intent on doing violence, will abide the NY SAFE Act criminals and the mentally ill who are intent on doing violence will not do so. The public will not be any safer under this 1aw. What then, have you accomplished?
Second., the SAFE Act carries with it unfair burdens on law abiding citizen. What is the point of making law-abiding citizens register their previously lawfully owned and lawfully used firearms which are now deemed to be “assault weapons”? What is the point of making law-abiding citizens who affirmatively “opt into” protection from public identification that they hold permits or own firearms? What is the point of making law-abiding citizens renew their pistol permits or “assault weapon” registrations every five years? Why are you preemptively punishing those who have done nothing wrong?
Third, -we fully believe that the SAFE ACT broad prohibitions against will not. withstand constitutional challenge and scrutiny. The Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution provides and U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly upheld the right of individuals to possess and carry firearms and to use them for lawful purposes. The SAFE Act, however, infringes on that right as it bans the possession and use of certain firearms that were heretofore possessed and” used lawfully for the defense of life, liberty, and property, and as it bans the possession and use of certain firearms that were heretofore possessed and used lawfully for safe use of firearms recreation, hunting, and shooting.
We as police officers are on the front lines of public safety. Respectfully, none of you are. We see, feel, work, and live with the effects of gun violence in ways that you cannot. We believe that you see gun violence as a means to move your agenda and your ambitions forward. You know that the SAFE Act will not work in the way that you pretend it will. You know that this shameful SAFE Act was about ideology and politics and not about making anyone safer.
Regarding the reduction in violent crime this new legislation is proposed to have, in 2011 the most current year for which FBI crime statistics are available, New York State had 77l homicides, 445 were committed with a firearm, 394 of that 445 were committed with a handgun, 5 were committed with a rifle, 16 were committed with a shotgun, in 30 the firearm type was unknown, 160 were committed with a cutting instrument, 143 were committed with another type of weapon, and 26 were committed with bare hands. We believe based on these statistics, that the SAFE Act will do nothing to reduce violent crime as the primary target of the legislation is the “assault rifle” which would be included statistically with standard rifles and used in less than 1% of New York homicides in 2011.These so called “Assault Weapons” were not used in the commission of one reported crime in Albany County in 2011.
For the reasons set forth above, the Albany Police Union believes that the SAFE Act is wrong - substantively, procedurally, and morally. The SAFE Act infringes on the rights of law-abiding citizens, it will burden and negatively impact firearms ownership by law-abiding citizens and will not affect the willingness of criminals or those who are mentally ill from perpetrating violence. Again, we respectfully demand that each and all of you do the right thing and repeal the law. Very truly yours,
Thomas Mahar: President Albany Police Officers Union, local 2841 Council 82, AFSCME, AFI-CIO
“He will probably author more false flag events(yes, I belive some of these shootings might be “inside jobs”) just for the heck of it.”
-The phrase Obama used was “under the radar”.
Never let down your guard. Marxist slime never sleep.
Toomey needs to be remembered for this act of treason and his ass punished at the election booth, for what that’s worth.
Mark these 40 as major traitors and haters of free citizens.
Put some ice on it, Dianne.
< /clinton-rapist>
Savor the moment, but not for long, because just like with the sodomites’ agenda-law is never considered “settled” until they’ve gotten their way. Then they go around telling us that, for instance, obamacare is “settled law” and we need to just drop it and move on to “more important” things. Because once they’ve passed their laws, it’s no longer important to them, so it shouldn’t be important to anyone anymore. This is their MO straight out of Alinsky.
So we musn’t get complacent, not for a second. They’ll be back for round 6003, and each time they work the propaganda on the sheeple until their polls are finally accurate in their favor.
It is actions like this from the police union, that restores my faith in those who took that oath to uphold and defend the constitution.
Those police officers who are represented by that letter will have a whole lot more friends out there if the people they serve believe they represent constitutional principles in the execution of their duties.
YES, he is...and seeing him pissed put a very big smile on my face.
Frankly, it was one of the best moments I have had in nearly five long years.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
