Posted on 08/08/2019 3:02:03 PM PDT by Alter Kaker
WASHINGTON — Under intense pressure to take action on gun safety in the wake of two weekend massacres, Senator Mitch McConnell, the majority leader, expressed a new willingness Thursday to consider a measure expanding background checks for all gun purchasers, saying it will be “front and center” in a coming Senate debate on how to respond to gun violence.
“There is a lot of support for that,” he said.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
“Little Chuckie Schummer just said “Red Flag proposal is off the table”!”
Source?
Going nowhere ,McConnell says background check(so Dems can’t buy guns) but Nancy says GUN CONTROL so it’s going nowhere
“Little Chuckie Schummer just said “Red Flag proposal is off the table”!”
because Red Flag would Red Flag all the Dems ,LOL
Fox News in the 7:00 p.m. EDT hour.
If he really said that then it proves that the dems are as self destructive as the pugs.
They are playing with fire.
The GOP could wipe itself out.
If losing the Senate is the only way to get rid of President Trump then that is what asshole McConnell will do.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Bush League Republicans intentionally threw the House in 2018.
They will do anything to preserve the Bush Plan for North Mexico (aka USA)
Damn weasel republicans.
So the Republicans have moved into tyranny territory, moving closer to their sister party in both houses.
Guns and gun owners are modern day witches to the left and they would be burning us at the stake if they had their way. Once the the guns are gone, the burnings will be much easier.
Take your doubts up w Fox.
Got bullied by the Left — capitulates.
If laws stopped people from doing evil the prisons would be empty.
Background checks? I know an expert on this subject. There is a lot of data that does not ever get in to computer systems. There is a lot of data backed up that has yet to added to local databases then unstreamed to statewide databases then to national databases. It’s not uncommon in certain areas for a ADA or DA to make a deal to cut someone some slack on a charge for something they recently walked out of a court guilty on.
Who is it? Other than doing a fingerprint search it’s difficult to tell if Bob Smith born on 01/01/1989 is the Bob Smith in question.
There are other system holes I won’t describe my “friend” told me about.
One question I have is if the PoliticoMedia is so wadded up about guns then why isn’t Obama/Biden/Holder on the front page or in jail over Operation Fast & Furious.
Give up guns? Because liars and turds say so? Not gonna happen.
[[[Part of me wants to see an assault weapons ban (save the sporks) just to prove it won’t work.]]]
Yes, we can add it to the thousands of other laws that don’t work and are still on the books. The first one didn’t work either.
>
Let’s bring back the Senate and House from vacation to talk and debate about the following things that may help in preventing mass shootings:
vouchers for education to school of choice for parents
debate on whether juveniles convicted of violent past offences should be prevented from owning a gun
clamp down on Hollywood’s obsession with gun play and violence
Consider revision of laws with regards to compulsory institutionalization of dangerous individuals
promotion of religious freedom
>
1) Kill the non-educating DoEd, eliminate property taxes & return to ‘user pays’ vs. services. Nobody cares more about quality/quantify than one writing the CHECK.
2) If they are that dangerous, should they not be IN jail? How’d govt knowing work out in Parkland, FL & the recent Ohio shooting??
3) Called ‘being a parent’. Control you & your own choices
4) Define ‘dangerous’. As defined by?
5) Already have...called 1st Amend. Expecting govt to ‘fix’ itself of violating the Constitution is asinine.
A liberal friend of mine brought up the fact that McConnell voted against a background check bill which would prevent mentally ill people get guns.
I didn’t follow that particular bill, but I don’t understand what’s not to like about a bill like that, so the only argument I could come up with (not having the full text of the bill in front of me) was, “Well, maybe there was other stuff glued into the bill that Mitch didn’t like.”
Can anybody explain why Mitch or the Repubs would be against a mentally-ill background check bill?
There’s got to be a catch here that I’m not seeing.
Thanks.
Because mentally ill people aren’t necessarily violent.
Also it’s incredibly easy to mark you mentally ill.
Smoked medicinal pot? Mentally ill.
PTSD in the military? Mentally ill.
Down’s syndrome? Mentally ill.
It’s how the communists enforced their oppression. Except they didn’t take your guns - they locked you up for wrong think.
But thank you for your concern trolling.
I’m just guessing, but I would surmise that it boils down to the definition of “mentally ill.”
There are, I’m sure, many doctors, judges and other so-called “experts” that would label somebody “mentally ill” simply because they wear a MAGA hat.
Ah, got it. Your answer makes sense.
Not trolling at all. Was a sincere question.
If that’s the case, I’m thinking “mentally-ill with a history of violence” could be a screening factor for background checks. In this case, Mitch should support it.
Mitch needs to explain to the media clearly WHY he opposes mental-illness background screening. Otherwise people like my liberal friend will have the impression that Repubs and the NRA are totally evil.
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.