On the first full day of the new Congress, US Representative Carolyn McCarthy (D-Garden City) introduced a measure that would force states to comply with an automated system that does background checks on those attempting to keep guns out of the hands of convicted felons and others. While there are some who are calling it "the first major anti-gun bill" of the Democrat-controlled Congress, and a threat to Second Amendment rights, McCarthy and others claim that the measure is simply a way to bring the nation up to speed on a system authorized and already in place.
http://www.zwire.com/site/news.cfm?newsid=17820750&BRD=1776&PAG=461&dept_id=6365&rfi=6
Good thing I have a very significan t stockpile of arms and ammo
2007-02-07 06:34:32 · 11 answers · asked by zombiefighter1988 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Other - Politics & Government
"McCarthey's husband was killed by a crazed gunman who randomly shot about a dozen people on a commuter train"
And that guy flew to California, one of the strictest states, lied on his paperwork, used fake id and then smuggled the guns back to New York. In toto he broke over 100 gun laws not counting the murders. Glad they kept him from getting, oops, wait, they didn't.
2007-02-08 07:07:33 · update #1
YEAH GOOD THING THEY WILL NEVER GET MY GATTS. THIS IS WHY NO ONE TRUST THE DEMOCRAPS.
2007-02-07 06:37:42 · answer #1 · answered by strike_eagle29 6 · 9⤊ 7⤋
You are an IDIOT. First off, it is a felony on ALL 50 states for a felon to have a handgun. This is not gun control, this is common sense. Second, all this bill does is insure that felons don't buy guns. I'm so conservative, i make you look like Hilary Clinton in a dress. You made a complete @SS of yourself with this dumbassed question.
2007-02-07 06:47:38 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Background checks do not take away the rights of any sane, law abiding citizen to obtain guns. They do prevent illegal aliens, criminals, potential terrorists and mentally disturbed people from easily obtaining guns. If you are none of those things you have nothing to be concerned about.
McCarthey's husband was killed by a crazed gunman who randomly shot about a dozen people on a commuter train.
I also wonder if you are as adament about the right regarding illegal searches and seizures as you are about the right to bear arms.
2007-02-07 06:46:12 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
I'm a Conservative and I agree with this. Why would we want to put a gun in the hands of a convicted felon? If you want to have a license to own a gun, then a clean background is required. Seems fair to me.
2007-02-07 06:57:14 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
Well here is the rub,
what is a felony?
That is right.
If the felony is violent crime then I am all for restriction of gun rights to felons.
However if a felony is merely one because I said so then I have a problem with restricting gun ownership.
2007-02-07 06:39:10 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 0⤋
Completely asinine-- I'm all for private ownership of guns. But there are limits and one of them is not allowing known felons to own them. Sure, it won't completely keep them from getting them, but at least it will limit it.
Geez, you can't even fly, work or do other things without some form of background check. Why would a background check to get a weapon be a big deal. Nobody is taking your weapons away.
I thought you guys were all about keeping us SAFE.... doesn't sound like it.
2007-02-07 06:43:02 · answer #6 · answered by dapixelator 6 · 5⤊ 5⤋
for an same reason as an environmentalist former vice president has a 12000 sqft mansion and thinks that electrical energy used in that position is the purely element that takes to call it eco-friendly.
2016-11-26 00:06:13 · answer #7 · answered by morehart 4 · 3⤊ 0⤋
No it sure didn't take long. Somehow, I don't think many criminal buy their weapons through legal channels. In fact I've seen statistics confirming this. The law will do nothing to stop crime.
2007-02-07 07:51:36 · answer #8 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 5⤊ 1⤋
no,it didn't take long at all-but what did you expect? most of the democratic party are rabid anti-gun moonbats who have no clue as to solving the issue of crime. instead of strictly enforcing the laws,they feel that if they can pass new laws it will accomplish their true agenda, which as we all know, is removal of ALL firearms from private citizens.(except them,of course.)
2007-02-07 06:57:04 · answer #9 · answered by slabsidebass 5 · 3⤊ 2⤋
You're right. Let's NOT have background checks even though many ex-felons tend to purchase guns. We need to allow crooks to obtain guns! Good idea!!!
By the way, the 2nd Amendment merely states that citizens are allowed to purchase firearms. This bill does NOT prohibit legitimate people from purchasing firearms.
2007-02-07 06:37:56 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 8⤋
my question is...how will the anti gun people take away guns from the gun people...???? will they offer them a 5 pound bag of granola and a trip to the botanical gardens instead of the rifle range..??? when the local blue haired lib shows up to say "gimme your weapons"...what will you do..??? and after the libs have taken the guns, supposing they ever do, who will they call on when the fascists and dictators and tyrants of the world invade us and start by killing all the libs who made it possible for them to take over..??? i just fdind this whole question funny...for the lib anti gun lobby.....they must be able to think ahead and see they will need us...
2007-02-07 06:37:59 · answer #11 · answered by badjanssen 5 · 8⤊ 3⤋