racer254 Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) 32 minutes ago, Mainecat said: Democrats, in turn, shot down Republican alternatives that would have required the government to prove probable cause within three days to block a gun sale to a suspected terrorist and increase funding for background checks. They argued the proposals were insufficient half measures only intended to help Republicans who receive donations from gun groups to save face. In other words, Democrats say FU to the constitution. Edited June 23, 2016 by racer254 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member Skidooski Posted June 23, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 23, 2016 39 minutes ago, Mainecat said: Senate Republicans rejected two Democratic proposals that would have barred firearm sales to people on the FBI’s terrorist watch list and required every gun purchaser to undergo a background check, arguing that the measures too dramatically expanded the federal government’s power. “The Democratic alternative would not ensure due process, protect our constitutional rights, or require the government to periodically review its procedures to ensure it’s investigating the right people,” McConnell said. Democrats, in turn, shot down Republican alternatives that would have required the government to prove probable cause within three days to block a gun sale to a suspected terrorist and increase funding for background checks. They argued the proposals were insufficient half measures only intended to help Republicans who receive donations from gun groups to save face. Sooo...they turned down the idea of common sense expansion on existing laws? What happened to the Democrats mantra of "Something is better then nothing". Enforce the laws in place now and expand on them where needed. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 13 minutes ago, Skidooski said: Sooo...they turned down the idea of common sense expansion on existing laws? What happened to the Democrats mantra of "Something is better then nothing". Enforce the laws in place now and expand on them where needed. All we kept hearing was how the libs on this site just wanted some "common sense" gun laws. Turns out that was just another lie. Doesn't surprise me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Platinum Contributing Member SnowRider Posted June 23, 2016 Platinum Contributing Member Share Posted June 23, 2016 15 minutes ago, Skidooski said: Sooo...they turned down the idea of common sense expansion on existing laws? What happened to the Democrats mantra of "Something is better then nothing". Enforce the laws in place now and expand on them where needed. Just now, racer254 said: All we kept hearing was how the libs on this site just wanted some "common sense" gun laws. Turns out that was just another lie. Doesn't surprise me. Yes - and the R's shot them down. Why? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racer254 Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) 5 minutes ago, SnowRider said: Yes - and the R's shot them down. Why? FFS do we need to post the video about due process again? What the democrats proposed was unconstitutional. Now, can you answer or do you have to wait for your side to tell you what to say? Hell, you don't even know do you? LOL. Edited June 23, 2016 by racer254 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 as if gun laws are really going to solve anything..I mean really. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 So the lesson of the day is one we already all know all to well, Taintrider is a massive clown leftard hack as is MaineCUNT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
racinfarmer Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 5 hours ago, SnowRider said: My assumption is you'd be hard pressed to find any manufacturers who are more profitable on a high profile project vs their core business. As you said - it's different on the financial side. Another example of,private profits and public risk. Why are we subsidizing their risks and not sharing in the high profit years? Again - this isn't the 1930's and AG needs to sink or swim on their own merits. CRP - one program I support but government needs to have 100 year contracts not 10. The amount of acres moving in and out of the program is heavily influenced by prices at the time their contract is up. If prices are up - they till it up again. If prices are down - they renew. It defeats the purpose of the program - taking marginal land out of production to decrease supply/imcrease prices and create habitat. Ultimately - the far,ers whine and moan - rinse and repeat. Shelter belts are another example - how many times have we paid them to plant trees? Only to watch them wipe out entire shelter belts so the pivot will go around. There are other programs that have 100 year contracts. I'm trying to decide if you are ignorant by choice or not at this rate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cold War Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 6 hours ago, racer254 said: Common sense gun bills. Democrats voted them down. The Senate rejected first a Republican proposal to update the background check system for gun purchases, which would have required states to add more information on mental health records to a national database. It also included a provision to alert law enforcement agencies when an individual who was on a government terror watch list in the last five years buys a gun. A Republican proposal to delay gun sales to individuals included on a government terror watch list failed in a mostly party-line vote of 53-47. The measure was sponsored by Texas GOP Sen. John Cornyn. The bill would allow a judge to permanently block a purchase if the court determined probable cause that the individual is involved in terrorist activity. 5 hours ago, racer254 said: snowbeavis, why did they vote down the 2 bills. Show us how uninformed you are. You won't answer because you have no idea. 5 hours ago, racer254 said: That has already been answered. Now,can you answer why the dems wouldn't pass common sense bills put forth by the R's How dishonest can you get. How many times has this been brought up and gets no answer. Pathetic! Our media is a joke.... making these clowns out to be heroes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Momorider Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger** Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) Edited June 23, 2016 by Badger** 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zambroski Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) I guess I've never really known any lib-tards. But I have to say, with what I've seen here, I am starting to believe this is who they are and what they are about. Creepy, unintelligent, sarcastic, pathetic, entitled whiners whose spin and deflect "skills" seem to be their answer for everything. I really do think that's what they are and all they are about. I thought democrats were supposed to be the "intelligent" side of politics? Edited June 23, 2016 by Zambroski Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 5 minutes ago, Zambroski said: I guess I've never really known any lib-tards. But I have to say, with what I've seen here, I am starting to believe this is who they are and what they are about. Creepy, unintelligent, sarcastic, pathetic, entitled whiners whose spin and deflect "skills" seem to be their answer for everything. I really do think that's what they are and all they are about. I thought democrats were supposed to be the "intelligent" side of politics? They are my friend..they will get Hillary in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted June 23, 2016 Share Posted June 23, 2016 (edited) 8 minutes ago, Zambroski said: I guess I've never really known any lib-tards. But I have to say, with what I've seen here, I am starting to believe this is who they are and what they are about. Creepy, unintelligent, sarcastic, pathetic, entitled whiners whose spin and deflect "skills" seem to be their answer for everything. I really do think that's what they are and all they are about. I thought democrats were supposed to be the "intelligent" side of politics? Man i manage 11 people and no shit 2 of them are self proclaimed "millennials" I have to put them in there place all the time and i know work isn't the place for that shit but when i hear shit in my office im not having it. its embarrassing because i have other teams that hear this shit in my company and im like #hastagfuckingretards! Edited June 23, 2016 by Wildcat Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wildcat Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 heres a good summary of events. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Badger** Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 (edited) Edited June 24, 2016 by Badger** 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt.Storm Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 14 minutes ago, Axys1 said: I hope he made the footer about 40ft deep! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sleepr2 Posted June 24, 2016 Share Posted June 24, 2016 But the libtards claim thay don't want to ban guns/ Quote A Democrat-backed measure that would give California the nation’s toughest restrictions on ammunition and allow the seizure of magazines exceeding 10 rounds has qualified for the state ballot. The California Secretary of State’s office announced Thursday that the Safety for All initiative, championed by Democratic Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, had gathered the petition signatures necessary for a slot on the Nov. 8 ballot. “Enough massacres, death, tears, and hate – it’s time to take action and save lives,” Mr. Newsom said in the Sacramento Bee. “The Safety for All initiative gives California voters the opportunity to keep guns and ammo out of the hands of violent, dangerous, hateful people.” The initiative would prohibit the possession of “large-capacity ammunition magazines”—those with more than 10 rounds—and require owners to dispose of them by returning them to firearms dealers, destroying them or moving them out of the state. The measure would also require background checks for ammunition purchases; require ammunition sales to be conducted through licensed vendors, and require those purchases to be reported to the Justice Department. Gun owners would be mandated to report lost or stolen firearms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.