• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

"Background Check" Bill Goes Down 54-46

Mike

Well-known member
That is all.

Carry on........................

No, that is NOT all:
Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana voted against it. (Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to no at the end, a procedural tactic that allows him to bring it up for a vote later.) In addition to Toomey, Republicans who supported the amendment were Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona.
 

Mike

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
I knew about the RINO McSame and Toomey voting for it. The other two aren't really a shock either.

Doesn't Graham & McCain usually vote the same way? I thought they did.
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Mike said:
Whitewing said:
I knew about the RINO McSame and Toomey voting for it. The other two aren't really a shock either.

Doesn't Graham & McCain usually vote the same way? I thought they did.

Yes, they do typically run together but I imagine this time Graham had no choice. Or did he pull an O and vote present? :D
 

Tam

Well-known member
What gets me is how the media claims the polls say over 85% support back ground checks but the Congressman were scared enough that they chose not to support them. Baucus was asked why he voted against the bill and he said One word "MONTANA". :wink: To bad he didn't think of Montana when he voted no to upholding the US Constitution when it came to the UN Treaty on Gun Control. :roll:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Whitewing said:
I knew about the RINO McSame and Toomey voting for it. The other two aren't really a shock either.

It would be more surprising if Susan Collins hadn't voted with the Dems. :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
What gets me is how the media claims the polls say over 85% support back ground checks but the Congressman were scared enough that they chose not to support them. Baucus was asked why he voted against the bill and he said One word "MONTANA". :wink: To bad he didn't think of Montana when he voted no to upholding the US Constitution when it came to the UN Treaty on Gun Control. :roll:

OVERALL- nationwide- I have no doubt that the majority of the nation supports increased background checks--BUT in a nation that is not Democracy- but a Republic- those voting have to follow the beliefs of those that will re-elect them.......

The whole proposed law is a joke anyway-- so which ever way a person votes means little....

Our Governor in MT vetoed a rightwingernut state bill letting anyone pack a concealed weapon about anywhere they wanted, even anti to local city ordinances--- and in the day or two afterward in talking to concerned firearms owners/ law enforcement/prosecutors-- the majority of them support the Governors action- and Montanas background checks on CCW permitees that gives them a major standing in the reciprocrity issue of the country...

ALL I talked to- believe if you can't pass the states background check and requirements--- maybe you shouldn't be eligible to be packing....... :???: :wink:
 

Mike

Well-known member
What say we ban guns to black people? They are the ones killing each other in such high numbers.

Or is the "Left" dedicated to let them continue to kill each other off?

Those who place less value on the lives of black men are overwhelmingly other black men: the U.S. Justice Department’s Bureau of Justice Statistics found that between the years 2001 and 2005, nine-out-of-ten black murder victims were killed by other blacks. Seventy-five percent of those victims were killed with a gun. The DOJ also determined that homicide is the leading cause of death for black males between the ages of 15 and 34.
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
What gets me is how the media claims the polls say over 85% support back ground checks but the Congressman were scared enough that they chose not to support them. Baucus was asked why he voted against the bill and he said One word "MONTANA". :wink: To bad he didn't think of Montana when he voted no to upholding the US Constitution when it came to the UN Treaty on Gun Control. :roll:

OVERALL- nationwide- I have no doubt that the majority of the nation supports increased background checks--BUT in a nation that is not Democracy- but a Republic- those voting have to follow the beliefs of those that will re-elect them.......

The whole proposed law is a joke anyway-- so which ever way a person votes means little....

Our Governor in MT vetoed a rightwingernut state bill letting anyone pack a concealed weapon about anywhere they wanted, even anti to local city ordinances--- and in the day or two afterward in talking to concerned firearms owners/ law enforcement/prosecutors-- the majority of them support the Governors action- and Montanas background checks on CCW permitees that gives them a major standing in the reciprocrity issue of the country...

ALL I talked to- believe if you can't pass the states background check and requirements--- maybe you shouldn't be eligible to be packing....... :???: :wink:

Oldtimer they are claiming 85% support :roll: That is a very high number and I'm guessing that the pollsters were not calling anyone in the more central states to come up with the number that supported their agenda. :wink:

Tell us Oldtimer if a US citizen has a Constitutional right to bear arms and has passed the Montana CCW qualification then why should the Governor have a right to limit where they carry said legally owned and carried gun? If communities want to grant gun free zones then that is their choice but this is one man dictating to his citizens what they can and can't do IN HIS STATE. :roll:

And If the State of Montana has a background check system why does the US federal Government need one? Is this not just another attempt of Obama and the Democrats to infringe on the powers of each and every State?

I see Baucus was smart enough to vote FOR MONTANANs but I don't see Tester's name on the list of those that opposed the bill on behalf of Montana citizens so I hope everyone remembers this come election time.

The whole proposed law is a joke anyway-- so which ever way a person votes means little....

Since you made this comment I have to wonder if you figure the whole bill was a waste of valuable EXPENSIVE time that your hero Obama and the Dems could have used more wisely on passing a budget? But one thing we all have learned (except you Oldtimer) is Obama isn't going to waste a crisis like a school shooting to force his leftwing Constitution infringing agenda down the throats of American citizens.

BTW what do you think of Baucus voting to not uphold the US Constitution and allowing the UN to infringe on the sovereignty of the US and having a say in US Gun Control?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
What gets me is how the media claims the polls say over 85% support back ground checks but the Congressman were scared enough that they chose not to support them. Baucus was asked why he voted against the bill and he said One word "MONTANA". :wink: To bad he didn't think of Montana when he voted no to upholding the US Constitution when it came to the UN Treaty on Gun Control. :roll:

OVERALL- nationwide- I have no doubt that the majority of the nation supports increased background checks--BUT in a nation that is not Democracy- but a Republic- those voting have to follow the beliefs of those that will re-elect them.......

The whole proposed law is a joke anyway-- so which ever way a person votes means little....

Our Governor in MT vetoed a rightwingernut state bill letting anyone pack a concealed weapon about anywhere they wanted, even anti to local city ordinances--- and in the day or two afterward in talking to concerned firearms owners/ law enforcement/prosecutors-- the majority of them support the Governors action- and Montanas background checks on CCW permitees that gives them a major standing in the reciprocrity issue of the country...

ALL I talked to- believe if you can't pass the states background check and requirements--- maybe you shouldn't be eligible to be packing....... :???: :wink:

Oldtimer they are claiming 85% support :roll: That is a very high number and I'm guessing that the pollsters were not calling anyone in the more central states to come up with the number that supported their agenda. :wink:

Tell us Oldtimer if a US citizen has a Constitutional right to bear arms and has passed the Montana CCW qualification then why should the Governor have a right to limit where they carry said legally owned and carried gun? If communities want to grant gun free zones then that is their choice but this is one man dictating to his citizens what they can and can't do IN HIS STATE. :roll:

TAMMY FAYE-- read it again-- the Governor upheld the current CCW and right to carry-- which also grants communities to give gun free areas...What he turned down was allowing every Tom- Dick - or Harry that had a gun from packing concealed wherever he wanted to without a permit......
This bill was opposed by most firearm owners, CCW permit holders, and sane folks of the state...
Only the radical rightwingernut conspiracists thought they needed it...


And If the State of Montana has a background check system why does the US federal Government need one? Is this not just another attempt of Obama and the Democrats to infringe on the powers of each and every State?

It probably should be left to each state- BUT with the Interstate trade set up we have on production and marketing of firearms/ammo- that won't work....
I see Baucus was smart enough to vote FOR MONTANANs but I don't see Tester's name on the list of those that opposed the bill on behalf of Montana citizens so I hope everyone remembers this come election time.

The whole proposed law is a joke anyway-- so which ever way a person votes means little....

Since you made this comment I have to wonder if you figure the whole bill was a waste of valuable EXPENSIVE time that your hero Obama and the Dems could have used more wisely on passing a budget? But one thing we all have learned (except you Oldtimer) is Obama isn't going to waste a crisis like a school shooting to force his leftwing Constitution infringing agenda down the throats of American citizens.

BTW what do you think of Baucus voting to not uphold the US Constitution and allowing the UN to infringe on the sovereignty of the US and having a say in US Gun Control?

The whole firearm bill is a feel good only thing for those that think more limits on firearms will solve all problems ---- and the UN law does not override the US's sovereignty of gun laws-- UNLESS- they screwed us and the interpreting becomes the same as NAFTA did with affecting sovereignty......... Then maybe we should just invade both Mexico and Canada - and forget about it.... (Personally believe it will eventually have to happen with Mexico anyway)

The problem is-- what we used to get by with by telling folks how to live/what laws to live by doesn't work anymore- unless we follow the same rules/laws....
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
Oldtimer said:
OVERALL- nationwide- I have no doubt that the majority of the nation supports increased background checks--BUT in a nation that is not Democracy- but a Republic- those voting have to follow the beliefs of those that will re-elect them.......

The whole proposed law is a joke anyway-- so which ever way a person votes means little....

Our Governor in MT vetoed a rightwingernut state bill letting anyone pack a concealed weapon about anywhere they wanted, even anti to local city ordinances--- and in the day or two afterward in talking to concerned firearms owners/ law enforcement/prosecutors-- the majority of them support the Governors action- and Montanas background checks on CCW permitees that gives them a major standing in the reciprocrity issue of the country...

ALL I talked to- believe if you can't pass the states background check and requirements--- maybe you shouldn't be eligible to be packing....... :???: :wink:

Oldtimer they are claiming 85% support :roll: That is a very high number and I'm guessing that the pollsters were not calling anyone in the more central states to come up with the number that supported their agenda. :wink:

Tell us Oldtimer if a US citizen has a Constitutional right to bear arms and has passed the Montana CCW qualification then why should the Governor have a right to limit where they carry said legally owned and carried gun? If communities want to grant gun free zones then that is their choice but this is one man dictating to his citizens what they can and can't do IN HIS STATE. :roll:

TAMMY FAYE-- read it again-- the Governor upheld the current CCW and right to carry-- which also grants communities to give gun free areas...What he turned down was allowing every Tom- Dick - or Harry that had a gun from packing concealed wherever he wanted to without a permit......
This bill was opposed by most firearm owners, CCW permit holders, and sane folks of the state...
Only the radical rightwingernut conspiracists thought they needed it...


And If the State of Montana has a background check system why does the US federal Government need one? Is this not just another attempt of Obama and the Democrats to infringe on the powers of each and every State?

It probably should be left to each state- BUT with the Interstate trade set up we have on production and marketing of firearms/ammo- that won't work....
I see Baucus was smart enough to vote FOR MONTANANs but I don't see Tester's name on the list of those that opposed the bill on behalf of Montana citizens so I hope everyone remembers this come election time.

The whole proposed law is a joke anyway-- so which ever way a person votes means little....

Since you made this comment I have to wonder if you figure the whole bill was a waste of valuable EXPENSIVE time that your hero Obama and the Dems could have used more wisely on passing a budget? But one thing we all have learned (except you Oldtimer) is Obama isn't going to waste a crisis like a school shooting to force his leftwing Constitution infringing agenda down the throats of American citizens.

BTW what do you think of Baucus voting to not uphold the US Constitution and allowing the UN to infringe on the sovereignty of the US and having a say in US Gun Control?

The whole firearm bill is a feel good only thing for those that think more limits on firearms will solve all problems ---- and the UN law does not override the US's sovereignty of gun laws-- UNLESS- they screwed us and the interpreting becomes the same as NAFTA did with affecting sovereignty......... Then maybe we should just invade both Mexico and Canada - and forget about it.... (Personally believe it will eventually have to happen with Mexico anyway)

The problem is-- what we used to get by with by telling folks how to live/what laws to live by doesn't work anymore- unless we follow the same rules/laws....

I somehow doubt the Republicans in Montana would have voted for a bill that you claim had so little support DICKY. :roll:
 

hypocritexposer

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
OVERALL- nationwide- I have no doubt that the majority of the nation supports increased background checks--BUT in a nation that is not Democracy- but a Republic- those voting have to follow the beliefs of those that will re-elect them.......

:lol:

April 15, 2013
Few in U.S. See Guns, Immigration as Nation's Top Problems
The economy and jobs continue to be named as most important U.S. problems
by Frank Newport

PRINCETON, NJ -- Few Americans mention guns or immigration as the most important problems facing the nation today, despite the current attention lawmakers in Washington are giving to these issues. The economy still dominates as the top concern, followed by jobs and dissatisfaction with the general way in which Congress and the government work.

 

Mike

Well-known member
Ol' Dickless himself doesn't realize that people are more worried about a job than anything else since Buckwheat has "Busted' the U.S. :lol:
 

Tam

Well-known member
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/state-senate-endorses-bill-allowing-concealed-weapons-without-permit/article_f87f3ca8-1405-5b3e-b892-ba08dce5ae39.html?mode=comments


So really what does the bill really do Oldtimer?

By reading these comments I have a feeling all the bill does is allows the person carrying the gun to put in their jacket pocket over carrying in their hand in Public Oldtimer. :wink:

Oh and the one that comments about this is just a way to avoid the affects of a Democrat leaning Sheriff holding up law abiding citizens premits made me think of you, Oldtimer!!!!! :wink:
 

Tam

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
The whole firearm bill is a feel good only thing for those that think more limits on infringe upon America’s sovereignty firearms will solve all problems ---- and the UN law does not override the US's sovereignty of gun laws--

While the U.N. General Assembly overwhelmingly approved the first international treaty attempting to regulate the $60 billion global small arms trade on Tuesday, the measure is likely to be dead on arrival in the U.S. Senate as Republicans have repeatedly voiced concerns that such a measure is a backdoor attempt to usurp Second Amendment gun rights.

"UN Arms Treaty should be rejected outright by US Senate," tweeted Texas Sen. Ted Cruz on Tuesday. "It is international gun regulation, plain and simple & it must never be ratified."

Even before the international document was drafted, the Senate last month voted to prevent the United States from entering into such an arms treaty with all 45 Republicans and eight Democrats, supporting an amendment drafted by Oklahoma Sen. James M. Inhofe. The measure would require two-thirds approval for ratification by the upper chamber, which has a total of only 100 seats.
Gun Control: Was Harry Reid right to Reject It?

“The U.N. Arms Trade Treaty is another attempt by internationalists to limit and infringe upon America’s sovereignty,” said Inhofe in a statement. “Such a treaty would require the United States to implement laws as required by the treaty, instead of the national controls that are currently in place. This would also disrupt diplomatic and national security efforts by preventing our government from assisting allies like Taiwan, South Korea, or Israel when they require assistance. I will continue to mount strong opposition to any effort by Secretary Kerry and the State Department to ratify this treaty."

SO we are to believe you over a BIPARTISAN group of Senators that actually debated the issue and voted against it. I DON"T THINK SO DICKY :wink:
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
OldCivicsProfessor said:
BUT in a nation that is not Democracy- but a Republic- those voting have to follow the beliefs of those that will re-elect them.......

So the guy who a week ago thought the US was a democracy now gives us a civics lesson. :lol: :roll:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Tam said:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/state-senate-endorses-bill-allowing-concealed-weapons-without-permit/article_f87f3ca8-1405-5b3e-b892-ba08dce5ae39.html?mode=comments


So really what does the bill really do Oldtimer?

By reading these comments I have a feeling all the bill does is allows the person carrying the gun to put in their jacket pocket over carrying in their hand in Public Oldtimer. :wink:

Oh and the one that comments about this is just a way to avoid the affects of a Democrat leaning Sheriff holding up law abiding citizens premits made me think of you, Oldtimer!!!!! :wink:

I Don't know if some part of the state is having problems or not- but locally everyone is plumb happy with the CCW law and the way its handled...While in office I issued more CCW permits than had ever been issued in all the county's previous history- and only turned down one person- because it was brought to my attention he was once caught up in a drug raid- and was again under investigation by the Drug Task Force....And he had the right to appeal to the District Judge- but he didn't...

Several of us were discussing this locally yesterday- and it has been discussed on FB...One very conservative young lady- a nurse- summed it up best : "I dont disagree with the logic behind vetoing this bill. Concealed permits are not difficult to obtain. You need $50, proof that you have completed some form of gun safety class, and to pass a background check. If someone really feels the need to carry a concealed weapon, they ll get a permit. Montanans can already legally travel with a gun in their vehicle without a permit, why would we need to be able to carry a concealed weapon without one too?"
 

hopalong

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
Tam said:
http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/state-senate-endorses-bill-allowing-concealed-weapons-without-permit/article_f87f3ca8-1405-5b3e-b892-ba08dce5ae39.html?mode=comments


So really what does the bill really do Oldtimer?

By reading these comments I have a feeling all the bill does is allows the person carrying the gun to put in their jacket pocket over carrying in their hand in Public Oldtimer. :wink:

Oh and the one that comments about this is just a way to avoid the affects of a Democrat leaning Sheriff holding up law abiding citizens premits made me think of you, Oldtimer!!!!! :wink:

I Don't know if some part of the state is having problems or not- but locally everyone is plumb happy with the CCW law and the way its handled...While in office I issued more CCW permits than had ever been issued in all the county's previous history- and only turned down one person- because it was brought to my attention he was once caught up in a drug raid- and was again under investigation by the Drug Task Force....And he had the right to appeal to the District Judge- but he didn't...

Several of us were discussing this locally yesterday- and it has been discussed on FB...One very conservative young lady- a nurse- summed it up best : "I dont disagree with the logic behind vetoing this bill. Concealed permits are not difficult to obtain. You need $50, proof that you have completed some form of gun safety class, and to pass a background check. If someone really feels the need to carry a concealed weapon, they ll get a permit. Montanans can already legally travel with a gun in their vehicle without a permit, why would we need to be able to carry a concealed weapon without one too?"


I doubt that any one discussed anything with you,,,,your opinion is the only one that counts and you do not discuss anything rationally
 

Whitewing

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
While in office I issued more CCW permits than had ever been issued in all the county's previous history- and only turned down one person- because it was brought to my attention he was once caught up in a drug raid- and was again under investigation by the Drug Task Force....And he had the right to appeal to the District Judge- but he didn't...

The local sheriffs have the power to issue or deny CCW permits?
 

Broke Cowboy

Well-known member
Mike said:
That is all.

Carry on........................

No, that is NOT all:
Democratic Sens. Mark Begich of Alaska, Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota, Mark Pryor of Arkansas and Max Baucus of Montana voted against it. (Sen. Harry Reid of Nevada switched his vote to no at the end, a procedural tactic that allows him to bring it up for a vote later.) In addition to Toomey, Republicans who supported the amendment were Sens. Mark Kirk of Illinois, Susan Collins of Maine and John McCain of Arizona.

I bet Hussein is PO'd

BC
 
Top