Jump to content
The Official Site of the Vancouver Canucks
Enter Search Term. Use arrows to navigate between autocomplete results. If no results appear, use Enter to do a full site search.
Forum Closure ×
Canucks Community
Forum Closure

U.S. Gun Control Bill on Background Checks Defeated in the Senate

Wetcoaster

By Wetcoaster
in Off-Topic General

Recommended Posts

Wetcoaster Canucks First-Line

Wetcoaster

Posted
  • Author
Posted

And President Obama was not happy.

A visibly angry U.S. President Barack Obama lashed out at members of the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, after a minority of senators succesfully blocked a bipartisan effort to expand federal background checks to more firearms buyers.

"All in all this was a pretty shameful day for Washington," Obama said at a Washington, D.C., news conference after the vote, which was a jarring blow to the drive to curb firearms.

Obama said he considered the loss "just Round 1."

Obama was flanked by gun violence victims, including former U.S. representative Gabrielle Giffords. He slammed critics who said it was unseemly for the victims to be lobbying for the new law.

"Are they serious? Do we really think that thousands of families whose lives have been shattered by gun violence don't have a right to weigh in on this issue?"

The legislation was sparked by December's massacre of children and staff at an elementary school in Connecticut. Obama made broadened background checks the centrepiece of his gun control proposals.

The roll call was also a victory for the National Rifle Association, which opposed the plan as an ineffective infringement on gun rights.

The proposal would have required background checks for all transactions at gun shows and online. Currently they must occur for sales handled by licensed gun dealers.

The system is designed to keep criminals and people with mental problems from getting guns.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2013/04/17/us-gun-control-bill-senate-vote-background-checks.html

Link to comment
Share on other sites
wshdrvvn Canucks Regular

wshdrvvn

Posted
Posted

im not a gun owner so increasing difficulty to get one doesn't bother me. but i think its naive to think this would change anything. what is to stop a mentally ill person from acquiring a gun illegally and producing the same results? when there are regulations, there is always someone willing to be the middle man to make a buck. i think people in the red states see these changes making it harder to defend themselves and their families (calling them rednecks while it makes you feel better, shows you have no idea about their culture or understand the differences between you and them). the gov't and media use tragedies to provoke an emotional response from people. what if one of these sick people walks into a families home that's unprotected?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wetcoaster Canucks First-Line

Wetcoaster

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I wonder how many corporations that have been in business for 40+ years operate using the same laws/business practices that were in place when they started. Or have they changed?? Yet America HAS to operate based on a piece of paper that is 200+ years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Master Mind Canucks All-Star

Master Mind

Posted
Posted

Wow, how pathetic. Some senates are afraid some gun nuts might come after them? Oh, nevermind the shootings. People are already sending poison envelopes apparently, what makes them think this won't anger even more people?

Such a mess. Glad Obama stood up for what's right. Though he basically admitted to the public that he's a puppet. Though the smart people already knew that, and the others wouldn't have picked up on it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
RUPERTKBD Canucks Hall-of-Famer

RUPERTKBD

Posted
Posted

I wonder how many corporations that have been in business for 40+ years operate using the same laws/business practices that were in place when they started.  Or have they changed??   Yet America HAS to operate based on a piece of paper that is 200+ years old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wetcoaster Canucks First-Line

Wetcoaster

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Well because normally when people post things they don't incorporate hidden text. It's not exactly common practice to have to highlight an entire post just on the off chance there's hidden text. Then for you to chastise me and ridicule me for not seeing the hidden text...WTF, man.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scott Hartnell's Mane Canucks Regular

Scott Hartnell's Mane

Posted
Posted

I thought the post was obvious satire but on the off chance that some did not recognize it, I placed a hint in the post.

Of course I suppose after you have had your arguments so severely beaten down in the past you thought you might actually score a point. You jumped in and OOPSIE... you got bit on the butt. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
inane Canucks Franchise Player

inane

Posted
Posted

I thought the post was obvious satire but on the off chance that some did not recognize it, I placed a hint in the post.

Of course I suppose after you have had your arguments so severely beaten down in the past you thought you might actually score a point. You jumped in and OOPSIE... you got bit on the butt. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Wetcoaster Canucks First-Line

Wetcoaster

Posted
  • Author
Posted

You placed an UNSEEN hint in the post. That is the point here. Really...was this attack on me necessary, Counsel? You couldn't beat your way out of a wet paper bag, Perry Mason. Just because I got tired of dealing with your crap or because I was "mysteriously" suspended for giving you the business and I wasn't around doesn't mean you beat my argument down..it means I got tired of you running your mouth. I know when to stop banging my head against a wall. You seem to do it for a living.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...