Don't click or your IP will be banned


Hittin' The Web with the Allman Brothers Band Forum
You are not logged in

< Last Thread   Next Thread ><<  1    2    3    4  >>Ascending sortDescending sorting  
Author: Subject: Senate rejects background checks on gun purchases in 54-46 vote By Alexander Bolton - 04/17/13 04:27

Universal Peach





Posts: 6013
(6012 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 03:45 PM
quote:
Senate rejects background checks on gun purchases in 54-46 vote
By Alexander Bolton - 04/17/13 04:27 PM ET

The Senate delivered a devastating blow to President Obama’s agenda to regulate guns Wednesday by defeating a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks.
It failed by a vote of 54 to 46, with 5 Democrats voting against it. Only 4 Republicans supported it.

Democratic Sens. Mark Pryor (Ark.), Max Baucus (Mont.), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.), Mark Begich (Alaska) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (Nev.) voted against it. Reid supported the measure but voted against it to preserve his ability to bring the measure up again.

GOP Sens. John McCain (Ariz.), Susan Collins (Maine), Pat Toomey (Pa.) and Mark Kirk (Ill.) voted yes.

The amendment sponsored by Sens. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.) and Toomey appeared to have political momentum last week.

It would have expanded checks to cover all firearms sales at gun shows and over the Internet but would have exempted sales between friends and acquaintances outside of commercial venues.

Democrats felt confident the compromise could pass once Toomey, a Republican with an A rating from the National Rifle Association, signed on. They were caught off guard by the vigorous lobbying campaign waged by the NRA, which warned lawmakers that Manchin-Toomey would be factored in its congressional scorecard.

What appeared to be a likely victory for Obama was resoundingly defeated by the Senate as jittery Democrats facing tough re-elections next year joined nearly the entire Republican conference.

Now Democratic leaders will have to overhaul the pending gun-control bill to give it a chance of passing the Senate in diminished form.

The failure of Manchin-Toomey means the broader bill still includes Democratic language passed by the Judiciary Committee to establish universal background checks. That language failed to attract a single Republican vote during the panel markup and conservative Democrats such as Manchin and Sen. Jon Tester (D-Mont.) have said they cannot support the package without changes to the language on background checks.

The Senate’s failure to expand background checks means the three pillars of Obama’s gun-control agenda have stalled. The chamber is expected to reject proposals to ban military-style semiautomatic weapons and high-capacity ammunition clips.

Gun control and immigration reform are two of the president’s biggest second-term priorities.

White House officials refused to acknowledge the likely defeat of Manchin-Toomey right up until the Senate vote.

At the White House briefing on Wednesday, press secretary Jay Carney told reporters that while they believed passing the legislation “was always going to be difficult...we believe there is a path, a very difficult path to get to 60 votes.”

A seemingly frustrated Carney railed against NRA-backed lawmakers whom he said had spread “a lot of bogus information” about the amendment on background checks.
Manchin also criticized the NRA, who had given him an A rating, for distorting the substance of his amendment.

“I was surprised when the latest alerts from the NRA was filled with so much misinformation about the firearms background check legislation,” he said.

Manchin said the gun-owners rights’ group told members the bill would criminalize the private transfer of firearms.

“I don’t know how to put the words any plainer than this: that is a lie,” he said.
Manchin and Toomey are likely to see their NRA rating downgraded as a result of leading the charge to expand background checks.

Obama and Vice President Biden kept their distance from the Manchin-Toomey in the days leading up to the vote, perhaps fearing their involvement could scare off potential Republican and conservative Democratic supporters.

Obama called Democratic Sens. Mark Begich (D-Alaska) and Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) last week but did not press them hard on the vote.

“It wasn’t a high-pressure sales job,” Pryor told The Hill, Monday.

Biden traveled to Capitol Hill to preside over the vote. He predicted Democrats would be able to expand background checks in the future if they fell short Wednesday.

“I can assure you one thing - we are going to get this eventually. If we don't get it today we are going to get it eventually,” Biden said.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) is mulling his next steps in the wake of the setback.

“I think the leader is trying to figure that out right now. It’s hugely disappointing that something that 90 percent of the public wants won’t get 60 votes. The country is in a different place,” said Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the fourth-ranking member of the Senate Democratic leadership.

A Senate Democratic aide said Democrats are unlikely to rally behind an alternative proposal to expand background checks.

Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) has proposed legislation that would allow potential gun buyers to conduct background checks on themselves and present certification to sellers. Coburn said his plan would give gun owners comfort that they are not selling firearms to criminals or the mentally ill.
Coburn said he expected a vote on his amendment on Thursday.

But Democrats and gun-control advocates say the Coburn proposal is too weak because it would not require recordkeeping to help law enforcement prosecute illegal sales and transfers.

A senior Democratic aide said his party will make background checks an issue in the 2014 midterm election.

“We’ll have an issue where 90 percent of the public is with us,” the aide said.
But Sen. Charles Schumer (N.Y.), the Senate Democrats’ chief political strategist, who played a large role in negotiating the bipartisan compromise on background checks, said the political impact of Wednesday’s vote remains to be seen.

“I think that America is largely for background checks,” he said. “An issue like this can end up helping, end up hurting. It depends.”


http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/294571-senate-rejects-tougher-background -checks-on-gun-purchases#ixzz2QktfY423


 
Replies:

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3627
(3622 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 06:14 PM
Today I am ashamed of our government. The Senate and the NRA should be ashamed of themselves. Both sides came up with a compromise to expand background checks, and it was rejected. They could've rejected the ban on assault weapons and 30-round magazines, while expanding the background checks, but they failed to do so. What a disgrace.

The NRA is filled with creeps and cold-hearted monsters who have no clue how to be civilized. The politicians who are swayed by them are no better. It's all about the dollar, and there's a special place in Hell for these bastards. They can't get there soon enough.

I guess we'll have to suffer through a few more mass shootings until something might be done. I guess psychopaths intent on shooting up public places and children should be able to buy assault weapons without any background check whatsover. What kind of effing moron would allow such a thing to happen?

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18637
(18697 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 06:42 PM
quote:
I guess we'll have to suffer through a few more mass shootings until something might be done.


It saddens me when ever innocents lose their lives in sick scenarios like this. But I'll stick with the sentiment:

"It's not the gun but the idiot wielding it"

Perhaps if we ended the appeals process for these assailants and put them to death by firing squad, the next idiot may think twice....Starting with this moron James Holmes who shot 70 people in a Movie theater in Aurora, Co., 12 of whom died.

I would think the most important step would not be more laws, but a change in the way our society views gun violence. Turn on your TV my friend, From "CSI" & "Criminal minds" to shows that have been in syndication for decades and most movies in general release, gun violence is everywhere....and people lay down good money to watch this stuff.... Then complain that there are too many guns. You can't have it both ways.

I believe they've done the right thing.

Long live the 2nd Amendment.

 

____________________


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3242
(3248 all sites)
Registered: 10/5/2004
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 06:45 PM
90 percent of the American public supports this common sense measure. Law enforcement officials from all over the country were in favor of this legislation, but they obviously know much less about this issue than those senators who voted "no".

Approximately 90 percent of Democrats in Senate voted for it to continue to next step.

Approximately 90 percent of Republicans in Senate voted against it to continue to next step.

Once again the "party of no" is ruling from a minority standpoint. They should be proud of their actions representing the will of the people...at the least the 10 percent of the population and Wayne LaPierre.




 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3627
(3622 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 06:52 PM
BIGV, not one single perosn has ever proposed banning guns!!! What are you talking about??? This is about expanding background checks! Why not enhance background checks to keep guns out of the hands of these idiots? The 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with this!
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18637
(18697 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 06:54 PM
quote:
BIGV, not one single person has ever proposed banning guns!!!


And I mentioned or used the word "Ban" where in my post?

 

____________________


 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18637
(18697 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 07:01 PM
quote:
The 2nd amendment has NOTHING to do with this!


Add, we see things differently, I believe it has everything to do with it. I see it as a beginning of the erosion of gun owner's rights, a slippery slope indeed. More laws, more laws, more laws. How about enforcing the laws on the books?...The left's answer to everything, more laws.

 

____________________


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3627
(3622 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 07:03 PM
You said you agree with today's decision to reject tougher background checks. Why would you support that? I understand a politician voting against it if they are being paid by the NRA, but you aren't seeing a dime, so why would oppose tougher background checks?
 

Extreme Peach



Karma:
Posts: 1907
(1909 all sites)
Registered: 3/16/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 07:09 PM
quote:
"It's not the gun but the idiot wielding it"


Exactly. Aren't the background checks about limiting the idiots and not the guns???

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18637
(18697 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 07:11 PM
quote:
You said you agree with today's decision to reject tougher background checks. Why would you support that? I understand a politician voting against it if they are being paid by the NRA, but you aren't seeing a dime, so why would oppose tougher background checks?


Politics for one..."It would have expanded checks to cover all firearms sales at gun shows and over the Internet but would have exempted sales between friends and acquaintances outside of commercial venues."

"but would have exempted sales between friends and acquaintances outside of commercial venues."

So had this legislation passed, I would still able to buy a gun at a garage sale, or a swap meet... Would that be correct?...Does that loophole not leave the door open for yet more legislation?

Where are the Democrats demanding that this be included?

"Background checks"?...Please...What do they do currently?...Just sell to anyone over the counter?...I think not.

 

____________________


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3627
(3622 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 07:31 PM
That is some logic you have there...."since it won't 100% solve the problem, then lets not do anything at all." It's a step in the right direction to preventing the idiots from easily obtaining guns. We DO need more legislation that will ban private sales - it's ludicrous that this is legal now! But you're right, lets not do anything at all about this problem we have. Lets just let crazy people buy assault rifles without any background check - great idea.


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3317
(3315 all sites)
Registered: 8/26/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 07:31 PM
Fantastic news! Now all insane people and felons can continue to buy guns at guns shows without background checks along with law abiding citizens! Great victory for the people and the second amendment!

*please note that this is sarcasm*

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18637
(18697 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 07:39 PM
quote:
That is some logic you have there...."since it won't 100% solve the problem, then lets not do anything at all." It's a step in the right direction to preventing the idiots from easily obtaining guns. We DO need more legislation that will ban private sales - it's ludicrous that this is legal now! But you're right, lets not do anything at all about this problem we have. Lets just let crazy people buy assault rifles without any background check - great idea.


quote:
"It failed by a vote of 54 to 46, with 5 Democrats voting against it."


I'm pretty good at math, those 5 votes look fairly large right about now. Mmmmm, wonder what they were thinking?

 

____________________


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3627
(3622 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 07:44 PM
What is your point? This isn't about Republicans and Democrats, this is about ANYONE who voted against it. This is about a failure by the Senate and the mentailly ill NRA. And you're putting a greater emphasis on the 5 Democrats verus the 49 Republicans? Isn't that the heavier number to talk about?

Anyone who voted against it is nothing but a lemming for the NRA and should be ashamed of themselves. If they see $1 from the NRA for their vote, they should burn in Hell for turning their backs on those children in Newtown, the 35 students at VT, the kids in Columbine, Aurora, etc. Anyone opposing tougher background checks should be ashamed, and realize how ignorant of a person they really are.

The NRA really needs to take a hard look in the mirror and ask themselves why...out of all the hobbies and objects in the world to enjoy, they choose guns. They can devote their free time and resources to anything in life, and they choose guns. You gotta ask youself why someone would do that. What is it about a gun that lures them when there are so many different types of hobbies and entertainment? Someone in the NRA is either sick in the head, or has a really low self-esteem and needs a gun to feel like a man. I would love to step in the ring for a bare-knuckle match with ANY NRA member, and we'll see who the tough guy is.

[Edited on 4/18/2013 by BoytonBrother]

[Edited on 4/18/2013 by BoytonBrother]

[Edited on 4/18/2013 by BoytonBrother]

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 14567
(14567 all sites)
Registered: 3/28/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 08:40 PM
The Senate are spineless and they have failed the American public again and have once again proven that they represent the special interest groups, not the people who elected them to their positions. What a bunch of f_cking losers!!!

 

____________________
Pete

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6013
(6012 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 08:49 PM
If I truly believed that this bill would have had any significant effect on mass shootings then I would have been disappointed that it didn't pass.

But imo, this bill would not have stopped any of the deaths in Newtown, Aurora. Columbine or Tucson. None of the shooters obtained the weapons they used legally, as is the case more often then not.

Just as stricter gun laws in cities like Chicago haven't had any significant effects in the amount of violence in those cities.

Look at the federal level. The number of federal prosecutions of people with gun charges has been on the decline for years....These are people that were flagged in the current instant background check system .....

2005: 135 prosecutions
2006: 112 prosecutions
2007: 122 prosecutions
2008: 105 prosecutions
2009: 77 prosecutions
2010: 44 prosecutions

Stats are from an article on politifact.com

I'm not saying we shouldn't do anything. There are plenty of things that we can do such as enforcing the laws we already have and prosecuting those offenders, work on our mental heath systems in this country and yes, placing armed personnel in our schools. As a survivor of gun violence I can assure you I am not for doing nothing. I'm just stating the facts as I see them and think that there are different ways to address the issue that would be more effective ........

 

Maximum Peach



Karma:
Posts: 8375
(8376 all sites)
Registered: 3/22/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 09:33 PM
quote:
The Senate are spineless and they have failed the American public again and have once again proven that they represent the special interest groups, not the people who elected them to their positions. What a bunch of f_cking losers!!!

There is at least as many people cheering that more govt infringement on rights is not being imposed as there are declaring the Senate has "failed the American people again".

This background check issue has many fooled. Not necessarily here, but in the general public. The so-called "gun show" exemption is blown way out of proportion. The belief is fostered that anyone can go to a gun show and buy anything, avoiding any form of background check. That's not what happens.

Any gun dealer who displays and sells at a show MUST run background checks on everything they sell, just like if someone came into their store. The only sales where background checks are not run are between private individuals.

The gun show context is meaningless, as any person can sell to any other person whatever they want. Do you really think that individuals with bad intent are EVER going to comply with a law that says they have to file paperwork when they sell any firearms to another dirtbag? As many have stated; this is a law that will do nothing to stop criminals or those with evil intent from doing anything different than they do today. It's just another meaningless imposition on the lawful, and meaningless fluff for politicians to claim accomplishment where none really exists.


[Edited on 4/18/2013 by Fujirich]

 

____________________
Obamacare: To insure the uninsured, we first make the insured
uninsured and then make them pay more to be insured again,
so the original uninsured can be insured for free.

 

World Class Peach



Karma:
Posts: 5120
(5119 all sites)
Registered: 4/18/2002
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 10:04 PM
BoytonBrother, you keep posting about things you know nothing about. You and several others on here don't have a clue as to what they're talking about.

Background checks are already FEDERALLY MANDATED for all internet firearms sales. They have to do the background check on the buyer, and send it to a FFL licensed dealer. It's not sent through the mail, UPS, or FedX.

Background checks are FEDERALLY MANDATED for all sales by dealers at gun shows. You can't walk into a gun show and buy a firearm from a dealer without getting the background check done.

You keep saying that you're ashamed of the government, well you should be for their lightly veiled attempts lately of denying citizens their rights under a Constitutional Amendment.

Some of you keep claiming the firearms we've been discussing are "assault weapons, "weapons of mass destruction", and "people killing machines" without even looking at what the list of proposed firearms to be banned was. You have been told many times what a real assault rifle is, but continue to just blithely speak the words you have been told to say. Look at the list, see the firearms that you were told weren't going to be included that are actually on the list. Some of these have been first firearms, most given as Christmas presents, for almost 50 years. You harp on the large capacity magazines for AR-15 rifles, but obviously none of you have ever had to quickly load a magazine into an M-16 or any AR type rifle. You can probably get off three shots from a bolt action rifle before you can get a fresh magazine loaded into an AR type rifle. Since I use both, I'm speaking from experience.
And, you've never been in situations where those extra rounds would come in handy. Someone mentioned hunting feral pigs for one, groundhog and woodchuck hunting are other examples.

MartinD28, where are you getting the figures of 90% of Americans support this type of ridiculous legislation. I'd like to know which study you're quoting.

All it was going to do was copy the laws that are already on the books, nothing more. This would have made about as much difference in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals as a piece of toilet paper stopping a falling bowling ball. None, nada, zip, zero, goose egg, well, you can put your own version of nothing here.

You want to get guns out of the hands of criminals, outlaw criminals. Go door to door and confiscate them. Run them through a metal chipper and put them in a furnace to destroy them. Make a statue out of the residue to show how resolute we as a nation are in fighting crime. Those that don't get the big penalty head to jail without passing go and collecting $200. No tv, radio, music, anything except for books of their religious persuasion, work in the prison workshops, eating, cleaning, and sleeping. No talking or communication except at meals.
You know make it so that criminals really don't want to go back to jail instead of looking at it as an enforced vacation from their occupation as a thief, cheat, and robber. Have a FEDERALLY MANDATED sentence to be served (10 years) for using a firearm in the commission of a crime before they start to serve the time given at their trial. That would help keep them away from firearms.

So, don't be ashamed because they didn't pass new laws that are copies of old laws.

 

____________________
All photos posted of family, friends, and places, including those of historic ABB value, by this poster are copyrighted by the poster, or posted by permission of the copywriter.
None of those photos may be reproduced for commercial gain.

 

Peach Extraordinaire



Karma:
Posts: 4994
(4993 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2011
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 10:38 PM
laws are stupid....science is stupid....polls are wrong.....we the people.....lol.....let chaos rein
 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 18637
(18697 all sites)
Registered: 2/9/2006
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 10:43 PM
quote:
So, don't be ashamed because they didn't pass new laws that are copies of old laws.


Agreed. And all under the guise of, "Look, at least we are doing something"...

 

____________________


 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3627
(3622 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 11:36 PM
you guys are right. we should do nothing. we should let the NRA keep paying politicians to "preserve the 2nd amendment" for all Americans. Screw the kids. Bring on the mass shootings!
 

Ultimate Peach



Karma:
Posts: 3627
(3622 all sites)
Registered: 12/27/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/17/2013 at 11:54 PM
quote:
BoytonBrother, you keep posting about things you know nothing about. You and several others on here don't have a clue as to what they're talking about.

Background checks are already FEDERALLY MANDATED for all internet firearms sales. They have to do the background check on the buyer, and send it to a FFL licensed dealer. It's not sent through the mail, UPS, or FedX.


A measure to expand background checks was rejected. I understand your federally mandated background checks point, but expansion is clearly needed since psychopaths still get their hands on assault weapons legally.

quote:
You keep saying that you're ashamed of the government, well you should be for their lightly veiled attempts lately of denying citizens their rights under a Constitutional Amendment.


The 2nd amendment was written when muskets existed. Stop with that weak-ass argument.

quote:
You harp on the large capacity magazines for AR-15 rifles, but obviously none of you have ever had to quickly load a magazine into an M-16 or any AR type rifle. You can probably get off three shots from a bolt action rifle before you can get a fresh magazine loaded into an AR type rifle. Since I use both, I'm speaking from experience.


Well there you have it everyone. Jerry, the point is that you won't need to re-load the magazine if you have 30-plus rounds.

quote:
MartinD28, where are you getting the figures of 90% of Americans support this type of ridiculous legislation. I'd like to know which study you're quoting.


Only every major news outlet. Check google news. you'll find what you're looking for.

quote:
All it was going to do was copy the laws that are already on the books, nothing more. This would have made about as much difference in keeping firearms out of the hands of criminals as a piece of toilet paper stopping a falling bowling ball. None, nada, zip, zero, goose egg, well, you can put your own version of nothing here.


Or it could prevent a psycho from getting an assault weapon, but lets not discuss that one huge obvious point.

 

Universal Peach



Karma:
Posts: 6013
(6012 all sites)
Registered: 7/3/2005
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/18/2013 at 01:27 AM
Making what is illegal, well, illegal again, is being productive.....and apparently passes for commonsense and the fact that it didn't pass is a reason for our government to be "ashamed of itself."

Meanwhile a proposal, from Republican Senators Charles Grassley of Iowa and Ted Cruz of Texas , of an amendment that would have
quote:
replaced the existing gun-control bill with a plan to focus on prosecuting gun crimes, improving mental health records for gun owners and funding improved school safety measures."
http://www.reuters.com/article/2013/04/17/us-usa-guns-idUSBRE93F00D20130417


You know actually addressing the issues directly, is apparently equivalent to doing nothing....

It was rejected on a 52-48 vote by the way. That's what we should be upset and ashamed of..... But keep lecturing us on "commonsense," how the NRA and Republicans don't want to do anything, don't care and never offer any ideas of their own.....Facts be damned


[Edited on 4/18/2013 by er1016]

 

True Peach



Karma:
Posts: 12493
(12483 all sites)
Registered: 4/4/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/18/2013 at 05:12 AM
quote:
The Senate are spineless and they have failed the American public again and have once again proven that they represent the special interest groups, not the people who elected them to their positions. What a bunch of f_cking losers!!!

+1,000

At least I can be proud of how both Senators from my state voted (I voted for them both, and neither are democrats).

[Edited on 4/18/2013 by gondicar]

 

____________________
I pledge and support the elimination of the derogatory use of the r-word from everyday speech and promote the acceptance and inclusion of people with intellectual disabilities. http://www.r-word.org/

 

Zen Peach



Karma:
Posts: 17356
(17411 all sites)
Registered: 9/9/2003
Status: Offline

  posted on 4/18/2013 at 05:43 AM
Unfortunately I have to agree that this would have been a largely symbolic gesture and would have little to no impact on mass shootings. How are you going to identify "psychos" with a background check? I agree that addressing mental health issues and funding identification and treatment programs would be a much more effective action. If we are not going to severely restrict access to all firearms, which I don't believe will ever happen in the U.S., then this becomes more important, IMHO:

"I would think the most important step would not be more laws, but a change in the way our society views gun violence."

And this:
"You want to get guns out of the hands of criminals, outlaw criminals. Go door to door and confiscate them. Run them through a metal chipper and put them in a furnace to destroy them. Make a statue out of the residue to show how resolute we as a nation are in fighting crime. Those that don't get the big penalty head to jail without passing go and collecting $200. ......Have a FEDERALLY MANDATED sentence to be served (10 years) for using a firearm in the commission of a crime before they start to serve the time given at their trial. That would help keep them away from firearms."

Much more bang for your buck, again IMHO.


 

____________________
Ask not for whom the bell tolls

 
<<  1    2    3    4  >>  


Powered by XForum 1.81.1 by Trollix Software


Privacy | Terms of Service
The ALLMAN BROTHERS BAND name, The ALLMAN BROTHERS name, likenesses, logos, mushroom design and peach truck are all registered trademarks of THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. whose rights are specifically reserved. Any artwork, visual, or audio representations used on this web site CONTAINING ANY REGISTERED TRADEMARKS are under license from The ABB MERCHANDISING CO., INC. A REVOCABLE, GRATIS LICENSE IS GRANTED TO ALL REGISTERED PEACH CORP MEMBERS FOR The DOWNLOADING OF ONE COPY FOR PERSONAL USE ONLY. ANY DISTRIBUTION OR REPRODUCTION OF THE TRADEMARKS CONTAINED HEREIN ARE PROHIBITED AND ARE SPECIFICALLY RESERVED BY THE ABB MERCHANDISING CO.,INC.
site by Hittin' the Web Group with www.experiencewasabi3d.com