The president put the blame squarely on the NRA, which he accused of spreading falsehoods that the legislation would lead to a national gun registry.
“They claimed that it would create some sort of big-brother gun registry, even though it did the opposite,” Mr. Obama said. “This pattern of spreading untruths … served a purpose. A minority in the U.S. Senate decided it wasn’t worth it. They blocked common-sense gun reforms, even while these families looked on from the Senate gallery. It’s not going to happen because 90 percent of Republicans just voted against that idea.”
Obama angrily denounces gun-rights groups as willful liars – Washington Times
Obama’s gun confiscation plans have been slowed down. Thank goodness that the NRA had the guts to stand up to the serial liar in chief.
What would be the point of registering gun owners if there wasn’t a central national database?
10 Democrats joined the Republicans to put the kibosh on the bill.
This one was a no brainer and anyone with a bit of thought knew this months ago.
We are not Britain or Australia…
Hang on in Australia we still have our firearms AND we can Sack our Prime Minister. You guys are in a very bad situation. No matter what that idiot does, no one has the power to sack him.
This is a huge victory for freedom lovers and gun rights advocates. Universal Background Checks would have led to the creation of a national gun registry, the final step towards gun confiscation.
Obama is a liar. The proposed bill was full of loopholes that the government would later have used to create a national registry. All the senators who voted for this unconstitutional monstrosity should be put on trial for treason.
Gun rights supporters should not rest on their laurels. They won the first skirmish, but the battle is not over. The Bill of Rights-hating gun grabbers will not rest until they’ve confiscated all privately held firearms.
Hi Kirk! As a Canadian we have very strict background checks for gun ownership. Could you (or anyone else) explain to me why these checks are ‘onerous’? I agree with the 2nd amendment, I just don’t see the conflict with gun ownership unless just cause can be shown for restriction.
Any help on this would be appreciated… Thanks, Jeff.
redjefff, here in Canada we don’t have that right it’s a previlige.
😆 privilege!
“why these checks are onerous?” That’s the wrong question, which Obama is happy that you are asking, you are a good little lamb to accept his premise without question–just go down that chute there and never mind the burly fellows with large hammers and knives at the bottom (it will all be over quickly, this hurts me more than it does you, etc., etc.). The truth, as Mr. Goddard here has been going on about for weeks, is that the proposed law is being foisted upon the public under false pretenses (that’s what the issue about background checks is, you see, a false pretense, a political and emotional hook rather than a factual remedy for a real problem): The truth is that the proposed law(s) would not have prevented Sandy Hook, nor Columbine, nor any other of the sordid list of mass killings we ALL abhor; they would basically only work to deny guns to law-abiding citizens, against the explicit recognition by the U.S. Constitution of the individual’s right to own guns. See the comment by “gofer”, below, for what you would do better to focus upon.
@redjeff:
ANY restriction transforms a right into a privilege.
And privileges can be withdrawn.
The fundamental precept of government in America–although very much confused now–is that government is subordinate to the People.
WE are the Sovereigns.
Do you have any doubt that criminals can get guns at will? Not just in theory, but in practice–they can, and do.
Therefore background checks are a failure. Making them more strict simply further underlines the principle that what was the right to defend oneself against common criminals and government criminals is now a privilege bestowed by the most dangerous criminal class of all–government.
Will unrestricted firearms ownership mean criminals have guns? Yes. Certainly. Just as they do today–with over 20,000 “gun control” laws on the books.
Get rid of them. Face the fact that on neither utilitarian grounds, nor the superior moral principles, do they serve us.
Look at New York. Require registration, then later, start finding “valid” reasons the owner should not have a gun. “Ever” taken any medication for psychosis? Maybe your blood pressure medication will someday be found to have anti-pshychotic properties, better be safe & intervene “for the children” as we don’t know if your a psycho or simply have high blood pressure (registration database makes intervention easy doesn’t it). Once the database is in place, it’s easy to keep chipping away small groups of people until there there’s no one left but loyal members of the party (What? you served in the Army, that’s often stressful, better ban you as you “might” have post traumatic stress disorder…).
Once the wedge is driven, it gets easier & easier to expand it…
“…Four Republicans voted for the amendment, but five Democrats voted against it. One of those Democrats was Reid – who only switched his vote to oppose it because doing so allows Democrats to call up the measure again. Other Democrats who voted against the measure for non-procedural reasons were Sen. Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Sen. Mark Begich of Alaska, Sen. Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota and Sen. Max Baucus of Montana…”
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/04/17/background-check-plan-in-trouble-as-dems-call-votes-on-gun-bill/#ixzz2QmSQKI4B
Seems like Reid is the hold-up – voted against it “for procedural reasons” (such as a re-election bid in 2014), and was also the one that had Feinstien’s assault weapons ban pulled (cause they wouldn’t have had the votes).
Among the senators up for election in 2014, there are 21 Democrats and 14 Republicans.
Reid (D, NV) – up for re-election.
Pryor (D, AR) – up for re-election.
Begich (D, AK) – up for re-election.
Baucus (D, MT) – up for re-election.
And we wonder what is really driving their “belief” – maybe its because the parents of children who attended Sandy Hook don’t vote in their state.
“Rarely have Americans ever seen a president attack his opponents so viciously, expressing and evoking such visceral emotions–especially at a time of mourning. President Obama’s tirade contrasted with his reserved, measured response to the Boston Marathon bombings, in which he urged Americans to speak and act with restraint. If this has been, as he claimed, “a pretty shameful day in Washington,” the president’s tantrum was the most shameful moment of all.”
Breitbart
He got mad over the gun rule, but was so matter-of-fact calm over the Boston bombing. Strange.
A victory in a battle of the continuing war. It is disturbing that 56 Senators voted FOR the bill.
Always blaming others for your own stupidity. The hallmark of a liberal.
Next up: Ban on pressure cookers and mandatory nail/ball bearing registration.
Microstamping nails.