And so it begins

Force the police to enforce gun laws? Lets look at Chicago and LA where gun prosecutions are below the national average. Maybe Chicago streets wouldn't be running with blood if current federal gun laws like background checks were being enforced.

Liberal Pretzel Logic: We need to make background checks mandatory even though we aren't enforcing the current laws against illegal and straw purchases right now.

No, thanks...I'll look at Colorado, where a Sheriff is supposed to enforce the state's laws...And if he doesn't, he shouldn't be a Sheriff...

FredHayek wrote: We need to make background checks mandatory even though we aren't enforcing the current laws against illegal and straw purchases right now.

Why, yes....We DO "need to make background checks mandatory". And every time the background check turns up someone who SHOULDN'T be allowed to purchase a weapon, that's one less wacko out there running around with one. And we obviously aren't "enforcing" laws every minute against murder (because people still get murdered); and against armed robbery (because armed robberies are still happening); and bad-check passing (because people still pass bad checks)...And NONE of that means that we shouldn't enforce background checks... Conservative Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....

If you'd like to go look at Chicago and L.A., be my guest... But that has nothing to do with the subject at hand...

But thanks for playing.

(Nice try at deflection, though...)

The murder rate is much lower in Colorado than Chicago so it looks like Attorney General Holder has been caught napping again. Just like letting Fast & Furious go under his watch.

Actually LA federal prosecuters and Colorado sheriffs are related. If federal prosecuters before sequestration didn't think lying on gun backround checks was worth prosecution, how can you expect local law enforcement with smaller budgets to bring
illegal gun buyers of Colorado to justice? And even the Governor's people, the CBI, aren't prosecuting local scofflaws.


Colorado passed universal background checks yet refuses to prosecute 90% of those buyers who are rejected before this bill was passed.
But you keep on supporting new laws instead of enforcing current ones.

And how about those Broncos?

And every time the background check turns up someone who SHOULDN'T be allowed to purchase a weapon, that's one less wacko out there running around with one. And we obviously aren't "enforcing" laws every minute against murder (because people still get murdered); and against armed robbery (because armed robberies are still happening); and bad-check passing (because people still pass bad checks)...And NONE of that means that we shouldn't enforce background checks... Conservative Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....

And in the face of those "smaller budgets" caused by the TeaBagger's sequestration, isn't it nice to know that Colorado will be charging prospective applicants for gun-purchases $10 to pay for the background checks... That will help out with the TeaPublican sequester a lot...

Nope. Letting the denied buyers go just lets them find a black market to buy from. And this isn't rocket science, when you fill out a 4473, you are giving your current address and using photo ID so law enforcement could just pick them up, but CBI decides they have better things to do.

I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?

The Dude wrote: I want an honest answer as to why universal background checks are a bad thing. If you have nothing in your past to keep you from buying a gun then what does it really matter if you have to be checked?

Washington Post...

Obama’s continued use of the claim that 40 percent of gun sales lack background checks

We were away last week and have been catching up on the recent rhetoric. A number of readers asked us about this comment last week by President Obama, and his Twitter account (managed by his campaign spin-off Organizing for Action), given that we had looked closely at this statistic back in January, in two columns, and found it wanting. It ultimately earned a rating of Two Pinocchios. PolitiFact in January also concluded there were serious problems with this particular statistic, giving it a rating of “half true.”

Normally we would expect some adjustment of the language in response to a fact-checker consensus. Alas, it appears to be time for a refresher course — and a new rating.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... _blog.html

http://www.washingtonpost.com/rw/WashingtonPost/Content/Blogs/fact-checker/StandingArt/pinocchio_3.jpg?uuid=uLasnkniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA

"Two months ago, we were willing to cut the White House some slack, given the paucity of recent data. But the president’s failure to acknowledge the significant questions about these old data, or his slippery phrasing, leaves us little choice but to downgrade this claim to Three Pinocchios."

Expect more of these outright lies today in Colorado (04-03-2013)... maybe the Washington Post will downgrade his lies to 4 pinocchios... when the liberal Washington Post slams you... you've got problems [/b]... Liberal Pretzel Logic....Imagine my surprise....

Yes, today, the Denver Police instead of rounding up people who have failed their background checks are being used as a backdrop for President Obama today the Denver Post reports this morning. And the officers don't like being used politically this way.

Again if you have nothing to hide why do background checks bother you?