They know damned well which side of history they're on, and they know which side the American military is on, and it ain't the same one.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 11/15/2009 12:44:44 PM PST by mdittmar
NEW YORK (AP) -- Sen. Charles Schumer says a hole in federal gun laws allowed the man charged with a shooting rampage in Fort Hood, Texas to purchase a gun.
Army psychiatrist Maj. Nidal Malik Hasan has been charged with the shooting spree that left 13 dead.
Hasan purchased a gun at a store in Texas in August even though the Joint Terrorism Task Force had investigated him for possible terrorist ties.
Authorities had taken a look at Hasan after intercepting messages between Hasan and a radical imam overseas. The inquiry was closed sometime in early 2009.
Schumer says that should have been enough to raise a red flag when Hasan tried to buy a gun. He says Hasan should not have passed the background check.
(Excerpt) Read more at cbs6albany.com ...
But ... but ... I thought the Second Amendment only applied to active-duty soldiers while on military duty, e.g. to Hasan at the time.
Hey, Scummer.
Everyone shot was UNARMED you stupid POS Leftist dictator.
Except one. And she’s the one who ended the TERRORIST’S murdering spree.
An even bigger scandal is why airplanes weren’t illegal: I mean...had they been outlawed, there’s NO WAY 9-11 would have happened, RIGHT...?
This is about blocking the law abiding from owning guns.
If the UK had outlawed buses and subways, their tragedy, too, would have been thwarted.
Chuck You, Schumer!
Hmm. So, according to Chuck You Schumer, this cowardly, traitorous, murderous piece of human garbarge would have abided by gun laws if they existed? Where is the evidence supporting this ridiculous theory?
"..Then there is this gem from Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago who pointed to America's “love affair with guns” for the shootings. “Every day in society someone’s being killed,” Daley pontificated following the shootings.”Unfortunately, America loves guns. We love guns to a point that we see the devastation on a daily basis.” .."
So Senator schemer, I mean Shumer, you then agree Hasan was a terrorist.
Thank you.
Now, Shumer wants to close the
“Muslim Maniac Gun Loop Hole”.
Senator Schumer: You cannot be serious.
Mr Schumer must have attended Harvard Law during the period when they weren't teaching about due process. It's unfortunate that the concept continues to seem unknown to him some 40 years.
Uh.. senator, that would be the 2nd amendment. Not a loophole!
But did that information make it into the system? It's likely a failing on the government's side, period. I'd bet money no one except the Joint Terrorism Task Force, or other associated government agencies, knew he'd been investigated. If that information was readily available, his superiors would have been notified, or would have known.
Besides, they already stated he'd been investigated and found nothing to pursue. So what would there be to cause a failed background check? If he'd failed his background check I'd also bet BIG money some civil rights group would be crying foul.
Schumer is just another lying, backstabbing, political expediency POS.
Chuckie says that the CIC failed by not disclosing that the Army knew Hasan was a terrorist.
***Hmm. So, according to Chuck You Schumer, this cowardly, traitorous, murderous piece of human garbarge would have abided by gun laws if they existed? Where is the evidence supporting this ridiculous theory?***
In the sponge that passes for Chucky’s brainage!!! He needs dumping ASAP!!!
It make me wonder how this sorry excuse for a carbon unit can draw a dollar while being so f’en stupid.
They know damned well which side of history they're on, and they know which side the American military is on, and it ain't the same one.
Shumer is another clueless nutball. The libtards are still convinced that people don’t kill people, guns kill people. The insanity of their argument is stupefying.
Liberalism is a mental disease.
Preach it, brother! :^)
Not funny, just the sober truth.
But Chucky there are gun laws under Sharia . . . you sir are being insensitive to Mr. Hasan’s right to practice his religion.
But Chucky there are no gun laws under Sharia . . . you sir are being insensitive to Mr. Hasan’s right to practice his religion. (there fixed it)
And, if a Muslim US Army Major, with no criminal background had been denied the legal purchase of a firearm, any guess as to just who would have been crying discrimination against a Muslim?
Wouldn’t an investigation of the Joint Terrorism Task Force be a more effective approach to this?
It always comes back to gun laws with this a-hole. He should be focusing his energy on the jihad circus coming to town.
Ok, according to Schumer, people SUSPECTED of doing something bad can have their rights restrained ??
I keep forgetting, the Constitution is merely an impediment to the Left, just because someone hasn’t been tried and convicted by a Court of Law, follow the Lefty Retrospectroscope, and not sell a gun to the scary, oops, he’s MUSLIM ?
Nevermind, free pass. . .
(sigh)
I believe that Obama is hiding something....something to the effect that at some point prior to this, Obama said to leave Hasan alone.....
I think there might have been actual communication with Obama by Hasan....If so, I'd guess Hasan is going to have a big heart attack....real soon.
If he's saying that US Army Majors with no criminal record shouldn't pass a firearms background check he's more of a loon than even I had thought. What next -- let's keep soldiers away from guns?
“........ terrified of an armed body of patriots, whether they be soldiers, militia, or hunters.”
They damn well should be.
That already happened, at Fort Hood.
Charles Schumer on Gun Control
Democratic Sr Senator (NY)
Enforce gun laws on national security grounds
Unless the President personally intervenes here, it looks like terrorists are going to have an even easier time avoiding detection by law enforcement. The President has a choice: He can give the NRA a Christmas present and make it easier for an Al-Qaeda operative to avoid the police, get a gun and shoot up a mall. Or he can do the right thing, keep the Brady Bill intact and keep the public safe. We can either wait for a terror attack to happen or we can act now to close these kind of loopholes. Washington has now been warned time and time again about ways terrorists can exploit our loopholes to get guns. By ignoring these warnings, the President and his allies in Congress are putting the country at risk.“
Source: Press Release, ‘NRA-Backed Plan in budget bill’ Dec 2, 2003
Renew assault weapons ban - no legitimate use for them
“If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” To let the assault weapons ban expire just as we are realizing its benefits would be a major setback in the success we’ve had in reducing crime over the last decade. The fact of the matter is that there is no legitimate use for these weapons. That was as true in 1994 as it is today. The bottom line is that the assault weapons ban is working and we are safer because of it.“
Source: Press Release ‘ATF data’ Nov 5, 2003
Penalize cross-state gun traffickers
Lax gun laws in one state translate into murder and mayhem in another. New York criminals have difficulty finding New York guns. The guns often come from states that do not believe in restricting guns beyond what is prescribed by federal law. Where there is a weak spot in the law, criminals are ready to exploit it, so we need to strengthen federal law enforcement’s ability to go after gun runners no matter what state they set up shop in.
Source: Statement, ‘Study: Southern Guns, NY Crimes’ Sep 17, 2003
Voted NO on allowing firearms in checked baggage on Amtrak trains.
Congressional Summary:AMENDMENT PURPOSE: To ensure that law abiding Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.
On page 37, between lines 8 and 9, insert the following: “Allowing Amtrak Passengers to Securely Transport Firearms on Passenger Trains.—None of amounts made available in the reserve fund authorized under this section may be used to provide financial assistance for the National Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak) unless Amtrak passengers are allowed to securely transport firearms in their checked baggage.
Proponent’s argument to vote Yes:Sen. ROGER WICKER (R, MS). This amendment aims to ensure that gun owners and sportsmen are able to transport securely firearms aboard Amtrak trains in checked baggage, a practice that is done thousands of times a day at airports across the country. I emphasize that this amendment deals with checked, secured baggage only. It would return Amtrak to a pre-9/11 practice. It does not deal with carry-on baggage. Unlike the airline industry, Amtrak does not allow the transport of firearms in checked bags. This means that sportsmen who wish to use Amtrak trains for hunting trips cannot do so because they are not allowed to check safely a firearm.
Opponent’s argument to vote No:Sen. FRANK LAUTENBERG (D, NJ): I object to this disruptive amendment offered by the Senator from Mississippi. He wants to enable the carrying of weapons, guns, in checked baggage. One doesn’t have to be very much concerned about what we are doing when they look at the history of attacks on railroads in Spain and the UK and such places. This amendment has no place here interrupting the budgetary procedure. The pending amendment is not germane and, therefore, I raise a point of order that the amendment violates section 305(b)(2) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
Reference: Wicker Amendment; Bill S.Amdt.798 to S.Con.Res.13 ; vote number 2009-S145 on Apr 2, 2009
Voted NO on prohibiting foreign & UN aid that restricts US gun ownership.
Amendment SA 2774 to H.R. 2764, the Department of State’s International Aid bill: To prohibit the use of funds by international organizations, agencies, and entities (including the United Nations) that require the registration of, or taxes guns owned by citizens of the United States.
Proponents support voting YES because:
Sen. VITTER: This is a straight funding limitation amendment. Many folks who haven’t followed the proceedings on this in the U.N. may ask: What is this all about? Unfortunately, it is about an effort in the United Nations to bring gun control to various countries through that international organization. Unfortunately, that has been an ongoing effort which poses a real threat, back to 1995. In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a program of action designed to infringe on second amendment rights. The Vitter amendment simply says we are not going to support any international organization that requires a registration of US citizens’ guns or taxes US citizens’ guns. If other folks in this Chamber think that is not happening, that it is never going to happen, my reply is simple and straightforward: Great, then this language has no effect. It is no harm to pass it as a failsafe. It has no impact. But, in fact, related efforts have been going on in the U.N. since at least 1995. I hope this can get very wide, bipartisan support, and I urge all my colleagues to support this very fundamental, straightforward amendment.
No opponents spoke against the bill.
Reference: Vitter Amendment to State Dept. Appropriations Bill; Bill S.Amdt. 2774 to H.R. 2764 ; vote number 2007-321 on Sep 6, 2007
Voted NO on prohibiting lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
A bill to prohibit civil liability actions from being brought or continued against manufacturers, distributors, dealers, or importers of firearms or ammunition for damages, injunctive or other relief resulting from the misuse of their products by others. Voting YES would:
* Exempt lawsuits brought against individuals who knowingly transfer a firearm that will be used to commit a violent or drug-trafficking crime
* Exempt lawsuits against actions that result in death, physical injury or property damage due solely to a product defect
* Call for the dismissal of all qualified civil liability actions pending on the date of enactment by the court in which the action was brought
* Prohibit the manufacture, import, sale or delivery of armor piercing ammunition, and sets a minimum prison term of 15 years for violations
* Require all licensed importers, manufacturers and dealers who engage in the transfer of handguns to provide secure gun storage or safety devices
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S 397 ; vote number 2005-219 on Jul 29, 2005
Voted NO on banning lawsuits against gun manufacturers for gun violence.
Vote to pass a bill that would block certain civil lawsuits against manufacturers, distributors, dealers and importers of firearms and ammunition, mainly those lawsuits aimed at making them liable for gun violence. In this bill, trade groups would also be protected The bill would call for the dismissal of pending lawsuits against the gun industry. The exception would be lawsuits regarding a defect in a weapon or ammunition. It also would provide a 10-year reauthorization of the assault weapons ban which is set to expire in September 2004. The bill would increase the penalties for gun-related violent or drug trafficking crimes which have not resulted in death, to a minimum of 15 years imprisonment. The bill calls for criminal background checks on all firearm transactions at gun shows where at least 75 guns are sold. Exemptions would be made available for dealers selling guns from their homes as well as members-only gun swaps and meets carried out by nonprofit hunting clubs.
Reference: Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act; Bill S.1805/H.R.1036 ; vote number 2004-30 on Mar 2, 2004
Voted YES on background checks at gun shows.
Require background checks on all firearm sales at gun shows.
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)50; N)50; VP decided YES
Reference: Lautenberg Amdt #362; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-134 on May 20, 1999
Voted NO on more penalties for gun & drug violations.
The Hatch amdt would increase mandatory penalties for the illegal transfer or use of firearms, fund additional drug case prosecutors, and require background check on purchasers at gun shows. [A YES vote supports stricter penalties].
Status: Amdt Agreed to Y)48; N)47; NV)5
Reference: Hatch Amendment #344; Bill S. 254 ; vote number 1999-118 on May 14, 1999
Voted NO on loosening license & background checks at gun shows.
Vote to table or kill a motion to require that all gun sales at gun shows be completed by federally licensed gun dealers. Also requires background checks to be completed on buyers and requires gun show promoters to register with the Treasury.
Reference: Bill S.254 ; vote number 1999-111 on May 11, 1999
“Schumer: Gun Laws Lacking With Fort Hood Suspect”
You bet, Chuckie. Every mother’s son of those G.I.s should have been packing heat. How far would the Muslim terrorist have gotten then?
You're being too charitable to Schumer.
Yup. Simply being “investigated” doesn’t cause you to lose your 2nd amendment rights. You must be adjudicated mentally defective or convicted of certain crimes.
Sen. Charles Schumer is/has been/always will be the biggest horse’s arse in all 57 states.
“You must be adjudicated mentally defective or convicted of certain crimes.”
You can also lose your rights to firearms if you have a protective order against a “domestic partner”. Women claim abuse all the time and as a matter of routine in divorce prroceedings to try to increase their take. No crime committed. No mental illness required.
Why would he still be on a watch list?
Hey, Shoomer...Maybe you should pass Muslim laws. How can you live with your self?
If he hadn’t been able to get a gun he would have used explosives (it’s like a nuclear weapon that fits in your pocket)
If hadn’t been able to get a gun or explosives he would have used an [evil] SUV (it’s like an assault rifle that fits in your..... garage)
If he hadn’t been able to get an SUV he could have used gasoline (it’s like Napalm that fits in your pocket)
If he hadn’t been able to get gasoline he could have used a knife (it’s like a samurai sword... that fits in your pocket)
If he hadn’t been able to get (or make) a knife he could have used....
He is a MAJOR in the U.S. Military.
That is probably good enough for most gun stores.
They going to deny guns to soldiers next?
Chuck U Schumer never fails to disappoint.
Yeah, forgot about that feminazi tactic. I know any conviction for “domestic abuse” is an automatic gun rights loser.
“I know any conviction “
No need for a conviction, just the restraining order, that’s it. No proof needed, no police report, nothing. She only has to go to court and say she wants one. No reasons, no excuses, nothing. Once the restraining order is granted, and 99.99999% of them are granted, he is no longer lawfully able to possess a firearm.
Yes, actually.
Photos of Ft. Hood checkpoints after the incident showed on-duty guards carrying M16s _with_NO_ammo_. They’re just clubs at that point.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.