Background check? Only if you want to buy a gun.

[airdvr 210]

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/report-house-democrats-exempted-pakistani-it-aides-from-background-checks/

Quote

The background check was waived for all five IT workers, who made headlines last year for what the House inspector general’s report described as activity with “nefarious purposes.”

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,111]

It's terrible, how many people those evil non-background-checked workers killed.

[airdvr 210]

billvon

It's terrible, how many people those evil non-background-checked workers killed.

You are absolutely correct Bill. We should disregard background checks altogether.

BTW...Wasserman Schultz: background checks needed for gun ammo purchases

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,111]

>We should disregard background checks altogether.

No. We should be more diligent with things that have the potential to cause more damage, destruction and death.

Worst case is loss of data and a messy firing? Background checks might be a good idea.

Worst case is school shooting with 17 students dead? Background checks are a VERY good idea.

[airdvr 210]

If you area proponent of checks for things like ammunition (Wasserman) perhaps you should consider cleaning your own house first. I'll lend you my glasses if you can't see the irony here.

Also, the esstemed Ms. Wasserman added...The former Democratic National Committee chairwoman suggested last year that the accusations against Imran might be because of Islamophobia. “As a mother, a Jew, and a member of Congress,” she stuck by him, she said.

What?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[gowlerk 2,275]

I'm confused. What is the point of this thread? Are you concerned about the lack of security checks for important IT workers with access to Congressional records? That seems valid. Are you trying to say that this proves background checks for firearm acquisition are not justified? I don't see the connection. Are you trying to attack Wasserman because you don't like her? Then please say so.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[DJL 235]

airdvr

If you area proponent of checks for things like ammunition (Wasserman) perhaps you should consider cleaning your own house first. I'll lend you my glasses if you can't see the irony here.

Also, the esstemed Ms. Wasserman added...The former Democratic National Committee chairwoman suggested last year that the accusations against Imran might be because of Islamophobia. “As a mother, a Jew, and a member of Congress,” she stuck by him, she said.

What?

By this point we're all up to speed that DWS helped to rig the DNC in HRC's favor and we therefore couldn't field a candidate capable of taking down Lord Cheeto. She has no love for us and this episode is proof that background checks are needed for all sorts of things, especially those related to the safety of Americans.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[billvon 3,111]

>I'm confused. What is the point of this thread?

"People who want background checks are hypocrites." Pretty standard right wing fare.

>Are you concerned . . . .

I wouldn't overthink if I were you.

[airdvr 210]

Nice try Bill...how about people who want background checks ought to do background checks.

Are you seriously defending this POS?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[gowlerk 2,275]

Quote

Are you seriously defending this POS?

I'm still confused. In what way do you see Bill defending anyone? In any case I agree that better pre-employment checks should have been done here. How does that affect gun background purchase checks? Are you trying to make a case against Wasserman or against background checks?

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[billvon 3,111]

>Nice try Bill...how about people who want background checks ought to do background
>checks.

Like I said - "People who want background checks are hypocrites." Pretty standard right wing fare.

>Are you seriously defending this POS?

Which POS is that? The National Review? The Daily Caller? Debbie Wasserman? One of the five scammers in the article? Since there's only one person with a D after their name in that list I can assume which one you meant, but you know what they say about assumptions.

And who knows? Someday you might surprise me and think outside your box.

[kallend 2,146]

FALSE thread title.

I had to get a background check in order to become a licensed drone pilot.

I also had to have one to get trusted traveler status.

I also had to have one to visit the USS Carl Vinson.

I also had to have one to visit the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower.

I also had to have one to visit Los Alamos National Lab.

. . . . . .

And NONE of those involved buying a gun.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Bob_Church 7]

gowlerk

Quote

Are you seriously defending this POS?

I'm still confused. In what way do you see Bill defending anyone? In any case I agree that better pre-employment checks should have been done here. How does that affect gun background purchase checks? Are you trying to make a case against Wasserman or against background checks?

I don't know if this was the original reason for the post, but you can bet that the next time someone suggests a database of gun owners this will be called out as an excellent reason not to. A legitimate concern about gun databases is letting criminals know who in their neighborhood has guns to steal.

[kallend 2,146]

Bob_Church

***

Quote

Are you seriously defending this POS?

I'm still confused. In what way do you see Bill defending anyone? In any case I agree that better pre-employment checks should have been done here. How does that affect gun background purchase checks? Are you trying to make a case against Wasserman or against background checks?

I don't know if this was the original reason for the post, but you can bet that the next time someone suggests a database of gun owners this will be called out as an excellent reason not to. A legitimate concern about gun databases is letting criminals know who in their neighborhood has guns to steal.

And some 300,000 guns are stolen annually from "law abiding gun owners" who are too careless to secure their guns properly (USDoJ data). Guns are in the top 3 targets of choice for burglars.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[billvon 3,111]

>A legitimate concern about gun databases is letting criminals know who in their
>neighborhood has guns to steal.

Hmm. I thought advertising that you had a gun deterred theft. I've seen a lot of signs by gun owners proclaiming their ownership of said weapons, ostensibly to make thieves 'think twice.' Are you saying that knowledge of gun ownership will likely _encourage_ thieves to break into known-armed homes?

(BTW that's one reason that I think it's foolish to discuss what weapons you have on line.)

[Bob_Church 7]

kallend

******

Quote

Are you seriously defending this POS?

I'm still confused. In what way do you see Bill defending anyone? In any case I agree that better pre-employment checks should have been done here. How does that affect gun background purchase checks? Are you trying to make a case against Wasserman or against background checks?

I don't know if this was the original reason for the post, but you can bet that the next time someone suggests a database of gun owners this will be called out as an excellent reason not to. A legitimate concern about gun databases is letting criminals know who in their neighborhood has guns to steal.

And some 300,000 guns are stolen annually from "law abiding gun owners" who are too careless to secure their guns properly (USDoJ data). Guns are in the top 3 targets of choice for burglars.

It's really disheartening. The local service station has a notice board and every once in awhile there will be a sheet of paper listing a small arsenal with "please keep an eye out for these guns, they were stolen from me......."
And I also wonder how often that's a way to sell the guns to others and not acknowledge it. But either way, enough weapons to shoot up half a dozen schools or workplaces just joined the criminal world.

[DJL 235]

Bob_Church

***

Quote

Are you seriously defending this POS?

I'm still confused. In what way do you see Bill defending anyone? In any case I agree that better pre-employment checks should have been done here. How does that affect gun background purchase checks? Are you trying to make a case against Wasserman or against background checks?

I don't know if this was the original reason for the post, but you can bet that the next time someone suggests a database of gun owners this will be called out as an excellent reason not to. A legitimate concern about gun databases is letting criminals know who in their neighborhood has guns to steal.

I think that's really an issue that's not an issue. There are all sorts of ways of figuring out who has guns and that doesn't change the fact that gun owners need to take the steps to keep their weapons safe from robberies. My weapons are not in a safe but there are two people on this planet who know where they are and they would never be found in the course of a robbery without the use of an xray imaging device.

Besides, the big ole "The house protected by Smith and Wesson" sticker can be a dead giveaway for some folks.

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[DJL 235]

Quote

It's really disheartening. The local service station has a notice board and every once in awhile there will be a sheet of paper listing a small arsenal with "please keep an eye out for these guns, they were stolen from me......."
And I also wonder how often that's a way to sell the guns to others and not acknowledge it. But either way, enough weapons to shoot up half a dozen schools or workplaces just joined the criminal world.

Some states require a gun safe if you own more than X weapons. I'm a big fan of that.

Here's my collection:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cun-LZvOTdw

"I encourage all awesome dangerous behavior." - Jeffro Fincher

[airdvr 210]

gowlerk

Quote

Are you seriously defending this POS?

I'm still confused. In what way do you see Bill defending anyone? In any case I agree that better pre-employment checks should have been done here. How does that affect gun background purchase checks? Are you trying to make a case against Wasserman or against background checks?

Stop being obtuse. You all know this is a dig at Wasserman. Wanted to make sure you understood that conservatives don't have the market cornered on hypocrisy.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,111]

So to recap:

Q: I'm confused. What is the point of this thread?
A: "People who want background checks are hypocrites." Pretty standard right wing fare.

You: Nice try Bill...

And now:

"You all know this is a dig at Wasserman. Wanted to make sure you understood that conservatives don't have the market cornered on hypocrisy. "

And to think you might have surprised me; my bad. You're as predictable as the Sinclair-sourced agenda you are parroting.

[rushmc 23]

billvon

So to recap:

Q: I'm confused. What is the point of this thread?
A: "People who want background checks are hypocrites." Pretty standard right wing fare.

You: Nice try Bill...

And now:

"You all know this is a dig at Wasserman. Wanted to make sure you understood that conservatives don't have the market cornered on hypocrisy. "

And to think you might have surprised me; my bad. You're as predictable as the Sinclair-sourced agenda you are parroting.

Not nearly as much as your CNN-sourced bs......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 3,111]

>Some states require a gun safe if you own more than X weapons. I'm a big fan of that.

Or leave it up to the gun owner; just make him liable if his/her gun is ever used in a crime after he buys it. This would be no burden to responsible gun owners.

[airdvr 210]

billvon

So to recap:

Q: I'm confused. What is the point of this thread?
A: "People who want background checks are hypocrites." Pretty standard right wing fare.

You: Nice try Bill...

And now:

"You all know this is a dig at Wasserman. Wanted to make sure you understood that conservatives don't have the market cornered on hypocrisy. "

And to think you might have surprised me; my bad. You're as predictable as the Sinclair-sourced agenda you are parroting.

Just so I'm clear...Wasserman and her ilk are beating the drum for background checks for ammunition purchases. However, she waived a background check on several IT aides. Those aides were were logging into servers of members they didn’t work for, logging in using congressmen’s personal usernames, uploading data off the House network, and behaving in ways that suggested “nefarious purposes” and that “steps are being taken to conceal their activity.”

This from the person who described cyber breaches as an "act of war".

I've never said background checks aren't a great idea. I support them. You obviously believe that these checks are only for others, and aren't really required for politicians you happen to like.

This thread is typical of the liberal spin. You guys blow so much hot air at a topic that it becomes obvious that you aren't interested in discussing near as much as you are in camouflage.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 3,111]

>Wasserman and her ilk are beating the drum for background checks for ammunition
>purchases. However, she waived a background check on several IT aides.

And just so I am clear - background checks intended to ensure someone is a good employee are vastly different than background checks intended to make sure criminals and the insane do not get guns. Different goals, different risks. One has very little to do with the other.

So no, waiving a background check for an IT worker does not make one a hypocrite if one wants background checks for gun purchases. They are not even close to the same.

I don't think AAD's should be mandated for skydivers. I do think they should be mandated for students. Does that make me a hypocrite?

[airdvr 210]

Only if you put students out with no AAD.

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne