Tv reported he once voted to ban all DC residents from owing firearms. I didn't catch all the particulars, but they mentioned the supreme court overturning it.

 

I'm thinking this ruling will be what the gop hangs their hat on.

 

After he was nominated and his record brought out repubs should fire away. To obstruct and kick it down the curb to another day is what has them in turmoil today. More of the same will not help them renew their image to the American people.

 

This honestly may go down as the worst year in the Republican Party's history: Trump/Cruz, brokered convention, Senate blunders, and an HRC presidency ( a known liar and hated by all woman I might add :lol:)

 

:popcorn:

Tv reported he once voted to ban all DC residents from owing firearms. I didn't catch all the particulars' date=' but they mentioned the supreme court overturning it. I'm thinking this ruling will be what the gop hangs their hat on.[/quote']

 

Correct, he's nothing more than Obama's anti gun henchman.

Everything is always about guns.

Everything is always about guns.

 

What's left on Obama's agenda? Gay marriage? Healthcare? Iran?

What's left on Obama's agenda? Gay marriage? Healthcare? Iran?

 

He's had almost 8 years, and hasn't even seriously attempted any sweeping gun bans. I don't think it's going to get done before next January.

He's had almost 8 years, and hasn't even seriously attempted any sweeping gun bans. I don't think it's going to get done before next January.

 

TBH, he has been ineffective on guns.

 

I really would have at least liked to have seen at the least a more complete background check system.

TBH, he has been ineffective on guns.

 

I really would have at least liked to have seen at the least a more complete background check system.

 

I'd say ineffective is an understatement. He's really done nothing. He's signed no major laws against guns, and the executive orders weren't really much of anything, and nowhere close to calling for any bans.

I'd say ineffective is an understatement. He's really done nothing. He's signed no major laws against guns, and the executive orders weren't really much of anything, and nowhere close to calling for any bans.

 

Actually havent gun sales increased dramatically during his term?

Actually havent gun sales increased dramatically during his term?

 

Yup. Really undermines the argument that Obama is a "gun-control" warrior.

Yup. Really undermines the argument that Obama is a "gun-control" warrior.

 

He had to get more sold so he could take more away.

TBH' date=' he has been ineffective on guns. I really would have at least liked to have seen at the least a more complete background check system.[/quote']

 

This is actually correct. But what liberals are looking the other way on is the fact that Merrick strongly opposes the 2A. He has said numerous times he doesn't support the Heller decision and would vote against it.

 

I'll make it simple here... Obama is all about his legacy, he realizes he couldn't change the 2A or guns in our country. However, he knows the addition of Merrick on the Supreme Court would.

 

It's passive aggressive 095 by Obama letting someone else do what he could not.

Yup. Really undermines the argument that Obama is a "gun-control" warrior.

 

“He supported the D.C. gun ban in 2007, thereby showing he opposes self-defense and opposes the right to keep and bear arms,”

 

Whenever you wanna stop sandbagging Hellcats... He didn't even want to allow citizens in DC to have a gun at home for self defense.

“He supported the D.C. gun ban in 2007, thereby showing he opposes self-defense and opposes the right to keep and bear arms,”

 

Whenever you wanna stop sandbagging Hellcats... He didn't even want to allow citizens in DC to have a gun at home for self defense.

 

Just stating the record of Obama. Heck, when guns come up you fellas act like he's tried to pry them from your cold dead hands. He has done nothing in all reality. I honestly believe a repub president would have done more. Reagan for sure in this climate maybe even W.

 

As far as the nominee goes, who cares. Mitch will not convene the Senate.

I skimmed thru the article attached in this thread and never saw a mention of gun rights?

 

Did I miss that?

 

Or was it simply left out?

I'm thinking the Senate Republicans will slow roll this and watch the polls heading into the election.

 

If the Dem nominee looks like a lock and the Senate may change hands, they can do a quick confirm if they fear an even more liberal nominee from the next Dem president.

 

If it looks like the Republican will win, they can just postpone an official vote.