Inclusion of Expanded Background Checks in Debates Called Victory

Only a bizarre media outlet like Bloomberg could call the inclusion of an expansion of federal background checks in proposed legislation to be debated a victory.

Think of it. Including something in bill to be debated is somehow considered a victory for opponents of Second Amendment rights. What a strange assertion; one that isn't even intellectually cohesive.

It shows the failure of Democrats and liberals in the attempt to trash the Second Amendment and the right to bear arms. If a victory is allowing something to be debated, it is already a defeat.

This is why Harry Reid is calling it a victory for proponents of restricting the use of guns in America. He's attempting to save face for the misguided and delusional Democratic Party, which was warned by former President Bill Clinton they shouldn't attempt to take on Americans concerning guns. It's part of our lives, and no one is going to take away our freedom to own guns for protection, hunting, and recreational use.

The silly Bloomberg article is so blinded by their hatred of the Second Amendment that it Alan Fram to even assert this as being "an aggressive approach" by the Democrats. Does he disrespect his readers so much that he would make such an ignorant comment?

Reid continued to ram the idea down American throats that he has the upper hand, saying this: "I want to be clear: In order to be effective, any bill that passes the Senate must include background checks." Let me make it clear Harold: there will be no bill passed then. Who cares?

What all this says is Reid and the Democrats are running scared. They know they've bitten off more than they can chew, and are starting to see this will be a deal-changer in the next election.

The reason I say that is the endless changes to the legislation which gives the appearance the Democrats are moving forward, when in fact they're being pushed backwards, as evidenced by the removal of a ban on automatic rifles championed by the clueless Dianne Feinstein, who is still licking her wounds over her very public defeat.

Sen. Charles Grassley of Iowa sees this, "I don't know how the leader expects members to vote on an ever-changing piece of legislation that has yet to gain bipartisan support."

Again, all the changes are attempts of Democrats to make it look like they're battling, when in effect they're really in an organized retreat that they are fighting to keep from being viewed as the route it in fact is.

The public doesn't buy the nonsense proffered by liberals that guns are what kill people. Everyone knows it's people that kill people, whether it's using a gun, fists, knives, or other potential weapon.

In the end, the best policy is to have trained people in public situations that are licensed to pack and protect those under their care. That is the only answer to a world that includes evil.
Criminals and crazies will always have access to guns and other potential weapons, so criminalizing or banning the use of firearms only takes away the freedoms and liberties of law-abiding citizens. We aren't going to let that happen.