Shooting survivor and U.S. Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA) says the Democrats refused his request to testify against the gun control currently being pushed in the House.
Steve Scalise says Rep. Doug Collins (R-GA) asked Democrats to let Scalise give testimony before the House Judiciary Committee and they told him no.
Fox News reports that Scalise decided to make public the testimony he would have given, testimony that explains why universal background checks will not reduce gun violence or make Americans safer.
Scalise referenced the June 14, 2017, Congressional baseball shooting in which he was nearly killed. He noted that the gunman acquired his guns via background checks, just as nearly every mass shooter of the 21st century has done. Because of this means of acquisition, Scalise notes that universal background checks would not have stopped the shooting from taking place.
The same can be said about the November 5, 2009, Fort Hood shooting; the July 20, 2012, Aurora movie theater shooting; the May 23, 2014, Santa Barbara shooting; the October 1, 2015, Umpqua Community College shooting; the June 12, 2016, Orlando Pulse shooting; the October 1, 2017, Las Vegas shooting; and the February 14, 2018, Parkland high school shooting, to name but a few. In each of these crimes, the guns used were acquired via background checks.
Would-be mass shooters can pass background checks because they have no criminal record. They have criminal intent, but background checks look backward not forward. more here
Won’t let you? Then I guess you should just tuck your tail between your legs and slink off like a good republican.
The dems support paid protesters into the Kavanaugh hearings, but a member of Congress who requests to testify on a real life event germane to the subject matter, well, no.
Spineless republicans just whine.
I wonder how many people with criminal intent have ever actually been stopped from obtaining a gun by background checking.
Not the one they were denied but any gun.
There are no statistics on that because the only way to find out would be to track and investigate every denial over a long period of time to see if they obtained one outside of a background check after being denied. But I’m guessing the percentage would be too low to have much meaning if such a study were made (remember, I’m talking about those with evil intentions not the honest citizen who was denied for something he didn’t realize would disqualify him).
You thought democrats just hated America? Oh, nonono, they hate Americans just as much and that includes themselves. It’s all masked with hypocritical fake front of virtue signalling minority groups they never have to see or deal with. Exactly why their panties are in a bunch from DJT calling out Fake News and stupid elected officials; he showed their hand for all to see, the master troller. You gotta love the man. Democrats fight back with identity politics and there is only one way that ends: Badly. Don’t think for a minute that’s not their desired result.
Don’t the republicans get to call witnesses?
The democrats always seem to when they are in the minority.
“The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -Burke
The Democrats learned their lesson from that, that is why they are doing their best to prevent good men from saying anything: To insure the triumph of evil.
Watch out, Steve. Dick Durbin might know another guy.
I think I made a grave mistake by thinking that the demoshits retaking the House would be our demise. It now appears as though this my be a blessing in disguise. They have now shown the world just exactly who and what they are. Baby killing socialists intent on the gagging of free speech.
@Anonymous February 7, 2019 at 8:30 am
> “The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing.” -Burke
>
> The Democrats learned their lesson from that, that is why they are doing their best to prevent good men from saying anything: To insure the triumph of evil.
And when “good men” are silenced? Imma keep nappin on ma couch, while you make a YouTube vidya for me.