Skip to main content

Senator who voted against background checks proposes a governmental background check

Republican Oklahoma Senator Tom Coburn was one of 46 Senators to recently reject the bill which would have expanded background checks on firearm purchases.

Coburn is now attempting to pass legislation which would require all government agencies to "report the number and types of firearms owned, purchased or lost each year" - in other words, a background check.

While I'd be perfectly fine with the government receiving background checks regarding firearms, it's not at all consistent for Coburn and like-minded individuals to believe in such legislation and reject background checks for everyone else. It would be akin to Coburn saying these following lines:

- "Parents should be obligated to tell their children who they're with and what they're doing when they're out and about, but kids shouldn't have to do that. That would be unconstitutional!"

- "Bosses need to disclose every bit of information at their disposal to their workers. Workers, on the other hand, should go on strike if they're asked to do the same. That's what the Founding Fathers would do!"

- "Coaches need to have their backgrounds checked, just in case they were involved in any criminal activity previously. Players shouldn't have to go through that, though, for it's against the Bible!"

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2013/05/08/1978361/gop-lawmaker-pushes-conspiracy-theory-in-water-bill-amendment/

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun...

Mentioned on Crooks and Liars and Hinterland Gazette!

Due to some tweets of mine, I got mentioned on the following two sites (all my tweets can be viewed here -  https://twitter.com/CraigRozniecki ): https://crooksandliars.com/2019/04/trump-gives-stupid-advice-george https://hinterlandgazette.com/2019/03/istandwithschiff-is-trending-after-donald-trump-led-gop-attack-on-adam-schiff-backfires-spectacularly.html

Face guarding is legal in college football and the NFL

I just wanted to remind fans and announcers especially, that face guarding is legal in both college football and the NFL. It all comes down to contact. So long as a defender doesn't make contact with an intended receiver, he doesn't have to turn around to play the ball. I can't tell you how many times every week I hear announcers talk about face guarding being a penalty. It's not. I even heard one announcer yesterday state, "If the defender doesn't turn around and play the ball, the ref will call pass interference every time." That's simply not true. Courtesy of referee Bill LeMonnier, he says this with regard to the rule at the college level (answered on 8/12/13): "NCAA rules on pass interference require the face guarding to have contact to be a foul. No contact, no foul by NCAA rules." In the NFL rule book, this is written:  "Actions that constitute defensive pass interference include but are not limited to: (a) Contact by a ...