Hey Joe, that’s EXPANDED criminal background checks. But I understand how/ why you made that “mistake.” The only way you’re going to get 90 percent of voters to support EXPANDED criminal background checks for firearms purchase is to ask them if they support ANY criminal background for firearms purchases. I mean, who listens carefully to anything anyway? All that matters are the optics. And that’s a pretty good optic on that rifle, is all an NRA member’s gonna to think. That and “Hey, did I miss the bit where he fires the rifle?” There’s shooting blanks and there’s not shooting at all. Despite the distinct lack of a bang, as far as NRA support goes, I reckon this particular “Lifetime NRA Member” (who promised “to get the federal government off our back“) has shot his wad. So to speak.
Home Gun Control Joe Manchin Anti-NRA Ad Stops Making Sense
He is a rather sad and shabby man. He seems kinda like a rube that goes to the big city and is taken for all he is worth.
Hey Joe, where you goin’ with that gun in your hand?
“I’m goin’ down DC, everything but my gun will be banned!”
Nice Hendrix reference!
And thank you for the earworm.
Might be a good idea if The NRA sent him his money back and cancelled his membership. Publicly. VERY publicly.
That would be awesome.
Who said he paid for it?
This would be better if he was carrying an MSR, and actually shot it. That would help people miss the point that he was for expanding delays of rights.
Agreed. If he wanted to make his BS point he should have been carrying an AR variant. Even Feinstein wants to “protect” our “right to hunt” with hunting rifles. If Manchin wanted to look strong on 2A even though he isn’t, he should have tacitly demonstrated support for something that’s on the chopping block.
I’d call this guy a traitor but I don’t think he ever was on the side of the 2A… The brazen hypocrisy this A**Clown demonstrates is truly despicable.
Hmmm . . did he say to call the NRA and tell them to Support CRIMINAL background check ? OK all the criminal need on then !
“To bring common sense to Washington” LMFAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Anytime anyone throws that constantly moving number for support for background checks, remember the poll question went something like “Do you support background checks for all firearms sales or no background checks at all?”
In that context, 82% for background checks is actually good news, because that means there is 18% support for repealing the Brady law, an option that was never on the table at any time during the Senate debate.
One has to wonder what the support would have been for an honestly worded question. I suspect it would have been quite a bit lower.
“West Virginia, you know me, I haven’t changed”
We know, Joe, you are the same POS you always have been.
The Constitution doesn’t say, “The right of the people who have passed criminal background checks to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
What a hypocrite.
Most normal folks of course support a back ground check.
Put it in plain simple English as a yes or no question.
Then show the folks who don’t really read past the first sentence the rest of your bill.
No sane human being can or should support your expanded back ground check. Make me a felon huh?? I dunt think sew.
I sure as heck don’t and never will.
I can read by the way Mr Senator, but maybe Ey kant speil tu guud.
I aint no dummy politician.
So NOW can we require a background check before we issue a Voter ID card? Wait… no background check? Well, at least the cards… wait, what do you mean that a Voter ID card is an undue restriction on a right? Oh, sorry, I forgot that the 2nd Amendment isn’t a ‘real’ amendment, and the right to self-defense isn’t a ‘real’ right. My bad. /sarcasm
Backwards, huh? And yet, the constitution says the second shall not be infringed, but they do….but regarding voting rights the amendments only clarify what criteria cannot be used to infringe voting rights, yet they keep tacitly adding to the list of criteria without the passing of new voting amendments.
I wish the NRA by-laws had a rule saying they’ll end your membership if as an elected, appointed, and/or hired member of the government you propose, vote for, or interpret the law in any manner that amounts to infringement.
Who is paying for your video? Mayors Against Illegal Guns and Bloomberg’s money or is that New Yorkers money buried deep in the account books of New York? The only thing you are doing is setting up Americans to be holding the governments future illegal guns. With an Expanded Criminal Background Check and the New ID System we can all be classified as criminals for owning guns. If they are against “illegal” guns why is the common man with “legal” weapons the one paying for it???