Mr. Nixon, a Democrat, vetoed the measure in June, saying it would allow individuals with a criminal record to legally carry a concealed firearm even though they had been, or would have been, denied a permit under the old law’s background check.Which means he lied, since anyone with a felony record, or a conviction that could have resulted in a sentence exceeding one year (regardless of what sentence was actually handed down), or anyone under a domestic violence restraining order or found guilty of a domestic violence charge is - by Federal law - prohibited from possessing a firearm. Period. Doesn't matter how they carry it. So if their criminal record would have prevented them having a permit, it should prevent them from having a FIREARM.
But the New York Times' Editorial Board doesn't tell you that.
Mayors Sly James of Kansas City and Francis Slay of St. Louis warned against restricting the power of the local police to deny guns to those who commit domestic violence.And they lied too. It's FEDERAL law, and local police are quite empowered to enforce it.
But the New York Times' Editorial Board doesn't tell you that, either.
There's more. Go read it.
And that leads into this crap on some of Clinton's intentions:
Further on in the video, Feingold says: “But what I do is I go with the majority view of the people of the state, which is very common sense. They believe there should be background checks. Overwhelmingly, they believe there should be background checks for the internet and for gun shows.”
You've only got two choices: Feingold has no damned idea what he's talking about, or he's lying. I'm going with lying, because at this point ANYBODY who's actually read ANYTHING on this knows that there is no gun show or internet loophole. If he's not lying, it means he's so pig-ignorant that he should not be allowed any influence on legislation. Considering the Evil Party anymore I'm strongly tempted to go with "Why not both?", but on this particular point, I think he's a damned liar.
Which brings up an interesting point: are they talking about an executive order to close a non-existent 'loophole'? Which would mean they're talking about "I Will Pass This Order!" that they know won't do anything, so they can simultaneously tell their supporters "See? We passed that order against the evil Gun Lobby!", will quietly pointing out to us "See? This doesn't actually hurt you!" Which, considering Clinton and the Evil Party and the example set by Obama, wouldn't surprise me at all. Which would mean that her supporters would be mad as hell when they realize what she's done to them.