Joe: Background Checks Do Not Infringe On Second Amendment Rights | Morning Joe | MSNBC 1

Joe: Background Checks Do Not Infringe On Second Amendment Rights | Morning Joe | MSNBC


The Senate Judiciary Committee held a hearing on gun violence prevention on Tuesday, one that was scheduled before two recent mass shootings in Atlanta and Colorado. The Morning Joe panel discusses if any legislation can pass in the Senate. Aired on 03/24/2021.
» Subscribe to MSNBC:

About Morning Joe with Joe Scarborough: Join Joe Scarborough, Mika Brzezinski, and Willie Geist, for in-depth and informed discussions that help drive the day's political conversation. Top newsmakers, Washington insiders, journalists, and cultural influencers, come together on Morning Joe for unparalleled insight and analysis around the day's biggest stories.

MSNBC delivers breaking news, in-depth analysis of politics headlines, as well as commentary and informed perspectives. Find video clips and segments from The Rachel Maddow Show, Morning Joe, Meet the Press Daily, The Beat with Ari Melber, Deadline: White House with Nicolle Wallace, Hardball, All In, Last Word, 11th Hour, and more.

Connect with MSNBC Online
Subscribe to MSNBC Newsletter:
Find MSNBC on Facebook:
Follow MSNBC on Twitter:
Follow MSNBC on Instagram:

#GunReform #GunViolence #MSNBC

Joe: Background Checks Do Not Infringe On Second Amendment Rights | Morning Joe | MSNBC


  1. “The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.” – Einstein

    1. @WBM well boomer
      Ever hear of the Shay and Whiskey rebellions
      Thanks for being oblivious to reality and history

    2. @WBM for every person killed by a gun, a gun fetishist should be made to pay, out of pocket for support of that family

    3. @WBM sad how little diaper doll, cant actually answer questions, instead strawmen is all the ken doll has,
      Btw Ken dolls are smooth, like all cowardly gun fetishist

  2. Senator Kennedy actually said the things that need to be put in place to keep weapons out of the hands of those that should not be allowed to have them.
    We are required to do more to get an automobile license than to buy an assault rifle. SMDH

    1. how do you: keep weapons out of the hands of those.? Who exactly? EVERYONE can snap at any given day. But if guns are all over, what you think will happen??? You need to ban ALL guns. No “licence” will stop a GOOD GUY WITH A GUN when he catches his neighbour screwing his wife…

    2. There are no assult rifles bought or sold by american citizens. The only and I mean only assult rifles that exist are owned by the military. In actuality a assult rifle is a completely automatic rifle. The confusion is where you call anything you deem to look assulty as a assult rifle which is extremely troubling. A whack job could run through a grocery store lopping off heads with a machete and if he cut off more than 1 head it’s deemed to be a assult machete. America will not become safer by trying to label anything shooting more than 1 round as a assult rifle. Certainly would behoove everyone to educate yourself before jumping on the band wagon not knowing what you are talking about.

    3. @Mr AJ We have a constitutional right to keep and bear arms that prohibits the government from infringing on that right. If you want to live somewhere where no civilians can have guns, there are plenty of other countries in the world you can go to. Here in America, nobody’s taking or banning any of our guns, or we quite literally go to war with the government.

  3. These are our representatives, people voted these guys in to do nothing. I don’t know what purpose they serve quite frankly

    1. see your problem is.. just because the dems rule the house and bully the house..dont mean what scam they the fact.. the fact is.. the dems in the house was going to pin a crime because they found no crimes…the they lost because the house could not bully the senate

  4. If John Kennedy doesn’t know there are restrictions on who can obtain a drivers licence or laws on how you get to keep it then he shouldn’t be privileged enough to own a licence himself because he obviously isn’t knowledgable on any of those laws.

    But Republicans might be a bit torn this time. How do they defend the murderer’s “right” to murder whomever he wants when it turns out that this particular murderers is a Muslim. I doubt whether “ he was having a bad day” would be even considered as a defence.

    I suspect Republicans won’t know whether to defend his right to murder indiscriminately or to label him as a terrorist in their usual “let’s do absolutely nothing” stance. We’ve already had “the Democrats are coming for your guns” trotted out. Apparently they’ve been “coming for your guns” for decades now. Using the Sidney Powell defence argument “which rational person would possibly fall for that.”

    1. @Sheila Hart Hmm. So either YOU don’t know WTF you are talking about or for some inexplicable reason you don’t want to tell us?
      Who died? How did they die? Who killed them?
      Please don’t tell me that I have a big mouth, when it’s you talking bollocks!

    2. @Sheila Hart because you can’t put someone in jail for sending disparaging tweets about someone – otherwise your dear leader would have been wearing an orange jump suit long since.
      The attack on Peter Strzok (you should at least try to spell his name correctly) had nothing to do with his e-mails or texts or what he said about Trump in a private conversation otherwise Lindsey Graham would also be behind bars. It was purely because of how successful he was at busting Russian spy rings. Putin wanted him gone and your dear leader obliged.
      Same with Bruce Ohr – who they couldn’t use any e-mails or texts against. But he was a success at busting Russian crime syndicates. Putin wanted him gone – your dear leader obliged. And which country do you think benefited from not have these 2 do their jobs? It certainly wasn’t America.

      Just a little tip – before you throw things out which you think might be difficult to answer make sure it’s not something Trump has done in spades. Equivalencies are way too easy to find.

    3. @Elaine Brooksbank thats not all he did and if you were genuine u would mention his involvement in the steel report total fraud!! But u,liberals only see and here what u want! And the impeachment twice found him not guilty! U people deserve WHAT is coming! I cant wait!

  5. Lol, “theatre” , like the way he and his other perverted colleagues purposefully set up their shot to be in front of a pair of headless women’s legs?

  6. These politicians makes me sick. Why don’t they openly admit: “hey im getting huge paychecks from the NRA so im ok with dead people” ???

    1. Exactly, and it makes me wonder how nobama got so rich off the senator salary and president salary. He should be exposed for being such a liar not to mention the most race baiting pos president ever in the history of the USA.

    2. @Ray S the people doing the mass shootings generally are not criminals until they commit the mass shootings. So keeping guns out of mentality Ill people’s hands would be a start in the right direction.

    3. I am pretty sure that if there were not people in American who feel like they should be able to own a weapon that the NRA would not have the funds to donate to anyone, but your point does stand true. We are allowed to own weapons and that right should not be arbitrarily taken away (I like guns, they go boom rar) BUT asking to have stricter laws regulating them is not a big ask. No one who owns a gun has not reacted to a mass shooter with disgust. We all know that no one likes to hear about the murders and robberies that take place with guns, but most of those guns have been proven to have been illegally gained. The problem is, for that weapon to be out there to be illegally obtained a legal gun owner had to have either sold it on illegally or lost control of the weapon, which is HUGE red flag. Laws need to be refined so that legal weapon owners are protected against the behavior of their criminal counterparts and not have their weapons at risk to be taken.

    4. It’s time to toss the second amendment, and write a new 28th amendment. Clearly neither side agrees to what the language in the Second Amendment is, or what it means, or what the intent was. Also it’s clear is that times and circumstances are vastly different than what they were 240 years ago. A fresh new amendment With unequivocal language should make both sides happy I would think. Let’s get going on that.

  7. Finally a senator who actually understands and he wants to regulate guns the way we do cars. He said so himself

  8. As John Prine once wrote: “And all the news just repeats itself, like some forgotten dream (nightmare) that we’d both seen.”

    1. @Demo Crusher what does that have to do with the price of tea in China? I’m referring to the endless litany of mass murder in your lovely blood-stained nation. Doesn’t matter who is doing the killing, it’s your totally messed up system that makes it an almost hourly occurrence.

    2. @Mark Stevens The US has no more violence than any other country. Take your blatant lies elsewhere.

    3. @William Springer Oh My God – you are one deluded person! You live in the most violent nation at least in the first world. I know they keep you distracted and misinformed about the world, but you sir just crawled out from under a large rock if that is what you believe. Crazy talk! It’s pretty much the US and Brazil. Great company to keep when it comes to the price of a human life.

  9. When the Oathkeepers were planning their riot, it came up that DC has gun laws, so don’t bring guns. Sounds like gun laws are a deterrent.

  10. Republican’s always throws out the “Thoughts and Prayers” statement as they take more money from the Gun and ammo companies.

    1. @John Yost You can adopt, but you can’t change an amendment. The only time we EVER did that was with the adoption of the 21st amendment, which was used to repeal the 18th.

      Also, I would argue that the 2nd is even more off limits given its status as one of the ten amendments gained from the Bill of Rights. You try altering one of those, and the rest mean nothing.

    2. @SlyFan1993 I appreciate your opinion and support your right to share it even though I disagree with you. When the 2nd Ammendment was adopted to fire 10 bullets in under 5 minutes would take 10 loaded guns at the ready. Now it takes pulling the trigger as fast as you can 10 times, or as fast as the recoil fires for you. Their bullets were inaccurate and either expensive or time consuming to make by hand. It is an entirely different World than it was then. The citizens probably could have overthrown the Government back then as they basically were our Army. Now the armed citizens would have zero chance because we have the standing Army the Constitution didn’t want us to have armed in ways you could never overcome.

    3. Puke! AGAIN! Pro life, they adamantly claim, except when NRA tells them not to! And indiscriminate murder is jolly good time for seditious GOP!

    4. @#j G GOP wants to take YOUR LEGAL RIGHT TO VOTE! Sensible people want you to stay alive TO VOTE! No one is coming for your cursed guns, just keep them out of hands of crazies, abusers , those other deplorables!

    5. @David Flikkema Keep killing babies and see where you all end up….

    1. @WBM – No, they’re not really “fighting” gun control. Everytime there’s a mass shooting in this country, they TALK about what they want to do, but in the end, they don’t DO ANYTHING! They don’t pass any new laws, bills or restrictions.

    2. @Don’t Panic Where is the need for new bills or restrictions? There are plenty of laws and or restrictions on the books already, if these haven’t affected the end desired, then we can safely conclude that gun control is yet another democrat exercise in futility or just one more liberal flight from reality. GUN CONTROL DOES NOT WORK, HAS NEVER WORKED, AND WILL NEVER WORK PERIOD…..FULL STOP!

  11. When we didn’t make changes after the murder of those kindergartners I realized we weren’t going to. We should stop lying to ourselves and just admit that truth.

    1. @WBM The truth isn’t subject to partisan interests. Those kids were MURDERED at school and we did nothing.

    2. @delor b We have to do something” We can’t do nothing” This is the democrat liberal progressive left refrain after each incident. being seen to do something/ anything in response to a tragedy, not the same as making a difference. Feel good/ feel better about yourselves has never yet made two scintilla’s worth of one iota’s bit of difference.

  12. “Thoughts and prayers, posts and shares. I’m bleeding out of open wounds, another day that no one cares.” – Filter

  13. of course Cruz has to turn this into “the democrats want to take away your guns!!” no, Rafael. it would just be nice to make it harder for crazy people to buy an assault rifle.

  14. If anybody thinking Ted said anything worth hearing from him just remember he threw his wife and kids under the !

  15. “What happens after every mass shooting..”
    “Everytime there’s a mass shooting..theres this political theater ”
    I dont think he can defend anything let alone guns after saying that.

    1. @Jerry rios ? Finance 101 tells us either its money to make money or you work to make money and make your money to work for you. Richest Man in Babylon.

  16. “Every time there’s a shooting we play this ridiculous theatre…”
    The irony of the first half of that statement coupled with the depravity of the second half makes Cruz less than human. And I’m being kind.

  17. “I’m not trying to perfectly equate these two.” translation — “I’m not being paid by the alcohol lobby.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.