Ted Cruz Requires Background Check Before Letting Supporters Shoot With Him
Source: Crooks & Liars
After the Sandy Hook massacre in 2012, a bill expanding background checks nationwide which was championed by President Obama, was defeated. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) helped to lead the effort to defeat the bill in 2013.
Gun lobbyists loved Ted Cruz, but now in 2015, he just accidentally on purpose threw his support behind background checks.
Cruz, in a quest for donations, launched a "shooting excursion" for his presidential campaign.
Talking Points Memo reports: But there's a catch: the winner may have to endure a background check first.
Read more: http://crooksandliars.com/2015/06/ted-cruz-requires-background-check-letting
= new reply since forum marked as read
Teddie would not want to shoot with them b/c he's 
"Help me, big gubmint! I'm skeered!"
[img]
[/img]
I mean, where would we be if a Declared Presidential Candidate got killed by a pissed-off supporter on a fundraising hunting trip? (And stop saying, "since it's Ted Cruz, we'd be better off."
a human being.
Any potential assailant would be struck down.
Always good to hedge your bets. 
Our very own Senator Larry Craig (R-ID) was an innocent bystander, only stretching his feet in that men's restroom stall. Wide stance? So what!
How was he supposed to know that tapping feet was code-word for "let's have sex?" He was just reciprocating the friendly gesture from the undercover cop in the neighboring stall. It was entrapment, I tell you!
Poor man's career got ruined, his crusade against "the gay" left in tatters... couldn't have happened to a finer fellow.
1) Title says "requires", small print says "may require".
2) Sourced from another blog (Crooks and Liars), which used yet another blog (Freakout Nation) which used yet another blog (Talking Points Memo). Is that really any better than Breitbart linking RedState linking Free Republic linking Fox and then calling it "news"? All we need is someone at TPM to link onehandle's story to make the circle complete.
3) Cruz spoke out against the background check law, he did not lead the effort to defeat it. Onehandle is never shy to speak up on the issue, but a quick check of DU archives during the background check debate finds zero mention of him describing Cruz as "leading the effort". Actually, a quick check of the archives for 2013 finds no one at DU saying Cruz was leading the effort (at least not for a search of (Cruz, lead, "background check" . Am I really supposed to believe that Cruz was clever enough to lead the effort and no one noticed for two years? If he is that good, I'll have to reassess my opinion of his incompetence.
4) The contest language is boilerplate. Disagree? Do a search for the phrase (in quotes) "Sponsor may, at its option, conduct a background check on each potential winner" and you'll get them for "Mark Warner for Virginia", "Hilary for America", "Emily's List", the "Ultimate Pistons Experience Sweepstakes" and others, contests which have nothing to do with firearm background checks. A point which the original TPM blogger (or anyone at Freakout Nation or Crooks and Liars or for that matter, onehandle or any of the 37 previous DU commenters) could have figured out with a single Google query.
Onehandle, Ted Cruz is the dipstick under the hood of the Republican clown car. Isn't he enough of a douche that you can simply report honestly and accurately on him and still show him for what he is? Or would that require more work than reposting a third-hand web link with a misleading title and flawed premise?
He's a useless POS either way. I do like your "dipstick under the hood of the Republican clown car" statement, although not sure what you mean. He tests the oil to ensure the clown car will keep running? huh? 
Maybe you have your metaphors mixed up
