Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > What will the GOP do if Trump gets nominated?

What will the GOP do if Trump gets nominated? (Page 4)
Thread Tools
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 03:24 PM
 
Freudian?
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 06:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
You get an "F" for reading comprehension. I am NOT a Republican. I am a constitutional conservative.
I am more disappointed at the lack of clear thought from those on the left. The assumptions, pop science BS and lies repeated over and over makes me sick. Gun control is a prime example of the left not understanding the issues and having NOTHING to offer. They can't seem to get their little baseball sized heads around the problem of how to MAKE CRIMINALS OBEY THEY LAWS. The Law abiding citizens do follow the laws, but how do you keep guns out of the hands of criminals, wack jobs, and terrorists?? UNTIL you have a real solution STFU. More words typed on a piece of paper is nothing but a feel good gesture from the hand wringers on the left. Pathetic.
You have to cut off the supply.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 07:02 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Barry-****ing-Sanders
That's the past 6 months. You said its been happening for >10 years.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 07:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Freudian?
Probably, though I have no idea what they'd have in common.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 4, 2016, 11:24 PM
 
The RNC decided not air the "3am phone call redux"


In two weeks Michael Bay's "13 Hours, The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi" will hit theaters. I'm surprised the Clinton campaign has not tried to get the movie shelved.

     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 01:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
You have to cut off the supply.
That IS NOT A SOLUTION.......Unless you are talking about the supply of criminals, wack jobs and terrorists.

You ignore the problem of PERSONAL responsibility. Do the crime, Do the time. Blaming everything else is BS. GUNS are NOT the issue except to those who want to take all guns so as to not have to fear being killed for being a traitor.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 02:47 PM
 
This issue is most tiresome.

Gun control has been tried in several areas of the world, and it has been part of a positive solution. It hasn't been tried in the US really, and Chicago doesn't count because it is right by Indiana - I'm talking about at the national level.

Many opponents would prefer more work in mental health, but what is it about America that makes it special when it comes to shootings? There are mentally unstable people all over the world (I even live right by a mental hospital in Toronto), so this idea of a mental health epidemic is not a satisfying answer to me.

I think there are many contributors to the problem: untreated racial tensions, drug laws, and many other factors, but we have to try something. What does the right really have to offer here?

Obama tried to pass legislation to address the gun show loophole and (if I recall) similar legislation that in no way infringed upon the ability to obtain firearms legally. A representative of the NRA referred to the actions in today's actions to be pretty weak, and it is, because we are stuck in this stupid gridlock where any sort of discussion, even for (I think) pretty benign talks about expanding background checks gets met with this rhetoric about Obama coming to take guns away.

The situation, therefore, is completely intractable, frustrating, and sad. At what point do we try something - anything? The situation is definitely complexity incomprehensible to people looking at this from outside the country, which I know doesn't matter to fervent pro-gun Americans, but I bring this up sometimes to perhaps shame people into stepping back and looking at this without all of the emotional baggage (beyond the shock of these mass killings). We really have to do away with this highly emotional and reactionary stuff that hinders actual discussion on possible experiments in solutions.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 03:38 PM
 
What happens when after all civilian guns have been confiscated, another mass shooting occurs? What gets blamed then? The measures Dear Leader announced today would not have prevented Sandy Hook, VA Tech, etc.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 06:21 PM
 
This sort of reactionary response is exactly what I was referring to. Let's look at the facts...

Obama tried to gain bipartisan support in basically expanded versions of what he has acted on now: pretty benign stuff such as expanded background checks. At worst these plans would have no measurable impact, and cost some money (although if the experiment was sabotaged it would at least provide some possibly useful info). At best it might have some impact, and either way it does not infringe upon the rights of legal gun owners.

To me, when you react the way you did without offering any useful alternatives you just come across as a petulant child. We've tried things your way, they haven't worked, and the same is true of health care. So, the obvious answer is to try something else, right? It's a no-brainier to me.

If you really must resort to these sort of tired (yet still effective) tropes, at least provide a satisfying solution for those of us that aren't satisfied with the status quo, which I would hope would be all of us.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 06:47 PM
 
Facts? What do "facts" have to do with anything? Gun crime has been dropping, it continues to drop, despite the drastic climb in gun ownership:



With the Left this has always been about feelings and control.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 07:26 PM
 
Again. As I've stated many times before I'm pretty ambivalent towards gun control for various reasons which I won't rehash here since it's OT. That being said, the issue at hand is really straightforward. One either believes that firearm purchasers should have to go through a background check or you don't. And FTR, anyone who is inclined to use the phrase "law-abiding citizen" in the context of this debate would have a hard time making a reasoned argument that the government would be able to make this determination without a background check. So assuming one isn't taking the very radical position that there should be no restrictions on gun sales whatsoever (and if you are just say that directly) then the million dollar question is as follows ....

If you believe that any adult should be able to purchase a firearm provided that an official background check has determined that they are a law-abiding and mentally competent person ... then what on earth is your objection to closing the the loopholes that allow gun show, internet, and individual firearms sales to skirt background checks that brick & mortar firearms sales must abide by?

It really is as simple as that.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 07:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
Facts? What do "facts" have to do with anything? Gun crime has been dropping, it continues to drop, despite the drastic climb in gun ownership:



With the Left this has always been about feelings and control.
::::: sigh :::::::

Repeat after me. "Gun Crime < > Homicide Rate".

1. Not all homicides are committed with firearms.
2. Not all criminal shootings ... let alone "gun crime" (e.g. armed robbery) ... result in a homicide.

OAW
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 07:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
That IS NOT A SOLUTION.......Unless you are talking about the supply of criminals, wack jobs and terrorists.
It is a solution. Just not one that you like. And no, I'm talking about the supply of criminals and back jobs. That would apparently involve culling at least half your population.
Of course you assume that by cutting off the supply I mean taking away everyone's guns.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
You ignore the problem of PERSONAL responsibility. Do the crime, Do the time. Blaming everything else is BS.
I suppose I am ignoring it because its not relevant to what I said. I'm also ignoring flavoured liquorice for the same reasons.

Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
GUNS are NOT the issue except to those who want to take all guns so as to not have to fear being killed for being a traitor.
They are the issue. There are too many illegal guns in the hands of irresponsible people. So the supply of illegal guns needs to be looked at and dealt with.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 5, 2016, 11:55 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
::::: sigh :::::::

Repeat after me. "Gun Crime < > Homicide Rate".

1. Not all homicides are committed with firearms.
2. Not all criminal shootings ... let alone "gun crime" (e.g. armed robbery) ... result in a homicide.

OAW
*sigh*

Put up or shut up.

Post the charts (i.e. facts) that show the big increase in in gun crime and gun homicides.

-t
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 01:05 AM
 
I'm pretty sure he has, but wouldn't the nearly constant mass shootings be sufficient?
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 03:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
::::: sigh :::::::

Repeat after me. "Gun Crime < > Homicide Rate".

1. Not all homicides are committed with firearms.
2. Not all criminal shootings ... let alone "gun crime" (e.g. armed robbery) ... result in a homicide.
We don't track "gun crime" as an official stat, but fine.

"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 03:15 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I'm pretty sure he has, but wouldn't the nearly constant mass shootings be sufficient?
No, he hasn't, because they don't exist, and there is no increase in mass shootings, it's actually decreased (despite the media panic and an overall loosening of gun restrictions nationwide). "Nearly constant."
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 08:04 AM
 
One a day last year isn't 'nearly constant'?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 02:32 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
*sigh*

Put up or shut up.

Post the charts (i.e. facts) that show the big increase in in gun crime and gun homicides.

-t
What? I don't have to "put up or shut up" about anything. Because I'm not the one who made a post claiming a decrease in the "homicide rate" (which I don't disagree with FTR) and then asserted that was evidence of a decrease in "gun crime". I already explained the difference between the two. If you don't understand then I can't help you with that one. I can't make it any more straightforward than I already did.

OAW
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
We don't track "gun crime" as an official stat, but fine.
Precisely. So how about you simply not misrepresent what the chart you posted actually says then? Hmmmkay?

OAW
     
turtle777
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: planning a comeback !
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 02:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
What? I don't have to "put up or shut up" about anything. Because I'm not the one who made a post claiming a decrease in the "homicide rate" (which I don't disagree with FTR) and then asserted that was evidence of a decrease in "gun crime". I already explained the difference between the two. If you don't understand then I can't help you with that one. I can't make it any more straightforward than I already did.

OAW
I take that as you choosing to shut up. Very well

-t
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 03:17 PM
 
Originally Posted by turtle777 View Post
I take that as you choosing to shut up. Very well

-t
And I'll take that as you hearing what you want to hear.

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 04:41 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
One a day last year isn't 'nearly constant'?
I love how the Left doesn't address black on black gang murders (which are the vast majority of those instances) until it becomes expedient to influence something you want.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 04:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Precisely. So how about you simply not misrepresent what the chart you posted actually says then? Hmmmkay?
It doesn't say what you want? Simple truth: violent crime and murder rates have been going down while the number of guns in the USA quickly climb. There's nothing else to say.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 09:49 PM
 
Cap'n Tightpants: the number of uninsured for health insurance and the deficit is dropping too, yet I'm sure you would agree that these issues are still problems, right? So, even if we did agree upon the trajectory, why clap our hands and be satisfied with where we are at? The number of gun murders in this country, particularly those from mass shootings, is a very significant problem, period.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 10:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
I love how the Left doesn't address black on black gang murders (which are the vast majority of those instances) until it becomes expedient to influence something you want.
I'm not addressing them but you're the one implying they shouldn't count?

Unless you think it should be more than one mass shooting a day? Either way that point doesn't help your position at all. Quite the contrary.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 11:47 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
The number of gun murders in this country, particularly those from mass shootings, is a very significant problem, period.
No, I don't believe they are a "very significant" problem. Definitely not enough to infringe upon 2A rights.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 11:53 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
No, I don't believe they are a "very significant" problem. Definitely not enough to infringe upon 2A rights.

So, the stats quoted here don't bother you?

Oregon shooting: Statistics behind 'routine' US gun violence - BBC News
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 11:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
I'm not addressing them but you're the one implying they shouldn't count?

Unless you think it should be more than one mass shooting a day? Either way that point doesn't help your position at all. Quite the contrary.
My position is fine, because those people (gang members and felons) aren't legally allowed to own guns anyway. IOW, law-abiding gun owners aren't the problem. Does ol' crybaby Obama have the stones to dedicate federal resources to confiscation of those guns, the ones that are the real problem? Or just the ones that he can lift without effort?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 6, 2016, 11:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
My position is fine, because those people (gang members and felons) aren't legally allowed to own guns anyway. IOW, law-abiding gun owners aren't the problem. Does ol' crybaby Obama have the stones to dedicate federal resources to confiscation of those guns, the ones that are the real problem? Or just the ones that he can lift without effort?

That's exactly what he is trying to do by expanding background checks, to address the illegal circulation of guns, and for the life of me I can't figure out why many on the right are so fervently against this.

At worst it will accomplish nothing, but even in this scenario it would still create some good political theatre of appearing to be open to doing something rather than doing nothing and reinforcing negative political stereotypes.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 12:31 AM
 
There was no loophole for background checks in the first place, the "gun show loophole" doesn't exist. It's hilarious that people think dealers are selling firearms without background checks. They all run them because none of them want to lose their FFL and got to prison, and private straw purchases were already illegal. At best this simply creates another useless layer of bureaucracy and gov't expense. Yet another case of Progressives and their willingness to do the wrong thing, rather than doing nothing. At least the courts will likely throw this out as soon as they get it.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
There was no loophole for background checks in the first place, the "gun show loophole" doesn't exist. It's hilarious that people think dealers are selling firearms without background checks. They all run them because none of them want to lose their FFL and got to prison, and private straw purchases were already illegal. At best this simply creates another useless layer of bureaucracy and gov't expense. Yet another case of Progressives and their willingness to do the wrong thing, rather than doing nothing. At least the courts will likely throw this out as soon as they get it.

Why don't you update the Wikipedia page on this then, which seems to dispute what you've said here?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole

If the Wikipedia won't accept your entry you can try the Conservapedia
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 12:44 AM
 
Why don't you do your own research? If a private citizen illegally buys a gun (the buyer isn't allowed, for whatever legal reason) both them and the seller are already breaking the law. A law that was almost never enforced to begin with. What does this change?

Straw Purchasing Guns: US Needs to Take It Seriously | National Review Online
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 12:47 AM
 
How am I misinterpreting this? From the Wikipedia:

Under federal law, private-party sellers are not required to perform background checks on buyers, record the sale, or ask for identification. Federal law prohibits private individuals from selling a firearm to a resident of another state, or anyone they have reason to believe is prohibited from owning a firearm.[4]
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 12:53 AM
 
It was already illegal to buy or sell a gun if the purchaser can't legally own it, with a penalty of up to 10 years and $250k. Again, what does this change?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 02:06 AM
 
The gun show loophole most definitely exists. All you have to do is claim you are a "hobbyist" and you don't have to be federally licensed. Therefore no background check required. So this isn't about what dealers with a FFL are doing. It's about individuals who are NOT dealers with an FFL are doing. That's the only thing President Obama's executive order even addresses with respect to gun shows. And as I mentioned above there is also the issue of Internet and individual sales (outside of gun shows).

OAW
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 05:49 AM
 
It was already illegal to buy or sell a gun if the purchaser can't legally own it. Geez, people are obtuse. It was already illegal to sell a gun online, without first shipping to a dealer so they could do the transfer and run a background check. This did nothing.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 09:11 AM
 
I can't believe his has to be spelled out for somebody that claims to have succeeded in business.

It's a matter of liability. At gun shows you will no doubt find many registered, legal tax paying businesses that sell guns. It is very likely that they would not want the liability of selling to somebody illegally if this can impact them through litigation.

What is the harm in closing this loophole?
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 11:16 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It was already illegal to buy or sell a gun if the purchaser can't legally own it. Geez, people are obtuse. It was already illegal to sell a gun online, without first shipping to a dealer so they could do the transfer and run a background check. This did nothing.
No YOU are the one being obtuse. Constantly arguing points that are not in dispute!

The issue is that without a background check there is NO WAY TO KNOW if a potential purchaser can or can not legally own a firearm. And if it is an individual seller ... NOT a dealer with a FFL ... then there is NO REQUIREMENT to perform a background check. The loophole is that there is nothing in place to ENFORCE this legal requirement that you speak about. Jeez ... the current state of affairs now is akin to the "legal requirement" for criminals to report their illegal income on their tax returns.

OAW
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 11:28 AM
 
Face it. President LIAR's EO did nothing. Words on a piece of paper.

Background checks are pretty much useless when you can't have a doctors evaluation as part of it.
That patient-doctor confidentiality thing is pretty cool huh?
Keeps the fact that someone is a wack job away from employers, authorities, schools/colleges and such.

So, how many black-on-black killings happened in Chicago, Detroit, Baltimore, DC, NYC, etc, the day President LIAR was blathering and faking those tears?
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 11:43 AM
 
BO will issue an EO stating anyone on the "No Fly List" can purchase or posses firearms. He will then issue another EO putting everyone on the "No Fly List"
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 12:47 PM
 
How in God name did this topic get detailed into guns?

Sam Wang, the other Nate Silver, says Trump looks like he'll get the nom. Need to read his article thoroughly yet, though.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 03:18 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I can't believe his has to be spelled out for somebody that claims to have succeeded in business.

It's a matter of liability. At gun shows you will no doubt find many registered, legal tax paying businesses that sell guns. It is very likely that they would not want the liability of selling to somebody illegally if this can impact them through litigation.

What is the harm in closing this loophole?
What's the harm in adding more laws, to make it doubly illegal, to reinforce the laws that we weren't enforcing to begin with. We're super-serious this time! If you break this one we'll write more of them! Dammit!
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 03:28 PM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
No YOU are the one being obtuse. Constantly arguing points that are not in dispute!

The issue is that without a background check there is NO WAY TO KNOW if a potential purchaser can or can not legally own a firearm. And if it is an individual seller ... NOT a dealer with a FFL ... then there is NO REQUIREMENT to perform a background check. The loophole is that there is nothing in place to ENFORCE this legal requirement that you speak about. Jeez ... the current state of affairs now is akin to the "legal requirement" for criminals to report their illegal income on their tax returns.
It was already very illegal to buy one if you couldn't own one. This is a law that AGs couldn't be bothered to enforce. It... You know what? **** it, you'll never get it, and I'm sick of wasting my time trying. Fine, there's another law, at least until the courts knock it down, and it won't be enforced either. Who cares?
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
OAW
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 03:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
It was already very illegal to buy one if you couldn't own one. This is a law that AGs couldn't be bothered to enforce. It... You know what? **** it, you'll never get it, and I'm sick of wasting my time trying. Fine, there's another law, at least until the courts knock it down, and it won't be enforced either. Who cares?
Clearly your panties are all in a wad because you continue to dodge the issue. You commentary about it "already being illegal" is a moot point. Because the Executive Order does NOT add, modify, or eliminate any EXISTING LAW ... quite contrary to your "there's another law" claim. Jeez ... do you even know what an Executive Order is?

Here's the really boneheaded thing about your "argument". You complain about the lack of enforcement of EXISTING LAW ... when the entire point of the EO is to address that very thing by increasing enforcement. Which is decidedly not happening WRT to individual gun sales.

OAW
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 7, 2016, 06:40 PM
 
The article I referred to this morning.
The predictive value of GOP Presidential polls

Feel free to ignore it and just turn another thread into a gun rights discussion.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2016, 02:49 AM
 
Originally Posted by OAW View Post
Clearly your panties are all in a wad because you continue to dodge the issue. You commentary about it "already being illegal" is a moot point. Because the Executive Order does NOT add, modify, or eliminate any EXISTING LAW ... quite contrary to your "there's another law" claim. Jeez ... do you even know what an Executive Order is?

Here's the really boneheaded thing about your "argument". You complain about the lack of enforcement of EXISTING LAW ... when the entire point of the EO is to address that very thing by increasing enforcement. Which is decidedly not happening WRT to individual gun sales.
WTF?! No, it doesn't "increase enforcement", it's just more ink (without any clues as to where he's going to get the funding), and that's the main problem. I never said it eliminates any laws. Geez, your head's like marble. What past events would they have prevented? If anything, this has propelled even more gun sales, they tripled since the announcement. He must own S&W and Ruger stock.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2016, 08:41 AM
 
Sadly the IDIOT PRESIDENT doesn't remember his oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution.. Its NOT the NRA's job to tell President LIAR what his job is!!! President LIAR should be the one upholding and defending it. This cast further doubt on his expertise in KNOWING about the US Constitution in the first place.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2016, 09:05 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Sadly the IDIOT PRESIDENT doesn't remember his oath to protect and uphold the US Constitution.. Its NOT the NRA's job to tell President LIAR what his job is!!! President LIAR should be the one upholding and defending it. This cast further doubt on his expertise in KNOWING about the US Constitution in the first place.
You're the idiot.

Background checks are not only constitutional, but they are what assures that your incredibly sacred amendment is not challenged, as if guns were issued legally to legally, registered owners and were even traceable maybe there would be less of these horrific shooting sprees.

The whole question is idiotic to me really, to not mince words. Are you guys okay with registering vehicles? There seems to be far more sophistication to how vehicles are registered and stored in a database than there is guns, which is beyond crazy to me.

I'm sure you won't like this analogy either, but I'm just seeing which of the many sane, valid vantage points you won't turn your nose up at.

Again, I think the main problem is that you guys get waaaaayyyyyy too emotional about this stuff, and conflate background checks with some sort of infringement upon your right to own a gun. Why is registering your car, your home renovation, your personal info needed for a passport, etc. not an infringement that you complain about but registering your gun is something you go apeshit about?

The constitution? Argue for an amendment for banning background checks then, as these are perfectly legal and within the jurisdiction of what our govnement should be doing.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 8, 2016, 09:11 AM
 
Somebody please enlighten me as to how thorough, enforced, thoughtful background checks with no loopholes around them are a bad thing? Like I said, at worst they might be ineffective in some/many contexts, but what is the harm in at least trying something like this? If they are ineffective you can turn around and tell many of us to STFU and put the issue of gun control to rest for decades to come. Wouldn't you like that? So what's the problem? This is no infringement for you personally, except for perhaps a little more inconvenience in registering your gun. Whoop de doo.

You rarely seem to complain about other kinds of registration processes. I've heard arguments that guns are just tools. Cars are tools which are registered too.

Now according to BadKosh background checks are unconstitutional? WTF?

Stop trying every tactic in the book to be obstinate children, and let's try to be reasonable, sane adults open to ways we can improve a problem.
( Last edited by besson3c; Jan 8, 2016 at 10:12 AM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:14 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,