General Political Thread

[KevinG]

 

No, I presented it as a story of how the government can use those "harmless, common sense" registries that gun control activists advocate, to identify and harass gun owners who haven't broken any laws.

 

You are doing it again.  You are presenting something as a hard fact when only half a story is told.  You, the columnist do not know why this guy was pulled over, no facts are really ever given, only supposition and ginned up outrage.  The police officer may have had a perfectly good reason for pulling him over, or he may not.  But that side is never told.  So I am not going to jump to conclusions on this before the full story is told.  But apparently you are ok with that (I guess as long as it fits your narrative).     

 

The columnist clearly has a political point to make, as do you.  But I just wish you would be honest and acknowledge that the column is flawed.     

[Hixter]

You are presenting something as a hard fact when only half a story is told.  You, the columnist do not know why this guy was pulled over, no facts are really ever given, only supposition and ginned up outrage.  The police officer may have had a perfectly good reason for pulling him over, or he may not.

Had there been a "perfectly good reason for pulling him over" -- speeding, faulty brake light, traffic infraction -- he would have been issued a citation. But the only thing he was issued was an apology by the cop's superior and an internal affairs officer.

[Winston Legthigh]

Had there been a "perfectly good reason for pulling him over" -- speeding, faulty brake light, traffic infraction -- he would have been issued a citation. But the only thing he was issued was an apology by the cop's superior and an internal affairs officer.

and a written warning.

[KevinG]

Had there been a "perfectly good reason for pulling him over" -- speeding, faulty brake light, traffic infraction -- he would have been issued a citation. But the only thing he was issued was an apology by the cop's superior and an internal affairs officer.

 

I have been pulled over several times without being issued as citation.  

 

The reason I have a problem with this story is there have been countless times that the Right has brought a "horrible outrage" against their beliefs.  These stories are generally one sided and later to be be proven wrong or factually incorrect.  This story might be legitimate, but it is a pretty big charge to accuse the government of misusing the lists legal gun owners, with only half the story.  Which is exactly what you did.  

[lost highway]

I have been pulled over several times without being issued as citation.  

 

The reason I have a problem with this story is there have been countless times that the Right has brought a "horrible outrage" against their beliefs.  These stories are generally one sided and later to be be proven wrong or factually incorrect.  This story might be legitimate, but it is a pretty big charge to accuse the government of misusing the lists legal gun owners, with only half the story.  Which is exactly what you did.  

 

And as my sarcastic post failed to carry, they're pretty unique stories that are presented as a new norm.  It's like Fox Fear, here's this one outlandish anecdote and now you know how bad IT'S ALL GETTING!

[Winston Legthigh]

I like how the story points out that there are perfectly legitimate ways of transporting a firearm through hostile states, but apparently this guy usually keeps his pistol in the glovebox or console, and his wife is afraid she's going to get shot in the foot. (and when it's on his person, he keeps it in his front pocket). Yet this idiot is the new American Hero Victim. Someone should write a folksong about him so that his legacy won't be forgotten. 

[Mr. Heartbreak]

We want our country back! In the dystopia of Obama's America, innocent people are...uh, issued written warnings by law enforcement.

[Doug C]

I agree. He certainly doesn't present himself as a model gun owner. I found it hilarious that his wife seems none too pleased with his gun ownership.

 

Tom Jackson is a columnist for the Tampa Tribune, not a reporter. By definition, the article is biased. Clearly words like "hostile" and sentences such as "But let’s hope John Filippidis, American family man, taxpayer and good guy, doesn’t cave, because it would be a sad statement about the brittleness of our guarantees — some would call them sacred — under the Constitution.", are meant to present a specific viewpoint and to provoke outrage. Again, it is an op-ed piece, not a straight news report. How could anyone defend it as unbiased and not inflammatory?

 

Also, I am certain that I either went to high school with Filippidis or knew him via a brother. Small world.

[Winston Legthigh]

New topic. Ever wonder why we don't hear "Drill baby Drill!" anymore?

 

Because US oil production is at its highest point since the late 80s, at 7.8 million barrels a day. 

 

Starting in 2008, the US reversed a 40 year trend in declining domestic production.

[John Smith]

Frack baby Frack

[KevinG]

Frack baby Frack

 

Everytime I hear that I think of Battlestar Galactica.  

 

[ih8music]

So I thought this Christie "bridgegate" thing would have started to blow over by now, but it only seems to be gaining momentum.  Perhaps this will hurt his 2016 aspirations after all.

[Winston Legthigh]

So I thought this Christie "bridgegate" thing would have started to blow over by now, but it only seems to be gaining momentum.  Perhaps this will hurt his 2016 aspirations after all.

It definitely will. His GOP primary opponents won't let the public forget about it. I can't imagine this kind of hullabaloo will play well in Iowa or New Hampshire. 

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Yeah, I was completely wrong when I said it was a tempest in a teapot or whatever I said. It seems like it was a really crappy thing to do, and he's got a real dilemma: he looks incompetent if he truly did not know what pretty much every one of his closest aides knew, or what they were doing. And if it's demonstrated somehow that he did know, he's toast.

[Hixter]

The reason I have a problem with this story is there have been countless times that the Right has brought a "horrible outrage" against their beliefs.  These stories are generally one sided and later to be be proven wrong or factually incorrect.

There have been countless times that the Left has brought a "horrible outrage" against their beliefs.  These stories are generally one sided and later to be be proven wrong or factually incorrect.

 

And as my sarcastic post failed to carry, they're pretty unique stories that are presented as a new norm.

I merely indicated that it is an example of how government firearm databases can be misused. They are far from harmless.

 

I like how the story points out that there are perfectly legitimate ways of transporting a firearm through hostile states, but apparently this guy usually keeps his pistol in the glovebox or console ... (and when it's on his person, he keeps it in his front pocket). 

Keeping a handgun in your front pocket, glove box or console are perfectly legal ways for permit holders to conceal their handguns. He was traveling in a state which does not recognize permits from other states and rarely issues permits of its own.

 

Rules vary from state to state and there is no "perfectly legitimate" or one-size-fits-all method of transporting firearms between states. My pistol is perfectly legal in Texas and dozens of other states, but if I were to cross into a state like Maryland I would be removed from my vehicle at gunpoint, arrested and taken to jail for possessing an illegal handgun that holds more than 10 rounds.

 

He certainly doesn't present himself as a model gun owner. 

In what way?

 

How could anyone defend it as unbiased and not inflammatory?

Who here has done so?

 

Frack baby Frack

The U.S. is now the leading oil producer in the world. With Russia, England and other nations of the world preparing to start fracking in a big way, the Saudis and their neighbors are getting anxious. Good.

 

This afternoon I'm heading down to my friend's ranch (with several firearms) in the middle of the Eagle Ford shale fracking boom. It's amazing to see how much work is being done, how many businesses are being created and how many trucks are on the road. Billions upon billions of dollars and tens of thousands of jobs. Whoda thunk it?

 

So I thought this Christie "bridgegate" thing would have started to blow over by now, but it only seems to be gaining momentum.  Perhaps this will hurt his 2016 aspirations after all.

He's toast.

[Winston Legthigh]

 

Keeping a handgun in your front pocket, glove box or console are perfectly legal ways for permit holders to conceal their handguns. He was traveling in a state which does not recognize permits from other states and rarely issues permits of its own.

 

How about perfectly legal ways that also don't piss off your wife to the extent that she throws you under the bus?

 

It's all about communication, people. 

[Doug C]

 

In what way?

 

Who here has done so?

 

In the way that his wife seems so anti-gun. In my world, spouses would be in harmony on such a major issue.

 

You but clearly your posts on page 179 were laughably mis-interpreted by yours truly. Please accept my apology.

[Hixter]

How about perfectly legal ways that also don't piss off your wife to the extent that she throws you under the bus?

She didn't throw anybody under the bus. The cop tried to convince her that he knew that her husband had a gun, so she tried to help them find it.

 

In the way that his wife seems so anti-gun. In my world, spouses would be in harmony on such a major issue.

Several of my friends' wives won't go near a gun (even though there are safes full of them in their bedrooms) but that doesn't mean my friends are bad gun owners, it just means that their wives don't want anything to do with guns. It's a personal choice that they are free to make. In every case that I can think of, they allow their preteen sons and daughters to shoot guns with their fathers.

 

You but clearly your posts on page 179 were laughably mis-interpreted by yours truly.

I figured you'd misread it; no big deal. But I most certainly have not defended an opinion piece as being unbiased; I've resisted efforts by a VCer or two to get me to denounce it as biased because of its source. I don't insist that other posters decry articles sourced from NPR and HuffPo as left-biased, so I will ignore efforts to do the same to me.

[Winston Legthigh]

She didn't throw anybody under the bus. The cop tried to convince her that he knew that her husband had a gun, so she tried to help them find it.

She told the cop that she's afraid of getting shot in the foot. That's throwing him under the bus.

[Hixter]

She told the cop that she's afraid of getting shot in the foot. That's throwing him under the bus.

She told the cop that she's afraid of shooting herself in the foot. That's throwing herself under the bus, if anything.

[Doug C]

 

Several of my friends' wives won't go near a gun (even though there are safes full of them in their bedrooms) but that doesn't mean my friends are bad gun owners, it just means that their wives don't want anything to do with guns. It's a personal choice that they are free to make. In every case that I can think of, they allow their preteen sons and daughters to shoot guns with their fathers.

 

I figured you'd misread it; no big deal. But I most certainly have not defended an opinion piece as being unbiased; I've resisted efforts by a VCer or two to get me to denounce it as biased because of its source. I don't insist that other posters decry articles sourced from NPR and HuffPo as left-biased, so I will ignore efforts to do the same to me.

Several of my friends and family members own guns. If they are married, they either both carry and/or shoot or the non-shooting spouse is fine with the spousal gun ownership. My opinion is that owning a gun is a decision that both parties should be cool with. I don't see a situation where one spouse is fearful of a gun in the house/on spouses person, as a model one. I admit that is my opinion.

 

It isn't the source that's the problem. The Tampa Tribune, though I subscribe to the Tampa Bay Times, is a legitimate newspaper. The article you linked is an opinion piece in that newspaper. It would be silly to disregard something as biased simply because the source is NPR. If it is an opinion piece, yes. If it is a news report, no. The type of article is what matters.

[John Smith]

But thus far the question of why he was pulled over has not been answered. What was the warning for? Is Maryland targeting gun owners? Where are all the other incidents being reported? One incident is not a pattern of abuse.

[KevinG]

I don't insist that other posters decry articles sourced from NPR and HuffPo as left-biased, so I will ignore efforts to do the same to me.

 

Why the hell not?  I welcome it.  

 

You presented a bias source as a fact.  That shouldn't be glossed over.  It needs to be challenged.  It should be challenged.  In fact if it is not challenged it does a disservice to your argument and all future arguments.  It is too bad you really can't or won't defend the column you cited.  But of course that would require some contrition on your part.    

 

 

There have been countless times that the Left has brought a "horrible outrage" against their beliefs.  These stories are generally one sided and later to be be proven wrong or factually incorrect.

 

 If so then call them out on it.  If someone presents a story that is biased tell them why.  Just because some provides a link doesn't mean the link is true or correct.  Make posters defend themselves, this is what discourse should be.  

 

 

I merely indicated that it is an example of how government firearm databases can be misused. They are far from harmless.

 

You are a frustrating individual.  Your story is not an example of how government can be misused.  Your story is how one individual (allegedly) misused a database.  It is an important distinction.  

[LouieB]

I should never get in the middle of these arguments because I can't be relied upon to be clear headed about any of this. We see gun violence all around us, both guns that are "legal" and ones that are not and we know there is nothing we can do about it because of the strong pro-gun lobbyists such as the IRA. So I got it thrown back in my face that that IRA is okay with sensible gun restrictions when we know ultimately they are not and never propose any restrictions. All we get is this won't work or that won't work and I totally understand how people feel that laws don't stop bad people from doing bad things. I completely get that. So I have gotten to the point where I do feel like this is an argument that can't be won because the second amendment has become so broadly interpreted by the courts (and the public) as meaning that just about any gun, short of all out military hardware is okay to have. So really I don't care who does what, the body count is what seems important and nothing is going to stop that at the moment.

 

I just love the argument about how the government does this and does that. But the right wing is perfectly happy to have the government do whatever the hell they want when they want it. That includes the libertarians who aren't all that interested in real personal freedom either. I could totally get behind them if they didn't go off the rails just as easily as everyone else, but they do.

 

Shoot um up.

 

LouieB

[lost highway]

1.  If I were a cop I would want to know about someone's concealed carry permit before interacting with them.

 

2.  If I were a cop I would probably have a lot of friends I drank beer with who were on the firearms database.

 

But hey, 'don't tread on me'.