General Political Thread

[calvino]

1.  I have heard of no such legislation and no such attempt to pass it.

 

 

 

2.   Dr. King was killed by a hunting rifle that is legal in every state in the union, so why bring up "assault" rifles? The overwhelming majority of America's gun crimes are committed by handguns in the hands of gang members, drug dealers and street thugs. How many of them do you think are in the NRA or vote Republican?

 

3.    I do not fear that my weapons will be taken away; I worry that our politicians are trying to dismantle our constitutional right to bear arms, piece by piece. I'm disgusted about the lies and half-truths they use in order to advance their cause. I'm angry that screwing a hollow piece of plastic onto grandpa's hunting rifle turns a law-abiding gun owner into a felon.

 

It has nothing at all to do with fear.

 

I don't know how to do that multi-tab stuff, so.

 

1.   I should have wrote blocking legislation - which is fine, that's what many representatives are elected to do --- which is why Clinton is trying to organize people to get  those representatives out, by encouraging people to vote.

 

2.  I see gun violence as gun violence - I don't think skin cares whether it comes from a hunting rifle or an assault weapon.

Politicians are going after assault weapons, mostly because of polling and there use in high profile shootings. I see it as them trying to stop further killings, rather than them taking away someone's rights - but I know views differ. Bringing up guns of any kind in yesterday's setting is conducive and acceptable.

 

Regarding how many gang members and drug dealers are Republican or NRA, I am not sure --- but again Clinton wants the law abiding people who live in those gang members and drug dealers' communities to get out and vote and also want to ensure that that they don't have to go through any further hoops to do so --- of course he tied it in with guns, which is a problem (assault type or not) in their communities. I also realize you don't think restrictions will help those communities, especially here in Chicago, where they are and were already banned. 

 

3. Honestly I haven't been following all the gun legislature that has been introduced or passed --- like any bills and laws, I bet some of them are very silly/wrong and don't help the cause one way or another --- my (and Clinton's) view of the 2nd Amendment is different then yours, which is great, in my eyes - it what make the democracy go around. 

 

 

Also, regarding making political speeches at the 50th anniversary celebration of one of the best political speech in U.S. history; I think it would been shameful not to.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

I hate to flog the dead horse, but since everyone is talking guns and race, might as well go back to the Trayvon Martin case again. I read an interesting comment on huffingtonpost.com.

 

Ya know, it's occurred to me that all the people I know who believe the Zimmerman version of events and support the verdict are the same ones who found the O.J. and Casey Anthony verdicts to be travesties of justice. They can disagree, but I can't.

Why is that?

Interesting question. I don't have an answer, and actually wonder the same thing. Why is it "the jury has spoken" in that case, but "travesty of justice" in the other cases? All were trial by jury.

Thoughts?

[KevinG]

We all know what he was saying.

 

He told an untruth. It's as simple as that. Nothing but fear-mongering and political posturing at a tribute to the late, great MLK. It was a stupid thing to say.

 

In this country is it harder to vote now then it was in 2008?  Are there more voter ID laws and restrictions to early voting?  I don't care what you think  if the laws are just and necessary, but you clearly have to admit it is harder to vote.  

 

Also do you have a problem with the two new gun control measures PBO is suggesting?

 

Curbing the import of military style weapons and requiring members of a Trust or Organization to pass background checks etc to own gun.  

 

Seems sensible to me, but I am sure there is a problem with it.  

[Atticus]

 

 

Seems sensible to me, but I am sure there is a problem with it.  

 

if you'd like better discourse on this board, you might want to stop with this sort of thing.

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Also do you have a problem with the two new gun control measures PBO is suggesting?

 

Curbing the import of military style weapons and requiring members of a Trust or Organization to pass background checks etc to own gun.  

 

Seems sensible to me, but I am sure there is a problem with it.  

 

The NRA response is bizarre:

 

 

"The Obama administration has once again completely missed the mark when it comes to stopping violent crime," said NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam. "This administration should get serious about prosecuting violent criminals who misuse guns and stop focusing its efforts on law-abiding gun owners."

 

Isn't "prosecuting violent criminals" usually a state issue, not a federal one? Who are they talking about, Al Qaeda?

[Atticus]

the states pretty much lost all their exclusive enforcement rights when the Supreme Court decided the interstate commerce clause meant something it does not mean.

[JUDE]

Thank God, this new executive order should keep all of those Mosin Nagants and Mausers out of the hands of violent criminals.

[KevinG]

We all know what he was saying.

 

He told an untruth. It's as simple as that. Nothing but fear-mongering and political posturing at a tribute to the late, great MLK. It was a stupid thing to say.

 

Ran across this today from Salon.com.  Apparently I am not the only one who thinks Clinton was telling the truth.  

 

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/29/clintons_line_was_true_the_sad_facts_about_assault_weapons_and_voting/

 

So if the line is so untrue, can you let me know why it is untrue.  I think the article make a pretty compelling case for the validity of the statement.  

[Hixter]

Huffpo: They can disagree, but I can't.

I can't say that I've heard anyone say that nobody is allowed to disagree with a jury's verdict.

 

Also do you have a problem with the two new gun control measures PBO is suggesting?

The import ban is a waste of time. It will only impact collectors and won't do a thing to lessen gun crime.

 

What we're talking about is WWII-vintage (and older) bolt-action rifles from the former USSR. These things are heavy, their sights leave a lot to be desired and they require hours of work to get them into firing shape since they have been packed in barrels of cosmoline for decades. These are ancient relics akin to grandpa's deer rifle, not modern "assault" rifles. They're plentiful and cheap ($150 or so) and very popular with collectors because of their history. Gangsters do not use bolt-action rifles to do their dirty work.

 

As for the trust/organization thing, I don't have much personal knowledge of how it all works. I do know that my friend established a trust so that he can purchase/possess silencers and full-auto weapons, but mainly he wants to be able to be able to transfer his weapons to his family members after his death. Considering the fact that legal automatic weapons cost about 15-20x as much as an illegal one on the street, I doubt that many criminals are going the trust route.

[KevinG]

 

As for the trust/organization thing, I don't have much personal knowledge of how it all works. I do know that my friend established a trust so that he can purchase/possess silencers and full-auto weapons, but mainly he wants to be able to be able to transfer his weapons to his family members after his death. Considering the fact that legal automatic weapons cost about 15-20x as much as an illegal one on the street, I doubt that many criminals are going the trust route.

 

From what I understand, currently if you are felon you cannot register and purchase a fire arm.  However if that same felon sets up an organization or trust that Entity can get registered to "own" a fire arm.  So if this loophole where closed would that not prevent a felon from purchasing a gun legally.  

 

Yes this is not going to deter crime, but it is something that will keep some people who shouldn't have guns from having guns.  Is it going to infringe on your rights as a gun owner?  Though I don't know why I am even asking.  

[Atticus]

I've never understood why the 2nd amendment is such a popular gun-rights argument. We've changed a lot of things in the constitution.

 

Has anyone seen a gun control proposal that might actually curb criminal gun use?

 

I'd be interested to read it.

[Hixter]

So if the line is so untrue, can you let me know why it is untrue.  I think the article make a pretty compelling case for the validity of the statement.  

I live in Texas. I have voted and purchased firearms many times.

 

To vote, I ticked a box on the form when I applied for my driver license. Then I show my license when I vote.

 

To buy a firearm, I show my license. Then I fill out a multi-page form that asks my name, birth date, Social Security number, address, height, weight, gender, ethnicity, race, birthplace, criminal history, immigration status, drug use history, mental health history, military history, domestic violence history, citizenship status and driver license number. Then I undergo an FBI background check. Finally, I pay a $25-50 fee for the transfer. 

[Atticus]

Yeah, but you had to parallel park to get that driver's license.

 

Powned.

[Hixter]

From what I understand, currently if you are felon you cannot register and purchase a fire arm.  However if that same felon sets up an organization or trust that Entity can get registered to "own" a fire arm.m even asking.  

Most (all?) states explicitly ban convicted felons from owning or possessing firearms. I know that's the way it is in Texas: if you are a convicted felon in possession of a firearm, you're breaking the law.

[KevinG]

I live in Texas. I have voted and purchased firearms many times.

 

To vote, I ticked a box on the form when I applied for my driver license. Then I show my license when I vote.

 

To buy a firearm, I show my license. Then I fill out a multi-page form that asks my name, birth date, Social Security number, address, height, weight, gender, ethnicity, race, birthplace, criminal history, immigration status, drug use history, mental health history, military history, domestic violence history, citizenship status and driver license number. Then I undergo an FBI background check. Finally, I pay a $25-50 fee for the transfer. 

 

I really wonder if actually read the article or are you willfully ignoring the main point?  What the Salon article states, several times, is you can buy a firearm without an ID through a PRIVATE PARTY SALE.  You always need an ID to vote.  Simple as that.  

[Hixter]

What the Salon article states, several times, is you can buy a firearm without an ID through a PRIVATE PARTY SALE.  You always need an ID to vote.  Simple as that.  

If you have a billion dollars in your pocket, you can buy a nuclear weapon without showing ID, but you always need an ID to vote. Now I'm going to stand on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and solemnly state, "A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than it does to buy an atomic weapon." Feel free to nod your head in agreement.

[bjorn_skurj]

Only once in my 27 years of voting has someone even questioned my identity at the poll. Luckily, the woman sitting next to her who's known me since I was 9 vouched for me. Never have I had to pull out an ID.

[KevinG]

If you have a billion dollars in your pocket, you can buy a nuclear weapon without showing ID, but you always need an ID to vote. Now I'm going to stand on the steps of the Lincoln Memorial and solemnly state, "A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than it does to buy an atomic weapon." Feel free to nod your head in agreement.

 

Your ability to leave out key information from your statements is amazing. 

 

Nuclear weapons are illegal to own or sell.  You can buy a firearm without an in A PRIVATE PARTY SALE LEGALLY.  Comparing those two things makes absolutely no sense.   

[Hixter]

Nuclear weapons are illegal to own or sell. 

And when you get arrested and hauled to jail, what's the first thing they're going to ask for? That's right -- an ID.

[KevinG]

And when you get arrested and hauled to jail, what's the first thing they're going to ask for? That's right -- an ID.

 

Why can't you actually admit to yourself and be truthful that these statements are true?

 

1) Through PRIVATE PARTY SALES you can buy a firearm without an ID, LEGALLY

2) In most states you have to show a valid form of ID to vote

 

Why is that hard to admit?  

[Hixter]

Why is that hard to admit?  

To be honest, we should have stopped having this discussion as soon as I reminded everyone that it's almost impossible to buy an actual assault rifle. End of story.

[KevinG]

To be honest, we should have stopped having this discussion as soon as I reminded everyone that it's almost impossible to buy an actual assault rifle. End of story.

 

Just wow.  I am at a complete lost for words.  This is why I find the gun conversation so frustrating.  When there are people that just cannot admit to facts there is no chance of understanding.  You are being willfully obtuse and it is madding.  

 

It really amazes me that you simply refuse to admit that you can buy a firearm through a private sale without an ID legally.  

 

So congratulations, sit in your world with your own facts and go on with your guns.  I am done with you and this gun thing.  But remember you are the one who flat out refuses to admit a simple fact.  Sad really for someone who seemed so knowledgeable.  

[Hixter]

Just wow.  I am at a complete lost for words.  This is why I find the gun conversation so frustrating.  When there are people that just cannot admit to facts there is no chance of understanding.  You are being willfully obtuse and it is madding.  

 

It really amazes me that you simply refuse to admit that you can buy a firearm through a private sale without an ID legally.  

 

So congratulations, sit in your world with your own facts and go on with your guns.  I am done with you and this gun thing.  But remember you are the one who flat out refuses to admit a simple fact.  Sad really for someone who seemed so knowledgeable.  

You insisted on taking Clinton's words literally. He said that it's easier to buy an assault weapon than it is to vote. That's not true, it's almost impossible to buy an assault rifle. Sorry if I don't feel like rolling over or playing dead every time you issue a command. 

 

It's weird to hear you describe this discussion as "maddening" since I think it's been a fairly civil and mellow discussion.

[bjorn_skurj]

To be honest, we should have stopped having this discussion as soon as I reminded everyone that it's almost impossible to buy an actual assault rifle. End of story.

Can you still get fully automatic weapons in Oregon? Need that kind of heat while rolling through the PDX.

[JUDE]

PBO