General Political Thread

[Hixter]

Can you still get fully automatic weapons in Oregon?

As long as you have the appropriate NFA paperwork. Check out these low, low prices!

[caliber66]

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.

To be fair, you're insisting on taking Clinton's words literally.

[KevinG]

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.

 

It is true.  I have proved it is true.  We will never agree that is why the gun control debate is useless.

[bjorn_skurj]

Ten grand for a Tommy gun is a little steep, but if I had that kinda dough, I just might. 

[Tweedling]

To be fair, we should know by now not to take Clinton's words literally.

[IRememberDBoon]

"He said that it's easier to buy an assault weapon than it is to vote"

Ummm he didn't say anything close to that did he??

 

To be fair, we should know by now not to take Clinton's words literally.

yeah lets follow GW Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Sarah Palins words instead
 

[Guest Don Draper]

It is true.  I have proved it is true.  We will never agree that is why the gun control debate is useless.

 

Are you saying that debating is useless because no one will "win" the debate?

[Tweedling]

yeah lets follow GW Bush and Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld and Sarah Palins words instead

 

I'm sorry but other than you, who in the hell is talking about the people you mentioned?

[KevinG]

Are you saying that debating is useless because no one will "win" the debate?

It is useless because two sides can't agree on the facts around the debate. It is like two players playing a game with two separate rules.

[Guest Don Draper]

It is useless because two sides can't agree on the facts around the debate. It is like two players playing a game with two separate rules.

But as long as each side is sharing information with each other, then there's a discussion.  Discussions are always fruitful, barring ad hominem attacks.  Parsing the details of a soundbite from practically anyone is never really fruitful in a debate.  Take what you can and leave the rest.  

 

If you think someone's facts are wrong, provide them with information that you think makes the information wrong - problems with the sample size (e.g. surveying members of Westboro to say that "residents of Topeka, KS strongly oppose gay marriage).  Then provide them with a counter example (e.g. "I found this survey from Pew that states that residents of Topeka...- Pew not being the right organization, but that's beside the point). 

 

Then, if you disagree about that still, move on.  You've shared information.  Trying to change minds is exactly what the lead a horse to water thing is about.  You've shown them the stream; pulling on the reins will only piss off someone both of you.

[Guest Don Draper]

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?  

 

Through private party sales I can snort blow off of someone's ding dong, though I'm pretty sure that's not legal either.  No one is ever going to be able to regulate private party sales, because they are covert by nature.

 

In most states you have to show valid ID to vote.  In most states, 16 year-olds obtain pretty accurate counterfeits with holograms and everything so that they can buy Natty Light - eschewing private party sales, which takes some moxie no?

 

Anyone who wants anything will eventually get it, unless they're looking for happiness, salvation, or lower taxes.

 

(And not to pick nits but both of your points are points/assertions, not facts - at least not as you've presented them.)

[Mr. Heartbreak]

Through private party sales I can snort blow off of someone's ding dong, though I'm pretty sure that's not legal either.  No one is ever going to be able to regulate private party sales, because they are covert by nature.

 

The thing with guns is that they are (presumably) often sold between two law-abiding citizens with no need for a paper trail, registration, etc. That is the problem, I think, that KevinG is trying to address.

Whereas, if I sell you my car, I have to provide the title, and you have to register it...if we are both law-abiding citizens. A gun and a car can both be lethal weapons if used improperly. So why is a gun no more regulated in private one-to-one sales than, say, a comic book or a piece of Tupperware?

[Hixter]

Ten grand for a Tommy gun is a little steep, but if I had that kinda dough, I just might

Same here, but the $10k item is chambered in .22. Cheaper to shoot, but I'd rather shell out 4x that much for a nice .45 Thompson.

[KevinG]

Through private party sales I can snort blow off of someone's ding dong, though I'm pretty sure that's not legal either.  No one is ever going to be able to regulate private party sales, because they are covert by nature.

 

In most states you have to show valid ID to vote.  In most states, 16 year-olds obtain pretty accurate counterfeits with holograms and everything so that they can buy Natty Light - eschewing private party sales, which takes some moxie no?

 

Anyone who wants anything will eventually get it, unless they're looking for happiness, salvation, or lower taxes.

 

(And not to pick nits but both of your points are points/assertions, not facts - at least not as you've presented them.)

 

That is a bunch of pure gobbly gook right there.  

 

First off you are comparing a legal transaction with illegal ones.  It is illegal to buy cocaine, it is legal to buy an assault rifle. Second possessing a fake ID for the purchase of alcohol or a gun is illegal.  So again you are comparing two completely different transactions.  

 

Yes anyone with enough money can get what they want does make it legal.  

 

And my points while being assertions are fact.

 

Why doesn't any want to answer my questions?

 

1) In many states it is legal to buy a firearm through a private party sale with out an ID

2) You need some sort of ID to vote in all states.  

 

If these are not true please tell me why.  This is all that I want.  

 

 

The thing with guns is that they are (presumably) often sold between two law-abiding citizens with no need for a paper trail, registration, etc. That is the problem, I think, that KevinG is trying to address.

Whereas, if I sell you my car, I have to provide the title, and you have to register it...if we are both law-abiding citizens. A gun and a car can both be lethal weapons if used improperly. So why is a gun no more regulated in private one-to-one sales than, say, a comic book or a piece of Tupperware?

 

While yes that is nature of the problem, but in actuality the nature of transaction is really beyond what I want to discuss.  I just would just like for us to agree on the facts around the debate.  

 

 

Same here, but the $10k item is chambered in .22. Cheaper to shoot, but I'd rather shell out 4x that much for a nice .45 Thompson.

 

And now we are in to gun fetish again.  

[Guest Don Draper]

The thing with guns is that they are (presumably) often sold between two law-abiding citizens with no need for a paper trail, registration, etc. That is the problem, I think, that KevinG is trying to address.

Whereas, if I sell you my car, I have to provide the title, and you have to register it...if we are both law-abiding citizens. A gun and a car can both be lethal weapons if used improperly. So why is a gun no more regulated in private one-to-one sales than, say, a comic book or a piece of Tupperware?

But two law-abiding citizens who want to can do whatever they need to do to stay cool can transfer registration.  My point is that even if that is the law, it will only encourage law-abiding citizens to do what they should be doing anyway.  

 

Folks who cannot get guns legally are already breaking the law by purchasing guns with or without private party regulation, and so if that were another law they were breaking I can't imagine they would care all that much, nor would that be a deterrent.  So sure, that would be a nice law, but it would not keep anyone from engaging in covert, private-party transactions.

[Hixter]

The thing with guns is that they are (presumably) often sold between two law-abiding citizens with no need for a paper trail, registration, etc. That is the problem, I think, that KevinG is trying to address.

Whereas, if I sell you my car, I have to provide the title, and you have to register it...if we are both law-abiding citizens. A gun and a car can both be lethal weapons if used improperly. So why is a gun no more regulated in private one-to-one sales than, say, a comic book or a piece of Tupperware?

Automobile registrations are mainly for the purpose of collecting taxes. They typically cost tens of thousands, while most gun sales are in the sub-thousand range.

[Guest Don Draper]

Discussions are always fruitful, barring ad hominem attacks. 

 

That is a bunch of pure gobbly gook right there.  

 

 

[Hixter]

it is legal to buy an assault rifle.

Oh really?

[Guest Don Draper]

 

First off you are comparing a legal transaction with illegal ones.  It is illegal to buy cocaine, it is legal to buy an assault rifle. Second possessing a fake ID for the purchase of alcohol or a gun is illegal.  So again you are comparing two completely different transactions.  

 

It is legal to buy a gun unless you are not legally allowed to purchase a gun because you are a felon, you have been committed, or you have otherwise gotten yourself into the state system as someone who could be a danger to yourself or others.  Then, it becomes an illegal transaction.

 

My point, as I stated above, is that even if the private-party transaction is regulated (say, you can sort one line of blow off someone's ding dong, but not two lines), there is nothing to keep people from engaging in covert private-party transactions (say, unless a police officer is standing there I can snort two lines off of someone's ding dong).

[Hixter]

Murdering someone is already illegal, so why the effort to criminalize lawful gun ownership?

[Guest Don Draper]

And, you do not need ID to vote in Minnesota.  You need a utility bill with your address on it, or you need someone to vouch for you.  I vouched for my buddy this November.  I said, "Yep, that's him."  He could have been anyone.

Murdering someone is already illegal, so why the effort to criminalize lawful gun ownership?

If you are changing the definition of lawful gun ownership, then you are not criminalizing lawful gun ownership, you're merely shifting the class of legal gun owners.

[Sir Stewart]

Don, what happens in the 70s? Do you and Peggy end up together?

[Hixter]

The president's next step should be to ban the manufacture, sale or possession of $10,000 Italian-made shotguns. That should make politicians and their rich benefactors take notice, since those are what they like to shoot.

[Guest Don Draper]

Don, what happens in the 70s? Do you and Peggy end up together?

I sure hope so.

 

Semi-related to the topic, an acquaintance of mine is restoring a Soviet-era rifle of some kind and it is beautiful.

[Hixter]

an acquaintance of mine is restoring a Soviet-era rifle of some kind and it is beautiful.

Alert the authorities!