EPTUS Politics Mega-thread - Page 203
| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
| ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On April 18 2013 21:38 ahswtini wrote: I'm trying to point out how universal background checks will have no effect on criminals getting their hands on guns. Background checks are already in place at gun shows or online. Most people don't realise this. They think you can literally order a gun off the internet and have it sent to your home. The amendment today was for background checks for private sales at gun shows or the internet. In essence, if you want to swap a gun with someone, you need to go through a FFL. How this will have an effect on criminals I don't know. For god's sake get your facts right. Republican Sen. Susan Collins of Maine issued a statement Sunday saying that she would vote for the compromise crafted by Sens. Patrick Toomey, R-Pa., and Joe Manchin, D-W.Va. The proposal requires background checks for people buying guns at gun shows and online, but exempts private gun sales. Source: http://news.yahoo.com/background-checks-gun-buyers-win-more-backing-081148614--politics.html I guess you're no longer talking about whether a question asking people whether they support background checks is a loaded question. After all, how else can you ask someone whether they support background checks? | ||
|
ahswtini
Northern Ireland22213 Posts
but exempts private gun sales I think you should check your facts and read what they've written. They've defined private gun sales as being between family members. What about if I want to sell or swap my gun with someone? That's a private sale. But that would require a background check under the Toomey-Manchin amendment. | ||
|
paralleluniverse
4065 Posts
On April 18 2013 21:48 ahswtini wrote: You ask them if they support extending background checks to all gun sales or exchanges. Ask background checks for all gun sales? Hmm... that's EXACTLY what the first poll asked. And exchanges? Except the amendment is to require background checks for online sales and sales at gun shows, and that's exactly what was asked in the second poll question. First you claim that the question was loaded, and then you say that the right way to ask the question is exactly how it was asked. Then you say that background checks are already required for gun shows and online, which was completely false. You've been wrong about everything. I think you should just stop. I think you should check your facts and read what they've written. They've defined private gun sales as being between family members. What about if I want to sell or swap my gun with someone? That's a private sale. But that would require a background check under the Toomey-Manchin amendment. Where's the line in the law that would require background checks for gun swaps? Citation needed. | ||
|
JonnyBNoHo
United States6277 Posts
On April 18 2013 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote: More on the RR: http://news.yahoo.com/student-took-eminent-economists-debt-issue-won-095347790--business.html Thomas Herndon is actually a student. That's interesting. Yeah, student in Massachusetts though, so he had an unfair advantage :p | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
Whats going to be the big in the us politics next though? Obamas been tumbling though his early term and now he has a whole host of security issues that keep poping up. I guess immigration is going to be a good one thats coming out soon. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
| ||
|
NovaTheFeared
United States7232 Posts
Seems straightforward enough to me. This isn't a vague question like "do you think we should strengthen background checks?" which could simply highlight ignorance that we already do background checks on most gun sales. The question is should we do a background check on ALL GUN BUYERS. And the answer is overwhelmingly yes. Special interests won the day over 90% of the country on this one. All the more reason to support campaign finance reform. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
On April 19 2013 03:08 farvacola wrote: That you can posit "NRA won and Obama lost" as a reason to move on from gun control seems like a perfect reason for us to dwell on the topic. Why? There won't be any more gun control in the US for another decade probably, the NRA is stronger then ever before, and Obama has nothing to show for months and months of the start of his second term in office. The story's really over at this point about gun control in the US there really isn't a reason to talk about it more. Do you have anything new to talk about? On April 19 2013 03:19 NovaTheFeared wrote: "Do you support or oppose - requiring background checks for all gun buyers?" Seems straightforward enough to me. This isn't a vague question like "do you think we should strengthen background checks?" which could simply highlight ignorance that we already do background checks on most gun sales. The question is should we do a background check on ALL GUN BUYERS. And the answer is overwhelmingly yes. Special interests won the day over 90% of the country on this one. All the more reason to support campaign finance reform. Asking someone if they're for background checks for all gun buyers is the same as saying "do you want the deficit to be closed?" or "do you want america to prosper in the next 100 years?" The only way that a universal background check would work is if it was a national program. The only way it would stop any crime is if it was a national gun registry. There was never presented what in any capacity the person questioned what the background check would be and how it would be enforced. Thats why the poll is complete bullshit. On April 19 2013 03:23 Rassy wrote: There are no background checks effectivly in place at all in the usa. There are checks done in gunshops and on some gunshows but when someone buys a gun he is free to sell it to a friend without anny background checks (i saw on tv the other night so might be wrong lol) Background checks are kinda useless if someone can just get a friend to legally buy the gun and then sell it legally to him. And this. Obama spent most of his time trying to get forward an "assault weapons" ban that never had a chance a day after newtown let alone 3 months after newtown when he put any of the legislation forward. It shouldn't be surprising to people that he wasn't able to get anything down when he didn't even try to get anything done when he could have. Gun control isn't a thing to do with us politics anymore for a long time now and there isn't a reason to discuss it like it is. | ||
|
Rassy
Netherlands2308 Posts
There are checks done in gunshops and on some gunshows but when someone buys a gun he is free to sell it to a friend without anny background checks (i saw on tv the other night so might be wrong lol) Background checks are kinda useless if someone can just get a friend to legally buy the gun and then sell it legally to him. | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On April 19 2013 03:22 Sermokala wrote: Why? There won't be any more gun control in the US for another decade probably, the NRA is stronger then ever before, and Obama has nothing to show for months and months of the start of his second term in office. The story's really over at this point about gun control in the US there really isn't a reason to talk about it more. Do you have anything new to talk about? Asking someone if they're for background checks for all gun buyers is the same as saying "do you want the deficit to be closed?" or "do you want america to prosper in the next 100 years?" The only way that a universal background check would work is if it was a national program. The only way it would stop any crime is if it was a national gun registry. There was never presented what in any capacity the person questioned what the background check would be and how it would be enforced. Thats why the poll is complete bullshit. I think it is rather disturbing that in a country where we vote in our representatives 90% of people wanting something still cant create any action on the issue. I don't care about who "won" or "lost" because those are dumb terms that actually dilute the issue in and of itself and that's should we be cutting off the ways that criminals are getting guns by extending background checks and increasing penalty for straw purchases? | ||
|
Adreme
United States5574 Posts
On April 19 2013 03:23 Rassy wrote: There are no background checks effectivly in place at all in the usa. There are checks done in gunshops and on some gunshows but when someone buys a gun he is free to sell it to a friend without anny background checks (i saw on tv the other night so might be wrong lol) Background checks are kinda useless if someone can just get a friend to legally buy the gun and then sell it legally to him. That is called a straw purchase and it is illegal if the person you sell to can not legally own the device in question. However the penalty for it is so light that most criminals don't really care if they get arrested for it and its usually one of those throwaway charges that cops mix in with the real charges. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
On April 19 2013 03:27 Adreme wrote: I think it is rather disturbing that in a country where we vote in our representatives 90% of people wanting something still cant create any action on the issue. I don't care about who "won" or "lost" because those are dumb terms that actually dilute the issue in and of itself and that's should we be cutting off the ways that criminals are getting guns by extending background checks and increasing penalty for straw purchases? And again 90% of Americans wanting congress to work together on anything won't change them from working on nothing. 90% of Americans wanting the debt removed won't make it happen and 90% of Americans wanting no taxes to be paid won't make it happen either. This blind idealism that the gun control lobby spread is a cancer to getting anything done on the issue and its exactly why the NRA barely had to fight at all to win so hard. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18869 Posts
On April 19 2013 03:30 Sermokala wrote: And again 90% of Americans wanting congress to work together on anything won't change them from working on nothing. 90% of Americans wanting the debt removed won't make it happen and 90% of Americans wanting no taxes to be paid won't make it happen either. This blind idealism that the gun control lobby spread is a cancer to getting anything done on the issue and its exactly why the NRA barely had to fight at all to win so hard. You say they didn't have to fight at all, and yet, only a few weeks ago, public opinion was firmly against the NRA. Furthermore, Manchin-Toomey prompted the first split in gun rights organizations since the Brady Bill. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
On April 19 2013 03:33 farvacola wrote: You say they didn't have to fight at all, and yet, only a few weeks ago, public opinion was firmly against the NRA. Furthermore, Manchin-Toomey prompted the first split in gun rights organizations since the Brady Bill. Again useing bullshit polls to backup "public opinion was firmy against the NRA and for more gun control" when in reality as we see now this was never true and is the reason why democrats are now full scrapping any plans for new gun control. Manchin-Toomey was a sham and did nothing but kill gun control in the US for another 10 years. There really isn't another gun control organization that needs be spoken on the same level as the NRA, NRA is Anti gun control and everyone else is just jockeying for position behind them. There has been splits as they're will be splits between them and the other anti gun control organizations because of just how weak those other organizations are in reality. Minnesota has passed gun control quite recently that the NRA supported and other organizations didn't, but no one really gave a fuck beacuse it didn't really matter. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
On April 19 2013 03:27 Adreme wrote: I think it is rather disturbing that in a country where we vote in our representatives 90% of people wanting something still cant create any action on the issue. I don't care about who "won" or "lost" because those are dumb terms that actually dilute the issue in and of itself and that's should we be cutting off the ways that criminals are getting guns by extending background checks and increasing penalty for straw purchases? Extending background checks in what way, compared to how they are already being enforced? Statistically equal parts of gun crime are using firearms obtained illegally and from straw purchases. Bureau of Justice Statistics say that it is a whopping 11+ years between a straw purchase of a gun and its use in a crime. So it is even plausible to say that stiffer penalties on straw purchases would have any noticeable effect when these criminals wait 11 years after purchase before using their gun in a crime? (bjs.gov facts here and before). The NRA is a collection of citizens putting their combined might of opinion and money into a single entity, challenging a president and Congress sympathetic towards increased gun control. A win here is nothing more than a triumph of those in favor of gun rights in a political debate. It's not something to sob about, or hand-wring about the decline in debate on an issue. | ||
|
Sermokala
United States14211 Posts
On April 19 2013 03:42 Danglars wrote: Extending background checks in what way, compared to how they are already being enforced? Statistically equal parts of gun crime are using firearms obtained illegally and from straw purchases. Bureau of Justice Statistics say that it is a whopping 11+ years between a straw purchase of a gun and its use in a crime. So it is even plausible to say that stiffer penalties on straw purchases would have any noticeable effect when these criminals wait 11 years after purchase before using their gun in a crime? (bjs.gov facts here and before). The NRA is a collection of citizens putting their combined might of opinion and money into a single entity, challenging a president and Congress sympathetic towards increased gun control. A win here is nothing more than a triumph of those in favor of gun rights in a political debate. It's not something to sob about, or hand-wring about the decline in debate on an issue. To be fair gun companies play into a lot of the strength on an national stage. The people in the NRA and those that support the NRA use their influence on all kinds of gun companies to force them to support the NRA and give them the financial and political power that you see able to fight down any opposition to them and come out stronger for it. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
You're wrong on the facts, so now you're accusing people of changing the subject. The 40% statistic is entirely inaccurate. Get over it. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On April 19 2013 04:30 DeepElemBlues wrote: You're wrong on the facts, so now you're accusing people of changing the subject. The 40% statistic is entirely inaccurate. Get over it. How is he wrong on the facts exactly? The other poster was changing the subject instead of answering him, so he rightly pointed that out. | ||
|
DeepElemBlues
United States5080 Posts
On April 19 2013 05:48 kwizach wrote: How is he wrong on the facts exactly? The other poster was changing the subject instead of answering him, so he rightly pointed that out. 40% of gun sales are NOT done without a background check. | ||
| ||
