On Debates - Anyone Notice?

B

Bartholomew Roberts

Moderator
Did anyone notice that Gore practically skipped over his licensing plan until Bush highlighted for him?

If Gore tried to ignore it and Bush brought it up, my guess is that the political research and polling for both parties shows that "Photo IDs" are not very well-received in the swing states that will decide the election.

We need to make a conscious effort to link Gore with the Photo ID idea and follow-up with the potential problems of such an idea - especially emphasis on how you will be standing in line for hours and spending several hundred dollars in licensing fees just for a hunting trip while criminals continue to go their merry way unhindered.
 
I have to show a "photo ID" every time I buy a firearm. It's called a DRIVER'S LICENSE. And, along with the NICS check, does EVERYTHING algore wants to accomplish via his "new common-sense law". (Or have I missed something?)

Oh yeah, I missed the 1968 Haney SC decision that says felons don't have to register or get a license, being under the protection of the 5th Amendment.

Now, what does algore want again?

------------------
"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." - H.L. Mencken
 
I think that Photo ID's is too friendly of a term.

How about Government Identity Cards or Pre-confiscation Identity Cards.
 
I think Lehrer _almost_ got Gore to admit that his phony "licensing" scheme is just a Politically Correct term for gun registration, by asking those follow-up questions. Bush should've been asking those questions.

Gore wants states to issue the "licenses" so he can cover Washington's butt--saying it was the states that did it (after the fact). But the Feds would be _requiring_ states to issue. (If I understand this...who knows if they understand Gore? He changes constantly...)

Any way you look at it, it creates a database of licensed gun owners. Another step toward confiscation.

[This message has been edited by Dave R (edited October 12, 2000).]
 
Bart,

I could have sworn Gore stated he wanted "licencing and registration" of all NEW handgun owners in the debates with Bradley. Bradley was pushing for ALL gun owners not just the new ones.

I wish I had that debate between Bradly and Gore on tape............

Gore did try to cover himself by saying the 'states' would do it.

madison46

ps. My Browning should be done next week.
 
The federal govt will not be able to dictate to the states to license gun owners unless the feds pick up the tab for it. This was heard in the Supreme Court regarding the background check as part of Brady, those who complained did not have to do it. I hope the Texas AG, under direction from Gov Bush should Gore win, would file suit against the feds to prevent this from happening.
 
madison: I see you got your wish though! Gore was forced to talk about his photo ID, licensing plans. I don't think he was real anxious to discuss it either since Bush had to discuss that part of his agenda for him.

Great news on the Browning. Where'd you end up sending it off to?
 
Bart,
I agree with your assesment above. The internal polling is showing the gun control movement is hurting Gore big time. So much so that Gore is 'Running Silent' to use the NY Time's phrase.

Bush brought out the most offensive parts of it and did it well. Gore must not have looked at the Battle ground map before spouting off and pissing off gun owners. I think Gore is seeing that he is slightly behind in Wis., Bush is back up in PA, Bush is ahead in OH, KY, etc.... Gore is also probably thinking like we are,that voter turnout is going to be low and we are motivated.

I want to find Gore saying 'licencing AND registration'. It's out there somewhere...

On my Browning, I am having the sheriff's departments gunsmith do it. My neighbor is a deputy and this guy works on all his firearms, including his Browning.

madison46

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bartholomew Roberts:
madison: I see you got your wish though! Gore was forced to talk about his photo ID, licensing plans. I don't think he was real anxious to discuss it either since Bush had to discuss that part of his agenda for him.

Great news on the Browning. Where'd you end up sending it off to?[/quote]
 
Jeff

There are two ways for the feds to inforce licensing:

1. declare that since firearms are shipped in interstate commerce, that licensing the end-user is a necessary and proper role for the feds under the Commerce Clause;

2. declare that any state which refuses to enact licensing in accordance with the federal model loses any federal law enforcement grants.

Either way will and has worked.
 
from Al Gores' campaign site http://www.algore.com/guns/gun_agenda1.html

"Limit handgun purchases to one-a-month and require a three-day waiting period for handgun purchases."

I don't see how you can do that without registering the purchase of guns... of course he'll probably just invent something to take care of it.

ALSO http://www.algore.com/guns/gun_agenda2.html

"Improve Efforts to Trace Gun Ownership: Al Gore will require gun manufacturers and federally-licensed sellers to report gun sales to a state authority. He will also support the development of "supertracing" technology. These measures would greatly assist law enforcement in tracing ownership of guns if they are used in a crime"

Sounds like registration to me.
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by buzz_knox:
Jeff

There are two ways for the feds to inforce licensing:

1. declare that since firearms are shipped in interstate commerce, that licensing the end-user is a necessary and proper role for the feds under the Commerce Clause;

2. declare that any state which refuses to enact licensing in accordance with the federal model loses any federal law enforcement grants.

Either way will and has worked.[/quote]

According to the decision Jeff was referring to, those would be considered unfunded mandates. It was a recent Supreme Court decision regarding Brady...

Considering the current rulings restricting some of the abuses of the commerce clause, I think Jeff's interpretation is dead on.

The feds might be able to come up with legislation to have the states implement this program; but unless they also fund the program, it will be struck down as unconstiutional (just like certain background check requirements of Brady were).
 
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bartholomew Roberts:
According to the decision Jeff was referring to, those would be considered unfunded mandates. It was a recent Supreme Court decision regarding Brady...

Considering the current rulings restricting some of the abuses of the commerce clause, I think Jeff's interpretation is dead on.

The feds might be able to come up with legislation to have the states implement this program; but unless they also fund the program, it will be struck down as unconstiutional (just like certain background check requirements of Brady were).[/quote]

I was thinking about this, like the .08 BAC threat by the Feds, since most states give more to the Fed than they receive "back" via funding programs, what would stop a state from saying "You know what? You got more to lose than we do, your not getting dime one from us." Would the Feds have to sue the state? That would be fun to watch...
 
madison, I also thought that Gore had talked about registration during the primary debates. But it was Bradley who pushed that issue, not Gore. I did an extensive search of all of the transcripts and couldn't find Gore uttering those words. Of course, that doesn't mean that registration won't be Gore's next step. But he's trying to soft-peddle gun control in the hunting states. And the hunters have to be made aware of what's coming if they vote for Gore. On Oct. 21 our club starts hunter sight-ins. I want to have literature printed up that spells out clearly what a danger Gore would be to _anyone_ who values owning a gun. Any suggestions as to talking points?

Dick
Want to send a message to Bush? Sign the petition at http://www.petitiononline.com/monk/petition.html and forward the link to every gun owner you know.
 
FWIW, two points. First, according to the agreed upon rules of the debate, Bush and Gore were not suppose to directly question each other. Both of them violated the rule, but I think it led to the more illuminating exchanges. That might be why GW did not pull the direct follow up on the licensing issue.

Second, Gore did not say "the states." He said "The State." BIG difference. It might not have been intentional, but it certainly was telling. The man has a program for every problem.

Marty

[This message has been edited by MBG (edited October 12, 2000).]
 
To read the transcript of the debate, go to: http://www.debates.org/transcripts/textfiles/CPD_Debate_3_Final_Transcript_(English).t xt . To get to the section on gun control, after the page loads search on "registration" or "gun".

To see the transcript of any of the debates (except the third party debates, of course) go to http://www.debates.org

Also Gusgus reproduced the section in question at http://www.thefiringline.com:8080/forums/showthread.php?threadid=29520

------------------
Gun Control: The proposition that a woman found dead in an alley, raped and strangled with her own panty hose, is more acceptable than allowing that same woman to defend herself with a firearm.


[This message has been edited by jimpeel (edited October 12, 2000).]
 
Monkeyleg - Some points you might want to make:

Gore favors one gun a month - how are they going to know whether you can buy a gun unless they keep track of what guns you ALREADY bought? You can also point out that the FBI is already keeping records of legitimate purchases from the NICS system for up to six months. The state of PA is supposedly keeping the same info permanently.

Note also that a lot of Gore's proposals like "super-tracing" are really nothing more than codewords for registration.

Of course; both of the points above assume that the hunters you talk to will be against registration and that isn't necessarily so.

Another good tack to take would be to examine the cost increase in licensing fees and time. Not many of us have a lot of free time to spend as we please - the idea that one hour of recreation is going to cost you three hours of bureaucratic crap and line-standing will piss anybody off. Madison46 published an interesting article from Canada along those same lines.

The Canadian government is actually trying to encourage more hunting now because they don't have enough tax income from hunters to continue their conservation efforts.
 
Bart/Monkeyleg:

The site from Canada is http://www.lufa.ca

The gun-control site here is: http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/licreg.htm

Describes the limits of registration and the costs. Relates it to Canada.

VPC maybe trying to weasle out of this with new articles, but read it for yourself.

madison

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Bartholomew Roberts:
Monkeyleg - Some points you might want to make:

Gore favors one gun a month - how are they going to know whether you can buy a gun unless they keep track of what guns you ALREADY bought? You can also point out that the FBI is already keeping records of legitimate purchases from the NICS system for up to six months. The state of PA is supposedly keeping the same info permanently.

Note also that a lot of Gore's proposals like "super-tracing" are really nothing more than codewords for registration.

Of course; both of the points above assume that the hunters you talk to will be against registration and that isn't necessarily so.

Another good tack to take would be to examine the cost increase in licensing fees and time. Not many of us have a lot of free time to spend as we please - the idea that one hour of recreation is going to cost you three hours of bureaucratic crap and line-standing will piss anybody off. Madison46 published an interesting article from Canada along those same lines.

The Canadian government is actually trying to encourage more hunting now because they don't have enough tax income from hunters to continue their conservation efforts.[/quote]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top