Ron Paul surges (16%) in Pennsylvania primary!

Status
Not open for further replies.
No he hasn't said he opposes further regulation of private sales. His last comments to the NRA were that he opposed regulation of private transfers within families. He left the field wide open to regulate private transfers between non-family members. His quote: "I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as the transfer between a father and son or husband and wife." I am not sure what part of that you cannot understand.
Click to expand...

I understand it perfectly. Read it again. It says, "I also oppose efforts to require federal regulation of all private sales such as the transfer between a father and son or husband and wife."

"All private sales" means just that, all private sales. The "such as' here is an exemplar and not an all inclusive list. Thus, if we are to take this statement as true (which is a separate issue) this means that McCain opposes federal regulation of ALL private sales.

Why are you willing to cut him so much slack for supporting a law that inconveniences the law-abiding, while doing nothing to reduce crime?
Click to expand...

I'm not cutting him slack. I disagree with him on this. However there is still this pesky thing called perspective and McCain is by far the best candidate on this issue in this race.


It depends on how it is written. In the case of S890, if memory serves, it was written so that the promoter was liable to be punished if anyone at the show made a transaction w/o a background check. That would mean doing a bg check at the door of the show, or only allowing dealers to attend the show, either of which would be bad for business.
Click to expand...

So have folks admitted sign an agreement stating they wont make any transactions.
 
Thus, if we are to take this statement as true (which is a separate issue) this means that McCain opposes federal regulation of ALL private sales.
Click to expand...

But we know he could not have meant it that way, or he would be opposing his own legislation to close the gun show loophole. You are incorrectly interpretting the meaning of "all". He doesn't mean he opposes federal regulation of all private sales. If he did he would not need to show examples such as father son, husband wife. His statement is one of the most wonderful examples of politcal trickery I have seen in a long time.

You can spin it anyway you want, but McCain is not a strong supporter of private sales of firearms. Overall, I agree he is better than Obama by far, but I think you are deliberately trying to misinterpret his statement to his advantage.
 
But we know he could not have meant it that way, or he would be opposing his own legislation to close the gun show loophole.
Click to expand...

Thats why we need to look at the time of these statements. The loophole issue was 7 years ago. These statements are much more recent.

Again, whether you believe him is an entirely separate issue and a legitimate one. However, if we are to take him at his word, he's not going to place further federal restrictions on private gun sales.
 
However, if we are to take him at his word, he's not going to place further federal restrictions on private gun sales.
Click to expand...

You are very confused. In that same speech, he said:

"I have supported efforts to have NICS background checks apply to gun sales at gun shows. I recognize that gun shows are enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans. I do not support efforts by those who seek to regulate them out of existence. But I believe an accurate, fair and instant background check at guns shows is a reasonable requirement."

Adding instant background checks to sales at gun shows that he still thinks is a good idea, and certainly would be a federal restriction on private gun sales.

There is no way to spin that otherwise.

McCain is not terrible on the gun issue. I don't see why you can't admit he is not perfect on it, though.
 
"I have supported efforts to have NICS background checks apply to gun sales at gun shows. I recognize that gun shows are enjoyed by millions of law-abiding Americans. I do not support efforts by those who seek to regulate them out of existence. But I believe an accurate, fair and instant background check at guns shows is a reasonable requirement."

Adding instant background checks to sales at gun shows that he still thinks is a good idea, and certainly would be a federal restriction on private gun sales.
Click to expand...

Ok, but this is not the same as saying that he supports federal regulation of ALL private sales.
 
That is correct. He is not against all private sales, specifically such as those between family members.

We seem to be going in circles.

If he is against any legal private sales, he is on the wrong side of the issue.
 
I do not support efforts by those who seek to regulate them out of existence. But I believe an accurate, fair and instant background check at guns shows is a reasonable requirement."
Click to expand...

You just quoted what McCain said. And, once again, McCain has said that he doesn't want to eliminate gun shows. But ignore that part; the last thing you want to do is to look at what McCain actually says. :D

And here's a part of McCain's interview that was apparently left out previously (for some reason):

I recognize that despite the promise of a “fair and instant” check, the reality is that problems exist with the system that often unfairly burden lawful purchases of firearms. I also understand that background checks at gun shows need to be conducted rapidly so they do not unfairly limit the ability to conduct lawful sales. As president, I will work with the FBI and Congress to make sure that background checks are accurate, fair and instant.
Click to expand...

Requiring a background check will not end all gun shows. There are apparently several states that already require this. It prevents felons and mentally ill people from buying guns at gunshows. Nothing more, nothing less. It doesn't require a background check wne you sell you gun at your house, at your range, in a parking lot, in a dark alley, or any other place.

McCain voted for legislation that ended over 20 lawsuits that had been filed against gun manufacturers, lawsuits that were designed to bankrupt the manufacturers out of business. McCain co-sponsored the Act that ended that foolishness. Senator McCain stepped up, co-sponsored a bill, did something, and voted to protect the firearm industry. Ron Paul did nothing. Actually, Ron Paul did worse than nothing -- he voted against the Act. If it were up to Ron Paul, those 20 some-odd lawsuits would still be on the table and draining the life out of the firearms industry. With new lawsuits coming down the pipe. Ron Paul's choice would have led to an end to gun shows, because there wouldn't be any more guns there to buy. You can't buy guns that aren't being made by companies that were driven into bankruptcy because of stupid lawsuits.
 
Fremmer, the thread has drifted, and no one currently participating cares about Ron Paul. I certainly am no Ron Paul fan. The whole last paragraph of your previous post really doesn't apply to the debate presently going on. Ron Paul isn't getting the nomination, and his views are therefore of no concern.

Also, no one is talking about gun shows being put out of business. It doesn't matter to me one way or the other. McCain not wanting to regulate gunshows out of business is not what we are talking about. The issue is bigger than gun shows.

What I am concerned about is McCain trying to regulate private sales. The impact this may have on gun shows is secondary and unimportant in the big scheme of things. This is an unnecessary intrusion into the private lives of law abiding citizens. There is no way around it: McCain does support federal regulation of at least some private sales.

McCain would be wise to drop this issue, like he did immigration reform, and just concede he was wrong and has heard the will of the people. There is no way to spin closing the gun show loophole, and hope to get enthusiastic support from most gun owners. He is making a major blunder by clinging to the idea, and just making Obama's margin of victory in November that much wider. Gun owners will not turn out in great numbers to support a luke warm candidate like McCain. They won't vote for Obama, many will just stay home.
 
Fremmer,

Two questions remain unanswered:

What is your source for (as far as I can tell falsely) claiming that Ron Paul voted for similar federal legislation to protect doctors from lawsuits?

Who will conduct these background checks at gun shows, if not FFL dealers?
 
Publius,
I'll just borrow Stage 2's spiel up-stream to respond to your query.
What is your source for (as far as I can tell falsely) claiming that Ron Paul voted for similar federal legislation to protect doctors from lawsuits?
Click to expand...
Well ya know, that whole 'commerce in firearms' thing was well over 7 years ago. We should look to Paul's more recent statements.

Double standard, anyone?.. :rolleyes:

Again, whether you believe him is an entirely separate issue and a legitimate one. However, if we are to take him at his word, he's not going to place further federal restrictions on private gun sales.
Click to expand...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

I don't believe him and won't take him at his word.
 
The thread has veered too far from the OP to be corrected. The PA primary is long over. What's worse, I helped that thread veer. sigh.

I'm closing this one. I am going to open another thread to deal specifily with the McCain issue.... Stand by....
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top