Old Bill Dibble
New member
So the first Presidential inter-party debate is tomorrow night. What questions would you like to see the candidates answer in regards to the RKBA?
What Questions Would You Like to See at the Debates?
- Thread starter Old Bill Dibble
- Start date
- Status
What questions? I don't think it matters much.
Both sides are "on the record" everytime they open their mouths in public, and positions are clear, in the basics anyway.
Side R promises to essentially leave us alone, and put some things "back the way they were", IF they can. However they are also known a great "deal maker", the essence of which is negotiation, so one cannot take what they say in the beginning as their final position.
Side D promises NEW "common sense" rules, and was a vital, if non elected office holding part of the administration that gave us the 94 AWB law.
It really doesn't matter WHAT they say now, nor do I give a rodent's posterior to hear more of it.
The Dems have put gun control in their party platform. What else do we need to know?
Both sides are "on the record" everytime they open their mouths in public, and positions are clear, in the basics anyway.
Side R promises to essentially leave us alone, and put some things "back the way they were", IF they can. However they are also known a great "deal maker", the essence of which is negotiation, so one cannot take what they say in the beginning as their final position.
Side D promises NEW "common sense" rules, and was a vital, if non elected office holding part of the administration that gave us the 94 AWB law.
It really doesn't matter WHAT they say now, nor do I give a rodent's posterior to hear more of it.
The Dems have put gun control in their party platform. What else do we need to know?
Well, you're half right, I'd say; the other half is bad about contradicting 'the record' at least a portion of the time when he opens his mouth
-Why is the right to keep & bear arms protected?
-Should suspected terrorists be allowed to own/buy guns?
-Should a secret list determine whether one is debarred their RKBA?
-Should the president himself possess the authority to unilaterally debar a suspected terrorist's RKBA (i.e. put someone on The List)
-Should police be allowed to confiscate any firearm without an arrest?
-What is the difference between a machine gun & and an assault weapon?
-Do civilians have an individual right to possess personal firearms? Concealable ones? Those with no 'sporting purpose' i.e. 'assault weapons?' Machineguns?
-Do organized competitive sports constitute 'sporting purposes' as far as firearms law regulations?
-Is a wait time of greater than one fiscal year acceptable turnaround for NFA tax receipt processing?
-Do you know what the Bush I, Clinton, Bush II, and Obama import bans are, and will you repeal them after taking office? Do you know what 922r is, and will you instruct the AG/ATF to take a broad view of 'sporting purposes' as far as domestic manufacture of rifles?
-Do you know what the unilateral ban on open bolt semi-automatics, or the after-the-fact destructive-device classification of numerous commercial shotguns are, and will you repeal them after taking office?
-Will you instruct your ATF director to declare an amnesty period for NFA firearms, including machineguns, to be properly documented and accounted for?
-Will you order an independent audit of the ATF's NFA branch operations (efficiency, competency, intentional obstruction), and an independent audit of their NFA registry databases?
By all means, only bother asking The Donald, but I'd love to hear his opinion on any of these issues (*real* issues, not "I respect the RKBA more than anyone despite being from NYC and supporting gun banners for years until I wanted to run for prez as a Republican")
Having given him their endorsement, I can't help but wonder why the NRA hasn't requested a sit-down interview with The Donald to go over these and other gun issues to get a more in depth look at his plans and understanding of the issues; after all, our endorsement was supposedly a big deal and everything. But that's just one little bear's opinion...
TCB
Last edited:
In reality, this actually matters a lot more as far as down-ballot & state-level offices, as opposed to the chief executive. I've given up all hope that office is even capable of being a positive force for gun owners or civil liberties in general; there are simply too many forces all pulling the office of president toward authoritarianism at this point (if not always).
It's really bad if you try to sit down and actually determine when the last time a president, on his own & not at the behest of Congress, modified regulations or enforcement practices in favor of gun owners to a similar degree of significance as the opposing anti-gun measures. I get as far back as Kennedy or Ike, and even then there isn't much real result in our favor (and Kennedy's personal actions are dwarfed by the crippling blow to us that came from his assassination). Past those two, I think you're well into the 1800's if not antebellum period before you find another legitimately pro-gun president (and since there wasn't federal gun legislation at that time, it's a moot point)
Congress has been largely bad for us, as have the courts almost unanimously, but even those two have occasional periods of sanity; I'm not convinced the office of president has ever been protective of our freedoms (nor why we should expect it to be; that's exactly what the courts & congress are *for* if you remember your checks & balances)
TCB
Presidential debates don't appreciable change anyone's mind or opinion. They seldom if ever have any surprise questions, answers or pure truth, as candidates rehearse canned answers to quasi-related questions that seldom answer the specific question. Aka boring and uninformative. Further, it's not clear specific questions aren't passed to favored candidates beforehand.
As such I'd defer to a local 'radio personality' who said the only thing he wanted to see and was "45 minutes of coughing and eye twitching from 1 candidate and 45 minutes of hair pulling from the other".
As such I'd defer to a local 'radio personality' who said the only thing he wanted to see and was "45 minutes of coughing and eye twitching from 1 candidate and 45 minutes of hair pulling from the other".
Old Bill Dibble
New member
Polls seem to indicate otherwise.
This is kind of a give up question. Unless the pol is in DC or Chicago they will almost universally say yes.
These are great relevant questions. I'd be especially interested in seeing.
I doubt either one would have a clue about any of these questions or what the laws are regrading the issues.
kilimanjaro
New member
Not a single answer to any of the questions posited above has any importance compared to just one nomination to the Supreme Court.
This election is for all the marbles. Vote accordingly, your rights depend on it.
This election is for all the marbles. Vote accordingly, your rights depend on it.
Extremely unlikely but:
What is the worst thing you ever did with respect to your spouse?
What is the worst thing you ever did with respect to your position in the government of the USA?
With respect to your public statements to the media, what portion is the truth and what portion is false?
With respect to income you received in the US in the last three years, what amount was reported on your W-2?
What is the worst thing you ever did with respect to your spouse?
What is the worst thing you ever did with respect to your position in the government of the USA?
With respect to your public statements to the media, what portion is the truth and what portion is false?
With respect to income you received in the US in the last three years, what amount was reported on your W-2?
johnwilliamson062
Moderator
.
Not from the data I have seen. One candidate may get a small bump for a short period of time, but it doesn't last.
Promises to be one of the most entertaining debates in history. In a tragic hopeless how did we get here kind of way.
Which is why I have suggested everyone who feels they absolutely must vote for side D in that race PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE vote R in Senate races. The government was designed to safeguard against situations like this presidential election. We have to be smart enough to give congress a chance, and they have to have the guts to do it though.
Old Bill Dibble
New member
It is well documented how we got here. Personally I think we are boned no matter who wins. There is going to be a lot of sobbing in pillows on 9 November.
Old Bill Dribble said:
1. The debating rules should require a Presidential candidate answer every question with a yes or no before any explanation
2. Do you believe the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution protects an individual right to bear arms?
3. Do your choices for judicial vacancies support an individual right to bear arms?
Whether you call it doublespeak or simply Clintonian I doubt seriously that Hillary will give any honest and simple answers. Trump is a wild card obviously he’s getting a lot of coaching, but for better or worse he may be a little more forthright with his answers.
As for the Second Amendment we know what Hillary will do she has been pretty clear. As for Trump while he may not be a big defender of the Second Amendment he is a deal maker which means he knows he’ll need the support of Congress to get things done. So, I doubt he’ll do much to antagonize those in Congress who do support gun rights.
While it may be a little late in the process I believe focusing on down ticket races is more important than ever in this election. So, make sure those you support for the US Senate & House as well as various local races also support the right o keep and bear arms.
As for the Second Amendment we know what Hillary will do she has been pretty clear. As for Trump while he may not be a big defender of the Second Amendment he is a deal maker which means he knows he’ll need the support of Congress to get things done. So, I doubt he’ll do much to antagonize those in Congress who do support gun rights.
While it may be a little late in the process I believe focusing on down ticket races is more important than ever in this election. So, make sure those you support for the US Senate & House as well as various local races also support the right o keep and bear arms.
foolzrushn
New member
^^^^^^ Agree with Barry Lee, and questions don't matter if the answers don't mean anything.
Congress makes the laws. Any President is limited as to what they can do unilaterally anyway, so after all campaign promises are broken, they will lay blame elsewhere. Promises don't mean anything, and candidates are not ashamed to promise what they won't deliver.
We have been brainwashed into believing that we have essentially a 'two party' system by the two major parties. How many times have you heard that phrase? They dread the thought of an equally large third party which would force compromise instead of demonizing and deadlock. The 'R's' were quick to absorb the tea party lest it break away and become a threat. The 'D's' would do the same thing.
This election, more than ever, I wish a third party candidate whose party believed in personal liberties, could be elected to give the other two parties a good slap for the candidates they have provided.
That President would be rightly limited as well, but it would be a wakeup call for the mess in Washington now. I think it would be good for the country to have more valid choices.
But until we quit worrying about our vote not counting, and really do it, we will be held hostage to only two choices.....good or bad.
Congress makes the laws. Any President is limited as to what they can do unilaterally anyway, so after all campaign promises are broken, they will lay blame elsewhere. Promises don't mean anything, and candidates are not ashamed to promise what they won't deliver.
We have been brainwashed into believing that we have essentially a 'two party' system by the two major parties. How many times have you heard that phrase? They dread the thought of an equally large third party which would force compromise instead of demonizing and deadlock. The 'R's' were quick to absorb the tea party lest it break away and become a threat. The 'D's' would do the same thing.
This election, more than ever, I wish a third party candidate whose party believed in personal liberties, could be elected to give the other two parties a good slap for the candidates they have provided.
That President would be rightly limited as well, but it would be a wakeup call for the mess in Washington now. I think it would be good for the country to have more valid choices.
But until we quit worrying about our vote not counting, and really do it, we will be held hostage to only two choices.....good or bad.
It would be nice to see an actual debate, not a prearranged Q&A session. Since I have high blood pressure, I think I'll go to the other room and reload during that time - much more calming effect. There will be a slate of other candidates running for President, yet they never allow them to participate. It would be nice to see where these folks also stand in relation to RKBA and all of the other issues as well.
I have many questions for both candidates. Hillary Clinton has made it perfectly clear where she stands on guns. Trump's position is less clear, but certainly more supportive of 2A rights. I would like to hear their position on the Supreme Court's role in government and Constitutional interpretation.
Foreign policy, military preparedness, terrorism, immigration, health care, Social Security, the national budget and economy, public education, violence, social unrest, economic and social programs to promote equal opportunity for all Americans, along with countless other issues are on my list as well. That we will get any real answers to any of these questions is improbable at best in my opinion.
I will watch though, along with millions of others because disasters of all kinds are compelling television.
Foreign policy, military preparedness, terrorism, immigration, health care, Social Security, the national budget and economy, public education, violence, social unrest, economic and social programs to promote equal opportunity for all Americans, along with countless other issues are on my list as well. That we will get any real answers to any of these questions is improbable at best in my opinion.
I will watch though, along with millions of others because disasters of all kinds are compelling television.
dakota.potts
New member
If only there were a third candidate who could have been invited on to the stage to answer his or her questions on all of these subjects as well.
- Status