Why so anti-McCain?
- Thread starter Creature
- Start date
D), the dreaded thread drift about evolution, which is entirely irrelevant to a candidate's ability to serve as President, and which (in this thread) has nothing to do with being anti-McCain. :barf:Oh, but Fremmer, it's a vital...
Okay, yeah, it's a stupid thread drift. Still, it's fun, and it just tickles me every time somebody tries to act like scientific theories are no more valid than one culture's story of creation. I mean, science (being a process of discovery, which is ANOTHER thing that irks me when people don't understand) has moved on since the bible was penned, I hope...
Anyway, uh... We were talking about McCain? Okay, why do people act like he's a sworn enemy of the second amendment? He's actually not that bad... Background checks at gun shows? Correct me if I'm wrong in my appraisal of the issue at stake, but if you're against that then you're either arguing against background checks in general (and therefore against anyone not being permitted to buy a firearm) there, or... Well, I don't know.
Okay, yeah, it's a stupid thread drift. Still, it's fun, and it just tickles me every time somebody tries to act like scientific theories are no more valid than one culture's story of creation. I mean, science (being a process of discovery, which is ANOTHER thing that irks me when people don't understand) has moved on since the bible was penned, I hope...
Anyway, uh... We were talking about McCain? Okay, why do people act like he's a sworn enemy of the second amendment? He's actually not that bad... Background checks at gun shows? Correct me if I'm wrong in my appraisal of the issue at stake, but if you're against that then you're either arguing against background checks in general (and therefore against anyone not being permitted to buy a firearm) there, or... Well, I don't know.
If I sell you one of my guns in my living room, do I have to do a background check if I'm not a gun dealer? How about at my garage sale?
The answer is "no" in both cases.
How about at a gun show?
The answer is STILL no, because I'm not a gun dealer, and there's nothing special about a gun show to distinguish it from my garage. I can sell a gun to you almost anywhere without a background check.
Now, if McCain gets his way, and I have to do a background check at a gun show, that's not so bad. There are dealers there who will perform the service for a small fee.
But think what happens next: the gungrabbers start in saying, you know, at garage sales and such, people can just buy guns without a background check! Why, there's a GARAGE SALE LOOPHOLE in the law, and we need to close it! The goal here is to eradicate all private, undocumented gun transactions, and gun shows are the camel's nose under the tent.
Maybe I'm just naive, but banning the sale of guns to certain individuals and not policing sales is like banning speeding and then not assigning police officers to watch for speeders. What's the point? Don't make laws you're not going to try to enforce.
But then I'm more liberal than most here, recognizing the utility that would be inherent in requiring authenticated paperwork to be filled out every time a gun's ownership was transferred. The practicality of that could be debated, but I'm not opposed to it on philisophical grounds. I'd expect it to have a larger negative effect on illegal gun use then any handgun ban would.
But then I'm more liberal than most here, recognizing the utility that would be inherent in requiring authenticated paperwork to be filled out every time a gun's ownership was transferred. The practicality of that could be debated, but I'm not opposed to it on philisophical grounds. I'd expect it to have a larger negative effect on illegal gun use then any handgun ban would.
Besides that, what's to stop two guys, a buyer and a seller, the seller not being an FFL, from agreeing to a sale at a gunshow, but also agreeing to complete the transfer at a private location away from the gun show.
Now McCain wanted to make sure that everyone who even set foot in a gun show was registered with the gun show promoter, who would likely have had to turn his registration lists over to the BATFE. I don't know if I'd like to have to register with the federal government to go to a private gun show. Others might feel that it would be no big deal. However, I am guessing that gun show attendance would have dropped if McCain had gotten his bill passed.
He makes me nervous when it comes to gun owners' rights.
"Background checks at gun shows?"
I guess I'm one of a dying breed. I'm against backgrond checks.... period! According to some archaic rule, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The people who run the background check presume you're guilty until you prove your innocence.
The next question that comes up here is "what happens if some felon gets a gun?" To which I reply: So what? If he wants one he'll get it anyhow. Background checks do nothing to weed out the bad guys. They just make it more difficult for honest people to protect themselves.
That's why I was against that piece of dog-doo that the NRA and Carolyn McCarthy recently pushed through. It was touted as an "improvement" to the NICS when, in fact, there is only one way to improve it and that would require the total destruction of all the files of all the state and federal governments, the disbanding of the BATFE and possibly the public hanging of all those politicians that have voted to make us 'safer' by getting guns off the streets. (I wonder if FOX would cover it. It would certainly push their ratings up.)
I guess I'm one of a dying breed. I'm against backgrond checks.... period! According to some archaic rule, people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. The people who run the background check presume you're guilty until you prove your innocence.
The next question that comes up here is "what happens if some felon gets a gun?" To which I reply: So what? If he wants one he'll get it anyhow. Background checks do nothing to weed out the bad guys. They just make it more difficult for honest people to protect themselves.
That's why I was against that piece of dog-doo that the NRA and Carolyn McCarthy recently pushed through. It was touted as an "improvement" to the NICS when, in fact, there is only one way to improve it and that would require the total destruction of all the files of all the state and federal governments, the disbanding of the BATFE and possibly the public hanging of all those politicians that have voted to make us 'safer' by getting guns off the streets. (I wonder if FOX would cover it. It would certainly push their ratings up.)
It's actually worse than that. He wanted to make sure that any vendor at a gun show, even if they are only selling books, pass the equivalent of an FFL background check. Since anyone who enters a show might sell something, thereby becoming a vendor and exposing the promoter of the show to civil and criminal liability, FFL-type background checks would have to be done in advance on every person who wanted to attend a gun show.
I like gun shows, but I'm not going to go way out of my way and undergo a background check a week or two prior to the show, and keep up with the paperwork required to attend a gun show under McCain's rules. I suspect many are similar. Without attendees, gun shows die. Without gun shows, gungrabbers can get right to work on that terrible "garage sale loophole" which still allows a bit of freedom.
CDFT said:
As I said, if you're going to police private sales at a gun show, you have to police them everywhere, or write the rules in such a way as to shut down gun shows. Can we police all private sales?
Suppose I want to sell a gun to one of my neighbors. I know them pretty well, but there might be a felony conviction back there somewhere that I don't know about. I don't feel like doing a background check to find out. How can the government stop me?
The only answer I can think of is to require each and every gun in America to be registered to a licensed owner. That tends to lead to confiscation. The "can't happen here" argument worked a lot better before it DID happen here after hurricane Katrina.
CDFT
The slope which McCain would lead you down is indeed slippery. Just ask any Californian on this board to describe the process they must go through in that state to transfer ownership of a handgun........even from father to son. I'd be curious to of you are opposed to that on "philosophical grounds".
The slope which McCain would lead you down is indeed slippery. Just ask any Californian on this board to describe the process they must go through in that state to transfer ownership of a handgun........even from father to son. I'd be curious to of you are opposed to that on "philosophical grounds".
This forum tickles me pink sometimes. Ron Paul is on the Tonight Show: a thread is up and the transcript linked to before the episode airs. John McCain is on the Tonight Show: *chirp* *chirp*
I think that on the Tonight Show, Rudy (now that he's not a threat to become president anymore I can like him!) articulated a very important point very well: regarding McCain's willingness to cross over with Democrats on certain issues, it's better to get 70-80% of what you want instead of 0%. I would then go on to add that this is called "compromise," not "choosing the lesser of two evils." Choosing the lesser of two evils is choosing between two packages of 0-10% of what you want and deciding what is the least objectionable, while compromising is just indicating that you're not the only one who's going to be affected by these policies.
But we've already proven that trying to support John McCain here is like trying to push the death penalty on a progressive message board, so I guess I'll give it a rest again. McCain still needs to pull Super Tuesday with a commanding victory, so I have a bit of hoping to do anyway. But would you guys seriously rather see Romney, Hillary, or Obama in the White House than McCain? I mean, you've articulated why you hate the man, but I'd figure all three of those others would snatch any "liberal scum" trophy right out of McCain's hands (even while the liberals were trying to toss a "conservative scum" trophy into his hands, with commendations for abortion, gay marriage, and Iraq).
sasquatch: The implication you give is that it's a grievous process, which would get down to practicality and implentation. What I'd envision would simply be paperwork with which police could track any handgun that didn't have its serial number removed back to its last legal owner. Even if the serial number is removed, there are techniques to recover it nowadays, so I wouldn't be too worried about that being used to effectively circumvent the paper trail.
publius brings up the concept of these being used as lists for confiscation, against which I could offer the idea of (state) constitutional amendments against such behavior. "So what, the government would never listen to that if it decided to be tyrannical!" Well, I'd figure most of the people here have concealed carry permits, and the state *does* have records of those already. And if you're that worried about the government suddenly deciding to turn tyrant, I'd think your time would be better spent founding a non-profit dedicated to getting people more involved with their state and local governments.
I think that on the Tonight Show, Rudy (now that he's not a threat to become president anymore I can like him!) articulated a very important point very well: regarding McCain's willingness to cross over with Democrats on certain issues, it's better to get 70-80% of what you want instead of 0%. I would then go on to add that this is called "compromise," not "choosing the lesser of two evils." Choosing the lesser of two evils is choosing between two packages of 0-10% of what you want and deciding what is the least objectionable, while compromising is just indicating that you're not the only one who's going to be affected by these policies.
But we've already proven that trying to support John McCain here is like trying to push the death penalty on a progressive message board, so I guess I'll give it a rest again. McCain still needs to pull Super Tuesday with a commanding victory, so I have a bit of hoping to do anyway. But would you guys seriously rather see Romney, Hillary, or Obama in the White House than McCain? I mean, you've articulated why you hate the man, but I'd figure all three of those others would snatch any "liberal scum" trophy right out of McCain's hands (even while the liberals were trying to toss a "conservative scum" trophy into his hands, with commendations for abortion, gay marriage, and Iraq).
sasquatch: The implication you give is that it's a grievous process, which would get down to practicality and implentation. What I'd envision would simply be paperwork with which police could track any handgun that didn't have its serial number removed back to its last legal owner. Even if the serial number is removed, there are techniques to recover it nowadays, so I wouldn't be too worried about that being used to effectively circumvent the paper trail.
publius brings up the concept of these being used as lists for confiscation, against which I could offer the idea of (state) constitutional amendments against such behavior. "So what, the government would never listen to that if it decided to be tyrannical!" Well, I'd figure most of the people here have concealed carry permits, and the state *does* have records of those already. And if you're that worried about the government suddenly deciding to turn tyrant, I'd think your time would be better spent founding a non-profit dedicated to getting people more involved with their state and local governments.
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Amazing how many people miss a point. Whether you believe in evolution or want to fly the Confederate Flag wasn't it.
It was that when you look at the electability of a candidate - Huckabee's belief structures are a very strong negative.
People believe in lots of whacky things - however, if your whackiness is out of synch with the general population, you don't get elected.
It is also the case that if the majority of folks think your belief structures imply that you are whacky, then they don't want a whacky president.
That social and religious conservatives can't accept that their beliefs aren't a strong point to many is just silly. They disqualify candidates who don't hold those beliefs and then get all hissy when others think that those who hold those beliefs are not good candidates for president.
It was that when you look at the electability of a candidate - Huckabee's belief structures are a very strong negative.
People believe in lots of whacky things - however, if your whackiness is out of synch with the general population, you don't get elected.
It is also the case that if the majority of folks think your belief structures imply that you are whacky, then they don't want a whacky president.
That social and religious conservatives can't accept that their beliefs aren't a strong point to many is just silly. They disqualify candidates who don't hold those beliefs and then get all hissy when others think that those who hold those beliefs are not good candidates for president.
LOL.
I'm not sure that's necessarily true. The libertarians and democrats don't like McCain, but a large segment of republicans on this board (the silent majority 
) are certainly willing to consider him. I'd sure take McCain's views about the 2nd Amendment over Hillbama's views. The Republican base doesn't want more gun control, and McCain knows that. The democratic base, on the other hand.....
While I'm nervous about McCain, there may be a sizeable group of democrats and independants who are very nervous about Hill and Bar. These democrats and independants may be tired of the lefty socialist wing of the democrat party and feel that McCain will be better on issues such as abortion rights, gun owner rights, civil rights in general, spending, etc. This could push him past either one of the democrats candidates. Do I want that to happen? I honestly don't know.
Remember, the only way that the dems were able to grab control in Congress was to allow more "moderate" candidates to run. Many of those candidates ran with "pro gun owners rights" in their platforms. Many of the democrats and independents who went to the polls and voted for those democrats may vote for McCain.
I've never been this undecided on what to do and who to vote for in the Presidential election. I've got to do some real soul searching before I can support McCain. I certainly don't want Hill or Bar as my Prez. What to do, what to do? I'm not comfortable with Mitt either. He said he'd sign an assault weapons ban if the congress brought him one. That's exactly what Busy said, though Bush was a little safer in that he had a GOP controlled congress. The next prez is likely to have dems controlling congress. The dems have a AWB package all ready to go. Hmmm. That makes me nervous.
Remember, the only way that the dems were able to grab control in Congress was to allow more "moderate" candidates to run. Many of those candidates ran with "pro gun owners rights" in their platforms. Many of the democrats and independents who went to the polls and voted for those democrats may vote for McCain.
I've never been this undecided on what to do and who to vote for in the Presidential election. I've got to do some real soul searching before I can support McCain. I certainly don't want Hill or Bar as my Prez. What to do, what to do? I'm not comfortable with Mitt either. He said he'd sign an assault weapons ban if the congress brought him one. That's exactly what Busy said, though Bush was a little safer in that he had a GOP controlled congress. The next prez is likely to have dems controlling congress. The dems have a AWB package all ready to go. Hmmm. That makes me nervous.
When worlds collide...
Hillary more conservative, lies less than than McCain, says Ann Coulter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc
Hillary more conservative, lies less than than McCain, says Ann Coulter:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HuTqgqhxVMc
Oldphart posted:
I agree. Can anyone who supports background checks show us a statistic which clearly demonstrates that background checks reduce violent crime, including violent crime in which a gun is used? I'll sit back and wait. I won't hold my breath however. I don't want to be confused for Papa Smurf.
If we created a laundry list of VIOLENT crimes and made the punishment for them EXTREMELY harsh, we'd probably do some good. I don't care whether a gun, hands, fists, knives, bats, tire irons, etc. are used. Throw the maggot into a cesspool that he would never, ever want to return to, short of torturing him. Leave him there for a very long time. Long enough so that when he gets out he's too old and tired to commit VIOLENT crimes.
My idea would include:
Any crime where you physically threatened another human being with any type of weapon, outside of self defense, would carry an escalating punishment scale.
If you threaten with hands or feet, but don't actually make contact, 1 year for first offense, 2 years for second, 5 years for third. Any more and your outta there. Life in prison. If you actaully contact them with force, tack on 5 years.
If you threaten with knife, firearm, tire iron, baseball bat, etc. you get 5 years minimum. Could be more for extenuating or aggravated circumstances.
If you make contact with the weapon and cause even the slightest injury, you go to jail for 10 years. Extenuating or aggravated circumstances could add more.
If you send a person to the hospital, you also have to make restitution for the health care expenses you've caused, and you cannot leave prison until you've done so.
If you permantly disable someone, you get life with no parole. You screwed up the victim's life, why shouldn't your life also have the binders applied.
If you kill someone, you either get life at hard labor or the death penalty. You get to choose.
I know that this is not a perfect plan, but it's something I'd like to see implemented in some form. We can debate the pros and cons of the plan. It's my wish list, but I'm open to crititicism about it.
I agree. Can anyone who supports background checks show us a statistic which clearly demonstrates that background checks reduce violent crime, including violent crime in which a gun is used? I'll sit back and wait. I won't hold my breath however. I don't want to be confused for Papa Smurf.
If we created a laundry list of VIOLENT crimes and made the punishment for them EXTREMELY harsh, we'd probably do some good. I don't care whether a gun, hands, fists, knives, bats, tire irons, etc. are used. Throw the maggot into a cesspool that he would never, ever want to return to, short of torturing him. Leave him there for a very long time. Long enough so that when he gets out he's too old and tired to commit VIOLENT crimes.
My idea would include:
Any crime where you physically threatened another human being with any type of weapon, outside of self defense, would carry an escalating punishment scale.
If you threaten with hands or feet, but don't actually make contact, 1 year for first offense, 2 years for second, 5 years for third. Any more and your outta there. Life in prison. If you actaully contact them with force, tack on 5 years.
If you threaten with knife, firearm, tire iron, baseball bat, etc. you get 5 years minimum. Could be more for extenuating or aggravated circumstances.
If you make contact with the weapon and cause even the slightest injury, you go to jail for 10 years. Extenuating or aggravated circumstances could add more.
If you send a person to the hospital, you also have to make restitution for the health care expenses you've caused, and you cannot leave prison until you've done so.
If you permantly disable someone, you get life with no parole. You screwed up the victim's life, why shouldn't your life also have the binders applied.
If you kill someone, you either get life at hard labor or the death penalty. You get to choose.
I know that this is not a perfect plan, but it's something I'd like to see implemented in some form. We can debate the pros and cons of the plan. It's my wish list, but I'm open to crititicism about it.
Last edited:
Actually, I brought up two concepts. The first was that in order for guns sold privately to be effectively tracked, you would have to register them all. Coming up on 300 million of them, last I heard, many of them owned by law abiding people like myself, who might just want to break such a law, and many owned by those not so law abiding, who wouldn't give it a second thought. In other words, part of my answer was an appeal to your statement that you might reject tracking private sales on grounds of impracticality.
As for the other part, as I mentioned, guns were confiscated in Nawlins after Katrina. You say the State Constitution might prevent it. I'd say it didn't.