vBCms Comments
Welcome To Hunting Country
General Hunting Forums
Archery & Bowhunting
Shooting Sports
Manufacturers' Corner
Firearms
Classifieds
Not Hunting / General Chit Chat
1.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
I'm am not understanding all the controversy. Resident is wanting to close internet sales without a background check. I'm not sure how you buy a gun on the internet without one. What is he talking about? I'll start there.
I really just wanted to be the author of an official 2016 thread.
I really just wanted to be the author of an official 2016 thread.
2.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
In most states (I think) two state residents can buy or sell a firearm from/to one another without a background check or dealers' license, as long as neither qualifies as "being in the business" of firearms sales. Just the same way as you can buy or sell anything else with your neighbor. At least that's the way it is here.
Once you're talking about residents of different states, you have to go through an FFL, which is going to trigger the background check.
Once you're talking about residents of different states, you have to go through an FFL, which is going to trigger the background check.
3.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
The above is pre-Obama mucking everything up, of course.
There are a few states that require a private seller to do a background check on a private same-state buyer, or for the buyer to provide evidence of a recent check.
There are a few states that require a private seller to do a background check on a private same-state buyer, or for the buyer to provide evidence of a recent check.
4.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
I just wasn't aware of any within-your-state sites that listed guns that you could buy without a check. I'm thinking of the big internet sites such as GunBroker etc.
5.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
The big sites might require you to go through an FFL regardless of who lives where.
A smaller site might not (within state). Or a Craigslist site or similar might not (within state), because all those are is like putting an ad in the classified section of your local Backwater Tribune.
A smaller site might not (within state). Or a Craigslist site or similar might not (within state), because all those are is like putting an ad in the classified section of your local Backwater Tribune.
6.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
I know Craigslist and Ebay doesn't allow guns, but I see your point. I just wasn't aware of smaller sites selling guns.
7.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
Resident said that 90% of Americans want stricter gun control laws. That was a lie. The actual number is more like 49% from my sources.
8.) Bob Peck - 01/06/2016
GunBroker.com, GunsAmerica.com, GunsInternational.com, GunListings.org all require an FFL-to-FFL transfer. If you're Joe private citizen and list your gun you must send it through your local FFL holder to the receiving FFL holder who is then required to complete a background check on the recipient in accordance with existing laws (i.e. gun type) before the transfer is completed.
I'm not sure which which "smaller sites selling guns" you're referring to but I'm interested in how they may be circumventing existing ATF firearms commerce laws.
Our President is trying to close the "private-citizen-to-private citizen transfer" that happens at gun shows and with your neighbor. These generally do not require a background check. In FL my Dad bought a handgun at a flea market with cash. No receipt. No background check. Here you go. By law he was supposed to verify he was a FL resident by presenting a FL driver's license. That didn't happen.
Mr. Obama is suggesting that with few exceptions a majority of the sellers should be classified as "dealers" and therefore be subject to all the regulatory processes the FFL holder is held to. In effect, this shuts down the private sale of firearms (i.e. "gun show loophole") through executive order vs legislative action. How many people do you know would be willing to go through the ATF malarkey to get an FFL to sell their gun to another private party?
I'm not sure which which "smaller sites selling guns" you're referring to but I'm interested in how they may be circumventing existing ATF firearms commerce laws.
Our President is trying to close the "private-citizen-to-private citizen transfer" that happens at gun shows and with your neighbor. These generally do not require a background check. In FL my Dad bought a handgun at a flea market with cash. No receipt. No background check. Here you go. By law he was supposed to verify he was a FL resident by presenting a FL driver's license. That didn't happen.
Mr. Obama is suggesting that with few exceptions a majority of the sellers should be classified as "dealers" and therefore be subject to all the regulatory processes the FFL holder is held to. In effect, this shuts down the private sale of firearms (i.e. "gun show loophole") through executive order vs legislative action. How many people do you know would be willing to go through the ATF malarkey to get an FFL to sell their gun to another private party?
9.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
Yeah, that entire performance was a disgrace.
Glad you started this official thread, because I was planning to.
I don't have my notes from the speech in front of me, but the whole thing could have been done in ten minutes except for all the drama, lies, strawmen and attacks on his opposition (after lecturing how "we should be able to have a conversation without impugning the motives of our opposition" ----Paraphrasing that, and this---->---"yadda yadda yadda typical Obama bullshit").
It was actually painful to sit through.
Glad you started this official thread, because I was planning to.
I don't have my notes from the speech in front of me, but the whole thing could have been done in ten minutes except for all the drama, lies, strawmen and attacks on his opposition (after lecturing how "we should be able to have a conversation without impugning the motives of our opposition" ----Paraphrasing that, and this---->---"yadda yadda yadda typical Obama bullshit").
It was actually painful to sit through.
10.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=Bob Peck;37870]
I'm not sure which which "smaller sites selling guns" you're referring to but I'm interested in how they may be circumventing existing ATF firearms commerce laws.
[/QUOTE]
This was my original question. Swampy can you give an example.
I'm not sure which which "smaller sites selling guns" you're referring to but I'm interested in how they may be circumventing existing ATF firearms commerce laws.
[/QUOTE]
This was my original question. Swampy can you give an example.
11.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
As far as I know, you can't. What I was saying above is that you can advertise on the internet---local paper's website, internet swap meet, etc--- and make an in-person sale between residents of the same state, just like you can for anything else.
But if somebody is saying there's a firearms sale PROCESSED OVER THE INTERNET that doesn't require a background check somewhere along the line, I'm not aware of that possibility..unless it's allowed between same-state residents.
But if somebody is saying there's a firearms sale PROCESSED OVER THE INTERNET that doesn't require a background check somewhere along the line, I'm not aware of that possibility..unless it's allowed between same-state residents.
12.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
I didn't see the tear-jerking speach but I heard the percentage of 40% thrown around when it comes to internet gun sales. I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this. Can someone tell me what the 40% is referring to?
Of course, all this is academic. None of this will do anything to keep a person who is willing to commit murder consider any law.
Of course, all this is academic. None of this will do anything to keep a person who is willing to commit murder consider any law.
13.) Wild Bob - 01/06/2016
In my opinion, Swampy's first response nailed it. (My understanding is that it all has to do with private sales in the same state.)
But I also feel that some of the press that I've been hearing misrepresents the typical 'On-line' sales procedures. I've bought two firearms over Gun Broker in the past 3 years (most recent acquisition about 7 months ago) and I can tell you...if you are dealing with a business, they WILL NOT SEND YOU A FIREARM without it being sent directly to a FFL dealer, and then that dealer WILL NOT release the firearm to the buyer until they conduct their own background check.
I've also had one firearm sent to me from a friend (transferred from Alaska) and he couldn't even ship it without sending it thru an FFL dealer up there, and then it was the same story for me to receive it here in Montana; I had to get it through a local FFL dealer and they conducted the back ground check. Again though, both of these sales were out of state as well as was the transfer.
But I also feel that some of the press that I've been hearing misrepresents the typical 'On-line' sales procedures. I've bought two firearms over Gun Broker in the past 3 years (most recent acquisition about 7 months ago) and I can tell you...if you are dealing with a business, they WILL NOT SEND YOU A FIREARM without it being sent directly to a FFL dealer, and then that dealer WILL NOT release the firearm to the buyer until they conduct their own background check.
I've also had one firearm sent to me from a friend (transferred from Alaska) and he couldn't even ship it without sending it thru an FFL dealer up there, and then it was the same story for me to receive it here in Montana; I had to get it through a local FFL dealer and they conducted the back ground check. Again though, both of these sales were out of state as well as was the transfer.
14.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
It's the TOBS....
[url]http://www.guns.com/2013/01/31/investigating-the-40-percent-myth-regarding-guns-sold-without-background-checks-video/[/url]
[url]http://www.guns.com/2013/01/31/investigating-the-40-percent-myth-regarding-guns-sold-without-background-checks-video/[/url]
15.) Wild Bob - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=bluecat;37875]I didn't see the tear-jerking speach but I heard the percentage of 40% thrown around when it comes to internet gun sales. I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this. Can someone tell me what the 40% is referring to?
Of course, all this is academic. None of this will do anything to keep a person who is willing to commit murder consider any law.[/QUOTE]
I saw it...the pouty expressions and tears really did it for me...:re: What a show... :tap: It almost choked me up as much as big Boehner's show...:re: Freakin' politicians...
Of course, all this is academic. None of this will do anything to keep a person who is willing to commit murder consider any law.[/QUOTE]
I saw it...the pouty expressions and tears really did it for me...:re: What a show... :tap: It almost choked me up as much as big Boehner's show...:re: Freakin' politicians...
16.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
Thanks Swampy. This is what jumped out at me.
The offenders were incarcerated from crimes committed with handguns, and this is how they reported how they obtained the guns:
Licensed gun dealer: 11 percent
Friends or family: 39.5 percent
“The street:” 37.5 percent
Stolen gun: 9.9 percent
Gun show/Flea market: 1.7 percent
The offenders were incarcerated from crimes committed with handguns, and this is how they reported how they obtained the guns:
Licensed gun dealer: 11 percent
Friends or family: 39.5 percent
“The street:” 37.5 percent
Stolen gun: 9.9 percent
Gun show/Flea market: 1.7 percent
17.) Jon - 01/06/2016
Don't forget that these new background checks are going to keep the streets of Chicago much safer according to the POTUS. Obviously the criminals in Chicago are lawful criminals and buy guns through dealers where they will go through a background check prior to committing the crime. Thank god for that
18.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=Jon;37881]Don't forget that these new background checks are going to keep the streets of Chicago much safer according to the POTUS. Obviously the criminals in Chicago are lawful criminals and buy guns through dealers where they will go through a background check prior to committing the crime. Thank god for that[/QUOTE]
Yes, you are right, and they will also make sure their magazine capacities are in compliance.
Yes, you are right, and they will also make sure their magazine capacities are in compliance.
19.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
By the way, I'm putting a little Vicks Vap-O-Rub underneath my eye right now so I'm really tearing up.
20.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
Swampy, what is TOBS?
21.) DParker - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=bluecat;37875]I didn't see the tear-jerking speach...[/QUOTE]
You didn't miss anything. The only tears (phony as they were) came from the jerk giving the speech.
[QUOTE=bluecat;37875]but I heard the percentage of 40% thrown around when it comes to internet gun sales. I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this. Can someone tell me what the 40% is referring to?[/QUOTE]
He's still regurgitating the same "40% of guns are sold without a background check" BS that every major fact-checking organization in the country (including the left-leaning ones) thoroughly debunked when he first started spouting it nearly three years ago. ([URL="http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/"]http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/[/URL])
The short version of the much-hyped "Obama taking action on commonsense gun safety to keep our communities safer for the children" nonsense yesterday is this:
It was much ado about nearly nothing.
I say "nearly" because there were a couple of minor kernels of substance buried under the mountain of dramatic theater and meaningless rhetoric that constituted the bulk of the announcement. It broke down like this in the Fact Sheet issued by the White House (those wanting a more detailed and knowledgeable overview should start with David Kopel's excellent-as-always analysis over at the WaPo-hosted Volokh Conspiracy blog here: [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/obamas-executive-actions-on-guns-legal-analysis/"]Obama’s executive actions on guns: Legal analysis[/URL]):
[B]1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.[/B]
This entire section amounted to two things:
[INDENT](a) "You know all of those laws and regulations that have been on the books for decades pertaining to the need to be licensed to be in the business of selling firearms, and the requirement to conduct background checks? Yeah, OK...I just wanted to make sure you remembered."
and
(b) All of those "most dangerous weapons" (NFA items like short-barreled rifles, suppressors, etc) that are virtually never used in violent crimes? People who have been buying them (subject to the $200 tax stamp and lengthy federal application process, like everyone else) via trusts/corporations will now need to have everyone with control over the trust/corp to go through the NICS check and submit fingerprints. But here's the good part...the requirement for having the senior local law enforcement officer (sheriff, chief of police, DA, whomever) sign off on your NFA paperwork is being eliminated for everyone...though there is a requirement that you [I]inform[/I] that same senior local LEO of your purchase by sending them a copy of your federal paperwork. So whether you're doing a straight-up purchase as an individual or using a trust/corp the requirements are the same. A pain for the trust/corp folks (who never needed LEO sign-off anyway), and absolutely no benefit in terms of reducing crime....but a benefit for the rest of us who might be contemplating suppressing their rifles for ear pain-free hunting (or whatever).[/INDENT]
[B]2. Make our communities safer from gun violence.[/B]
"We're hiring 200 more ATF agents (a whopping 2 per state) and are thinking about actually enforcing some of the already existing laws."
[B]3. Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system.[/B]
"We're going to spend some federal money (that we don't have) on increasing access to mental health care. You know...that aspect of mass murders that we've been criticizing the right for focusing on. Also, if you're a convicted junkie, been adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill by a state/local court, etc...we're going to let the state report that to NICS."
Depending on the details, this one has the most potential for abuse and running afoul of the law. But we'll have to wait and see.
[B]4. Shape the future of gun safety technology.[/B]
"You know all of those 'smart guns' that private companies are already trying to develop, but nobody (including law enforcement, like the Secret Service) wants because of their inherent reliability and control issues? We're all for 'em. We just wanted to be on the record about that."
That's about it.
You didn't miss anything. The only tears (phony as they were) came from the jerk giving the speech.
[QUOTE=bluecat;37875]but I heard the percentage of 40% thrown around when it comes to internet gun sales. I'm just trying to wrap my head around all this. Can someone tell me what the 40% is referring to?[/QUOTE]
He's still regurgitating the same "40% of guns are sold without a background check" BS that every major fact-checking organization in the country (including the left-leaning ones) thoroughly debunked when he first started spouting it nearly three years ago. ([URL="http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/"]http://www.factcheck.org/2013/03/guns-acquired-without-background-checks/[/URL])
The short version of the much-hyped "Obama taking action on commonsense gun safety to keep our communities safer for the children" nonsense yesterday is this:
It was much ado about nearly nothing.
I say "nearly" because there were a couple of minor kernels of substance buried under the mountain of dramatic theater and meaningless rhetoric that constituted the bulk of the announcement. It broke down like this in the Fact Sheet issued by the White House (those wanting a more detailed and knowledgeable overview should start with David Kopel's excellent-as-always analysis over at the WaPo-hosted Volokh Conspiracy blog here: [URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/01/05/obamas-executive-actions-on-guns-legal-analysis/"]Obama’s executive actions on guns: Legal analysis[/URL]):
[B]1. Keep guns out of the wrong hands through background checks.[/B]
This entire section amounted to two things:
[INDENT](a) "You know all of those laws and regulations that have been on the books for decades pertaining to the need to be licensed to be in the business of selling firearms, and the requirement to conduct background checks? Yeah, OK...I just wanted to make sure you remembered."
and
(b) All of those "most dangerous weapons" (NFA items like short-barreled rifles, suppressors, etc) that are virtually never used in violent crimes? People who have been buying them (subject to the $200 tax stamp and lengthy federal application process, like everyone else) via trusts/corporations will now need to have everyone with control over the trust/corp to go through the NICS check and submit fingerprints. But here's the good part...the requirement for having the senior local law enforcement officer (sheriff, chief of police, DA, whomever) sign off on your NFA paperwork is being eliminated for everyone...though there is a requirement that you [I]inform[/I] that same senior local LEO of your purchase by sending them a copy of your federal paperwork. So whether you're doing a straight-up purchase as an individual or using a trust/corp the requirements are the same. A pain for the trust/corp folks (who never needed LEO sign-off anyway), and absolutely no benefit in terms of reducing crime....but a benefit for the rest of us who might be contemplating suppressing their rifles for ear pain-free hunting (or whatever).[/INDENT]
[B]2. Make our communities safer from gun violence.[/B]
"We're hiring 200 more ATF agents (a whopping 2 per state) and are thinking about actually enforcing some of the already existing laws."
[B]3. Increase mental health treatment and reporting to the background check system.[/B]
"We're going to spend some federal money (that we don't have) on increasing access to mental health care. You know...that aspect of mass murders that we've been criticizing the right for focusing on. Also, if you're a convicted junkie, been adjudicated as dangerously mentally ill by a state/local court, etc...we're going to let the state report that to NICS."
Depending on the details, this one has the most potential for abuse and running afoul of the law. But we'll have to wait and see.
[B]4. Shape the future of gun safety technology.[/B]
"You know all of those 'smart guns' that private companies are already trying to develop, but nobody (including law enforcement, like the Secret Service) wants because of their inherent reliability and control issues? We're all for 'em. We just wanted to be on the record about that."
That's about it.
22.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
Thanks for the detailed overview. My wife, who did see the jerk speak was going on and on about 40%. I told her I wasn't sure how those figures could be right as I just couldn't see buying a gun over the internet without a check much less sending a gun through the mail without going through an FFL.
She gave me the whole "it has to be right or they wouldn't have said it on the news" bit. "They have to check their facts."
So that prompted me to come to my brethren and find out if I was right in questioning.
She gave me the whole "it has to be right or they wouldn't have said it on the news" bit. "They have to check their facts."
So that prompted me to come to my brethren and find out if I was right in questioning.
23.) DParker - 01/06/2016
Well, let me take that, "That's about it" back a little bit. The talk about a guidance statement "clarifying" what qualifies as a firearms "dealer", and making it easier to legally be one, depending on its implementation, might have the effect of encouraging hobbyists, collectors and others who buy and sell guns somewhat frequently to become FFLs. Not a bad thing, really. The irony is that the Clinton admin actually REDUCED the number of legal FFL holders by stripping people of their licenses for things like not selling enough guns per year, etc. It sounds like the current admin is seeking to reverse that, thus requiring sales that are currently private face-to-face transaction to go through the federal NICS check.
Yeah, we all know that won't have any measurable impact on violent crime. But I can't really find any major fault with it either. At least I think it will be a net benefit in the long run...just not in the way the gun-control crowd would like to believe.
Yeah, we all know that won't have any measurable impact on violent crime. But I can't really find any major fault with it either. At least I think it will be a net benefit in the long run...just not in the way the gun-control crowd would like to believe.
24.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
BTW, I printed out the fact check article.
25.) Jon - 01/06/2016
The talking heads on CNN dissected the speech and reported that the new background checks were "registration' which got my hair standing up. This is the first time I've heard that term in a while and it's something we don't want or need. I sure hope he's not hiding gun registration within the new background checks...... anyone else care to interject?
26.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=DParker;37889]
Yeah, we all know that won't have any measurable impact on violent crime. But I can't really find any major fault with it either. At least I think it will be a net benefit in the long run...just not in the way the gun-control crowd would like to believe.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Hope it stops with the background checks though.
Yeah, we all know that won't have any measurable impact on violent crime. But I can't really find any major fault with it either. At least I think it will be a net benefit in the long run...just not in the way the gun-control crowd would like to believe.[/QUOTE]
I agree. Hope it stops with the background checks though.
27.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=bluecat;37886]Swampy, what is TOBS?[/QUOTE]
Typical Obama Bullshit
BTW, keep an eye out for the stat where "a million" (or whatever) people were turned away by the background check system. Hill and Obama and the usual suspects use that stat to try to "prove" that criminals [B]are[/B] trying to buy through dealers and also that the background system works.
What they don't tell you is that more than 90% of these denials are false flags that are quickly reversed, with the purchases ultimately going through, as they should have in the first place. It happened to me once.
It's complete BS, but that never stopped these people.
If I have time, I'll prove my work later, but the info is out there.
Typical Obama Bullshit
BTW, keep an eye out for the stat where "a million" (or whatever) people were turned away by the background check system. Hill and Obama and the usual suspects use that stat to try to "prove" that criminals [B]are[/B] trying to buy through dealers and also that the background system works.
What they don't tell you is that more than 90% of these denials are false flags that are quickly reversed, with the purchases ultimately going through, as they should have in the first place. It happened to me once.
It's complete BS, but that never stopped these people.
If I have time, I'll prove my work later, but the info is out there.
28.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=Jon;37891]The talking heads on CNN dissected the speech and reported that the new background checks were "registration' which got my hair standing up. This is the first time I've heard that term in a while and it's something we don't want or need. I sure hope he's not hiding gun registration within the new background checks...... anyone else care to interject?[/QUOTE]
The short version is that if you cut off the channels for private sales, it is easier to build a database including more guns than you could build if private sales (no paperwork, or no federal paperwork, anyway) were a significant market.
The short version is that if you cut off the channels for private sales, it is easier to build a database including more guns than you could build if private sales (no paperwork, or no federal paperwork, anyway) were a significant market.
29.) DParker - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=Jon;37891]The [B][COLOR="#FF0000"]talking heads on CNN[/COLOR][/B] dissected the speech and reported that the new background checks were "registration' which got my hair standing up. This is the first time I've heard that term in a while and it's something we don't want or need. I sure hope he's not hiding gun registration within the new background checks...... anyone else care to interject?[/QUOTE]
The stuff in [B][COLOR="#FF0000"]bold red[/COLOR][/B] is your first clue that you should completely ignore whatever you heard. The "executive actions" in question create no new requirements for background checks...and certainly nothing even remotely like registration. The only potential new BGC impact is what I spoke of in my prior addendum about the possibility (or even probability) of more private sellers opting to become FFLs just to stay out of trouble. This, of course, would mean that any subsequent sales they make would be subject to the already existing federal NICS check requirement. But that's not a new requirement, just another possible increase in the volume of those checks.
But in fairness to CNN...I've not heard any of the other major news outlets reporting any of this with any greater accuracy. In fact it's been pretty uniformly even more abysmal than the usual quality of reporting on this subject. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about from "Good Morning America" (I know, I know...but a lot of Americans watch this crap and accept what spews forth as fact): [URL="https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-require-background-checks-gun-shows-online-011454955--abc-news-topstories.html"]White House Will Require Background Checks at Gun Shows and Online[/URL]
Almost nothing in that piece is factually accurate.
The stuff in [B][COLOR="#FF0000"]bold red[/COLOR][/B] is your first clue that you should completely ignore whatever you heard. The "executive actions" in question create no new requirements for background checks...and certainly nothing even remotely like registration. The only potential new BGC impact is what I spoke of in my prior addendum about the possibility (or even probability) of more private sellers opting to become FFLs just to stay out of trouble. This, of course, would mean that any subsequent sales they make would be subject to the already existing federal NICS check requirement. But that's not a new requirement, just another possible increase in the volume of those checks.
But in fairness to CNN...I've not heard any of the other major news outlets reporting any of this with any greater accuracy. In fact it's been pretty uniformly even more abysmal than the usual quality of reporting on this subject. Here's a good example of what I'm talking about from "Good Morning America" (I know, I know...but a lot of Americans watch this crap and accept what spews forth as fact): [URL="https://www.yahoo.com/news/white-house-require-background-checks-gun-shows-online-011454955--abc-news-topstories.html"]White House Will Require Background Checks at Gun Shows and Online[/URL]
Almost nothing in that piece is factually accurate.
30.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=bluecat;37892]I agree. Hope it stops with the background checks though.[/QUOTE]
You can probably guess that I hope it falls short of the background checks.
It's none of the federal government's damn business if I want to buy or a sell a firearm with my sister or my next-door-neighbor.
Hell, there's more than that that's none of their damn business, but I have to watch my blood pressure and the plastic on my keyboard...
You can probably guess that I hope it falls short of the background checks.
It's none of the federal government's damn business if I want to buy or a sell a firearm with my sister or my next-door-neighbor.
Hell, there's more than that that's none of their damn business, but I have to watch my blood pressure and the plastic on my keyboard...
31.) DParker - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37896]You can probably guess that I hope it falls short of the background checks.
It's none of the federal government's damn business if I want to buy or a sell a firearm with my sister or my next-door-neighbor.
Hell, there's more than that that's none of their damn business, but I have to watch my blood pressure and the plastic on my keyboard...[/QUOTE]
The good news is that unless you're selling to your sister and/or neighbor on a somewhat regular basis (yeah, that's vague...I know) then none of this is going to impact you.
Honestly, I was prepared to be all up-in-arms (pun intended) about what was going to come out yesterday. But from what I (and those with actual high-falutin' legal credentials) can see so far there just isn't much of anything substantive here to get upset about. Apart from a couple of minor regulatory changes that are actually a net benefit to most of us, this appears to have been just another exercise in placating the gun-control left by giving them the illusion that "something is being done", and giving the Prez another "See how I'm taking on Congress and the NRA?!!" photo op.
It's none of the federal government's damn business if I want to buy or a sell a firearm with my sister or my next-door-neighbor.
Hell, there's more than that that's none of their damn business, but I have to watch my blood pressure and the plastic on my keyboard...[/QUOTE]
The good news is that unless you're selling to your sister and/or neighbor on a somewhat regular basis (yeah, that's vague...I know) then none of this is going to impact you.
Honestly, I was prepared to be all up-in-arms (pun intended) about what was going to come out yesterday. But from what I (and those with actual high-falutin' legal credentials) can see so far there just isn't much of anything substantive here to get upset about. Apart from a couple of minor regulatory changes that are actually a net benefit to most of us, this appears to have been just another exercise in placating the gun-control left by giving them the illusion that "something is being done", and giving the Prez another "See how I'm taking on Congress and the NRA?!!" photo op.
32.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
I agree [[I]edit: largely agree][/I] with you and have been watching this headed our way for several weeks now, so the performance and my reaction were pretty much what I expected.
The key for me is that once the feds get their camel's nose under the private-sales tent, it's too late to close the barn door because the hosses done gone...Or something like that.
Imagine sitting back and thinking, "'Oh, licenses/background checks required for X sales in a year? That doesn't affect me. I'm okay with that." ---Until they change X to less than X, or you kick the bucket and your wife or executor goes to sell your gun collection, which is X+.
The key for me is that once the feds get their camel's nose under the private-sales tent, it's too late to close the barn door because the hosses done gone...Or something like that.
Imagine sitting back and thinking, "'Oh, licenses/background checks required for X sales in a year? That doesn't affect me. I'm okay with that." ---Until they change X to less than X, or you kick the bucket and your wife or executor goes to sell your gun collection, which is X+.
33.) DParker - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37899]I agree with you and have been watching this headed our way for several weeks now, so the results and my reaction were pretty much what I expected.
The key for me is that once the feds get their camel's nose under the private-sales tent, it's too late to close the barn door because the hosses done gone...Or something like that.
Imagine sitting back and thinking, "'Oh, licenses/background checks required for X sales in a year? That doesn't affect me. I'm okay with that." ---Until they change X to less than X, or you kick the bucket and your wife or executor goes to sell your gun collection, which is X+.[/QUOTE]
You've always been at risk for being labeled a "dealer" by BATFE for selling [I]X[/I] firearms per year...in addition to multiple other factors. The problem is that [I]X[/I] has been undefined. And even if it does end up being defined, that number has not been, and will continue to not be, the sole criteria for determining one's status as dealing-without-a-license. For instance, the widow Jenkins selling off her recently deceased hubby's extensive collection of fine Turkish shotguns and other goodies-that-go-bang that amount to 100 guns (or more) does not in itself make her an illegal firearms dealer under BATFE rules.
Unfortunately, we haven't seen anything yet from this announcement that actually clarifies the situation any.
The key for me is that once the feds get their camel's nose under the private-sales tent, it's too late to close the barn door because the hosses done gone...Or something like that.
Imagine sitting back and thinking, "'Oh, licenses/background checks required for X sales in a year? That doesn't affect me. I'm okay with that." ---Until they change X to less than X, or you kick the bucket and your wife or executor goes to sell your gun collection, which is X+.[/QUOTE]
You've always been at risk for being labeled a "dealer" by BATFE for selling [I]X[/I] firearms per year...in addition to multiple other factors. The problem is that [I]X[/I] has been undefined. And even if it does end up being defined, that number has not been, and will continue to not be, the sole criteria for determining one's status as dealing-without-a-license. For instance, the widow Jenkins selling off her recently deceased hubby's extensive collection of fine Turkish shotguns and other goodies-that-go-bang that amount to 100 guns (or more) does not in itself make her an illegal firearms dealer under BATFE rules.
Unfortunately, we haven't seen anything yet from this announcement that actually clarifies the situation any.
34.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
This article goes to my point, addresses Jon's registration question, and references my item regarding BGC turn-downs (mythical):
An excerpt (Note that my previous mention of 1M turn-downs was a vast underestimate of the anti-gun propaganda...Try 2.4 M, plus or minus):
[I]
[...]
But that doesn’t matter to Obama, whose actions today will require many sellers to get a license if they sell even a single gun. White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told reporters that licenses would now be required based on such things as, “whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”
In an era when private individuals can set up their cell phones to accept credit cards, accepting credit-card payment for one gun will now make selling firearms your “principal objective of livelihood.”
Yet Obama doesn’t have to unilaterally rewrite the law to achieve meaningful reform. He could easily pass universal background checks through Congress, just by including three simple and reasonable changes:
1) Don’t charge gun buyers. All background checks currently on the books make gun buyers and sellers pay for the cost of transferring or selling a gun. Some states require a processing fee as well as compensation to the licensed dealer who oversees the private transfer.
Yet, if it’s really true that background checks reduce crime, everyone benefits, not just gun buyers. Why not pay for the background checks out of general revenue? Background checks on private transfers add about $80 to the cost of transferring a gun in New York, up to $60 in Washington State, and $125 in DC. These fees can put guns out of the reach of those who are the most likely victims of violent crimes: poor people living in high-crime, urban areas.
If gun-control advocates care more about passing universal background checks than about who pays for them, this should be an easy and fair fix.
2) Fix the system so it stops falsely flagging law-abiding people. The current federal background-check system is a mess. Virtually everyone who fails a check is legally eligible to buy a gun. During a recent Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton claimed that, “Since [the Brady Act] was passed, more than 2 million prohibited purchases have been prevented.” In reality, there were over 2 million “initial denials” — almost all of which turned out to be mistakes. In 2010, the Department of Justice’s annual report on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) showed that 94 percent of “initial denials” were dropped after the first internal fact check.
A 2004 review by Congress found that another two percent were dropped when the cases were sent out to BATFE field offices. Many more cases were dropped during the three remaining stages of review.
If a private company’s criminal-background checks on employees failed at anything close to the same rate, they’d be sued out of business in a heartbeat. There’s no doubt that for many of the 2.4 million people mistakenly given an initial denial, it was a mere inconvenience. But some people really do need quick access to a gun for protection.
The solution? Hold the government to the same standards as private companies.
3) Stop using background checks as de facto registration. As laws concerning handguns and “assault” weapons have evolved, such places as California, New York, and Chicago have all used registration lists to identify who owns guns that are no longer legal.
Since 2004, Congress has required the FBI to destroy NICS records of gun sales and transfers within 24 hours. But federally licensed dealers are required to keep records of background checks. Congress currently forbids federal collection of this information into a central database, but there’s no guarantee that this won’t change. The government could potentially figure out who legally owns a gun.
Gun-control proponents assure us that they aren’t setting up a registration program. Yet in the same breath, they defend gun registration as a crime-fighting tool. The logic is that police could find a gun at a crime scene and then be able to trace it to the registered owner. In fact, guns are very rarely left at crime scenes, and those left are virtually always unregistered. Police can’t seem to point to a single instance in which gun registration has helped them solve a crime.
During a recent deposition, D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier said she couldn’t “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.” Police in Hawaii, Canada, and other places have made similar admissions.
Instead of requiring federally licensed dealers to hold background-check information for as long as they are in business, we should place limits on how long they can hold the information that they obtain. These proposals have been around for years, and gun-control advocates have always shot them down.
They feel particularly strongly about making gun owners pay the fees for firearms transfers. During Colorado’s 2013 debate on universal background checks, Republicans offered an amendment waiving the state fee for people below the poverty level, but Democrats voted almost unanimously against it. Maryland Democrats stopped a similar move.
If Democrats really believe that universal background checks are so important, making these simple, fair changes will eliminate opposition to the policy from gun-rights proponents. If they won’t make the changes, it will only prove that their real aim is to reduce gun ownership, not to stop crime. —
John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of More Guns, Less Crime.
Read more at: [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429247/obama-gun-control-executive-order-dictatorial-unnecessary[/url][/I]
An excerpt (Note that my previous mention of 1M turn-downs was a vast underestimate of the anti-gun propaganda...Try 2.4 M, plus or minus):
[I]
[...]
But that doesn’t matter to Obama, whose actions today will require many sellers to get a license if they sell even a single gun. White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told reporters that licenses would now be required based on such things as, “whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”
In an era when private individuals can set up their cell phones to accept credit cards, accepting credit-card payment for one gun will now make selling firearms your “principal objective of livelihood.”
Yet Obama doesn’t have to unilaterally rewrite the law to achieve meaningful reform. He could easily pass universal background checks through Congress, just by including three simple and reasonable changes:
1) Don’t charge gun buyers. All background checks currently on the books make gun buyers and sellers pay for the cost of transferring or selling a gun. Some states require a processing fee as well as compensation to the licensed dealer who oversees the private transfer.
Yet, if it’s really true that background checks reduce crime, everyone benefits, not just gun buyers. Why not pay for the background checks out of general revenue? Background checks on private transfers add about $80 to the cost of transferring a gun in New York, up to $60 in Washington State, and $125 in DC. These fees can put guns out of the reach of those who are the most likely victims of violent crimes: poor people living in high-crime, urban areas.
If gun-control advocates care more about passing universal background checks than about who pays for them, this should be an easy and fair fix.
2) Fix the system so it stops falsely flagging law-abiding people. The current federal background-check system is a mess. Virtually everyone who fails a check is legally eligible to buy a gun. During a recent Democratic presidential debate, Hillary Clinton claimed that, “Since [the Brady Act] was passed, more than 2 million prohibited purchases have been prevented.” In reality, there were over 2 million “initial denials” — almost all of which turned out to be mistakes. In 2010, the Department of Justice’s annual report on the National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) showed that 94 percent of “initial denials” were dropped after the first internal fact check.
A 2004 review by Congress found that another two percent were dropped when the cases were sent out to BATFE field offices. Many more cases were dropped during the three remaining stages of review.
If a private company’s criminal-background checks on employees failed at anything close to the same rate, they’d be sued out of business in a heartbeat. There’s no doubt that for many of the 2.4 million people mistakenly given an initial denial, it was a mere inconvenience. But some people really do need quick access to a gun for protection.
The solution? Hold the government to the same standards as private companies.
3) Stop using background checks as de facto registration. As laws concerning handguns and “assault” weapons have evolved, such places as California, New York, and Chicago have all used registration lists to identify who owns guns that are no longer legal.
Since 2004, Congress has required the FBI to destroy NICS records of gun sales and transfers within 24 hours. But federally licensed dealers are required to keep records of background checks. Congress currently forbids federal collection of this information into a central database, but there’s no guarantee that this won’t change. The government could potentially figure out who legally owns a gun.
Gun-control proponents assure us that they aren’t setting up a registration program. Yet in the same breath, they defend gun registration as a crime-fighting tool. The logic is that police could find a gun at a crime scene and then be able to trace it to the registered owner. In fact, guns are very rarely left at crime scenes, and those left are virtually always unregistered. Police can’t seem to point to a single instance in which gun registration has helped them solve a crime.
During a recent deposition, D.C. police chief Cathy Lanier said she couldn’t “recall any specific instance where registration records were used to determine who committed a crime.” Police in Hawaii, Canada, and other places have made similar admissions.
Instead of requiring federally licensed dealers to hold background-check information for as long as they are in business, we should place limits on how long they can hold the information that they obtain. These proposals have been around for years, and gun-control advocates have always shot them down.
They feel particularly strongly about making gun owners pay the fees for firearms transfers. During Colorado’s 2013 debate on universal background checks, Republicans offered an amendment waiving the state fee for people below the poverty level, but Democrats voted almost unanimously against it. Maryland Democrats stopped a similar move.
If Democrats really believe that universal background checks are so important, making these simple, fair changes will eliminate opposition to the policy from gun-rights proponents. If they won’t make the changes, it will only prove that their real aim is to reduce gun ownership, not to stop crime. —
John R. Lott Jr. is the president of the Crime Prevention Research Center and the author of More Guns, Less Crime.
Read more at: [url]http://www.nationalreview.com/article/429247/obama-gun-control-executive-order-dictatorial-unnecessary[/url][/I]
35.) DParker - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37901]This article goes to my point, addresses Jon's registration question, and references my item regarding BGC turn-downs (mythical):
An excerpt (Note that my previous mention of 1M turn-downs was a vast underestimate of the anti-gun propaganda...Try 2.4 M, plus or minus):
[I]
[...]
But that doesn’t matter to Obama, whose actions today will require many sellers to get a license if they sell even a single gun. White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told reporters that licenses would now be required based on such things as, “whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”
In an era when private individuals can set up their cell phones to accept credit cards, accepting credit-card payment for one gun will now make selling firearms your “principal objective of livelihood.”[/QUOTE]
As much as I like both NR and John Lott...and most of the rest of the piece is pretty good, the above claim is unsubstantiated and a bit hyperbolic. Lott's an economist, not a legal expert. That combined with the even-worse-than-usual level of misinformation...from both sides...about yesterday's announcement that have immediately flooded the airwaves and innertubez I'm inclined to not be too critical of his error here. That said, he is clearly guilty of deriving meaning from out-of-context quotes, which is a mistake no matter who the quotee is. This goes back to my previous comment about BATFE's rules for determining who is "in the business" of dealing in firearms being based on a combination of different factors. That doesn't change with yesterdays announcements. The quotes he's citing were nothing more than rhetoric reiterating *some* of the already existing criteria used by the BATFE for dealer status determination, phrased in a way so as to sound like, "We're gonna' enforce this stuff...we really mean it!" That there might ultimately be [I]some[/I] tightening and clarification of some of those criteria is a good bet. But at this point there is no rational basis for Lott's conclusion that you're going to be deemed to be a dealer simply because you bought a brand new gun, got buyer's remorse and then turned around and sold it in the original packaging for the same amount you paid for it...or even a little more. The administration...via BATFE...has some latitude in interpreting and implementing in regulations the governing statutes enacted by Congress, but not that much.
I don't know what his comment about accepting a credit card as payment for one gun making gun sales your "principal objective of livelihood" is based on, but that seems quite suspect as well.
An excerpt (Note that my previous mention of 1M turn-downs was a vast underestimate of the anti-gun propaganda...Try 2.4 M, plus or minus):
[I]
[...]
But that doesn’t matter to Obama, whose actions today will require many sellers to get a license if they sell even a single gun. White House senior adviser Valerie Jarrett told reporters that licenses would now be required based on such things as, “whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”
In an era when private individuals can set up their cell phones to accept credit cards, accepting credit-card payment for one gun will now make selling firearms your “principal objective of livelihood.”[/QUOTE]
As much as I like both NR and John Lott...and most of the rest of the piece is pretty good, the above claim is unsubstantiated and a bit hyperbolic. Lott's an economist, not a legal expert. That combined with the even-worse-than-usual level of misinformation...from both sides...about yesterday's announcement that have immediately flooded the airwaves and innertubez I'm inclined to not be too critical of his error here. That said, he is clearly guilty of deriving meaning from out-of-context quotes, which is a mistake no matter who the quotee is. This goes back to my previous comment about BATFE's rules for determining who is "in the business" of dealing in firearms being based on a combination of different factors. That doesn't change with yesterdays announcements. The quotes he's citing were nothing more than rhetoric reiterating *some* of the already existing criteria used by the BATFE for dealer status determination, phrased in a way so as to sound like, "We're gonna' enforce this stuff...we really mean it!" That there might ultimately be [I]some[/I] tightening and clarification of some of those criteria is a good bet. But at this point there is no rational basis for Lott's conclusion that you're going to be deemed to be a dealer simply because you bought a brand new gun, got buyer's remorse and then turned around and sold it in the original packaging for the same amount you paid for it...or even a little more. The administration...via BATFE...has some latitude in interpreting and implementing in regulations the governing statutes enacted by Congress, but not that much.
I don't know what his comment about accepting a credit card as payment for one gun making gun sales your "principal objective of livelihood" is based on, but that seems quite suspect as well.
36.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
I have read the credit card processing qualification elsewhere as well. Don't ask me where, but if I recall, I will link it.
I'm not sure I follow or agree with your other point. I don't really care if the BATF has fuzzy rules and now we have some more fuzzy ones, or that it's good or bad that we're going to crack down on the most or least fuzzy ones we already have. That's just the fine mess we're already in, Ollie.
What I care about is that 1) it is not lawful/certainly not desirable for the federal government to require a license for piddling transactions without action from the legislature; 2) it's not Lott saying what's going to happen: it's the White House and 3) I'll get back to you later...
I'm not in a position to nit-pick details right now, but I hope you get my drift, and I think any day the President asserts authority he clearly doesn't have over people who clearly aren't causing a problem is a day I'm gonna get a little worked up. You could also say that I don't agree that these are such small matters that we shouldn't strenuously object.
I'm not sure I follow or agree with your other point. I don't really care if the BATF has fuzzy rules and now we have some more fuzzy ones, or that it's good or bad that we're going to crack down on the most or least fuzzy ones we already have. That's just the fine mess we're already in, Ollie.
What I care about is that 1) it is not lawful/certainly not desirable for the federal government to require a license for piddling transactions without action from the legislature; 2) it's not Lott saying what's going to happen: it's the White House and 3) I'll get back to you later...
I'm not in a position to nit-pick details right now, but I hope you get my drift, and I think any day the President asserts authority he clearly doesn't have over people who clearly aren't causing a problem is a day I'm gonna get a little worked up. You could also say that I don't agree that these are such small matters that we shouldn't strenuously object.
37.) DParker - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37904]I'm not sure I follow or agree with your other point. I don't really care if the BATF has fuzzy rules and now we have some more fuzzy ones, or that it's good or bad that we're going to crack down on the most or least fuzzy ones we already have. That's just the fine mess we're already in, Ollie.[/quote]
Maybe I miscommunicated something along the line. My point was that what the admin is doing (or at least claims it's about to do) is to clarify existing rules, not add "more fuzzy ones". Now, whether or not it actually plays out like that remains to be seen, of course. But clarity regarding exactly where one stands legally is a desirable thing, and the fuzziness of the existing guidelines has been a problem for private sellers for a long time. Granted, that desirability may well be offset by any degree to which those clarifications represent an in-practice tightening of the rules. But we don't yet have anything concrete to base our expectations on there.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37904]What I care about is that 1) it is not lawful/certainly not desirable for the federal government to require a license for piddling transactions without action from the legislature;[/quote]
I don't disagree. I just don't see any evidence (at least not yet) that fed.gov is going to even attempt to begin requiring a FFL for "piddling transactions".
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37904]2) it's not Lott saying what's going to happen: it's the White House[/quote]
Well, no...that was exactly my point about the basis for his claims being snippets of out-of-context quotations. The WH has NOT said that's what's going to happen. At least, they haven't said that up to this point. All they did was recite a bunch of scary-sounding already existing statues, regulations and court precedents.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37904]I'm not in a position to nit-pick details right now, but I hope you get my drift, and I think any day the President asserts authority he clearly doesn't have over people who clearly aren't causing a problem is a day I'm gonna get a little worked up.[/quote]
I don't disagree with that either. It's just that, at this point there are no examples of him exceeding his authority in what's been released so far. He might well do so (and obviously has in the past), but I'm not going to get my undies in a bunch unless and until there's something verifiable to get bunched up about.
[quote]You could also say that I don't agree that these are such small matters that we shouldn't strenuously object.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't agree with that either, which is why I didn't make that case. I'm just saying that so far the stuff that even sounds bad is nothing more than rhetoric aimed at satisfying his low-information base.
Maybe I miscommunicated something along the line. My point was that what the admin is doing (or at least claims it's about to do) is to clarify existing rules, not add "more fuzzy ones". Now, whether or not it actually plays out like that remains to be seen, of course. But clarity regarding exactly where one stands legally is a desirable thing, and the fuzziness of the existing guidelines has been a problem for private sellers for a long time. Granted, that desirability may well be offset by any degree to which those clarifications represent an in-practice tightening of the rules. But we don't yet have anything concrete to base our expectations on there.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37904]What I care about is that 1) it is not lawful/certainly not desirable for the federal government to require a license for piddling transactions without action from the legislature;[/quote]
I don't disagree. I just don't see any evidence (at least not yet) that fed.gov is going to even attempt to begin requiring a FFL for "piddling transactions".
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37904]2) it's not Lott saying what's going to happen: it's the White House[/quote]
Well, no...that was exactly my point about the basis for his claims being snippets of out-of-context quotations. The WH has NOT said that's what's going to happen. At least, they haven't said that up to this point. All they did was recite a bunch of scary-sounding already existing statues, regulations and court precedents.
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37904]I'm not in a position to nit-pick details right now, but I hope you get my drift, and I think any day the President asserts authority he clearly doesn't have over people who clearly aren't causing a problem is a day I'm gonna get a little worked up.[/quote]
I don't disagree with that either. It's just that, at this point there are no examples of him exceeding his authority in what's been released so far. He might well do so (and obviously has in the past), but I'm not going to get my undies in a bunch unless and until there's something verifiable to get bunched up about.
[quote]You could also say that I don't agree that these are such small matters that we shouldn't strenuously object.[/QUOTE]
I wouldn't agree with that either, which is why I didn't make that case. I'm just saying that so far the stuff that even sounds bad is nothing more than rhetoric aimed at satisfying his low-information base.
38.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=DParker;37905].
Well, no...that was exactly my point about the basis for his claims being snippets of out-of-context quotations. The WH has NOT said that's what's going to happen. At least, they haven't said that up to this point. All they did was recite a bunch of scary-sounding already existing statues, regulations and court precedents.
[/QUOTE]
What is your basis for saying that Lott's statement (really, his quote of Valerie Jarrett) is out of context? He says VJ "has told reporters" X...Can you point me to something that indicates she didn't say X, that X is not what she said, or that X is not what she meant?
My point that it doesn't matter whether certain statutes already exist or may soon exist still stands. What matters is that Obama has chosen to wave them in our faces at this time, accompanied with tears, so that things that can be legitimately objected to, which won't fix any problems, become quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters and everyone else who doesn't know any better.
Well, no...that was exactly my point about the basis for his claims being snippets of out-of-context quotations. The WH has NOT said that's what's going to happen. At least, they haven't said that up to this point. All they did was recite a bunch of scary-sounding already existing statues, regulations and court precedents.
[/QUOTE]
What is your basis for saying that Lott's statement (really, his quote of Valerie Jarrett) is out of context? He says VJ "has told reporters" X...Can you point me to something that indicates she didn't say X, that X is not what she said, or that X is not what she meant?
My point that it doesn't matter whether certain statutes already exist or may soon exist still stands. What matters is that Obama has chosen to wave them in our faces at this time, accompanied with tears, so that things that can be legitimately objected to, which won't fix any problems, become quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters and everyone else who doesn't know any better.
39.) Swamp Fox - 01/06/2016
Also, from what I have picked up over the last few weeks, there certainly seems to be an indication that the President wants to go BEYOND what already exists re. definition of dealers, license requirements, background checks etc.
I would be interested in any reading that shows or hints otherwise.
Perhaps 0 is playing us by leading us to believe he's doing something new when he really isn't, but if that's his plan it's got me scratching my head. He (or his press office) seems really, really insistent that he's plowing new ground...Fearless Leader that he is, and all...
I would be interested in any reading that shows or hints otherwise.
Perhaps 0 is playing us by leading us to believe he's doing something new when he really isn't, but if that's his plan it's got me scratching my head. He (or his press office) seems really, really insistent that he's plowing new ground...Fearless Leader that he is, and all...
40.) bluecat - 01/06/2016
He has mentioned England and Australia a few times as models of success - countries with gun confiscation.
41.) DParker - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37906]What is your basis for saying that Lott's statement (really, his quote of Valerie Jarrett) is out of context? He says VJ "has told reporters" X...Can you point me to something that indicates she didn't say X, that X is not what she said, or that X is not what she meant?[/QUOTE]
Well, no. But that's not what "quoted out of context" means. The quotes themselves are accurate. But determining what they mean requires the other things that were being said in conjunction with them. For instance, the references to sales of as few as one gun "in the original packaging" was made in the context of a statement that also included "in addition to other factors". Trying to interpret the former in the absence of the latter leads to two very different conclusions.
[quote]My point that it doesn't matter whether certain statutes already exist or may soon exist still stands. What matters is that Obama has chosen to wave them in our faces at this time, accompanied with tears, so that things that can be legitimately objected to, which won't fix any problems, become quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters and everyone else who doesn't know any better.[/QUOTE]
He's been doing that sort of thing ever since he's been in the White House (with the crocodile tears act being an added touch now)...and it's been a losing strategy on this issue for 7 years. And..."quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters"? You think his supporters would be otherwise inclined to view his opponents favorably and vote for them?
Well, no. But that's not what "quoted out of context" means. The quotes themselves are accurate. But determining what they mean requires the other things that were being said in conjunction with them. For instance, the references to sales of as few as one gun "in the original packaging" was made in the context of a statement that also included "in addition to other factors". Trying to interpret the former in the absence of the latter leads to two very different conclusions.
[quote]My point that it doesn't matter whether certain statutes already exist or may soon exist still stands. What matters is that Obama has chosen to wave them in our faces at this time, accompanied with tears, so that things that can be legitimately objected to, which won't fix any problems, become quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters and everyone else who doesn't know any better.[/QUOTE]
He's been doing that sort of thing ever since he's been in the White House (with the crocodile tears act being an added touch now)...and it's been a losing strategy on this issue for 7 years. And..."quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters"? You think his supporters would be otherwise inclined to view his opponents favorably and vote for them?
42.) DParker - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37907]Perhaps 0 is playing us by leading us to believe he's doing something new when he really isn't, but if that's his plan it's got me scratching my head. He (or his press office) seems really, really insistent that he's plowing new ground...Fearless Leader that he is, and all...[/QUOTE]
See my previous observation about pandering to his base. This performance wasn't for your or my benefit. It was for the benefit of his low-information supporters, giving himself and the gun-control activist community an excuse to declare that "Something is being done!" when in fact it's mostly smoke-and-mirrors.
See my previous observation about pandering to his base. This performance wasn't for your or my benefit. It was for the benefit of his low-information supporters, giving himself and the gun-control activist community an excuse to declare that "Something is being done!" when in fact it's mostly smoke-and-mirrors.
43.) Triton Rich - 01/06/2016
[B]I have problems with the "new technologies" language and the items about health care providers asking about gun ownership. My concern is the prospect of requiring some ridiculous smart gun technology and ordinary doctors and pediatricians declaring people mentally unfit to be gun owners.[/B]
44.) Bob Peck - 01/06/2016
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37904]I'm not in a position to nit-pick details right now ... [/QUOTE]
Whoa. Now wait just a minute Mr. You not in a position to nit-pick?! What?
Whoa. Now wait just a minute Mr. You not in a position to nit-pick?! What?
45.) DParker - 01/07/2016
[QUOTE=Triton Rich;37914][B]I have problems with the "new technologies" language...[/b][/QUOTE]
I would too, if there was anything the administration could actually do about that. But that's going to require legislation from Congress (and/or the state legislatures). All the WH can do is say "We sure like the idea" and maybe throw a little money at promoting/supporting technological development.
[QUOTE=Triton Rich;37914][b]...and the items about health care providers asking about gun ownership. My concern is the prospect of requiring some ridiculous smart gun technology and ordinary doctors and pediatricians declaring people mentally unfit to be gun owners.[/B][/QUOTE]
There's nothing in the announced "executive actions" about health care providers grilling you about gun ownership or doctors declaring people mentally anything....nor is that something that the White House could implement even if it wanted to.
Don't get me wrong. I don't trust this administration as far as I could throw Rosie O'Donnell after a binge session at a Vegas buffet, nor am I saying that we ought not be skeptical and on our guard. But the danger here is in getting bogged down in factually inaccurate claims about what's being done, which serves only to distract the public from the under-handed stuff that's REALLY going on.
I would too, if there was anything the administration could actually do about that. But that's going to require legislation from Congress (and/or the state legislatures). All the WH can do is say "We sure like the idea" and maybe throw a little money at promoting/supporting technological development.
[QUOTE=Triton Rich;37914][b]...and the items about health care providers asking about gun ownership. My concern is the prospect of requiring some ridiculous smart gun technology and ordinary doctors and pediatricians declaring people mentally unfit to be gun owners.[/B][/QUOTE]
There's nothing in the announced "executive actions" about health care providers grilling you about gun ownership or doctors declaring people mentally anything....nor is that something that the White House could implement even if it wanted to.
Don't get me wrong. I don't trust this administration as far as I could throw Rosie O'Donnell after a binge session at a Vegas buffet, nor am I saying that we ought not be skeptical and on our guard. But the danger here is in getting bogged down in factually inaccurate claims about what's being done, which serves only to distract the public from the under-handed stuff that's REALLY going on.
46.) Swamp Fox - 01/07/2016
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37906]What is your basis for saying that Lott's statement (really, his quote of Valerie Jarrett) is out of context? He says VJ "has told reporters" X...Can you point me to something that indicates she didn't say X, that X is not what she said, or that X is not what she meant?
My point that it doesn't matter whether certain statutes already exist or may soon exist still stands. What matters is that Obama has chosen to wave them in our faces at this time, accompanied with tears, so that things that can be legitimately objected to, which won't fix any problems, become quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters and everyone else who doesn't know any better.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DParker;37910]Well, no. But that's not what "quoted out of context" means. The quotes themselves are accurate. But determining what they mean requires the other things that were being said in conjunction with them. For instance, the references to sales of as few as one gun "in the original packaging" was made in the context of a statement that also included "in addition to other factors". Trying to interpret the former in the absence of the latter leads to two very different conclusions.
He's been doing that sort of thing ever since he's been in the White House (with the crocodile tears act being an added touch now)...and it's been a losing strategy on this issue for 7 years. And..."quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters"? You think his supporters would be otherwise inclined to view his opponents favorably and vote for them?[/QUOTE]
Fair enough on the meaning of "out of context." I thought it was a given. :wink My emphasis was on the "she really didn't mean X" part. Really, with this crowd, they don't get any extra credit from me for complete context. Whether you hook up the locomotive and the caboose on either side of the manure car, or you don't, you still have a trainload of you-know-what.
Here's the complete quote I'm assuming Lott is referring to [emphasis added]:
[B][I]“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ depends on the facts and circumstances,” Jarrett said. “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”
“Numbers are relevant. The ATF and DOJ did not identify a magic number of weapons that makes you engaged in the business because that would limit their ability to bring prosecution.”
Jarret then said that selling as few as “two firearms” could require somebody to obtain a federal firearms license. However, later in the call, Attorney General Lynch revised that number down further. “It can be as few as one or two depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun,” Lynch said.
[/B]
The federal firearms license application process takes several months to complete and costs a significant amount of money, according to the ATF website.
In addition to the new guidance on who must obtain a firearms license, Valerie Jarrett announced that the president would require the Social Security Administration to begin the rule-making process for prohibiting certain Social Security recipients from legally obtaining guns, a move that could bar millions from legally owning firearms.[/I]
[url]http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-executive-order-may-require-those-selling-even-a-single-firearm-become-licensed-dealers/[/url]
To your second point to my second point, I think on the issue of guns and with a healthy understanding of Second Amendment issues, some Obama supporters could be convinced to not die on the hill with him on this. It's a longer stretch to imagine that they wouldn't vote Democrat, though a lot of them aren''t thrilled about Hillary's personal failings or weak resume.
My point that it doesn't matter whether certain statutes already exist or may soon exist still stands. What matters is that Obama has chosen to wave them in our faces at this time, accompanied with tears, so that things that can be legitimately objected to, which won't fix any problems, become quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters and everyone else who doesn't know any better.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DParker;37910]Well, no. But that's not what "quoted out of context" means. The quotes themselves are accurate. But determining what they mean requires the other things that were being said in conjunction with them. For instance, the references to sales of as few as one gun "in the original packaging" was made in the context of a statement that also included "in addition to other factors". Trying to interpret the former in the absence of the latter leads to two very different conclusions.
He's been doing that sort of thing ever since he's been in the White House (with the crocodile tears act being an added touch now)...and it's been a losing strategy on this issue for 7 years. And..."quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters"? You think his supporters would be otherwise inclined to view his opponents favorably and vote for them?[/QUOTE]
Fair enough on the meaning of "out of context." I thought it was a given. :wink My emphasis was on the "she really didn't mean X" part. Really, with this crowd, they don't get any extra credit from me for complete context. Whether you hook up the locomotive and the caboose on either side of the manure car, or you don't, you still have a trainload of you-know-what.
Here's the complete quote I'm assuming Lott is referring to [emphasis added]:
[B][I]“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ depends on the facts and circumstances,” Jarrett said. “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”
“Numbers are relevant. The ATF and DOJ did not identify a magic number of weapons that makes you engaged in the business because that would limit their ability to bring prosecution.”
Jarret then said that selling as few as “two firearms” could require somebody to obtain a federal firearms license. However, later in the call, Attorney General Lynch revised that number down further. “It can be as few as one or two depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun,” Lynch said.
[/B]
The federal firearms license application process takes several months to complete and costs a significant amount of money, according to the ATF website.
In addition to the new guidance on who must obtain a firearms license, Valerie Jarrett announced that the president would require the Social Security Administration to begin the rule-making process for prohibiting certain Social Security recipients from legally obtaining guns, a move that could bar millions from legally owning firearms.[/I]
[url]http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-executive-order-may-require-those-selling-even-a-single-firearm-become-licensed-dealers/[/url]
To your second point to my second point, I think on the issue of guns and with a healthy understanding of Second Amendment issues, some Obama supporters could be convinced to not die on the hill with him on this. It's a longer stretch to imagine that they wouldn't vote Democrat, though a lot of them aren''t thrilled about Hillary's personal failings or weak resume.
47.) DParker - 01/07/2016
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37921]Here's the complete quote I'm assuming Lott is referring to [emphasis added]:
[B][I]“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ [COLOR="#FF0000"]depends on the facts and circumstances[/COLOR],” [COLOR="#0000FF"]Jarrett said.[/COLOR] “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”
“Numbers are relevant. The ATF and DOJ did not identify a magic number of weapons that makes you engaged in the business because that would limit their ability to bring prosecution.”
[COLOR="#0000FF"]Jarret then said that selling as few as[/COLOR] “two firearms” [COLOR="#0000FF"]could require somebody to obtain a federal firearms license. However, later in the call, Attorney General Lynch revised that number down further.[/COLOR] “It can be as few as one or two [COLOR="#FF0000"]depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun[/COLOR],” [COLOR="#0000FF"]Lynch said.[/COLOR]
[/B]
[COLOR="#0000FF"]The federal firearms license application process takes several months to complete and costs a significant amount of money, according to the ATF website.
In addition to the new guidance on who must obtain a firearms license, Valerie Jarrett announced that the president would require the Social Security Administration to begin the rule-making process for prohibiting certain Social Security recipients from legally obtaining guns, a move that could bar millions from legally owning firearms.[/COLOR][/I]
[url]http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-executive-order-may-require-those-selling-even-a-single-firearm-become-licensed-dealers/[/url][/quote]
That's it. But note three things:
1) The parts in [COLOR="#0000FF"]blue[/COLOR]...which are substantial...are not quotes of Jarrett.
2) The parts in [COLOR="#FF0000"]red[/COLOR] are crucial "outs" for her, in that they make the statements in whole accurate...while the parts that Lott lifted out sound, on their own, far more ominous without the red parts.
3) As I pointed out before, none...I repeat, NONE...of what Jarrett said here is new, nor a novel interpretation of existing regulations and legal precedent. There is also no significance to her reiterating it here except it's purpose of placating the real audience of all of this and helping to fool that audience into thinking that her boss is really gettin' serious about "Doing Something"[SUB]TM[/SUB].
[quote]To your second point to my second point, I think on the issue of guns and with a healthy understanding of Second Amendment issues, some Obama supporters could be convinced to not die on the hill with him on this. It's a longer stretch to imagine that they wouldn't vote Democrat, though a lot of them aren''t thrilled about Hillary's personal failings or weak resume.[/QUOTE]
Even worse....they're thrilled about Bernie.
[B][I]“ATF will make clear that whether you are ‘engaged in the business’ [COLOR="#FF0000"]depends on the facts and circumstances[/COLOR],” [COLOR="#0000FF"]Jarrett said.[/COLOR] “On factors such as: whether you represent yourself as a dealer, such as making business cards or taking credit card statements. Whether you sell firearms shortly after they’re acquired or whether you buy or sell in the original packaging.”
“Numbers are relevant. The ATF and DOJ did not identify a magic number of weapons that makes you engaged in the business because that would limit their ability to bring prosecution.”
[COLOR="#0000FF"]Jarret then said that selling as few as[/COLOR] “two firearms” [COLOR="#0000FF"]could require somebody to obtain a federal firearms license. However, later in the call, Attorney General Lynch revised that number down further.[/COLOR] “It can be as few as one or two [COLOR="#FF0000"]depending upon the circumstances under which the person sells the gun[/COLOR],” [COLOR="#0000FF"]Lynch said.[/COLOR]
[/B]
[COLOR="#0000FF"]The federal firearms license application process takes several months to complete and costs a significant amount of money, according to the ATF website.
In addition to the new guidance on who must obtain a firearms license, Valerie Jarrett announced that the president would require the Social Security Administration to begin the rule-making process for prohibiting certain Social Security recipients from legally obtaining guns, a move that could bar millions from legally owning firearms.[/COLOR][/I]
[url]http://freebeacon.com/issues/obama-executive-order-may-require-those-selling-even-a-single-firearm-become-licensed-dealers/[/url][/quote]
That's it. But note three things:
1) The parts in [COLOR="#0000FF"]blue[/COLOR]...which are substantial...are not quotes of Jarrett.
2) The parts in [COLOR="#FF0000"]red[/COLOR] are crucial "outs" for her, in that they make the statements in whole accurate...while the parts that Lott lifted out sound, on their own, far more ominous without the red parts.
3) As I pointed out before, none...I repeat, NONE...of what Jarrett said here is new, nor a novel interpretation of existing regulations and legal precedent. There is also no significance to her reiterating it here except it's purpose of placating the real audience of all of this and helping to fool that audience into thinking that her boss is really gettin' serious about "Doing Something"[SUB]TM[/SUB].
[quote]To your second point to my second point, I think on the issue of guns and with a healthy understanding of Second Amendment issues, some Obama supporters could be convinced to not die on the hill with him on this. It's a longer stretch to imagine that they wouldn't vote Democrat, though a lot of them aren''t thrilled about Hillary's personal failings or weak resume.[/QUOTE]
Even worse....they're thrilled about Bernie.
48.) DParker - 01/07/2016
By the way, if there's anything at all in that to really be on your guard about it's this:
[quote]In addition to the new guidance on who must obtain a firearms license, Valerie Jarrett announced that the president would require the Social Security Administration to begin the rule-making process for prohibiting certain Social Security recipients from legally obtaining guns, a move that could bar millions from legally owning firearms.[/quote]
If that's what it sounds like then it doesn't have a prayer of passing constitutional muster, and I suspect Congress would take steps to deal with it so fast it would make Obama's head spin. But just the fact that they might try it is concerning.
[quote]In addition to the new guidance on who must obtain a firearms license, Valerie Jarrett announced that the president would require the Social Security Administration to begin the rule-making process for prohibiting certain Social Security recipients from legally obtaining guns, a move that could bar millions from legally owning firearms.[/quote]
If that's what it sounds like then it doesn't have a prayer of passing constitutional muster, and I suspect Congress would take steps to deal with it so fast it would make Obama's head spin. But just the fact that they might try it is concerning.
49.) DParker - 01/07/2016
Heck...maybe this will shed a little light on the matter. It sounds to me like Jarrett was just parroting bullet items from the new BATFE [URL="https://www.atf.gov/file/100871/download"]DO I NEED A LICENSE TO BUY AND SELL FIREARMS?[/URL] guidance document. When you read those items in the complete context of that document it becomes pretty clear that she was just reciting existing guidelines and legal precedent, but doing it in a way designed to make it sound like they're actually......y'know...doing something. The upshot of the guidelines has been, and remains...
[quote]As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed.[/quote]
Then go to the section titled "Examples", where you'll find that Bob, David, Scott, Debby are good-to-go, in spite of having sold a lot of guns....whereas Joe, Sharon, Lynn, Jessica and Doug are boned. Further note that it's the combination of multiple factors that lead to the latter's predicament...not any one.
None of these guidelines are new.
[quote]As a general rule, you will need a license if you repetitively buy and sell firearms with the principal motive of making a profit. In contrast, if you only make occasional sales of firearms from your personal collection, you do not need to be licensed.[/quote]
Then go to the section titled "Examples", where you'll find that Bob, David, Scott, Debby are good-to-go, in spite of having sold a lot of guns....whereas Joe, Sharon, Lynn, Jessica and Doug are boned. Further note that it's the combination of multiple factors that lead to the latter's predicament...not any one.
None of these guidelines are new.
50.) Swamp Fox - 01/07/2016
We're on the same page. But let me beat the small horse.
Jarrett talked about two guns.
She says whether you are engaged "in the business" depends on "facts and circumstances."
"SUCH AS X, WHETHER you do Y, SUCH AS A or B, WHETHER you do this or that."
That's not the same thing as saying "Whether you are engaged in the business depends on whether you do Z, AMONG OTHER THINGS."
In addressing Lott's comment, you seemed to be giving her slack she doesn't deserve, based on her own words.
Jarrett, on the face of it, is outlining what could be taken as stand-alone benchmarks for defining a gun dealer. Nowhere does she explicitly indicate that Benchmark A is only one of many factors to be considered as part of a whole. Maybe that's what she meant, but that's not what she said.
Jarrett talked about two guns.
She says whether you are engaged "in the business" depends on "facts and circumstances."
"SUCH AS X, WHETHER you do Y, SUCH AS A or B, WHETHER you do this or that."
That's not the same thing as saying "Whether you are engaged in the business depends on whether you do Z, AMONG OTHER THINGS."
In addressing Lott's comment, you seemed to be giving her slack she doesn't deserve, based on her own words.
Jarrett, on the face of it, is outlining what could be taken as stand-alone benchmarks for defining a gun dealer. Nowhere does she explicitly indicate that Benchmark A is only one of many factors to be considered as part of a whole. Maybe that's what she meant, but that's not what she said.
51.) DParker - 01/07/2016
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37925]We're on the same page. But let me beat the small horse.
Jarrett talked about two guns.
She says whether you are engaged "in the business" depends on "facts and circumstances."
"SUCH AS X, WHETHER you do Y, SUCH AS A or B, WHETHER you do this or that."
That's not the same thing as saying "Whether you are engaged in the business depends on whether you do Z, AMONG OTHER THINGS."
In addressing Lott's comment, you seemed to be giving her slack she doesn't deserve, based on her own words.
Jarrett, on the face of it, is outlining what could be taken as stand-alone benchmarks for defining a gun dealer. Nowhere does she explicitly indicate that benchmark A is only one of many factors to be considered as part of a whole. Maybe that's what she meant, but that's not what she said.[/QUOTE]
See the above. In short, Jarrett's comments are irrelevant, because she was just repeating stuff from the existing BATFE guidelines on what constitutes "being in the business of selling firearms". That she did a poor job of it (or a masterful job of it, depending on one's assessment of her true motives for engaging in the rhetoric) doesn't change the fact that nothing she mentioned is new. Remember...she's an ideologue and propaganda artist.
Jarrett talked about two guns.
She says whether you are engaged "in the business" depends on "facts and circumstances."
"SUCH AS X, WHETHER you do Y, SUCH AS A or B, WHETHER you do this or that."
That's not the same thing as saying "Whether you are engaged in the business depends on whether you do Z, AMONG OTHER THINGS."
In addressing Lott's comment, you seemed to be giving her slack she doesn't deserve, based on her own words.
Jarrett, on the face of it, is outlining what could be taken as stand-alone benchmarks for defining a gun dealer. Nowhere does she explicitly indicate that benchmark A is only one of many factors to be considered as part of a whole. Maybe that's what she meant, but that's not what she said.[/QUOTE]
See the above. In short, Jarrett's comments are irrelevant, because she was just repeating stuff from the existing BATFE guidelines on what constitutes "being in the business of selling firearms". That she did a poor job of it (or a masterful job of it, depending on one's assessment of her true motives for engaging in the rhetoric) doesn't change the fact that nothing she mentioned is new. Remember...she's an ideologue and propaganda artist.
52.) Swamp Fox - 01/07/2016
And now, a short intermission:
Hillary can't answer what's the difference between a socialist and a Democrat...
Some socialists are okay with guns, maybe? LOL
Chris Matthews interviews himself, and Hillary gets some stuttering in edgewise:
Hillary can't answer what's the difference between a socialist and a Democrat...
Some socialists are okay with guns, maybe? LOL
Chris Matthews interviews himself, and Hillary gets some stuttering in edgewise:
53.) luv2bowhunt - 01/07/2016
That was 2:40 of my life that I'll never get back. And I know I'm dumber for the experience.
54.) Swamp Fox - 01/07/2016
There's a reason no one watches MSNBC...:wave:
55.) Swamp Fox - 01/07/2016
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;37906]...My point that it doesn't matter whether certain statutes already exist or may soon exist still stands. What matters is that Obama has chosen to wave them in our faces at this time, accompanied with tears, so that things that can be legitimately objected to, which won't fix any problems, become quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters and everyone else who doesn't know any better.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=DParker;37910]...He's been doing that sort of thing ever since he's been in the White House (with the crocodile tears act being an added touch now)...and it's been a losing strategy on this issue for 7 years. And..."quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters"? You think his supporters would be otherwise inclined to view his opponents favorably and vote for them?[/QUOTE]
[I]I thought this was pretty good on the difference between liberals and leftists on the issue of current attempts at gun control, and how our team isn't completely boned (to use DParker's excellent resurrected phrase) in hopes to peel some Dems away from Team Obama...
This proposal has laid bare the divide between liberals and leftists. There is considerable overlap between the two groups, which is why they both have found a home in the Democratic Party. Both generally want to solve society’s ills by using the power of government to grind out the baser parts of our human nature, defining those base parts according to the progressive conventional wisdom of the moment. Both also profess an attachment to civil rights, although, as with their idea of human nature, their ideas on natural rights are prone to fluctuation.
The Daylight Between Liberals and Leftists
The difference between liberals and leftists is a matter of emphasis. One way to look at it is to say that liberals are concerned about means, while leftists are concerned about ends. Liberals are typically interested in process and structures. They care, to some extent, about checks and balances and fundamental ideas of fairness. Although they typically trust government as a whole and believe it is a force for good, they may distrust various parts of government, and will work to ensure there is oversight to provide that everyone is being treated fairly. They even, although less so than was once the case, have some good feelings for natural rights, especially those found in the Bill of Rights (with the exception of the Second Amendment, in recent years).
The problem for liberals is that it obviously violates the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
Leftists, on the other hand, care only about results. These are the central planners. They may give lip service to civil rights, but only when it helps their own efforts of the moment, or when it is necessary to placate liberals in their own coalition. What they really want is equality, as determined and administered by the state, which they would control. They speak in the language of rights, but shift the meaning to serve their own purposes. A typical formulation is “What good is the right to [X] if we don’t provide [someone else’s] money to buy [a product somewhat related to X].” They would like the right to be enforced, but what they really want is the money.
There is usually no daylight between liberals and leftists. They both talk of the same rights, trends, and groups, and vote the same way in Congress. The rare issue to divide them is one, like Obama’s proposal, that aims to accomplish a leftist end by illiberal means. The plan is perfectly satisfying to the leftists, taking away a right they find strange and abhorrent. The problem for liberals is not that it violates the Second Amendment (they have long given up on that section of the Bill of Rights,) nor that it goes after guns at all (they find civilian gun culture as alien as leftists do), but that it seeks to do these things by means that obviously violate the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
[/I]
[url]http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/07/how-the-right-can-get-liberal-support-for-gun-rights/[/url]
[QUOTE=DParker;37910]...He's been doing that sort of thing ever since he's been in the White House (with the crocodile tears act being an added touch now)...and it's been a losing strategy on this issue for 7 years. And..."quicksand for his political opponents in the eyes of his supporters"? You think his supporters would be otherwise inclined to view his opponents favorably and vote for them?[/QUOTE]
[I]I thought this was pretty good on the difference between liberals and leftists on the issue of current attempts at gun control, and how our team isn't completely boned (to use DParker's excellent resurrected phrase) in hopes to peel some Dems away from Team Obama...
This proposal has laid bare the divide between liberals and leftists. There is considerable overlap between the two groups, which is why they both have found a home in the Democratic Party. Both generally want to solve society’s ills by using the power of government to grind out the baser parts of our human nature, defining those base parts according to the progressive conventional wisdom of the moment. Both also profess an attachment to civil rights, although, as with their idea of human nature, their ideas on natural rights are prone to fluctuation.
The Daylight Between Liberals and Leftists
The difference between liberals and leftists is a matter of emphasis. One way to look at it is to say that liberals are concerned about means, while leftists are concerned about ends. Liberals are typically interested in process and structures. They care, to some extent, about checks and balances and fundamental ideas of fairness. Although they typically trust government as a whole and believe it is a force for good, they may distrust various parts of government, and will work to ensure there is oversight to provide that everyone is being treated fairly. They even, although less so than was once the case, have some good feelings for natural rights, especially those found in the Bill of Rights (with the exception of the Second Amendment, in recent years).
The problem for liberals is that it obviously violates the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
Leftists, on the other hand, care only about results. These are the central planners. They may give lip service to civil rights, but only when it helps their own efforts of the moment, or when it is necessary to placate liberals in their own coalition. What they really want is equality, as determined and administered by the state, which they would control. They speak in the language of rights, but shift the meaning to serve their own purposes. A typical formulation is “What good is the right to [X] if we don’t provide [someone else’s] money to buy [a product somewhat related to X].” They would like the right to be enforced, but what they really want is the money.
There is usually no daylight between liberals and leftists. They both talk of the same rights, trends, and groups, and vote the same way in Congress. The rare issue to divide them is one, like Obama’s proposal, that aims to accomplish a leftist end by illiberal means. The plan is perfectly satisfying to the leftists, taking away a right they find strange and abhorrent. The problem for liberals is not that it violates the Second Amendment (they have long given up on that section of the Bill of Rights,) nor that it goes after guns at all (they find civilian gun culture as alien as leftists do), but that it seeks to do these things by means that obviously violate the due process guarantees of the Fifth Amendment.
[/I]
[url]http://thefederalist.com/2016/01/07/how-the-right-can-get-liberal-support-for-gun-rights/[/url]
56.) DParker - 01/07/2016
That's a damned good description.
57.) bluecat - 11/08/2016
Nice video!
58.) Swamp Fox - 12/20/2016
Huh!
Don't know how I missed that video. :tu:
I came here to post this. This is excellent work by a blogger that you might run across every once in a while but who probably isn't read as much as he probably should be.
I'll put this here for now. I might post it in a separate thread if it's a resource people might want to search for in the future.
[B]Bloomberg's Vast Exaggeration of School Shootings ---The Stat The Media and Antis Like To Quote--Debunked
[/B]
[B]Audit, details and links to official and news reports of "School Shootings" Since Sandy Hook[/B]
[url]http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/12/16/audit-everytowns-200-school-shootings-since-sandy-hook/[/url]
Don't know how I missed that video. :tu:
I came here to post this. This is excellent work by a blogger that you might run across every once in a while but who probably isn't read as much as he probably should be.
I'll put this here for now. I might post it in a separate thread if it's a resource people might want to search for in the future.
[B]Bloomberg's Vast Exaggeration of School Shootings ---The Stat The Media and Antis Like To Quote--Debunked
[/B]
[B]Audit, details and links to official and news reports of "School Shootings" Since Sandy Hook[/B]
[url]http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/12/16/audit-everytowns-200-school-shootings-since-sandy-hook/[/url]
59.) bluecat - 12/20/2016
Nice post.
60.) DParker - 12/20/2016
[QUOTE=Swamp Fox;46095]Huh!
Don't know how I missed that video. :tu:
I came here to post this. This is excellent work by a blogger that you might run across every once in a while but who probably isn't read as much as he probably should be.
I'll put this here for now. I might post it in a separate thread if it's a resource people might want to search for in the future.
[B]Bloomberg's Vast Exaggeration of School Shootings ---The Stat The Media and Antis Like To Quote--Debunked
[/B]
[B]Audit, details and links to official and news reports of "School Shootings" Since Sandy Hook[/B]
[url]http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/12/16/audit-everytowns-200-school-shootings-since-sandy-hook/[/url][/QUOTE]
Well, to be fair...they all happened in zip codes where one or more schools are located, so.....
Don't know how I missed that video. :tu:
I came here to post this. This is excellent work by a blogger that you might run across every once in a while but who probably isn't read as much as he probably should be.
I'll put this here for now. I might post it in a separate thread if it's a resource people might want to search for in the future.
[B]Bloomberg's Vast Exaggeration of School Shootings ---The Stat The Media and Antis Like To Quote--Debunked
[/B]
[B]Audit, details and links to official and news reports of "School Shootings" Since Sandy Hook[/B]
[url]http://bearingarms.com/bob-o/2016/12/16/audit-everytowns-200-school-shootings-since-sandy-hook/[/url][/QUOTE]
Well, to be fair...they all happened in zip codes where one or more schools are located, so.....
61.) Swamp Fox - 12/20/2016
Makes you wonder why no one did an incident-by-incident audit until now.
Oh, wait, I know: It must have taken hours and hours.
If someone has done something nearly as comprehensive, especially if it sheds more light, please point me in that direction.
Oh, wait, I know: It must have taken hours and hours.
If someone has done something nearly as comprehensive, especially if it sheds more light, please point me in that direction.