RI Bills Fan Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 If there is more tax money coming out of my pocket to pay for the illegal immigrant or the non-productive citizen, then it is socialized as far as I'm concerned. And that my conservative friend is the basic difference between us. I see nothing wrong with giving those less fortunate than myself a helping hand. And if a government program is the most effective way to do that then I'm in favor of that idea. Your comment about illegal aliens and non-productive citizens gives me the impression that you consider those less fortunate than yourself to be unworthy of your assistance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 Go ahead and explain what a gun show loophole is. The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports the measure, explained [3] that although federally-licensed firearm dealers (FFLs) are required to conduct Brady criminal background checks when they sell guns at gun shows, flea markets and swap meets, as well as unlicensed individuals who set up next to FFLs, are not required to conduct background checks in most states. Terrorists, criminals and other people prohibited from buying or possessing guns seek out unlicensed sellers, because they can pay cash and walk away with deadly weapons. Additionally, because unlicensed sellers are not well-regulated and do not keep records, criminals exploit gun shows to sell firearms and law enforcement has difficulty tracing gun-show firearms that turn up at crime scenes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YellowLinesandArmadillos Posted January 25, 2009 Author Share Posted January 25, 2009 Wrong. The NRA favors NICS and pretty much always has. They have been wishy washy on it. They have said that a waiting period isn't necessary, as in when Virginia first implemented it, when VA check system wasn't fully integrated into the FBI or set up to work across the state and the database had not been fully updated. So yeh, they have supported it, but they haven't always acknowledged when a check system was adequately up an running, while claiming it was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Sabotage = Charlie Gibson condescendingly looking down his glasses at Palin and asking her what the "Bush Doctrine" is. Did anyone in the MSM ask Caroline "Um, Uh, You Know" Kennedy a question like that? No! They wouldn't dare expose Caroline for the brain-dead dolt that she is. Palin was not ready for prime time. Caroline Kennedy will NEVER be ready for prime time. Um, what? Because Palin can't answer a question makes it the media's fault? What kind of pansy-ass candidate do you want? A 10th grade debater could have nailed that question. Get over it, your candidate sucked. Stop the excuses. Oh, and Caroline got grilled, couldn't get it done and bowed out. What more proof do you need? Dude, face it, you can't accept the fact that it's not about ideology it's about the ability to get it done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports the measure, explained [3] that although federally-licensed firearm dealers (FFLs) are required to conduct Brady criminal background checks when they sell guns at gun shows, flea markets and swap meets, as well as unlicensed individuals who set up next to FFLs, are not required to conduct background checks in most states. Terrorists, criminals and other people prohibited from buying or possessing guns seek out unlicensed sellers, because they can pay cash and walk away with deadly weapons. Additionally, because unlicensed sellers are not well-regulated and do not keep records, criminals exploit gun shows to sell firearms and law enforcement has difficulty tracing gun-show firearms that turn up at crime scenes. The so called gun show loophole is a complete red herring. There is absolutely no difference between a non-dealer selling a gun at a gun show, in the paper or a grocery store bulletin board. It is a private transaction, not regulated. Only the means of getting buyer and seller together are different. So clearly the next step would be to require background checks between ALL private transactions. I have no way of doing B.Cs so now the answer is all private sales must be done though a FFL dealer. Now we get to the real game plan behind this close " the loophole"talk. I, and many,many others that do not live in the wonderful state of Illinois,own many guns that no one knows I possess. The law would be unenforceable. How would any one know the sale took place? The answer,of course, would be national registration of ALL guns, in ALL states-the holy grail of gun controller's since the days of Tim Sullivan in NYC. Disarmament must start with knowing who owns what. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 And that my conservative friend is the basic difference between us. I see nothing wrong with giving those less fortunate than myself a helping hand. And if a government program is the most effective way to do that then I'm in favor of that idea. Your comment about illegal aliens and non-productive citizens gives me the impression that you consider those less fortunate than yourself to be unworthy of your assistance. Yes, thankfully so because I consider illegal aliens...just that...illegal--and therefore not part of any American process. I believe in personal responsibility...help those who help themselves... you know that grand old saying that has survived the ages. I do believe in helping the disabled and the elderly and infants...these are the only persons who can't help themselves. I like to think these beliefs are also steeped in common sense. But again, that's me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PearlHowardman Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Um, what? Because Palin can't answer a question makes it the media's fault? What kind of pansy-ass candidate do you want? A 10th grade debater could have nailed that question. Get over it, your candidate sucked. Stop the excuses. Oh, and Caroline got grilled, couldn't get it done and bowed out. What more proof do you need? Dude, face it, you can't accept the fact that it's not about ideology it's about the ability to get it done. Most people didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was simply because they didn't remember it. I didn't! It was a set up 'gotcha' question by Gibbs. Caroline Kennedy faced no such questions. She was NOT grilled!!! When Palin did falter in her interviews the liberal MSM were all over her like vultures. Not with Kennedy. They whitewashed everything and made every excuse in the book for Caroline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsNYC Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Never seen such a whiney article before: http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/559513.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albany,n.y. Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Most people didn't know what the Bush Doctrine was simply because they didn't remember it. I didn't! It was a set up 'gotcha' question by Gibbs. Caroline Kennedy faced no such questions. She was NOT grilled!!! When Palin did falter in her interviews the liberal MSM were all over her like vultures. Not with Kennedy. They whitewashed everything and made every excuse in the book for Caroline. What the Palin supporters in any Palin v Kennedy argument don't get is that Caroline Kennedy wasn't nominated to be a 72 year old heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world. The level of the position DEMANDS great scrutiny. Caroline Kennedy was not nominated nor chosen for anything at the time she spoke. If she had been nominated for Vice President running with a man the age of McCain, I would surely hope that she would be examined up, down & sideways as Palin was. It was not the media bias, it was the friggin position & the possibility of becoming President that made the scrutiny of Palin necessary. Kennedy was nothing more than a person who expressed interest in a position of less greater magnitude than the position Palin was already nominated & running for at the time of the scrutiny. Other than her own announcement, her name & the media making her into a front runner, with no evidence that she was ever the leading candidate in the eyes of the one man responsible for making the decision, Caroline Kennedy was basically a private citizen with no true path to any office. In the end she turned into no more viable a candidate for the Senate than someone like Gary Coleman was when he ran for Governor of California. There is nothing comparable between someone with a big name expressing interest in an open Senate office and someone who has already accepted the nomination of one of the 2 major parties to be within a heartbeat of being President of the United States of America. Sarah Palin had a 50% chance of being VP at the time of the scrutiny. Anything less than trying to find out everything about her would have been irresponsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 What the Palin supporters in any Palin v Kennedy argument don't get is that Caroline Kennedy wasn't nominated to be a 72 year old heartbeat away from the most powerful position in the world. The level of the position DEMANDS great scrutiny. Caroline Kennedy was not nominated nor chosen for anything at the time she spoke. If she had been nominated for Vice President running with a man the age of McCain, I would surely hope that she would be examined up, down & sideways as Palin was.It was not the media bias, it was the friggin position & the possibility of becoming President that made the scrutiny of Palin necessary. Kennedy was nothing more than a person who expressed interest in a position of less greater magnitude than the position Palin was already nominated & running for at the time of the scrutiny. Other than her own announcement, her name & the media making her into a front runner, with no evidence that she was ever the leading candidate in the eyes of the one man responsible for making the decision, Caroline Kennedy was basically a private citizen with no true path to any office. In the end she turned into no more viable a candidate for the Senate than someone like Gary Coleman was when he ran for Governor of California. There is nothing comparable between someone with a big name expressing interest in an open Senate office and someone who has already accepted the nomination of one of the 2 major parties to be within a heartbeat of being President of the United States of America. Sarah Palin had a 50% chance of being VP at the time of the scrutiny. Anything less than trying to find out everything about her would have been irresponsible. Not trying to be a wise guy, because what you state makes a lot of sense, but the big question is: Did the media try to find out everything on Obama? It seems to me they dismissed a lot of the fact he was groomed through corrupt Chicago politics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Never seen such a whiney article before: http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/559513.html I'm sure the dems will find some loophole to overturn his decision just like the Franken fiasco. I like Paterson--the fact that his party can't trust him means the American people can. Good for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Not trying to be a wise guy, because what you state makes a lot of sense, but the big question is: Did the media try to find out everything on Obama? It seems to me they dismissed a lot of the fact he was groomed through corrupt Chicago politics. I'm sure the dems will find some loophole to overturn his decision just like the Franken fiasco. I like Paterson--the fact that his party can't trust him means the American people can. Good for him. Do you ever take the partisan blinders off or is everything in your world as simple as Republican/Conservative = Good and Democrat/Liberal = Bad? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kingfish Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I'm sure the dems will find some loophole to overturn his decision just like the Franken fiasco. I wouldn't call the Minnesota law that automatically mandates a recount in all statewide races where the margin is less than one half of a percent a "loophole". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 I wouldn't call the Minnesota law that automatically mandates a recount in all statewide races where the margin is less than one half of a percent a "loophole". Not at all...just how the recount was conducted was a fiasco. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Not at all...just how the recount was conducted was a fiasco. It's the Washington (state) Method -keep recounting and finding "new" ballots until the dem wins. Got the current gov of Washington into office. Who cares if there are more votes than registered voters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max Fischer Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 It's the Washington (state) Method -keep recounting and finding "new" ballots until the dem wins. Got the current gov of Washington into office. Who cares if there are more votes than registered voters. This is a major conspiracy. Even the Republicans in Minnesota are in on it. Of course, they're not "real" Republicans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 They have been wishy washy on it. They have said that a waiting period isn't necessary, as in when Virginia first implemented it, when VA check system wasn't fully integrated into the FBI or set up to work across the state and the database had not been fully updated. So yeh, they have supported it, but they haven't always acknowledged when a check system was adequately up an running, while claiming it was. The NRA has more than "supported it". They've lobbied every level of government to fund it properly, basically eliminating the ridiculous and more expensive wait periods. Your original statement was "The NRA doesn't like background checks". That is patently untrue. The organization has ALWAYS supported NICS and has regularly challenged the government to use available technology to both organize and expedite the process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 The Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, which supports the measure, explained [3] that although federally-licensed firearm dealers (FFLs) are required to conduct Brady criminal background checks when they sell guns at gun shows, flea markets and swap meets, as well as unlicensed individuals who set up next to FFLs, are not required to conduct background checks in most states. Terrorists, criminals and other people prohibited from buying or possessing guns seek out unlicensed sellers, because they can pay cash and walk away with deadly weapons. Additionally, because unlicensed sellers are not well-regulated and do not keep records, criminals exploit gun shows to sell firearms and law enforcement has difficulty tracing gun-show firearms that turn up at crime scenes. Nothing better than going to BCPFG for information. Fewer than 2% of gun crimes are committed with guns procured at gun shows. The percentage of those guns sold by "unlicensed" dealers is microscopic. I've never seen a single statistic on the number of those 2% that were illegal transactions, since virtually all of them went through NCBICS. Wanna really to make a dent in gun crime? Figure out why 57% of guns used in crimes come from 1% of licensed gun dealers. That'd likely be money well spent. Ever wonder why the Brady people and HCI don't trumpet that statistic, instead going after something that is totally insignificant? If selling your private firearm at a gun show makes you a gun dealer, then selling your private auto makes you an auto dealer. Be prepared for "As is" sales to go away. The government will effectively use legislation and fear to keep "terrorists" and "criminals" from getting weapons with about the same success they've had keeping drugs out of schools. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Not at all...just how the recount was conducted was a fiasco. Proof? Link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JPDontletthedoorhityourars Posted January 25, 2009 Share Posted January 25, 2009 Do you ever take the partisan blinders off or is everything in your world as simple as Republican/Conservative = Good and Democrat/Liberal = Bad? I'm not so much a republican as I am a true conservative. Both parties are full of crooks. Like you said we are polar opposites so maybe the same line of thinking can be applied to you as well? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts