Do You Support Obama's Call To Deny Purchasing A Firearm To Someone On The No-Fly List

[McBell]

Can we walk and chew gum at the same time? [hint-hint]

How can we know what new laws to create when the vast majority of laws already on the books are not being enforced?
What makes anyone think the new laws are going to be enforced any better than the ones not currently being enforced?

The biggest problem as I see it is that no one in a position to something about it is willing to actually address the issue.
They are either proposing worthless garbage or counter with worthless garbage.

meanwhile, what gets done about it in the real world?
Nothing.

 

[metis]

Not an answer and you know it. Making jokes is not an answer.

It's not a joke, and I really shouldn't even have to explain it to you.

 

[tytlyf]

Uhoh, hearing the NRA is saying they're in favor of people on the watch list not getting guns immediately. Esmith, I assume you disagree with the NRA. Or are you in lock-step with everything they stand for?

 

[metis]

How can we know what new laws to create when the vast majority of laws already on the books are not being enforced?
What makes anyone think the new laws are going to be enforced any better than the ones not currently being enforced?

The biggest problem as I see it is that no one in a position to something about it is willing to actually address the issue.
They are either proposing worthless garbage or counter with worthless garbage.

meanwhile, what gets done about it in the real world?
Nothing.

We do not in this country refuse to pass any laws until somehow perfection or near perfection is somehow miraculously accomplished. All you are parroting is a nonsensical talking-point put out by the talking heads at Fox on right-wing radio.

We have a serious problem in this country in this area, and to do nothing to deal with this is about as stupid as stupid can possibly be (I'm not calling you "stupid" btw). We don't stop funding our military simply because sometimes mistakes are made and some provisions may not live up to our expectations.

 

[McBell]

We do not in this country refuse to pass any laws until somehow perfection or near perfection is somehow miraculously accomplished. All you are parroting is a nonsensical talking-point put out by the talking heads at Fox on right-wing radio.

We have a serious problem in this country in this area, and to do nothing to deal with this is about as stupid as stupid can possibly be (I'm not calling you "stupid" btw). We don't stop funding our military simply because sometimes mistakes are made and some provisions may not live up to our expectations.

the fact is that merely proposing random political motions that serve no purpose other than to make a bunch of ignorant people feel better does absolutely nothing to fix the problem.
It matters not how big an *** you make of your self supporting it.

 

[metis]

the fact is that merely proposing random political motions that serve no purpose other than to make a bunch of ignorant people feel better does absolutely nothing to fix the problem.
It matters not how big an *** you make of your self supporting it.

It's not a matter of just passing any law, which indeed would be foolish, but there are steps that have been taken in many countries that have had a positive effect in reducing crime, including our own. Too bad you're not aware of what both the research and what some programs have already accomplished.

And since it seems that you main approach to a civilized discussion is to demean anyone who disagrees with you by name-calling and questing someone's intelligence, I will again put you on ignore because any such approach I find morally repugnant. Here we teach children not to call people names and not to use bullying tactics, and yet all you can come back with is the above.

Write what you want as I no longer could care less.

 

[esmith]

Uhoh, hearing the NRA is saying they're in favor of people on the watch list not getting guns immediately. Esmith, I assume you disagree with the NRA. Or are you in lock-step with everything they stand for?

As a Life Member of the NRA I will go with their recommendations

 

[esmith]

It's not a joke, and I really shouldn't even have to explain it to you.

It may not have been a joke but it might as well have been. You failed to address the question, just made some remark that failed to answer the question.
Is it you really don't have an answer? Probably.

 

[metis]

It may not have been a joke but it might as well have been. You failed to address the question, just made some remark that failed to answer the question.
Is it you really don't have an answer? Probably.

You really don't think I have "an answer"? Not saying it's a right one, but...

See post #246.

 

[tytlyf]

As a Life Member of the NRA I will go with their recommendations

Of course you will, now you change your tune. I bet you hate it, but that's what's called being in lock-step with a propaganda outlet. The NRA is a disgrace to this country. GWHB was right to cancel his lifetime membership, you should think about it too. They only want your money, they don't stand by their founding principles anymore.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Nope. That is until start rigidly enforcing the existing ones then I would be open to a reasonable discussion on the issue.

I think you missed my point. Say we could make the laws (and level of enforcement) whatever we want; what would you want?

I find it hard to believe that current laws enforced more heavily would exactly match what you want. In that scenario, nothing would be too stringent, nothing would be too lax, nothing would be different from what you think is the best approach?

 

[metis]

The NRA is a disgrace to this country. GWHB was right to cancel his lifetime membership, you should think about it too.

As my own father did after visiting a gun-show down on Florida and saw what kind of guns were being sold and some of the types of people who were buying them. My Dad took his NRA card, cut it into pieces, and mailed it to the NRA headquarters and told them what they should do with it-- literally.

BTW, my father was a staunch Republican who bragged how he never voted for a Democrat in his entire life, and he passed away in his mid-seventies.

 

[esmith]

I think you missed my point. Say we could make the laws (and level of enforcement) whatever we want; what would you want?

I find it hard to believe that current laws enforced more heavily would exactly match what you want. In that scenario, nothing would be too stringent, nothing would be too lax, nothing would be different from what you think is the best approach?

What is now on the books, as far as Federal law is concerned. I would also like to see a mandatory 5 year prison (no parole) sentence added for the use of a firearm in any crime. I would be in favor of allowing law enforcement to stop and frisk in high crime areas if a firearm is found and the person is in violation of a city, state, or federal law 5 year (no parole) prison sentence. ( http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/gun-shy-lighter-sentences-in-cook-county-fuel-lock-em-up-debate/)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

What is now on the books, as far as Federal law is concerned.

So none of it is too restrictive (or would be too restrictive if enforced stringently)?

What about state and local law?

I would also like to see a mandatory 5 year prison (no parole) sentence added for the use of a firearm in any crime. I would be in favor of allowing law enforcement to stop and frisk in high crime areas if a firearm is found and the person is in violation of a city, state, or federal law 5 year (no parole) prison sentence. ( http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/gun-shy-lighter-sentences-in-cook-county-fuel-lock-em-up-debate/)

I don't think you can be said to be on the side of liberty if you want to give police the power to just stop and search people without probable cause. Not as big a fan of the Fourth Amendment as you are of the Second, eh?

This seems to be pretty draconian... and surprising anti-gun. For instance: say a CPL-holder is carrying a concealed firearm but his permit has expired. He's certainly breaking the law; you think this warrants a minimum five years without parole in federal prison?

 

[esmith]

So none of it is too restrictive (or would be too restrictive if enforced stringently)?
What about state and local law?

As far as Federal law is concerned, no I do not think it is too restrictive. I do not agree with various state and local laws. That being said, if that's what the voting public wants that is what they are going to get. Those that disagree with the laws can either attempt to vote in a more friendly government, accept the will of the majority, or vote with their feet. Yes, I realize that the federal government could become as draconian as some states, but that is why I vote.

I don't think you can be said to be on the side of liberty if you want to give police the power to just stop and search people without probable cause. Not as big a fan of the Fourth Amendment as you are of the Second, eh?

So you are willing to deny law-abiding citizens their rights under the 2nd Amendment, yet give a pass to someone that a "well trained" law enforcement officer has a suspicion of carrying an illegal firearm. Now there is something called stop, interview, and make a determination upon the interview signals. You don't "frisk" someone without a very good suspicion of a problem. I'm all in favor of "profiling", all it requires is training.

This seems to be pretty draconian... and surprising anti-gun. For instance: say a CPL-holder is carrying a concealed firearm but his permit has expired. He's certainly breaking the law; you think this warrants a minimum five years without parole in federal prison?

OK, I admit that extenuating should come into the equation. Even though I will not need a CCW in the near future I will continue to renew my permit and I know when it will expire. If one is to lazy to check the expiration date of their license they need to be held accountable. Say a fairly hefty fine for carrying with an expired license. My focus is on the, for a better word, gang-bangers, and those that do not have the right to own a firearm.

 

[tytlyf]

Esmith, are you in favor of removing state laws and just making sure everyone follows federal law? Having a mixture introduces confusion and problems. Wouldn't you agree?

 

[esmith]

Esmith, are you in favor of removing state laws and just making sure everyone follows federal law? Having a mixture introduces confusion and problems. Wouldn't you agree?

You mean the existing federal laws......U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 then I have no problem with that.
However, as you well know various states have laws governing carrying of firearms. Would you agree to follow the laws of say the State of Idaho and have those be the laws of all states?

 

[tytlyf]

You mean the existing federal laws......U.S. Code Title 18 Chapter 44 then I have no problem with that.
However, as you well know various states have laws governing carrying of firearms. Would you agree to follow the laws of say the State of Idaho and have those be the laws of all states?

I mean no state laws concerning weapons. Everyone follows what's on the books of federal law.

 

[esmith]

I mean no state laws concerning weapons. Everyone follows what's on the books of federal law.

Federal law does not cover for instance concealed weapons laws. If I purchase a firearm in Idaho from a licensed dealer I do not have to go through a background check at the time of purchase my CCW permit is my background check. Federal law does not cover that.
So just what are you talking about. Be specific if you can....I know it's hard but try.

 

[McBell]

I mean no state laws concerning weapons. Everyone follows what's on the books of federal law.

And he is saying if the federal law adopted was equal to the current law in Idaho, would you be OK with that?

Hint, you should at the very least look up Idaho State law concerning firearms before you answer.