Bernie Sanders Brags About His ‘D-‘ from the NRA

[kage69]

Nationally, the NRA polls better than both Sanders and Hilary. So Bernie bragging about his rating is little more than an attempt to garner brownie points from the base.

He's addressing Hillary's emphasis on his record, something candidates do when in a race lest they be labeled as "scared" to debate an issue.

Bernie is more popular than the NRA and Hillary both from what I've seen lately. Planned Parenthood has better approval ratings than the NRA (and that was in both parties IIRC). Given how Wayne LaPierre operates and the zero fucks given for the majority of NRA members wanting universal background checks, I can understand it.

 

[fskimospy]

I've already made my point. But thanks for clarifying the true scope of the deception. Sheeple...gotta love them!

In case you forgot, you're the person who originally used the term 'gun show loophole' in this thread. Wolfe said 'secondary market, ie: gun shows', and I said private sales. So you introduced a term that wasn't being used into the discussion and then complained about how your own term is deceptive! You've truly made your point all right. lol.

You are fooling exactly no one. You got busted not knowing what the thing you were complaining about was. Just own it. This has to be one of the saddest and most transparent attempts to save face I have ever seen you try.

 

[kage69]

In case you forgot, you're the person who originally used the term 'gun show loophole' in this thread. Wolfe said 'secondary market, ie: gun shows', and I said private sales. So you introduced a term that wasn't being used into the discussion and then complained about how your own term is deceptive! You've truly made your point all right. lol.

You are fooling exactly no one. You got busted not knowing what the thing you were complaining about was. Just own it. This has to be one of the saddest and most transparent attempts to save face I have ever seen you try.

I've been seeing DSF get stomped like this for more than a decade (a lot of it from you). I think we're beyond him ever developing some intellectual integrity or sense of shame over those shoelaces he likes to dangle from his mouth so often.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

In case you forgot, you're the person who originally used the term 'gun show loophole' in this thread. Wolfe said 'secondary market, ie: gun shows', and I said private sales. So you introduced a term that wasn't being used into the discussion and then complained about how your own term is deceptive! You've truly made your point all right. lol.

You are fooling exactly no one. You got busted not knowing what the thing you were complaining about was. Just own it. This has to be one of the saddest and most transparent attempts to save face I have ever seen you try.

Again...thank you for pointing out the scope and magnitude of the deceptive rhetoric progressives commonly use as a premeditated tactic in addressing this issue. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly rationalize such blatant dishonesty...but then again, it does speak volumes regarding the morality of the people we're dealing with here.

 

[bshole]

When it comes to rights I absolutely believe it.

Except abortion, that infringes on the childs right to life.

LoL. You obvious don't believe in the Bible then. God commanded his people to kill fornicating women (along with any unborn children they may be carrying.

So since you are not using the Bible to justify your stance on abortion, what exactly are you using for justification and..... why do you insist on disobeying God's law?

 

[Texashiker]

So since you are not using the Bible to justify your stance on abortion, what exactly are you using for justification and..... why do you insist on disobeying God's law?

I do not use religion in my post.

Nice try though.

If you believe all people are created equally, then rights have to start at the time of creation. No barrier can be placed on the exercising of rights. That includes the right to life.

 

[fskimospy]

Again...thank you for pointing out the scope and magnitude of the deceptive rhetoric progressives commonly use as a premeditated tactic in addressing this issue. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly rationalize such blatant dishonesty...but then again, it does speak volumes regarding the morality of the people we're dealing with here.

Except of course you were the one using 'deceptive rhetoric as a premeditated tactic' that you're complaining about here.

You're complaining about how dishonest it is to use a term when you're the only person in the thread who used it. I'm also unsure how anyone could possibly rationalize such blatant dishonesty.

 

[werepossum]

Both parties want to take away constitutional rights. Neither party is truly for freedoms despite the tag lines of their campaigns.

Some democrats want to restrict guns to those who have or likely will commit crimes. Some republicans want to restrict marriage. Get over it. If you want to change it, stop voting for the same two parties.

This is true. We have two big government parties aimed at (slightly) different targets.

You can be for gun rights, and against he NRA.

The NRA needs to be dissolved.

Once the NRA is dissolved, the Second Amendment will quickly become the progressive interpretation - a collective right. That is, you have the right to bear arms only in service of the government. (Or as a duly licensed bodyguard for the rich and powerful. 'Cause they're just worth more.) The Fourth is pretty much gone already (and with warrantless wiretapping can take the Fifth with it), and the First is under attack on college campuses everywhere.

 

[bozack]

From Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_show_loophole



If you knew exactly what you were arguing against you wouldn't have said that only .7% of guns used in crimes would be affected by closing it. If you had a problem with the name you could have come right out and said it, instead you acted as if the name was a literal one.

So either you didn't know what you were talking about (almost certainly the case), you were engaging in passive-aggressive complaining about the naming of something (stupid and childish), or you knew it covered more than gun shows but decided to act like it didn't. (lying)

All that aside, now that you know between 40% and 80% of the guns used by criminals comes through this loophole, depending on what you want to count, can you back up your assertion that closing it will have almost no effect?

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have read this year....

Even if you're correct in that the intended target of this legislation is to prevent transfers and sales amongst friends and family how on earth do you propose that it is enforced?

I can understand at the organized event level, where there are requirements to participating in the sale at a particular venue.

But for the friends and family piece who would actually enforce that? or would it be like trying to take people to task for not paying taxes on ebay profits or yard sale "income"....

I live in a state with exceptionally strict gun laws and they don't even track that now effectively.

Also I agree with others who said if you're attempting to restrict private transfers and sales then they should be clear about that, but typical for them to label it as "gun show loophole" much like they continually use "assault weapons ban" in ludicrous fashion.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

I do not use religion in my post.

Nice try though.

If you believe all people are created equally, then rights have to start at the time of creation. No barrier can be placed on the exercising of rights. That includes the right to life.

yea, but you don't believe that so stop already.

 

[fskimospy]

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have read this year....

Even if you're correct in that the intended target of this legislation is to prevent transfers and sales amongst friends and family how on earth do you propose that it is enforced?

Uhmm, extremely easily? If someone is stopped or charged with a weapon in their possession that is not registered to them you then go pay a visit to its registered owner. Easy.

I can understand at the organized event level, where there are requirements to participating in the sale at a particular venue.

But for the friends and family piece who would actually enforce that? or would it be like trying to take people to task for not paying taxes on ebay profits or yard sale "income"....

No not the same at all. The things you sell at a yard sale are not serialized.

I live in a state with exceptionally strict gun laws and they don't even track that now effectively.

Also I agree with others who said if you're attempting to restrict private transfers and sales then they should be clear about that, but typical for them to label it as "gun show loophole" much like they continually use "assault weapons ban" in ludicrous fashion.

You realize that the only person in this thread that used the phrase 'gun show loophole' without being clear it referred to private sales was the guy complaining about the term, right? Talk about ludicrous.

 

[ivwshane]

This is quite possibly the dumbest thing I have read this year....

Even if you're correct in that the intended target of this legislation is to prevent transfers and sales amongst friends and family how on earth do you propose that it is enforced?

I can understand at the organized event level, where there are requirements to participating in the sale at a particular venue.

But for the friends and family piece who would actually enforce that? or would it be like trying to take people to task for not paying taxes on ebay profits or yard sale "income"....

I live in a state with exceptionally strict gun laws and they don't even track that now effectively.

Also I agree with others who said if you're attempting to restrict private transfers and sales then they should be clear about that, but typical for them to label it as "gun show loophole" much like they continually use "assault weapons ban" in ludicrous fashion.

He was clear as have been other posters, the only one being dishonest about what is being discussed had been doc, he was the only one to bring up that term. It's odd that you failed to see this as the last two pages have been about exactly that.

In regards to private gun sales, if we can regulate when friends and families transfer vehicles to each other then we can also do it with guns.

 

[ivwshane]

Except of course you were the one using 'deceptive rhetoric as a premeditated tactic' that you're complaining about here.

You're complaining about how dishonest it is to use a term when you're the only person in the thread who used it. I'm also unsure how anyone could possibly rationalize such blatant dishonesty.

This should be an easy "ownage of the year" award, even if we are only one month into 2016. It looks like doc is trying to break his record from last year.

 

[werepossum]

No universal background checks, for starters. That's a no-brainer. No national gun registry, which makes illegal gun trafficking almost impossible to police.

It's a few extremely politically active, paranoid morons who think that the US government is conspiring to steal their guns that prevent common sense things like that.

Of course, your support for a national gun registry is in no way connected to your support for doctors' right to compile a list of households owning guns. That's just smart medicine.

I'm no NRA fanboy, but your statement is really a special kind of stupid.

When it comes to the NRA, a special kind of stupid is commonly exhibited. It truly is the only organization held responsible for crimes committed by none of its members.

Background checks should apply to secondary market sales, i.e. gun shows. That and existing background check laws should be enforced better. Otherwise, I personally don't support any restrictions we don't already have. But that is irrelevant because it misses the point of my post, which is: why are people screaming about the Constitution when it comes to guns but not anything else? The obvious inference is that these people are not supporters of the Constitution per se. They are just obsessed with guns. Not a healthy obsession IMO.

Edit: I notice eskimospy made a similar point on page 1.

Background checks DO apply to secondary market sales, i.e. gun shows. Licensed firearm dealers have to follow each and every state and federal law whether they sell a gun in their place of business or at a gun show. But just as not everyone selling a car is regulated as a licensed car dealer, not everyone selling a gun is regulated as a licensed firearm dealer.

And many of us are just as vocal about other unreasonable Constitutional infringements, such as right to marry/equal protection, free speech, and the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, thank you.

 

[ivwshane]

Of course, your support for a national gun registry is in no way connected to your support for doctors' right to compile a list of households owning guns. That's just smart medicine.


When it comes to the NRA, a special kind of stupid is commonly exhibited. It truly is the only organization held responsible for crimes committed by none of its members.


Background checks DO apply to secondary market sales, i.e. gun shows. Licensed firearm dealers have to follow each and every state and federal law whether they sell a gun in their place of business or at a gun show. But just as not everyone selling a car is regulated as a licensed car dealer, not everyone selling a gun is regulated as a licensed firearm dealer.

And many of us are just as vocal about other unreasonable Constitutional infringements, such as right to marry/equal protection, free speech, and the right to be secure from unreasonable search and seizure, thank you.

****Who said anything about a private seller requiring a license to sell a gun? No one.

****Keep fucking that straw!


Dismiss! Poor reading comprehension on my part 😱

 

[glenn1]

Uhmm, extremely easily? If someone is stopped or charged with a weapon in their possession that is not registered to them you then go pay a visit to its registered owner. Easy.

You just derived your own solution to the "loophole" without needing legislation to close it. Whether you sell a firearm to someone, let them borrow it, or store it improperly and they are able to get at it; if someone other than the last listed purchaser uses it in crime you prosecute the listed last purchaser.

 

[Kwatt]

Who said anything about a private seller requiring a license to sell a gun? No one.

Who would do the background check? Can anybody do one now?


.

 

[werepossum]

Who gave you the secret Repubican't agenda?

😀 +1

Who said anything about a private seller requiring a license to sell a gun? No one.

Keep fucking that straw!

I would point out that my point went over your head, but since there's no way you could pick it out in all that clutter, I shan't bother.

 

[OrByte]

The flaw in your logic is it presumes agreeing with the NRA is synonymous with upholding the Second Amendment, while disagreeing with them is attacking it. Given the NRA's often extreme positions, that's not rational.

To offer a counter example you might understand, the ACLU's mission is defending the Constitution. By your logic, anyone who ever disagrees with the ACLU supports taking our rights away. Do you sometimes disagree with the ACLU? Why don't you support the Constitution?

well said.

 

[ivwshane]

Who would do the background check? Can anybody do one now?


.

I would say that's a relatively easy fix, wouldn't you?

 

[OrByte]

what two or more people do in private is none of the governments business.

LOL!!!

omg such BS!!

abortion
gays in military
gay marriage

etc etc etc...You so don't believe in what you just said.

I think I would pay to watch eskimospy debate this issue.

I own guns. The NRA does not represent me, and never will. They only care about $$

 

[ivwshane]

😀 +1


I would point out that my point went over your head, but since there's no way you could pick it out in all that clutter, I shan't bother.

Lol! You got me 😱

 

[OrByte]

Again...thank you for pointing out the scope and magnitude of the deceptive rhetoric progressives commonly use as a premeditated tactic in addressing this issue. I'm not sure how anyone could possibly rationalize such blatant dishonesty...but then again, it does speak volumes regarding the morality of the people we're dealing with here.

ignore evade ignore evade ignore!

DSF I think you are the one using blatant dishonesty and deceptive rhetoric in addressing this issue.

ignore...evade!

 

[ivwshane]

You just derived your own solution to the "loophole" without needing legislation to close it. Whether you sell a firearm to someone, let them borrow it, or store it improperly and they are able to get at it; if someone other than the last listed purchaser uses it in crime you prosecute the listed last purchaser.

Uh, gun registration isn't mandatory so I'm not sure how he solved the problem.

 

[glenn1]

Uh, gun registration isn't mandatory so I'm not sure how he solved the problem.

But unless you manufactured the weapon yourself, at the point of original sale the buyer would have gotten a background check from an FFL dealer. Thus you can always track a firearm back to that original owner if nothing else.

Which brings me to my second point - without a safe harbor provision there's not really any incentive for prospective sellers in these laws. You're making them go through the expense, time, and annoyance of completing a background check and yet there's nothing preventing them from being charged afterwards if the buyer does commit a crime with the weapon even if the seller does the check. Indeed if anything Democrats seem to want enshrine into law that swinging of the burden further to the seller to hold them legally liable for criminal conduct after completion of the sale even if they completed a background check.