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

[BoberFett]

The NRA needs to be dissolved.

Really? That's scary.

Maybe there are some groups that the right wing thinks should be dissolved. Should they be allowed to?

So much for freedom of association huh? Guess that's another right the Democrats want to get rid of.

 

[Kwatt]

... as legal proof I made the transfer yet doing so still doesn't limit my legal liability if the person commits a crime with the gun...

That would not serve as proof that any specific firearm was transferred or that ANY firearm was transferred. It would only prove that a background check was done. You would have to fill out and keep the proper forms for ~20 years. Although I am sure if this is enacted a few lines could be added to the background check form for the serial # and other data to identify the firearm.

And why the expense for the buyer or seller neither gains from this.

I have read that "society" as a whole benefits. Let "society" as a whole i.e. taxpayer pay any costs. It could work as a Tax Credit. Otherwise some congress person will attach a say a $10,000 or some such charge thereby making background checks prohibitively expensive. Or maybe an EO from a future Pres.

As someone posted earlier I am starting to think this is a backdoor way to get a national registry. Which is not the subject I thought this discussion was about.


.

 

[ivwshane]

Really? That's scary.

Maybe there are some groups that the right wing thinks should be dissolved. Should they be allowed to?

So much for freedom of association huh? Guess that's another right the Democrats want to get rid of.

Hmm...for the life of me I can't think of any groups that the right has successfully helped to get rid of or is trying to get rid of now. Can you? Nah! That's never happened, otherwise we would have seen a post from you about it condemning the right for such unpatriotic action!

Go troll somewhere else hack!

 

[ivwshane]

That would not serve as proof that any specific firearm was transferred or that ANY firearm was transferred. It would only prove that a background check was done. You would have to fill out and keep the proper forms for ~20 years. Although I am sure if this is enacted a few lines could be added to the background check form for the serial # and other data to identify the firearm.

And why the expense for the buyer or seller neither gains from this.

I have read that "society" as a whole benefits. Let "society" as a whole i.e. taxpayer pay any costs. It could work as a Tax Credit. Otherwise some congress person will attach a say a $10,000 or some such charge thereby making background checks prohibitively expensive. Or maybe an EO from a future Pres.

As someone posted earlier I am starting to think this is a backdoor way to get a national registry. Which is not the subject I thought this discussion was about.


.

I would gladly pay a little extra in taxes to have a free background check provided to anyone selling a gun.
If I'm alone in that then I'm sure we can tax gun manufactured or have a special tax on guns or ammunition like we do for many other things.

 

[BoberFett]

Bernie getting a D- from the only legal terrorist organization in this country is a huge bonus for him. Wish he'd gotten an F. While the NRA isn't as horrific as a group like ISIS, they actually cause far more problems and pose a much bigger risk to the safety of the US.

LOL, Democrat hyperbole. You are a sad joke.

 

[BoberFett]

The NRA can brag about the F it gets from me for it's support for anti-freedom, anti-Constitution whackjob politicians.

If the Democrats would stop being such anti-freedom, anti-Constitution whackjobs, the NRA would have no need to support the anti-freedom, anti-Constitution whackjobs from the other party.

 

[Kwatt]

I would gladly pay a little extra in taxes to have a free background check provided to anyone selling a gun.

I think that is reasonable.

If I'm alone in that then I'm sure we can tax gun manufactured or have a special tax on guns or ammunition like we do for many other things.

A special tax or fee on any item has too much potential for abuse.
I have never heard of one that did not get abused by someone.

When a background check is run issue a tax credit for the seller.


.

 

[chucky2]

I would gladly pay a little extra in taxes to have a free background check provided to anyone selling a gun.
If I'm alone in that then I'm sure we can tax gun manufactured or have a special tax on guns or ammunition like we do for many other things.

Yet another poll tax on our constitutional rights. I can't wait for the next National ID thread when someone brings up how amazingly hard it will be on poor people because it will cost some made up sum of money for them to get it every 10 years...

 

[glenn1]

Yet another poll tax on our constitutional rights. I can't wait for the next National ID thread when someone brings up how amazingly hard it will be on poor people because it will cost some made up sum of money for them to get it every 10 years...

At least he's making a tentative good faith effort to address a concern, just as the pro Voter ID folks have made efforts by suggesting that IDs be given free. That's more of a concession than certain others in this thread have made and I appreciate him coming part way towards us.

That being said, I don't think it's complete paranoia that a system like this will be used to gather way more data and for more uses than the stated ones, just as the "NSA evesdropping on Al Qaeda" rapidly grew to blanket listening to everyone's conversations and collection of metadata on everyone and everything. If such a law is implemented it needs to be with a very tight leash that quite frankly neither party has been willing to apply to other times when it collects information on citizens.

 

[werepossum]

You do realize that the 1960s was over 45 years ago, right? You know, back when the Democrats were pro-segregation? Your "pure case" is kinda lacking in fundamental logic and basic research. Once upon a time the NRA supported gun registration.

You should read more history, you can start with Wikipedia. Things change in 45 years:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rifle_Association#Contemporary_history

Thank you. It's always worth pointing out that the NRA shifted toward active protection of our Second Amendment rights only because Democrats shifted toward active attacks on our Second Amendment rights. When you can no longer count on one side being reasonable, then no proposal from them should be considered reasonable.

 

[ivwshane]

I think that is reasonable.




A special tax or fee on any item has too much potential for abuse.
I have never heard of one that did not get abused by someone.

When a background check is run issue a tax credit for the seller.


.

Everything has potential for abuse. If it's such a concern then tie the tax to something like inflation. I also don't think a tax credit is a good solution. It's more burdensome than its worth.

 

[ivwshane]

Yet another poll tax on our constitutional rights. I can't wait for the next National ID thread when someone brings up how amazingly hard it will be on poor people because it will cost some made up sum of money for them to get it every 10 years...

You don't understand what a poll tax is nor do you understand that there is no constitutional prohibition of a tax on the 2nd amendment like there is with voting.

I've also said I'd be for a national ID requirement to vote so long as that ID is free, including the cost of any required supporting documents.

But keep on keeping on...derp!

 

[chucky2]

At least he's making a tentative good faith effort to address a concern, just as the pro Voter ID folks have made efforts by suggesting that IDs be given free. That's more of a concession than certain others in this thread have made and I appreciate him coming part way towards us.

That being said, I don't think it's complete paranoia that a system like this will be used to gather way more data and for more uses than the stated ones, just as the "NSA evesdropping on Al Qaeda" rapidly grew to blanket listening to everyone's conversations and collection of metadata on everyone and everything. If such a law is implemented it needs to be with a very tight leash that quite frankly neither party has been willing to apply to other times when it collects information on citizens.

Yes, I get what you're saying, completely. The problem really is the gun grabbers have as much said (when they're careless enough to be honest/open about their long term goal(s)) that they simply don't want the average citizen to have guns. Since they themselves see no need for them, and/or are scared of them, poof!, no one needs them is their decree.

So what we have is a trust issue here: Can we trust the Fed and State Gov's to actually only enact legislation (a lot of it just feel good, as it won't really accomplish anything in the way of death ((deaths that should actually be prevented)) reduction) and follow the actual intent of that legislation when it comes to firearms? And, coupled with that question, stop there without continue on for the endless Gun Grabber goal?

We can't even trust our Fed Gov to ensure we're not illegally invaded by 10's of Millions of people who don't belong here, quite possibly the most basic duty of the Fed Gov. If the Fed Gov acts in a treasonous and willfully incompetent manner on their most basic duty, and we know what the Gun Grabbers ever constant whining end goal is, how can we have any level of trust that they'll actually a.) come up with actual worthwhile firearm legislation, b.) properly implement this firearm legislation, and c.) stop at that and not continue on with the Gun Grabber 'get a mm whenever possible because it's that much closer to our mile away objective'?

I'd say our trust level would be a negative value to never exceed a rounded up to 0% number. I'm sorry, but the zeal of the Gun Grabber mentality and the utter failure of the Fed Gov makes even having a 'lets talk about more "common sense" legislation' discussion a non-starter. I don't like the way the NRA always does things, but thank god they're actually there, else we'd be utterly F'd when it comes to 2A.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, I get what you're saying, completely. The problem really is the gun grabbers have as much said (when they're careless enough to be honest/open about their long term goal(s)) that they simply don't want the average citizen to have guns. Since they themselves see no need for them, and/or are scared of them, poof!, no one needs them is their decree.

So what we have is a trust issue here: Can we trust the Fed and State Gov's to actually only enact legislation (a lot of it just feel good, as it won't really accomplish anything in the way of death ((deaths that should actually be prevented)) reduction) and follow the actual intent of that legislation when it comes to firearms? And, coupled with that question, stop there without continue on for the endless Gun Grabber goal?

We can't even trust our Fed Gov to ensure we're not illegally invaded by 10's of Millions of people who don't belong here, quite possibly the most basic duty of the Fed Gov. If the Fed Gov acts in a treasonous and willfully incompetent manner on their most basic duty, and we know what the Gun Grabbers ever constant whining end goal is, how can we have any level of trust that they'll actually a.) come up with actual worthwhile firearm legislation, b.) properly implement this firearm legislation, and c.) stop at that and not continue on with the Gun Grabber 'get a mm whenever possible because it's that much closer to our mile away objective'?

I'd say our trust level would be a negative value to never exceed a rounded up to 0% number. I'm sorry, but the zeal of the Gun Grabber mentality and the utter failure of the Fed Gov makes even having a 'lets talk about more "common sense" legislation' discussion a non-starter. I don't like the way the NRA always does things, but thank god they're actually there, else we'd be utterly F'd when it comes to 2A.

You've created quite the straw man and supporting conspiracy there! Well done!

The end goal isn't too take away anyone's guns, it's too minimize deaths by guns. Many people who support gun control also have guns themselves and they happen to be Democrats too!

Once you come back to reality you will see that not everyone is out to get you and you can join the rest of the rational people in making/supporting smart policy decisions.

 

[glenn1]

You've created quite the straw man and supporting conspiracy there! Well done!

The end goal isn't too take away anyone's guns, it's too minimize deaths by guns. Many people who support gun control also have guns themselves and they happen to be Democrats too!

Once you come back to reality you will see that not everyone is out to get you and you can join the rest of the rational people in making/supporting smart policy decisions.

You realize that even if you could somehow guarantee no "take away anyone's guns" that privacy and other issues raised would still be concerns? I thought your side was the one that loved nuance, why do you keep on reducing feedback to a single minded caricature? If you don't treat the people on the other side as reasonable people whose concerns and wants as citizens are just as heartfelt and valid as yours then you will never get agreement from the other side. Treating the pro-gun side like their opinions are invalid or "not rational" and not worthy of respect and yours are the only "smart" policies is one of the biggest factors hindering your cause.

 

[chucky2]

You've created quite the straw man and supporting conspiracy there! Well done!

The end goal isn't too take away anyone's guns, it's too minimize deaths by guns. Many people who support gun control also have guns themselves and they happen to be Democrats too!

Once you come back to reality you will see that not everyone is out to get you and you can join the rest of the rational people in making/supporting smart policy decisions.

The way that goes is like this:

"Common Sense" legislation passed. More poll tax, more bureaucracy, no appreciable reduction in 'minimization of deaths', which will lead to more "Common Sense" legislation etc. etc. etc. Those mm add up, which of course the Gun Grabbers already know ahead of time, since their end goal is get at many firearms out of the public domain as possible, with the happy end goal to be zero. That is the 'come back to reality' of the Gun Grabber.

I'll tell you one measure I'd like to see implemented, maybe you would be for it, maybe not. I'd like to see mandatory firearm safe implemented. While it'd cost me some $ I wouldn't really miss, and more importantly some hassle, it'd go a long way to easing my mind. Now, it'd be a poll tax, so I think they'd have to find a way to rebate it back via taxes or something, but at least one could then ensure ones firearms are properly secured. Doesn't do a thing for Sandy Hook, because the nutjob knew the combo, but still, it'd help...

 

[ivwshane]

You realize that even if you could somehow guarantee no "take away anyone's guns" that privacy and other issues raised would still be concerns? I thought your side was the one that loved nuance, why do you keep on reducing feedback to a single minded caricature? If you don't treat the people on the other side as reasonable people whose concerns and wants as citizens are just as heartfelt and valid as yours then you will never get agreement from the other side. Treating the pro-gun side like their opinions are invalid or "not rational" and not worthy of respect and yours are the only "smart" policies is one of the biggest factors hindering your cause.

You can only address so many issues before you realize that you are dealing with an irrational person. I don't listen to or indulge in extremist views, not every opinion is worthy of response. As you can see, when legitimate concerns were raised I addressed them.

 

[bozack]

Yes, they would be on the hook for possible civil and criminal penalties, all of which would vary based on the circumstances just like with any other crime. If they transferred a gun before the requirement for a background check became law they of course would not be in any trouble. You can't retroactively criminalize actions.

Sounds like a considerable amount of manpower and work...again what good is a law which relies on essentially the honor system for compliance?

We are talking about people breaking a law. People who break all laws usually try not to be caught. Not sure why guns are once again magical and special.

Not saying they are magical and special...the question is what type of penalty is imposed upon the seller and at that point one could ask does it even matter as chances are the gun was already used in a crime for its registration status to come into question

Of course there is a mechanism for enforcing compliance. We have already discussed it. You seem to think if you just declare that the mechanism doesn't count that it goes away. Nope.

What is the mechanism?....again its not like a car which has to be registered and insured to be on the road...what is to stop anyone from just selling a gun for cash and not processing a background check, if a prospective buyer fails a background check is it the seller who is left in the awkward position of telling the buyer this?...logistically I fail to see any options being presented as to how exactly this would be handled.

 

[ivwshane]

The way that goes is like this:

"Common Sense" legislation passed. More poll tax, more bureaucracy, no appreciable reduction in 'minimization of deaths', which will lead to more "Common Sense" legislation etc. etc. etc. Those mm add up, which of course the Gun Grabbers already know ahead of time, since their end goal is get at many firearms out of the public domain as possible, with the happy end goal to be zero. That is the 'come back to reality' of the Gun Grabber.

I don't like frivolous laws that don't accomplish their goals any more than anyone else. Which is why I've called for the ability of the CDC or other appropriate agency to fully study the issue in the same way the CBO studies economic proposals. I'm also not opposed to sunset provisions if no impact of the law can be found after a reasonable amount of time has passed.

I'll tell you one measure I'd like to see implemented, maybe you would be for it, maybe not. I'd like to see mandatory firearm safe implemented. While it'd cost me some $ I wouldn't really miss, and more importantly some hassle, it'd go a long way to easing my mind. Now, it'd be a poll tax, so I think they'd have to find a way to rebate it back via taxes or something, but at least one could then ensure ones firearms are properly secured. Doesn't do a thing for Sandy Hook, because the nutjob knew the combo, but still, it'd help...

I'd prefer an investment into smart gun technology that works over that requiring a safe. That way if a gun is stolen it will have little value to a thief. Plus some people prefer to keep their gun close and readily accessible in the case of intrusion.

 

[glenn1]

You can only address so many issues before you realize that you are dealing with an irrational person. I don't listen to or indulge in extremist views, not every opinion is worthy of response. As you can see, when legitimate concerns were raised I addressed them.

So you're saying privacy isn't a legitimate concern worthy of being addressed. Nor is the concern about defining in the legislation what constitutes "reasonable" steps for a seller to take; obviously just running a background check isn't sufficient otherwise that would be the proposed standard. Nor are questions about how the government uses (or mostly doesn't use) the existing tools and laws on the books. All of this you simply gesture away with a wave of your hand because those raising those points aren't "reasonable people" to you.

 

[bozack]

I'd prefer an investment into smart gun technology that works over that requiring a safe. That way if a gun is stolen it will have little value to a thief. Plus some people prefer to keep their gun close and readily accessible in the case of intrusion.

Do you feel as someone who posts on a technology board that we are at the point where this type of technology is reliable enough to be implemented in the way which you suggest

 

[ivwshane]

Aren't most laws based on the honor system?

The difference is that a national database with fines or jail time for non compliance, just like there are for cars, would create an incentive where law abiding citizens follow the law and criminals would have to find other avenues to obtain weapons. It would also make catching good citizens turned criminal easier (for example crimes of passion).

Sounds like a considerable amount of manpower and work...again what good is a law which relies on essentially the honor system for compliance?



Not saying they are magical and special...the question is what type of penalty is imposed upon the seller and at that point one could ask does it even matter as chances are the gun was already used in a crime for its registration status to come into question




What is the mechanism?....again its not like a car which has to be registered and insured to be on the road...what is to stop anyone from just selling a gun for cash and not processing a background check, if a prospective buyer fails a background check is it the seller who is left in the awkward position of telling the buyer this?...logistically I fail to see any options being presented as to how exactly this would be handled.

 

[ivwshane]

Do you feel as someone who posts on a technology board that we are at the point where this type of technology is reliable enough to be implemented in the way which you suggest

No, which is why I'd be for the government investing in such technology. We did it with oil and we've done it with alternative energy along with many other things that have improved with governments help.

 

[ivwshane]

So you're saying privacy isn't a legitimate concern worthy of being addressed. Nor is the concern about defining in the legislation what constitutes "reasonable" steps for a seller to take; obviously just running a background check isn't sufficient otherwise that would be the proposed standard. Nor are questions about how the government uses (or mostly doesn't use) the existing tools and laws on the books. All of this you simply gesture away with a wave of your hand because those raising those points aren't "reasonable people" to you.

His post wasn't about privacy it was about a vast government conspiracy to take your guns. That's not reasonable by any stretch of the imagination.

 

[glenn1]

I'd prefer an investment into smart gun technology that works over that requiring a safe. That way if a gun is stolen it will have little value to a thief. Plus some people prefer to keep their gun close and readily accessible in the case of intrusion.

Sounds like a great business plan for some enterprising person who supports gun control to pursue. You'd further your goal while making money on the deal. Of course that creates a situation where whatever technology is used to allow the gun to fire is just as easily stolen (e.g. RFID bracelet, etc.) or hackable (see the biometric fingerprint reader on iPhone, etc.)