On Day of Second Presidential Debate, The Second Amendment Is the Biggest Issue - Page 2
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: On Day of Second Presidential Debate, The Second Amendment Is the Biggest Issue

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    Regarding the ability of the panelists and moderators to actually pick the top ranked question(s) submitted by the public for inclusion as questions to be asked to the candidates, I would say that they failed on that count.

    At the time of the debate, the top ranked question on Presidential Open Questions was,

    "How will you ensure the 2nd Amendment is protected?"

    There were no ifs, ands, or buts. That was the top ranked question at the time the debates began. It had "most votes" as well as "most votes since last debate." Curiously, as of today (Oct. 10, 2016) the numbers have changed and it is no longer the top ranked question; the top ranked question now shows up as "Would you support requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales?"

    However, at the time the second debate began, "How will you ensure the 2nd Amendment is protected" was the top question, with "Would you support requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales...."
    Constitutional questions no longer matter a wit for presidential candidates anyway, especially not Second Amendment questions, which is the only one within the Bill of Rights to never have a Supreme Court case apply strict scrutiny to it. I think only one lower court has ever applied strict scrutiny to it, but regardless, the 2A as-written and as-intended by those who wrote and ratified it, has been dead since at least NFA34, and a better than fair case can be made that it died the second that natural persons' rights were traded for 14th Amendment privileges upon insertion (the 14A was never legally ratified) into the Constitution.

    People who think either Trump or Billary can "save" the Second Amendment are relying on false hope and encouraging the unknowing sheeple to rely on same.

    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    If gun owners all vote, we can defeat Clinton.
    Verifiable and absolute nonsense. Though the admission by Trump that he could get away with an outright sexual assault because he's a star might increase the numbers in Clinton's favor slightly, the fact is that as of last week sometime there were only five (5) states up for grabs (battleground states) where the margins were too close to call in the Electoral College. The rest of the 45 states and territories were locked up for their Red or Blue candidates respectively. The analysis I watched (I think it was Fox, but it may have been CNN - not sure now) showed a couple or three scenarios where if combinations of results of the battleground states went one way or the other, the vote would end in a 269 to 269 votes tie, sending resolution to Congress, unless of course, the people you'll really be voting for, your Electoral College electors, went rogue before the tie happened and voted their own preferences independent of what their voters asked them to do. Either way, at best, gun owners' votes only even have the potential to affect the outcome in five, maybe six or seven states with Trump's latest taste-testing of his shoe-leather, and there's a higher percentage chance that either Congress or the Electoral College will be selecting the President this year than any time in history since Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in the Electoral College in 1800.

    Nobody's vote matters a wit, and that's especially true of Second Amendment voters because the Second Amendment itself is as dead as the road-kill I had to dodge while riding the bike home just a little bit ago. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the sheepskin parchment it's written on stinks just about as bad as that road-kill either.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  2.   
  3. #12
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    ...But as far as what you said about not drawing up a bill of sale for someone you know and trust, would it still be a good idea to do just in case that gun ever winds up stolen and used in a crime? Maybe it's just me but I would rather not have that paper trail stopping at me if the cops ever came to my door askin why a gun I used to own showed up at a crime scene....
    For starters, they aren't going to "ask" you why it ended up there unless there's some other connection to you that indicates you had something to do with the crime. That's even more true when you consider they probably already have their suspect in custody since it's almost unheard of for assailants to leave their guns at the scene of the crime. That's why you've probably never actually heard of something like that taking place. To have the make, model and serial number means they almost certainly already have the perpetrator. In the rare instances where this might not be the case, or in instances where the actual trail itself is under investigation as a separate crime, all you'd be doing is helping them catch criminals. Although I'd prefer there be no trail at all, I have no problem helping to catch criminals in the rare instances where that is the case. There may also be investigations not to catch the criminal, but simply to tidy up the loose ends or to eliminate the possibility of a different crime having taken place. Finding out how and where the San Bernadino shooters got their guns is an example of that. But having the police actually show up wanting you to explain how a gun got to a crime scene simply because you used to own it at one point, is nearly impossible.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  4. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    If gun owners all vote, we can defeat Clinton.
    Verifiable and absolute nonsense.
    Not entirely, at least not in a hypothetical sense. 121 million people voted in the 2012 presidential election and there are an estimated 95 million gun owners in the US. If the turnout remained about the same, and every single gun owner voted against Clinton, that could easily tip the scales, not just in the battleground states you mentioned, but also in some other states where Clinton supposedly has things wrapped up. The absolute nonsense is the notion that all of those people would not only show up, but that all of them would vote for Trump too. It's a complete pipe dream, and the absolute nonsense you mentioned, that either one of those scenarios is possible, much less both.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  5. #14
    Rhino,

    Let's say I sell a gun to a dear old friend of mine and while he's out on vacation or something, somebody breaks into his house and steals it. Takes it down to the 7-11 and robs it. Ends up shooting a customer and he drops the gun on the way out. Cops get there, find the gun and then they're probably gonna do a serial number check on it.

    Since I bought that gun at a dealer, is there or is there not a paper trail from the manufacturer to the store that sold it to me??

    Sure, if you buy guns the way Blues talked about then yeah, a paper trail probably won't exist enough to even be concerned about it but, if someone buys their guns at a gun store when a background check was done, is it really, [i]really[i/] gonna hurt anything for just a little bit of a sense of security to draw up a BOS? Just incase IF the cops came knocking?


    Or are we just arguing merely for the sake of arguing??


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  6. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Not entirely, at least not in a hypothetical sense. 121 million people voted in the 2012 presidential election and there are an estimated 95 million gun owners in the US. If the turnout remained about the same, and every single gun owner voted against Clinton, that could easily tip the scales, not just in the battleground states you mentioned, but also in some other states where Clinton supposedly has things wrapped up. The absolute nonsense is the notion that all of those people would not only show up, but that all of them would vote for Trump too. It's a complete pipe dream, and the absolute nonsense you mentioned, that either one of those scenarios is possible, much less both.
    Hypothetically, you may be right, but my point was defensive in nature, as I hear the nonsense all the time that a non-vote is an actual vote for Billary. In the states that are not considered "battleground," like Alabama for instance, they're considered a lock for the "winning" candidate because only the candidate's death would make them lose. Bama went for Romney by 19 points over Obama. There is no realistic scenario where Trump is going to lose Bama, just like there's no realistic scenario where Billary is going to lose CA, NY or MA or any other solidly blue state. Realistically, not hypothetically, a small minority of states chooses the President. No "change" candidate is ever going to change that, realistically-speaking, and even if they could, I would still refuse to vote for morons and criminals like Trump and Billary.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

  7. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by freethink View Post
    For this second Presidential debate, half the debate questions will be drawn from a pool of thirty top-ranked questions that have been created by the public on a site called Presidential Open Questions.

    Here are the questions that have been getting the most votes since the last debate:

    https://presidentialopenquestions.co...-current_votes

    Note that the highest ranked question is "How will you ensure the 2nd Amendment is protected?"

    Here are the questions that have gotten the most votes overall (all time):

    https://presidentialopenquestions.com/?sort=-votes

    Note that the top two questions have to do with the 2nd Amendment. Whether Hillary supporters like it or not, the 2nd Amendment is the biggest issue today in the minds of the public that has submitted and voted on the questions. You can vote on the questions right up through the debate, I believe. To do so you have to register at Presidential Open Questions, which is not hard.

    Both Clinton and Trump are going to have to decide whether they want to continue being seen as candidates that attack the 2nd Amendment right (Clinton isn't going to change in that regard) or if they can distinguish themselves by being different than the other candidate. Trump has this second debate to (in part) take the opportunity to distinguish himself from Clinton on the issue of the 2nd Amendment. If he fails to do so I can't see how he will succeed going forward.

    I recommend that you vote in favor of the following question: https://presidentialopenquestions.co...ions/308/vote/ "How will you ensure the 2nd Amendment is protected?" -- The debate will be 9pm ET (8pm CT, 7pm MT, 6pm PT) so it's probably best to cast your vote on the question(s) before then.
    All laws regarding firearms are unconstitutional.

  8. #17
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    I want to throw in some points here - in response to BluesStringer -- that I wasn't able to previously (for whatever reason, I think cache issues, I was locked out of this thread until now). Maybe this answer will be responsive to Bluesshell as well.

    from BluesStringer: "The analysis I watched (...) showed a couple or three scenarios where if combinations of results of the battleground states went one way or the other, the vote would end in a 269 to 269 votes tie, sending resolution to Congress, unless of course, the people you'll really be voting for, your Electoral College electors, went rogue before the tie happened and voted their own preferences independent of what their voters asked them to do. Either way, at best, gun owners' votes only even have the potential to affect the outcome in five, maybe six or seven states with Trump's latest taste-testing of his shoe-leather, and there's a higher percentage chance that either Congress or the Electoral College will be selecting the President this year than any time in history since Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr tied in the Electoral College in 1800.

    Nobody's vote matters a wit, and that's especially true of Second Amendment voters because the Second Amendment itself is as dead as the road-kill I had to dodge while riding the bike home just a little bit ago. I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the sheepskin parchment it's written on stinks just about as bad as that road-kill either." --Blues



    Hey Blues,

    I actually appreciate the pessimism that you have elucidated here, because I think it warrants further analysis. I (obviously) still don't think that we should run out and vote for Clinton (and I think a safer bet is simply if people were to commit to NOT vote to Clinton, then whoever they end up getting would be Trump or Johnson, which either way, as I think I've mentioned, we'll still be in a horrible condition economically -- note both major candidate's economic plans are really, really bad, and we are presently sitting with a mountain of debt due to the practices of the current administration) -- but I think in close elections, especially in swing states, it's important for people to get out and vote, and gun owners should definitely not stay home. They should be well aware that if they do (even if the election ends up being decided by the US Supreme Court) that the data that ends up being used to decide the election (much as in Bush v Gore) is important. For example, in Bush v Gore, the decision allowed Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris's previous certification of George W. Bush as the winner of Florida's 25 electoral votes to stand. Florida's votes gave Bush, the Republican candidate, 271 electoral votes, one more than the required 270 electoral votes to win the Electoral College and defeat Democratic candidate Al Gore, who received 266 electoral votes (a District of Columbia elector abstained). A later study also found that a statewide tally that did not reject ballots containing overvotes (where a voter hole-punches multiple candidates but writes out the name of their intended candidate) would have resulted in Gore emerging as the victor by between 60 and 171 votes. So in other words, the data (which includes the number of votes) matters even in circumstances where the US Supreme Court is basically deciding the election, because even though they are interpreting the data subjectively, they are likely to examine the data provided as a result of voting. If no-one voted for Trump, then Hillary Clinton would win, to put it another way.
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  9. #18
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    (Additional remarks for BluesStringer which I couldn't post as part of the above comment for some reason)

    That said, I think there are actually more important things to do than voting at the ballot. I still think you should go to the ballot and vote, but I think the important decisions are already being made as a result of the decisions we make with our wallet and with our feet. In terms of philosophy, my thoughts are something of a conglomerate between agorism, voluntaryism, and cryptoanarchism-- then throw in a dash of constitutionalism (I think if people have developed and defended a fundamental rule set it should be respected as-is until it can be amended by processes people honor), but I don't see a need to fund the state in its mad dash towards apocalyptic catastrophe. I simply honor people's rights and hope that others would also do the same. But suppose that the 2nd Amendment would not exist or would be totally eviscerated; I would still have the 10th Amendment, anyway, and would claim the right to keep and bear arms and engage in self-defense under that. And if that were to be somehow defeated or eviscerated or removed from the Constitution I would do what I usually do anyway and express it under a natural right. See also Biblical Right to Self Defense if you are interested in a longer discussion of some scriptural ideas about this (which some Christian anarchists might be happy to discuss or debate with you, either supporting these ideas or discussing them in a more or less neutral way).

    All that said, I still think we should all get to the voting booth (or in my case early vote by mail which is how I do it) and help defeat Clinton.

    Cheers
    Member, FPC - https://www.firearmspolicy.org/act/
    CZ-52 (Česká Zbrojovka vzor 52), M44 Russian w/Brass Stacker, & 80percenters
    HELP STOP ANTI-2A BILLS! COPY & SHARE THIS LINK: fundrazr.com/018flf

  10. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Northeast Alabama
    Posts
    3,366
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    Rhino,

    Let's say I sell a gun to a dear old friend of mine and while he's out on vacation or something, somebody breaks into his house and steals it. Takes it down to the 7-11 and robs it. Ends up shooting a customer and he drops the gun on the way out. Cops get there, find the gun and then they're probably gonna do a serial number check on it.

    Since I bought that gun at a dealer, is there or is there not a paper trail from the manufacturer to the store that sold it to me??

    Sure, if you buy guns the way Blues talked about then yeah, a paper trail probably won't exist enough to even be concerned about it but, if someone buys their guns at a gun store when a background check was done, is it really, [i]really[i/] gonna hurt anything for just a little bit of a sense of security to draw up a BOS? Just incase IF the cops came knocking?
    I wasn't talking about a sense of security. I was countering the statement corneileous made about the cops suspecting you or expecting you to explain how the gun got to a crime scene. It's practically unheard of for such a scenario to exist in the first place, as I noted. And the police wouldn't be expecting you to explain the crime scene unless they have reason to believe you were involved. Simply being the original purchased wouldn't implicate you in a crime. When such rare events do occur, a trace is usually performed just to determine if additional charges for acquiring it illegally should be made against the perpetrator, or to determine if there's someone else involved who might be engaging in a firearms black market, so they can go after him. The police are well aware that legal purchasers are almost never involved in such crimes, so there wouldn't be an automatic assumption against you or a requirement for you to explain the crime scene, as corneileous was suggesting. Yes, there would be a paper trail. But whatever might massage your sense of security really depends on you. Bills of sale aren't really worth anything evidentiary anyway, as they can quite easily be forged or outright fakes to begin with, so having one won't really make any appreciable difference. You aren't going to be a de facto suspect just because you were the original purchaser. But if a bill of sale somehow makes you feel better, feel free to draw one up.

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    Hypothetically, you may be right, but my point was defensive in nature, as I hear the nonsense all the time that a non-vote is an actual vote for Billary. In the states that are not considered "battleground," like Alabama for instance, they're considered a lock for the "winning" candidate because only the candidate's death would make them lose. Bama went for Romney by 19 points over Obama. There is no realistic scenario where Trump is going to lose Bama, just like there's no realistic scenario where Billary is going to lose CA, NY or MA or any other solidly blue state. Realistically, not hypothetically, a small minority of states chooses the President. No "change" candidate is ever going to change that, realistically-speaking, and even if they could, I would still refuse to vote for morons and criminals like Trump and Billary.
    Good points. I won't argue over 'lock' states like California, Massachusetts, etc. as you're points are quite valid in that regard. I just don't think freethink was speaking in that context. I think he was speaking hypothetically of the so-called battleground states, those that aren't so locked for Hillary. There are enough electoral votes in those states to turn the tide. But again we're still speaking hypothetically, because you'd never get all gun owners to come out or expect them all to vote for Trump.
    Posterity: you will never know how much it has cost my generation to preserve your freedom. I hope you will make good use of it.--- John Quincy Adams
    Condensed Guide To Ohio Concealed Carry Laws

  11. #20
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,762
    Quote Originally Posted by Rhino View Post
    Good points. I won't argue over 'lock' states like California, Massachusetts, etc. as you're points are quite valid in that regard. I just don't think freethink was speaking in that context. I think he was speaking hypothetically of the so-called battleground states, those that aren't so locked for Hillary. There are enough electoral votes in those states to turn the tide. But again we're still speaking hypothetically, because you'd never get all gun owners to come out or expect them all to vote for Trump.
    Freethink lives and votes in CA. I live and don't vote in Alabama. His vote, and my non-vote, will mean the exact same thing as far as the Electoral College is concerned - absolutely nothing. That's the only point I was making.

    Blues
    No one has ever heard me say that I "hate" cops, because I don't. This is why I will never trust one again though: You just never know...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Quantcast