On Day of Second Presidential Debate, The Second Amendment Is the Biggest Issue
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 20

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

  1. #1
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330

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

    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.
    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

  2.   
  3. #2
    sorry to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment barely even broke into the conversation.

  4. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by MilProG2 View Post
    sorry to break it to you, but the 2nd amendment barely even broke into the conversation.
    I didn't watch all of it, maybe the last half hour but all I saw mentioning the 2nd Amendment was when Hillary talked about the extensive background checks and closing the gun show loophole.

    The loophole she's talking about is the ability to buy a gun at a gun show without doin all the paperwork, right? Which, to what I was told by a few buddies, is that in order to be able to do that atleast in Oklahoma is that you have to first have a CCW permit to buy a gun without doin paperwork. Is this a nationwide thing or does the laws regarding that vary from state to state?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  5. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    Quote Originally Posted by corneileous View Post
    I didn't watch all of it, maybe the last half hour but all I saw mentioning the 2nd Amendment was when Hillary talked about the extensive background checks and closing the gun show loophole.

    The loophole she's talking about is the ability to buy a gun at a gun show without doin all the paperwork, right? Which, to what I was told by a few buddies, is that in order to be able to do that atleast in Oklahoma is that you have to first have a CCW permit to buy a gun without doin paperwork. Is this a nationwide thing or does the laws regarding that vary from state to state?
    The gun show "loophole" is a mythical meme used by gun-grabbers to scare the sheeple into supporting "closing" it.

    Most vendors selling guns at gun shows are fully-licensed FFL dealers. A very small percentage are not. If they are not FFL dealers and are selling guns at their booth, chances are they're selling off their private collection, so they're no different under federal law than you and your next door neighbor selling/buying from one another. At least not under federal law, which is all Clinton or Trump might be concerned with. Some states do have laws mandating NICS checks and/or FFL transfers between private parties, but Clinton or Trump would not be talking about that since that's a state-level issue. Under federal law, transfers between private parties with no paper-trail whatsoever is perfectly legal. For people interested in reducing the amount of government intrusion in their lives, it's the only smart way to buy or sell guns, with various caveats about what's "smart" to require of either party being employed by individuals in any given transfer. If I was buying from a friend that I trusted implicitly, I would not require their ID or a bill of sale or whatever. From a stranger, I would require both, and in fact, would take a picture or require a copy of their ID for my personal records in case the gun ended up being stolen, but the government wouldn't know about that paper-trail unless and until they had reason to track down that particular weapon.

    Upon request and investigation by the BATFE, a state can be granted the privilege of allowing their citizens to purchase a weapon with only a permission slip. Apparently OK has made and was granted that request (I don't know first-hand about that though), and my state was just granted that privilege early this year I believe. I don't know when it was requested, but obviously, that only applies to CCP holders who are buying weapons through an FFL. It has nothing to do with the "loophole" you started out asking about. So, yeah, it varies from state to state, but the ability for a state to set up that streamlined system is granted from a federal regulatory agency (BATFE), not your own state legislature.

    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...

  6. #5
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    TN
    Posts
    4,255
    Well, Trump came out swinging in the debate, but there was little substance. It seems that Trump can not argue on substance and Hillary simply doesn't want to.

    The 2nd Amendment was barely mentioned, so were many other issues. Apparently, Trump's comments, Hillary's e-mails and Bill's affairs are more important topics to discuss.

    When it came to substance, such as ObamaCare, both candidates dodged the questions. Here is an excerpt of a "transcript" from another forum that made me laugh:

    Hillary: I've got several ideas on how to make health insurance affordable but here's ideas that are already law.

    Trump: Trust me. We're going to make it great. Trust me. Obamacare sucks. Canadians come here.

    Cooper: Hillary, Bill called ACA "the craziest thing in the world."

    Hillary: Let me set the record straight. He didn't mean that. Trump's going to throw you at the mercy of insurance companies.

    Trump: My plans are so much better. Trust me. Gruber.

  7. #6

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

    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The gun show "loophole" is a mythical meme used by gun-grabbers to scare the sheeple into supporting "closing" it.

    Most vendors selling guns at gun shows are fully-licensed FFL dealers. A very small percentage are not. If they are not FFL dealers and are selling guns at their booth, chances are they're selling off their private collection, so they're no different under federal law than you and your next door neighbor selling/buying from one another. At least not under federal law, which is all Clinton or Trump might be concerned with. Some states do have laws mandating NICS checks and/or FFL transfers between private parties, but Clinton or Trump would not be talking about that since that's a state-level issue. Under federal law, transfers between private parties with no paper-trail whatsoever is perfectly legal. For people interested in reducing the amount of government intrusion in their lives, it's the only smart way to buy or sell guns, with various caveats about what's "smart" to require of either party being employed by individuals in any given transfer. If I was buying from a friend that I trusted implicitly, I would not require their ID or a bill of sale or whatever. From a stranger, I would require both, and in fact, would take a picture or require a copy of their ID for my personal records in case the gun ended up being stolen, but the government wouldn't know about that paper-trail unless and until they had reason to track down that particular weapon.

    Upon request and investigation by the BATFE, a state can be granted the privilege of allowing their citizens to purchase a weapon with only a permission slip. Apparently OK has made and was granted that request (I don't know first-hand about that though), and my state was just granted that privilege early this year I believe. I don't know when it was requested, but obviously, that only applies to CCP holders who are buying weapons through an FFL. It has nothing to do with the "loophole" you started out asking about. So, yeah, it varies from state to state, but the ability for a state to set up that streamlined system is granted from a federal regulatory agency (BATFE), not your own state legislature.

    Blues
    I figured it had to be something off the wall.

    I've never even been to a gun show much less bought a gun from one.

    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.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  8. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    The gun show "loophole" is a mythical meme used by gun-grabbers to scare the sheeple into supporting "closing" it.

    Most vendors selling guns at gun shows are fully-licensed FFL dealers. A very small percentage are not. If they are not FFL dealers and are selling guns at their booth, chances are they're selling off their private collection, so they're no different under federal law than you and your next door neighbor selling/buying from one another. At least not under federal law, which is all Clinton or Trump might be concerned with. Some states do have laws mandating NICS checks and/or FFL transfers between private parties, but Clinton or Trump would not be talking about that since that's a state-level issue. Under federal law, transfers between private parties with no paper-trail whatsoever is perfectly legal. For people interested in reducing the amount of government intrusion in their lives, it's the only smart way to buy or sell guns, with various caveats about what's "smart" to require of either party being employed by individuals in any given transfer. If I was buying from a friend that I trusted implicitly, I would not require their ID or a bill of sale or whatever. From a stranger, I would require both, and in fact, would take a picture or require a copy of their ID for my personal records in case the gun ended up being stolen, but the government wouldn't know about that paper-trail unless and until they had reason to track down that particular weapon.

    Upon request and investigation by the BATFE, a state can be granted the privilege of allowing their citizens to purchase a weapon with only a permission slip. Apparently OK has made and was granted that request (I don't know first-hand about that though), and my state was just granted that privilege early this year I believe. I don't know when it was requested, but obviously, that only applies to CCP holders who are buying weapons through an FFL. It has nothing to do with the "loophole" you started out asking about. So, yeah, it varies from state to state, but the ability for a state to set up that streamlined system is granted from a federal regulatory agency (BATFE), not your own state legislature.

    Blues
    The same false flag about buying a gun on line was said by Hillary. There’s no way you can buy a gun on line without it going through a FFL and the background check being done.
    The only easy day was yesterday
    Dedicated to my brother in law who died
    doing what he loved being a Navy SEAL

  9. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Republic of Dead Cell Holler, Occupied Territories of AL, former USA
    Posts
    7,759
    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.
    If you buy a gun that comes to you with no paper trail, then how does the trail stop at you? At worst, it stops at the person you bought it from, right? Otherwise, if I buy a gun from a friend, or at least the one or two I would buy from, there would be no paper trail leading to them either. Unless one is a collector and always wants the lowest serial number in a new model, or is buying on spec planning to keep the gun new until it evaluates and he sells it for profit, I can't think of a good reason to buy a new gun. Not criticizing anyone who does, but the whole point from my perspective of purposely seeking private parties to buy guns from is to 1) reduce the cost and 2) eliminate the 4473 or any other government documentation from the paper trail. Either way, the trail stopped before you.

    Quote Originally Posted by opsspec1991 View Post
    The same false flag about buying a gun on line was said by Hillary. There’s no way you can buy a gun on line without it going through a FFL and the background check being done.
    That's not true. As long as you're buying from a private party who lives in your same state and advertises online (Armslist.com for instance), you can complete everything but the physical transfer online. You just have to set up a safe meet-point to take delivery of the weapon is all. The only problem there, is that many sellers on such websites demand way more than the law does in the way of paperwork, but if you establish an ongoing trading/buying/selling relationship with a few select sellers, after everybody gets to know each other, the paperwork can be eliminated altogether, and it's still perfectly legal.

    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...

  10. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by BluesStringer View Post
    If you buy a gun that comes to you with no paper trail, then how does the trail stop at you? At worst, it stops at the person you bought it from, right? Otherwise, if I buy a gun from a friend, or at least the one or two I would buy from, there would be no paper trail leading to them either. Unless one is a collector and always wants the lowest serial number in a new model, or is buying on spec planning to keep the gun new until it evaluates and he sells it for profit, I can't think of a good reason to buy a new gun. Not criticizing anyone who does, but the whole point from my perspective of purposely seeking private parties to buy guns from is to 1) reduce the cost and 2) eliminate the 4473 or any other government documentation from the paper trail. Either way, the trail stopped before you.
    Well yeah, if you sell a gun to somebody that has had no paper trail at all then yes, obviously, there would be absolutely no rhyme or reason for a bill of sale. Sorry I didn't specify exactly what I was talking about but what I meant was if I sold one of my two pistols to somebody for example, even to someone I've known my whole life, that were originally bought from a FFL dealer, I would most certainly write up a bill of sale just to cover my backside. Even if there's only a 1% chance I'd ever have to rely on it, the fact still remains that if I ever needed it, it would be there.


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  11. #10
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    California
    Posts
    330
    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," followed in a close second place. The third place question was if I recall correctly, at the time the second debate began, a Social Security question: "Do you support expanding, and not cutting, Social Security's modest benefits?"

    Specifically regarding the Second Amendment question, neither the moderators nor the panelists picked out that top ranked question (nor the second place question) as voted on by the public. It seems as though they didn't want the Second Amendment mentioned at all (whether the question was "How will you ensure the 2nd Amendment is protected" or "Would you support requiring criminal background checks for all gun sales -- obviously, the panelists / moderators made a concerted effort to avoid picking the top ranked questions).

    This makes a mockery of the claim that the public was being allowed to submit questions online and the top ranked questions would be considered to be asked by the candidates, if the most top ranked questions would never be asked.

    Now moving on to what the candidates did or did not do.

    Without being asked about the 2nd Amendment, Donald Trump made a point to say that he would defend the Constitution and defend the 2nd Amendment from the likes of Hillary Clinton when he was making his Supreme Court nominations and in other ways. We can wonder of course whether he would reasonably be able to do that, as Supreme Court justices can do what they want once they are on the bench. All he can do is nominate. But we do know that Hillary Clinton is intent on waging an all out war on the 2nd Amendment as her comments make clear. We also know that she has stated that she wants to renew an Assault Weapons Ban (something that the Obama administration would not even do). So this isn't good.

    If you are evaluating candidates on the basis of the 2nd Amendment (and I am) then Trump wins out. I don't trust him, but I trust Clinton way less on this issue.

    I also want to remind people that Trump's behavior 11 years ago (or remarks he's made more recently) are way less important to me than what Hillary Clinton has done during her tenure as Secretary of State when she empatically suggested that an Australian citizen be nominated for a drone hit (notably, this was consistent with the Obama administration's public practice, which is defended publicly by the Obama administration, of killing people, including American citizens, without charges or due process of any kind), merely because that Australian citizen had been walking about freely publishing information which was critical of her administration.

    If gun owners all vote, we can defeat Clinton. If we don't vote, then we've screwed ourselves. (Of course, our economy will still probably be screwed under either candidate, but all the more reason to make your business lean and to make plans for retirement in the American redoubt (my long-term plans include Idaho or Montana). If we end up with Clinton, we're really screwed.)
    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

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

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