steve09ru Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 (edited) 2 hours ago, Larry said: Yes, better gun control will not be an instant, 100% effective, fix. Obviously we shouldn't get started. Did I say we shouldn't get started?? I asked what our next steps should be since, you know, that's a big part of the future of how our country is shaped... its a legitimate question and concern that will need to be thought through in order to stop future issues Edited November 8, 2017 by steve09ru Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 3 hours ago, Springfield said: Buybacks. 200% on the assessed value. I bet there are a lot of broke people who would sell. Could work for some extent but on the other hand, those that it would work for are more than likely the ones not owning illegally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 6 minutes ago, steve09ru said: Did I say we shouldn't get started?? I asked what our next steps should be since, you know, that's a big part of the future of how our country is shaped... its a legitimate question and concern that will need to be thought through in order to stop future issues That's not how this works. Either you make a gripe about the proposed fix and it means you are 100% against anything. Or you propose a fix and that automatically means you want to confiscate all guns ever made in history. Haven't you been paying attention? Just now, steve09ru said: Could work for some extent but on the other hand, those that it would work for are more than likely the ones not owning illegally. Yea I've been thinking about that. And while I know a lot of people that would take the inflated buy back price. I also know more than a few that would hold them for a few years and then sell them under that table for 10X the prior value. It would just create a black market for the guns left. Eventually most of them would be found but the ones that were left and who's hands they would be in, I'm not sure I would be comfortable with that. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steve09ru Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 2 minutes ago, TheGreatBuzz said: That's not how this works. Either you make a gripe about the proposed fix and it means you are 100% against anything. Or you propose a fix and that automatically means you want to confiscate all guns ever made in history. Haven't you been paying attention? I wasn't going to call it out but thanks haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 1 minute ago, steve09ru said: I wasn't going to call it out but thanks haha I've said before, we have the government we deserve. It actually does represent us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted November 8, 2017 Author Share Posted November 8, 2017 3 hours ago, Springfield said: Buybacks. 200% on the assessed value. I bet there are a lot of broke people who would sell. From who? The government? No way they have the budget (federal or state or local county) to buyback at 200%. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Just now, Dont Taze Me Bro said: From who? The government? No way they have the budget (federal or state or local county) to buyback at 200%. we can print more money. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheGreatBuzz Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, twa said: we can print more money. Spoken like a true Republican Democrat political hack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Just now, TheGreatBuzz said: Spoken like a true Republican Democrat political hack. I should run for office then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted November 8, 2017 Author Share Posted November 8, 2017 The problem starts with how the current political landscape was designed. Lobbyists being able to buy politicians and parties which influences laws/regulations/etc. Along with the way the system is set-up to basically allow for two major parties (Dems and Repubs) making it nearly impossible for any other 3rd party to be heard (talking debates), which slows it's growth tremendously while deterring people from even voting that way and picking the better of two evils. The left and the right want to keep it that way, for obvious reasons. Then draw a line in the dirt and pick what side to stand on on issues like gun control, abortion, etc. Then real gun control or stricter gun laws get looked over because one side doesn't want to piss off it's voters and financial backers. It becomes a compromise instead of passing laws/regulations that are really needed. That's where it all starts. And unfortunately, that's why we have issues where children are getting murdered at school and at church and we get excuses, thoughts and prayers from politicians and nothing changes. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Springfield Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 26 minutes ago, Dont Taze Me Bro said: From who? The government? No way they have the budget (federal or state or local county) to buyback at 200%. We could pay for it with all those tax hikes the nasty democrats always pass. But more seriously, it would cost money. And there would have to be concurrent measures. Maybe a tax break instead of buying them back. Who knows. And will it fix anything? I don’t know that either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 3 hours ago, ixcuincle said: Yeah he's actually working to get legislation done, something that hasn't been done even though some wacko shot up a bunch of kids at an elementary school. Quote “In 2013, in the wake of Sandy Hook, I joined with Chuck Grassley, we introduced legislation that was called the Grassley-Cruz legislation. And it was aggressive legislation targeting felons and violent criminals to stop them from getting guns. . . . If the Democrats want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, why in God’s name did they oppose this? I guess they are more concerned with attacking people who lawfully own guns for personal protection… http://thefederalistpapers.org/us/cruz-air-force-nics and the dance goes on Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 7 minutes ago, twa said: and the dance goes on Because it limited the state's ability to limit the sale and transport of guns across state lines and therefore made it difficult (and realistically in some cases impossible) for state's to regulate firearm ownership in their state. And if Cruz had an honest bone in his body and wasn't a dishonest lying scum bag, he would have told you that in the essay instead of acting like he didn't know. And the fact that you would post something like that without bothering to even look it up doesn't make you much better. 1 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Always good to hear Dems support states rights. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 3 minutes ago, PeterMP said: And the fact that you would post something like that without bothering to even look it up doesn't make you much better. Anymore, I just approach twa-bot the same way I do the Trump Admin. Anything he posts is almost certain to be a half truth or completely biased beyond compare, or just a topic muddling distraction. It makes it much easier to wade through his crap. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 (edited) 7 minutes ago, twa said: Always good to hear Dems support states rights. There was another bill in the Senate at the time that was put together by Toomey (PA-R) and Manchin (WV-D) that would have done everything that Cruz-Grasserly bill would have, included more money to the states to help fill out the NCIS database, and didn't include the language supporting the transport and sale of guns. The Cruz-Grasserly bill was political show that allowed Republicans to say the supported gun control knowing that the Democrats wouldn't support it given the language in it and the fact that there was a another bill in front of the Senate. You know, I don't see many Democrats actively running saying they don't support state's rights. I do Republicans running say they do, but when it comes to things like states regulating health care, gun laws, etc that seems to go right out the window. Edited November 8, 2017 by PeterMP 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AsburySkinsFan Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 5 minutes ago, twa said: Always good to hear Dems support states rights. Like freaking clockwork, I swear it’s got to be an automated bot experiement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Just now, PeterMP said: There was another bill in the Senate at the time that was put together by Toomey (PA-R) and Manchin (WV-D) that would have done everything that Cruz-Grasserly bill would have, included more money to the states to help fill out the NCIS database, and didn't include the language supporting the transport and sale of guns. what happened to that one? Same thing that happened to that guys convictions and records? Just now, AsburySkinsFan said: Like freaking clockwork, I swear it’s got to be an automated bot experiement. You should probably secede from your state.....freedom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PeterMP Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Just now, twa said: what happened to that one? Same thing that happened to that guys convictions and records? It went down in just about a party line vote with Democrats voting for it and Republicans voting against (in the Senate). There was no way it was ever going to be passed by the House so it was essentially political show too: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2013/04/17/manchin-toomey-gun-amendment-fails/?utm_term=.a100e31e3cfc "The bill, which was expected to come up short, lost the support of four Democrats on Wednesday: Sens. Max Baucus (Mont.), Mark Begich (Alaska), Heidi Heitkamp (N.D.) and Mark Pryor (Ark.). All four but Heitkamp face difficult reelections in 2014, and all come from rural states with strong gun cultures. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) voted against the amendment for procedural reasons. Four Republicans voted in favor of the bill: Sens. Susan Collins (Maine), Mark Kirk (Ill.), John McCain (Ariz.) and Toomey." It has been brought up several times and failed each time in a similar manner (e.g. after San Bernardino https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/12/in-wake-of-san-bernardino-shooting-manchin-toomey-gun-control-bill-fails-again/450852/). Manchin actually talked about trying to revive it again after Las Vegas (and let's be clear, he's a D in WV. Grasserly and Cruz are both Rs in pretty safe R states.) http://abc27.com/2017/10/05/manchin-to-meet-with-toomey-about-bipartisan-gun-background-check-bill/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 So is it a waltz or a samba? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 8 hours ago, TheGreatBuzz said: 2) The harder one. What is "better gun control"? I bet you and I disagree on this. So how do find the middle ground? And then how do we make #1 happen if we ever were able to agree on something? 80% of NRA members support closing the "gun show loophole". Would it it make much difference? IMO, probably not. But right now, even common sense measures that are approved of by the majority of the NRA are non-negotiable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spjunkies Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 This guy has his own method of gun control, just refuse sale to black people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 11 minutes ago, spjunkies said: This guy has his own method of gun control, just refuse sale to black people. And if he truly believed he was purchasing it to sell to someone else he should sell him one because he is black? Maybe he should just let him check a box. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dont Taze Me Bro Posted November 8, 2017 Author Share Posted November 8, 2017 28 minutes ago, twa said: And if he truly believed he was purchasing it to sell to someone else he should sell him one because he is black? Maybe he should just let him check a box. Did you miss the part where he said he has been a customer of the business and purchased three guns from them before and apparently has another on lay-away? And the owner didn't even acknowledge that nor recall? Asked the one other employee who knew he was a regular customer and he just kept silent. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visionary Posted November 8, 2017 Share Posted November 8, 2017 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts