Clinton ticked up dead even with Trump today in the LA Times Tracking poll. Actually, Clinton plus 4 tenths of a point.

Rasmussen tracking has Trump improving 1 point to Clinton +4

Reuters has Clinton +7, that poll has been bent for months but still bad for Trump

 

Hillary Clinton still has a clear advantage to win. Hopefully we'll get some state polling taken after the debate, that's what counts.

Trump's supporters are probably more inclined to actually vote on the 8th though...

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/marc-turi-libyan-rebels-hillary-clinton-229115

Wow, this is literally Lord of War

Id rather find out if hillary follows through on it because if she doesn't she'll never get reelected. Meanwhile trump is on the path to full dictator with his comment about putting clinton in jail. I get where he thinks its coming from and why how he may justify it, but it ends up coming across as a move to take out political opponents....... especially since he could easily escalate it to such, just like...... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

 

A better argument would be to point out how he seems to not care about the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, the core foundation of a Democracy. Don't pull a Godwin though...

 

Personal attacks aginst other members of the community are not acceptable, attack candidates, attack parties, attack corporations, but do not hit at each other. I'm more than happy to start forcing post moderation if this thread gets personal.

 

Very well said

Trump's supporters are probably more inclined to actually vote on the 8th though...

 

28th apparently   Guess they are holding their own election so that he can win in a landslide.

 

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/10/marc-turi-libyan-rebels-hillary-clinton-229115

Wow, this is literally Lord of War

Id rather find out if hillary follows through on it because if she doesn't she'll never get reelected. Meanwhile trump is on the path to full dictator with his comment about putting clinton in jail. I get where he thinks its coming from and why how he may justify it, but it ends up coming across as a move to take out political opponents....... especially since he could easily escalate it to such, just like...... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_of_the_Long_Knives

A better argument would be to point out how he seems to not care about the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, the core foundation of a Democracy. Don't pull a Godwin though...

 

Personal attacks aginst other members of the community are not acceptable, attack candidates, attack parties, attack corporations, but do not hit at each other. I'm more than happy to start forcing post moderation if this thread gets personal.

Very well said

 

 

Its only "a godwin" if they are invoked improperly. In no way is this an incorrect invocation. There are other examples as well, pretty much every dictator in the last century has pulled the same shit. They get power through vague promises and then they throw any opponents in jail and overstep the bounds of their position (which he has promised to do repeatedly). 

I stand behind Blade's post above. Personal attacks between IRON members have no place in this discussion.

 

On topic:

 

We can attack both candidates all day long about things they both have said/done. I am not a Trump supporter but I sure as hell am not going to vote for Hillary. I don't blame anyone for taking offense to certain things that Trump says. He has said things that I certainly do not condone. However, I do find it a bit absurd that people so easily find fault in things that Trump says but have no problem with things that Hillary is proven to have done. If you don't like Trump, that's fine, I don't either, but don't show your outrage about him while simultaneously supporting Hillary and ignoring what she's done. She just kills pays to have her trail of blood cleaned up. She is just as evil, just as nasty, and just as unqualified to be President. 

 

In answer to the earlier question about "locker room talk": I find it hard to believe that anyone would be naive enough to believe that people do not talk like this privately. Is it okay or even morally right? No, it is disgusting and wrong. But unfortunately it does happen. Like DM above, I have heard similar things said by both men and women.

 

In regards to the "locker room talk", I've heard talk of inappropriate and perhaps immoral things that people wanted to do, but I've never heard someone say they sexually assaulted someone and brag about it. I've heard people brag about being assholes and running out after a one night stand or using people and then leaving them, generally shitty behavior, but never anyone saying flat out that they raped someone or "grabbed" them without consent.

Dictators need a powerbase though, enough to crush all opposition. That, or they need to roll it back gradually. The US has way too many checks and balances for any one president to even attempt the latter. Ironically, as a tradeoff this also makes your government system spectacularly ineffective.

I'm more curious as the reaction to the leaks. I've been going over the emails myself and there isn't much new information. Beyond that, some things I've noticed are being played for.propaganda. (for example Hillary saying 'Sand nigger')

 

What I've gathered is what we already know. More examples of news corruption with multiple news organizations asking permission to show an interview or a clip. (Freedom of the Press went where?) Hillary is horrible at selecting responsible people to positions (Bill's presidency should have been proof with how many failed positions Bill let Hillary fill with personal friends.) But nothing new or big in my opinion. Just the same rhetoric from the emails.

 

As far as the 'Sand Nigger' comment Hillary said that I've seen on social media spreading like wildfire (and I hate to defend the demon woman) but it wasnt used in the way people are pushing. Hillary referenced a direct quote from an Israeli journalist that told a story about a man left to die on the side of the road and bypassers called him 'SN'. Neither Hillary nor the journalist used it in a derogatory way to me, and I hate to defend her but I don't like seeing false campaigns being pushed.

 

As far as the polling results, they are bound to fluctuate like crazy this last month. They always do. Two of the worst times to actual watch the polls are after the conventions (they go crazy in all ways) and the final month. Of course these are in reference to online polls and polls of random samples. Polls that select a large, diverse middle ground group at the beginning and follow their decisions are usually the best bet at this point if I recall the statistics to this correctly.

Wikileaks is doing a classic case of over promising and under delivering. Everyone says things in emails they would put differently if it was known it would be published. But so far they have found nothing interesting

 

Meanwhile the apprentice leaks and testimony continue and Trump keeps the focus on that by fighting his own party. For me this comes to one of the top three reasons I really think it's better for America if he loses.

 

1. Advocating for torture. No. Just no.

2. Denying global warming. It firstly would do a lot of harm, and also shows a efusal to follow evidence

3. Thus is the one that flows from debates and his campaign. I work in a policy driven role in government. Trump does not show any capacity to make good policy. He is irrational, impulsive, ignores advice, refuses to build coalitions and fights with likely allies. His campaign is poorly run, contradicts itself, and he shows a lack of understanding of the principles of good governance.

Hands any non-american some

 

What are Republicans affraid of anyway? Last I heared they will keep the House and the Senate will probably be a 50/50 split, The only landslide happening is that the majority of the US dislike a media-figure overstating his fame, whats new?

 

 

PS: never heared such phrasing as Trumps pussy remarks, from either side of the human sex devide

 

 

A better argument would be to point out how he seems to not care about the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, the core foundation of a Democracy. Don't pull a Godwin though...

You have to learn how to speak Trump. When he says that Paul Ryan may not be Speaker, he's not saying he could fire him... he's saying that Congress may not re-elect him again because they turned on their nominee, but the media will twist everything he says so you just have to get used to it and use your own common sense. All media is against Donald Trump. He calls them out on their bias and manipulative reporting every single day. He even calls them out by name. They don't like him very much.

 

 

What are Republicans affraid of anyway?

 

What some of us (myself included in this one) is that the president gets to guaranteed nominate at least one supreme court justice, and potentially as many as 4.

 

The reason this scares me is Clinton has been recorded saying that the supreme court got the Heller decision wrong (which struck down DC's complete ban on owning handguns inside their home), and her other statements that begin something like "If the second amendment is an individual right".  She's also said that she will only nominate justices who share her views on guns and a couple of other things (don't remember the other things right now).

 

I am a gun owner, was raised on a farm where I hunted, and now conceal carry for protection (after there was a murder approximately 6 blocks from my home last year in a supposedly good neighborhood, and friend of a friend was killed by a douchbag high on something). 

 

By being able to nominate even one justice, the supreme court could be swung from a conservative position to a liberal position on guns.

This is relevant

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akdzSFNa4XE

This is relevant

 

 

This is relevant

 

 

I seen that and thought it was the best thing to come out of this election. Someone really did a great job with that video.

 

A better argument would be to point out how he seems to not care about the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches, the core foundation of a Democracy. Don't pull a Godwin though...

You have to learn how to speak Trump. When he says that Paul Ryan may not be Speaker, he's not saying he could fire him... he's saying that Congress may not re-elect him again because they turned on their nominee, but the media will twist everything he says so you just have to get used to it and use your own common sense. All media is against Donald Trump. He calls them out on their bias and manipulative reporting every single day. He even calls them out by name. They don't like him very much.

 

 

The moment everyone seems to be against you, it might be more about you then about them...

 

 

 

What are Republicans affraid of anyway?

 

What some of us (myself included in this one) is that the president gets to guaranteed nominate at least one supreme court justice, and potentially as many as 4.

 

The reason this scares me is Clinton has been recorded saying that the supreme court got the Heller decision wrong (which struck down DC's complete ban on owning handguns inside their home), and her other statements that begin something like "If the second amendment is an individual right".  She's also said that she will only nominate justices who share her views on guns and a couple of other things (don't remember the other things right now).

 

I am a gun owner, was raised on a farm where I hunted, and now conceal carry for protection (after there was a murder approximately 6 blocks from my home last year in a supposedly good neighborhood, and friend of a friend was killed by a douchbag high on something). 

 

By being able to nominate even one justice, the supreme court could be swung from a conservative position to a liberal position on guns.

 

 

1) You will not lose your second amendment, but as with any law it is not set in stone. Adjustments to the present will be made to any matter of the past, the debate itself hasn't even started yet.

2) You are on the diminishing side of the US electorate, if you don't like being a minority with no powers perhaps change that before it is to late? That entire stick about "checks and balances" is a lofty idea but it gets thrown out by anyone wielding a sufficient majority. A sufficient majority the Republicans currently hold and more then likely won't be held by the Democrats in 2017.

 

In other news, compromise is NOT defeat, it is actually a very healthy thing to do. And while some stuff might be slow to proceed, it equaly means that something you dislike will be slow aswell and you can adjust.

Hilowe is 100% correct. If Clinton wins, the next 4 years will be an all out war to protect the Constitution. The whole Progressive agenda is based on changing the interpretation, and undermining the Constitution through judicial decree, rather than State Ratification. They have found it's much easier to change things through liberal judges, than the impossible task of allowing the American people to decide for themselves in their favor. This is how civil wars begin, and I would rather avoid that.

 

 

1) You will not lose your second amendment, but as with any law it is not set in stone. Adjustments to the present will be made to any matter of the past, the debate itself hasn't even started yet.

 

Actually, this one, at least in my mind, is pretty clear in the constitution.  It can be changed, but would need an additional amendment to the constitution to get it.

 

 

 

2) You are on the diminishing side of the US electorate, if you don't like being a minority with no powers perhaps change that before it is to late?

 

yeah, I've heard that, but then I keep hearing about record setting number of background checks every month for the last 15 months, and I wonder if people are just not telling the truth when some random person calls on the phone to ask if there are guns in the house.  I've never received a call like that, but would definitely answer in the negative.  It's nobody else's business what I have in my home.

 

 

 

In other news, compromise is NOT defeat, it is actually a very healthy thing to do

 

Problem is, gun owners HAVE compromised.  They've just gotten to the point that they're not wiling to compromise any more, because we feel that most of what is being proposed is not reasonable or common sense.  It used to be that truly automatic weapons could easily be owned by civilians.  Got stopped by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (required a $200 tax stamp, which was a ton of money in the 30's).  There used to be no background checks at all.  Now we have instant background checks thanks to NICS (NICS was mandated in 1993, non-instant background checks were mandated sometime in the mid-80's).

 

There is no online loophole, or gun show loophole.  If you purchase a gun online, it is likely crossing state lines.  Federal law requires that an FFL be involved, which necessitates a background check.  Even if it doesn't cross state lines, you're not likely purchasing directly from the manufacturer, but someone with an FFL. Private transfers are allowed because of compromise in the 80's (allowing me to inherit guns from my dad when he passed with no background check).

 

Many sellers at gun shows are also FFL's.  Any purchase from an FFL necessitates a background check, whether it's at a gun show or at a store.

 

Want more background checks to be done? Get more FFL's. The fees and requirements (like getting fingerprinted by the FBI, and having a separate address for the gun business) started going up during Bill Clinton's time in office

Hilowe is 100% correct. If Clinton wins, the next 4 years will be an all out war to protect the Constitution. The whole Progressive agenda is based on changing the interpretation, and undermining the Constitution through judicial decree, rather than State Ratification. They have found it's much easier to change things through liberal judges, than the impossible task of allowing the American people to decide for themselves in their favor. This is how civil wars begin, and I would rather avoid that.

 

And here I thought the Civil War happended cause 1 part of the nation disagreed FUNDAMENTALLY with another part of the nation, hence it being a civil war and not a coup.

 

You seem to ignore what political representation is, namely the people putting forward people (politicians) that they feel are up to their views and are a good representation for them to the rest of society. You now claiming when 50%+1 of the people want A, you don't need to get A? Perhaps add some minority support then, like I said before. 1 such mintory support is a 2/3th rule for example.

 

 

 

1) You will not lose your second amendment, but as with any law it is not set in stone. Adjustments to the present will be made to any matter of the past, the debate itself hasn't even started yet.

 

Actually, this one, at least in my mind, is pretty clear in the constitution.  It can be changed, but would need an additional amendment to the constitution to get it.

 

.

And as such that will most likely be needed to adjust it (an amendment for an amendment), which I already stated being that the debate surrounding such a thing isn't being started yet.

.

 

 

2) You are on the diminishing side of the US electorate, if you don't like being a minority with no powers perhaps change that before it is to late?

 

yeah, I've heard that, but then I keep hearing about record setting number of background checks every month for the last 15 months, and I wonder if people are just not telling the truth when some random person calls on the phone to ask if there are guns in the house.  I've never received a call like that, but would definitely answer in the negative.  It's nobody else's business what I have in my home.

 

.

So I guess you don't mind being shot by a police officer when asked if you got a gun, you reply negative and then he spots it in your glovebox while you reach for your insurrance papers?

.

 

 

In other news, compromise is NOT defeat, it is actually a very healthy thing to do

 

Problem is, gun owners HAVE compromised.  They've just gotten to the point that they're not wiling to compromise any more, because we feel that most of what is being proposed is not reasonable or common sense.  It used to be that truly automatic weapons could easily be owned by civilians.  Got stopped by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (required a $200 tax stamp, which was a ton of money in the 30's).  There used to be no background checks at all.  Now we have instant background checks thanks to NICS (NICS was mandated in 1993, non-instant background checks were mandated sometime in the mid-80's).

 

There is no online loophole, or gun show loophole.  If you purchase a gun online, it is likely crossing state lines.  Federal law requires that an FFL be involved, which necessitates a background check.  Even if it doesn't cross state lines, you're not likely purchasing directly from the manufacturer, but someone with an FFL. Private transfers are allowed because of compromise in the 80's (allowing me to inherit guns from my dad when he passed with no background check).

 

Many sellers at gun shows are also FFL's.  Any purchase from an FFL necessitates a background check, whether it's at a gun show or at a store.

 

Want more background checks to be done? Get more FFL's. The fees and requirements (like getting fingerprinted by the FBI, and having a separate address for the gun business) started going up during Bill Clinton's time in office

 

 

PS I can't go into a US gun law debate plainly cause I don't know the law(s)

 

But I will add this: It is a law from the foundation of your country, it is from the very birthplace of your nation you so proudly inhabit. But things change, society changes and adjusted to new parameters, in this case automatic and-or heavy weaponry. I doubt the 18th century police wouldn't have said a thing if you had a howitzer in your backyard "for personal leasure".

 

Another thing is the whole "well regulated militia", I would claim that this is the present day equivalent of a shooting club/range or perhaps a neighbourhood watch. Militia's are per definition with more then 1 person, last I heared you guys have a tremendous freedom on how to interpret this "well regulated militia" line.

 

As for $$ being sucked into your government, grats, thats what it usually does, and most taxes are instated to offset something being paid for by the government. Perhaps start at your expenditures instead of attacking the income of the state. (you might want to "lighten" that debt for instance...)

 

 

 

I am starting to smell whiners, losing whiners. I don't like many stuff in Belgium either, but I'd only start whining about it if it was actually a unsupported thing. If an appropiate majority decides something it is our duty to let it pass.

 

 

And here I thought the Civil War happended cause 1 part of the nation disagreed FUNDAMENTALLY with another part of the nation, hence it being a civil war and not a coup.   You seem to ignore what political representation is, namely the people putting forward people (politicians) that they feel are up to their views and are a good representation for them to the rest of society. You now claiming when 50%+1 of the people want A, you don't need to get A? Perhaps add some minority support then, like I said before. 1 such mintory support is a 2/3th rule for example.

I have a hard time understanding what you mean sometimes, but I'll give it a shot. The United States is a Republic of 50 states. You can't just hold a Democracy vote... get 51%... and change the Constitution... it takes majority support from 38 individual states to amend the Constitution. If the issue is repeal of the 2nd Amendment, it would be dead on arrival because they will never get 38 states to support the repeal. But if they can pass a law disarming the American people in Congress, and it works it's way to the Supreme Court, and then a liberal court determines that the 2nd Amendment says "militia", and we don't have "militias" anymore... so 5 judges wipe out a section of the Bill of Rights overnight. Yeah... lots will die.

 

 

hilowe, on 12 Oct 2016 - 16:39, said:   onbekende, on 12 Oct 2016 - 16:19, said: 2) You are on the diminishing side of the US electorate, if you don't like being a minority with no powers perhaps change that before it is to late?   yeah, I've heard that, but then I keep hearing about record setting number of background checks every month for the last 15 months, and I wonder if people are just not telling the truth when some random person calls on the phone to ask if there are guns in the house.  I've never received a call like that, but would definitely answer in the negative.  It's nobody else's business what I have in my home.   . So I guess you don't mind being shot by a police officer when asked if you got a gun, you reply negative and then he spots it in your glovebox while you reach for your insurrance papers?

 

I can't comment on other states, but where I live, because I have a permit to conceal carry, I am required by law to inform the officer.  So, I'll run with the traffic stop that you hypothesized here.  What I was taught was to keep my hands on the steering wheel, inform the cop when he/she got to my window, and ask how they want to proceed.  Haven't been pulled over since I got my permit, so I'll have to let you know how it goes when that happens.

 

By law in mjy state, I could actually keep a loaded gun in the car, so long as it is in plain view.  Putting a loaded gun in the glove box like you stated is a huge problem.

 

 

 

Militia's are per definition with more then 1 person, last I heared you guys have a tremendous freedom on how to interpret this "well regulated militia" line.

 

Not really, again, in my opinion.  I'll go back to what the founding fathers of my nation said.

 

“The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country.”

James Madison

 

“I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for few public officials.”

George Mason

 

“Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American...The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people.”
Tench Coxe

 

“The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them.”

Tench Coxe

 

 

 

As for $$ being sucked into your government, grats, thats what it usually does, and most taxes are instated to offset something being paid for by the government. Perhaps start at your expenditures instead of attacking the income of the state. (you might want to "lighten" that debt for instance...)

 

I agree with you on this, especially on the lowering costs.  The problem I have is, how much does it cost to do a background check (roughly $35 is what I have heard charged by FFL's, so I'm imaging close to that), fees from the FBI for fingerprinting (no idea), and some additional paper work.  The initial fee is $200 to ATF (fingerprinting is on top of this), and a $90 renewal every 3 years.  Not horrible, until you add in the fact that you cannot use your home address as well.  My understanding is that if you change address for some reason (lease is up, etc), it's not a renewal, but a new application.

 

What I'm attempting to say (and I know I'm not doing very well with it) is if you want to increase background checks, this is a very simple and easy way to do it.  Nobody talks about it.

 

The other problem I have is explained here.  I know this is a 3 year old article, but it's the most recent one I could find quickly.  Essentially, even though we have an increased number of back ground checks, there are still some people that are disallowed by law from possessing guns trying to get guns.  These people are being prosecuted in fewer and fewer numbers.

This is relevant

 

 

I came here to post this

 

Also, Trump Speak= changing goal posts.

And now add leering after ten year olds.

 

Ten. Years. Old.

 

I don't care what your political persuasion is. That has to be over the line.

 

yeah, I've heard that, but then I keep hearing about record setting number of background checks every month for the last 15 months, and I wonder if people are just not telling the truth when some random person calls on the phone to ask if there are guns in the house.  I've never received a call like that, but would definitely answer in the negative.  It's nobody else's business what I have in my home.

 

Problem is, gun owners HAVE compromised.  They've just gotten to the point that they're not wiling to compromise any more, because we feel that most of what is being proposed is not reasonable or common sense.  It used to be that truly automatic weapons could easily be owned by civilians.  Got stopped by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (required a $200 tax stamp, which was a ton of money in the 30's).  There used to be no background checks at all.  Now we have instant background checks thanks to NICS (NICS was mandated in 1993, non-instant background checks were mandated sometime in the mid-80's).

 

There is no online loophole, or gun show loophole.  If you purchase a gun online, it is likely crossing state lines.  Federal law requires that an FFL be involved, which necessitates a background check.  Even if it doesn't cross state lines, you're not likely purchasing directly from the manufacturer, but someone with an FFL. Private transfers are allowed because of compromise in the 80's (allowing me to inherit guns from my dad when he passed with no background check).

 

Many sellers at gun shows are also FFL's.  Any purchase from an FFL necessitates a background check, whether it's at a gun show or at a store.

 

Want more background checks to be done? Get more FFL's. The fees and requirements (like getting fingerprinted by the FBI, and having a separate address for the gun business) started going up during Bill Clinton's time in office

 

Firearm sales are through the roof. Record sales keep getting broken every couple months. I suspect Oct-Jan (Assuming Hilary wins) will be the most guns sold ever in a 4 month period. A FFL holder must run a background check EVERY TIME they sell/transfer a firearm. You cannot buy a firearm online without a background check, unless if you go to some Silk Road knockoff using Tor.... About 99% of people selling at a gun shows, are FFL holders. Because it is not economically practical for the average person (who only wants to sell 1-2 firearms), drives there, pays to rent a table, and sit around all day or multiple days just to sell one firearm. Occasionally you get collectors who want to sell a bunch of antique firearms, but you cannot legally sell large quantities of firearms without an FFL. So collections typically go to auction houses, that also have a FFL. So if you bid an win, you still get a background check.

 

You do not need a separate address for getting your own FFL. Your local village or town may restrict you to internet sales only, but it is still relatively painless to acquire a FFL. Renewing your FFL after 3 years is the hard part. You have to sell approximately 30ish firearms within those 3 years (no one knows the exact magic number), be an excellent record keeper, follow all Federal, State, and Local laws, and show a profit. You are in business to make a profit right? The last part is why I chose to forgo acquiring a FFL. I have too much competition around me which would effect my profits (2 Gun stores 10 minutes away, and 3 home based FFLs 5 minutes away).

 

So I guess you don't mind being shot by a police officer when asked if you got a gun, you reply negative and then he spots it in your glovebox while you reach for your insurrance papers?

This made me laugh. You would have to be a special kind of stupid, to keep a firearm in your glovebox, tell a police officer you do not have a weapon, and then open the glovebox in plain view of the officer allowing them to see your weapon. Install a mini gun lockbox for your car or keep your weapon concealed (if your state legally allows it) on you. In my State, I am not bound by law to inform an officer if I am carrying or have a weapon in my possession. Only if they ask if you have a weapon, do you legally have to answer you are armed.. And trust me, when I carry concealed it is impossible to tell if I am carrying.

 

 

You do not need a separate address for getting your own FFL.

 

You sure about this one??

 

I had looked into getting an FFL (about 10 years ago), and that was what I was planning on doing, just doing stuff out my house for friends and family, trying to get better prices for them than through local big box stores.  Can't remember where I got that it had to be a separate location, though, because that was why I stopped looking any further into it.

 

 

 

yeah, I've heard that, but then I keep hearing about record setting number of background checks every month for the last 15 months, and I wonder if people are just not telling the truth when some random person calls on the phone to ask if there are guns in the house.  I've never received a call like that, but would definitely answer in the negative.  It's nobody else's business what I have in my home. 

Problem is, gun owners HAVE compromised.  They've just gotten to the point that they're not wiling to compromise any more, because we feel that most of what is being proposed is not reasonable or common sense.  It used to be that truly automatic weapons could easily be owned by civilians.  Got stopped by the National Firearms Act of 1934 (required a $200 tax stamp, which was a ton of money in the 30's).  There used to be no background checks at all.  Now we have instant background checks thanks to NICS (NICS was mandated in 1993, non-instant background checks were mandated sometime in the mid-80's).

 

There is no online loophole, or gun show loophole.  If you purchase a gun online, it is likely crossing state lines.  Federal law requires that an FFL be involved, which necessitates a background check.  Even if it doesn't cross state lines, you're not likely purchasing directly from the manufacturer, but someone with an FFL. Private transfers are allowed because of compromise in the 80's (allowing me to inherit guns from my dad when he passed with no background check).

 

Many sellers at gun shows are also FFL's.  Any purchase from an FFL necessitates a background check, whether it's at a gun show or at a store.

 

Want more background checks to be done? Get more FFL's. The fees and requirements (like getting fingerprinted by the FBI, and having a separate address for the gun business) started going up during Bill Clinton's time in office

 

 

 

Firearm sales are through the roof. Record sales keep getting broken every couple months. I suspect Oct-Jan (Assuming Hilary wins) will be the most guns sold ever in a 4 month period. A FFL holder must run a background check EVERY TIME they sell/transfer a firearm. You cannot buy a firearm online without a background check, unless if you go to some Silk Road knockoff using Tor.... About 99% of people selling at a gun shows, are FFL holders. Because it is not economically practical for the average person (who only wants to sell 1-2 firearms), drives there, pays to rent a table, and sit around all day or multiple days just to sell one firearm. Occasionally you get collectors who want to sell a bunch of antique firearms, but you cannot legally sell large quantities of firearms without an FFL. So collections typically go to auction houses, that also have a FFL. So if you bid an win, you still get a background check.

 

You do not need a separate address for getting your own FFL. Your local village or town may restrict you to internet sales only, but it is still relatively painless to acquire a FFL. Renewing your FFL after 3 years is the hard part. You have to sell approximately 30ish firearms within those 3 years (no one knows the exact magic number), be an excellent record keeper, follow all Federal, State, and Local laws, and show a profit. You are in business to make a profit right? The last part is why I chose to forgo acquiring a FFL. I have too much competition around me which would effect my profits (2 Gun stores 10 minutes away, and 3 home based FFLs 5 minutes away).

 

So I guess you don't mind being shot by a police officer when asked if you got a gun, you reply negative and then he spots it in your glovebox while you reach for your insurrance papers?

 

 

This made me laugh. You would have to be a special kind of stupid, to keep a firearm in your glovebox, tell a police officer you do not have a weapon, and then open the glovebox in plain view of the officer allowing them to see your weapon. Install a mini gun lockbox for your car or keep your weapon concealed (if your state legally allows it) on you. In my State, I am not bound by law to inform an officer if I am carrying or have a weapon in my possession. Only if they ask if you have a weapon, do you legally have to answer you are armed.. And trust me, when I carry concealed it is impossible to tell if I am carrying.

I was always under the assumption we had to inform an officer. Ive been pulled over about 3 times with a gun in the car. (AR in the trunk,handgun in the glovebox, and even a knife on a holster attached to my seat.) The only experience I've ever had after informing them is they ask me to leave my car with my hands visible and stand away from my car. But I agree, you'd have to have a deathwish to carry a gun and tell a cop you dont have one, only to show it to them.

 

As far as compromise, I don't feel I'd have enough experience to really add to that. Despite having a handful of guns (no one's business how many.) I never bought online. My background is spotless, so I usually can walk in and out within an hour, and fyi, I don't buy from places like Walmart or Academy where they seem to have their own policies in place. Texas doesnt require you to register your guns. They recently even allowed carry on campus and open carry for all gun types (with a CHL). Alot of these 'compromises' other states make haven't ever effected me. The laws in Texas seem to be getting more relaxed actually.

 

As far as supply vs. Demand, I have noticed that with some ammos but again, rarely effects me. I typically stock on 62grain, M855s (5.56). The price of those havent changed except for a brief time when the ATF proposed a bill to specifically ban them. Other than that, the price is pretty solid. I'd love to try and add more to a gun conversatiom, but like I said, I'm not in a position that most of these bills effect me to know.much about how these compromises hurt others.

 

My belief as far as who should own? Felons shouldn't own unless they have been out of trouble for at least 10 years and file a pardance with the Governor. Mentally unstable patients that have been impatiented by a court order. (Going to a hospital of your own will for help shouldn't bar someone from owning.) Those with intense mental instabilities (documented special education, extreme cases of bipolar, things like that.) I havent really heard any convincing arguments yet to make me feel otherwise about any other group.

 

You do not need a separate address for getting your own FFL.

 

You sure about this one??

 

I had looked into getting an FFL (about 10 years ago), and that was what I was planning on doing, just doing stuff out my house for friends and family, trying to get better prices for them than through local big box stores.  Can't remember where I got that it had to be a separate location, though, because that was why I stopped looking any further into it.

 

Needing a storefront or a separate location is not necessary. Maybe it was ten years ago but you do not need one know. Only thing I can think of is possibly a local ordnance saying you would need one for zoning purposes. Like why you couldn't convert your home into a grocery store in a residential neighborhood.

 

 

 

I was always under the assumption we had to inform an officer. Ive been pulled over about 3 times with a gun in the car. (AR in the trunk,handgun in the glovebox, and even a knife on a holster attached to my seat.) The only experience I've ever had after informing them is they ask me to leave my car with my hands visible and stand away from my car. But I agree, you'd have to have a deathwish to carry a gun and tell a cop you dont have one, only to show it to them.

I believe this depends on what state you reside in. Some even have it set up where when you get pulled over, the officer runs your plate and it displays you have a pistol permit. So the officer would know before stepping out of the car if you might be armed.

 

 

King H, on 13 Oct 2016 - 10:18, said: I was always under the assumption we had to inform an officer. Ive been pulled over about 3 times with a gun in the car. (AR in the trunk,handgun in the glovebox, and even a knife on a holster attached to my seat.) The only experience I've ever had after informing them is they ask me to leave my car with my hands visible and stand away from my car. But I agree, you'd have to have a deathwish to carry a gun and tell a cop you dont have one, only to show it to them. I believe this depends on what state you reside in. Some even have it set up where when you get pulled over, the officer runs your plate and it displays you have a pistol permit. So the officer would know before stepping out of the car if you might be armed.

 

Like DM says, it depends on the state.  Nebraska (where I'm at) and Texas are mandatory notification.  I have heard stories that Nebraska does what DM said (has the info tied to your license), so that cops will ask a spouse if they have a weapon if the info isn't volunteered.  My wife hasn't been pulled over yet since I got my license, so I don't know if it's true. 

 

Kansas is the only state I know of that isn't a mandatory inform.

 

 

 

hilowe, on 13 Oct 2016 - 10:17, said: DeathMerchant, on 13 Oct 2016 - 09:37, said:You do not need a separate address for getting your own FFL. You sure about this one?? I had looked into getting an FFL (about 10 years ago), and that was what I was planning on doing, just doing stuff out my house for friends and family, trying to get better prices for them than through local big box stores. Can't remember where I got that it had to be a separate location, though, because that was why I stopped looking any further into it. Needing a storefront or a separate location is not necessary. Maybe it was ten years ago but you do not need one know. Only thing I can think of is possibly a local ordnance saying you would need one for zoning purposes. Like why you couldn't convert your home into a grocery store in a residential neighborhood.

 

I'll have to look into this again. I was talking to a coworker that lived outside of my city about getting an FFL (he had one previously that he got rid of, because of the amount of new regulations), and he was the one telling me it was an ATF requirement.  Guess I need to go do some research again.