288 replies to this topic

[DeathMerchant]

 

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.

[hilowe]

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.

[SeaBeeGipson]

 
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.

[DeathMerchant]

 

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.

[hilowe]

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.

[Lysistrata]

Rasmussen tracking has Trump +2 today... that's a 9 point swing since the debate, which tells us he really does have a post debate bounce. Neither Trump or Clinton ever get anywhere near 50% support on much of anything, so that fact leaves me guessing about any polling being accurate on election day. Too many not participating in this distasteful selection.

 

The LA Times tracking poll has Trump bumping back up to a fractional, one tenth of a point lead... Tied.

 

Daily releases from WikiLeaks are playing havoc with the Clinton team as they try to dodge their own deplorable behavior. They want to blame "the Russians", but even the most simple minded of American knows that you need to be concerned about bullets, bombs, and missiles... but you should never be afraid of the truth.

[Lysistrata]

This is significant... Suffolk just released a North Carolina poll that shows Clinton +2... significant because it was taken all after the last debate, and the previous Suffolk poll from N. C. had Trump +3... so the Donald has more work to do in this state that he must win to have a prayer of winning this.

 

His rally schedule is exhausting. Just saw him in Palm Beach Florida, very effective and on point. The latest barrage of baseless allegations show a level of desperation rarely seen, totally expected, and completely designed to suppress turnout. WikiLeaks exposed today the Clinton team crafting their web of lies about Hillary's private server... priceless.

 

One debate to go and a few weeks before election day... Why do I think much more will happen?

[Chaplain of death]

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.

 

Hes already made campaign promises to break the law and now hes talking about jailing political opponents (which would defeat the purpose of checks and balances because he'd jail anyone who didn't do as he ordered). How are checks and balances going to stop him? Yes I know this is supposition, I'm taking what he's said and assuming the worse side of the possible, but it is in fact possible, and that is extremely concerning. If you aren't concerned about the possibility of him doing that kind of shit, you don't care about the Constitution, so stop pretending that you do.

 

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.

 

 

an all out war to protect the constitution you say? You mean like having to protect the 19th amendment from angry republican voters who don't think women are people?http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-supporters-repeal-19th-amendment-article-1.2828571

http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-repeal-the-19th-amendment-balancing-1013-20161013-column.html

 

The progressive agenda knows that the constitution was written in a very different time than our current society. Many of its tenets are still very applicable but some are very much less so. Its not about destroying or not respecting the constitution, its about understanding what is no longer relevant to us in this day and age. I believe that we should be able to have guns personally, however, the 2nd amendment was written when any man could go get a gun that was every bit as effective as the firearms used by national military's. These days with tanks, aircraft, missile launchers, etc..... the idea of a citizen being able to band together to protect themselves from the government with the firearms available to them is laughable at best. The DoD could put down a revolution by itself without the help of the national guard or any branch of military. That being said I still believe there are valid reasons that we should be able to possess guns, I don't however believe that we need access to all the different kinds of guns we currently have, but that's just me.

[Rhizoctonia]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-post-debate-polls-show-trump-still-in-big-trouble/

[hilowe]

hilowe, on 12 Oct 2016 - 16:39, said: onbekende, on 12 Oct 2016 - 16:19, said: 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".

 

Saw this post, which does a great job of explaining why I don't want universal background checks (one of the "reasonable" or "common sense" measures that keeps getting tossed around).

 

Also, forgot to respond to your last two comments. 

 

During the revolutionary war, private citizens had cannons (essentially the howitzer of the time). Now, that being said, I'm ok with not having one, nor any other private citizen having one (see, I can be reasonable).  I also don't think private citizens need to have access to nukes, chemical weapons, or biological weapons.  In my opinion, these weapons are too indiscriminate (ie, everyone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and a right to self-defense, so why should I, as a private citizen, have weapons that cannot be controlled in who they attack.  The ones I list I feel are specifically weapons of the state, to be used on another state [or country, read that however you really want]).

 

Automatic weapons. Did you know that there were already two different models of weapons that were much faster than muskets at the time of the revolutionary war?  There were two models that I had been told about (and a couple more that I found while looking for the correct names of the two I had heard of).  While not true automatic rifles, they definitely throw out the notion that the only thing available was muskets and that's all the founding fathers were thinking of when they wrote the second amendment.

 

The two I knew of:

 

Belton flintlock - This was actually proposed to be sold to the Continental Congress, but was denied due to cost.  Was supposed to fire up to 20 musket balls in 5 seconds, or 16 musket balls in 16 seconds (no known models exist today, even though it was built and tested. Only known about today because of letters between the inventor, Belton, and Congress). Rate of fire depends on the source of the information.

 

Kalthoff repeater - used two magazines, one for the musket balls, and one for the powder.  Depending on the model, held 7, 12, or even 30 musket balls, and could be fired 3 or 4 times a minute. 

 

The ones I didn't know of:

 

Girandoni rifle - could fire 22 times in 30 seconds, and was supposedly used on the Lewis and Clark Expedition by Lewis, provided to them by Thomas Jefferson. Was also supposedly issued by the Austrian army at the time.

 

Pepper box revolvers - essentially a multi-barreled handgun, the barrels rotated as it was fired, allowing multiple shots without reloading

 

Puckle gun - another revolver type of weapon, that was specifically designed to be used to stop ship boarding. had a removable cylinder that could be reloaded with shot and powder while detached from the gun.

 

My internet searches:

 

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/29/these-guns-dispel-the-notion-the-founding-fathers-could-never-have-imagined-modern-assault-rifles/

 

http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/2nd-amendment-it-muskets-only

 

 

 

an all out war to protect the constitution you say? You mean like having to protect the 19th amendment from angry republican voters who don't think women are people?http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-supporters-repeal-19th-amendment-article-1.2828571 http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-repeal-the-19th-amendment-balancing-1013-20161013-column.html

 

I heard about this one this morning, and I don't believe it.  I really think it's people trying to paint trump supporters in a very bad light.

 

These days with tanks, aircraft, missile launchers, etc..... the idea of a citizen being able to band together to protect themselves from the government with the firearms available to them is laughable at best. The DoD could put down a revolution by itself without the help of the national guard or any branch of military.

 

I'll disagree with this specifically. Take a look at Iraq and Afghanistan, and how many problems our military had with guerilla fighters that blended in with everyone else.

 

Also, look at the number of citizens in the US vs the number of active duty military personnel.  I heard a stat recently that only 1% of Americans do or have served in the armed forces.

Edited by hilowe, 13 October 2016 - 08:07 PM.

[Sister Midnight]

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/election-update-post-debate-polls-show-trump-still-in-big-trouble/

What I learned from the last election is that polls are largely meaningless. What I have learned from the last year is that the overwhelming majority of TRump's core supporters are xenophobic, delusional men, who don't really care about factual information that is not in alignment with thei fixed delusions, and sincerely believe they are somehow being victimized by a system that has always favored them and continues to favor them. Normal common sense tells us that Clinton will win, yet common sense assumes that voting public will make a sensible choice that is for the good of the nation, it also fails to take into account the pure, rabid, irrational loathing many people have towards Clinton. I know Clinton should win, but I have serious doubt that she WILL win. The debates help her, but will that be enough?

Trump stands up in debates, incoherent, blatantly lying and hovering menacingly over a little old lady, who is a foot shorter than him, but his supporters say he's great. He interrupts, whines, engages in schoolyard bullying tactics and some right wingers deny this is happening and deny this could well indicate the doom of our nation in terms of international affairs if he takes power. He praises Putin and these people don't bat an eye!

I see polls showing Clinton ahead, but I've had a lot of rude awakenings about just how self destructive the electorate can be. I used to oppose the electoral college, which exists because our founders believed that the general voting public could not be trusted to make intelligent choices. I am not as opposed to it as I used to be.

More than anything, I just wish the election were done already! A year a a half of candidates' venom and mudslinging is poisoning my beloved country and the entire world.

[ccabal86]

 

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.

 
Hes already made campaign promises to break the law and now hes talking about jailing political opponents (which would defeat the purpose of checks and balances because he'd jail anyone who didn't do as he ordered). How are checks and balances going to stop him? Yes I know this is supposition, I'm taking what he's said and assuming the worse side of the possible, but it is in fact possible, and that is extremely concerning. If you aren't concerned about the possibility of him doing that kind of shit, you don't care about the Constitution, so stop pretending that you do.

 

 

And what's he going to do, personally drag his poilitical opponents to jail?  Prosecutions need to go through a system that the President only has very limited influence on. He would need hundrens if not thousands of diehard loyalists in key positions, which he doesn't, and likely wouldn't.

 

I came off as pretending to care about your constitution? My interest is purely academic, as seeing how I'm not a US citizen, I have little direct stake in all this.

[DeathMerchant]

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.

 
Hes already made campaign promises to break the law and now hes talking about jailing political opponents (which would defeat the purpose of checks and balances because he'd jail anyone who didn't do as he ordered). How are checks and balances going to stop him? Yes I know this is supposition, I'm taking what he's said and assuming the worse side of the possible, but it is in fact possible, and that is extremely concerning. If you aren't concerned about the possibility of him doing that kind of shit, you don't care about the Constitution, so stop pretending that you do.
 

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.

 
 
an all out war to protect the constitution you say? You mean like having to protect the 19th amendment from angry republican voters who don't think women are people?http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/trump-supporters-repeal-19th-amendment-article-1.2828571
http://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/stevens/ct-repeal-the-19th-amendment-balancing-1013-20161013-column.html
 
The progressive agenda knows that the constitution was written in a very different time than our current society. Many of its tenets are still very applicable but some are very much less so. Its not about destroying or not respecting the constitution, its about understanding what is no longer relevant to us in this day and age. I believe that we should be able to have guns personally, however, the 2nd amendment was written when any man could go get a gun that was every bit as effective as the firearms used by national military's. These days with tanks, aircraft, missile launchers, etc..... the idea of a citizen being able to band together to protect themselves from the government with the firearms available to them is laughable at best. The DoD could put down a revolution by itself without the help of the national guard or any branch of military. That being said I still believe there are valid reasons that we should be able to possess guns, I don't however believe that we need access to all the different kinds of guns we currently have, but that's just me.

History has shown us time and time again conventional military forces tend to fare poorly in irregular warfare. Vietnam War, Russian War in Afghanistan, 1st Chechnya War, 2nd Chechnya War, US War in Afghanistan, US War in Iraq to name a few. And don't be so quick to believe the DOD would be so willing to kill Americans. Just because an order is issued, doesn't mean the men on the ground will follow it.

[Sister Midnight]

I wonder if Clinton will bring the four women Trump sexually assaulted (allegedly) to the next debate.

[Lysistrata]

Well this is interesting.

 

Lots of anger over that LA Times poll that always shows Trump doing much better nationally than all the rest. I just found out why. In 2012, the "LA Times" poll was called the "RAND" poll. Depending on your age, or how much you follow politics, you may or may not know what happened in the 2012 election. National averages had Romney actually winning by +.3 (3 tenths) of a point... but the RAND poll had Obama winning by +3.8 percent... which was almost exactly how it ended up for Obama on election day.

 

So you can see why Clinton supporters are worried. But don't get your panties in a bunch over this... because in reality it's much harder for Trump to win than this poll would lead you to believe. We do not elect Presidents by a popular vote. We elect Presidents by Electoral College votes. Each state has a set amount of E.C. votes representing their population. Populous states like California and Texas carry a lot of votes, where states like Montana and my state of Nevada carry much less weight.

 

Most states are either so heavily populated with Democrats or Republicans, that the outcome is already set in stone... but there are several states considered "Battleground" states that are too close to call. This part of the equation has shifted dramatically to the Democrats since the 2008 election. Solid Republican states like Virginia have changed stripes since the Obama era came to be. Big Government has taken root in Northern Virginia from Washington D.C. influence, and now dominates the once proudly red state. What I'm trying to explain is that Hillary Clinton has such a lock on so many Electoral votes that Trump absolutely has to win every one of these battleground states to even be in position to win... and then he has to win one of them from her side.

 

Swing states like Florida, and North Carolina... Trump has to win them all. Even then Trump will have to steal something like Pennsylvania from the blue side to win. If Hillary beats him in just one of those "swing" states, Trump will have no chance to win. That's why the Clinton's are dragging out every nuke in the arsenal, and every dirty political trick, to win those states. The Clinton's are lifelong professional politicians with a compliant media in their pocket. Barring revolution, they will win this easily.

 

Even if Trump wins the popular vote by a whopping 5 percentage points, he will not be President if he loses a state like North Carolina. So what happens when Hillary Clinton is inaugurated?  Mission accomplished... we made history again and elected the first woman President. The compliant media which has been on a singular mission to destroy the evil Donald, now has nothing to do but comb over all the stuff they have ignored for the last 4 years... and they will turn on her faster than you can say "Clinton Foundation".

 

I predict 4 more years of denial, scandal, corruption, and impeachment trials... but she will get those judges.

 

But we can always fall back on that old Obama mantra called hope.

 

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2016/10/14/why_pay_attention_to_the_la_times_poll.html

http://news.usc.edu/109339/why-the-usc-dornsifel-a-times-presidential-poll-is-unlike-other-polls/

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/13/upshot/how-one-19-year-old-illinois-man-is-distorting-national-polling-averages.html?_r=1

[hilowe]

Scott Adams has an interesting take today on his blog.

Before you start sobbing at the fact that Clinton and Trump are the best this country has to offer, I predict that all future presidential elections will be this nasty. Thanks to whistleblowers, hackers, and hot mics, we now have the means to see/read/hear the actual inner thoughts of candidates in ways that were never before possible. And if you learn enough about a human being, you’ll almost certainly hate that person. Expect future candidates to rival Clinton and Trump for unpopularity. That’s the new world we live in. We have the means to know too much about people. 

 

To prepare for this new world of too-much-disclosure, I suggest we abandon the idea that presidents should be role models for our kids. Let’s treat the election like we are hiring for any other type of job. A candidate either has the right skills and motivation or doesn’t. Their rotten inner souls aren’t necessarily an indication of future job performance.

 

Clinton and Trump are in the so-called basket of deplorables along with 100% of American voters. We’re all flawed. I suggest voters pick the job applicant they think can best do the work of President and leave the role-modeling to mom and dad. 

 

 

Essentially, he says that because we have access to so much more information on candidates, we'll get to know our candidates better and be more likely to hate them.

 

 

Came across a website by the Americans for Tax Reform (they state that they are anti tax hike for anyone).  Website is http://www.hightaxhillary.com/. I haven't had a chance to look through the site, to see if the info is factual, but thought I would put it out there.  From the little I've seen, the website is pro-Trump, but I haven't seen if it's because of his policies (ie, being objective in their limited scope) or if they're just pro-Trump/anti-Hilary (ie, putting information out support one or damage the other based on personal beliefs).  I haven't had a chance to look and see if there is similar criticism of Trump.

[Icewolf]

Comparing the LA times poll to past polls is misleading. It is a totally new methodology that throws a lot of orthodoxy out the window. It also appears to be a very risky way to poll. Pollsters reckon you have a 1/20 chance of a misleading sample in each poll. Normally not an issue as you have lots of polls and get a new sample each time. If you have one sample for the entire election and it is wonky...well you're fucked.

Also the mechanism means it requires very engaged persons to partake in it who probably don't reflect an average voter. For example they may be more partisan than average.

Overall remember it's an experiment, an entirely untried method. Qudos is owed for trying this new concept in so public and open a way. And it could be right. It could also be wrong.

Overall there is also a common train of thought of polls can be wrong....Therefore Trump is doing better than polling suggests. Yep...could be true. But they could be wrong the other way. If you think that there is a possible 6-8% error on average...fair enough. It's possible and polls have been unreliable in the past. But before you cuddle your Trump teddy with glee remember that it could also mean Clinton in fact has a 14 point lead and is on the way to winning Texas, and the scenarios are about as likely as each other.

Also remember in 2008 it was the Bradley effect. In 2012 it was the poll unskewers. Whilst people have looked stupid following polls, the record of those that deny them is worse

[Chaplain of death]

Nothing to do but comb over 

 

I see you. I see the jokes Lys, and I must say.... nice. 

[Sister Midnight]

Whilst people have looked stupid following polls, the record of those that deny them is worse

 

That may be true, but Clinton is waaaaay ahead in the polls i've seen and I don't want to have my soul crushed by getting my hopes up that we don't end up with President T,  and then he gets elected.

[onbekende]

 

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.

 

.
I was indeed showing the rather difficult path in changing an amendment thruw Congress/House/President.

I would also never advocate for any radical alteration, heck most anti-gun people in the US just want more checks on the present guns and less sources of the "excessive" guns, don't think you have a meaningfull % of the population wanting to go full gun abolishment.
.

 

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.

 

.
I replied to you disliking government officials doing government duty (the background check), perhaps you just don't dislike them if they can shoot you?
.

Also, forgot to respond to your last two comments.

During the revolutionary war, private citizens had cannons (essentially the howitzer of the time). Now, that being said, I'm ok with not having one, nor any other private citizen having one (see, I can be reasonable). I also don't think private citizens need to have access to nukes, chemical weapons, or biological weapons. In my opinion, these weapons are too indiscriminate (ie, everyone has the right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" and a right to self-defense, so why should I, as a private citizen, have weapons that cannot be controlled in who they attack. The ones I list I feel are specifically weapons of the state, to be used on another state [or country, read that however you really want]).

Automatic weapons. Did you know that there were already two different models of weapons that were much faster than muskets at the time of the revolutionary war? There were two models that I had been told about (and a couple more that I found while looking for the correct names of the two I had heard of). While not true automatic rifles, they definitely throw out the notion that the only thing available was muskets and that's all the founding fathers were thinking of when they wrote the second amendment.

cThe two I knew of:

Belton flintlock - This was actually proposed to be sold to the Continental Congress, but was denied due to cost. Was supposed to fire up to 20 musket balls in 5 seconds, or 16 musket balls in 16 seconds (no known models exist today, even though it was built and tested. Only known about today because of letters between the inventor, Belton, and Congress). Rate of fire depends on the source of the information.

Kalthoff repeater - used two magazines, one for the musket balls, and one for the powder. Depending on the model, held 7, 12, or even 30 musket balls, and could be fired 3 or 4 times a minute.

The ones I didn't know of:

Girandoni rifle - could fire 22 times in 30 seconds, and was supposedly used on the Lewis and Clark Expedition by Lewis, provided to them by Thomas Jefferson. Was also supposedly issued by the Austrian army at the time.

Pepper box revolvers - essentially a multi-barreled handgun, the barrels rotated as it was fired, allowing multiple shots without reloading

Puckle gun - another revolver type of weapon, that was specifically designed to be used to stop ship boarding. had a removable cylinder that could be reloaded with shot and powder while detached from the gun.

My internet searches:

http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/29/these-guns-dispel-the-notion-the-founding-fathers-could-never-have-imagined-modern-assault-rifles/

http://www.truthrevolt.org/commentary/2nd-amendment-it-muskets-only
[/spoiler]

.
I reasonable stance indeed, it is just the black/white taking of the whole argument that bothers me, the thing should be able to be discussed without going to extreme points of the spectrum and just throwing rocks at eachother
.

Also, look at the number of citizens in the US vs the number of active duty military personnel. I heard a stat recently that only 1% of Americans do or have served in the armed forces.

.
And about 1% of the male population (unsure about gender % in US army, but I'd guess we come lose) are in prison >_>