General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsHoyt
(54,770 posts)chelsea0011
(10,115 posts)who would infuriate me.
salin
(48,955 posts)particularly about the fealty to Fox news, that the gop-related media industrial complex was started to drive the GOP and not the other way around, and sounding sirens regarding the increasingly regressive nature of the GOP. Perhaps it was revulsion with the tea party.
He got hit by the right, was pushed out (I think) of his cushy libertarian think tank job and eventually landed at The Atlantic.
Wouldn't say he has turned liberal - by a long shot. But often snarky and snide to the modern GOP antics.
xor
(1,204 posts)He is for sure not a fan of the current republican party, but far from being liberal.
JI7
(89,276 posts)He leans moderate and on social issues liberal.
justiceischeap
(14,040 posts)It's no bkg checks for private sales
underpants
(182,904 posts)Every state has background checks for non-private sales, I think.
NightWatcher
(39,343 posts)Because its stupid, not practical?
But thats what they tell us when theres a shooting at a mall or movie, or elementary school.
Protection comes from the police and not from we ourselves carrying guns like its the Wild West.
njcpa1978
(114 posts)Over 40 years later, I still remember marksmanship training in boot camp. Respect your weapon. We have all seen videos of a firefight. Could you imagine that on a ball field with a bunch of untrained assholes? I could see that headline now, 'Special elections required as Republican Congress annihilated in a swarm of bullets.'
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,199 posts)Bought a gun in Virginia with very little problem despite very obvious mental health signs.
Drove across the Potomac to the DC Naval Yard and used it to shoot multiple people.
And yet the NRA talking point was that DC's strict gun laws didn't prevent the shooting.
malaise
(269,187 posts)lunatica
(53,410 posts)BeyondGeography
(39,382 posts)LIBRULLS.
Baitball Blogger
(46,758 posts)Well, at least they don't have a law like they have in Florida where you can shoot someone that's passing you on a dog walk and it's okay because you don't have to prove you feared for your life.
It's called, "Stand your Line of Vision"
wasupaloopa
(4,516 posts)called 911.
That would be the action of most of us but the guy had every right to walk around with an AR15 type rifle.
We are at the mercy of the gun owner. Is he a good guy with a gun or a bad guy with a gun. When he shoots we offer thoughts and prayers. We are impotent
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)Everyone from TRUMP on down is expressing those thoughts and prayers.
calimary
(81,511 posts)thoughts and prayers into REAL-LIFE practice, will refuse to do so.
I find myself hoping that Steve Scalise will not only recover, but will start to reassess his feelings about guns and how easy they are to acquire, how easy it is for ANY messed-up pseudo-aggrieved asshole to get ahold of any damn guns and massacre machines he feels like. And yes, I said "he." Because the perpetrators at these tragedies TEND TO BE male, young-to-middle-age, and white.
This is DOMESTIC TERRORISM.
This is also an opportunity for Steve Scalise to be a true and courageous leader.
But I'm not holding my breath. I remember after John Lennon was shot and killed. By that young messed-up white weirdo loner asshole. And because Reagan was the President-Elect at that time, of course he was sought out for comment. And he offered one of these sick mealy-mouthed poor-excuse quips about how this was a very sad thing but we can't do anything to deprive people of their guns.
Then, a few months later, Reagan himself was the victim of yet another young messed-up white weirdo loner asshole - with a gun. Who was able to get a gun. Who had absolutely no business being anywhere near guns, but still somehow got one. And then was able to take it wherever he wanted and do whatever he pleased with it before he was apprehended. And dammit if Reagan didn't respond the exact same way: "but... but... but... we can't do anything that would deprive people of their guns."
Their precious fucking Goddamn guns.
Hey, leaders of America, save your meaningless "thoughts and prayers." DO SOMETHING ABOUT THE DAMN GUN PROBLEM!!!!!
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)Then, I hope he has a James Brady moment where he realizes that the guns ARE part of the problem after all.
calimary
(81,511 posts)In particular, those lucky ones who didn't have to pay for the experience with their own blood.
For all our sakes.
calguy
(5,334 posts)It gives a man a whole different perspective about his past feelings on the subject.
Still In Wisconsin
(4,450 posts)and he is the most ardent supporter of strict gun control you will ever meet.
gilbert sullivan
(192 posts)from their defensive guns?
If someone can craft a law that will actually ensure that guns won't get into the hands of criminals
and terrorists, I'll support it but I have no idea what sort of language will magically persuade such
people to suddenly start obeying the law.
The fanatical advocates of more and more "common sense gun control" are much like the Little Moron in the
old joke, where he had his car taken to the shop and told them "The brakes don't work, put in a louder horn".
calimary
(81,511 posts)I would respond by throwing it back to you. So then we do NOTHING????? This wretched status quo is okay with you? You're okay lettin' 'er ride? No need to make changes - everything's mellow - nothin' to see here - yeah, may be broken but we definitely can't fix it so why bother? What if the next wanton reckless gunshot victim is someone YOU love?
So then we do NOTHING????????????????????
gilbert sullivan
(192 posts)i notice you didn't have any suggestions for a 'common sense law' that would address my query in the previous post. I'll try again,
what words in a new (or modified) law will significantly reduce the ability of criminals and terrorists to obtain, possess and potentially use as many guns as they want?
I submit that the extreme position of employing a ban on guns would be even more stupid that Prohibition was a century ago.
And thanks for the welcome!
Beartracks
(12,821 posts)... but by then it's too late.
==============
gilbert sullivan
(192 posts)put everyone in jail because they might commit a crime in the future.
krispos42
(49,445 posts)...the fewer regulations there are, overall.
For what it's worth, I think it's because the Democratic Party has supported a lot of things that are capable of achieving a reasonable amount of support but that the support is ultimately fairly shallow, causing losses to Republicans. People that don't own guns and never will don't give a crap about how hard/expensive/time-consuming the laws make getting one, and don't generally vote based on it. People that own guns, they do. I live in Connecticut, and the Democratic governor wanted to more than quadruple the fee to get a pistol permit. Gun owners mobilized, non-gun-owners didn't. I think it was defeated.
I'm generally pro-gun; however I don't believe that open-carry should be legal inside of town or city limits unless there's some kind of extreme civil emergency. If you want to do that, get a permit, a holster, and a Hawaiian shirt to cover it up. But it's what we have because of Republicans running things.
With Captain Cheeto in the White House, the dullard Ryan running the House, and slow-evil McConnell in the Senate, bills are going to be passed that are going to kill far far more Americans than the go-to gun-control measures that Democrats reach for when this happens.
OnlinePoker
(5,727 posts)What are the gun regs there?
Big_K
(237 posts)And I believe there is a 3 day waiting period for handguns. He did have a FOID.
I now live in Paul Ryan-ville, where Scott Walker removed the waiting period for handguns a couple of years ago.
Angry Dragon
(36,693 posts)trof
(54,256 posts)That is all.
malaise
(269,187 posts)That is all
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)Tommy_Carcetti
(43,199 posts)pablo_marmol
(2,375 posts)that I agree with all doctrines of the Democratic Party except "gun control" -- and understand better than most the political damage that our dishonesty causes. Don't really see much point in singing along with the choir.
The fact of the matter is that I've been quite restrained in confronting lies relating to "assault weapons", "gun show loopholes", "internet sales without background checks" etc.
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)Some states do additional background checks, but federal law requires all gun sales to use background checks, my brother says. He has guns.
jmg257
(11,996 posts)Virginia is one such state. +/-19 states have enacted laws saying all sale/transfers must be through a dealer.
"Virginia has no law requiring a background check on the purchaser of a firearm when the seller is not a licensed dealer. Virginia law does, however, prohibit any person from selling, bartering, giving or furnishing, or having in his or her possession or under his or her control with the intent of selling, bartering, giving or furnishing, any firearm to any person he or she knows is: {prohibited to buy a gun}"
Honeycombe8
(37,648 posts)krispos42
(49,445 posts)Interstate sales (new or used) also go through background checks. I purchased one recently from out-of-state; it was sent to a local dealer, who performed the check (for a fee) before handing over my used gun.
Intra-state sales depend on state laws. In Connecticut, private-to-private sales don't go through a dealer, but the buyer and seller have to have a permit (long gun, handgun, or concealed handgun) and fill out a form. The seller called the State Police and reads in the information on the form (permit numbers, addresses, names, gun type, make, model, caliber, serial number, etc.) and then runs a background check. If the sale is approved, the seller can then transfer the gun, but a copy of the form is mailed to both the State Police and the police department of the buyer.
Other states have different laws.