The Political Discussion Thread

[SoulReaver]

For me, that right there is the problem. Who is to guarantee the checks are performed by neutral parties? In some states, legislation has been put forth (it may be law by now) if a person makes an accusation against someone by filling out some form with a court, the person accused will be denied a permit. That's all, simply one person accusing another will deny that person the permit. I think you can understand how that will be misused.

? that's just an accusation and without proof it means you're presumed guilty so that's a malfunction of your justice system

background checks are supposed to check for convictions by the courts not simple accusations that shouldn't even be visible (this still leaves the issue of people wrongfully convicted but that's another problem)

There is simply no way to ensure that the people doing the checks will be neutral, and in many regions where the govt. favors gun control, such as blue states, it's a good bet that the deciders will be anti-gun.

if the background check's done by the judiciary (I assume it IS done by the courts? not someone from the executive branch like the sheriff's office etc.) then it should be impartial right? the judiciary branch by definition is supposed to be "neutral"

So, making special exemptions for people who break the law is justice?

your country already does that for the elite classes (sometimes they're even made president)

[Chaka-Z0]

This is so ridicule the words are lacking. Are we to assume law enforcement agents or any other personnel that wields firearms aren't undergoing a background check?

Does the GOP sleeps with the NRA or is it a fascination for handing out weapons to maniacs?

[SoulReaver]

This is so ridicule the words are lacking. Are we to assume law enforcement agents or any other personnel that wields firearms aren't undergoing a background check?

considering the corruption among the SS in that country I'm not too sure of that anymore (come to think of it they're the first ones who could definitely use some gun control)

[Annoyed]

background checks are supposed to check for convictions by the courts not simple accusations that shouldn't even be visible (this still leaves the issue of people wrongfully convicted but that's another problem)

if the background check's done by the judiciary (I assume it IS done by the courts? not someone from the executive branch like the sheriff's office etc.) then it should be impartial right? the judiciary branch by definition is supposed to be "neutral"

That's how you think it should work. That ain't how the system always operates. Some of the more leftist states have already passed laws that allow the govt. to confiscate guns based on accusations from non-police, family members, teachers and whatnot.

Don't forget, this place also used asset forfeiture until very recently.

It's amazing what a govt. can get away with if they say they're protecting you.

[Chaka-Z0]

That's how you think it should work. That ain't how the system always operates. Some of the more leftist states have already passed laws that allow the govt. to confiscate guns based on accusations from non-police, family members, teachers and whatnot.

Don't forget, this place also used asset forfeiture until very recently.

It's amazing what a govt. can get away with if they say they're protecting you.

I have no clue how you even came up with this neutrality objection. There's nothing biased about background checks? Police will run one if they want during an arrest. It's convictions by the court, neutrality has absolutely nothing to do with any of this.

A simple background check as the retailers would've access would not show accusations and other inventions of yours. Back your claim, no hearsay. Until then it's bs.

[Gatefan1976]

This is real easy.
Annoyed wants judgement based on accusation (see his posts on Obama or Hillary)
Just don't investigate "his side"

We "the supposed hard left" just want JUSTICE, and don't care WHO gets investigated, and that is seen as a failure.
We don't Jackboot enough for them. (IE, keep in ideological lockstep to get what we want, and ignore the failings)

Yes, that's a Godwin statement, but sometimes they are true.

Annoyed.
I am happy for Hillary, Obama and Bill to go to jail if they committed criminal activities that proves they warrant that punishment.

Can you say the same for Bush or Trump?
Or do you not care what they do as long as you get something from their behaviour?

Think about it.

[SoulReaver]

That's how you think it should work. That ain't how the system always operates. Some of the more leftist states have already passed laws that allow the govt. to confiscate guns based on accusations from non-police, family members, teachers and whatnot.

"non-police"? so you're ok with a non-neutral party like police doing the confiscating? say if a cop has a grudge against you for w/e reason he can seize your gun?

at any rate as it has been pointed out such accusations wouldn't show in a background check

Don't forget, this place also used asset forfeiture until very recently.

a conservative invention don't forget (just like "leftist" California's 3 strikes laws)

It's amazing what a govt. can get away with if they say they're protecting you.

but you just admitted the SS should be allowed to seize at will the gun you bought regardless if you're guilty of something or not so make up your mind

[magi877]

? that's just an accusation and without proof it means you're presumed guilty so that's a malfunction of your justice system

background checks are supposed to check for convictions by the courts not simple accusations that shouldn't even be visible (this still leaves the issue of people wrongfully convicted but that's another problem)

if the background check's done by the judiciary (I assume it IS done by the courts? not someone from the executive branch like the sheriff's office etc.) then it should be impartial right? the judiciary branch by definition is supposed to be "neutral"

your country already does that for the elite classes (sometimes they're even made president)

another example of criticism of America without prior comprehension

well here is a bunch of random c-u-S-H-I-T-e regarding firearms---

first off, too many people on the left or 'anti gun' fail to realize that they will never get anywhere in their attempts so long as they continue to use the wrong words

like saying stuff like: "AR" in ar 15 means 'assault rifle, i does not

or that the ar 15 styled weapon--btw there are many other types of semi autos available that are not AR styled--is an automatic weapon

or their always citing stuff like "the ar 15 is capable of firing 600 rds a minute"

probably the stupidest use of a 'fact' ever regarding this topic

600 rds /minute is the cyclic rate of fire. what the rifle is technically capable of doing. but in reality, being a semi auto, it only fires as fast as the operator can 'squeeze,release, squeeze'. not to mention time for magazine changes

the actual rate of fire is more like 454 -50 rds per minute, but again, there are no 45 round magazines. if there were, they would constantly jam

the '100 round rum' the Dayton shooter had is just a piece of hubris, "my dick is bigger then yours" piece of stupidity. anything over 30rds is a liability. There is a reason that the US military's largest AR family mag is 30 rds

and 600 rounds/ any idea of how much that would weigh? a 30 rd mag weighs about a pound. and, for 600 rds we would be talking about carrying at least 24 magazines, a carrying weight of about 24 pounds. just not practical for anyone

BACKGROUND checks

federal law already requires background checks. this is another thing the media never reports on. before anyone purchases a firearm, they must fill out a form with all of their data and personal info, with a questionnaire on it regarding criminal and psych and drug usage

this can take up to 3 days though it is normally done in about 15 minutes as it is now done electronically through national crime databases

if you lie about criminal status or probation or if yo uhave a protection from abuse order against you, you will be arrested

lie about illegal drug use, like marijuana (EVEN IN STATES WHERE IT IS ILLEGAL, firearms sales go by fed law) you will be arrested

<<though really damned dumb is that someone with a legal rx for any opioid can still legally buy a firearm. opioids are far more dangerous and potentially would make handling a firearm far more dangerous than any MJ user would be >>

And firearms sales also have state laws on top of the federal

for instance in PA-except for Philly- you can open carry any legal to own firearm anywhere at anytime (except on federal property or on school ground or in govt buildings) WITHOUT HAVING to get a permit.But some states do require you to have a permit for open or concealed carry

What they should be fighting for is not to ban any firearm, but to more tightly regulate ammo sales. like in some nations where you have to turn in empty shells before you can buy more. Or you can only buy bullets at a shooting range where you must then use them.

Another issue is the outright opposition to including psych records in the federal background check

the us already requires ppl to share their med info for other things like getting a govt job, getting a drivers license, getting health and life insurance even to enroll in school. so why is it such a violation of privacy to incorporate psych reporting into the ATF's database? you want a gun, you sign off that your med info will be released or no gun.

but the left always blocks this citing 'personal privacy'

this is BS, many, though not all, mass shooters over the years HAD a definite abnormal psychological record. would we give a DL to someone who had a record of alcohol abuse? not usually

other things could be done too to limit weapons carry in public.
like amend the 'right to peacefully assemble' to include 'peacefully' means no weapons carry,permit or not.

[magi877]

"non-police"? so you're ok with a non-neutral party like police doing the confiscating? say if a cop has a grudge against you for w/e reason he can seize your gun?

at any rate as it has been pointed out such accusations wouldn't show in a background check

he is talking about 'red flag' laws. different by state, if they have the law. it has caused some issues-lie a guy who committed no crime, being shot by police.

in maryland for example, anyone can make a sworn statement to court stating that a person they know is a danger due t their behavior and their owning a firearm

no actually event involving the firearm needs to have happened though. it is a form of 'pre crime' enforcement. there is no presumption of innocence just a presumption of 'danger'

in this case, the police arriving at this man's house were the instigated cause for the shooting. the man had done nothing prir other then to be a law abiding citizen

https://baltimore.cbslocal.com/2018/...rundel-county/

[magi877]

I am just waiting for it

that is, for someone to put the blame on what is happening and what may yet happen, in Hong Kong on the Unite States

i just know someone will
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chinese army on the verge of action there. the people of hong kong actually think they are free based on some piece of paper!

i see a whole lot of new 'students' alongside all of those disappeared Uighurs at the chicom 're-education' "schools" in the near future

[SoulReaver]

I am just waiting for it

that is, for someone to put the blame on what is happening and what may yet happen, in Hong Kong on the Unite States

i just know someone will
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chinese army on the verge of action there. the people of hong kong actually think they are free based on some piece of paper!

i see a whole lot of new 'students' alongside all of those disappeared Uighurs at the chicom 're-education' "schools" in the near future

now if only Trump wasn't against the protesters

[Annoyed]

Regarding the arbitrary taking of guns, I don't recall the details, but at least one state has passed or is passing legislation that will allow a family member, teacher or other individual to report a legal gun owner as being unfit to own a gun to police, and or a court? and the courts/police will confiscate those firearms based upon the accusation alone. No crime has to have taken place, no hostile act or anything. The authorities will take the weapons based solely on the opinion or accusation of whoever.

A clear violation of due process.

These laws a simply knee-jerk reactions to the current spate of mass shootings, etc. And they aren't the only example.

NY state has enacted a law which eliminates the statute of limitations for a period of one year, starting today, allowing sexual assault victims to go after their priests, teachers or whatever decades after the incident happened.

I don't support preverts who pull that kind of crap, not by a long shot. But the US constitution guarantees no ex-post-facto legislation; the govt. can't change the rules or penalties AFTER a crime has been committed.

But in the knee-jerk reaction to the #Metoo thing, and and admittedly high number of preverted priests & such, NY state wants to ignore that provision of the Constitution. Of course, the lawyers will make a killing on this.

That's the point of this; it's amazing what you can get the govt. to do under the guise of "protecting us".

What happens when the next crisis comes down the pike? What other constitutional protections do we throw out the window?

[Gatefan1976]

I am just waiting for it

that is, for someone to put the blame on what is happening and what may yet happen, in Hong Kong on the Unite States

i just know someone will
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
chinese army on the verge of action there. the people of hong kong actually think they are free based on some piece of paper!

i see a whole lot of new 'students' alongside all of those disappeared Uighurs at the chicom 're-education' "schools" in the near future

What is happening in HK is purely based on the treaty/lease between England and China, has nothing to do with the US at all.

[Annoyed]

What is happening in HK is purely based on the treaty/lease between England and China, has nothing to do with the US at all.

Translation: You haven't yet figured out how to blame Trump.

[Chaka-Z0]

What is happening in HK is purely based on the treaty/lease between England and China, has nothing to do with the US at all.

It has to do with a new law the Hong Kong president is trying to pass which would enable the communist party to extradite Hong Kong citizens on Chinese soil to prosecute them. The treaty has nothing to do with this. The current chief or HK is a creature of the CPC.