E46 BMW Social Directory E46 FAQ 3-Series Discussion Forums BMW Photo Gallery BMW 3-Series Technical Information E46 Fanatics - The Ultimate BMW Resource BMW Vendors General E46 Forum The Tire Rack's Tire Wheel Forum Forced Induction Forum The Off-Topic The E46 BMW Showroom For Sale, For Trade or Wanting to Buy

Welcome to the E46Fanatics forums. E46Fanatics is the premiere website for BMW 3 series owners around the world with interactive forums, a geographical enthusiast directory, photo galleries, and technical information for BMW enthusiasts.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Go Back   E46Fanatics > Everything Else > The Off-Topic > Political Talk

Political Talk
You may discuss anything regarding politics in this forum ONLY. If you cannot respect others opinions, your access to this forum will be removed.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 04-18-2013, 04:49 PM   #121
Act of God
E46Fanatic
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 333
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by NOVAbimmer View Post
So has anyone actually been able to explain how the "expanded background checks" would help? Or what "closing the gun show loophole" really means?
I'm willing to bet 90% of Americans don't even know what the "gun show loophole" is (or isn't, in reality).
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." October 23, 2010, not January 20, 2009
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 05:02 PM   #122
5ynd1cat3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 475
My Ride: swagger wagon
Quote:
Originally Posted by Act of God View Post
I'm willing to bet 90% of Americans don't even know what the "gun show loophole" is (or isn't, in reality).

Ahh yes, the wonders of the zero-liability voter.

__________________
5ynd1cat3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 05:36 PM   #123
Wraisil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 216
My Ride: 2010 Infiniti G37
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
What precisely were you opposed to that was proposed?
Well, let me see if I can answer this question.

Let's start with the violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Commerce Clause does not apply to private transactions between individuals not for the purpose of conducting business (such as selling your private property to someone else).

Let's move on to the eliminating the ban on all government agencies using the NCIS background checks to establish databases of gun ownership, firearm transactions, and requiring the registration of all firearms (currently prohibited by law, would be made legal in part for all agencies and only prohibit the rest from the DoJ thus allowing DHS etc to establish those registries and share with all government agencies if they were directed or chose to.

Next, how about the expense of doing enacting all of the provisions of the Toomey-Manchin bill? Factor in common sense telling us that a criminal who is turned away from legally buying a gun who wishes to use that gun to commit a crime will not likely be deterred from illegally acquiring a firearm to commit that same crime. Knowing that is simple logic, so we can conclude the expense would not actually serve any useful purpose.

Additionally, let's talk about privacy. Forcing private citizens to share their personal information (SSN/DOB/address/etc) with every individual they purchase a firearm for would likely attract a lot of criminals INTO owning firearms so they could easily gather all the information they need simply by selling a gun.

Not to mention the whole "now anyone with access to your SSN etc can freely investigate your criminal past (if you have one) and mental health records practically" with the expanded and more costly public NCIS system.

Then there is the common sense issue of "why pass a law that has little or no chance of having any impact on violence at all, but will further regulate the rights of individual systems, even though the government doesn't have the power to enact major provisions of the bill in the first place.

Another common sense issue would be recognizing that challenging violations of the Constitution is costly and takes significant amounts of time to overturn (assuming someone is willing to make that challenge and can find sufficient funding to do so).

Let's start with those shall we?
Wraisil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 05:42 PM   #124
Wraisil
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Acworth, GA
Posts: 216
My Ride: 2010 Infiniti G37
Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
Considering how much Feinstein's name gets brought up in anger on this forum and others by the pro-gun crowd, I'm not surprised she would take extreme measures. I don't know if people bring up your name in the same tone at the same rate.

Yes, people face threats. Of course. But I am unlikely to urgently need a gun in 5 days, and be completely oblivious to that fact today. If I am the type of person that might find myself in that position in 5 days, or am I surrounded by people that would cause me to need a gun in such a short period, I'd damn well better know this about myself way ahead of time before I need a gun.
More than 4 out of every 100 people over the age of twelve in the U.S. were a victim of a violent crime in 2008. 49.9% of those 4.5+ million victims did not know their attacker. You should be prepared to defend yourself and your family at all times.
Wraisil is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 06:15 PM   #125
Act of God
E46Fanatic
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 333
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraisil View Post
Well, let me see if I can answer this question.

Let's start with the violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Commerce Clause does not apply to private transactions between individuals not for the purpose of conducting business (such as selling your private property to someone else).

Let's move on to the eliminating the ban on all government agencies using the NCIS background checks to establish databases of gun ownership, firearm transactions, and requiring the registration of all firearms (currently prohibited by law, would be made legal in part for all agencies and only prohibit the rest from the DoJ thus allowing DHS etc to establish those registries and share with all government agencies if they were directed or chose to.

Next, how about the expense of doing enacting all of the provisions of the Toomey-Manchin bill? Factor in common sense telling us that a criminal who is turned away from legally buying a gun who wishes to use that gun to commit a crime will not likely be deterred from illegally acquiring a firearm to commit that same crime. Knowing that is simple logic, so we can conclude the expense would not actually serve any useful purpose.

Additionally, let's talk about privacy. Forcing private citizens to share their personal information (SSN/DOB/address/etc) with every individual they purchase a firearm for would likely attract a lot of criminals INTO owning firearms so they could easily gather all the information they need simply by selling a gun.

Not to mention the whole "now anyone with access to your SSN etc can freely investigate your criminal past (if you have one) and mental health records practically" with the expanded and more costly public NCIS system.

Then there is the common sense issue of "why pass a law that has little or no chance of having any impact on violence at all, but will further regulate the rights of individual systems, even though the government doesn't have the power to enact major provisions of the bill in the first place.

Another common sense issue would be recognizing that challenging violations of the Constitution is costly and takes significant amounts of time to overturn (assuming someone is willing to make that challenge and can find sufficient funding to do so).

Let's start with those shall we?
yeah but Obama REALLY wanted this and now he's pouting!
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." October 23, 2010, not January 20, 2009
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 06:51 PM   #126
david05111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
Posts: 3,756
My Ride: drei hundert dreißig
Decent article here regarding what the situation is, etc. Kinda a decent summary

http://news.yahoo.com/gun-control-no...-politics.html
__________________


"You'll Never Walk Alone"

"Psycho Murican" -- beeemerdude of Canada
david05111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 06:53 PM   #127
joeski3d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 519
My Ride: 2000 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ynd1cat3 View Post
Ahh yes, the wonders of the zero-liability voter.

Your "everything = anti Obama" mantra has been rather stale for quite some time now.
__________________

Ballbusters Inc.

DISCLAIMER: No balls were physically hurt during the reading of this post. Should redness and/or swelling occur consult your gynecologist immediately.
joeski3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 06:59 PM   #128
david05111
Registered User
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Ponte Vedra, FL
Posts: 3,756
My Ride: drei hundert dreißig
Even more important one, that I will quote here. This is the nonsense the leaders of this movement, like Biden, are spewing to the public. What he and Obama and much of the Dems in the senate are saying are blatant LIES. It should be grounds for serious public rebuke or recall. Outrageous.

http://news.yahoo.com/look-joe-biden...200225552.html

Quote:
Vice President Joe Biden during a Google+ Hangout on Wednesday made a rather interesting claim:

"80,000 plus people a year who go through the background system are convicted felons or adjudicated incompetent to be able to own a weapon. That 40 percent means there's gotta be, statistically, somewhere between 30,000 and 50,000 who get a gun who are not qualified. Probably higher."

"How does that make any sense?" he asked.

Perhaps the vice president finds these statistics so confusing because they're not exactly accurate. Well, not according to the FBI at least.
"The FBI states that between November 30, 1998 and March 31st 2013 they denied clearance on a gun sale after a background check revealed the person in question was 'convicted of a crime punishable by more than one year or a misdemeanor punishable by more than two years' exactly 590,070 times," writes Stephen Gutowski for CNSNews.com.
Here, look:

(IMAGE CAN NOT BE PASTED HERE; CHECK THE LINK FOR THE STATS PAGE)

"In the same period of time they denied clearance on a gun sale after a background check revealed the person in question was 'adjudicated [for] mental health' exactly 10,945 times. That works out to 41,931 denials due to felonies or mental health issues per year," he adds.

In short, the vice president's claim is off by at least 38,069 people per year. He nearly doubled the actual number.
"By combining, apparently in his head and on the fly, the demonstrably inaccurate '80,000 plus people a year' with the debunked claim that 40% of gun sales in America don't require a background check, Mr. Biden reaches the completely unverifiable claim that 'between 30,000 and 50,000 who get a gun who are not qualified. Probably higher,'" Gutowski notes.

"That claim, the child of two other blatantly inaccurate claims used to forward gun control agendas, is, of course, itself used to forward a gun control agenda," he adds.
__________________


"You'll Never Walk Alone"

"Psycho Murican" -- beeemerdude of Canada

Last edited by david05111; 04-18-2013 at 07:00 PM.
david05111 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 08:11 PM   #129
Act of God
E46Fanatic
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: NY
Posts: 333
My Ride: 3.5 Liters of fury
Send a message via AIM to Act of God
Per Telegraph (UK): Barack Obama - Gloating in victory, adolescent in defeat
__________________
Gold Medal Recipient: Jimmy Rustling (2014)

"The single most important thing we want to achieve is for President Obama to be a one-term president." October 23, 2010, not January 20, 2009
Act of God is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-18-2013, 08:25 PM   #130
2000_328CI
DK Jack Sparrow
 
2000_328CI's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Isla de Muerta | DC/VA
Posts: 29,021
My Ride: 328Ci | Range Rover
Send a message via AIM to 2000_328CI Send a message via MSN to 2000_328CI
Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraisil View Post
Well, let me see if I can answer this question.

Let's start with the violation of the U.S. Constitution. The Commerce Clause does not apply to private transactions between individuals not for the purpose of conducting business (such as selling your private property to someone else).

Let's move on to the eliminating the ban on all government agencies using the NCIS background checks to establish databases of gun ownership, firearm transactions, and requiring the registration of all firearms (currently prohibited by law, would be made legal in part for all agencies and only prohibit the rest from the DoJ thus allowing DHS etc to establish those registries and share with all government agencies if they were directed or chose to.

Next, how about the expense of doing enacting all of the provisions of the Toomey-Manchin bill? Factor in common sense telling us that a criminal who is turned away from legally buying a gun who wishes to use that gun to commit a crime will not likely be deterred from illegally acquiring a firearm to commit that same crime. Knowing that is simple logic, so we can conclude the expense would not actually serve any useful purpose.

Additionally, let's talk about privacy. Forcing private citizens to share their personal information (SSN/DOB/address/etc) with every individual they purchase a firearm for would likely attract a lot of criminals INTO owning firearms so they could easily gather all the information they need simply by selling a gun.

Not to mention the whole "now anyone with access to your SSN etc can freely investigate your criminal past (if you have one) and mental health records practically" with the expanded and more costly public NCIS system.

Then there is the common sense issue of "why pass a law that has little or no chance of having any impact on violence at all, but will further regulate the rights of individual systems, even though the government doesn't have the power to enact major provisions of the bill in the first place.

Another common sense issue would be recognizing that challenging violations of the Constitution is costly and takes significant amounts of time to overturn (assuming someone is willing to make that challenge and can find sufficient funding to do so).

Let's start with those shall we?
__________________

Everything you need to know on muffler deletes : http://forum.e46fanatics.com/showthread.php?t=745244
2000_328CI is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 02:05 AM   #131
5ynd1cat3
Registered User
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 475
My Ride: swagger wagon
Quote:
Originally Posted by joeski3d View Post
Your "everything = anti Obama" mantra has been rather stale for quite some time now.
I'm not anti-obama. Obama is anti-me.

Sent from my HTC Glacier using Bimmer App
__________________
5ynd1cat3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 05:54 AM   #132
joeski3d
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NJ
Posts: 519
My Ride: 2000 323i
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5ynd1cat3 View Post
I'm not anti-obama. Obama is anti-me.
__________________

Ballbusters Inc.

DISCLAIMER: No balls were physically hurt during the reading of this post. Should redness and/or swelling occur consult your gynecologist immediately.
joeski3d is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 08:45 AM   #133
AudiEtr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Illinois
Posts: 485
My Ride: 330i
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xcelratr View Post
You're not serious, are you?

You don't really want to get started on a chat about the impotence of restraining orders, do you? You don't really want to start talking about the number of women assaulted or killed by an SO/ex-SO, do you? You don't really want to talk about the police posting officers outside the home of every woman that's threatened by an SO, do you?

Are you seriously advocating a stance that it's ok if the govt prevents a law abiding citizen from possessing a gun because the "proper authorities" will always be there to take sole responsibility for protecting her?
Wow you read carefully, I said everyone should own a gun. Look dude you can assume all you want, don't bother me. The fact is a criminal defence lawyers love when law abiding citizens take the law into there own hands. If a women buys a gun illegally, then shoots physco ex, which I'm totallly for her defending herself, the defence will make her out to be worse then the physco she shot. Like I said everyone should own/carry a firearm, just legally...
__________________
AudiEtr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-19-2013, 08:14 PM   #134
Xcelratr
Registered User
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: So Cal - 310
Posts: 958
My Ride: 04 330Ci ZHP
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rhumb View Post
There are various other polls coming to roughly the same conclusion that some 80-90% of Americans of all stripes are in favor of gun sales background checks. Basically there's no getting around that this idea is remarkably and broadly popular.

So, if 90% of the GOP Senators (and a few Blue Dog Dems) voted against something that 90% of Americans are for, just who are they actually representing then?
Perhaps they voted not against the "what" but against the "how".

You're not really buying into this whole black-and-white, my-way-is-the-only-right-way these politicians are spewing, are you?


Quote:
Originally Posted by 'busa View Post
Well, in that case, if one person thinks they should have a gun, so should the other. Great reason to promote equality.

So, someone I have not met yet, or someone who I wouldn't think would threaten me in such a way, is going to suddenly appear in my life and threaten my life?

If I have such people around me, I know it already. If I don't, I don't. I guarantee you that I'm more likely to win the lottery than I am to need a gun for self protection in 5 days.
So what? Just because you feel safe (whether you actually are or not is debatable, you're just saying you think you are) means that it MUST be true that everyone safe? And since everyone must be as safe as you think you are, it's OK for you to decide to what degree their access to protective resources can be limited?

Dude, you're too smart to try to float this sentiment as being relevant to the national discussion.

Freedom of the press is also a Constitutional right. You'd be singing a very different tune if people had to pass a background check before they were allowed to write a newspaper article.

Quote:
Originally Posted by AudiEtr View Post
Wow you read carefully, I said everyone should own a gun. Look dude you can assume all you want, don't bother me. The fact is a criminal defence lawyers love when law abiding citizens take the law into there own hands. If a women buys a gun illegally, then shoots physco ex, which I'm totallly for her defending herself, the defence will make her out to be worse then the physco she shot. Like I said everyone should own/carry a firearm, just legally...
I don't know if you're confused, lying or stupid.

This is the entirety of your posts ITT: so is your answer for every problem gonna be to get a gun? That girl in fear for life needs to contact the proper authorities, not take the law into her own hands.

No where in that post do you say "everyone should own a gun". So you can blame my assumptions if you wish but you didn't say what you now claim you said.

In addition, if some lady shoots her pyscho ex, the defense lawyers will be on her side. So it's highly unlikely they'll "make her out to be worse" than the guy she shot. So I have no idea what point you're trying to make there, either.
__________________
----------------------------------------------
Stuff for sale in SoCal:

- Bestop briefcase

----------------------------------------------
Xcelratr is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Censor is ON





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:51 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
(c) 1999 - 2011 performanceIX Inc - privacy policy - terms of use