http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallpolit ... un-control

I listened to this segment this morning. I can't say that I support the man's adherence to left-wing talking points such as "common sense gun control" and "banning assault weapons" and "closing the gun show loophole." In fact, those three things are signals to me that the speaker is definitely anti-gun and does not have a solid grasp of firearms or the firearms community at large.

That being said, I still generally support the man. I wonder if it wouldn't be possible to have a conversation with him through the LGC/LGoA and maybe intimate to him that there's no such thing as a gun show loophole (private property transfers between private agents do not, in any sector, constitute a loophole), "assault weapons" are already illegal and have been for decades (with no observable effect on crime, apparently), and "common sense gun control" is a kind of like the fibromyalgia of firearms talking points: It simply means whatever the speaker thinks it means and has no clear boundaries or subsets.

Yeah, I heard it while I was doing dishes. He certainly did not let the interviewer have the floor, stepping on him when necessary.

The point that true assault weapons are already illegal is well taken. UBC is the bogey man for many gun owners. I live in California where we pretty much have it and have had it for quite a while. Still, some guns have been confiscated, and hair-afires tout this as a reason to oppose UBC. I will say, before I head off to work, that it's quite easy to commit the fallacy of the too-small-sample-size. Some guns, some people: confiscation. For most of us, UBC is a piece of tedious paperwork and a transfer of our hard earned money to someone else. Well, my FFL is a friend and neighbor. I'm glad to give my thirty five bucks to him. And California's "Firearms Safety Certificate" is another transfer of monies to the State. Another twenty five bucks gone. I'll live.

My latest "I Stand With" survey had me 97% with Bernie.

http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

CDFingers

Bernie a few years ago was unaware that a private citizen could own automatic weapons. He's a Burlington liberal that is out of touch with a lot of our state for some stuff. If nominated he will tow the party line I'm afraid.

I think it's worth noting that there is at least some nuance with his answer.

But he noted in the interview that those measures alone wouldn't solve the problem of gun violence in America.
"But some people think it's going to solve all of our problems, and it's not. You know what, we have a crisis in the capability of addressing mental health illness in this country. When people are hurting and are prepared to do something terrible, we need to do something immediately. We don't have that and we should have that."

I also align with Bernie at 97% for full disclosure. I would like to see LGOA have a conversation with him- perhaps the bundling will get a small bit of his attention.

I know I'm in the minority here and around the country but, I could give a flying fuck on his views on guns. The 99% of every other topic he addresses are more important to this country.

I think the mere fact that he doesn't actually call himself a Democrat indicates that he's not going to blindly follow the party platform. That doesn't mean I'll like everything he'll try to do, but I'm sure I'll approve of a lot more than I have with any other president I've ever had.

If he gets elected, I think the bigger problem he's going to have is actually finding any support from the rest of the bought and paid for political system to achieve anything.

And whitey - I'll join you in that minority.

whitey wrote:I know I'm in the minority here and around the country but, I could give a flying fuck on his views on guns. The 99% of every other topic he addresses are more important to this country.

But..but..but..if you're not a single issue voter, you're not a good 'Murican!

I really enjoyed this interview. He didn't take any crap and didn't let himself get talked into a corner.

My only problem was his comments on guns in cities only being used to kill people. That is an impression that should be changed. Plenty of folks in urban areas use guns for target practice and sport.

CDFingers wrote:For most of us, UBC is a piece of tedious paperwork and a transfer of our hard earned money to someone else. Well, my FFL is a friend and neighbor. I'm glad to give my thirty five bucks to him. And California's "Firearms Safety Certificate" is another transfer of monies to the State. Another twenty five bucks gone. I'll live.

CDFingers

See, and that's what I oppose. I like to buy, sell, and trade firearms. I don't like the idea of a tax that goes directly to a private entity (FFL) even one bit. I also believe it creates an onerous burden on buying and selling private property between legal individuals. Maybe the exemption might be to create a national CCW permitting process and allow CCW holders free transfer? Eh, even then I don't like it: At the very least it makes it more difficult for rural gun owners and it imposes an unnecessary burden on those who wish to simply enjoy shooting and exercise their 2A rights. No, I don't like the idea of a transfer of private property having to go through a third party at all. Not one bit.

(And holy shit, $35 per FFL transfer? Fuck that. I have something like 20 or 25 guns in my collection at any given time; there's no way I'd drop an extra grand on having to do paperwork at an FFL for something I legally own or want to buy.)

^^^ That right there.

I took the quiz and got 87% for Sanders. Sounds about right. But I also got 66% for O'Malley. Yuck.

BTW, took the quiz also. I scored a 96% for Bernie Sanders.

What really bothers me is having a septuagenarian running the country.

CDFingers wrote:Yeah, I heard it while I was doing dishes. He certainly did not let the interviewer have the floor, stepping on him when necessary.

The point that true assault weapons are already illegal is well taken. UBC is the bogey man for many gun owners. I live in California where we pretty much have it and have had it for quite a while. Still, some guns have been confiscated, and hair-afires tout this as a reason to oppose UBC. I will say, before I head off to work, that it's quite easy to commit the fallacy of the too-small-sample-size. Some guns, some people: confiscation. For most of us, UBC is a piece of tedious paperwork and a transfer of our hard earned money to someone else. Well, my FFL is a friend and neighbor. I'm glad to give my thirty five bucks to him. And California's "Firearms Safety Certificate" is another transfer of monies to the State. Another twenty five bucks gone. I'll live.

My latest "I Stand With" survey had me 97% with Bernie.

http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

CDFingers

I will be picking up my latest purchase today - a Marlin .22 rifle with scope - but when I bought it at LGS there was a new twist. The fees that California requires had to be paid, up front, a seperate transaction. Payable only by plastic, according to the guy at the store. I asked what would happen if I paid cash. He replied that he couldn't do that. Now there is a nice little barrier to prevent poor people from legally buying guns!

Bernie will not be on the ballot.

beaurrr wrote:What really bothers me is having a septuagenarian running the country.

But gerontocracy works so well. Soviet Union, Saudi Arabia, Iran, eh...Sparta, etc.

And whitey - I'll join you in that minority.

As will I. For the record, I don't agree with the Universal BG check either, unless it is free for private individuals to do via the Web or something along those lines- no record of the transaction, but have the buyer enter their information, get an approval number for all clear, give that to the seller, seller can verify the all clear, then check an ID when they go to do the transaction.

I don't think Bernie would be opposed to an alternative like that- it would not create an undue burden on those who can least afford it, it would not be a "tax" paid to a private party. I don't see the other candidates being open to a system like this, but could be wrong.

Regardless of the above, the other issues would drive me to vote for Bernie. There is no other candidate that is running that I identify with as much, not even close.

Beurr, the age is definitely a concern- worth the risk to me though.

91% for Sanders. 78% for Hills. Less for everyone else. Fiorina came in last at 9%, which is no surprise at all.

CDFingers wrote:Yeah, I heard it while I was doing dishes. He certainly did not let the interviewer have the floor, stepping on him when necessary.

The point that true assault weapons are already illegal is well taken. UBC is the bogey man for many gun owners. I live in California where we pretty much have it and have had it for quite a while. Still, some guns have been confiscated, and hair-afires tout this as a reason to oppose UBC. I will say, before I head off to work, that it's quite easy to commit the fallacy of the too-small-sample-size. Some guns, some people: confiscation. For most of us, UBC is a piece of tedious paperwork and a transfer of our hard earned money to someone else. Well, my FFL is a friend and neighbor. I'm glad to give my thirty five bucks to him. And California's "Firearms Safety Certificate" is another transfer of monies to the State. Another twenty five bucks gone. I'll live.

My latest "I Stand With" survey had me 97% with Bernie.

http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

CDFingers

woah....92% with Bernie...more than I thought.

He won't be on the ballot.

i like these quizzes, but it's work. i have to nuance every answer, and it gets tedious. i'll get around to it when i get bored enough.
i expect that bernie is a city boy. the vermont contingent (we have one, don't we?) needs to invite him along on a range trip, let him shoot some, and gently but firmly explain why we feel the way we do. my guess is the 2nd is less important to him than many, many other things.

eelj wrote:He won't be on the ballot.

He'll be on the primary ballot.

It's kind of to be expected, I think he got corralled into the "democratic party appropriate response if you want to win the nomination".

Maybe we need some outreach. I jokingly once said that perhaps if we had open carry to help escort women to abortion clinics in red states, that would help the cause. Now I really wonder...

Also...

workinstiff wrote:
I will be picking up my latest purchase today - a Marlin .22 rifle with scope - but when I bought it at LGS there was a new twist. The fees that California requires had to be paid, up front, a seperate transaction. Payable only by plastic, according to the guy at the store. I asked what would happen if I paid cash. He replied that he couldn't do that. Now there is a nice little barrier to prevent poor people from legally buying guns!

Say vhat? Is this really the case? I paid for a gun in cash once, though that was last year, did the rules change?

shinzen wrote:

eelj wrote:He won't be on the ballot.

He'll be on the primary ballot.

I bet he drops out before the primary and supports hilclin. It will be interesting to see how his campaign war chest is configured.

whitey wrote:I know I'm in the minority here and around the country but, I could give a flying fuck on his views on guns. The 99% of every other topic he addresses are more important to this country.

Shoot, I'm the closest thing we have to Neal Knox and I agree with you.

Bernie is not the one we need to be concerned with over gun rights, he has way too many other rights of ours he is fighting to protect to worry about that.

eelj wrote:

shinzen wrote:

eelj wrote:He won't be on the ballot.

He'll be on the primary ballot.

I bet he drops out before the primary and supports hilclin. It will be interesting to see how his campaign war chest is configured.

All union money and $5-$20 individual donations. No PAC or S-PAC money, I do not believe he is using any WolfPAC money, leaving that for the Citizens United Amendment.