One question you will never hear at Republican debates

Glen Contrarian said:

I have no problem with concealed carry...as long as the individual is a good, law-abiding citizen; has passed the proper background check; has registered his or her firearm; has received safety training for that class of firearm; and has insurance for that firearm and whatever's done with that firearm.

Got all that, and I'm happy for that individual to have concealed-carry.

That's what I wish, that conservatives and libertarians would grasp that we're NOT wanting to ban all guns - we just want to keep the firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, and we don't want to have to pay higher taxes for the results of when that firearm is used wrongly.

Click to expand...

Typical librospeak. First state you have no problem with it, then use a paragraph or two to list the problems you have with it.

The not wanting to ban guns flies in the face of the facts.

The Brady Campaign has not always been the Brady Campaign. Originally named NCBH. National Coalition to Ban Handguns. Both have stated in the past that the ultimate goal is the banning of guns.

Not so long ago during Clinton, many rifles were banned by make and model, based solely on cosmetic appearance. The law has since expired, but there are numerous calls to resurrect it.

Full automatics under Roosevelt were controlled as even Roosevelt recognized that a full ban was unconstitutional. Since then all newly manufactured automatics have banned in spite of the fact that there has not been a problem.

A Connecticut (I believe) law has been on the books for years that requires the banning of all guns other than so called smart guns once even one of these were available for purchase. That law is still on the books in spite of the fact that the original sponsor has promised to repeal it.

There are many other examples, including state and local regulations.

Casper said:

Many states are ahead of him on that, not a bad idea for those willing to protect themselves and others. Trump is not all BS, every once in a while he gets it right.

Click to expand...

As opposed to most candidates who ALWAYS get it wrong.

Glen Contrarian said:

"Mr. Trump - following the attack in San Bernadino where 14 people died, you have proposed registering all Muslim nationwide and disallowing any Muslims from coming to America from another country. Given the enormity of what you propose in response to 14 innocent people being murdered by extremists, what have you proposed to prevent tragedies like the 26 children who were murdered at Sandy Hook, or the more than 500 children who have been killed in America with firearms since then?"

Click to expand...

I'd imagine that's because none of the debate moderators are going to ask such a stupid dishonest question.

Glen Contrarian said:

And so you agree to pay significantly-higher taxes for increased law enforcement, lawyers, courts, the largest prison system on the planet, higher insurance payments by businesses, and the hospital bills for victims and perpetrators.

Click to expand...

a non sequitur for an argument... how quaint.:roll:

Confused by the question. Aren't questions asked by the moderators of the debate, such as CNN, CNBC, Fox, etc? Does the Republican Party have some control over the questions? Should they?

Glen Contrarian said:

And so you agree to pay significantly-higher taxes for increased law enforcement, lawyers, courts, the largest prison system on the planet, higher insurance payments by businesses, and the hospital bills for victims and perpetrators.

Click to expand...

Not necessary...unless you want to further infringe on citizen's 2nd Amendment right.

Leaving citizens alone...unless they break laws...won't cost any more than we are paying right now.

Glen Contrarian said:

MODS - No, it belongs in THIS thread, since it addresses the candidates' stands on both terrorism (and Trump's near-fascist proposals), but also gun control. The gun control aspect is only part of the question.

Click to expand...

"Mods, I want to conduct a bait and switch by bring up Muslims and then switching to Sandy Hook. "

Mycroft said:

Not necessary...unless you want to further infringe on citizen's 2nd Amendment right.

Leaving citizens alone...unless they break laws...won't cost any more than we are paying right now.

Click to expand...

Uh-uh. There WILL be tens of thousands of innocent people shot each year (thousands of whom will die, but the great majority live). Who pays for their health care? WHO PAYS? Somebody's gonna pay, so the only decision is WHO is gonna pay. I don't think you're going to try to pretend that the shooter's going to be able to pay - because they almost never have enough money to do so - so...who's gonna pay? The ONLY choice you have is taxpayers or insurance...

...unless you want to just let the innocent shooting victims get no health care at all for their wounds.

Which is it? Taxpayers? Or insurance? WHO'S GONNA PAY, MYCROFT?

Thrilla said:

a non sequitur for an argument... how quaint.:roll:

Click to expand...

Nope - NOT a non-sequitur. As a direct result of gun violence, we pay significantly-higher taxes for increased law enforcement, lawyers, courts, the largest prison system on the planet, higher insurance payments by businesses, and the hospital bills for victims and perpetrators.

If you want easy access to firearms for all, then you MUST accept the above as part of the deal.

Glen Contrarian said:

Uh-uh. There WILL be tens of thousands of innocent people shot each year (thousands of whom will die, but the great majority live). Who pays for their health care? WHO PAYS? Somebody's gonna pay, so the only decision is WHO is gonna pay. I don't think you're going to try to pretend that the shooter's going to be able to pay - because they almost never have enough money to do so - so...who's gonna pay? The ONLY choice you have is taxpayers or insurance...

...unless you want to just let the innocent shooting victims get no health care at all for their wounds.

Which is it? Taxpayers? Or insurance? WHO'S GONNA PAY, MYCROFT?

Click to expand...

Oh..."tens of thousands", eh?

LOL!!

Your hyperbole runs rampant.

But hey, you and your ilk are the ones who want to make the taxpayers pay for everyone's health care. Now you want to use that as an excuse to infringe on people's 2nd Amendment right.

Heck, why don't you just rewrite the Constitution while you are at it, eh?

Glen Contrarian said:

Nope - NOT a non-sequitur. As a direct result of gun violence, we pay significantly-higher taxes for increased law enforcement, lawyers, courts, the largest prison system on the planet, higher insurance payments by businesses, and the hospital bills for victims and perpetrators.

If you want easy access to firearms for all, then you MUST accept the above as part of the deal.

Click to expand...

repeating your non sequitur doesn't magically make it valid...

Mycroft said:

Oh..."tens of thousands", eh?

LOL!!

Your hyperbole runs rampant.

But hey, you and your ilk are the ones who want to make the taxpayers pay for everyone's health care. Now you want to use that as an excuse to infringe on people's 2nd Amendment right.

Heck, why don't you just rewrite the Constitution while you are at it, eh?

Click to expand...

don't sweat it, he's just frustrated that people actually oppose his ideas to violate our constitutionally protected rights... like every other hoplophobe gun grabber.

Mycroft said:

Oh..."tens of thousands", eh?

LOL!!

Your hyperbole runs rampant.

But hey, you and your ilk are the ones who want to make the taxpayers pay for everyone's health care. Now you want to use that as an excuse to infringe on people's 2nd Amendment right.

Heck, why don't you just rewrite the Constitution while you are at it, eh?

Click to expand...

In other words, you refuse to answer who's gonna pay, because you know where that one goes, huh? You would rather the taxpayers pay for the health care of the innocent victims than to require gun owners to have insurance for what is done with their firearms.

There's no other possible choices - it's only taxpayers or insurance...and you dare not make that choice! You're trapped, and you know it!

Glen Contrarian said:

In other words, you refuse to answer who's gonna pay, because you know where that one goes, huh? You would rather the taxpayers pay for the health care of the innocent victims than to require gun owners to have insurance for what is done with their firearms.

There's no other possible choices - it's only taxpayers or insurance...and you dare not make that choice! You're trapped, and you know it!

Click to expand...

You need to listen to yourself.

You want millions of gun owners to pay for the actions of a few criminals by requiring them to get some kind of insurance?? That's just plain ridiculous. Go after the criminals.

Anyway...I've never wanted taxpayers to pay for anyone's health care. It's the liberals who have made that happen. Maybe you liberals should pick up the tab for all those innocent victims since you are the ones who put us in this situation.

Mycroft said:

You need to listen to yourself.

You want millions of gun owners to pay for the actions of a few criminals by requiring them to get some kind of insurance?? That's just plain ridiculous. Go after the criminals.

Anyway...I've never wanted taxpayers to pay for anyone's health care. It's the liberals who have made that happen. Maybe you liberals should pick up the tab for all those innocent victims since you are the ones who put us in this situation.

Click to expand...

WHO PAYS, guy? WHO PAYS? It's either the taxpayers, or insurance. There IS no other viable option.

You can try all the phony rhetoric you want, but in the REAL world, WHO PAYS? As it stands, the taxpayers do...and the ONLY way to get the burden off the taxpayers is to require insurance.

You've got no other viable option...and you know it.

Glen Contrarian said:

WHO PAYS, guy? WHO PAYS? It's either the taxpayers, or insurance. There IS no other viable option.

You can try all the phony rhetoric you want, but in the REAL world, WHO PAYS? As it stands, the taxpayers do...and the ONLY way to get the burden off the taxpayers is to require insurance.

You've got no other viable option...and you know it.

Click to expand...

I reject you contention that there are only two choices...taxpayers or insurance. I gave you two other options...the criminal pays or you, a liberal, pays.

Now...you can shout out all you want that there are only two choices, but it don't mean a thing...it's just you...shouting.

Glen Contrarian said:

Last I recall, such is already decided on the basis of background checks.

Click to expand...

Only if you buy from a licensed gun dealer.

Glen Contrarian said:

How about finding out why hundreds of thousands of people's applications for ownership were rejected on the basis of what was found on their background checks? But then, that would require research that tells you what you don't want to hear, wouldn't it?

Click to expand...

Not really since I don't agree with several of the reasons people are rejected by background checks. For example: I don't agree that a felony conviction should automatically deprive a person of the right to bear arms after they have served their time. I also don't agree that a person who has admitted themselves for treatment into a psychiatric facility should lose the right to bear arms simply because of such a history. Hell, I don't agree with background checks AT ALL!

Glen Contrarian said:

Would it make people safer if the police, ATF, FBI, and other agencies were able to track down who's doing the gun-trafficking, selling felons firearms that they can't buy legally? Would it make people safer if we put a huge freaking dent in the quarter-million American-made firearms that are smuggled into Mexico (mostly to the drug lords) each and every freaking year? The answer in both cases is a resounding YES!!!!!

Click to expand...

Ummm NO! This because the vast majority of guns sold to criminals and terrorists on the black market would never make a register unless they were stolen from someone who had registered the weapon. Even if they did, they would be passed around so much in the black market only the original registered owner would be at risk of arrest and prosecution. Something easily avoided by simply reporting it stolen. You clearly have neither knowledge of, nor understanding of, the criminal black market.

Glen Contrarian said:

Because if it's not required, most people will not do it. Same doggone thing with seat belts - it was shown in real-world examples that if they're not required, most people won't use them...but when they're required and the laws enforced, most people do...and more people live through traffic accidents. Same thing with firearm safety - the more people are given a clue as to responsible ownership of a firearm, the more will treat their firearms with the respect and responsibility that one should expect.

Click to expand...

Well, although I've never agreed with a nanny-state requirement to wear a seatbelt, I recognize that driving is a "privilege" and government is free to grant, take away, and regulate "privileges." Hence, in order to drive a motor vehicle in public I am required to have a license purchased from the state.

On the other hand Gun Ownership is a right. By the way, MILLIONS of Americans currently own guns without harm to others or personal mishap...meanwhile deaths caused by regulated car ownership occur in greater numbers annually than gun deaths, even throwing in suicide.

Glen Contrarian said:

Problem is, somebody WILL pay. If people don't pay for insurance, the taxpayers WILL pay for the hospital bills of the victims AND of the perpetrators. Whom would you rather receive the bill - the insurance companies, or the taxpayers?

Click to expand...

Since the hospital bills of most people who go are already paid for by health insurance (for the most part) or the people themselves (else they don't get treated) you have no point. Oh, yes, there are county hospitals where the service is (relatively) free for the indigent, but I don't mind contributing taxes for that purpose.

Glen Contrarian said:

And I don't care whether you are happy. I do care that we cut way the heck down on gun violence in America...and what I've described above would help do just that.

Click to expand...

Okay, and we don't care that you are unhappy. Meanwhile, declaring that your position would "help" does not make your claims true. Especially since no gun control law enacted has served to stop any of the harms they were alleged to be intended for.

Glen Contrarian said:

"Mr. Trump - following the attack in San Bernadino where 14 people died, you have proposed registering all Muslim nationwide and disallowing any Muslims from coming to America from another country. Given the enormity of what you propose in response to 14 innocent people being murdered by extremists, what have you proposed to prevent tragedies like the 26 children who were murdered at Sandy Hook, or the more than 500 children who have been killed in America with firearms since then?"

Click to expand...

The question I won't hear at the debates is...well, any of them. Only fools follow the debates.

Captain Adverse said:

Answer? Push legislation that allows any citizen to carry a concealed weapon so that the next time some psycho or terrorist pulls a gun he'll die before he can massacre anyone else. :shrug:

Click to expand...

sadly that would hurt the Democrat Party twice

1) it would mean less innocent victims for them to use to ban our guns

2) it would show that armed citizens can short circuit massacres

Glen Contrarian said:

I have no problem with concealed carry...as long as the individual is a good, law-abiding citizen; has passed the proper background check; has registered his or her firearm; has received safety training for that class of firearm; and has insurance for that firearm and whatever's done with that firearm.

Got all that, and I'm happy for that individual to have concealed-carry.

That's what I wish, that conservatives and libertarians would grasp that we're NOT wanting to ban all guns - we just want to keep the firearms out of the hands of those who shouldn't have them, and we don't want to have to pay higher taxes for the results of when that firearm is used wrongly.

Click to expand...

Rather than come up with some wandering, twisted. obtuse way to make a point why not just say what you want to say. Maybe you just wanted to debate several subjects in one thread. That is going to be as fun as herding cats.

Glen Contrarian said:

Uh-uh. There WILL be tens of thousands of innocent people shot each year (thousands of whom will die, but the great majority live). Who pays for their health care? WHO PAYS? Somebody's gonna pay, so the only decision is WHO is gonna pay. I don't think you're going to try to pretend that the shooter's going to be able to pay - because they almost never have enough money to do so - so...who's gonna pay? The ONLY choice you have is taxpayers or insurance...

...unless you want to just let the innocent shooting victims get no health care at all for their wounds.

Which is it? Taxpayers? Or insurance? WHO'S GONNA PAY, MYCROFT?

Click to expand...

Everyone is required to buy healthcare insurance, BY LAW. If they adhere to the law that they should be adhering to it isn't a problem. Problem solved.

Captain Adverse said:

Not really since I don't agree with several of the reasons people are rejected by background checks. For example: I don't agree that a felony conviction should automatically deprive a person of the right to bear arms after they have served their time. I also don't agree that a person who has admitted themselves for treatment into a psychiatric facility should lose the right to bear arms simply because of such a history. Hell, I don't agree with background checks AT ALL!

Click to expand...

The '68 GCA is not a good bill, but it's not what I would consider a horrible one. I don't have a problem with due process based restrictions on the right to bear, due process being the most important part of that equation, only should effect those who have committed crimes.

That said, I disagree with non-violent felony prohibition and always will. A person who got nailed on some BS regulatory charge is not a danger on the level of someone who went to prison for robbery, rape, murder, or felony battery. I agree with the misdemeanor domestic violence prohibition charge being a disqualifier though, pretty much anything with a component based upon violence. Voluntary admission to a mental health facility does not apply according to the law, court ordered commission does, I am okay with that. All of those factors though should have an easier process to restore rights, it should not require a presidential pardon, full clemency, or dependence on the ATF. There should be some automatic way towards restitution and I have shared ideas on that before.

Ummm NO! This because the vast majority of guns sold to criminals and terrorists on the black market would never make a register unless they were stolen from someone who had registered the weapon. Even if they did, they would be passed around so much in the black market only the original registered owner would be at risk of arrest and prosecution. Something easily avoided by simply reporting it stolen. You clearly have neither knowledge of, nor understanding of, the criminal black market.

Click to expand...

This is unquestionably true.

Well, although I've never agreed with a nanny-state requirement to wear a seatbelt, I recognize that driving is a "privilege" and government is free to grant, take away, and regulate "privileges." Hence, in order to drive a motor vehicle in public I am required to have a license purchased from the state.

On the other hand Gun Ownership is a right. By the way, MILLIONS of Americans currently own guns without harm to others or personal mishap...meanwhile deaths caused by regulated car ownership occur in greater numbers annually than gun deaths, even throwing in suicide.

Click to expand...

I have heard one good argument for requiring the driver to wear a seatbelt, that of being in control of the vehicle in an accident, being thrown out would be a problem with a vehicle still in motion. For passengers, I don't feel that the law is under any obligation to protect one from their decisions.

Captain Adverse said:

Answer? Push legislation that allows any citizen to carry a concealed weapon so that the next time some psycho or terrorist pulls a gun he'll die before he can massacre anyone else. :shrug:

Click to expand...

But that proposal lacks any huge increase in government power and expense - it is thus incompatible with the Contrarian way.

LaMidRighter said:

The '68 GCA is not a good bill, but it's not what I would consider a horrible one. I don't have a problem with due process based restrictions on the right to bear, due process being the most important part of that equation, only should effect those who have committed crimes.

That said, I disagree with non-violent felony prohibition and always will. A person who got nailed on some BS regulatory charge is not a danger on the level of someone who went to prison for robbery, rape, murder, or felony battery. I agree with the misdemeanor domestic violence prohibition charge being a disqualifier though, pretty much anything with a component based upon violence. Voluntary admission to a mental health facility does not apply according to the law, court ordered commission does, I am okay with that. All of those factors though should have an easier process to restore rights, it should not require a presidential pardon, full clemency, or dependence on the ATF. There should be some automatic way towards restitution and I have shared ideas on that before.

Click to expand...

Yes, I misspoke on that (underlined) point, only realizing it later after some fact checking.

However, AFTER doing some fact checking I discovered a couple of the Nine reasons I should have cited instead. The most prominent being #3 "an unlawful user of or addicted to any controlled substance." You don't even need to be convicted of any offense to fall into this category.

I understand the concerns about violent felony convictions but I would be more accepting of a restriction for repeat violent offenders rather than a blanket prohibition. Even then, there should be some way to remove the restriction without major (and almost impossible to achieve) requirements like a pardon. Perhaps a period of years without re-offense?