• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House holds holder in contempt [W:140

AdamT said:
So the real problem here is that you were arguing against it for two years without even bothering to find out what it was.
Click to expand...

So you have read the entire law? And understand it all?
 
j-mac said:
So you have read the entire law? And understand it all?
Click to expand...

I certainly read and understood the most controversial parts, like the penalty sections.
 
AdamT said:
I certainly read and understood the most controversial parts, like the penalty sections.
Click to expand...

So that would be a no? Listen, just because you read the parts in the news, how can you possibly deride someone else for not doing what you yourself haven't done?
 
AdamT said:
So the real problem here is that you were arguing against it for two years without even bothering to find out what it was.
Click to expand...

Dude, that bill is over 2,000 pages. All I need is the fact that it makes me buy something. I don't care if only it only hits about 1% of the country. I don't care if it won't really even affect anyone. Its the precedent that I don't like. If I am still on this website when a Republican takes office, I will remember this discussion. You don't seem to have a problem with Dems telling you what to buy. I'd like to see when the GOP tries it. As a matter of fact, President Bush I initially had the idea for the individual mandate (with help from the Heritage Foundation) and Dems wouldn't support it.
 
MarineTpartier said:
Dude, that bill is over 2,000 pages. All I need is the fact that it makes me buy something. I don't care if only it only hits about 1% of the country. I don't care if it won't really even affect anyone. Its the precedent that I don't like. If I am still on this website when a Republican takes office, I will remember this discussion. You don't seem to have a problem with Dems telling you what to buy. I'd like to see when the GOP tries it. As a matter of fact, President Bush I initially had the idea for the individual mandate (with help from the Heritage Foundation) and Dems wouldn't support it.
Click to expand...

You didn't have to read the actual bill to understand what the mandate was. You could have just read a newspaper or any of the dozens of summaries available online.

Personally I have no problem with mandates that make sense: uninsured driver insurance, seat belts, air bags, catalytic converters, background checks, etc., etc.

And again, the isurance mandate is a Republican idea.
 
MarineTpartier said:
[...] [1] You don't seem to have a problem with Dems telling you what to buy. [2] I'd like to see when the GOP tries it. As a matter of fact, President Bush I initially had the idea for the individual mandate (with help from the Heritage Foundation) and Dems wouldn't support it.
Click to expand...
1. The Dems know that everyone needs health insurance; otherwise they suffer, and everyone else pays. If you're about to stick a fork into a electrical outlet, and someone tells you not to do that, do you have a problem with them?

2. GOP infighting is what killed the individual mandate back in the day; at the time, the Dems were trying to pass Hillarycare (the individual mandate was the GOP counter proposal, but about the time Clinton indicated there was room to compromise, the GOP killed their own plan):

In 1994 Sen. Don Nickles (R., Okla.) and Rep. Cliff Stearns (R., Fla.) turned the Heritage plan into a bill. Peter Ferrara and others, such as Tom Miller at the Cato Institute, rallied other conservatives against the plan. “By endorsing the concept of compulsory universal insurance coverage,” wrote Miller, “Nickles-Stearns undermines the traditional principles of personal liberty and individual responsibility that provide essential bulwarks against all-intrusive governmental control of health care.”

Ferrara convinced 37 leaders of the conservative movement, including Phyllis Schlafly, Grover Norquist, and Paul Weyrich, to sign a petition opposing the bill. “To this day,” Peter writes, “my relationship with Stuart Butler and Heritage has never recovered.”

The Tortuous History of Conservatives and the Individual Mandate - Forbes
Click to expand...
 
AdamT said:
You didn't have to read the actual bill to understand what the mandate was. You could have just read a newspaper or any of the dozens of summaries available online.

Personally I have no problem with mandates that make sense: uninsured driver insurance, seat belts, air bags, catalytic converters, background checks, etc., etc.

And again, the isurance mandate is a Republican idea.
Click to expand...

I do understand what the mandate is. Its an attempt by Dems to make me buy something. As to your other examples, there are a few problems with them.
Driver insurance: A) Its a state mandate, not Federal B) Not everyone has to have it C) Everyone has to have health insurance according to the ACA.
Seat belts: Should not be required because it protects me from myself. I have no issue with laws that protect other people from me. I also think a person would have to be stupid not to wear a seatbelt. But I don't think the gov't should be able to tell me to.
Air Bags: Protects me from myself again.
Catalytic converters: No issue there. We need to protect the environment and it protects everyone from that one idiot who wouldn't have it if the law didn't exist.
Background checks: Be more specific about that please.
 
AdamT said:
The weapons weren't allowed to illegally cross the border. Thanks to Arizona's insanely lax gun laws, ATF had no legal grounds to interdict them.
Click to expand...

Why weren't they stopped at the border? You can't export guns without the proper paperwork.

22 CFR 123.17 - Exports of firearms and ammunition.

§ 123.17

Exports of firearms and ammunition.

(a) Except as provided in § 126.1 of this subchapter, Port Directors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall permit the export without a license of components and parts for Category I(a) firearms, except barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete breech mechanisms when the total value does not exceed $100 wholesale in any transaction.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/22/123.17
Click to expand...

I doubt any of the guns that was across the border was under $100. They could have been stopped and arrested at the border.
 
Last edited:
AdamT said:
I'm guessing that they weren't declared.
Click to expand...
So if it's that easy to drive a truck load of guns across the border, how is it the State of Arizona's fault and not the Federal Government who is supposed to CONTROL the border?
 
Prof. Peabody said:
So if it's that easy to drive a truck load of guns across the border, how is it the State of Arizona's fault and not the Federal Government who is supposed to CONTROL the border?
Click to expand...

How do you know they aren't coming in by plane? In any case, if it wasn't possible for any moron to BUY a truckload of guns in Arizona it would be a lot easier to deal with.
 
AdamT said:
How do you know they aren't coming in by plane? In any case, if it wasn't possible for any moron to BUY a truckload of guns in Arizona it would be a lot easier to deal with.
Click to expand...

Are you against all states rights, or just the one's in relation to guns?
 
Arbo said:
Are you against all states rights, or just the one's in relation to guns?
Click to expand...

How long have you been beating your wife?
 
AdamT said:
How long have you been beating your wife?
Click to expand...

Come on Adam, you have to be against states rights, if you want to make guns illegal. Further we have a government dealing in illegal guns giving them to the druggies. I would suggest going after our government first for dealing illegal weapons.
 
Born Free said:
Come on Adam, you have to be against states rights, if you want to make guns illegal.
Click to expand...

Do you honestly see no middle ground between allowing damned-near anyone to purchase a truckload of weapons, without so much as a notification requirement, and making guns illegal altogether?
 
AdamT said:
Do you honestly see no middle ground between allowing damned-near anyone to purchase a truckload of weapons, without so much as a notification requirement, and making guns illegal altogether?
Click to expand...

It's a little something that is a decision for each state. There are laws against trafficking guns. If the federal government can not stop that, that's just one more thing they are failing at.
 
Arbo said:
It's a little something that is a decision for each state. There are laws against trafficking guns. If the federal government can not stop that, that's just one more thing they are failing at.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is a decision for each state. Some states are more responsible than others. Is your argument that Arizona should be applauded for attacking the reasonableness of the feds' enforcement effort, but Arizona cannot be criticized for its pathetically weak regulations?
 
Born Free said:
Come on Adam, you have to be against states rights, if you want to make guns illegal. Further we have a government dealing in illegal guns giving them to the druggies. I would suggest going after our government first for dealing illegal weapons.
Click to expand...

Public gun shops legally sold every weapon involved in F&F and every one of the weapons would still have been in the same hands if there was no such thing as F&F. No prosecutor would issue arrest warrants for the strawmen because the Arizona laws are so vague. Those weak, unenforceable gun laws were the reason Agent Terry was killed by one of those legally purchased over the counter weapons. Nice going NRA.
You have got to get up to date sometime.
 
Last edited:
Arbo said:
It's a little something that is a decision for each state. There are laws against trafficking guns. If the federal government can not stop that, that's just one more thing they are failing at.
Click to expand...

So whether someone like Agent Terry gets killed because of strawman purchasers doesn't matter. It's up to the States to decide whether a person can buy 20 guns and resell them right in the parking lot?? Who speaks for those that are killed?
 
AdamT said:
Yes, it is a decision for each state. Some states are more responsible than others. Is your argument that Arizona should be applauded for attacking the reasonableness of the feds' enforcement effort, but Arizona cannot be criticized for its pathetically weak regulations?
Click to expand...

Weak? In your opinion. But their statewide regulations have nothing to do with the feds not enforcing their laws, not doing their job. Your apples to oranges dodge does not work.

iguanaman said:
Who speaks for those that are killed?
Click to expand...

Apparently nobody in the current administration.
 
AdamT said:
How do you know they aren't coming in by plane? In any case, if it wasn't possible for any moron to BUY a truckload of guns in Arizona it would be a lot easier to deal with.
Click to expand...
Are you saying our Government can't even control our airspace along the border either? Both the Border and the airspace are the sole responsibility of the Federal Government who has yet again dropped the ball then blames the states. The Obama administration not only knew about the straw buyers gun purchases but purposely allowed them to cross the border with them.
 
Last edited:
iguanaman said:
Public gun shops legally sold every weapon involved in F&F and every one of the weapons would still have been in the same hands if there was no such thing as F&F. No prosecutor would issue arrest warrants for the strawmen because the Arizona laws are so vague. Those weak, unenforceable gun laws were the reason Agent Terry was killed by one of those legally purchased over the counter weapons. Nice going NRA.
You have got to get up to date sometime.
Click to expand...

Not really, they could have been stopped at the border and arrested for exporting firearms without a license or permit, a felony.

22 CFR 123.17 - Exports of firearms and ammunition.

§ 123.17

Exports of firearms and ammunition.

(a) Except as provided in § 126.1 of this subchapter, Port Directors of U.S. Customs and Border Protection shall permit the export without a license of components and parts for Category I(a) firearms, except barrels, cylinders, receivers (frames) or complete breech mechanisms when the total value does not exceed $100 wholesale in any transaction.

22 CFR 123.17 - Exports of firearms and ammunition. | LII / Legal Information Institute
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom