Holder wants to explore gun tracking bracelets

[SleepyBoy]

I think what actually happens is that gun lobbyists misinterpret or deliberately misinterpret stuff like this and then ignorant Southerners get pissed and/or afraid and go out and buy more guns and send checks to the GOP. So things pretty much work exactly as intended.

So what you're saying is proposing impractical laws that have no chance of passing is a waste of time? If so I agree.

If the FEDs don't propose any silly laws like this, then there is nothing to misinterpret.
They proposed something that literally has zero chance of going anywhere which will result in more guns sold.

sounds like terrible political skills to me.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Of course it is. Because you're close-minded.

No, it's because it's nuts.

You don't think restricting one's ability to effectively defend your family and loved ones is a fair reason to move? It's not like that was my only reason either, which I mentioned, but whatever.

Is your family in some kind of danger? Are long guns not up to the job of protecting them? If so, just do the paperwork.

I don't believe this particular one will, no, but that's irrelevant. You said there are thousands of articles like this and they *never* turn out to even be proposals. Let's see some others.

I'm not going to go through the list, but I think you're being disingenuous here.

LOL. "Trust me." As if you're the authority. Sounds just like the politicians who promise they're not trying to take guns away while saying things like this:

"I believe all handguns should be abolished." - Sen. John Chafee, 1/9/97.

"... but that's not going to happen." -- rest of former Republican Senator Chafee's quote. Really, does a misleading quote by a Republican senator who has been retired for 15 years constitute evidence that the left is after gun owners?

"If it were up to me, We'd ban them all." - Rep. Mel Reynolds, 12/9/93.

Can't find the source of that, and after the first one, I have doubts about the credibility of your source (and I can see that gun salesmen have helpfully provided you with this list of quotations). Anyway, Reynolds has been out of Congress for 19 years. I certainly wouldn't deny that there have been times within the last two decades that Democratic Congressfolk expressed opposition to handgun ownership.

You're right, those people totally don't give a shit at all.

Hard to say. Put some of those quotes in context so we can see what they're about. I'm guessing, for example, that the Schumer one refers to the gun lobby. I quoted the Democratic Party platform on guns, and it's not like the left is battling the party on that issue. There's a huge, huge asymmetry of passion on gun issues. The left doesn't care, while the right is crazily willing to move their families based on gun laws.

Then there's this:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/pro-gun_advocates_angry_over_n.html

Sounds like those state senators don't think highly of gun nuts. Doesn't suggest that they are trying to kill the 2nd amendment or anything, not that they'd have the power to that anyway.

Well, except that Allentown is the third largest city in the state, likely with a significantly higher population than the backwoods mountain town you probably live in.

Shit, Billy Joel even wrote a song about it. Doofus.

That was an allusion. If you missed it, whatever.

There's no significant difference there? LOL you're a Hack with a capital H.

Um, what? Wouldn't a hack be saying that there is a huge difference on the issue and that anyone who cares about guns should be giving money to the party that agrees with them on it? Buy a mirror, friend.

So what you're saying is proposing impractical laws that have no chance of passing is a waste of time? If so I agree.

No, I'm saying that no one is proposing impractical laws ... It's propagandists on the other side of the issue trying to rile up their base by creating a boogeyman.

If the FEDs don't propose any silly laws like this, then there is nothing to misinterpret.
They proposed something that literally has zero chance of going anywhere which will result in more guns sold.

sounds like terrible political skills to me.

The Feds aren't proposing this. It's great political skills from the GOP and the pro-GOP media making rubes believe this nonsense.

 

[OldGoat]

I think what actually happens is that gun lobbyists misinterpret or deliberately misinterpret stuff like this and then ignorant Southerners get pissed and/or afraid and go out and buy more guns and send checks to the GOP. So things pretty much work exactly as intended.

Lemme see, Chicago and the gun free zone in that CT school get their guns from Mississippi?

 

[OldGoat]

The bracelets actually look pretty cool. I'm sure most people wouldn't mind wearing them

Lol. Looks about right. Find a shackle and leg iron pic as well.

 

[OldGoat]

Of course it is. Because you're close-minded.

You don't think restricting one's ability to effectively defend your family and loved ones is a fair reason to move? It's not like that was my only reason either, which I mentioned, but whatever.



I don't believe this particular one will, no, but that's irrelevant. You said there are thousands of articles like this and they *never* turn out to even be proposals. Let's see some others.



LOL. "Trust me." As if you're the authority. Sounds just like the politicians who promise they're not trying to take guns away while saying things like this:

"I believe all handguns should be abolished." - Sen. John Chafee, 1/9/97.

"If it were up to me, We'd ban them all." - Rep. Mel Reynolds, 12/9/93.

"We need much stricter gun control, and eventually we should bar the ownership of handguns except in a few cases." - Rep. William Clay (D-MO), St. Louis Dispatch, 5/8/93.

"If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns." - Chicago Mayor Richard Daley, 11/13/98.

"We are going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy! We're going to beat guns into submission!" - Representative Chuck Shumer, 12/8/93.

"My staff and I right now are working on a comprehensive gun-control bill. We don't have all the details, but for instance, regulating the sale and purchase of bullets. Ultimately, I would like to see the manufacture and possession of handguns banned except for military and police use. But that's the endgame. And in the meantime, there are some specific things that we can do with legislation." Bobby Rush; Democrat, U.S. House of Representatives, Dec. 5, 1999.

You're right, those people totally don't give a shit at all.

Then there's this:

http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2013/05/pro-gun_advocates_angry_over_n.html

Don't confuse Jack with the facts. Here's his rebuttal, "you must hate the poor and Obama because he's 46.8% black."

 

[Jack V Savage]

Don't confuse Jack with the facts. Here's his rebuttal, "you must hate the poor and Obama because he's 46.8% black."

I guess you're a slow reader. I did, in fact, respond. And who is confused on the facts? The guy claims that the political left is trying to demonize guns, and he leads with a quote from a long-retired Republican senator saying that he'd like to see guns be abolished but it's not going to happen. Come on, no one can be hackish enough to defend that.

 

[45ACP]

I'm not going to go through the list, but I think you're being disingenuous here.

I'm not gonna bother replying to all of this, but you claimed there are 1000s of articles like this that never even become proposals and when I asked you to produce one you called me disingenuous. I don't follow.

"... but that's not going to happen." -- rest of former Republican Senator Chafee's quote. Really, does a misleading quote by a Republican senator who has been retired for 15 years constitute evidence that the left is after gun owners?

It's not misleading. Just because he knows it's not politically feasible doesn't mean he doesn't wish for it. It's just like Feinstein's quote about going door to door. Whether or not they actually CAN ban guns is irrelevant. The fact is they would if they could. But if they can't, why do they keep bringing it up?

But yeah, I guess you can't count him on the left. You got me.

There's a huge, huge asymmetry of passion on gun issues. The left doesn't care, while the right is crazily willing to move their families based on gun laws.

Actually, I moved before I started a family, with their protection at the forefront of my perceived responsibilities. If you think that's crazy you're likely in the minority.

We believe that the right to own firearms is subject to reasonable regulation. We understand the terrible consequences of gun violence; it serves as a reminder that life is fragile, and our time here is limited and precious. We believe in an honest, open national conversation about firearms... and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole

 

[LucasWithLidOff]

There is certainly a small minority that would like to disarm everyone. But it is just that...a small minority with no chance of making that reality.

Also, you might want to consider using examples from this millennium.

NY state. Now go sit in the corner and keep quiet.

 

[Scrody]

Hahaha

No.

 

[Hollywood Nicky]

this kind of stuff pisses me off about holder, stop spending your time on shit that will NEVER pass and instead work on something that might.

 

[Jack V Savage]

I'm not gonna bother replying to all of this, but you claimed there are 1000s of articles like this that never even become proposals and when I asked you to produce one you called me disingenuous. I don't follow.

You're disingenuous because you're denying that there are frequent gun scares in the right-wing media that don't come to anything. Isn't that an accurate description of your position? If not, let me know.

It's not misleading. Just because he knows it's not politically feasible doesn't mean he doesn't wish for it.

I wouldn't read it that way.

It's just like Feinstein's quote about going door to door. Whether or not they actually CAN ban guns is irrelevant. The fact is they would if they could. But if they can't, why do they keep bringing it up?

"They" don't keep bringing it up. Lobbyists keep bringing up 20-year-old quotes. Note how none of your examples are from the past 15 (!) years. If I were as dishonest as you, I could use that same tactic to demonstrate that the "political right" is pushing the individual healthcare mandate, couldn't I?

But yeah, I guess you can't count him on the left. You got me.

I only really looked that one up. Then I did a half-assed search on the second one, and pretty much concluded that it was a waste of time--that you were just repeating dishonest propaganda.

Actually, I moved before I started a family, with their protection at the forefront of my perceived responsibilities. If you think that's crazy you're likely in the minority.

You didn't answer my question. Are long guns not sufficient to handle all the threats that your family receives?

That's "not caring"? Sounds pretty passionate and emotional to me.

???

The left is anti-gun, Jack whether you agree or not. The assault weapons ban was part of Obama's campaign platform for Christ's sake. You've got those partisan blinders on extra tight today, hope you don't get a headache.

Honestly, you sound like the one with partisan blinders on, trying to insist that an issue that the left doesn't care about is important. I would certainly agree that the left is less fanatically pro-gun than the right, but it's a battle between people who think that guns are a hugely important issue and people who just don't care.

No, a hack would insist that their party doesn't really want to do the things that the opposing party doesn't want them to do (like take away guns) when it's plainly obvious to anyone with an iota of intellectual honesty that they do.

No, because a hack would be supporting their party's position; not denying it. Derp. The way you guys think, the only way not to be a hack is to blindly swallow GOP propaganda on every issue.

They didn't propose (and pass) a whole bunch of laws just recently in NY state? I really don't understand how you can be this ignorant.

I have no idea. I'm talking about the national left. I don't pay close attention to what state legislatures do, except my own state's.

The DOJ isn't the feds? Please point out the nonsense/exaggeration/hyperbole in the article below:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/04/08/holder-want-to-explore-gun-tracking-bracelets/

It's a nothing story. Just a guy spitballing something that will never happen.

 

[afrdzak]

NY state. Now go sit in the corner and keep quiet.

Funny. I know many gun owners in the state of NY.
Or does your definition of disarm mean something else entirely? Do you suggest that the gun stores in the state of NY are only selling water pistols and laser tag guns?

 

[Scerpi]

I know they are just floating ideas out there because this type of stuff only works for law abiding citizens.

The Government will never be able to create any kind of security software that some dedicated 'leet hacker kid won't be able to crack within a few days. Companies who entirely depend on security software are often broken into... Bitcoins, Credit Card Companies, Online Retailers, DRM's, etc...

It will be colossal waste of money and resources. This applies to not just guns, but to any endeavor in which the government attempts to use technology and/or software to regulate anything.

 

[killakoy]

I don't really care about the 2nd amendment, correct. I don't oppose it; I just consider it a pretty irrelevant issue (especially given that there is no *real* disagreement about it) that's just used as a distraction by politicians to get ignorant people to vote against their economic interests. And, no, you're totally just buying political propaganda there. Trust me, the "political left" doesn't give two shits about guns and gun owners.

This I disagree with. I think there are many on the left who view gun control as a very important and very major issue. Increased gun control and "safety" is regularly a major part of the party's platform. Importantly, however, there's enough of a divide on the issue between rural and urban democrats that it is all effectively neutralized.

Yep. I have a friend that's probably more aligned to the democratics platform than the gop, yet he always will vote gop every single time. I asked why he does this.

He said it's because the 2nd amendment's important to him. Not every democrat will try to introduce restrictive gun legislation, but NO republican will ever do that. Can't argue with that logic.

And for those saying that it's all propaganda... Hi Hawaii here - where it's the law to register all firearms and that it's policy that ccw's applications are denied unless reason can be shown and must be approved by the police chief.

When you guys were having the shootings on the mainland (Newtown), there was a push here to make gun laws more "restrictive" even though Hawaii's already one of the most restrictive in the nation. Also no one could explain what type of additional "restrictions" could be put in place. Unbelievable.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Yep. I have a friend that's probably more aligned to the democratics platform than the gop, yet he always will vote gop every single time. I asked why he does this.

He said it's because the 2nd amendment's important to him. Not every democrat will try to introduce restrictive gun legislation, but NO republican will ever do that. Can't argue with that logic.

I don't deny that pro-gun people are extremely passionate and are willing to switch parties (and even move) based on that issue. My point is that the passion isn't equal on the other side. I don't think you'd find anyone who vote Democrat solely because he agrees with their stance on gun control or anyone who moves because they want to live somewhere with more restrictive gun laws.

 

[UpaLoompa]

Not every democrat will try to introduce restrictive gun legislation, but NO republican will ever do that. Can't argue with that logic.

Ignoring arguments about single or multiple issue voters, you can actually argue with that "logic".
Romney signed an AW ban.
Schwarzenegger supported the Brady Bill and signed gun control legislation.
Reagan supported the Brady Bill and AW bans.
Republicans have routinely sponsored and voted for a variety of gun control legislation.

 

[spamking]

I think what actually happens is that gun lobbyists misinterpret or deliberately misinterpret stuff like this and then ignorant Southerners get pissed and/or afraid and go out and buy more guns and send checks to the GOP. So things pretty much work exactly as intended.

What did we misinterpret in this case?

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

I don't really care about the 2nd amendment, correct. I don't oppose it; I just consider it a pretty irrelevant issue (especially given that there is no *real* disagreement about it)

No disagreement? As evidenced by this forum, firearms are one of the most hotly debated political topics. When gun restrictions are passed (yes, it happens) it's nearly always pushed through by Democrats.

Here's the party platform on guns:

and we can work together to enact commonsense improvements--like reinstating the assault weapons ban and closing the gun show loophole

In terms of substance, there's very little difference. It's just a symbolic issue for the right, and Republican politicians and the right-wing media jumps on and exaggerates anything that Democrats say about guns for fundraising/team-building purposes.

It's clear you're not a gun owner if you don't think banning a huge % of the gun market is significant or of great substance. Most people would also think it significant if they were prohibited from making private property sales without paying a fee for government permission.

I'm curious if you can explain what the guns how loophole is. Most of those indifferent or in favor of more restrictions don't seem to have that ability.

 

[Jack V Savage]

What did we misinterpret in this case?

Are you a lobbyist? I'm assuming you just read Fox's scaremongering and passed it on. Is that wrong?

No disagreement? As evidenced by this forum, firearms are one of the most hotly debated political topics. When gun restrictions are passed (yes, it happens) it's nearly always pushed through by Democrats.

What is the disagreement in the forums, though? "The left wants to take everyone's guns." "No it doesn't." "Yes it does." It's not "it's good to take guns because X." "No, it's bad to take guns because Y." The second argument is what you see in a real topic with real disagreement. The first is what you see when it's a phony issue pushed by propagandists on one side.

 

[spamking]

Are you a lobbyist? I'm assuming you just read Fox's scaremongering and passed it on. Is that wrong?

Yes I'm a lobbyist . . . :icon_lol: Are you kidding? What I have ever posted on here to make you think I was a lobbyist?

No Jack . . . you are never wrong. Good grief.

Did you bother to check the other links in that Fox piece?

Did you bother to watch the video of the 2015 budget discussion with the House Appropriations Committee where Holder actually stated this idea?

Or how about the information from the Department of Justice budget request that specifically mentions a request for $2 million in support of gun safety technology?


Again, I ask you . . . what was misinterpreted?