Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #151  
Old 10-14-2019, 09:23 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Akaj View Post
Oh, you mean like saying, "We're going to build a big beautiful wall and Mexico's going to pay for it"?
Yup, exactly like that too. Seriously. A fine example. Did you think because I was criticizing certain Democratic candidates that there was no way I was going to hold that bloviating asshole to the same standard? I mean as President I would hold to him a higher standard but this is Trump and wherever the bar is he's almost always under it.
  #152  
Old 10-14-2019, 09:48 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
"Passed as a statute" has nothing to do with any proposal he's made, as far as I know, so that's an astonishingly unlikely way for it to fail. It seems like you didn't do any research at all before criticizing him, but are unwilling, for some reason, to admit that.


Good grief, dude. I'm ignoring your tantrum about how your authority's not being respected, not because I don't think authority should be respected, but because AFAICT you've never actually claimed any authority. If you want to tell us that you've argued cases before the Supreme Court, or that you're a professor of constitutional law, or that you work for a small law firm in Texas and handle the odd civil rights case, or that you're a first year law student, we'll at least have a claim of authority to consider, if it's all that important to you. But as it is, you're hinting without claiming, and that tends to raise my suspicions.
Yeah, that's because the main point is the rank idiocy of his overall idea and that's far more important than whatever way he fails to make it law. And "astonishingly unlikely"? Really? You don't think that if Sanders is elected he wouldn't try and pass it as a statute first? Why the hell wouldn't he? He would have nothing significant to lose as far as I can see and quite a bit to gain if it was somehow upheld or struck down on extremely narrow grounds.

And what tantrum? What you call a tantrum I call a statement of pure, plain, inescapable logic and reality that you tellingly fail to acknowledge is true. What does it matter what credentials I can claim on the internet of all places? What matters is my arguments and you and others have done nothing but flail at them. And your and the others lack of credentials is relevant in that it's exactly the reason you all keep flailing. It's not about recognizing my authority it's about people on a board dedicated to fighting ignorance perpetuating it entirely because of their egos.
  #153  
Old 10-14-2019, 10:03 PM
DirkHardly is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 186
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Good grief, dude. I'm ignoring your tantrum about how your authority's not being respected, not because I don't think authority should be respected, but because AFAICT you've never actually claimed any authority. If you want to tell us that you've argued cases before the Supreme Court, or that you've clerked for Kavanaugh, or that you're a professor of constitutional law, or that you work for a small law firm in Texas and handle the odd civil rights case, or that you're a first year law student, we'll at least have a claim of authority to consider, if it's all that important to you. But as it is, you're hinting without claiming, and that tends to raise my suspicions.
Let me get this straight, if I claim legal credentials on the internet then somehow all the legal arguments and points I've been making magically become valid or at least worth considering but if I don't do so then all those arguments and points are worthless. Is that the gist of what you're saying? Really? Fine, I have a J.D. and have had it for 15 years. In the past I have specialized in Constitutional Law but am currently not practicing for medical reasons. My wife is a lawyer and law professor and I know quite a few legal academics and even more lawyers, though some of the latter are fairly useless. Happy now? Can we move forward?
  #154  
Old 10-15-2019, 07:33 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by DirkHardly View Post
What you call a tantrum I call a statement of pure, plain, inescapable logic and reality that you tellingly fail to acknowledge is true.
Wow. Okay, my curiosity is satisfied.
  #155  
Old 10-15-2019, 10:33 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Church of Scientology: you’re good with them being tax-exempt?
If the choices are:

A) the Church of Scientology gets a tax exemption

B) O'Rourke decides which churches do and don't

I choose A) every damn day and twice on Sunday.

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-15-2019 at 10:33 AM.
  #156  
Old 10-15-2019, 10:52 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If the choices are:

A) the Church of Scientology gets a tax exemption

B) O'Rourke decides which churches do and don't

I choose A) every damn day and twice on Sunday.
It's nice to find an area of agreement .

That said, I'm not convinced that the 501(c)(3) laws under which churches get exemption are enforced as rigorously as they should be. it should take some effort on part of the church to show that their finances are transparent, that leadership is paying appropriate income tax on all compensation they receive (from room and board to use of private jets), and so on.

I suspect that if the Church of Scientology were required to file a 990 and were audited when they did not, and if this policy were applied evenhandedly to all not-for-profits, there would be fewer calls for specifically revoking their tax exempt status: the general enforcement would suffice.
  #157  
Old 10-15-2019, 10:56 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If the choices are:

A) the Church of Scientology gets a tax exemption

B) O'Rourke decides which churches do and don't

I choose A) every damn day and twice on Sunday.
Interesting. So what would your answer be if someone specifically asked you if you are ok with Scientology having a tax exemption?

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-15-2019 at 10:57 AM.
  #158  
Old 10-15-2019, 11:01 AM
CaptMurdock's Avatar
CaptMurdock is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: The Evildrome Boozerama
Posts: 2,088
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Interesting. So what would your answer be if someone specifically asked you if you are ok with Scientology having a tax exemption?
Well, that's going to be a hour or two of your life you'll never get back.
__________________
____________________________
Coin-operated self-destruct...not one of my better ideas.
-- Planckton (Spongebob Squarepants)
  #159  
Old 10-15-2019, 12:51 PM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by asahi View Post
Maybe fringe wasn't the best choice of words. Beto's not all that 'fringe-y' but he probably wouldn't have become a household name were it not for his candidacy against Cruz. Beto would have likely been obliterated against someone like Cornyn or Abbott; it's just that Cruz is such a polarizing ass that if you put Willie Nelson against him, Nelson just might pull off the upset.
Right, Beto is kind of a dingbat. But Ted Cruz is SO godawful that nearly half the state's voters would have voted for literally anyone other than him. I think that's what's really telling here- Cruz, Trump and the GOP so alienated everyone except for the hardcore GOP voters that they were willing to vote for goofy Beto instead of Cruz.

It wasn't some kind of awesomeness on the part of Beto personally, and not particular awesomeness on the part of his policy choices. Rather, it was that he wasn't a Republican, wasn't hostile to everyone who isn't white/rural/wealthy, and was a viable, realistic candidate (the Texas Democratic party has had a habit of running non-viable candidates for senate in recent decades). Plus, he had a couple of very good moments rising above Trump's foul wake in 2018.

I think that maybe he and the rest of the Democratic party misread that and thought he had more going for him than kind of being an anti-Cruz and anti-Trump at the right moment, and that's why he thought running for president was a good idea.
  #160  
Old 10-15-2019, 12:56 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
Right, Beto is kind of a dingbat. But Ted Cruz is SO godawful that nearly half the state's voters would have voted for literally anyone other than him. I think that's what's really telling here- Cruz, Trump and the GOP so alienated everyone except for the hardcore GOP voters that they were willing to vote for goofy Beto instead of Cruz.

It wasn't some kind of awesomeness on the part of Beto personally, and not particular awesomeness on the part of his policy choices. Rather, it was that he wasn't a Republican, wasn't hostile to everyone who isn't white/rural/wealthy, and was a viable, realistic candidate (the Texas Democratic party has had a habit of running non-viable candidates for senate in recent decades). Plus, he had a couple of very good moments rising above Trump's foul wake in 2018.

I think that maybe he and the rest of the Democratic party misread that and thought he had more going for him than kind of being an anti-Cruz and anti-Trump at the right moment, and that's why he thought running for president was a good idea.
Beto is quite literally a rock star of the Democratic party. Cruz tried to use his "El Paso Pussycat" band picture against him, but the dude looks GOOOD in a dress, and it backfired. Beto is intelligent, good-looking, passionate, and sincere.

But he is not savvy, and he's not experienced.

I think Beto believed that being a handsome smart honest rich dude would be enough
to make him the most powerful person on the planet. He's wrong, and it's been cringeworthy to watch him refuse to learn that.
  #161  
Old 10-15-2019, 03:00 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
If the choices are:

A) the Church of Scientology gets a tax exemption

B) O'Rourke decides which churches do and don't

I choose A) every damn day and twice on Sunday.
Those are not the choices. The choices are:

A) Yes, they are tax exempt

B) No, they are not tax exempt

But in a separate question, if O'Rourke said that the Manson Family should not have a tax exemption, I presume you would err on the side of "religious liberty?"
  #162  
Old 10-15-2019, 04:05 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,286
There are only two ways to avoid violating the first amendment. Either make all churches tax exempt, or make none of them tax exempt. Or I guess a third option is to treat churches as non-profit charities if they can qualify. But whatever you do has to be universal and not based on the message of the church, or I think you'd be guilty of violating the establishment clause by having the government decide what messages are acceptable in a religion.

I was under the impression that O'Rourke was talking about taking away tax exemption only if churches didn't change some of their beliefs, such as gay marriage and perhaps abortion.

Basing tax exemption on a religion's view of gay marriage seems to me to be creating lists of 'approved' and 'non-approved' faiths. The danger of using government coercive or taxing power to manipulate religious beliefs would be exactly why the establishment clause is there in the first place.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 10-15-2019 at 04:06 PM.
  #163  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:39 AM
Ashtura is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,407
The only thing Beto of qualified for is playing a mute elf in the new LOTR series.

But the NRA should give him an A+ rating for sure. New spokesman? Can't even imagine how many black rifles that guy has sold over the last month.
  #164  
Old 10-16-2019, 09:27 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
Beto is quite literally a rock star of the Democratic party. Cruz tried to use his "El Paso Pussycat" band picture against him, but the dude looks GOOOD in a dress, and it backfired. Beto is intelligent, good-looking, passionate, and sincere.

But he is not savvy, and he's not experienced.

I think Beto believed that being a handsome smart honest rich dude would be enough
to make him the most powerful person on the planet. He's wrong, and it's been cringeworthy to watch him refuse to learn that.
That doesn't really refute what I'm saying, which is that Beto made such a good showing in the 2018 Texas Senator election vs. Ted Cruz because he wasn't Cruz, and he wasn't associated with Trump or the GOP either. It wasn't his personal magnetism, amazing policies, or anything like that- it was a very strong anti-Trumpism reaction by a lot of people. I mean, my district managed to run Pete Sessions out after 8 straight terms (since the district was formed) in favor of a relatively unknown Democrat. Again, not because of Colin Allred's amazingness, but because people were tired of the GOP/Trump BS.

I think Beto's believing his own press (or was earlier), and thinks that maybe people voted for him for other reasons than they did.
  #165  
Old 10-16-2019, 10:01 AM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by bump View Post
That doesn't really refute what I'm saying, which is that Beto made such a good showing in the 2018 Texas Senator election vs. Ted Cruz because he wasn't Cruz, and he wasn't associated with Trump or the GOP either. It wasn't his personal magnetism, amazing policies, or anything like that- it was a very strong anti-Trumpism reaction by a lot of people. I mean, my district managed to run Pete Sessions out after 8 straight terms (since the district was formed) in favor of a relatively unknown Democrat. Again, not because of Colin Allred's amazingness, but because people were tired of the GOP/Trump BS.

I think Beto's believing his own press (or was earlier), and thinks that maybe people voted for him for other reasons than they did.
I think my main disagreement with you is that I don't think Beto's a dingbat. Rather, I think he's too full of himself, and is letting an enormous ego get in the way of savvy politicking. He should be aiming to break the GOP stranglehold on Texas; and if he can do that, maybe even get in a couple good terms as the governor of Texas, he'd be practically a shoo-in for the Dem nomination for president.

But he's not doing that, and is instead staking out positions during a doomed national run that will also doom his chances in Texas. I think this is a real waste of his promise.
  #166  
Old 10-16-2019, 10:24 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Those are not the choices. The choices are:

A) Yes, they are tax exempt

B) No, they are not tax exempt

But in a separate question, if O'Rourke said that the Manson Family should not have a tax exemption, I presume you would err on the side of "religious liberty?"
Have you stopped beating your wife? No no no, no fair pointing what a shitty, loaded question it is, just answer yes or no.
  #167  
Old 10-16-2019, 10:44 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
O'Rourke is now on record supporting door-to-door confiscation.

Beto: If AR-15 Owners Don't Surrender Them Then 'There Would Be a Visit By Law Enforcement' to Take Them Away

Quote:
"Yeah, I think just as in any law that is not followed or flagrantly abused, there have to be consequences or else there is no respect for the law," O'Rourke replied. "So you know, in that case I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back so that it cannot be potentially used against somebody else."
And as for the idea that he's just a lone dingbat:

Quote:
Democratic candidates, such as O'Rourke, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), have directly criticized South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg for not supporting mandatory gun buybacks.
  #168  
Old 10-16-2019, 10:47 AM
bump is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 18,544
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
But he's not doing that, and is instead staking out positions during a doomed national run that will also doom his chances in Texas. I think this is a real waste of his promise.
That's what I'd call dingbat behavior; he's more interested in telegraphing his ideological purity at this point, than using whatever bully pulpit time he has left to try and lay a foundation for a future run at something in Texas.
  #169  
Old 10-16-2019, 10:51 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Have you stopped beating your wife? No no no, no fair pointing what a shitty, loaded question it is, just answer yes or no.
How the heck is that a loaded question? If you think it's worth a few Scientology-like Churches to keep all the churches tax free, why can't you just say that? Or if you think Scientology shows that not all "churches" are churches, how does that match up with not beating your wife?

We get it. Pretty much everyone agrees Beto's answer was no good. But you seem pretty determined to not state your own view on tax free churches.

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-16-2019 at 10:52 AM.
  #170  
Old 10-16-2019, 10:56 AM
Shodan is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Milky Way Galaxy
Posts: 40,116
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman
But in a separate question, if O'Rourke said that the Manson Family should not have a tax exemption, I presume you would err on the side of "religious liberty?"
What is the Manson Family's position on gay marriage? Beto would need to determine that first.

Regards,
Shodan
  #171  
Old 10-16-2019, 11:12 AM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
How the heck is that a loaded question? If you think it's worth a few Scientology-like Churches to keep all the churches tax free, why can't you just say that? Or if you think Scientology shows that not all "churches" are churches, how does that match up with not beating your wife?

We get it. Pretty much everyone agrees Beto's answer was no good. But you seem pretty determined to not state your own view on tax free churches.
He asked about the Manson family. If it's not already evident to you why I might think that's a shitty, loaded question, I doubt it's something I'm capable of illustrating more clearly than ny pointing out that he asked about the Manson family, when the topic was churches and tax exemption.

I thought I laid out my position pretty clearly up-thread, but if it wasn't clear enough, I'll try again. I'm generally in favor of churches being exempt from taxes. I see great potential for abuse when elected officials want to pick or choose which churches are or are not based off their level of woke-ness.
  #172  
Old 10-16-2019, 11:16 AM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
I don't think you understand how a loaded question works. See, the answer to whether you'd let the Manson family get tax free church status is "no" regardless of how Beto feels about it. I mean, I guess it might be a loaded question for people who think murder cults should have equal protection.

Last edited by CarnalK; 10-16-2019 at 11:18 AM.
  #173  
Old 10-16-2019, 11:58 AM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
Have you stopped beating your wife? No no no, no fair pointing what a shitty, loaded question it is, just answer yes or no.
Asking whether or not you think the Church of Scientology should get a tax exemption is a loaded question?

To me, that's like asking you if you like basketball, you answer "Well what is BETO'S opinion on basketball?!?!?!" and I say I'm not asking Beto, I'm asking you, and then you get your nose bent out of joint about "shitty questions."

It's like you can't even speak to your own opinions without making it an attack on someone else.
  #174  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:08 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
Asking whether or not you think the Church of Scientology should get a tax exemption is a loaded question?

To me, that's like asking you if you like basketball, you answer "Well what is BETO'S opinion on basketball?!?!?!" and I say I'm not asking Beto, I'm asking you, and then you get your nose bent out of joint about "shitty questions."

It's like you can't even speak to your own opinions without making it an attack on someone else.
You seem to have forgotten, or perhaps are deliberately obfuscating, the fact that you asked this question:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ravenman View Post
... But in a separate question, if O'Rourke said that the Manson Family should not have a tax exemption, I presume you would err on the side of "religious liberty?"
That's the one that I was calling a shitty loaded question.

If "I choose A) every damn day and twice on Sunday" wasn't making my position clear enough, I'd prefer that the government err on the side of religious liberty when deciding questions about religious tax exemptions. Yes, I imagine that means that a few "Church of Scientology"-like organizations will slip in too, and I prefer that outcome to someone like Beto O'Rourke or Lois Lerner going through the lists of organizations with a fine-toothed (and politically-motivated) comb to decide who isn't woke enough to make the cut. I think LHoD's suggestion that "it should take some effort on part of the church to show that their finances are transparent, that leadership is paying appropriate income tax on all compensation they receive (from room and board to use of private jets), and so on" is probably reasonable and not an undue burden, but O'Rourke's proposal of using the government to decide which churches get to keep their tax exemption based on their doctrine / political positions is horrifying. Any other good-faith questions about my position you'd like me to answer?
  #175  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:14 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,977
So I presumed that you would err on the side of religious liberty, and you do, but not totally, so I asked a loaded question.

Yeah, that makes tons of sense. Man, I feel like I just got nailed. To a cross, perhaps.
  #176  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:26 PM
Ludovic is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: America's Wing
Posts: 30,474
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I suspect that if the Church of Scientology were required to file a 990 and were audited when they did not
Technically, they're Audited even when they do
  #177  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:36 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Left Hand of Dorkness View Post
I think my main disagreement with you is that I don't think Beto's a dingbat. Rather, I think he's too full of himself, and is letting an enormous ego get in the way of savvy politicking. He should be aiming to break the GOP stranglehold on Texas; and if he can do that, maybe even get in a couple good terms as the governor of Texas, he'd be practically a shoo-in for the Dem nomination for president.

But he's not doing that, and is instead staking out positions during a doomed national run that will also doom his chances in Texas. I think this is a real waste of his promise.
At this point, wouldn’t you re-evaluate whether he ever had much promise? It seems to me that he was the lucky beneficiary of a perfect media storm in 2016, and now that he’s actually having to earn his support he’s turning out to be a complete lightweight.
  #178  
Old 10-16-2019, 01:37 PM
Ravenman is online now
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 26,977
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Technically, they're Audited even when they do
[/thread]

Brilliant.
  #179  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:29 PM
Eonwe's Avatar
Eonwe is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Burlington VT
Posts: 8,644
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
O'Rourke is now on record supporting door-to-door confiscation.

Beto: If AR-15 Owners Don't Surrender Them Then 'There Would Be a Visit By Law Enforcement' to Take Them Away

Quote:
"Yeah, I think just as in any law that is not followed or flagrantly abused, there have to be consequences or else there is no respect for the law," O'Rourke replied. "So you know, in that case I think there would be a visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm and to make sure that it is purchased, bought back so that it cannot be potentially used against somebody else."
And as for the idea that he's just a lone dingbat:

Quote:
Democratic candidates, such as O'Rourke, Sen. Cory Booker (D-NJ), and Sen. Kamala Harris (D-CA), have directly criticized South Bend, Ind. Mayor Pete Buttigieg for not supporting mandatory gun buybacks.
It may come as a surprise to you but a "visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm" and "mandatory gun buybacks" are not synonymous.

You're welcome in advance for clarifying that confusing bit of terminology.
  #180  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:33 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
It may come as a surprise to you but a "visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm" and "mandatory gun buybacks" are not synonymous.

You're welcome in advance for clarifying that confusing bit of terminology.
So... It's not mandatory? If refusal to turn in your gun won't get you a visit from the cops, then what? You get a stern talking to?

Last edited by Sam Stone; 10-16-2019 at 02:33 PM.
  #181  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:38 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eonwe View Post
It may come as a surprise to you but a "visit by law enforcement to recover that firearm" and "mandatory gun buybacks" are not synonymous.

You're welcome in advance for clarifying that confusing bit of terminology.
I was not confused by the terminology. I never claimed that the two were synonymous.
  #182  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:41 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
I do have a gripe with the whole "gun buyBACK" terminology though. It's wrong. The government isn't buying BACK people's guns. They never owned them in the first place. O'Rourke is proposing gun confiscation with some compensation.
  #183  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:49 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
So... It's not mandatory? If refusal to turn in your gun won't get you a visit from the cops, then what? You get a stern talking to?
I guess I see where they are coming from. As it is, if you happen to have a couple grams of an illicit substance that does no harm to anyone one but you, then the cops may very well kick down your door and threaten you with violence in confiscating it.

Given that precedent, i can see why gun owners would fear being treated the way that we currently treat non-violent drug users.

Maybe we could agree to not kick down doors for non-violent crimes in general, then the gun owners would have one less thing to be paranoid about.
  #184  
Old 10-16-2019, 02:59 PM
Left Hand of Dorkness's Avatar
Left Hand of Dorkness is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: May 1999
Location: at the right hand of cool
Posts: 41,660
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludovic View Post
Technically, they're Audited even when they do
At first I was like, "come on, what kind of technicality is Ludovic playing at here? Then I noticed the capital A.

Noice.
  #185  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:07 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... Maybe we could agree to not kick down doors for non-violent crimes in general...
I support this idea.
  #186  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:32 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
I guess I see where they are coming from. As it is, if you happen to have a couple grams of an illicit substance that does no harm to anyone one but you, then the cops may very well kick down your door and threaten you with violence in confiscating it.

Given that precedent, i can see why gun owners would fear being treated the way that we currently treat non-violent drug users.

Maybe we could agree to not kick down doors for non-violent crimes in general, then the gun owners would have one less thing to be paranoid about.
I could get behind that. Because cops going to homes where there are guns and they think the owner may not surrender them easily sounds to me like a recipe for a whole lot of shootings. Those cops are going to be on high alert and trigger-happy. Now imagine them having to go door to door through inner city black neighborhoods.

This would be a really bad idea.

Here's a proposal maybe everyone could get around: There are a lot of guns out there that are just sitting unwanted and unused. Say, a widower whose hunter husband died and now has a basement full of guns she doesn't want. If you want to get those out of circulation, offer a voluntary purchase of guns at slightly higher than market value, on the condition that the person turning in the guns signs a paper saying that they will not buy a gun again, or maybe for 10 years or something. Maybe offer them an extra 10% for signing. Then those names can be put on the background check list.

Activist groups can then raise money to buy back guns in their community, and they can take forms around that sellers can sign to get their additional government bonus.

That would actually get lots of guns off the street, and it wouldn't infringe on the rights of anyone. Reducing the stock of used guns would make them more expensive, which would further reduce demand. And the people who don't turn their guns in would see their value go up, which might even get them on board with the program.

It would also be more effective in neighborhoods where people are poor and could use the money. These neighborhoods also generate a disproportionate number of gun crimes. Also, offer one-time amnesty if the guns are stolen or unregistered or whatever.

Last edited by Sam Stone; 10-16-2019 at 03:35 PM.
  #187  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:35 PM
CarnalK's Avatar
CarnalK is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Posts: 18,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
So... It's not mandatory? If refusal to turn in your gun won't get you a visit from the cops, then what? You get a stern talking to?
Well,yes basically. I don't remember them going door to door to enforce the Australian mandatory buy back? Or am I misremembering?
  #188  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:41 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I could get behind that. Because cops going to homes where there are guns and they think the owner may not surrender them easily sounds to me like a recipe for a whole lot of shootings. Those cops are going to be on high alert and trigger-happy. Now imagine them having to go door to door through inner city black neighborhoods.

This would be a really bad idea.

Here's a proposal maybe everyone could get around: There are a lot of guns out there that are just sitting unwanted and unused. Say, a widower whose hunter husband died and now has a basement full of guns she doesn't want. If you want to get those out of circulation, offer a voluntary purchase of guns at slightly higher than market value, on the condition that the person turning in the guns signs a paper saying that they will not buy a gun again, or maybe for 10 years or something. Maybe offer them an extra 10% for signing. Then those names can be put on the background check list.

Activist groups can then raise money to buy back guns in their community, and they can take forms around that sellers can sign to get their additional government bonus.

That would actually get lots of guns off the street, and it wouldn't infringe on the rights of anyone. Reducing the stock of used guns would make them more expensive, which would further reduce demand. And the people who don't turn their guns in would see their value go up, which might even get them on board with the program.

It would also be more effective in neighborhoods where people are poor and could use the money. These neighborhoods also generate a disproportionate number of gun crimes. Also, offer one-time amnesty if the guns are stolen or unregistered or whatever.
I'd have some qualms about the pledge-signing bit. People's circumstances change. There might be people today who feel very safe in their neighborhood, but over the next 10 years it could decline significantly, and as crime goes up, they may change their mind and decide they no longer feel safe and want a gun to protect themselves. There may be young ladies now that are enjoying a happy marriage, but in the next 10 years it could fall apart and they're faced with the prospect of an abusive spouse / ex-husband and no way to adequately protect themselves because they signed a pledge when things seemed fine. Ditto for people who start getting stalked, have to testify against organized crime, or just decide they now want to get into the shooting sports hobbies.

I can see the need for some sort of limiting mechanism on any plan to compensate turning in guns for greater than market value, lest savvy gun owners buy guns, "sell" them to the program at a profit, and repeat the cycle endlessly (or at least until the program runs out of money). I'm just not sure what that mechanism should be that limits abuse while guaranteeing people's rights in the face of an uncertain future.
  #189  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:46 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I could get behind that. Because cops going to homes where there are guns and they think the owner may not surrender them easily sounds to me like a recipe for a whole lot of shootings. Those cops are going to be on high alert and trigger-happy. Now imagine them having to go door to door through inner city black neighborhoods.

This would be a really bad idea.

Here's a proposal maybe everyone could get around: There are a lot of guns out there that are just sitting unwanted and unused. Say, a widower whose hunter husband died and now has a basement full of guns she doesn't want. If you want to get those out of circulation, offer a voluntary purchase of guns at slightly higher than market value, on the condition that the person turning in the guns signs a paper saying that they will not buy a gun again, or maybe for 10 years or something. Maybe offer them an extra 10% for signing. Then those names can be put on the background check list.

Activist groups can then raise money to buy back guns in their community, and they can take forms around that sellers can sign to get their additional government bonus.

That would actually get lots of guns off the street, and it wouldn't infringe on the rights of anyone. Reducing the stock of used guns would make them more expensive, which would further reduce demand. And the people who don't turn their guns in would see their value go up, which might even get them on board with the program.

It would also be more effective in neighborhoods where people are poor and could use the money. These neighborhoods also generate a disproportionate number of gun crimes. Also, offer one-time amnesty if the guns are stolen or unregistered or whatever.
Personally, I strongly believe that if they were only sold to well qualified buyers in the first place, the supply to the black market would dry up very quickly.

Let people sell their guns if they want to, but don't make it a law that they can't have them, just they they cannot take them out of their house unless they have the proper permits.

Guns are too easy to get ahold of by anyone, whether with noble or nefarious intent. If it is made just a tiny bit harder to get a gun, then it is the outlaws who will encounter the difficulties, not the law abiding.
  #190  
Old 10-16-2019, 03:57 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... don't make it a law that they can't have them, just they they cannot take them out of their house unless they have the proper permits. ...
NYC tried this. They got sued for violating the Constitution, and reversed course. Even still, it looks likely that they're going to get smacked down further by SCOTUS for their shenanigans.

Quote:
Originally Posted by k9bfriender View Post
... If it is made just a tiny bit harder to get a gun, then it is the outlaws who will encounter the difficulties, not the law abiding.
There are lots of gun control proposals in which law abiding citizens will "encounter the difficulties". If you've got some specific ones that you think do a good job of mitigating this issue (law abiding citizens being hassled / harassed / inconvenienced by gun control efforts), I'd be interested in hearing them (although perhaps that's a subject for a different thread. If I started one, would you make the effort to outline some such proposals there?).

Last edited by HurricaneDitka; 10-16-2019 at 03:58 PM.
  #191  
Old 10-16-2019, 04:03 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by CarnalK View Post
Well,yes basically. I don't remember them going door to door to enforce the Australian mandatory buy back? Or am I misremembering?
I tried looking for data on this, and couldn't find it. It seems that it is possible to have a mandatory buy-back without going door to door. In fact, it would almost have to be done without immediate enforcement since there is no gun registry, and therefore no way to know who has a gun. New Zealand is currently having problems with compliance with their mandatory buy-back.

I think the way it would be have to be done in America is to simply announce that certain guns will be illegal on a certain future date, and that possessing them would be a felony. Then offer the buy-back until that date. Then later, if you are caught with the gun you'd be charged with a felony. But if you're going to do that, be ready to charge lots of nice old people with felonies because they forgot about Grandpa's old rifle in the barn, or because they refused to turn in their father's service revolver that hasn't been fired for twenty years because of sentimental value.

The problem with this is that there would likely be widespread non-compliance, and millions of Americans would become instant felons. That is not a good thing.

Even in Canada, extreme gun laws are not obeyed. The mandatory gun registry imposed on us was ignored by large swaths of the gun-owning public, to the point where it was felt that it was missing millions of guns and totally worthless. It was eventually scrapped.

Before you can have a reasonable, enforceable buy-back program, you need to know where the guns are. Americans won't even comply with a gun registry - probably because, like Canadian gun owners they saw gun registration as the first necessary step towards confiscation.

But I think this is a hijack of this thread and we should probably get back to Beto's self-destruction tour.
  #192  
Old 10-16-2019, 04:21 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by HurricaneDitka View Post
NYC tried this. They got sued for violating the Constitution, and reversed course. Even still, it looks likely that they're going to get smacked down further by SCOTUS for their shenanigans.
They made it a bit hard/impossible to get proper permits. They over reached a bit. I agree with their sentiments, for the most part, but their implementation certainly lacked.
Quote:

There are lots of gun control proposals in which law abiding citizens will "encounter the difficulties". If you've got some specific ones that you think do a good job of mitigating this issue (law abiding citizens being hassled / harassed / inconvenienced by gun control efforts), I'd be interested in hearing them (although perhaps that's a subject for a different thread. If I started one, would you make the effort to outline some such proposals there?).
Maybe. I have no problem respectfully discussing ways of preventing gun violence, and keeping guns out of the hands of the criminal or irresponsible, while also ensuring that responsible law abiding people are able to keep guns for self defense or recreation. I'm not sure what can be said that hasn't already been said, and I'm not really made of time these days, but if you started such a thread, I'd do my best to put in my $0.02.
  #193  
Old 10-16-2019, 06:30 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
I tried looking for data on this, and couldn't find it. It seems that it is possible to have a mandatory buy-back without going door to door. In fact, it would almost have to be done without immediate enforcement since there is no gun registry, and therefore no way to know who has a gun. New Zealand is currently having problems with compliance with their mandatory buy-back.

I think the way it would be have to be done in America is to simply announce that certain guns will be illegal on a certain future date, and that possessing them would be a felony.
Why would it have to be a felony?
  #194  
Old 10-16-2019, 06:37 PM
Sam Stone is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 28,286
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miller View Post
Why would it have to be a felony?
If you want to incentivize people to turn in their guns, I'm not sure a misdemeanor charge would do it. But if you want to make owning a restricted firearm a misdemeanor, that's fine. I'm not sure you'll get other gun controllers to go along with that, though.
  #195  
Old 10-16-2019, 07:45 PM
k9bfriender is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 11,564
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If you want to incentivize people to turn in their guns, I'm not sure a misdemeanor charge would do it. But if you want to make owning a restricted firearm a misdemeanor, that's fine. I'm not sure you'll get other gun controllers to go along with that, though.
I have no problem with that. If you use your gun for violence or in an irresponsible manner, then there may be repercussions, but just being caught with a gun in your home, car, or on your person, with no other crimes being committed, should be a ticketable offense. (Along with the confiscation of the illicit item, of course.)

I don't want to go get your guns, if nothing else, that seems like quite a bit of work, I just want you to keep them under lock and key. And if that means concealing them from law enforcement, then that also means that it is harder for criminals or children or idiots to get ahold of them.

But yeah, walk into a Chili's with your AR-15 on your back, and you're gonna lose it, along with paying a reasonably hefty fine.
  #196  
Old 10-16-2019, 08:28 PM
Miller's Avatar
Miller is online now
Sith Mod
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Bear Flag Republic
Posts: 44,545
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sam Stone View Post
If you want to incentivize people to turn in their guns, I'm not sure a misdemeanor charge would do it. But if you want to make owning a restricted firearm a misdemeanor, that's fine. I'm not sure you'll get other gun controllers to go along with that, though.
The point is to get guns off the street. Grandpa's gun that's rusting out in the barn isn't really a concern, but trying to write a law that (pardon the pun) grandfathers it in invites loopholes that could be exploited by bad actors.

So, instead, say it's illegal to own Gun X. If you own Gun X, you can turn it into the police, and they'll buy it back. The deal is open ended, and never expires. If you don't take advantage of the buyback offer, there's no specific gun enforcement division that will go kicking in doors looking for illegal guns. But if a cop finds a banned gun, it gets confiscated, and you don't get any money for it. Maybe slap a small fine on top, or (if there's other charges, like robbery or assault or whatever) there's an enhanced penalty for using a banned fire arm.

So, some (admittedly small) percentage of the guns will be taken off the streets through voluntary surrender. An increasing percentage will be gradually taken off the streets through the normal enforcement of other criminal laws. And a diminishing percentage will stay hidden in the collections of otherwise law abiding gun owners, until they eventually die out and their collections are inherited by people who will either A) turn them in to comply with the law, or B) get them confiscated because they're doing other illegal stuff, and the cops find the guns.

It's a slow plan - it'd take decades to actually eliminate any particular type of gun this way. But it's a way to do it that doesn't turn a bunch of otherwise law abiding gun owners into felons overnight.

Most other "gun controllers" would, I think, be fine with this plan, because the point of gun control is to reduce the amount of gun violence in society, not to just be a dick to people who like guns.
  #197  
Old 10-17-2019, 05:43 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
If anyone wants to continue the gun control discussion, I've created a thread here for that.
  #198  
Old 10-17-2019, 05:50 PM
HurricaneDitka is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 14,949
Back on O'Rourke's imploding campaign: CNN - O'Rourke struggles to outline specifics on proposed mandatory gun buyback. It's pretty cringe-worthy, particularly on such a sympathetic news network.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
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 Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:31 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Copyright © 2019 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017