[RD] The Republican nomination

My opinion is that he is now securely on the Romney path. Initially there was some question as to who would emerge as the well funded candidate who could stay the course without totally destroying any chance they had outside the Republican party as the various flavors took turns making their appeals to the whacky fringe of the Republican party. Bush and Walker were both clear contenders for that role, but now Walker has imploded, taking my hopes for a brokered convention with him.
You disregard the posibility that Trump takes it all the way to a Convention showdown with Jeb, threatening to run as a third party?
 
Money IS power. If you want to have a discussion regarding privilege and class, or even one that touches on those things, ascertaining relative power is important. It is not the same as race, and whining about it being bigoted the same as race(is that really where this went?) to recognize that those who are demonstrably winning the power game have a vested interest in perpetuating their advantage is a bit doublethinky just because I picked an income double median and 500% of "officially disadvantaged" instead of more "appropriately" focusing on only the multimillionaires. Everbody's the hero of their own story.

Pricing or inconveniencing or redtaping those of more meager means out of practicing a right that the wealthier possess without significant obstacle for them should really be ringing some warning bells there.
 
You're grasping at making something you don't want in the hands of the underclass too expensive for them to acquire.
Or should the government just issue every 18 year old American a sidearm with their driver's license renewal? I mean the poor are entitled to affordable weapons right? So since you seem to think its like a basic right, why not just issue everyone guns for free, and the manufacturers (or the government) can still be strictly liable? I would be fine with that, actually.

So am I still oppressing the masses with my educated little functional denial of rights that isn't a philosophical denial of rights doublethink? I mean I just said I am perfectly fine with every single adult getting a gun, especially poor people. It might actually help a little with the police shooting problems TBH. You onboard with that?
 
That driver's license aint free nor is it a protected right. A voter registration would be better. I notice you aren't willing to bend on the clever trick that breaks the system though. The right to access a lethal product, or to produce one, is not maintainable when the proper functioning of the product is strictly punishable. I'd be comfortable compromising, and full bore criminalizing improper use or negligent storage or improper sale of a so designed product.
 
You disregard the posibility that Trump takes it all the way to a Convention showdown with Jeb, threatening to run as a third party?

Not at all. I am optimistic about that, actually.

The brokered convention that I was hoping for was Walker and Bush split the "sensible" Republican vote well enough that neither has enough delegates for a clean win, because the crazy vote has given Trump a big enough block of delegates that neither has a majority. With Walker looking like he is a dead play that indicates Bush will wind up with a clear majority very similar to what Romney ended up with.

The difference being that instead of that clear majority being up against a bunch of splinters representing the crazies, Trump may well have the crazies united into an impressive minority block of delegates. Bush wins the nomination cleanly on the first ballot, but with the united crazies speaking through the voice of the Trumpet the convention could still turn into a fireworks festival of epic proportions, so now I'm hoping for that.

No matter what, the Trump campaign, if it runs to the convention as successfully as it has run so far, will put a dagger through whatever near zero chance the Republicans had in November. If Trump takes the crazies as a third party candidate that's it for Bush, just like Perot put paid to his father. If Bush buys off the crazies by making big time promises to represent them the Democrats will hang those promises around his neck like millstones and throw him in the ocean just like they did Romney. If Trump throws the crazies to the wolf and endorses Bush without crazy concessions everyone is going to be too worried about what Bush used to buy Trump behind closed doors to even consider letting him near the US treasury. Unless the Republicans find a way to derail Trump they're dead in the water.
 
That driver's license aint free nor is it a protected right. A voter registration would be better. I notice you aren't willing to bend on the clever trick that breaks the system though. The right to access a lethal product, or to produce one, is not maintainable when the proper functioning of the product is strictly punishable. I'd be comfortable compromising, and full bore criminalizing improper use or negligent storage or improper sale of a so designed product.
Not drivers licenses, but voter's registration... nice... I see what you did there... similar to not letting college kids use their student ID's to register to vote. Anyway that wasn't my point... I think we can agree on "when you turn 18" and not debate about what proof of age you need.

But as for the real issue... Again, when you say "right to access a lethal product is not maintainable when the proper functioning is strictly punishable" you are forgetting a whole body of strict-liability called "Ultra-hazardous" which includes transportation, storage, and use of explosives, haz-mats, wild animals and others. Use/storage etc of these is strictly punishable and the right to access has continued so we coul similarly craft a strict liability system to encompass firearms/ammo. As you have already said, guns are intended to harm people, so I see no reason that the makers, wholesellers, retailers etc should be able to escape the burden of the consequences, while the Sandy Hook parents are forced to bear the burden... Unless we really, really, really want to make guns a sacred cow for some reason, (like fear, fun, freedom & founding fathers)... which we do.
 
Owning any old ultra-hazardous thing, as you put it, is not a protected right. And there are limits on how big a weapon you can own too, but, that said, owning and having access to the lethality present in possessing small arms is a protected right. It has so been for centuries. Guns themselves aren't the sacred cow, it's not the metal, the material, the design, the shape, the sporting clays, the deer hunting, or the varmint control. Those are different things. The agency protected in protecting the right of citizens to possess a degree of power to kill is the sacred cow. As has it ever been, save in situations where a couple cities inhabited by majority non-whites develop handgun bans. That sure as **** isn't a benign coincidence. That's the advantaged realizing that "might makes right" and taking steps to attempt to ensure that that type of might is as unbalanced in their favor as possible.
 
But as for the real issue... Again, when you say "right to access a lethal product is not maintainable when the proper functioning is strictly punishable" you are forgetting a whole body of strict-liability called "Ultra-hazardous" which includes transportation, storage, and use of explosives, haz-mats, wild animals and others. Use/storage etc of these is strictly punishable and the right to access has continued so we coul similarly craft a strict liability system to encompass firearms/ammo. As you have already said, guns are intended to harm people, so I see no reason that the makers, wholesellers, retailers etc should be able to escape the burden of the consequences, while the Sandy Hook parents are forced to bear the burden... Unless we really, really, really want to make guns a sacred cow for some reason, (like fear, fun, freedom & founding fathers)... which we do.

Can I clarify what you are proposing? Is it to allow the victims of gun violence or their families to sue the manufacturers and sellers of guns for the damage done by those guns? So the Sandy Hook parents could sue the local gun store (or whoever sold the gun), Colt for making it, and possibly ArmaLite for designing the gun?

This would have the effect of pricing in the externalities of gun violence so they are paid (in whatever way money can pay for lost childrens life) by the makers, wholesellers, retailers etc. This would induce positive behaviours in the industry, such as not selling to nutters and ensuring proper storage.

Is this the same as "explosives, haz-mats, wild animals and others"? So if I legally bought a barrel of sulphuric acid from ICI, left it in my basement and it brought down the whole street my neighbours could sue ICI?

This is an interesting idea, and one that I had never considered before.
 
Can I clarify what you are proposing? Is it to allow the victims of gun violence or their families to sue the manufacturers and sellers of guns for the damage done by those guns? So the Sandy Hook parents could sue the local gun store (or whoever sold the gun), Colt for making it, and possibly ArmaLite for designing the gun?

This would have the effect of pricing in the externalities of gun violence so they are paid (in whatever way money can pay for lost childrens life) by the makers, wholesellers, retailers etc. This would induce positive behaviours in the industry, such as not selling to nutters and ensuring proper storage.

Is this the same as "explosives, haz-mats, wild animals and others"? So if I legally bought a barrel of sulphuric acid from ICI, left it in my basement and it brought down the whole street my neighbours could sue ICI?

This is an interesting idea, and one that I had never considered before.

The key element is not so much the manufacturers and distributors...it is attaching liability to the registered owner. Manufacturers and distributors, willingly or not, participate in measures intended to keep the guns out of the hands of nutters and criminals. But in most cases when a gun is identified as having been used by a nutter or criminal if you go back through the paper trail from manufacturer through distribution it ends at someone who says "oh, yeah, I sold that to some guy," and that person bears no responsibility at all under current law for the outcome.

If I can buy a gun "for my own use" today and freely change my mind and sell it at a profit tomorrow, why would I not? But if I could be held to account for not even knowing who I sold it to when it winds up being used to mow down school children I am incentivized.
 
Owning any old ultra-hazardous thing, as you put it, is not a protected right. And there are limits on how big a weapon you can own too, but, that said, owning and having access to the lethality present in possessing small arms is a protected right. It has so been for centuries. Guns themselves aren't the sacred cow, it's not the metal, the material, the design, the shape, the sporting clays, the deer hunting, or the varmint control. Those are different things. The agency protected in protecting the right of citizens to possess a degree of power to kill is the sacred cow. As has it ever been, save in situations where a couple cities inhabited by majority non-whites develop handgun bans. That sure as **** isn't a benign coincidence. That's the advantaged realizing that "might makes right" and taking steps to attempt to ensure that that type of might is as unbalanced in their favor as possible.
Someone once said that if the 2nd Amendment was interpreted like the 4th, gun ownership would be mandatory.

J
 
Someone once said that if the 2nd Amendment was interpreted like the 4th, gun ownership would be mandatory.

J

You may, should you desire, allow the police to unreasonably search you. They seem to count on it sometimes. Some even get pissy if you don't.

But the 4th, like the 2nd, has significant detractors that favor greater security and lesser agency.
 
If the 2nd was interpreted like the Roberts court has interpreted the 4th, we would be moving towards even more infringements.
 
You may, should you desire, allow the police to unreasonably search you. They seem to count on it sometimes. Some even get pissy if you don't.

But the 4th, like the 2nd, has significant detractors that favor greater security and lesser agency.

We could turn that around and weigh ourselves with burdens to show that a search was unreasonable.

I do not believe you can compare the detractors of the 4th to the detractors of the 2nd. The detractors of the 2nd wish the Amendment to be invalidated or repealed. You will not find anyone advocating the repeal of the 4th Amendment.

J
 
We could turn that around and weigh ourselves with burdens to show that a search was unreasonable.

I do not believe you can compare the detractors of the 4th to the detractors of the 2nd. The detractors of the 2nd wish the Amendment to be invalidated or repealed. You will not find anyone advocating the repeal of the 4th Amendment.

J

No, few are so foolish as to explicitly deny the rights. But there are many clever and educated persons that would eviscerate the right in functional reality piece by piece. And, in fact, the courts have seemed to be working on it. It's a stratagem that should sound familiar, given the discussion.
 
My opinion is that he is now securely on the Romney path. Initially there was some question as to who would emerge as the well funded candidate who could stay the course without totally destroying any chance they had outside the Republican party as the various flavors took turns making their appeals to the whacky fringe of the Republican party. Bush and Walker were both clear contenders for that role, but now Walker has imploded, taking my hopes for a brokered convention with him.
Are you implying that a wall along our border with Canada is not a good idea? Mr. Tim, are you soft on terrorism? Perhaps, sir, you are uptosomethin' the NSA needs to be made aware of.
 
a couple cities inhabited by majority non-whites develop handgun bans. That sure as **** isn't a benign coincidence. That's the advantaged realizing that "might makes right" and taking steps to attempt to ensure that that type of might is as unbalanced in their favor as possible.
Sure, I understand this part of your point, however, that is why I specifically said I am fine with just issuing people complimentary state-subsidized guns at 18 years old as long as owners, sellers, and manufacturers are made strictly liable for gun injuries/deaths/crimes. So the argument you are making is not really relevant to mine.
Can I clarify what you are proposing? Is it to allow the victims of gun violence or their families to sue the manufacturers and sellers of guns for the damage done by those guns? So the Sandy Hook parents could sue the local gun store (or whoever sold the gun), Colt for making it, and possibly ArmaLite for designing the gun?

This would have the effect of pricing in the externalities of gun violence so they are paid (in whatever way money can pay for lost childrens life) by the makers, wholesellers, retailers etc. This would induce positive behaviours in the industry, such as not selling to nutters and ensuring proper storage.
This.
The key element is not so much the manufacturers and distributors...it is attaching liability to the registered owner... If I can buy a gun "for my own use" today and freely change my mind and sell it at a profit tomorrow, why would I not? But if I could be held to account for not even knowing who I sold it to when it winds up being used to mow down school children I am incentivized.
This is how what I have in mind would work. Victim gets shot by Henry who bought the gun at Walmart. Forensics determines it was with a Smith & Wesson gun with "Herters" brand bullets. So you sue Henry, Walmart, S&W and Herters. Henry's homeowners/gunowners insurance only pays half of your medical bills, lost wages etc, so you collect the rest from Walmart.

Now what happens if Henry is never caught, (or is broke) and the gun turns out to be stolen from Pete's gun store? Sue Pete's. What if Pete's is out of business? Well then you collect from Herters and S&W. In my proposed system, someone is always responsible... Instead of "Oh your kids got shot?... oh too bad, those guns got stolen from our warehouse/fell off a truck/were bought off the black market... not our problem... pay no attention to our $31.8 billion profits:yuck:
 
This is how what I have in mind would work. Victim gets shot by Henry who bought the gun at Walmart. Forensics determines it was with a Smith & Wesson gun with "Herters" brand bullets. So you sue Henry, Walmart, S&W and Herters. Henry's homeowners/gunowners insurance only pays half of your medical bills, lost wages etc, so you collect the rest from Walmart.

Now what happens if Henry is never caught, (or is broke) and the gun turns out to be stolen from Pete's gun store, which is out of business. Well then you collect from Herters and S&W.

I would approach it from the criminal side rather than the civil court side. Make supplying an undocumented weapon a crime. Guy is holding up a liquor store, cops catch him coming out the door. They take his gun, identify the manufacturer, and check with them. Manufacturer shows documentation that they sold the gun to Wal-Mart, good on them. Check with Wal-Mart. They show documentation that after a background check the gun was legally sold to Joe Smith, SSN, DL#, and address at the time on file. Good on them. Check with Joe Smith. Joe is grumpy about these "onerous regulations," but he understood the consequences so he has a little file and pulls out a photocopy of a DL and a bill of sale from Hank Hammer. Good on Joe. Go talk to Hank. He says "oh I sold that to some guy." Hank gets a ride down to the station, and since he is obviously guilty he pleads to felony supplying of an undocumented firearm. The sentencing is light, but Hank is no longer allowed to buy or own firearms, because he has a felony conviction. That's why Joe, despite his complaining, does do the paperwork.

Simple. Absolutely eliminates straw purchasing. Forces gun owners to be the responsible gun owners they always talk about being, without imposing on the ones who really are.
 
I would approach it from the criminal side rather than the civil court side. Make supplying an undocumented weapon a crime. Guy is holding up a liquor store, cops catch him coming out the door. They take his gun, identify the manufacturer, and check with them. Manufacturer shows documentation that they sold the gun to Wal-Mart, good on them. Check with Wal-Mart. They show documentation that after a background check the gun was legally sold to Joe Smith, SSN, DL#, and address at the time on file. Good on them. Check with Joe Smith. Joe is grumpy about these "onerous regulations," but he understood the consequences so he has a little file and pulls out a photocopy of a DL and a bill of sale from Hank Hammer. Good on Joe. Go talk to Hank. He says "oh I sold that to some guy." Hank gets a ride down to the station, and since he is obviously guilty he pleads to felony supplying of an undocumented firearm. The sentencing is light, but Hank is no longer allowed to buy or own firearms, because he has a felony conviction. That's why Joe, despite his complaining, does do the paperwork.

Simple. Absolutely eliminates straw purchasing. Forces gun owners to be the responsible gun owners they always talk about being, without imposing on the ones who really are.
Interesting... I want to probe this further with two examples:

1. Same situation but this time, they take his gun, identify the manufacturer, and check with them. Manufacturer shows documentation that they sold the gun to Wal-Mart. Check with Wal-Mart. Wal-Mart says "That shipment was inbound from the Manufacturer on one of our trucks but the truck crashed in the Pennsyvania mountains and all the guns disappeared." In my system, Wal-Mart is SOL, they pay. What happens in your system?

2. Same situation but this time, they take his gun, identify the manufacturer, and check with them. Manufacturer says "We sold that to the US Army." The US Army says "Yeah we lost that on the battlefield in a classified location." In my system the government pays, and if the government claims immunity then Manufacturer pays. What happens in your system?

EDIT:I just noticed that this was the RD Republican thread - I traced this tangent back to a debate on the credentials/education of Scott Walker v. Sarah Palin... So anyway if anyone responds I will probably find a Gun Control thread to respond in.
 
Reported lost or stolen is documented. Not like you can just say "oh, lost that one" when they show up at the door, but the hijacked Wal-Mart truck has a police report. The army keeps records of their records, so no matter how classified the location the lost gun was sufficiently lost.

On the other hand, the typical straw buyer can't just produce an endless stream of documents to show that they routinely buy guns that get "stolen" the next day just in case they get asked about one someday.
 
I am fairly sure another thread would be a better place for this handgun discussion. Other than where the candidates deviate from the NRA position, I do not see any relevance. Then again, this is one area I tend to part with conservatives.

There is a provocative article in the Federalist, concerning the Sept 30 funding deadline. Generally continuing resolutions vs shut downs have worked against Republicans since Newt Gingrich overplayed his hand in 1995. This one could be different, or not. Regardless, it seems that the candidates will need to take a stand. Not surprisingly, Ted Cruz has already staked out his position.
http://thefederalist.com/2015/09/01/mitch-mcconnell-and-the-planned-parenthood-atom-bomb/
 
Top Bottom