Biden Plan to End Online Ammo Sales

[Irrelevant]

With dramatic reduction in campaign spending you will just vest more power in CNN, MSNBC, Fox, NY Times, and WSJ to set the agenda. The problem is not too much money running too many ads. The problem is that for the most part you aren't voting for a person to use personal discretion anymore, you are voting for a proxy to the relevant party block. People need to start voting for people who will vote with their local residents' interests, not some grand party platform. Until that is fixed, no "reform" will change the outcome. The one campaign limit I fully support is that you may only give funds to a candidate running for a seat that you can vote for. No Texas money flooding a South Dakota election to get another vote for the GOP or Dem party.

I see that concern, but I don't see how allowing Bloomberg to buy an election is the direction we need to be heading. Or that right now you don't have to disclose where you're campaign money has to come from. There are legitimate reforms that can be made that will at least make it better. There isn't ever going to be a single solution to a complex problem.

 

[azelkhntr]

QPG joe has already selected beto as his gun confiscation czar. Joey wont last 4 months in office if elected; God save US; before he turns the reins of Power over to his VP. Kamala? Abrams? Who knows. She'll then be able to appoint her own VP without an election. Pelosi? Hillary? AOC? Who knows? None are Law and Order advocates so don't expect them to adhere to the US Constitution. I'm sticking with 45 all the way. .

 

[VikingsGuy]

I see that concern, but I don't see how allowing Bloomberg to buy an election is the direction we need to be heading. Or that right now you don't have to disclose where you're campaign money has to come from. There are legitimate reforms that can be made that will at least make it better. There isn't ever going to be a single solution to a complex problem.

I very PRO disclosure.

Also, as mentioned by others - the biggest problem is to take back the primaries - currently the most vehement 10% of the left and the right pick the candidates and then dare the rest of their more moderate party mates to vote for the lesser of two evils.

Another needed fix is to stop both parties from gerrymandering safe districts where the most extreme candidates get a free win without worrying about moderate voices.

We need solutions that promote compromise and big tent coalitions and start breaking up the echo chamber politics of the most extreme. And worrying about campaign funding does little on this point.

 

[asdew1880]

I feel like a lot of these laws are proposed and enacted without considering reality.

Recent example.

Without an LTC you can't purchase ammo or reloading supplies in MA, but you may bring them in from other states if you have a MA hunting license.

Closest store that carries what I need... in NH
View attachment 145147

Closest store in MA that carries what I need.
View attachment 145149

When I lived near Worcester, I ended up going to Kittery trading post. Cool store and I always came back with lobster and some steamers. Living in MA for two years is the biggest reason I am so much further to the right than my college days and firmly outside of political parties.

 

[SAJ-99]

This was Obama in 2016. Probably a good use of 2 minutes given he is still the standard bearer for he democratic party. He wasn't running for anything in this interview. His position on guns seems logical. As a politician, it is impossible to make everyone happy, but that doesn't mean they don't try to play both sides of the fence. The problem is you can't run from reality. The reality is that it is impractical to make people buy ammo from a physical location. But it still might sound good on the campaign trail.

 

[azelkhntr]

BO is the head of the D party today. He's the one calling the shots and will be the de facto Prez if joey gets elected. I'm praying he'll be clapped in irons very soon.

 

[Dougfirtree]

I am not sure how you get rid of parties and keep a 1st amendment. There are already thousands of "non-partisan" elected positions in the US - and if you have lived in an area that had some you know that the groups flood you with information of which "slate" of folks to vote for that mimic the traditional party designations. Freedom of speech and freedom of association have to be our most cherished rights. Giving these up is a parallel logic with those willing to give up the 2nd amend to protect safety, the 4th amendment to protect us from terrorism and freedom of religion to protect us from "intolerance".

We have a free press, we have elections, the answer is not a government orchestrated and curated political process (which I argue is the opposite of freedom) - it is for the people to stand up at the polls and vote the change they want. People know who they are voting for an what they are getting - we can't both be free and protect people from their own wishes.

I don't think you could end political parties, but the government could absolutely change the way elections happen to take the control away from the parties. Right now, the two parties essentially have control over the process. The American people, as a whole, basically pick from the pool of two pre selected candidates. Every four years, I feel like I'm entering into an arranged marriage...

 

[MTLabrador]

BO is the head of the D party today. He's the one calling the shots and will be the de facto Prez if joey gets elected. I'm praying he'll be clapped in irons very soon.

For what? I don’t like Obama at all and never voted for him, but what does he need to be “clapped in irons” for?

 

[fmnjr]

To each their own in regard to commenting on political matters.

Because, frankly, I've been bothered by the overall direction things have taken in the USA, and not just in the last year mind you, I no longer shy away from stating my opinion.

Because, if you do shy away, you are ceding the argument to the other side by abdication.

This country's constitution says: "Shall not be infringed."

Yet others seem to think that is a figurative form of speech, not literal.

Given that line of thinking, and the desire by some to push things at every turn, I can only see the end game playing out in one way.

Once the end game is put into play, look out. There's going to be lots of lead downrange, and the responsibility for that will be squarely laid where it belongs, at the feet of liberal progressives who want to remake this country into what they think it should be.

Not going to happen.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

When I lived near Worcester, I ended up going to Kittey trading post. Cool store and I always came back with lobster and some steamers. Living in MA for two years is the biggest reason I am so much further to the right than my college days and firmly outside of political parties.

Appreciate the tip, I'm a big fan of snacks

Living in places with people who have a multitude of different opinions on firearms has taught me that I can cogently explain why gun laws like MA are ineffective and problematic, but do a very poor job at answering the question "Ok so how can we fix the situation".

The it's mental health, it's crime in the inner cities, it's XYZ, or the out of my cold dead hands doesn't score any points. I've not seen any politician or public figure produce a decent answer.

Largely I think it's because it's hugely complicated and we need to make a bunch of improvements to a ton of things... but if responsible gun owners don't start working on coming up with better talking points real quick we are definitely going to end up with the hodge podge cluster of MA. (Which if you tweeked the laws a bit the whole system would be a less of a PIA with the same results or lack of results depending on how you look at the whole thing.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

To each their own in regard to commenting on political matters.

Because, frankly, I've been bothered by the overall direction things have taken in the USA, and not just in the last year mind you, I no longer shy away from stating my opinion.

Because, if you do shy away, you are ceding the argument to the other side by abdication.

This country's constitution says: "Shall not be infringed."

Yet others seem to think that is a figurative form of speech, not literal.

Given that line of thinking, and the desire by some to push things at every turn, I can only see the end game playing out in one way.

Once the end game is put into play, look out. There's going to be lots of lead downrange, and the responsibility for that will be squarely laid where it belongs, at the feet of liberal progressives who want to remake this country into what they think it should be.

Not going to happen.

30% of American's say they own a gun 43% say they live in a gun household. Gun owners are not a majority.

We can amend the Constitution, and the more polarized we become the more real that threat becomes.

 

[BigHornRam]

There are some photos on another thread here that would work good for the logo.

The Dead Beached Whale Party will not take away your guns and ammunition.

Because we are DEAD!

 

[Irrelevant]

I very PRO disclosure.

Also, as mentioned by others - the biggest problem is to take back the primaries - currently the most vehement 10% of the left and the right pick the candidates and then dare the rest of their more moderate party mates to vote for the lesser of two evils.

So that is effectively what happened in the D primaries. Sleepy Uncle Joe is clearly not Warren or Bernie or fill in the blank with another name that was further to the extreme. But he will still be characterized as extreme. He'll get big money supporting him Mr. Orange will get big money supporting him and their two collective election fortunes will wage a battle of lies for the election. We will be bombarded with fliers, and videos, and radio ads, all mis-characterizing someone or something, and none of that will be because he's a relatively moderate D. It'll be caused by money, shit loads of freakin' money.

 

[MTLabrador]

30% of American's say they own a gun 43% say they live in a gun household. Gun owners are not a majority.

We can amend the Constitution, and the more polarized we become the more real that threat becomes.

This. The idiots walking around protesting while they’re strapped with an AR do more to hurt gun rights for the rest of us than Pelosi ever has.

And I own and use them and believe we absolutely should have the right to own scary looking semi auto rifles.

 

[MTLabrador]

The Dead Beached Whale Party will not take away your guns and ammunition.
View attachment 145162
Because we are DEAD!

Especially because it was established that the whale was packing some serious heat...

 

[hank4elk]

I'm so tired of being tired of this BS.
Remove $ from politics. Revamp the election process. Get the house clean.
Some of us remember we were shot at with Russian munitions. They have never been close allies. Even Jefferson had his problems.
Some want some sanity & some gun reform. Some of us want to slap folks with suggestions like sleepy Joe. Get rid of police?
Joe is diverting attention from the real issues we face. Really does not want to clean house any more than turtle boy from Kentucky. Neo-libs & Neo-cons,linked up lip wise to big $'s ass.

 

[Losing_Sanity]

Seems like it would count as idea - but I am not convinced it is an effective one. From my experience, the lobbyists, power brokers, entrenched bureaucrats and agencies would love to see it. Our government is so large are complex that a turnstile of legislators will completely beholden to the establishment that actually knows what's going on. Plus, the way I read the constitution, we have 2 year term limits already, it's called congressional elections.

There are Pros and Cons no matter what way the people decide to go. The skill is in finding the least impact of Cons that effect you. Unfortunately, most people today don't get involved and have a very limited patriotism to vote unless it's something that effects them directly or someone tells them what to vote for. Best system is voting out the bad seed. Hasn't happened for years though. Corruption has taken over and become the norm.

 

[ignorethefringes]

Appreciate the tip, I'm a big fan of snacks

Living in places with people who have a multitude of different opinions on firearms has taught me that I can cogently explain why gun laws like MA are ineffective and problematic, but do a very poor job at answering the question "Ok so how can we fix the situation".

The it's mental health, it's crime in the inner cities, it's XYZ, or the out of my cold dead hands doesn't score any points. I've not seen any politician or public figure produce a decent answer.

Largely I think it's because it's hugely complicated and we need to make a bunch of improvements to a ton of things... but if responsible gun owners don't start working on coming up with better talking points real quick we are definitely going to end up with the hodge podge cluster of MA. (Which if you tweeked the laws a bit the whole system would be a less of a PIA with the same results or lack of results depending on how you look at the whole thing.

This is more true that we realize. . . . I know we all want to take the "slippery slope" stance and say we're not willing to give another inch, but it's at our detriment.

I'd support universal background checks on all gun sales if it could be reasonably implemented. Even if it meant paying a nominal fee per transaction. Create a database where both buyer and seller could enter their private info and get back a clear Yes or No on the sale with no further information provided.

 

[fmnjr]

30% of American's say they own a gun 43% say they live in a gun household. Gun owners are not a majority.

We can amend the Constitution, and the more polarized we become the more real that threat becomes.

You're obviously a smart guy, but I've got to ask: Do you get that, in the minds of those who want to further restrict gun ownership, once they are successful with doing so, they are already thinking on the next priority item having to do with ruling over those who oppose them?

 

[azelkhntr]

I don't think you could end political parties, but the government could absolutely change the way elections happen to take the control away from the parties. Right now, the two parties essentially have control over the process. The American people, as a whole, basically pick from the pool of two pre selected candidates. Every four years, I feel like I'm entering into an arranged marriage...

I have a plan to restore the integrity of the Republic. This plan wouldn't have been easily possible 10-20 years ago but now thanks to modern computers it is. The Founders of our Republic were against the establishment of partisan political parties and warned us about them. They envisioned a Govt of, by and for the People. Parties destroyed that possibility. My plan. All political parties to be invalidated and outlawed at the Federal Level. The States may retain and entertain them at their own discretion. The names of all verified eligible Americans of the allowed age and qualifications are uploaded into a dedicated data base during every applicable election cycle. 2 year for the House, 6 years for the Senate and 4 years for the Presidency. This mainframe will need to be installed in a super secure stand alone environment and location. No outside connections via landline or WIFI etc. It will be guarded by dedicated security 24/7/365. I don't know who would do that tho. Buddhist monks maybe? IDK? Anyway all the eligible citizens go into the data base and the selection is run; a lottery if you will. Lets say MTLabrador is selected as the 1st for the job of President. The Secret Service comes to his door and informs him of the good news?, and he has 24 hours to either accept or decline. If he accepts he's the next President; if he declines the SS moves onto the 2nd selectee and so on and so on. Now if you accept a Federal position you'll never be eligible for that one again but you'll be put in for the other 2 branches. Also you only serve for one term only. The beauty of this plan is that it totally eliminates the corrupting influence of money and the parties interests in Governing the Republic. Lobbyist wouldn't be able to function, corporation couldn't donate massive amount of money to parties or candidates any longer. Also we would now have a true representative govt of people from all walks of life, status, class and experience. That's the vision our Founders had. They wanted bakers, masons, farmers, barbers, seaman, grocers, doctors, businessmen etc. rubbing elbows and coming up with solutions to the problems of the day, not just ivy league elitist lawyers and grifters. Everyone would be termed out and have to go back to the jobs and careers they held prior following service to the Republic. God Bless America!