Seven Northern Virginia delegates and two Democratic nominees to the House of Delegates joined the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence at a news conference in Arlington to urge that background checks cover all gun sales, including those at gun shows and online.
Virginia law does not require background checks for gun purchases from unlicensed dealers or private sellers. Gov. Terry McAuliffe (D) tried to change that, but his proposal was rejected by the Republican-controlled Virginia legislature.
The governor again mentioned closing the gun-show loophole, as it is commonly called, in the wake of the Roanoke shootings, drawing the ire of Republican lawmakers who noted that the gunman in that case purchased his weapon legally.
The fact that the Roanoke shooter bought his gun legally speaks volumes. Rather than excusing Virginia gun laws, it should condemn them and make us want to shore up requirements. This guy had a paper trail both hard copy and digitally behind him a mile long. Flares should have been going off.
Virginia should require background checks on all gun sales. Period. Why is anyone fighting this initiative? If you sell a gun to anyone in Virginia, the buyer should go through a background check, regardless of how well you know that person.
Lastly, I see a pattern here of someone always saying after each mass shooting, “a background check wouldn’t have helped in this case.” This issue is three-fold. Every purchase should involve a background check. The laws should tighten up regarding stability, It should be easier to identify mental health issues that often lead to violence.
Background checks really don’t seem to have many teeth in them. You can check yourself into Central State frequently, and check yourself out, and not be prevented from buying a gun. There are just too many loose ends.
Frankly, most of us are pretty sick of hearing excuses. There is absolutely not one good reason I can think of that would excuse a gun purchase being excused from a background check.
I discovered some “warnings” about gun purchases. Let’s take a look at them (from wiki) and see if the information is true or false:
- A birth certificate or a social security card will not be accepted as an ancillary form of identification.
- Do not lie on the consent form. The offense is punishable by law.
- Virginia state law prohibits any person involved in a protective order for domestic abuse and/or stalking from purchasing firearms.
- Federal law prohibits the following from purchasing firearms: fugitives from justice, those dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, citizens who have renounced their citizenship and illegal aliens.
- A Virginia non-resident may not purchase a firearm until a state police approval report has been received or 10 days have passed.
- Virginia state law prohibits any person convicted of a felony from purchasing firearms if they have not had their rights restored.
- Virginia state law prohibits the carrying of a concealed handgun without a Concealed Handgun Permit.
- Virginia state law prohibits the legally incompetent or mentally incapacitated from purchasing firearms.
McAuliffe is lying again.
“from unlicensed dealers”
He is parroting the dishonest Brady Campaign’s talking points. There is no such thing as an “unlicensed dealer.” That is against federal and state law. You CANNOT be in the business of buying and selling firearms without a Federal Firearms License.
There is no gun show loophole.
There are private sales and commercial sales.
Gun control advocates defeated the only actual universal background check bill ever presented to the Congress. Perhaps you should make inquiries of the gun control advocates’ spokespeople.
What the Brady Campaign wants is gun registration. That is the only way to enforce law abiding people in getting private sales under the current NICS system. Of course, criminals won’t do it. They don’t actually care about background checks. If they did, they would be shouting about the lack of enforcement when the cops DO find people breaking the law.
Courts have ruled that felons can lie on the consent form….otherwise it is self incrimination.
Illegal aliens have just won recognition of 2nd amendment rights in court.
To be barred via incompetency, etc…. the person must be adjudicated by a judge to be a danger to themselves or others. Prior to Cho….it was “and others.” He WAS adjudicated to be a danger to himself…but the judge didn’t want to “ruin his life” by forcibly institutionalizing him.
To have rights restricted, one must go through due process.
My personal belief is that background checks are worse than useless and should be discontinued, just based upon the statistics of people stopped from getting a gun and prosecuted vs the raw numbers of those checked. We have had over 200 million NICS checks since 1998, about 10 million per year. The average prosecution numbers average less than 100 per year. We could do better with random stops on the street. The background checks also infringe upon the 4th amendment.
But I don’t mind the current system enough to fight to change it. I don’t want more infringement.
You keep talking about “excuses.” These are not “excuses.” These are first principles that we are dealing with. Until you develop some way to determine levels of sanity by observation, and then develop a non-political way of enforcing treatment and incarceration….. great! What’s the first step? Nothing McAuliffe is proposing affects what happened. The shooter passed a background check. He waited months to pick up the gun. Heck…the Navy Yard shooter, Alexis, had a SECRET clearance…and he had arrests that were dropped or diminished. And he was known to hear voices. All of this should have voided his clearance, much less a background check.
Remember, you have to do this without infringing on rights, and not just 2nd amendment rights, at that.
Is one safer in on an airplane flight where nobody has guns or where everyone has guns?
I vote for no one.
Cargo – when you speak of “more infringement”, to what are you referring. “More infringement” than what?
@BSinA
After guns were banned, hijackings went up.
If there are bad people on the plane….. then the situation changes. It is not the lack of guns. It is that airlines have not been a common target any longer. Who is safer? The unarmed passengers and crew on a plane with terrorists armed with boxcutters or a plane that has armed crew…at least.
If everyone had access to a weapon, no….zero…highjackings would occur. I would love for tazers to be embedded in the backs of every seat, like the cell phones we see today. They get turned on my crew in the face of any threat.
@Scout
More infringement of various rights. How intrusive should the “background checks” be? When do they intrude on 4th amendment rights? How about the right to privacy, such as HiPAA rights? Do we want to restrict rights without due process? Some support the idea that rights should be restricted merely on the say so of a single doctor’s prognosis. Registration gives the government too much power and control over the citizen. Registration leads to bans and confiscations.
Cargo said “Registration leads to bans and confiscations.”
Do you have any examples of that happening in the United States?
Why not have a background check that is similar to a security clearance which would include a look at finances, number of jobs, number of moves, medical issues, neighbors being interviewed? If you’ve got nothing to hide, why not submit to it? Job jumping, lousy finances, multiple moves in a short time might give a fairly accurate picture of someone’s stability.
@Cargosquid
Registration gives the government too much power and control over the citizen. Registration leads to bans and confiscations.
How has this power been exercised? How often has it lead to bans and confiscations?
@Censored bybvbl
Why not? Because its is no one’s business. Also….see Alexis..the Navy Yard Shooter. He went through that. He had a SECRET clearance. Also, who is going to do all that research. This is called putting an undue burden on a civil liberty. You don’t have anything to hide? Okay…then why require a warrant for anything?
Registration has led to bans and confiscations in every locale that has one.
@Cargosquid
What has been banned or confiscated that hasn’t been voted on by the public’s representatives in that state or jurisdiction?
The intent of the 2a is for collective rights if you read the sentence as a whole. That allow for “infringement” of that civil liberty.
The NRA should do more.
I always thought it applied to the citizenry rather than allowing individuals to own arsenals.
Just speaking for myself, I don’t need a military grade weapon here at Howler acres.
Holes in airplanes at 35,000 feet is not good for anyone including those on the ground. Therefore firing a gun on a plane needs to be avoided. Best way to avoid holes in airplanes is to restrict the type of weapons that can be used. Flamethrowers banned on airplanes is a good idea too. (If we can see a practical reason to restrict certain weapons on airplanes, then practical reasons to restrict weapons in other places with people in close quarters, e,g, schools, theatres, etc. are also reasonable)
@Censored bybvbl
So…voting, especially voting as they did for the SAFE Act, in NY… (voted at 2 am with little discussion) is a proper way to infringe upon rights?
What does voting have to do with it? Just because it is legal, does not make it right.
@Lyssa
I’m sorry, but the Federalist papers, other writings of the Founders, subsequent opinions by SCOTUS, and the Heller and McDonald decisions disagree with you. As does basic English. There is no such thing as a “collective right.” Every enumerated right is a limitation on government action and is a protection if individual rights.
@Ed Myers
Thus I mentioned tasers.
Many of us have no idea what you are talking about in your message to censored.
@Cargosquid
If gun restrictions are voted in, they’re the law. If you want to challenge them, go to court.
Within days of signing the furor over the constitution began. Pursuing that here is a good discussion if more than not have a reasonably open mind.
Regarding the question of could/should the NRA do more I think that’s a no brainer, for most.
Maybe it helps to go back to basics: The Governor said that the Roanoke shooter should not have had a gun. I assume no one disagrees, not even Cargo. What kind of policies/regulations/laws should be in place to prevent people like that guy from having guns? Cargo can go first.
@Censored bybvbl
So….if voters decide that slavery is okay….those enslaved should just go to court? If voters decide that free speech is illegal, those restricted should just go to court? Oh..wait….if the 1st amendment is illegal, we CAN’T petition the government.
I guess the 6th amendment would be exercised then.
@Moon-howler
The SAFE Act was voted in NY. It puts all sorts of restrictions on guns, banning certain ones. All rifles were to be registered. Some were declared illegal to own. There is 95%+ NON-compliance.
NY decided that “assault weapons” needed to be registered/banned. Out of an estimated 800 thousand to 1 million rifles in NY, less than 45,000 rifles were registered by about 23,000 people.
Connecticut has similar problems with their registration scheme.
@Scout
I’m not accepting your premise.
The law should not be “what keeps the weapon out of specific person’s hands…because he did a bad thing.”
The law is…..you have the right to keep and bear arms. What law can be written to protect people or penalize law breakers while protecting the rights of Americans?
That shooter followed all of the laws, and then some. No one pegged him as a homicidal maniac and blaming mental illness might be a cop out. He was evil. By all accounts, he was a self-centered grievance monger who waited 2 years to commit a crime. So…what kind of law prevents him from exercising a right? What “test” will show that he’s “crazy?”
And what arbitrary scientist would be trusted not to abuse that power? There are gun control advocates in the medical field that have stated that the very desire to be armed is a sign of mental instability…..so…..how do we screen the testers?
So we do nothing, if your way of thinking is a solution. Sorry, I don’t buy it.
I feel you are suggesting anarchy. Every dog for himself.
Enjoy it now. I think in 20 years the courts will have done a 180°.
I support these delegates’ measures to control guns. I hate that tragedies have to happen before people act
It’s a collective right.
@Lyssa
Really? And you have the historical evidence, the English grammar, and the SCOTUS cases to back that assertion?
All of the civil liberties in the Bill of Rights are individual rights.
That must be why states are allowed to take away individual rights then…yea, that’s the ticket.
@Moon-howler
I didn’t say that.
I said that whatever is done must protect the rights of Americans.
I have seen NO details on any laws suggested by those wanting to “do something.” All I’ve see are calls for someone else, usually the NRA, to “do something,” to enact “reasonable laws.”
Well….what do you want to do? What laws would stop such shootings? Describe them.
1) A test would have to be devised that detects insanity.
2) A test would have to be devised that detects evil intent.
3) A test would have to be devised that predicts the future.
4) For other reports, HiPAA protections would be abolished.
5) Doctors could restrict rights on mere say so. If a citizen cannot be considered safe with a gun, why are they not institutionalized….thus….. citizens would be institutionalized on mere assertion.
6) Ban guns…..except that penalizes the law abiding and infringes rights. And does nothing to stop crime and make lawful people defenseless.
C’mon….. I’ve seen multiple statements advocating for more control….let’s see some details.
I am afraid you wouldn’t like what I would ultimately do a whole lot.
One of the things I would do is restrict what kinds of guns the average person could own. If someone wanted to upgrade, they could apply special permit. Another thing I would do is make all gun laws uniform. What goes in one state would have to go in all states. Why? Constitution is for all states. I really hate a patch work of laws on controversial issues. State legislatures stay tied up on single issues and never get much else done.
For the record, I have not one problem institutionalizing more people with significant mental issues. You seem to want to have them all running loose. I do not. I know what used to be in institutions. The fact that any of the ones I saw as a young psych major would be out in society is terrifying. Frankly, other than to be treated as humanely as possible, I am not too worried about their rights.
Anyone who has been diagnosed as psychotic doesn’t get to have weapons, in my world. Tree elves might tell them to chop your liver out.
@Lyssa
Let’s take a look:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
By putting “Militia” in the forefront, they emphasize the need for collective use of arms. The entire population is the unorganized militia. The “militia clause” is the prefatory clause, explaining why the citizen’s rights must be respected. The could also be read as “An armed and organized citizenry, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
The militia was a government entity. The fear was that a central government, or any government, could disarm the populace by either moving the militia away or disarming it. The ownership of weapons by the citizenry, not dependent upon membership in the organized militia, protects that freedom to be armed. And it ensures a supply of arms for any organized militia.
“Well regulated” applies only to the term “militia” and means well trained and supplied.
Heller confirmed the individual right, and that arms are protected. This is supported by Cruikshank and Miller. McDonald incorporated the 2nd to the states.
The Federalist papers and other writings support an individual right.
The infamous Supreme Court Justice, Taney, in the Dred Scot decision, justified his decision to prevent freed slaves from gaining citizenship by this dicta…
If African Americans were citizens, observed Chief Justice Taney in Dred Scott v. Sandford,[1] “it would give to persons of the negro race … the full liberty of speech …; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.”
Since rights pertain only to individual freedoms and the enumerated rights are limits on government power…..please explain how a “collective right” should work.
If you believe that a militia has a right to arms……then why doesn’t it say that? Militias are government entities….. they have no need for a “right” to arms.
@Moon-howler
States WERE allowed to infringe on liberties originally. The Bill of Rights, until it was incorporated to the states, applied only to the federal government.
The 2nd amendment was the last of the amendments to be incorporated against the states.
This is why states keep thinking that they can get away with this.
They have not had to toe the line on 2nd amendment liberties.
@Moon-howler
“You seem to want to have them all running loose.”
I’ve said no such thing. I said that due process is needed. If diagnosed to be a danger, by all means…. institutionalize them. But ensure that their rights are respected. Put them before a judge to weigh evidence and that this isn’t an abuse.
I would love to have all gun laws be the same. The problem is that you and I disagree on what that law should be.
Heller has decided that all arms, suitable for a militia, in common lawful use, are protected arms. And I’m fine with that compromise.
Sorry Cargo – not following. what is your suggestion for how to keep a guy like the Roanoke shooter from getting a gun? I am correct, am I not, that you, I and everyone else agrees with the Governor that he should not have had a gun?
By the way, don’t forget that Heller and later cases have almost uniformly taken pains to state expressly that Second Amendment rights are subject to “reasonable regulation.” I assume that means something more than nothing. Don’t you?
@Scout
Of course you aren’t following. You aren’t paying attention to what I wrote.
I didn’t have a suggestion to prevent the Roanoke shooter from having a gun. He was an evil person. The purpose of criminal law is to punish evil doing. Any law that could have prevented him from attaining a weapon, would have been a burden on the right. And would probably still been useless.
The dicta states that the rights are still subject to traditional regulation because the cases did not address those issue. Said reasonable regulation was described. Additional restrictions would not fall within “tradition, existing” regulations.
@Scout
Here you go BOLD is mine:
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. (RIGHTS ARE LIMITED ONLY BY OTHER RIGHTS. THIS IDEA SHOULD BE BETTER EXPLAINED.) It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose (IF THIS IS THE LIMIT THAT HE IS DISCUSSING….OKAY. HE’S RIGHT…YOU CANNOT CARRY A WEAPON TO COMMIT MURDER OR ENDANGER ANYONE WITHOUT CONSEQUENCE.): For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. (THIS IS THE STATEMENT SHOWING THAT SUCH REGULATIONS ARE NOT COVERED BY THIS DECISION. THIS IS ALSO THE ATTEMPT BY THE COURT TO CONTROL THE DAMAGE DONE TO GUN CONTROL IF THE 2ND AMENDMENT WAS TAKEN AS WRITTEN. THE GOVERNMENT WOULD HAVE NO POWER TO INFRINGE.)
I’m following you now, Cargo (#30). You’re saying there’s absolutely nothing we can do. People like this guy are going to get guns, kill innocent people, and we have to accept that. All we can do is punish after the mayhem has occurred.
Another the means are justifyied by the ends democrat. The problem is that there is so much evidence (take Detroit, NYC, Washington DC and a host of others) that the means of gun control have no impact on the ends – crime. Indeed, the preponderence of evidence is that gun control increases crime while it makes more people vulnerable, but then democrats who have controlled these cities need something to blame other than themselves and their own policies.
@Scout
I’m following YOU in that you are putting words in my mouth. I’m waiting for your ideas….instead of waiting for someone else to say something.
Go ahead. Present some ideas that would have done what you ask. We’re waiting.
@Scout
“People like this guy are going to get guns, kill innocent people, and we have to accept that. All we can do is punish after the mayhem has occurred.”
Apparently so…..based on your logic. Isn’t that how criminal laws are enforced? Again…. point out what could have been done to prevent ownership by this guy? On whose radar was he sighted prior to ownership? I reject that we “accept that.” We punish evil.
Well, answer me this: have I misrepresented (my comment at #32) your position? Your #35 suggests not.
Here are some of the things I think are completely permitted by the Second Amendment that might help: physical fitness standards, competence standards, periodic re-certification, limits on types of weapons, universal background checks on all weapons purchases, regardless of venue, limits on types of weapons, requirements that all sidearms be carried visibly and openly in brightly colored holsters.
Obviously, these things could be abuse, and if they were implemented in a way that in fact amounted to a ban, Heller teaches us that they would not survive. But it would be a factual inquiry as to their reasonableness. They are not per se prohibited by the jurisprudence we have had to date.
Just as obviously, the political will to enact these requirements isn’t there. If numbers approaching 20,000 a year in gun deaths don’t get us there, I’m not sure what will. But it’s a political will issue, not a constitutional barrier.
Yes…you have misrepresented my position.
I have stated that any changes must protect rights.
I have not stated that “there is nothing we can do.”
My position is that we cannot do anything that is unconstitutional and infringes upon rights. Now, if your position is that we must do things that are unconstitutional, then yes….. there is nothing we can do…to satisfy you.
Under what authority can you burden a right with physical fitness standards? How does disarming those in need of self protection due to physical weakness and inability prevent criminals from gaining weapons.?
Under what authority do you burden a right with competency standards? Whose standards do you use? Chicago and DC are infringing upon the right as we speak by requiring such….while not providing opportunities or spaces for needed training.
Periodic re-certification? That would mean a certification by a standard. Again whose standard? And how does this stop criminals? Lanza was certified.
Universal background checks? Okay? A) how do you get criminals to do it? B) how do you do it with the current system without registration? C) How do you convince the pro-gun control advocates to use a system that does not require registration or information about what guns are being transferred?
Limits on types of weapons. We have that. You cannot get automatic weapons, short barreled weapons, or other “unusual weapons” without a permit. All other firearms are protected. Limiting such goes against the purpose of the 2nd Amendment.
And while I applaud your support of open carry….you will have to convince the gun control people of approving that.
The total number of gun deaths is increased by including suicide in the numbers. Our murder rate, involving guns, is about 8500, which is 2/3 of the total rate. Murders involving long guns, which includes a subset of those “problematic” semi-auto rifles, is less than that involving murder by blunt object. Apparently….long guns are not a problem according to statistics. Suicide rates do not change with access to a gun.
Any law can be written with the idea that they are not prohibited by the jurisprudence, because each law is not, until challenged in a court of law. And that is what is happening. Those restrictions are being challenged and are falling.
Based upon a clear reading of the 2nd Amendment, we have the individual right to keep and bear arms for the purposes of defense of self and of freedom from foreign and domestic threats. That security is best served by an armed and organized citizenry, formed into a militia.
No law is constitutional that infringes upon the 2nd. There are no conditions. There are no qualifications. And restrictions must be via due process, which also infringes upon other freedoms. The Congress has abrogated its responsibility to organize the militia. That failure does not remove the responsibility of the citizen to be familiar with arms.
If you want to restrict ownership of weaponry from certain people, you must do so without infringing upon the rights of citizens. That is the basis of American law. Every gun owner in the nation, but me, could commit murder with a firearm tomorrow, and the government would have no authority to take my guns away, as I would be innocent.
Two comments–
You always throw up this mass murderer or that mass murderer as a case where something wouldn’t have worked. That is no 100% plan. I think what most of us want is to throw up a few hurdles so mass killers just cant walk in and get what they want.
Not everyone agrees regarding the exact meaning of the 2nd amendment. (as is evidenced here) If we could all agree, then we could decide what was infringement. I think not letting me have an automatic weapon is an infringement. I think not letting someone who has been out of prison 2 years with no brushes with the law have a weapon is an infringement.
@Moon-howler
I brought up the shooter that he was referencing. Name ONE mass murderer where “background checks” would have worked. Name one that any of the popular gun control measures would have worked. Even the CDC states that gun control does not prevent or control crime.
I would love to prevent “mass murder.” I would also like to prevent all the other murders. Guns do not cause murder. Ownership and carry is skyrocketing. Murder is down. Until recently, with these idiotic attacks on the police, violence was dropping. I predict that racial strife will rise. Victimhood is politically profitable, especially when financed by outside agitators.
I agree with you. Not letting you have an automatic weapon is an infringement. And I think felons that have finished all of their sentence should have their rights restored. Nope…not everyone agrees, even though the Amendment is quite clear.
Until the National Firearms Act of 1934 and the Gun Control Act of 1968 and 1986 are repealed, however, that is the “compromise.”
Cho springs to mind immediately. Had the judge committed him, had Fairfax been able to forward his records, had Tech responded in a pro active manner to Nikki Giovanni’s refusal to teach him, those students and faculty members might be alive today.
It isn’t just one thing. There is an overlap in this Venn Diagram of guns, laws, and mental health. All the subsets need to be tightened up and revised for the safety of everyone.
@Cargosquid
“Like” button hit hard again and again.
@blue
Thanks.
I predict that racial strife will rise. Victimhood is politically profitable, especially when financed by outside agitators.
Bingo. There’s the problem. Too many bigots couldn’t stand the thought of a bi-racial President. Oooohh. The thought was scary!!!! Maybe they should buy more guns in case too many non-white people began to outnumber them. That, in a nutshell, is what’s driving gun sales. Fear, fueled by FAUX news, to a bunch of old geezers who can’t quite accept the realities of the 21st. century.
@Censored bybvbl
There’s that old race card again. Damn you’d think it would be worn out by now given the number of times its been used to defend the most incompetent, most scandal filled anti-American Administration since – Jimmy Carter. And Trump is benefiting directly from it, so keep up the good work there Censored, and, while we are at it, keep up the advocacy for the new world order of Obama, Clinton, and Sanders too. People are just so sick of the BS.
Ooops…you forgot about the Bush administration.
@Moon-howler
Cho was not in the records to be prohibited because the JUDGE did not rule him a danger to others. These are the same people that you want enforcing NEW laws. The law has been changed in Virginia.
I agree about the proactive idea on forwarding such problems to school administrators. Due process is involved. I’m fine with that.
Cho should have been in the records. He should have been red flagged. This is exactly what I am talking about. Whatever it is that kept Cho from being red flagged has to change. He left a field of red flags in his wake, everywhere he went. Things should have been in place so he could not buy guns. They were not. In fact, working backwards, Cho is an excellent prototype to start with …plugging up the problems.
I believe he was in an ED class and that information did not follow him to Tech. Not positive but I think that was the case. Well…that distinction should have been part of his permanent record.
@Censored bybvbl
“Bingo. There’s the problem. Too many bigots couldn’t stand the thought of a bi-racial President. ”
If that is what you get from my statement….then there is no hope for you. You are either being willfully obtuse or actually stupid. And I hate to use that language, but I cannot think of anything else it might be.
Where do you get ideas about the president out of the current riots and financed agitation? Bi-racial president? What does that have to do with anything? Can’t you open your eyes to reality outside of Democrat talking points?
There are riots and shootings of police across the nation. Black people are actively and publicly threatening white people and police. “Black Lives Matter” is a hate group financed by organizations developed by George Soros. Does he have his hand directly involved? No.
You’re knee jerk reaction is childish and ludicrous.
Censored isn’t a Democrat. I don’t think she has party affiliation. Every time I see George Soros name being demonized, I get dismissive. who cares. All organizations have financing from somewhere. It then becomes a pissing contest. I got this way because of Glenn Beck.
I am not saying you feel this way but I know all sorts of people who don’t like Obama because he is black.
@Cargosquid
If you’re worried about a race war, you just might be a racist.
I’m not a Democrat. I’m a liberal independent who has grown up in the South. I know most of the dog whistles.
Blue, tighten the tinfoil….
@blue
@blue
Well, damn, I spoke for you before seeing that you had spoken for yourself.
@Censored bybvbl
Why would I have to be a racist to be worried about racial strife? Are there not people calling for those of other races to be beaten and killed? Did not two people kill others because of their race? Also, why does it have to be a full blown war? I said nothing about a “race war.” I said racial strife…which is what is going on now.
You are the only one listening to the dog whistles…or listening for dog whistles. You are doing it so hard, that is all that you hear. Meanwhile, the rest of us will pay attention to actual people that are calling for the death of people due to their race.
No, Censored is not the only one hearing dog whistles.
I am watching the remade Ken Burns Civil War. Every time I watch it I am increasingly horrified by that war and the fact that in many respects, it still isn’t over and probably never will be. It has just taken another form.
@Moon-howler
I’m mentioning him because he is the outside agitator. As for Glenn Beck…what has he financed? As for Obama….okay…..so there are people that are racist. That has nothing to do with the current racial strife happening in Baltimore, St. Louis, and other places. Obama’s only contribution to the current violence is that his silence is deafening.
How do you feel about Sheldon Adelson? The Koch Bros? In my world, an outside agitator would be someone like Stokely Carmichael. Plenty of wealthy people finance groups that support their belief
Glenn Beck has financed all sorts of things. He also had quite a sphere of influence with the foxies while he was on the Faux News Show.
Obama, like any president, walks a thin line. These are local matters gone national. He has called for an end to violence. The justice department has been involved.
Do not get me started on Black Lives Matter.
Censored may not be a Democrat, but those are all Democrat talking points. Well done.
I guess my problem is, why can’t they be her thoughts?
I mean I don’t accuse you of NRA talking points all the time. Sometimes, but not all the time.
@Moon-howler
Sure…they can be her thoughts. They are STILL Democrat talking points.
@Cargosquid
I don’t have to exert any effort at all to hear the dog whistles. They’ve been loud and clear since Obama was elected. If he doesn’t discuss race, he’s blamed. If he does discuss race, he’s a racist siding with African-Americans. You right-wingers need to make up your minds. But, of course, the reality is he can do nothing to please you guys because, damn, he was born with the wrong color skin…
You are so right that he is damned if he does and damned if he doesn’t.
@Censored bybvbl
And do you hear such alleged whistles ever coming from me?
No conservative cares if he doesn’t discuss race. We would LOVE if he was neutral and/or silent about race.
You state that we say if he does discuss race, he’s a racist siding with African Americans. Answer me this…..has he ever been impartial? Where are the representatives visiting the families of the murdered cops. He sends them to the families of killed criminals. And if those criminals are so special, why doesn’t he send them to any OTHER families? Answer me that? Would you not call a politician that makes decisions based upon race….. a racist?
Your bigotry is definitely showing in this belief that you can read minds. Because you’ve just stated that conservatives….. as a whole, are just hateful to him merely because of his skin.
Meanwhile Ben Carson is the number two candidate in the polling.
How’s that “dog whistle working? Is it deafening you to reality.
You still haven’t answered the question. You deflected with idiocy about “dog whistles.”
Here you go..in case you missed them the first time.
Why would I have to be a racist to be worried about racial strife? Are there not people calling for those of other races to be beaten and killed? Did not two people kill others because of their race? Also, why does it have to be a full blown war? I said nothing about a “race war.” I said racial strife…which is what is going on now.
I hear dog whistles also. Regardless of what I hear, you are an angry person. I am going to suggest that any other president, regardless of party, would have pretty much handled things just like Obama did.
@Cargosquid
And who’s responsible for the racial strife that mysteriously started when Obama took office? We’re talking about the 21st. Century but a lot of bigots are stuck in the past. Bigots have always been here, but the Republican Party in the last couple decades (if not a bit further back) cleverly has courted them. Now mainstream Republicans are becoming upset and speaking out about what that solicitation of votes has cost them. Mainstream Republicans are not RINOs. They represent conservatives who realize that society requires compromises, that budgets need to be balanced, that schools and infrastructure need to be funded. They’re more realistic than bombastic. One would hope that voters would rely less on the dog whistles, bombast, threats and anger and more on finding solutions to problems. I personally applaud Brian S. and many of his fellow posters on Bearing Drift – and a couple posters here – for calling out the people that a civilized society needs to call out.
As for two people killed because of race – out of how many hundreds of millions???? Some police departments need to be reformed. Some families need to learn some skills for living in society. I don’t see this so much as a race issue as much as it is one of poverty. (Where I grew up, most of the break-ins were done by poor whites. And most were done by a few families.)
Standing ovation, Censored!
Who’s responsible for what racial strife when Obama took office?
Please….list these events of racial strife and we can discuss them.
Mainstream Republicans always compromise and do what the Democrats want. They never force the Democrats to compromise. Every compromise grows government and moves society leftward.
Brian S. is a perfect example of a Republican that merely wants to grow the party and ignore the principles behind the platform of the GOP. He is a liberal that supports the worst aspects of the modern GOP. Mainstream GOP politicians are upset because the base is holding them to their promises and to the principles stated in the GOP platform. The politicians make promises and pay lip service to desires of the base, and then actively fights against them once elected.
You keep being very vague……who needs to be “called out?” Those that demand enforcement of the law? Those that demand that border enforcement be carried out? That hiring laws be enforced? That the justice department stop penalizing businesses that actually attempt to verify citizenship? That the government stop H1-B visas from undercutting our employment?
As for TWO people killed because of race? Did you forget the church murders? I mentioned BOTH killers…. I’m also talking about the very public demands by some blacks for killing white people and cops of all races. I’m talking about the actual hunting of cops. You deflect from today to talk about millions. Okay…which millions? Who? Are you talking about the institution of slavery in the US? Caribbean? South America? The deaths of millions in Africa? Europe? Asia? I mean..if you want to go off a tangent…I’ll follow.
I’m talking about right here and right now. Today, I see the overt racism and calls for violence from the minority side. I see supposed minority leaders calling for violence. I see minority politicians supporting violence. I see minority politicians allowing race to interfere with legal decisions. Are you honestly trying to say that the Holder Justice department did NOT have racial biases?
You talk about bombast and threats and not finding solutions. The problem is that we are trying solutions…..but the mainstream GOP and the liberals don’t want to implement any new ideas. THEY aren’t hurting. But America is locked into a stagnant economy, growing dependence on government, increasing loss of sovereignty, loss of the rule of law….and the people are tired of politicians lying to them. Thus you see the rise of Trump and Sanders. While I don’t believe a word Trump says….I actually believe Sanders is honest. He’s an honest socialist that wants to implement failed polices of the past.
Again, you refuse to answer my questions. Let’s be blunt. Are you calling me a racist, with all of your talk about my alleged “dogwhistles?”
@Moon-howler
Of course I’m angry. I see a political class that is destroying our nation slowly. I completely reject the idea that any other president would have done the same as Obama. Each president has different idea. The ACA would not have been rammed through and then, later, illegally changed by executive order. We would not have threatened Syria with weak strikes to send a message. We would not have attacked Libya. We would not be kowtowing to Iran. The Justice Department would not be racially biased. The ATF would not have smuggled guns illegally into Mexico. Clinton and that traitor, Kerry, would not be anywhere near centers of power. We would not have doubled the debt in six years. Grow it….probably. Both parties spend too much.
@Cargosquid
Mainstream GOP politicians are upset because the base is holding them to their promises and to the principles stated in the GOP platform. The politicians make promises and pay lip service to desires of the base, and then actively fights against them once elected.
Do you mean the base of loudmouths who drown out conversation? The base that may comprise 30% of one party while independents and Democrats comprise the other 2/3 of the voting public? The base that wants everything its way with no consideration of the rest of the voting public? That small base that is going to wreck the Republicans chance of holding or gaining future offices? I’d bet that that base is comprised of angry old white men (and the women who love them) who can’t compete without the added bonus of white male privilege. They’re mad because they’re no longer given an edge that they presumed would always be there for them. Welcome to the world where most of us exist. Don’t refuse to upgrade your credentials, or quit your job in a huff, or fail to move where the jobs are and then blame everyone else when the world and your future are no longer sparkly and bright.
I mean the base of conservative voters that demand to be heard. I mean the base of voters that expect the politicians to at least hear our statements.
Drown out the conversation? You mean, how the left likes to shout down and destroy dissenting opinions? How the mainstream GOP actively fights against the conservative base? That conversation?
The base comprises the basis for both parties. You forget, your liberals have a base too.
The conservative base wants things changed because they see that the path we are on is harmful to the nation. Angry old white men? Really? Have you seen the people running for Democrat office? Who HOLD Democrat office?
Ben Carson is an angry old white guy? Fiorina? Rand Paul? Rubio? Mia Love? Try again. Your stereotypical talking points are showing again. Who can’t compete without “white male privilege?” Do you even see the ludicrous things you write? Critical race theory is a biased, leftwing philosophy that blames white people for everything. Tell me about Rubio’s “white privilege.” Or Ben Carson’s. Or Mia Love’s. Or Jindal’s.
Where is your complaint about Clinton’s White male privilege…you know..the one she gets from being the wife of a certain privileged white male. Or Biden’s? Or Sander’s. Talk about “old white guys.” As for angry? Hillary and Sanders has everyone beat. Sanders wants to take everything from the rich and angering his followers by telling them that they deserve free stuff and that those rich guys over there have it. Hillary is just angry that she’s not being treated as the queen as she expects.
“Don’t refuse to upgrade your credentials, or quit your job in a huff, or fail to move where the jobs are and then blame everyone else when the world and your future are no longer sparkly and bright.” Actually this is the conservative point of view. Thanks. It is the left that complains that they aren’t being paid enough for labor that doesn’t deserve that pay. It is the left that demands that the government abrogate the laws of supply and demand.
You really do live in some sort of weird bubble if you think it is the conservatives want the government to change things.
@Censored bybvbl
And I noticed that you refused to answer my question once again.
Did I drown out your answer? I know you don’t like that….leftists never do like a competing narrative, philosophy, or answer.
@Cargosquid
You sure assume a lot about liberals as well. My college educated spouse and I are liberal – we also own our house free and clear, have at least a year’s salary in the bank (interest sucks but at our age, I’m not going to take too many chances), and are financially independent. My spouse has a VA disability and used the GI Bill for college. He also worked at two jobs long enough to get two retirements. I think I can say we’ve paid our way – with the benefits he’s entitled to. Most of our friends are in the same boat.
Most of the people that compose Tea Party rallies and other groups of complainers are old, white, and male. All one has to do is look. The Teabaggers in my neighborhood live in their relatives’ homes – not independently at the age of 50 or 60. I know them well enough to say that they’re complainers – always have been – whether about taxes, gardens, roads, children. They’re unhappy, uneducated people. Maybe it’s different elsewhere but I wouldn’t expect any Teabagger I know to solve any problem- just complain.