What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

FlagDUDE08 said:
It also used to be that the state legislatures picked the senators. That changed in 1913 with amendment XVII. Wouldn't mind seeing that repealed; maybe we wouldn't have jerks like Nixon and Reagan holding states hostage to "state laws" that are really federal by stealing their federal funding.
Click to expand...

If states actually funded what they are supposed to fund, federal funding would not be an issue.

But if you stop funding it, which forces the federal government to step in to cover it, you have nobody to blame but yourself. Which is exactly WHY the Department of Education can do what they do.

States need to step up and do what they are responsible for doing.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

dxmnkd316 said:
He shouldn't. He should care. We should all care. Just because someone else doesn't vote in their own self-interest doesn't mean that we should marginalize them and throw them to the dogs. If they aren't going to care for themselves, we need to vote people into power who do care about these things.
Click to expand...

They dont want our help...if they did they would have asked for it and voted for it. This is the problem with the Left we assume everybody wants to be saved by us because we know what is best. They dont.

That is the disconnect, that is why the party got trounced. We didnt listen to what they want just told them and left. Now maybe we are right ultimately but they dont agree.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

To slightly change the subject. Did anyone listen to Trump's acceptance speech? To me, he said all the right things, and really departed from what we've seen throughout the election. Can we actually believe him? I doubt it, but I was surprised with how he actually came across during that speech.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

dxmnkd316 said:
If you haven't run a background check on them, sure. I don't see a problem with that. At least not its face.
Click to expand...

Allow me a follow-up addition to my hypothetical: What if we both have concealed carry permits. Clearly both have gone beyond a purchase background check.

But, if I understand how that law is written, my lack of presence with them holding the firearm for me is the violation. Or would their carry permit supersede me not being with them? But it's still not their weapon.

If the law doesn't clarify a scenario like that the law needs to be refactored and put back to vote.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

Drew S. said:
I'm in the same boat as Shawn. Regardless of other factors I could never imagine voting for a candidate who is anti-gun. I think gun control is the single biggest issue holding democrats back. The ratio of people who strongly care about gun rights to those who strongly care about gun control is probably 10 or 20 to 1.
Click to expand...

Hillary wasnt anti-gun nor was Obama. Asking for background checks /= TAKING AWAY YER GUN RIGHTZ!!!!!!!!!!11
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

bigblue_dl said:
To slightly change the subject. Did anyone listen to Trump's acceptance speech? To me, he said all the right things, and really departed from what we've seen throughout the election. Can we actually believe him? I doubt it, but I was surprised with how he actually came across during that speech.
Click to expand...

Certainly can't do much worse than the divider-in-chief Marxist that's in there now.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

The Sicatoka said:
Allow me a follow-up addition to my hypothetical: What if we both have concealed carry permits. Clearly both have gone beyond a purchase background check.

But, if I understand how that law is written, my lack of presence with them holding the firearm for me is the violation. Or would their carry permit supersede me not being with them? But it's still not their weapon.

If the law doesn't clarify a scenario like that the law needs to be refactored and put back to vote.
Click to expand...

That would be an interesting scenario. I would think there should be a way to make exceptions in cases like this where they clearly have passed a background check. However, how do we know their CCP is still valid? The card alone isn't useful unless there's a website to determine if it is. BUt I'm not sure how that would be any different than running a background check.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

Handyman said:
They dont want our help...if they did they would have asked for it and voted for it. This is the problem with the Left we assume everybody wants to be saved by us because we know what is best. They dont.

That is the disconnect, that is why the party got trounced. We didnt listen to what they want just told them and left. Now maybe we are right ultimately but they dont agree.
Click to expand...
Ding Ding Ding.

This is what I failed to realize. No more.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

dxmnkd316 said:
That would be an interesting scenario. I would think there should be a way to make exceptions in cases like this where they clearly have passed a background check. However, how do we know their CCP is still valid? The card alone isn't useful unless there's a website to determine if it is. BUt I'm not sure how that would be any different than running a background check.
Click to expand...

Someone will have to make an app.
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

bigblue_dl said:
To slightly change the subject. Did anyone listen to Trump's acceptance speech? To me, he said all the right things, and really departed from what we've seen throughout the election. Can we actually believe him? I doubt it, but I was surprised with how he actually came across during that speech.
Click to expand...

He was playing nice-nice until Hillary came out and gave her conciliation speech. ;)
 
Re: Campaign 2016 Part XXV: Fin

FlagDUDE08 said:
Certainly can't do much worse than the divider-in-chief Marxist that's in there now.
Click to expand...

You talk about how the globalists control us.

Then you spout the very thing they put in your head to do it.

Bravo.
 
dxmnkd316 said:
That would be an interesting scenario. I would think there should be a way to make exceptions in cases like this where they clearly have passed a background check. However, how do we know their CCP is still valid? The card alone isn't useful unless there's a website to determine if it is. BUt I'm not sure how that would be any different than running a background check.
Click to expand...

It doesn't matter that you both can lawfully have guns. That wasn't part of how the law was written at all. The law didn't pass so doesn't matter now.

As an aside, it is upsetting that Bloomberg could attempt to buy a law in a state that as far as I'm aware he doesn't have any ties to. I think we all can agree that there needs to be major changes as far as money in politics goes. I know there are first amendment issues but certainly something can be done.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top