Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism

Legislature Resists Background Checks for Guns

18 states require them, 85% of state residents support them, but Walker, GOP resist.

Elvin Daniel, brother of Zina Haughton, is seen at his home in McHenry, Ill. Daniel has become an outspoken activist for what he calls "sensible gun laws" — including universal background checks — since his sister was killed in a mass shooting at a Brookfield, Wis. spa in 2012. The perpetrator, her estranged husband, was legally prohibited from buying a gun. Photo by Coburn Dukehart of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

Elvin Daniel, brother of Zina Haughton, is seen at his home in McHenry, Ill. Daniel has become an outspoken activist for what he calls “sensible gun laws” — including universal background checks — since his sister was killed in a mass shooting at a Brookfield, Wis. spa in 2012. The perpetrator, her estranged husband, was legally prohibited from buying a gun. Photo by Coburn Dukehart of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

On a Sunday afternoon nearly four years ago, Elvin Daniel was in his garden when he got a call from police: His sister, Zina Haughton, had been shot at work.

Zina’s abusive husband, Radcliffe Haughton, used a semiautomatic handgun that he bought from a man in the parking lot of a fast-food restaurant in Germantown the day before the shooting. He killed Zina DHaughton, Maelyn Lind and Cary Robuck and wounded four others at the Azana Salon & Spa in the Milwaukee suburb of Brookfield. He then used the weapon to kill himself.

Zina Daniel Haughton, 42, left behind two daughters, ages 20 and 13.

Daniel, who owns a gun, said he was shocked that his late brother-in-law was able to buy a firearm despite a judge’s order prohibiting Radcliffe Haughton from possessing a gun.

“We started to find out that people actually can get guns without a background check,” said Daniel, who lives in Illinois, where all gun purchasers must pass a background check. “As naive as I was back then, I thought because I go through a background check, everybody did. So we start to find out about all these loopholes that we have in our laws.”

Since his sister’s death, Daniel has pushed lawmakers to expand criminal background checks beyond licensed dealers to private sellers, such as those who advertise on Armslist. That is where Haughton found the seller of the gun he used in the mass shooting.

“I mean, the day before that (shooting), I was one of those that says, ‘You know what, leave me and my guns alone,’ ” Daniel said. “I still feel that, but I believe that everybody should go through a background check when they buy a gun to keep guns out of (the hands of) people that shouldn’t have them.”

Zina Haughton was murdered by her estranged husband in 2012 with a gun he purchased illegally from a private seller who advertised on Armslist.com. At the time, Radcliffe Haughton was legally prohibited from purchasing a gun because of a domestic-violence restraining order. Photo by Coburn Dukehart of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

Zina Haughton was murdered by her estranged husband in 2012 with a gun he purchased illegally from a private seller who advertised on Armslist.com. At the time, Radcliffe Haughton was legally prohibited from purchasing a gun because of a domestic-violence restraining order. Photo by Coburn Dukehart of the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism.

Zina Haughton’s daughter, Yasmeen Daniel, was at the salon and saw her mother shot to death. Her stepfather also tried to shoot at her, but Daniel was saved when Lind stepped in front of her.

She is now suing Armslist, charging the website facilitated the illegal gun purchase that led to her mother’s death. Armslist has asked a Milwaukee County Circuit judge to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that under Wisconsin law, the company cannot be held liable for the actions of people who advertise on its site.

Eighteen states plus the District of Columbia have expanded background checks beyond federal law to include at least some private sales. Two more states — Nevada and Maine — have expanded background checks on the ballot this fall.

Background checks proven, popular

A Marquette Law School Poll this year found 85 percent of registered voters in Wisconsin, including 84 percent who have guns in their homes, say they support closing the private-sale loophole. A CNN poll in June showed 92 percent of respondents nationwide favored expanded background checks.

Officials in Milwaukee are working with community leaders and nonprofit groups on a plan to reduce gun violence. A top recommendation: Expand criminal background checks to private gun sales. (That initiative is partially funded by The Joyce Foundation, which also provides funding for the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism’s coverage of gun violence prevention issues.)

Milwaukee Police Chief Edward Flynn said expanding background checks to private sellers would not cure all of Milwaukee’s violence, but it would be a step.

“Background checks for private party gun sales would add another layer of oversight that may help keep guns out of the hands of those prohibited from possessing guns,” Flynn said in an email.

But Republicans who run Wisconsin state government have blocked attempts to require background checks on purchases from private sellers. That position is shared by the National Rifle Association, the nation’s most powerful gun lobby, which spent $3.6 million to support Republicans and conservative candidates in Wisconsin between 2008 and 2014, according to the Wisconsin Democracy Campaign.

A 1997 study estimated that 40 percent of U.S. guns are obtained outside of federally licensed gun stores. Updated research from Harvard University and Northeastern University includes soon-to-be published findings that roughly one-third of gun acquisitions today occur outside of such licensed dealers.

Ted Alcorn, research director, Everytown for Gun Safety. Photo courtesy of Everytown for Gun Safety.

Ted Alcorn, research director, Everytown for Gun Safety. Photo courtesy of Everytown for Gun Safety.

Expanding background checks to private sales is the “most promising” strategy to prevent gun violence, said Ted Alcorn, research director for Everytown for Gun Safety, the nation’s largest gun violence prevention advocacy organization. The group, which began as Mayors Against Illegal Guns, is bankrolled by Michael Bloomberg, the former New York City mayor and gun-control advocate. Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett helped co-found the organization.

Firearm violence includes two elements, Alcorn said: a gun and a person who poses a high risk of causing harm with it. Background checks act as a gatekeeper, he said, preventing individuals at risk of harming others from accessing guns.

“Criminologists and law enforcement officers say this is … the biggest weakness with the gun laws that we currently have in place because it leaves an open door for prohibited people like convicted felons and domestic abusers to buy firearms without a background check, no questions asked,” Alcorn said.

Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis, has studied various policies for more than 30 years and agrees universal background checks are among the most effective at preventing gun violence.

Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis, says requiring universal background checks is among the most effective strategies to reduce gun violence. Photo courtesy of the University of California Regents.

Dr. Garen Wintemute, director of the Violence Prevention Research Program at the University of California-Davis, says requiring universal background checks is among the most effective strategies to reduce gun violence. Photo courtesy of the University of California Regents.

Daniel Webster, director of the Johns Hopkins Center for Gun Policy and Research, also has studied background checks. Webster and his fellow researchers found that Connecticut saw a 40 percent drop in the firearm homicide rate over a decade after universal background checks were enacted. In contrast, when Missouri repealed such a law in 2007, firearm homicide rates rose 23 percent, Webster has found.

The permit-to-purchase laws implemented in Connecticut and repealed in Missouri require buyers to pass background checks and get a license from a state or local police agency to buy a firearm. Some states require a permit for all firearms and some only for handguns. In some states, permit holders must first go through safety training or an exam.

Another Webster study found levels of illegal gun trafficking were about half in cities where the state required background checks for private handgun sales.

But a University of Pittsburgh study this year discovered that most criminals found ways around laws aimed at keeping guns out of their hands. Researchers traced the origins of 893 firearms recovered by Pittsburgh police in 2008. The study found 79 percent of perpetrators were not the legal owner of the firearm used in the crime — bolstering the gun-rights argument that laws do not stop criminals who want guns. Pennsylvania requires background checks for all handgun purchases.

NRA spokeswoman Catherine Mortensen said these types of laws are tantamount to “criminalization of the private transfer of firearms.”

“These gun control laws criminalize the commonplace practices of law-abiding gun owners,” Mortensen said in a written statement. “By imposing government mandates and fees they cost law-abiding gun owners time, money and freedom.”

Mortensen cited work by economist John Lott, Jr. In his 2016 book, “The War on Guns, Arming Yourself Against Gun Control Lies,” Lott writes that data from all 50 states from 1977 to 2005 shows murders were 49 percent higher and robberies were 75 percent higher in states with expanded background checks.

Lott is founder and president of Crime Prevention Research Center, a Colorado nonprofit that studies the relationship between gun policy and public safety. The center says it receives no funding from the NRA.

Lott’s influential studies have been disputed by some academics for faulty statistical analysis and allegedly fabricated research. And he has acknowledged posing as “Mary Rosh,” a former student, in posts praising his own teaching and research. Lott has likewise criticized Webster’s research, accusing him of cherry-picking in the study of Missouri’s repealed law.

Republicans mum on checks

In emotional testimony before a U.S. Senate committee in 2014, Elvin Daniel described himself as “a Republican, an avid hunter (and) a gun owner” who is “a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, and an NRA member.” Nevertheless, he urged the senators to pass universal background checks and make some “good come out of (Zina’s) death.”

“It is heartbreaking to know that our weak gun laws continue to allow dangerous abusers to buy guns without a background check,” he said.

The argument failed to sway any Republican senators. Two years later, on June 20 after a gunman killed 49 people and wounded 53 others at an Orlando, Florida nightclub, a Senate filibuster and vote resulted in a 56-44 largely party-line vote against expanded background checks. Wisconsin’s Republican Sen. Ron Johnson voted no; Democratic Sen. Tammy Baldwin voted yes.

On June 23, House Democrats staged a sit-in to try to force a vote on a measure to expand background checks and another that would have prohibited people on no-fly lists, including the Orlando shooter, from buying guns. Republican Speaker Paul Ryan of Wisconsin blocked that effort, calling it a “publicity stunt.”

In Wisconsin — where an epidemic of gun violence fueled by illegally obtained firearms is raging in Milwaukee — lawmakers have avoided voting on background checks. Bills introduced by Democrats to expand background checks in recent sessions have died without a hearing.

Republican Gov. Scott Walker has said he opposes expanding background checks. In a written response to questions from the Wisconsin Center for Investigative Journalism, Walker spokesman Tom Evenson said Wisconsin already requires background checks; he did not address the issue of private sales, which require no such scrutiny.

Other top Republicans are mum on why the Legislature has declined to consider expanding background checks.

Assembly Speaker Robin Vos, R-Rochester, did not respond to emails seeking comment.

Email and phone messages sent to Rep. Joel Kleefisch, R-Oconomowoc, chairman of the Assembly Committee on Criminal Justice and Public Safety, also were not returned. He told Wisconsin Public Radio in 2015 that he opposed the Democrats’ bill but gave no explanation.

Article Continues - Pages: 1 2

142 thoughts on “Legislature Resists Background Checks for Guns”

  1. Gary says:

    “Legislature Resists Background Checks”
    Isn’t the current news popping up around the current political campaign showing us that there’s a need for more careful background checks on legislators at all levels? Oh! Certainly in gun purchase transactions as well.

  2. Penrod says:

    “Illinois, where all gun purchasers must pass a background check”

    Yeah, riiiiiight. ALL the people gunning down other people in Chicago passed that background check, didn’t they?

    Uh huh.

    When do the control freaks get it through their superior heads that criminals don’t and won’t comply with your virtuous laws? That is why they are called ‘criminals’.

    The people who comply with your laws are the ones we don’t need to worry about. We are called ‘law-abiding’.

  3. Vincent Hanna says:

    60% of the guns used to commit crimes in Illinois are purchased in other states with way more lenient gun laws.

    Why have any laws at all? I mean criminals don’t care, so let’s just get rid of them entirely.

  4. Penrod says:

    Vincent Hannah: “Why have any laws at all?”

    I suspect you did not mean that seriously, but it is a good question.

    What do gun laws -aside from those prohibiting violent felons to possess guns and criminal misuse of any deadly weapon- actually accomplish?

    They make their proponents feel good about themselves, of course, but what do they actually do to reduce criminal violence? And the corollary : What do they do to increase victimization by disarming innocent people?

    The data on self-protection is unclear, but apparently people use guns to prevent or stop violent crimes anywhere from a few hundred thousand times per year to over two million times per year. Even at the low end, that is a non-trivial number.

    The states which have eliminated the requirement for a concealed carry license have not seen any increase in violent crime by people who carry guns. Even those states which have legalized adults carrying concealed handguns on college campuses have seen no related increase.

    So what DO gun control laws accomplish, and why have these laws which apparently do no good, yet do some harm?

    You are, of course, welcome to denounce me as a slavering, knuckle dragging, neo-Nazi gun nut, but please recall that while the Nazis were in favor of Aryan Germans having guns, they used the Weimar gun registration lists to disarm German Jews. I suppose there are some who think that was a step in the right direction, but I am not among them.

  5. Vincent Hanna says:

    What innocent people are being disarmed? It’s an NRA perpetuated myth that people are coming for their guns. That is just not true. It’s fear-mongering nonsense.

    You quote NRA statistics are if they are facts. They are not. http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/04/15/defensive-gun-use/?_r=0

    I don’t think someone repeating NRA talking points is going to care about anything I have to say on this issue, but I fail to see how something like universal background checks on all gun purchases is excessive gun control.

  6. Vincent Hanna says:

    “So what conclusions can we draw from this? The notion that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun is a romanticized vision of the nature of violent crime. And that the sea of guns in which we live causes exponentially more danger and harm than good.” http://www.latimes.com/opinion/opinion-la/la-ol-guns-self-defense-charleston-20150619-story.html

  7. Penrod says:

    Vincent Hannah: “I fail to see how something like universal background checks on all gun purchases is excessive gun control.”

    Forget ‘excessive’. It doesn’t work. Period. Criminals don’t do background checks on each other when selling, renting, or lending guns, and making private transaction subject to background checks won’t change that. If you think it does, take a look at Chicago. The guns used in Chicago murders are not being subjected to background checks in Chicago, are they? No, they are not.

    Once guns are in the illegal trade, they are not subject to background checks any more than illegal drugs are. Think the drug pushers say “Hey, man, gotta see your prescription for heroin before I can transfer this horse to you. It’s the law”?

    IOW: The people we should worry about aren’t subject to background checks.

  8. Reginald Hafner says:

    Back ground checks accomplish nothing but put money into the coffers of the state. Maybe the dimwit Democrats have a problem understanding that criminals do not fill out ATF Form 4473 when they purchase firearms from each other or will they ever. Just more hot air from left wing nuts.

  9. Vincent Hanna says:

    Thank you for making a mature and reasonable contribution to this discussion Reginald, and avoiding childish insults and name-calling. You rarely see that when the topic is contentious like this one.

  10. Vincent Hanna says:

    For serious though, Elvin Daniel, the brother of a Brookfield salon shooting victim is quoted in a story I saw in today’s JS. he says he is a Republican, gun owner, and ardent 2nd Amendment supporter. He wants gun owners to basically be “left alone.” But he also supports expanding background checks beyond licensed dealers to private sellers. What’s wrong with that? Of course it won’t stop everyone who wants one from getting a gun, but so what? It won’t stop people like Elvin Daniel from getting firearms, and it might prevent gun crimes.

  11. Reginald Hafner says:

    Hanna you must be a delusional Democrat who actually thinks gun free zones a effective , disarmed citizens insure a crime free society and the NY Times is an intelligent reliable dource.

    Reality check. Gun free zones insure a target rich area of unarmed victims ready to be slaughtered. Where as armed citizens are extremely effective in countering criminals. Also the NY Times is nothing but a left wing rag filled with unsubstiantef fodder for the simple minded. In contrast the NRA puts forth documented facts that you and your ilk can’t comprehend as it goes against your liberal indoctrination. If gun control was effective Chicago would be a crime free area. Try researching facts instead of reading liberal bovine manure.

  12. Vincent Hanna says:

    This is why talking about this issue is nearly impossible. I didn’t say anything about gun free zones and I do not support “disarming citizens.” I don’t know how a discussion of background checks shifted to gun free zones, which no one mentioned. Hate the NY Times all you want, but if you think the NRA only deals in facts, well, I have a bridge in Alaska for sale, and it’s a great deal. Let’s discuss.

  13. Reginald Hafner says:

    And if you think the NY Times is a pillor of facts I have some ocean front property in Colorado How about posting some of these so imagined fibs by the NRA. BTW universal background checks would require 100% registration to be enforced. Also no background check is actually done , just a records check which is full of misidentifications. Again, criminals and terrorists would not comply . Get real !

  14. happyjack27 says:

    I agree with Reginald, we shouldn’t have laws because criminals are just going to break them anyways.

    Vincent – you mention a bridge. We talking a full-fledged shore-to-shore bridge? I’m interested…

  15. Vincent Hanna says:

    I never called the NY Times a “pillar of facts.” On the other hand you did say “the NRA puts forth documented facts.” But why did you immediately get so hostile here? Right away you’re throwing around insults and accusing people of being sheep. I don’t get that. Why?

    Post NRA Fibs? How much time do you have? Do you really even care or will you accuse every source of bias? Try this I guess. http://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html Or this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/11/the-morning-plum-the-nras-big-lies/?utm_term=.48513b817f01

    That some people will never comply with laws is not a reason to just not have them.

  16. Vincent Hanna says:

    Some more lies, including some about “gun free zones”: http://www.vox.com/2016/8/30/12700222/nra-social-scientist-claims-debunked

    I love that Lott has admitted to posing as a female student and posting positive comments about his own work. Priceless.

  17. Rich says:

    The TRUTH about the “supremacy clause” – our Constitution does not delegate to the national government authority to restrict our arms, ammunition, regulate firearms dealers, do background checks, etc. The national government may not lawfully circumvent this restriction by means of a treaty wherein the signatory governments agree to disarm their Citizens or Subjects.

  18. Rich says:

    Dear NRA…..
    STOP “negotiating” excuses to INFRINGE on OUR RIGHTS.
    If there must be background checks, let’s try this idea…
    Are there any ‘legislators’ that are interested in a CONSTITUTIONAL BACKGROUND CHECK?
    Since SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED means exactly that..

    Let’s try a “Background Check” that DOES NOT INFRINGE on anybodies RIGHTS…

    A FULL, IN DEPTH background check for ALL Politicians, Bureaucrats, and ALL government employees, and set MINIMAL INTELLIGENCE, JOB SKILLS AND CHARACTER QUALITIES that must be met before they can run for office, be appointed of hired.

    That way, WE, THE PEOPLE, get a much better class of politicians and bureaucrats, as well as EMPLOYEES that can be trained to do the jobs they are being hired for.

    Any bets on how hard the political class will fight to prevent it?

    THAT would be a Background Check that nearly ALL AMERICAN CITIZENS will support.
    and I don’t much care if the illegals and their sycophants don’t like the idea.

  19. Barry Hirsh says:

    Please tell me how any law could have prevented that transaction from taking place?

    No law will stop the criminal acquisition of firearms before the fact, laws can only punish bad behavior after it has occurred.

    Hence, the laws these misguided people wish to impose would serve only to burden people who don’t commit criminal acts.

    This logic is always answered with a “Yes, BUT…”

    There is no “but”. The government has no business enacting laws that have no chance of achieving the promised effect, particularly if said laws punish people that have committed no crimes.

  20. Vincent Hanna says:

    I get a background check and have to wait 24 hours to adopt a dog. Is conducting a background check on a private gun sale really an undue burden and punishing the innocent?

  21. Reginald Hafner says:

    You keep dodging the question . What are the falsely named background checks going to accomplish? Universal back checks only serve as a reason to establish a national firearms owner registry. We have had so called background checks in place for years and their effectiveness is defonately suspect.

    Stop making yourself look foolish by referencing blogs and editorial opinions as facts.

  22. Vincent Hanna says:

    I am “defonately” not foolish! Ah yes attack the sources and not their content. As I said, you will bash whatever sources I share, no matter what, regardless of what information they contain, and that’s exactly what you’ve done. So congratulations for being boring and predictable.

  23. Reginald Hafner says:

    Hanna, your sources are politically motivated, void of substance and tainted with bias. If you allow others to lead you around by the nose that is your problem . There are over 2000 so called gun control laws on the books that have done nothing to curb terrorist or criminal activity. There were no firearms used at Boston, Oklahoma or NYC on 9/11. Have a nice day.

  24. AG says:

    “Private” firearm transactions are no different than buying from a store… those are also private sales after all since the stores are not government owned. I am like most reasonable people who support gun rights and think background checks to help prevent guns being purchased by people who are not allowed by law to own them are a reasonable measure and no different that background checks that already take place.

  25. Vincent Hanna says:

    Holy irony Batman! You cite the NRA and then accuse my sources of political motivations. Your nose must be in excruciating pain.

  26. Vincent Hanna says:

    Thanks AG. I think it’s important to point out that both can exist. One can support gun rights and background checks. Some seem to believe that isn’t possible.

  27. Penrod says:

    Vincent Hannah: “The notion that a good guy with a gun will stop a bad guy with a gun is a romanticized vision of the nature of violent crime.”

    Who do you think prevented the Texas Tower sniper from killing more people? Try: Professors and students with deer rifles. Once they accessed their rifles in offices and cars, they had the cretin pinned down. He survived another hour or so, but he didn’t kill anyone after they started shooting back.

  28. Rich says:

    Facts That Disprove Everything Liberals Say About Gun Control – The Last Great Stand

    The Left is focused on taking guns away from law abiding Americans. How are they focusing their effort? By telling lies, six of which are are listed below, and disprove just about every liberal talking point they have on guns.
    The Left in government are very much “pro-gun,” as long as they have the guns. Those same leftists however, are very much against people they want complete control over having guns. Make the distinction.
    If you want to actually learn something about guns, the mainstream media is the last place you’ll want to look. The American public’s perception of the firearms debate has been completely warped by the media already.
    1. Background Checks Do Not Stop High Profile Attackers
    3. AR-15s Are Not “Automatic” Rifles
    4. Guns Are Legally Used For Self-Defense Purposes Approximately 760,000 A Year
    5. Gun-Free Zones Are Killing Fields


  29. Penrod says:

    Vincent Hannah: “Is conducting a background check on a private gun sale really an undue burden and punishing the innocent?”

    Yes, it is, because only the people we don’t have to worry about will submit to them.

    “Universal” Background check is a deliberate lie by it’s professional advocates. They know full well that criminals will not submit to the so-called “universal” checks, so the checks are not, and are not intended to be, universal. They apply ONLY to the law-abiding.

    If you think criminals will submit to universal background checks before private transfers, PLEASE explain why you think that is the case, because I see no mechanism by which that would occur.

    Of course, perhaps we should have universal background checks for pot purchases. That would keep minors from getting pot. Right?

  30. Vincent Hanna says:

    Come on Penrod. Get serious. First of all, the sniper killed what 15 or 16 people? Second, one anecdote from 50 years ago is your evidence? Seriously? You are fringe on this. It’s one of the few issues with broad support from both Republicans and Democrats. You can return to the NRA message boards now. I’m sure that’s where Rich’s fear-mongering came from.

  31. AG says:

    Currently straw buyers can purchase guns and then sell them to people who are not lawfully allowed to own a gun and the burden of proof is on the state to prove they knew they were selling to someone they shouldn’t have. If there were background checks on private sales, it would be easy to prove they knew OR they could be nabbed for selling w/o a back round check. Either of those outcomes, after the background check for private sales is in place, would help deter selling to those who can not legally own them.

    We can take it further and if a straw buyer gets caught, then they should no longer be allowed to purchase a firearm as well. While this won’t solve issues with black market guns being sold to criminals, it does help take a bite out of new guns entering the black market.

    Any law abiding citizen who is selling their firearm privately, I’d guess, does not want to sell their gun to someone who is barred by law from owning one. So they should, as I do, welcome the background check requirement.

  32. Vincent Hanna says:

    “Any law abiding citizen who is selling their firearm privately, I’d guess, does not want to sell their gun to someone who is barred by law from owning one.”

    That’s exactly what some private sellers say in the JS story. They are fine with background checks because they are legit and they don’t want criminals getting their guns.

  33. Rich says:

    You’ve got to be defecating me. John Brown, NFATCA snitch and ATF toady, is nominated for NRA national board?!?
    Long-time readers may recall past posts on the subject of John Brown, NFATCA snitch and ATF toady, here, “John Brown’s Reputation Lies A-Moulderin’ in the Grave, But His Venality Goes Marchin’ On (In service to his federal masters)” as well as his participation in “The True Story of the Life of “R.A. Bear”: Inception & impregnation into the minds of the ATF via a highly placed snitch named Dan Shea of the NFATCA.”
    That’s enough embarrassment for a lifetime, one would think, but now we learn that this guy is absolutely shameless. Of all the unmitigated gall, ATF’s second-best friend in the NFATCA wants to be an NRA director!
    So, all you NRA folks, if you want to put in a director whose testicles are already in an ATF lock box, by all means, vote for John Brown. I’m sure he will get along well with LaPierre, Cox and all the other sellout Lairds of Fairfax.

  34. Rich says:

    If the government can revoke your right to access firearms simply because it has decided to place you on a secret, notoriously inaccurate list, it could presumably restrict your other rights in a similar manner. You could be forbidden from advocating for causes you believe in, or associating with like-minded activists; your right against intrusive, unreasonable searches could be suspended. And you would have no recourse: The government could simply declare that, as a name on a covert list, you are owed no due process at all.

    President Obama and Hillary Clinton are wrong to think that arbitrary lists are a valid and legal means of stripping Americans of their gun rights.

    It would be nice if the Republican Party had chosen as its standard-bearer someone who could articulate the conservative case for the Second Amendment and due process. Instead, it chose Trump. Now gun rights will be in jeopardy, no matter which of the two charlatans currently seeking the presidency prevails.

    reason .com

  35. AG says:

    Vincent, guns are used for self defense or as a deterrent to crime quite often. This Bloomberg article does a surprisingly fair assessment of the argument and points to anywhere from tens of thousands to 2 million instances a year. The number is obviously somewhere in between… but for gun owners it’s less about the statistics and more about having an option to give themselves a fighting chance if they need it. In a word where we can rarely rely on cops as anything other than a post-incident investigation force, this gives people a feeling there is something they can do personally… even if odds are still against them.

  36. Rich says:

    The federal government has no constitutional authority to make ANY laws dictating who may and who may not carry arms; or under what circumstances people may and may not carry arms across State borders! Arms control of the people is not an enumerated power!

    video on arms, here it is: https://vimeo.com/60944105

    State concealed carry laws which require a “permit” is an idea crafted in the pits of hell. The real purpose is to register gun owners! People think it is so cool to have a permit for concealed carry – they don’t understand that it is like the free sample of heroin.

  37. Penrod says:

    Hi AG: Currently, straw buyers are already committing felonies by buying guns for prohibited persons. It is ALREADY a felony. Straw purchases are ALREADY a felony. Straw purchasers are not buying legally, then illegally turning over the gun to a felon. Buying the gun is itself a felony if the intent is to turn it over to a felon. Turning it over to a felon is a separate felony already. Separate: As in these are two different acts, both of which are ALREADY felonies.

    If a straw buyer is caught, they ALREADY are prohibited from buying a gun in the future, because they are now felons.

    Yes, straw buyers “can” currently buy guns for others, but by doing so they ARE committing a felony for each gun.

    Again, I’d love to know what mechanism of “universal” checks will induce criminals to submit to “universal” checks when they acquire a gun from another criminal. How does that work, exactly?

  38. Vincent Hanna says:

    They are coming for your guns Rich! Get back in the underground shelter. Hurry.

  39. Vincent Hanna says:

    AG I know there are instances of guns used for self-defense. I never said it doesn’t happen and I also never said I oppose people’s right to have a gun for self-defense. Not sure why you think otherwise. I found it amusing that his concrete proof of guns routinely being used in self-defense was something that happened 50 years ago in an incident that resulted in the loss of 15 lives.

  40. AG says:

    Rich, there are plenty of laws that do not fall under the enumerated powers that were supported by both parties. Further, while a right is guaranteed by the constitution it does not mean those rights are unlimited. From voting rights, property rights and freedom of speech there are always certain reasonable limitations that are allowed. The second amendment is not special.

  41. AG says:

    Penrod, yes it is against the law for a straw buyer to knowingly buy a firearm with the intent to sell it to a felon. However, that’s next to impossible to enforce. A background check helps provide a tool to actually enforce it or at least provide another tool to stop straw buyers.

  42. Rich says:

    Hanna – We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

  43. Vincent Hanna says:

    Ha. You’re on of those people. No worries Rich. I won’t tread on you.

  44. Rich says:

    Hanna – The common meme among the leftist gun grabbers is that “no one is going to take away your guns”. But it has always been obvious to people who actually think in any rational and sane manner that that is the ultimate goal of all Democratic party politicians, and, sadly some Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and several others we all know about….chip chip

  45. Rich says:

    Hanna – Cuomo pushed his “Safe Act” through in the dark of night and is now terrified to even pretend to enforce it. He can’t possibly arrest and jail a million taxpayers, there aren’t enough Brown Shirts in his personal Select Militia. He knows that if he tries to order his troops to kick down doors and seize the weapons he thinks look scary that it will result in people getting killed to “keep them safe” and he probably would not survive the results in public opinion or personally. If he started having people killed Bill Clinton’s “Rules of Engagement” would come into play.

  46. Vincent Hanna says:

    I don’t think that’s obvious at all. It’s an NRA talking point used for political means (and it’s been effective as many believe it no questions asked). No one wants to confiscate guns. There’s no proof that the end goal of “leftists” is taking everyone’s guns.

  47. AG says:

    Rich, I too believe that it’s possible for there to be an Australia or Great Britain style confiscation for which we should be staunchly opposed. However, the need to oppose such actions does not preclude us from enacting any rational form of gun control. So while I oppose such measures as “gun free” zones and other measures that make little rational sense, there is still value in requiring background checks for “private” sales.

  48. happyjack27 says:

    That sounds very rational and sane, Rich. Doesn’t sound paranoid at all. Nope, not one bit.

  49. Vincent Hanna says:

    Brown shirts? Killing people? OK. Now I am scared. Of you and anyone else who believes that stuff. Please don’t hurt me.

  50. Vincent Hanna says:

    Come on AG. It’s possible for a reality TV show host to become president. Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen. There’s isn’t widespread political support or will for gun confiscation in this country. It’s fear-mongering to suggest otherwise.

  51. Rich says:

    AG – define ‘rational’ gun control….

    New Yorks 1,000,000 new illegal gun owners.. REFUSED TO REGISTER THEIR WEAPONS..
    One million plus new felons, all armed with scary, high capacity, assault weapons!

    The deadline for New York residents to register their so called “Assault Weapons” and “High” (read standard) Capacity Magazines came and went.

    An estimated million plus, formerly law abiding, gun owners have refused to comply with Cuomo and down state Democrat’s naive belief that the NY Safe Act, passed in a so called emergency session of the New York legislature, could force free people to register their hard earned property.

    And who can blame these once lawful gun owners, with a president that picks and chooses which laws he will follow or enforce, as well as an Federal Attorney General that operates daily with a Contempt of Congress charge and gun running scandal, “Fast & Furious”, hanging over his head. Why should the average New York joe, bother to follow the law, especially when it is in direct conflict with the Constitution of the United States, the one true law of the land.

  52. AG says:

    If people would stop saying we should ban all guns then I’ll believe you when you say no one wants to ban all guns. However, at this time you have many politicians and other “leaders (aka Matt Damon or other such non-nonsensical “leaders”) saying we should.

  53. AG says:

    Rich, that would not be considered rational to me since it would do nothing to curb gun violence. Meanwhile, background checks can prevent guns from getting into criminal hands while not putting any more burden on law abiding gun purchasers then they already go through when making a purchase at a store.

  54. happyjack27 says:

    “Hollywood actor Matt Damon used a press conference in Australia over the Fourth of July weekend to discuss his desire for a massive confiscation of U.S. guns.
    “You guys did it here in one fell swoop [in 1996] and I wish that could happen in my country, but it’s such a personal issue for people that we cannot talk about it sensibly,” Mr. Damon said during a promotional engagement in Sydney for the movie “Jason Bourne.”
    The action star went on to say people get too “emotional” when it comes to “not selling AK47s to people on terror watchlists.”
    Mr. Damon also discussed the Dec. 12, 2012, massacre in Newtown, Connecticut, where 20-year-old Adam Lanza stole his mother’s legal weapons, killed her and then did the same to 20 children at Sandy Hook Elementary School.
    “Obviously, mass shootings aren’t going to do it. There have been so many of them at this point. Sandy Hook, when those children were murdered, if that didn’t do it, you know, I just don’t know. Maybe we just need to evolve further before we can have that conversation, I don’t know,” Mr. Damon said, the Sydney Morning Herald reported Sunday.”

    THAT?!? — That’s why you’re bat-shit paranoid?!? REALLY?!?

  55. Vincent Hanna says:

    Matt Damon isn’t an elected official last I checked. I am not saying no one has called for a ban on all guns. I am saying it isn’t a mainstream idea. It doesn’t have wide support. It hasn’t been fully and enthusiastically embraced by a party and its leaders. Just because a few loons have called for banning all Muslims from coming to America while sending the ones here out of this country doesn’t mean that’s a popular idea that could possibly become reality. Same principle.

  56. happyjack27 says:

    No it goes like this:

    Joe is a sheep.
    Joe is black.
    Therefore, all sheep are black.

    Seems legit.

  57. AG says:

    HappyJack, I believe I was making fair and reasonable arguments. Feel free to disagree with me, but I’m disappointed that you need to jump to insults as your first response.

  58. happyjack27 says:

    Oh sorry I did that wrong:

    Joe is a sheep.
    Joe made an offhand reference to gray things, for the sake of comparison.
    Therefore, all sheep are black.

  59. happyjack27 says:

    I’m not going to jump to insults, AG. Ad hominem arguments aren’t really my style.

  60. AG says:

    Vincent, out of curiosity, if it were up to you in your ideal world, would guns be against the law for a private citizen to own? (or any variation of outlawing certain guns while allowing some if you wish, whatever your heart desires)

  61. AG says:

    You already did, Jack.

  62. Rich says:

    AG – Paperwork Can’t Stop Criminals From Getting Guns – Reason.com


  63. happyjack27 says:

    AG I think you are confusing mockery with insults.

    What I did was mockery. I was mocking your obvious logical fallacies.

  64. Vincent Hanna says:

    All of the conspiracy spewing nonsense and talk of brown shirts coming to get people and that’s what you ask when I made it clear I do not support gun bans? Did you just not read that? I don’t know about you sometimes AG.

  65. happyjack27 says:

    AG, you realize that in THIS world many guns ARE against the law for a private citizen, right?

    See anyone carrying around bazooka’s, howitzers?

  66. AG says:

    Oh Jack, you didn’t realize mockery is a insult? I forgive you.

    Vincent I was just trying to understand your position. While you said in a reply to me earlier “…I never said I oppose people’s right to have a gun for self-defense” you also never said you didn’t oppose it. More importantly though, I wanted to know what your “ideal” world would be, not just what political stance you’ve taken on the subject. Just trying to understand your perspective is all.

  67. happyjack27 says:

    Vincent, I’m getting the sense that this is the first time you’ve been in one of the conversations.

    They ALWAYS digress into “you want to ban/take away all my guns” and stay there no matter what you do or say. Usually pretty quickly too. This one took a while — relatively, speaking, of course.

  68. Rich says:

    gun grabbers usually run to ‘everything is a conspiracy’ and it is bull****

    1,000,000 New York Patriots said NO!

  69. happyjack27 says:

    AG, you didn’t realize that mockery and insults are too different things? I forgive you.

  70. Rich says:

    ALL YOU indoctrinated statists just run from ‘SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED’

  71. Vincent Hanna says:

    Guilty Jack. I don’t have many conversations with the Don’t Tread On Me, conspiracy-minded gun rights crowd. They don’t post here often. Some have never posted here before that I’ve seen. So it is new to me.

    It’s the New England Patriots. Duh.

  72. happyjack27 says:

    Ideally people wouldn’t shoot people.

    But that’s not the world we live in.

    Ideally we’d have a congress that does something about it.

    But Republicans keep blocking everything and people keep voting those Republicans back in.

  73. Rich says:

    The common meme among the leftist gun grabbers is that “no one is going to take away your guns”. But it has always been obvious to people who actually think in any rational and sane manner that that is the ultimate goal of all Democratic party politicians, and, sadly some Republicans like Arnold Schwarzenegger, and several others we all know about…

  74. Vincent Hanna says:

    Do they take the guns before or after they put you in a FEMA camp? I always forget.

  75. happyjack27 says:

    See, Vincent? It’s like a broken record. There’s not even sentience. It just repeats.

  76. AG says:

    Why do you both act like banning lawful gun ownership is such a wild and crazy idea? They attempted to ban all handguns in Chicago and the difference of only 1 vote on the supreme court kept thousands of people from having to turn in their legally owned firearms. When we see Hillary elected as president this year and she creates a new anti-gun rights majority on the SCOTUS, there’s really nothing to stop cities and states from implementing this. We also see effective bans in many places by requiring licences and registrations that are exceedingly difficult to obtain and/or take a long time or a lot of effort on the part of the lawful gun owner.

  77. Vincent Hanna says:

    True enough. The alt-right crowd hasn’t posted much here in the past. I guess a story about guns changes that.

  78. AG says:

    Those were two separate things… banning the sale of handguns and separately requiring many lawful citizens to turn in their guns. The way I worded it was not good.

  79. Vincent Hanna says:

    AG you are heading down the rabbit hole man.

  80. Vincent Hanna says:

    Yes it wasn’t good.

  81. AG says:

    OK, I get it… you think it’s nuts. While I’m not like Rich here and think it’s imminent, believing it’s not possible to happen is very short sighted. There are many laws that a person in the past never thought would come to pass, but they have. Plus government is fleeting and ever evolving. You can only have such a hard stance for a moment in time because tomorrow can bring a new perspective.

    Anywho, back to the beginning. Background checks good. 😉

    And Jack, you were way cooler when all you really promoted here was your auto redistricting… your obsession with logical fallacies, fear of religion, and all the far left propaganda you’ve decided to believe and support is far less interesting, especially when you refuse to have actual conversations about the topics.

  82. Vincent Hanna says:

    I don’t believe a nationwide gun ban and confiscation of people’s guns is impossible. Just that it’s extremely unlikely and not to be taken seriously because typically it’s an argument made by the NRA and their supporters to instill fear and generate donations. I also don’t think we’re going to build a wall. Doesn’t mean it’s impossible.

  83. happyjack27 says:

    In contrast, I find your “Obama is going to take all our guns!” very novel and interesting. Please do go on.

    And you’re right, recognizing flaws in argumentation and being able to identify errors and think things through clearly and carefully is not important at all. We should all just blurt out the first things that comes to our mind without giving it any thought.

    And this far left “Science” and “Evidence” crap is so extreme and ridiculous. I hope you can find a more level-headed person to talk to.

  84. Rich says:

    you leftists believe the NRA is some kind of hero to the 2nd amendment – THEY ARE NOT!

    and AJ….I never said confiscation was ‘imminent’ but a chipping away of gun rights is happening!

    background checks are UNCONSTITUTIONAL…………

  85. AG says:

    Well then we’re probably not as far apart as this conversation would lead one to believe. However, there’s a larger discussion on the philosophies regarding individual rights and protecting those rights for the long time… but that is probably more far afield than we can go here and have it be meaningful.

  86. Rich says:

    Barry is not disarming the people but dont tell anyone that he would not like to..

    he his politicians working to incrementally disarm……..

  87. Vincent Hanna says:

    Hey Rich you can carry guns in national parks now. You can thank Obama for that.

  88. happyjack27 says:

    Rich, I was being sarcastic.

  89. AG says:

    Jack, don’t you have an Occupay Democrats discussion board to post on?

  90. happyjack27 says:

    Which is not the same as an insult, AG. Trying to stay ahead of things here.

    An insult would be like “obsessed”, or “far left propaganda you’ve decided to believe and support” or “you refuse to have actual conversations about the topics.” Those are ad hominem attacks. (which is a fallacy of irrelevance, lest you forget) (Not to be confused with mockery or sarcasm.)

    I hope we’ve cleared that up.

  91. AG says:

    So now you’re going to back to telling me that mockery is not insulting? K. Have a good night.

  92. Vincent Hanna says:

    Jeepers creepers up to 90+ comments. That is pretty rare here.

  93. happyjack27 says:

    A record, I suspect. Too bad it never went anywhere. Paranoia getting in the way, as usual with these convos. Amygdala hijack. Right-wing politicians and media thrive on it.

  94. Rich says:

    happyjack27: “Paranoia getting in the way, as usual with these convos. Amygdala hijack. Right-wing politicians and media thrive on it.”

    ok Mr happy… be specific!
    a leftist blaming politicians and media is as paranoid as anything else posted here!!!!!!!!

  95. happyjack27 says:

    Are you joking me?

    Turn on any right-wing radio show. Listen for 5 seconds.

  96. Rich says:

    so in your mind – commie talkers are different?

  97. happyjack27 says:

    And really?!? You call saying the obvious fact that GOP politicians and right-wig media are fear-mongering as a campaign strategy, you call that as paranoid as thinking Obama’s going to take away your guns?

    Wow, you have absolutely NO sense of proportion!

  98. happyjack27 says:

    “commie talkers ” That’s not a paranoid (and ridiculious and juvenille) comment. No, not at all.

  99. happyjack27 says:

    NPR and the Science channel are trying to brainwash you with their “moderation” and “slow and careful thinking” and “funding education” and “reporting on the actual news”.

    That’s not paranoid at all. No, you’re sounding saner and saner the more you talk.

    oh — and that was sarcasm again.

  100. Rich says:

    “Turn on any right-wing radio show. Listen for 5 seconds.”

    lets talk paranoia, Jackie

  101. happyjack27 says:

    Wait wait, you’re like “give me an example, that’s ridiculous.” Then I give you an example, and then you switch to a (rather ridiculous) “you as well” fallacy (ad hominem tu quoque ). Which is also moving the goal posts.

    Sorry, you already lost. You can’t move the goal posts with a fallacy of irrelevance after the point was already scored.

    You’re not discussing fairly. This isn’t a rational discussion. I’m done with it.

  102. Rich says:

    Barry and his friends would love to disarm – only few will admit it….

    we have covered this – youre a typical leftist going to extremes himself..

    Hillary Clinton Delegate Explains Her Deceptive Propaganda to Ban Guns
    Of course, much of what she said is no mystery. It has been common phraseology to say that one is for “common sense gun legislation.” The reality is that kind of talk is actually “communist gun legislation.”
    “Saying you want to ban guns altogether, that’s going to piss everybody off,” Clinton alternate delegate Mary Bayer told the undercover Project Veritas reporter.
    So, she reveals openly that this is the ultimate goal, not some common sense legislation. She realizes that it will not only upset people, but it is unlawful and this is the reason they try to deceive the people.”You have to take that sort of moderate… ‘We just wanna have common sense legislation so our children are safe!'” Bayer added. “You say sh*t like that, and then people will buy into it.”
    The real issue is that the Constitution gives absolutely zero authority for those in government to write legislation that restricts or bans the ability of citizens to keep and bear arms of any kind, including warships and tanks. So, Congress can write all the words they want to write and in the end, they are simply acting unlawfully and treasonous against the people they are supposed to be serving.


  103. happyjack27 says:

    More ad hominem.

    You are why you never get anywhere with conversations. Because you don’t know how to talk like an adult.

  104. Rich says:

    Happy – your side of the aisle is just as bad as the other…youre typical!

  105. Rich says:

    personal attacks are all you have…youre the distractor

  106. Rich says:

    Video – This particular lie also goes to show what a small man Obama is. He demonstrates minimal respect for propriety or occasion. It’s all politics all the time.

  107. Rich says:

    Joe Biden, in 2008: If Obama “tries to fool with my Beretta, he’s got a problem” – YouTube


  108. Rich says:

    Because this particular terrorist used a truck instead of a firearm to murder close to 100 victims, Obama’s standard propaganda pushing more gun control was obviously inappropriate for the occasion. So, on July 15, responding to the terror attack in Nice, France, Obama pushed a different but related agenda, instead arguing that the solution to terrorism, violence, and other problems is actually globalism. If you disagree with his radical prescription, Obama suggested you are with the terrorists.

  109. Rich says:

    before i go, Jackie:

    Somewhere along the way, science stopped being science and became a false religion. Today it claims absolute authority to define truth; and to charge Christians with being “anti-science” is the nuclear put-down.
    Serving an ideology, instead of searching out the true workings of the natural world, preoccupies contemporary science. Its agenda, simply put, is to have the whole human race ruled by “experts”—that is, statist politicians—guided by their venerated scientific advisers. Then they’ll stop Climate Change in its tracks, do away with Income Inequality, etc., etc., etc.


  110. Rich says:

    “Peer reviewed” science and acedemia is a LIE.. The main quality these frauds have that is
    allowing them to roll over Western civilization is uncontested Boldness..
    We didnt lose our Nation, we forfeited it..
    “Peer reviewed” science and academia is a LIE. Papers are published and certified as “peer reviewed” that have literally never been read by ANYONE, including the editors of the scientific journals. And yes, this echoes the fact that the so-called “laws” being passed and used to destroy civilization are likewise never actually read by anyone, most particularly the psychopath whore politicians who vote on them.

  111. READER says:

    Like my grandma would say when eating cheesecake. “my that’s Rich”

  112. Rich says:

    If liberals had wanted to ban air travel the way they want the Second Amendment repealed, they would have characterized 9/11 as “airplane violence.”
    Technically, yes Orlando was an example of gun violence. But as Power Line notes, “Democrats might just as well say that murder caused the murders.”
    Why not? It’s no more insane than the Obama Administration characterizing Nidal Hasan’s Fort Hood massacre as “workplace violence.” Moonbats

  113. reader says:

    Rich. A whale is not a Tree!!!! Don’t you go trying to spew some misconceived liberal propaganda. YOU can’t fool ME.

  114. Vincent Hanna says:

    Rich you have all these links from right-wing blogs at your fingertips? Are you just fully immersed in right-wing media? Charlie Sykes, of all people, talked about this recently. People only get information from sources that confirm their worldview. When a source they frequent challenges that worldview, instead of questioning their beliefs they swear off the source and look for another that just confirms what they want to believe. You appear to be doing that. You seek out right-wing blogs and only trust those sources. Anything else is biased and you dismiss.

  115. Rich says:

    Vincent Hanna – I look at them all but have little faith in these so-called right-wing sites…but
    I have no faith in the so-called leftist sites….


    PLEASE do not get back to everything is a conspiracy thing!!!!!!!!!!!

  116. Vincent Hanna says:

    You have little faith in them yet you repeatedly share links to them? Why? That doesn’t make much sense. So there are no trustworthy sources of information out there?

  117. Rich says:


    as i said, i have more faith in the conservative sites than the left….
    Ive been looking at both for a very long time

  118. Rich says:

    what are your sources? who do you buy into?

  119. Vincent Hanna says:

    How do you verify if nothing is trustworthy? What’s your process for doing that? Why do you think conservative sites are any less biased than liberal ones? They all have an agenda right?

  120. Vincent Hanna says:

    Do you really care what media I consume? You’ll say they are all liberal and biased. What’s the point?

  121. Rich says:

    Hanna – i posted my sources, now come clean with yours….stop hiding!!

    i do have friends around the country that are involved and see first hand what is going down……

  122. Vincent Hanna says:

    I am not hiding anything Richard. I’ve shared links here. I read the JS every day. I listen to lots of podcasts like On Point, On the Media, and To the Point. On the web I peruse the sites of the Washington Post and other daily papers.

    Friends around the country? Huh? I’m not sure what you’re talking about.

  123. Rich says:

    youre correct…the left….but JS?

  124. Vincent Hanna says:

    It’s the only daily paper here and I like reading a daily paper. No choice.

    Rich do you listen to those podcasts? I doubt it, so how in the hell could you know they are “the left?” You just label everything that isn’t talk radio, Fox News, or right-wing blogs “the left” don’t you, without a second thought?

  125. Rich says:


    you follow the left..Fox News is the phony right wing

  126. Rich says:

    Fox is owned by an open borders, gun control Rupert Murdoch…along with a saudi prince..

    talk radio is all controlled…have you checked out who owns iheart?

  127. Rich says:

    have you read on the CFR/CNP? many politicians, business and media are members – they hate borders!!

  128. A Bus Driver says:

    Gun Control Troll (surprise) haven’t seen one this wound up for a while.

  129. Rich says:

    still awake butt driver…..not close to being would up… as a matter of fact – i am only beginning!!

  130. Rich says:

    wound too

  131. Vincent Hanna says:

    So you admit that you are labeling programs you have never listened to and therefore know nothing about? OK then.

    Do you basically see every media entity being left or right? Objectivity is impossible? Every single one has a political bias? It’s only a matter of which direction the bias is?

    The other day I listened to a To The Point podcast on immigration and presidential politics. Four guests discussed the issue for about 35 minutes: a reporter for The Atlantic, a Trump supporter from the Center for Immigration Studies, a Republican political strategist, and a Professor of Political Studies. Where is the bias there? Don’t those guests indicate a fair discussion representing all sides of the immigration issue?

  132. Rich says:

    We can play who knows what your listening to gotta ya games but lets get to it…
    You can say you listen to all sides but youre only getting an establishment view..

    Do you know people on the border? have they been their all of their lives?
    I DO……I know US citizens with Mexican ancestry who are giving me the truth!!

  133. Vincent Hanna says:

    Yes I know it’s so foolish for someone to criticize you for judging things you have no knowledge of.

    You think a Trump supporter working for a right-wing think tank represents an establishment view? Who represents an anti-establishment view then?

  134. Rich says:

    Hanna – enough with the gotcha games…i asked you if youre familiar with the CFR/CNP and how Fox was associated – you ignored that!

    and yes..Trump wants to place the CFR President in his admin, i think to lead, including establishment Repubs…

    Trump is only saying what the so called conservatives want to hear…………

  135. Vincent Hanna says:

    Rich you’ve ignored plenty of my questions (and I am not playing gotcha games; you are judging things you literally have no knowledge of). Look at just what I’ve posted this morning. I’ve asked a bunch of questions you haven’t answered. So spare me your pseudo outrage. I don’t watch Fox News so no I’m unfamiliar with that.

    So who represents an anti-establishment view on immigration reform if the Center for Immigration Studies represents an establishment view?

  136. Rich says:

    Most of these people undercut the numbers of invaders in the USA…Schlussel is
    one of a few who post the truth concerning this invasion..
    Retired INS Michael Cutler has written on 40-50 million illegal aliens in the USA..

    ICE Agent: “My Job Obsolete, Borders Now Wide Open;” Career ICE Official:
    “We’re Being Kept in Dark;” 40 Mlln Amnesty, NOT Just 5 Mlln

  137. Rich says:

    Hanna – this page has been freezing on me….you will need to ask those questions again..

    Are We Comprehending The Barnhardt Axiom YET??!! | Barnhardt

    The fact that a given person is holding or seeking high-level public office is, in and of itself, proof that said person is morally and/or psychologically UNFIT to hold public office.
    The Barnhardt Axiom.

    You realize this applies every bit as strongly to Trump too, right? Tell me you are not so stupid as to believe for one second that Trump would actually do ANY of the things he is talking about. He’s just smart enough to know what y’all want to hear, and is saying it. You know how I know that Trump will never follow through on anything he is saying?


    Remember, the only thing that actually WANTS to be in a cesspit is a PIECE OF CRAP.

  138. AG says:

    Vincent, if I can restrain myself from responding to the ridiculousness of HappyJack, I’m sure you can do the same with Rich. Let’s all just call this one… it’s overflowing my inbox! 😉

  139. Rich says:

    AG…just run to your SAFE SPACE…….

    God knows I tried. | Barnhardt

    Elections. For the love of God, if you don’t hear anything else I say for the rest of the evening, listen to this.
    Elections are no longer free. They are staged theater, designed to maintain the illusion of representative governance and to enrich the political class. This is despotism. If after this mess that we just went through, if you do not understand this, you are beyond hope.
    My God.

    And then you have election fraud on top of it. Here in Colorado ten counties had voter turnout in excess of the total adult population of the [county]. Not just the registered voters – the total adult population of the county, excuse me, the county. And what did Romney do? Roll over. How can you not see this? How can you not understand? Do not talk to me anymore about elections. There are no elections. There are no more free elections. Just stand over that dead horse and beat it – it is never going to get up.
    For the love of God.

    I’m sorry, but there comes a certain point where you have got to pull your head out of your ass and deal with reality. You cannot just keep going on with this over and over and over again, saying, “Well if I just give somebody some money and I put some signs in my yard I’m doing enough…”

    No, you’re not doing enough. You’re not doing enough at all. Not even close. In fact, if you’re participating in this, you’re part of the problem.”

Leave a Reply

You must be an Urban Milwaukee member to leave a comment. Membership, which includes a host of perks, including an ad-free website, tickets to marquee events like Summerfest, the Wisconsin State Fair and the Florentine Opera, a better photo browser and access to members-only, behind-the-scenes tours, starts at $9/month. Learn more.

Join now and cancel anytime.

If you are an existing member, sign-in to leave a comment.

Have questions? Need to report an error? Contact Us