Wabash82

Yes, provided that what you mean by "stop discriminating" includes (i) reforming institutions where discrimination is built into the system, and (ii) folks of all hues -- but most importantly for this country, folks of the white hue -- taking intentional action to try to make themselves aware of any (currently) unconscious racial biases they have, so as to not act upon them irrationally.

You missed the qualifier: "good middle ground candidate...."

That depends on how it plays out. I think that the article's suggestion that there is a workable middle ground between these ideological "wings" of the party is correct, and if the Dems hash this through to settle on a good middle ground candidate before the conventions, I think they'll be fine in that regard. The biggest trap for the Dems, IMHO, is thinking they need a "fighter" willing to wrestle in the mud with Trump. Trump's crudities and ridiculous lies are targeted to his rock solid 35% cult-of-personality followers, and responding to his name calling with "You're a bigger one!" stuff is not going to sway any of those folks. And with the other 10% of traditional Republicans (and Independents and conservative Democrats) who voted for Trump in 2016, whose support for him has ebbed and flowed in the past two years, insulting Trump too steadily and heavily runs the risk of those folks thinking (as we have seen expressed by some folks on here from time to time): What is this Dem candidate implying about me, when he/she describes the person I voted for as some sort of horrible, racist monster? If the economy stays strong through 2020, the Dems will have a very tough row to hoe regardless of anything else Trump has said or done -- Americans vote their pocketbook. But if the economy slows before then, they will have the daylight to focus voter's attention on all of Trump's failed grandiose promises.

And let me stop you before you feel the need to say it: you don't see color, you don't have any unconscious biases, so you don't have any responsibility to deal with the problem. Great, I feel wonderful for you. Bit until our country reaches that MLK Promised Land you havr personally already entered, your "not seeing color" really just means you are turning a blind eye to the suffering of your fellow human beings. I may not have personally taken food off anyonr else's plate, but I still have a moral responsibility to help feed the hungry.

This victimhood stuff by you is a hoot. The impact any actual black racist attitudes toward whites have on your life is nil, zip, zilch. The effect that our society's ingrained, systemic racism and the unconscious biases of white Americans have on the daily lives of a huge percentage of blacks and other people of color in this nation is huge. The mania for drawing false equivalencies and "narrowing down" the definition of racist/racism to encompass only individuals consciously expressing racial animus toward others is an obvious ploy to avoid the responsibility that all of us, but in particular all of us white people, have to "own" this problem and deal with it. Finally. After 300+ years.

The same benefit that results from having similar designations in our civil laws dealing with hiring, or sales of real estate, or the renting of hotel rooms.

The term "hate" in so-called Hate Crime laws is used euphemistically. The existence of actual "hatred", in the sense of an emotion or feeling, is not required. It is the targeting of the victim specifically because he or she has the characteristics of one of the protected "classes" or categories covered by the law that is required. That targeting could be completely dispassionate from an emotional perspective, but still fall under a "hate crime" law. Moreover, the idea that a hate crime law requires some sort of psychic detection or mind reading power is silly. Our criminal justice system regularly requires juries and judges to reach conclusions about the mental states of defendants -- did the defendant act intentionally? Was it a knowing act? Was the act committed maliciously? Because humans have never had mind reading powers, and defendants rarely admit having committed the act with the particular mental state that will put them in prison, we ask jurors and judges to reach conclusions about the defendant's mental state inthe same way that you, and I, and all humans reach conclusions on a daily basis about the mental states of other folks we interact with: we ask them to infer the defendant's mental state from the things the defendant did and said, as established by the evidence. Likewise, for a "hate crime", we simply ask jurors and judges to look at the evidence regarding the defendant's actions and words to determine if it supports the reasonable inference that the defendant targeted the victim because the victim was black, gay, a foreigner, a Christian, etc., etc.(whatever the classes or categories are that the statute covers.)

Yeah, I understand the difference. The strawman argument you made was that the Act we were discussing was designed to address strawman purchases. You mischaracterized the purpose of the proposed law in order to argue that it would not do a good job of achieving its supposed purpose. The mischaracterization of the law's purpose was the "straw man" that you erected for the purpose of knocking it down.

These discussions always go nowhere because there are no defined terms. It reminds me of when one of my kids did something stupid and I said, "That was a stupid thing to do," and he'd cry to his mother, "Dad just called me stupid." I don't know Congressman Meadows personally, so I have no idea if in his heart he is the reincarnation of Simon Legree, or if he actually is Mr. Kumbaya-can't-we-all-just-get-along?, as his (black) colleague Congressman Lewis suggested. So I can't say if he is a racist. But I can very easily say that using a black woman as a (literal) stage prop for a "I can't be racist -- I have black friends!" by-proxy defense of the President was one of the most ludicrously clueless racists acts I've seen in awhile. It reminded me of Trump and his, "See, I love Mexicans! I am eating a taco salad!" moment of a few years ago. On the other hand, I feel very comfortable saying, even without knowing him personally, that Louis Farrakhan is a racist. He has repeatedly expressed belief in pseudo-religious notions that white people, especially Jewish white people, are half-human, half-animal beings who are racially inferior to Africans. But I'd agree with Gonzo that, in the USA, neither Farrakhan nor any other black person has the power to "inflict" racism on white people, so it is sort of a meaningless, "tree falling in the woods with no one around" debate as to whether there can be "black racism" in this country.

Well, you can choose to believe or not believe the particular guy in Utah, but assuming he is telling the truth, this law would have stopped the transfer. And, no, this law is not designed to stop "strawman" transactions. A strawman transaction is one in which the person buying the weapon does so for the specific purpose of reselling it to someone else, and KNOWS or has reason to know that the person he is re-selling to cannot legally buy or possess the firearm (which is why the person had the buyer get the gun for him/her in the first place.) Strawmen purchasers face prosecution under various existing laws -- usually the federal law that requires them to affirm in the background check docs that they are buying the weapon for themselves, or the laws that preclude any seller (even in a private transaction) from knowingly selling to someone who is a prohibited possessor. The new law is focused on the situation of the occasional seller at the gun show who is dealing with strangers, or a person who sells (or loans) firearms to a friend or family member. While it would be nice for all of them to have your innate spidey sense to spot who they can trust, and who are the undisclosed felons or mentally ill folks, we mere mortals have to rely on a background check system to actually verify that sort of thing with folks who are strangers, or merely "acquaintance-level" friends or family, to us.

You have missed the point. The purpose of the proposed law is not to make it "more illegal" for a prohibited possessors to get or use a firearm. Its purpose is to try to block prohibited possessors from getting firearms in the first place via private transfers from presumably innocent-minded transferees. In the Utah case, the friend who transferred the gun to the killer was unaware his friend was a former felon barred from possessing a firearm. If this law was in place, the presumably law abiding friend would have sought to complete the transfer by going through a licensed dealer, who upon doing the background check would have nixed the transfer to the killer due to his status as a prohibited possessor. He doesn't get the gun in the first place. This is the same (ironically) strawman argument made by SF. The proposed law is not specifically intended to address strawman purchases (and re-sales) by criminally-minded transferrees. Its intent is to block criminally-minded prohibited possessors from using private purchases from presumably law-abiding, innocent sellers to avoid background checks in prder to illegally acquire firearms. I wholeheartedly agree with you that in the SEPARATE and distinct situation of a criminally-minded strawman purchaser knowingly abetting a prohibited possessor get a weapon, we should throw the boook at them. This proposed laws would make those prosecutions a little easier, in that a strawman claiming he was just an "innocent dupe"would need to explain why he then failed to abide by the separate law requiring all private transfers to go through dealers, in order that background checks can be completed.

I didn't say that this particular bill addresses that situation. I was just responding to IO's suggestion that it is some sort of "myth" that gangs from Chicago come to Indiana to get guns.

Also, the gangs in Chicago are not buying the guns in Indiana directly themselves -- they not only have the problem of being Illinois residents, many also have the problem of being ex-felons. That is why they use strawmen purchasers who are Indiana residents without felony convictions.

One example of a shooting where this law potentially would have saved a life. I'm sure I could find more if I searched seriously. This legislation would become more effective in saving lives if other sensible measures are passed, like laws that facilitate getting folks with mental health issues into the background system, which is hit-or-miss currently.

Foxbat, there was a sudden gust of wind and the sun was in his eyes. And he didn't really want to catch that ball, anyway....

How is the current background check system enforced? Because that is what this Act relies on. It just extends that system to transfers of firearms that previously were not subject to background checks.

The ONLY way Hillary runs is if the Mueller investigation drops some bombshell that shows that Trump literally stole the election from her, through colluding with the Russians to hack voting machines in Wisconsin and Michigan and Pennsylvania. I rate that to be as likely to occur as Swordfish quitting his job to volunteer for Greenpeace to fight climate change.

I think you have your facts wrong. The amendment you mention passed and is part of the final Act as passed by the House. You can read the final version that passed the house Here. The language you are referring to is in section (t)(3)(E). The addition of this amendment to the Act was what PO'd AOC, and led to the big dustup behind closed doors among the Dem House caucus that was in the news at the end of last week. I assume you made this comment based on the erroneous impression the amendment didn't pass. But I think that it is still a mischaracterization of the position of those legislators who (unsuccessfully) voted against the amendment. The purpose of the Act was to extend background checks to prevent individuals who are prohibited from possessing firearms from getting them. The focus was on preventing transfers to such folks, and the bill did not address also making sure that every prohibited possessor who was prevented from acquiring a firearm by these expanded background checks will be punished for making the attempt. The amendment carved out a (very) specific group of prohibited possessors, illegal aliens, for that "extra" attention, for obvious political reasons. But adding (or not adding) the amendment had no affect on "law abiders." The 30 Dems who voted for the amendment just didn't want to be seen as "soft" on illegal immigration, so they joined the Republicans in singling out illegals for the "extra" attention.

Yes, that's one solution. Another would be to abolish a sexually-discriminatory system that, as IO noted, has not actually been put to use for almost 50 years, and save all us taxpayers even more money.

I am having a hard time understanding how folks being denied millions of dollars of federal aid they otherwise qualified for is a "virtually nonexistent" punishment. I'd imagine that someone who couldn't afford college without the federal loan that he was denied solely for failing to register for the draft would not view that as a "nonexistent" punishment.

Buck Crimshaw -- aka, the "If Dan Dakich did politics instead of sports" fake talk radio host created for laughs by my son -- has had his issues with an HOA as well.... (Episode titled "Buck Fights with a Neighbor"). Eagles Shield Podcast

There is zero way for someone to answer that question in any manner other that "no" that would satisfy you, so this is just rhetorical. But the reality is that Harvard's reserved spaces for the rich and famous are not all for leftist, and the answer to your question would probably turn on a whole bunch info that isn't in your hypothetical. Like: just how famous is this theorized 2nd Amendment advocate? How exactly did he become famous? Is he as well spoken as Hogg? Etc., etc., etc.

Your question is, of course, hypothetical, since such a student would never want to go to a leftist, elitist, effete academy of pinheadedry such as Harvard. He'd apply to a solid conservative institution in the Midwest, like U of C, or Hillsdale, or go to one of the wellspring academies for renowned libertarian thinkers, such as Indiana State.

Ah, Muda, you may have finally hit on a good signature for yourself! This seems to be a common refrain from you.

I'd say the Post's quote of Phillips involves a mixed statement of fact and opinion by Phillips, and I don't know how it can be shown to be "false", in light of the various videos. Phillips did walk up to Sandman, but Sandman (as he has acknowledged) didn't try to move or get out of his way. So Sandman did in that sense block Phillips. Phillips perceived it, apparently, as threatening; Sandman says he didn't mean for it to be threatening, he was instead trying to defuse things by not moving. Phillips may have been mistaken in his subjective opinion of Sandman's intent, but not in the objective statement that Sandman blocked him from moving forward. The "didn't allow me to retreat" appears to be a reference to the fact (as is shown on all the videos) that the kids sort of encircled the Native American group after they had walked up to Sandman. It doesn't look like they did it to be threatening, but rather just get a better view of what was happening, but they did still encircle them.