Dan Crenshaw

[Js1 86,939]

3 minutes ago, elfenix said:

i'm traveling to a place with 30-50 feral hogs, maybe dan will lend me an AR

The Huckabee family reunion? 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Oh Dan...

[Foosters 18,225]

Careful Dan, you'll shoot your eye out.

[elfenix 34,658]

 

lulz

[Post Oak 20,551]

20 minutes ago, Hugo Stiglitz said:

Oh Dan...

if he had that other eye he might have seen that trap coming. 

 

 

[elfenix 34,658]

3 minutes ago, Post Oak said:

if he had that other eye he might have seen that trap coming. 

 

didn't help him previously

[relapse98 634]

3 hours ago, tx 3 putt said:

He seems out of touch 

You need to look at it through his eyes.

 

Oh nevermind, that's all I got. Fuck this guy. Elected because of hero worship, plain and simple.

[SaucyJack 3,517]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

i'm traveling to a place with 30-50 feral hogs, maybe dan will lend me an AR

You don't need an AR.  It's Wednesday night.  You need Vic. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,998]

I don't think it's so much the background check that would be the problem. It's the trip to an FFL and $25 transfer fee (which you would have to pay again) that makes it difficult. And if the abuse is so hidden, there's a pretty good chance they would still pass the check. It's pretty clear that AOC is commenting on laws she wants to change even though she doesn't really have a grasp of how they work.

[Fozzz 152]

 

 

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

33 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I don't think it's so much the background check that would be the problem. It's the trip to an FFL and $25 transfer fee (which you would have to pay again) that makes it difficult. And if the abuse is so hidden, there's a pretty good chance they would still pass the check. It's pretty clear that AOC is commenting on laws she wants to change even though she doesn't really have a grasp of how they work.

What's the point of your post here?  That we shouldn't have gun legislation because someone might not be able to afford a car ride and $25 to obtain a gun?

[GSU&UT 1,799]

5 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

 

 

LOL at Cumtown making it on here.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,998]

8 minutes ago, Longhornfan1024 said:

What's the point of your post here?  That we shouldn't have gun legislation because someone might not be able to afford a car ride and $25 to obtain a gun?

The point is that Dan Patrick actually has a decent point and AOC has no clue what she is talking about. And it's a couple car rides (possibly long car rides) and $50. You have to pay an FFL to transfer the gun back to you. You know, just in case you went on a crime spree while they were borrowing it. If she is saying she wants to set up a system where potential gun buyers can call the FBI to get a background check and obtain a unique number to give to the person selling the gun who can then call the FBI with that person's name and number to confirm they are allowed to buy a gun, then she would have a little merit. That system would allow for private sales or changes of possession without making folks pay a penalty to exercise their rights. But I'm pretty sure she doesn't support a system like that.

[Js1 86,939]

So possibly long car rides for abortion because there's only one provider in your state - a-ok
Possibly a long car ride for a gun = MUH RIGHTS

Edited September 4, 2019 by Js1

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

2 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

The point is that Dan Patrick actually has a decent point and AOC has no clue what she is talking about. And it's a couple car rides (possibly long car rides) and $50. You have to pay an FFL to transfer the gun back to you. You know, just in case you went on a crime spree while they were borrowing it. If she is saying she wants to set up a system where potential gun buyers can call the FBI to get a background check and obtain a unique number to give to the person selling the gun who can then call the FBI with that person's name and number to confirm they are allowed to buy a gun, then she would have a little merit. That system would allow for private sales or changes of possession without making folks pay a penalty to exercise their rights. But I'm pretty sure she doesn't support a system like that.

So yes, your point is that a car ride and a small fee is reason enough to not pass gun legislation.  For you, the value of two people transferring a gun between themselves without any oversight rather than buying a gun from a certified dealer outweighs a seventeen month old baby getting shot in the fucking face.  Universal background checks and limits on private sales don't mean that either person can't obtain a gun (unless they fail the background check), it just removes a high-risk method of transferring guns.    

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,998]

Just now, Js1 said:

So possibly long car rides for abortion because there's only one provider in your state - a-ok
Possibly a long car ride for a gun = MUH RIGHTS

Nah, as long as abortion is the law of the land that isn't ok. Did you know that it is possible to agree with one thing a person says and still disagree with other things they have said? It's actually true. 

[Longhorn_Fan68 34,079]

1 hour ago, elfenix said:

didn't help him previously

savage. awesome.

[Bateshorn 9,989]

9 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

The point is that Dan Patrick actually has a decent point and AOC has no clue what she is talking about. And it's a couple car rides (possibly long car rides) and $50. You have to pay an FFL to transfer the gun back to you. You know, just in case you went on a crime spree while they were borrowing it. If she is saying she wants to set up a system where potential gun buyers can call the FBI to get a background check and obtain a unique number to give to the person selling the gun who can then call the FBI with that person's name and number to confirm they are allowed to buy a gun, then she would have a little merit. That system would allow for private sales or changes of possession without making folks pay a penalty to exercise their rights. But I'm pretty sure she doesn't support a system like that.

It also costs that much and two long car rides to renew my driver's license.  And quite it a bit more for a zoning variance.  What's your point? 

 

The right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean the right to be completely free of the various regulatory hassles of living in an organized civil society.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,998]

Just now, Longhornfan1024 said:

So yes, your point is that a car ride and a small fee is reason enough to not pass gun legislation.  For you, the value of two people transferring a gun between themselves without any oversight rather than buying a gun from a certified dealer outweighs a seventeen month old baby getting shot in the fucking face.  Universal background checks and limits on private sales don't mean that either person can't obtain a gun (unless they fail the background check), it just removes a high-risk method of transferring guns.    

Did I say that? Or do you just lack basic reading comprehension?

[Longhornfan1024 1,707]

2 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Did I say that? Or do you just lack basic reading comprehension?

My reading comprehension is good enough that I can come to a reasonable conclusion from what you typed despite the fact that you are too much of a coward to come out and say it expressly.  

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,998]

Just now, Bateshorn said:

It also costs that much and two long car rides to renew my driver's license.  And quite it a bit more for a zoning variance.  What's your point? 

 

The right to keep and bear arms doesn't mean the right to be completely free of the various regulatory hassles of living in an organized civil society.

Does it cost you that to let someone borrow your car? If someone was proposing legislation to where it would cost you that, yet alternatives exist where you could verify that that person hadn't had any accidents or speeding tickets or whatever without that trip, would you think that it would be a great idea to have to drive to the DPS office every time? There is no reason we can't have universal background checks and still allow private sales. Contrary to what you might have been told, it is possible.

[Bama Chick 28,596]

What's the point of your post here?  That we shouldn't have gun legislation because someone might not be able to afford a car ride and $25 to obtain a gun?

Now ask him to do Voter ID laws.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,998]

Just now, Longhornfan1024 said:

My reading comprehension is good enough that I can come to a reasonable conclusion from what you typed despite the fact that you are too much of a coward to come out and say it expressly.  

I laid out a reasonable way to have universal background checks, yet you think that I support no background checks? 

[Lagunamadre 1,975]

18 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

The point is that Dan Patrick actually has a decent point and AOC has no clue what she is talking about. And it's a couple car rides (possibly long car rides) and $50. You have to pay an FFL to transfer the gun back to you. You know, just in case you went on a crime spree while they were borrowing it. If she is saying she wants to set up a system where potential gun buyers can call the FBI to get a background check and obtain a unique number to give to the person selling the gun who can then call the FBI with that person's name and number to confirm they are allowed to buy a gun, then she would have a little merit. That system would allow for private sales or changes of possession without making folks pay a penalty to exercise their rights. But I'm pretty sure she doesn't support a system like that.

Tough titties amigo. Your fellow gun nuts shouldn't have gone and killed a ton of people. Y'all had your chance, not working out. 

[Bateshorn 9,989]

5 minutes ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Does it cost you that to let someone borrow your car? If someone was proposing legislation to where it would cost you that, yet alternatives exist where you could verify that that person hadn't had any accidents or speeding tickets or whatever without that trip, would you think that it would be a great idea to have to drive to the DPS office every time? There is no reason we can't have universal background checks and still allow private sales. Contrary to what you might have been told, it is possible.

I'm required to have insurance if I drive a borrowed car.  Depending on the state, or my coverage, I might have to contact my insurance company and amend my insurance on the spot before pulling away.  But that's alright, you've already started down the patented NRA "This miniscule aspect of your broader point is not perfectly aligned, so your entire argument is invalid" path.  Other popular versions include "You've misidentified the model of this AR-15" and "You used the wrong caliber when talking about this mass shooting" and "Assault rifles aren't a thing."

 

Just go ahead and finish the journey.

Edited September 4, 2019 by Bateshorn

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,998]

2 minutes ago, Bateshorn said:

I'm required to have insurance if I drive a borrowed car.  Depending on the state, or my coverage, I might have to contact my insurance company and amend my insurance on the spot before pulling away.  But that's alright, you've already started down the patented NRA "This miniscule aspect of your broader point is not perfectly aligned, so your entire argument is invalid" path.  Just go ahead and finish the journey.

Having insurance is not the same as having a bad driving record, but ok. Let's go with that. What if you had to drive to your insurance office before borrowing the car, and then drive back to it again just to return it to the owner? And not doing so was a felony. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't have insurance, but that having to drive back and forth to do something that could be accomplished with a phone call is kind of ridiculous and an unnecessary burden. We can have universal background checks, even for folks borrowing a gun, without having to create extra burden of people, just like you can call your insurance company instead of driving to their office. And, no, the NRA doesn't support a system that requires universal background checks but allows private citizens to take care of it without going through an FFL, but I think it is perfectly reasonable and do support it. 

 

[HenryJames 67,116]

[DanRydell 799]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

The point is that Dan Patrick actually has a decent point and AOC has no clue what she is talking about. And it's a couple car rides (possibly long car rides) and $50. You have to pay an FFL to transfer the gun back to you. You know, just in case you went on a crime spree while they were borrowing it. If she is saying she wants to set up a system where potential gun buyers can call the FBI to get a background check and obtain a unique number to give to the person selling the gun who can then call the FBI with that person's name and number to confirm they are allowed to buy a gun, then she would have a little merit. That system would allow for private sales or changes of possession without making folks pay a penalty to exercise their rights. But I'm pretty sure she doesn't support a system like that.

Why are you pretty sure she doesn't support a system like that? I don't think she's in the pockets of Big FFL.

[Planet Houston 4,949]

2 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I don't think it's so much the background check that would be the problem. It's the trip to an FFL and $25 transfer fee (which you would have to pay again) that makes it difficult. And if the abuse is so hidden, there's a pretty good chance they would still pass the check. It's pretty clear that AOC is commenting on laws she wants to change even though she doesn't really have a grasp of how they work.

But getting a Voter ID is soooooo easy and the librul left supports open borders if they don’t agree!!!!111!1!1!1!!!

[wildcat09 29,556]

1 hour ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

I laid out a reasonable way to have universal background checks, yet you think that I support no background checks? 

If Dan Crenshaw was interested in doing his job rather than simply being a bomb throwing hack, he could propose something like you suggested.  You know, like how legislation is supposed to work.

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,998]

1 hour ago, DanRydell said:

Why are you pretty sure she doesn't support a system like that? I don't think she's in the pockets of Big FFL.

Well she cosponsored for HR8, which requires universal background checks that must go through an FFL. It also specifically states that there is no cap on the fees that an FFL may charge for firearms transfers. And they can refuse if they don't feel like messing with the paperwork. So if there is only one FFL in your town or area who will do personal transfers, they can charge as much as they like. I would say cosponsoring a bill that makes selling or borrowing a gun as difficult as possible is a pretty good indication that she wouldn't support alternatives that accomplish the same thing without punishing people for exercising their rights.

52 minutes ago, Planet Houston said:

But getting a Voter ID is soooooo easy and the librul left supports open borders if they don’t agree!!!!111!1!1!1!!!

I've never said that, so I'm not sure why you would think that. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that if someone disagrees with another on one issue then they must embody the opposite extreme of the political field. That kind of attitude ends up causing stuff like the idiot in the Oval Office.

46 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

If Dan Crenshaw was interested in doing his job rather than simply being a bomb throwing hack, he could propose something like you suggested.  You know, like how legislation is supposed to work.

You are right. He is a hack. Something like I suggested actually was suggested proposed in the Senate, but it only got support from the senator who introduced it and one other. Clearly neither side is serious about trying to find workable solutions.

[Celery Man 21,076]

Having insurance is not the same as having a bad driving record, but ok. Let's go with that. What if you had to drive to your insurance office before borrowing the car, and then drive back to it again just to return it to the owner? And not doing so was a felony. I'm not arguing that you shouldn't have insurance, but that having to drive back and forth to do something that could be accomplished with a phone call is kind of ridiculous and an unnecessary burden. We can have universal background checks, even for folks borrowing a gun, without having to create extra burden of people, just like you can call your insurance company instead of driving to their office. And, no, the NRA doesn't support a system that requires universal background checks but allows private citizens to take care of it without going through an FFL, but I think it is perfectly reasonable and do support it. 
 

is this for if you have to shoot the guy doing background checks before you can pass the background check

[wildcat09 29,556]

16 hours ago, NotActuallyALonghorn said:

Well she cosponsored for HR8, which requires universal background checks that must go through an FFL. It also specifically states that there is no cap on the fees that an FFL may charge for firearms transfers. And they can refuse if they don't feel like messing with the paperwork. So if there is only one FFL in your town or area who will do personal transfers, they can charge as much as they like. I would say cosponsoring a bill that makes selling or borrowing a gun as difficult as possible is a pretty good indication that she wouldn't support alternatives that accomplish the same thing without punishing people for exercising their rights.

I've never said that, so I'm not sure why you would think that. Let's not delude ourselves into thinking that if someone disagrees with another on one issue then they must embody the opposite extreme of the political field. That kind of attitude ends up causing stuff like the idiot in the Oval Office.

You are right. He is a hack. Something like I suggested actually was suggested proposed in the Senate, but it only got support from the senator who introduced it and one other. Clearly neither side is serious about trying to find workable solutions.

Of all the fucking things to bothsides. Anastasis would be proud.

[SimonBolivar 11,031]

20 hours ago, relapse98 said:

Elected because of hero worship, plain and simple.

One of the biggest problems in this country is the over the top nationalism which has led to hero worship and the idolatry of the flag. Nothing wrong with loving your country, but it's really something these days.

 

 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

2 hours ago, SimonBolivar said:

One of the biggest problems in this country is the over the top nationalism which has led to hero worship and the idolatry of the flag. Nothing wrong with loving your country, but it's really something these days.

 

 

I agree, and while most Americans know what the stripes symbolize and what the starts symbolize, I would bet many cannot tell you what the colors mean:

Quote

Thirteen stripes represent the original thirteen colonies that declared independence from England; fifty stars symbolize the current 50 United States. White signifies purity and innocence, red signifies valor and bravery; and blue signifies vigilance, perseverance, and justice.

 

[Ghost of LL 15,664]

How many of you are out there loaning out your handguns, anyway?

I mean, I've borrowed a rifle for hunting.  But that's now what Crenshaw is talking about.

I've loaned out my .45 to a friend at the gun range to shoot a few rounds while I was standing next to him.  I've borrowed guns for the same thing.  But that's not what Crenshaw is talking about.

Who here has loaned out a handgun for the borrower to take some distance from you for some days or weeks?  Honestly--that would never occur to me as something I ought to do.

[Horn Dog 10,156]

Next thing you know I won't be able to lend out my plane to my unlicensed non-pilot friends to use over the weekend.  Damn liberals always taking away my rights.

[fattyflattie 4,640]

12 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Who here has loaned out a handgun for the borrower to take some distance from you for some days or weeks?  Honestly--that would never occur to me as something I ought to do.

I have 3-4 pistols at home that are my brothers.  I’m only interested in hunting rifles, and hunting and sporting shotguns.  But it drives him up the wall I never had anything suitable for home defense. So he’ll bring a few up on Thanksgiving or Christmas, swap out the ones I already had.   I don’t think I’ve ever fired one.   They just sit in the safe. 

There needs to be some type of person to person transfer. If we need to take FFL’s out of it and make it something that a DMV type office handles, so be it. 

[NotActuallyALonghorn 4,998]

Also, the HB8, the House Democrats' universal background check bill  does not allow you to loan out any firearm, handgun, rifle, or shotgun, without doing a transfer through an FFL. It also specifically says that there is no cap for the fee they can charge for said loaning out. So you can't borrow your buddies over under to take dove hunting before deciding whether or not to buy one yourself unless he is either right there with you the entire time, you legally transfer it through an FFL and then transfer it back again through an FFL, or you marry his sister or something so that you are one of the close family relations it exempts.

[Ted Lange 16,353]

27 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Who here has loaned out a handgun for the borrower to take some distance from you for some days or weeks?  Honestly--that would never occur to me as something I ought to do.

Maybe one of the requirements of a well regulated militia, is sharing your guns with other militiamen.  Or he is just a gun cuck.

[Anastasis 23,699]

22 minutes ago, fattyflattie said:

There needs to be some type of person to person transfer. If we need to take FFL’s out of it and make it something that a DMV type office handles, so be it. 

This.  All transfers should be conducted with no fee. 

The gun loaning thing has never really impacted me, but I could see limited situations where it might be relevant. In the grand scheme it is a very small use case scenario to deal with.

Maybe the answer is to make the gun owner responsible for any criminal liability that occurs if they loan out the gun.  Similarly, I think that any parent should be criminally responsible for a gun violence act or illegal possession act committed by one of their children using one of their firearms.  You want to see people get real vigilant about securing their weapons from children, and real thoughtful about who they "lend" their gun to, put them at risk for significant criminal and civil penalties in the case that the weapon is misused.

[Captainant 28,387]

45 minutes ago, Ghost of LL said:

Who here has loaned out a handgun for the borrower to take some distance from you for some days or weeks?  Honestly--that would never occur to me as something I ought to do.

I've loaned a rifle for a deer season, but not a handgun for any period of time more than an afternoon or weekend range trip- and certainly not to folks who didn't have a safe to store it in while not in use

[SimonBolivar 11,031]

40 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

This.  All transfers should be conducted with no fee. 

So no taxing of p2p sales of firearms? Sale of a motor vehicle p2p here is 6.25% (or at least on the SPV) plus $30.50 application fee not counting registration if required. I would think that a firearm transfer should at least be as difficult as a motor vehicle transfer.

Edited September 5, 2019 by SimonBolivar

[Js1 86,939]

5 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

So no taxing of p2p sales of firearms? Sale of a motor vehicle p2p here is 6.25% (or at least on the SPV) plus $30.50 application fee not counting registration if required. I would think that a firearm transfer should at least be as difficult as a motor vehicle transfer.

BUT MUH RIGHTS 

[Anastasis 23,699]

5 minutes ago, SimonBolivar said:

So no taxing of p2p sales of firearms? Sale of a motor vehicle p2p here is 6.25% (or at least on the SPV) plus $30.50 application fee not counting registration if required. I would think that a firearm transfer should at least be as difficult as a motor vehicle transfer.

I think that sale tax rules that currently govern sale of personal property between two individuals should be sufficient. I don't think that formulating up a new tax scheme and tying it to new background check requirements for P2P transfers is particularly productive to the goal here. 

[Horn Under a Bad Sign 20,834]

Crenshaw's a dumbass.  He tweeted out a bunch of hogwash about Japan and Germany and nuclear power.  The crazy thing is he was accusing Elizabeth Warren of not understanding nuclear power. 

 

[fattyflattie 4,640]

1 hour ago, SimonBolivar said:

So no taxing of p2p sales of firearms?

I believe he was speaking of transfers to let some “borrow” the firearm, not a sale.    But I could be wrong.  It should be taxed just as anything else you sale, no? 

[Hank Scorpio 17,924]

[Todd Gack 448]

6 minutes ago, Hank Scorpio said:

Leon from Curb savage

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]