Fine, I'll grant that. However he's still a nut because one minute he says background checks for "EVERYONE" and that government databases are OK, and then the next he's saying he's not OK with that.

That makes him a nut. Watch that video at the 8:20 mark and then read his tweets. And then explain the contradiction.

He says background checks to prevent criminals and mentally ill people from obtaining guns. I have no problem with this.

It's interesting this particular clip makes you think he's a nut, it's probably the most effective pro-2nd amendment clip of the last 20 years.

People's views change, or can be stated incorrectly in the heat of the moment.

If I said I was pro-renewable energy, without saying anything else, you'd probably assume I was an environazi..

Change that much, that fast? On something as important and serious as whether the government will become a tyranny and things that can prevent it? Seems odd to me...

As far as being an environazi, I wouldn't necessarily say that because oil is renewable (C02 from gas emissions feeds plants, plants slowly become more oil)

Case in point.

I say some things that a lot of people would see as extreme....

I've said in the past that, morally speaking, I would have no qualms shooting a guy in the back of the head, that was trying to steal my car.... But I've also clarified that statement numerous times by saying that force should be a last resort. Those views, on the surface, may seem contradictory, but they're not.

Likewise, Mr. Shapiro has said that he agrees that there should be a basic level of checks, but the gov't is retarded, and will keep the information and use it for bad things, as gov'ts do... He is against the PRINCIPLE of gov't being in everything, he is a libertarian.. Thus, in a perfect world, checks would work, but this isn't a perfect world.

On NUMEROUS occasions Mr. Shapiro has said 'I don't believe in X, but I'm a libertarian, the gov't shouldn't be able to tell you not to do X, and will fight for your right to do X'...

ANYTHING can be traced these days... Credit card transactions, serial #s on electronics that get rung out at the register and associated with the sale, etc. Even with loyalty cards they can tell what you eat.

If you think for a moment, that the gov't can't say 'find out information about Joe Blow', and they won't be able to tell you his favorite food, color, and what he's doing for the next 3 days, and what he's gonna eat for lunch tomorrow, you're deluding yourself. We live in the age of information.

I had people talk shit on FB, and with just a name, and a state, was able to find where they went to school, who they worked for, home address, cellphone #, etc.. Even through property records found out one guy had his house in a trust, so I told him his trust couldn't hide his assets and he freaked. That's without spending money either.... Information is out there... and the gov't has access to a shit ton more than I do.

So, in a perfect world, checks would work, but in our world, there are 'lists'... By now, I'm on so many lists, I don't give a shit anymore....

The President is da BOMB, flyin' all up in Air Force One, to The White House, after he meets at The Pentagon, to discuss ISIS and find out what الله أكبر means.

Oops... There I go again... :-p

I am 100% for Background checks on all gun purchases. Think I am a nut too?

Spoiler: show

What I didn't say though, is that I am 100% AGAINST how BCG's are done now. So does that make me for, or against BCG's?

What would you change about the current Bolt Carrier Group?

You do realize you have left yourself open for a CAT 5 response, right?

Well, he's got a twisted pair....

I'm not trying to pick a fight with you Weenie. I am gonna give you my opinion though. That was some creepy ass shit you just said.

You think I'm gonna lose a fight on the internet?!

Given the decades-long effectively-zero prosecution rate for lying on the 4473 (a felony) as well as the ATF getting caught running an illegal database (no none fired or prosecuted despite that bring a felony) that makes you solidly AGAINST.
:-)

Exactly. But you wouldn't have known that unless I added the spoiler. Point being, a 10 second snip of a heated interview with an opponent is hardly a proper litmus test to a persons beleifs.

It wasn't the 10 second clip. It was also the 10+ minutes of him constantly saying "assault weapon," "assault rifle" and then explaining in detail that he'd be OK not only with UBCs but a huge government database of ALL owners just as long as newspapers couldn't get their hands on it. Shapiro's main strength is his ability to eloquently communicate, and across the span of that lengthy interview he spelled out in great detail the harm against 2A that he'd be fine with.

AR15s can reasonably be called 'assault weapons'. Just because we don't like the term and it's negative connotations, doesn't mean it doesn't fit.

I remember when the feds legally defined a Colt AR15 as an 'Assault Weapon'. They did this by passing a bill thru Congress and had it signed into law by the President. It was never overturned in court. If that's not a good enough way to define something, I'm not exactly sure what is.