Gun Control

[BigBallinStalin]

Back in the day, tax collectors were tarred and feathered when the people deemed that they were being taxed enough already.

With the relative rise in power of the state, the people lack that credible deterrent. As the people's ability to counterbalance the federal government decreases, then we should expect more expansion of the federal government---into our pockets and into our daily lives.

Also, it has become quite difficult to find actual tar. I thought Home Depot or Menard's might stock it, but when I went looking.... out of luck.

[Woodruff]

Okay, ya got the vote, now respect the will of the people, be tolerant of Democracy, and STFU!

It's funny how Phatscotty's perspective changes so much once he gets his way, isn't it?

[Woodruff]

Back in the day, tax collectors were tarred and feathered when the people deemed that they were being taxed enough already.

With the relative rise in power of the state, the people lack that credible deterrent. As the people's ability to counterbalance the federal government decreases, then we should expect more expansion of the federal government---into our pockets and into our daily lives.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

Just small enough to fit in our bedrooms, right?

[Woodruff]

Congress won't enact his removal of rights, so Obama will just unilaterally enact them anyway. Who said he doesn't want to be a dictator?

1) It was a Republican President who invented Executive Orders to get around Congress.
2) George Bush II passed a record number of Executive Orders. Many of which were directed at "domestic security."
3) Obama has since rescinded many of George Bush II's Executive Orders.

4) The Executive Branch is separate and equal to Congress. Obama doesn't need permission from senator dickweed to do anything but declare war. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court during George Bush II's second term, when Democrats sued the president to force him to share his top secret documents about meeting exclusively with Oil Lobbyist to set the policy for invading Iraq before Bush II announced his plans to invade Iraq to Congress. The Dems lost the lawsuit.

Also, http://techland.time.com/2013/04/17/whi ... rity-bill/ ; If Obama wants to be a Dictator, why is he threatening to veto internet spying legislation on the grounds that it violates your civil rights?

BECAUSE SOCIALIST!!!!!

You guys are a hoot. Or perhaps delusional... but you can still be a hoot while being delusional.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/24/ ... of-rights/

The framework targets only the private sector's activities, not the government's. G-men can still, in certain situations, rifle through Americans' personal data without a search warrant.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/03/why_doe ... liberties/

Let us stipulate, as lawyers like to say, that President Obama has a deplorable record on civil liberties, one that threatens long-term damage to the country’s constitutional culture.

Why, then, has his base of support not been eroded decisively? Why have so many on the left fallen silent, after railing against George W. Bush’s rights violations, as Obama has prolonged and codified most of the same practices? And why have so few on the right, riding a groundswell of resentment toward big government, failed to resent the biggest governmental intrusions into personal privacy since the FBI’s domestic spying during the Cold War?

Hopefully you guys can answer some of Salon's questions. Perhaps JB can answer the second one?

The facts are not in dispute. While Obama has ordered an end to CIA kidnapping and torture, he has personally approved kill lists containing the names of American citizens to be targeted by drones. While he has tried to move the accused masterminds of 9/11 and others from Guantanamo to civilian courts (only to be blocked by congressional Republicans), he has also embraced military commissions and indefinite detention. He voiced misgivings about a bill subjecting suspected terrorists to military arrest — whether foreigners or Americans, whether in Afghanistan or Alabama — and then signed it into law.

In practically every significant court case, his administration has argued for an expansive encroachment on individual rights, much as the Bush administration did. Obama’s Justice Department has successfully opposed the habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo prisoners, persuading conservative judges to rule in one case that sketchy, unverified intelligence reports must be presumed correct. This absurdity has now entered case law as an erosion of the venerable right, dating from the Magna Carta, to summon your jailer before an impartial magistrate.

The administration has continued undermining the Fourth Amendment. It argued in the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully, that law enforcement should be free to attach GPS tracking devices to vehicles without showing probable cause and getting warrants. It has vigorously used a tool that Obama denounced in the 2008 campaign: the administrative subpoenas known as National Security Letters, which are issued without warrants to acquire the library, Internet, banking and other records of individuals suspected of nothing at all. His Justice Department has invoked state secrets, as did Bush’s, to deny wrongfully imprisoned and tortured victims the right to sue the government. The administration has sought broad immunity for Secret Service agents and others in law enforcement who arrest people exercising their First Amendment right to speech.

Obama’s solicitor general has just made a catch-22 argument before the Supreme Court that could exempt from constitutional challenge the law that authorizes the interception of Americans’ international communications without probable cause — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, broadened in 2008 with Obama’s vote as senator. Because the surveillance by the National Security Agency is secret, his administration argues, there is no way for the lawyers, journalists and rights organizations who suspect they are being monitored to prove that they are, in fact, targets of surveillance, and therefore they have no standing to sue.

Dictatorship is a pretty basic thing. "A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force" and all that. Obama isn't a dictator, it's as simple as that.

You may recall, I think as little of Obama as President as I did of Bush. But I guess as long as I don't think he's a dictator, I must be a fan of his?

[AndyDufresne]

We all know Obama is like Khan from Star Trek. A superman that wants to take over the world/galaxy.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

We all know Obama is like Khan from Star Trek. A superman that wants to take over the world/galaxy.
--Andy

"Khan" sounds Persian. I'll bet Obama is from Iran too.

[AndyDufresne]

Khan is definitely a Mongolian term.


--Andy

[Woodruff]

Khan is definitely a Mongolian term.--Andy

Next on Fox: Obama is a Communist.

[BigBallinStalin]

We all know Obama is like Khan from Star Trek. A superman that wants to take over the world/galaxy.
--Andy

"Khan" sounds Persian. I'll bet Obama is from Iran too.

Khan is definitely a Mongolian term.


--Andy

Next on Fox: Obama is a Communist.

After mix-mashing this string of reasoning together, and mentioning that Obama's full name is "Barack Hussein Obama," then we can conclude that Obama is a Mongolian, Persian, Arabic Communist Terrorist seeking to destroy the US from within. First, he went after the US. Next, the galaxy.

We should all be extremely alarmed and emotional about this.

[AndyDufresne]

We should all be extremely alarmed and emotional

Is this the campaign slogan for 2016, since Stop crying and get logical was the 2012 slogan?


--Andy

[BigBallinStalin]

Yes, I'm changing my marketing tactics. Surely, we will prevail in this coming election.

Be alarmed! Get emotional!!1

[thegreekdog]

Congress won't enact his removal of rights, so Obama will just unilaterally enact them anyway. Who said he doesn't want to be a dictator?

1) It was a Republican President who invented Executive Orders to get around Congress.
2) George Bush II passed a record number of Executive Orders. Many of which were directed at "domestic security."
3) Obama has since rescinded many of George Bush II's Executive Orders.

4) The Executive Branch is separate and equal to Congress. Obama doesn't need permission from senator dickweed to do anything but declare war. This was affirmed by the Supreme Court during George Bush II's second term, when Democrats sued the president to force him to share his top secret documents about meeting exclusively with Oil Lobbyist to set the policy for invading Iraq before Bush II announced his plans to invade Iraq to Congress. The Dems lost the lawsuit.

Also, http://techland.time.com/2013/04/17/whi ... rity-bill/ ; If Obama wants to be a Dictator, why is he threatening to veto internet spying legislation on the grounds that it violates your civil rights?

BECAUSE SOCIALIST!!!!!

You guys are a hoot. Or perhaps delusional... but you can still be a hoot while being delusional.

http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2012/02/24/ ... of-rights/

The framework targets only the private sector's activities, not the government's. G-men can still, in certain situations, rifle through Americans' personal data without a search warrant.

http://www.salon.com/2012/11/03/why_doe ... liberties/

Let us stipulate, as lawyers like to say, that President Obama has a deplorable record on civil liberties, one that threatens long-term damage to the country’s constitutional culture.

Why, then, has his base of support not been eroded decisively? Why have so many on the left fallen silent, after railing against George W. Bush’s rights violations, as Obama has prolonged and codified most of the same practices? And why have so few on the right, riding a groundswell of resentment toward big government, failed to resent the biggest governmental intrusions into personal privacy since the FBI’s domestic spying during the Cold War?

Hopefully you guys can answer some of Salon's questions. Perhaps JB can answer the second one?

The facts are not in dispute. While Obama has ordered an end to CIA kidnapping and torture, he has personally approved kill lists containing the names of American citizens to be targeted by drones. While he has tried to move the accused masterminds of 9/11 and others from Guantanamo to civilian courts (only to be blocked by congressional Republicans), he has also embraced military commissions and indefinite detention. He voiced misgivings about a bill subjecting suspected terrorists to military arrest — whether foreigners or Americans, whether in Afghanistan or Alabama — and then signed it into law.

In practically every significant court case, his administration has argued for an expansive encroachment on individual rights, much as the Bush administration did. Obama’s Justice Department has successfully opposed the habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo prisoners, persuading conservative judges to rule in one case that sketchy, unverified intelligence reports must be presumed correct. This absurdity has now entered case law as an erosion of the venerable right, dating from the Magna Carta, to summon your jailer before an impartial magistrate.

The administration has continued undermining the Fourth Amendment. It argued in the Supreme Court, unsuccessfully, that law enforcement should be free to attach GPS tracking devices to vehicles without showing probable cause and getting warrants. It has vigorously used a tool that Obama denounced in the 2008 campaign: the administrative subpoenas known as National Security Letters, which are issued without warrants to acquire the library, Internet, banking and other records of individuals suspected of nothing at all. His Justice Department has invoked state secrets, as did Bush’s, to deny wrongfully imprisoned and tortured victims the right to sue the government. The administration has sought broad immunity for Secret Service agents and others in law enforcement who arrest people exercising their First Amendment right to speech.

Obama’s solicitor general has just made a catch-22 argument before the Supreme Court that could exempt from constitutional challenge the law that authorizes the interception of Americans’ international communications without probable cause — the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, broadened in 2008 with Obama’s vote as senator. Because the surveillance by the National Security Agency is secret, his administration argues, there is no way for the lawyers, journalists and rights organizations who suspect they are being monitored to prove that they are, in fact, targets of surveillance, and therefore they have no standing to sue.

Dictatorship is a pretty basic thing. "A ruler with total power over a country, typically one who has obtained power by force" and all that. Obama isn't a dictator, it's as simple as that.

You may recall, I think as little of Obama as President as I did of Bush. But I guess as long as I don't think he's a dictator, I must be a fan of his?

Hey, you agree with JB, you get lumped in with JB. Didn't see you respond with a litany of Obama's abuses (like, you know, I fucking did). Erego, you're a fan.

You could have responded like this:

You're right TGD. I'm just having a little go at Phatscotty. Obama is just as bad as Bush II, so I don't know why JB is making the comparison.

[AndyDufresne]

Yes, I'm changing my marketing tactics. Surely, we will prevail in this coming election.

Be alarmed! Get emotional!!1

I approve this message.


--Andy

[Phatscotty]

isaiah40 has really nice argument

Chicago has gun control, where is their crime rate? Houston has no gun control, what is Houston's crime rate. I can guarantee you that Houston has a lower crime rate than Chicago!

Would you then compare US crime rate and any european country with gun control?

Of course not. Europeans do not have the right to bear arms!!! I don't know how many European countries border narco-states either.

analogy fail

For the rest of your crap, crime is higher where criminals know their victims cannot protect themselves or stop them. That is a powerful piece of knowledge for a criminal to possess....but I expect you won't understand this simple point

[Juan_Bottom]

"Shall not be infringed" means just that, lawful citizens or criminals alike. We all know that criminals are going to get a gun if they so choose no matter what law you pass. Criminals are just that, criminals, law breakers! Which is why I don't believe that the government should require background checks. If you, being a law-abiding citizen, went to purchase a gun, filled out the background check form, waited your time (usually 7 days in most states), and then found out that you were denied because of one little thing the government didn't like how would you feel. Some will say that the government is protecting you and you family. But, I come along and decide to rob you with a gun, what are you going to do? I then go next door to your neighbors, and try the same thing but he/she has a gun and shoots me. Who protected their family from me? You or your next door neighbor?

Chicago has gun control, where is their crime rate? Houston has no gun control, what is Houston's crime rate. I can guarantee you that Houston has a lower crime rate than Chicago!

Chicago's gun control is a reactionary movement to it's high crime rate, which is a result of decades of corruption and organized crime. I mean, this goes back to the Great Chicago Fire. What I'm saying is, the gun control didn't cause the high rate of crime, it's a response to the high rate of crime. The legalized selling of guns without background checks in other areas is actually what is arming Chicago's career criminals. Even with the gun sale ban, the police still confiscate more guns than LA or NY.
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2013 ... .html?_r=0
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter ... e-guns-st/

Don't forget the premise. Obama "simply wanted a vote on the issue". Okay, ya got the vote, now respect the will of the people, be tolerant of Democracy, and STFU!

Every single poll shows that the majority of Americans want universal background checks; it's your side that will not respect the will of the people. Think about it. Obama is the one who is carrying out the will of the people,.. and that probably makes you the bad guy that you think Obama is.

You guys are a hoot. Or perhaps delusional... but you can still be a hoot while being delusional.

Hopefully you guys can answer some of Salon's questions. Perhaps JB can answer the second one?

I would try, but I'm not sure what the second question is.

And anyway, I'm not defending Obama's record on civil rights/liberties for Americans or anyone. Obviously ending DADT was great, but he's been all over the place when it comes to foreigner's civil rights and domestic spying. There are a lot of issues (like Israel) where I cannot even tell where he stands. Now, I've said in the past that I don't have a single problem with using spy drones on Americans, but I do have a problem with warrant-less or relentless use of them, etc. But he's no dictator is all I was saying and am rambling about now.

but I expect you won't understand this simple point

Here's a simple point for you -
You want all Americans to pass a Universal Background Check and get an ID card in order to vote, even though the 2013 election saw 1 case nationwide of actual voter fraud, and it was committed by a republican-registered civilian.

Yet you are against Universal Background Checks for anyone who wants to buy a goddamn Assault Rifle.

[Woodruff]

You may recall, I think as little of Obama as President as I did of Bush. But I guess as long as I don't think he's a dictator, I must be a fan of his?

Hey, you agree with JB, you get lumped in with JB. Didn't see you respond with a litany of Obama's abuses (like, you know, I fucking did).

I suppose if you ignore pretty much everything else I've posted about Obama, you might believe I haven't listed a great number of Obama's abuses. If you ignore pretty much everything else.

Ergo, you're a fan.

So now there's two Phatscotty's? Great.

You could have responded like this:

You're right TGD. I'm just having a little go at Phatscotty. Obama is just as bad as Bush II, so I don't know why JB is making the comparison.

It's really quite disappointing what you've become. I saw hints of it before I left, but I didn't believe. I guess all good things really do die.

[Woodruff]

isaiah40 has really nice argument

Chicago has gun control, where is their crime rate? Houston has no gun control, what is Houston's crime rate. I can guarantee you that Houston has a lower crime rate than Chicago!

Would you then compare US crime rate and any european country with gun control?

Of course not. Europeans do not have the right to bear arms!!!

That is thoroughly irrelevant to the discussion of crime rates, you realize...right?

I don't know how many European countries border narco-states either.

Really?

For the rest of your crap, crime is higher where criminals know their victims cannot protect themselves or stop them. That is a powerful piece of knowledge for a criminal to possess....but I expect you won't understand this simple point

So then how do you explain those European countries and their gun control?

[Woodruff]

but I expect you won't understand this simple point

Here's a simple point for you -
You want all Americans to pass a Universal Background Check and get an ID card in order to vote, even though the 2013 election saw 1 case nationwide of actual voter fraud, and it was committed by a republican-registered civilian.

Yet you are against Universal Background Checks for anyone who wants to buy a goddamn Assault Rifle.

Because FREEDOM!!!!!!

(Well stated.)

[ooge]

Back in the day, tax collectors were tarred and feathered when the people deemed that they were being taxed enough already.

With the relative rise in power of the state, the people lack that credible deterrent. As the people's ability to counterbalance the federal government decreases, then we should expect more expansion of the federal government---into our pockets and into our daily lives.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

Brought to you courtesy of the bumper sticker party,ask them anything deeper than that and they fall apart.

[Night Strike]

Here's a simple point for you -
You want all Americans to pass a Universal Background Check and get an ID card in order to vote, even though the 2013 election saw 1 case nationwide of actual voter fraud, and it was committed by a republican-registered civilian.

I don't know about any elections in 2013, but if you meant the 2012 November elections, you must have forgotten this one: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/03 ... -november/

Looks like another woman in the same county just pled guilty to voter fraud: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/ken-shephe ... ceased-nun

[Phatscotty]

Back in the day, tax collectors were tarred and feathered when the people deemed that they were being taxed enough already.

With the relative rise in power of the state, the people lack that credible deterrent. As the people's ability to counterbalance the federal government decreases, then we should expect more expansion of the federal government---into our pockets and into our daily lives.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

Brought to you courtesy of the bumper sticker party,ask them anything deeper than that and they fall apart.

So what's stopping ya?

Go ahead!!! ASK DEEPER!!

[ooge]

Back in the day, tax collectors were tarred and feathered when the people deemed that they were being taxed enough already.

With the relative rise in power of the state, the people lack that credible deterrent. As the people's ability to counterbalance the federal government decreases, then we should expect more expansion of the federal government---into our pockets and into our daily lives.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

Brought to you courtesy of the bumper sticker party,ask them anything deeper than that and they fall apart.

So what's stopping ya?

Go ahead!!! ASK DEEPER!!

I have..All you responded with is slogans.But I will ask this do you think having Ted Nugent as a spokesman for this is a good thing? and do you know his personal history?

[daddy1gringo]

A little different perspective on the gun-control issue. Actually I posted this back in 2008. I re-post it here with just a few minor edits for clarity.

One person shows his statistics proving that more relaxed gun control lowers crime, the other posts his stats proving that it increases gun deaths. There’s probably some truth to both. What we’re missing is the underlying social and political issue.

Whatever segment of the population feels that they can’t trust the government to protect them, or that it’s the government from which they need to be protected, wants their own guns.

Liberals didn’t talk about gun control in the 60’s and early 70’s. They had posters of Huey Newton and Eldridge Cleaver on their walls armed to the teeth like Rambo. Abbie Hoffman gave directions for making and acquiring guns, and building bombs, in his books, “Revolution for the Hell of It” and “Steal This Book.” Racial minorities and people of left-leaning political views felt the police, FBI, CIA, and military threatened, rather than protected them.

Though I do not advocate violence, I trust God for my protection, have never owned a gun and probably never will, I had to chuckle when I heard liberals being shocked and indignant when right-wing pundits Gordon Liddy and Bob Grant spoke on the radio of how to shoot federal agents. “How inexcusable! They’re talking about shooting officers of the law!” I always wanted to find one and ask, “Would you tell me the meaning of the phrase ‘Off the pig!’ and tell me why you were chanting it like a mantra 15 years ago?” The right wing now sounds like the left wing then, because they now feel unsafe.

A troubled justice and penal system quickly returns violent criminals to society unchanged, except that they are more hardened and bitter, and more trained in crime.

The IRS can take your paycheck and bypass a great deal of due process. The DCF can take your children on an anonymous malicious accusation.

Candidates for the Supreme Court are summarily dismissed by a sufficiently large liberal block in the Senate if their religious beliefs lead them to the pro-life stance held by approximately half the population. The “RICO” organized crime laws are brought to bear on peaceful demonstrators because of a few wackos who commit violence against abortion clinics, creating a situation where “an 80-year-old grandmother praying a rosary on the sidewalk is now a gangster.”

As a teacher I could be fired for mentioning my beliefs in class, but if I were so inclined I could rattle off an entire class period about the spirits in the rocks and trees, because that is “multi-cultural” and “environmental.”

Affirmative action leaves scores of people feeling, rightly or wrongly, “The laws gave that (fill in ethnic slur) the job I should have gotten.” The white-supremacist hate groups are attentive to use that to recruit new haters.

Deal with these issues, and the demands of many to have assault rifles, without the government's knowledge, will subside.

[Phatscotty]

Back in the day, tax collectors were tarred and feathered when the people deemed that they were being taxed enough already.

With the relative rise in power of the state, the people lack that credible deterrent. As the people's ability to counterbalance the federal government decreases, then we should expect more expansion of the federal government---into our pockets and into our daily lives.

The bigger the government, the smaller the citizen

Brought to you courtesy of the bumper sticker party,ask them anything deeper than that and they fall apart.

So what's stopping ya?

Go ahead!!! ASK DEEPER!!

I have..All you responded with is slogans.But I will ask this do you think having Ted Nugent as a spokesman for this is a good thing? and do you know his personal history?

Actually, it wasn't a response at all. It was just capping a BBS statement.

All I can see here is you running from your own comments and changing the subject to personal inforamation about Ted Nugent.

I thought you wanted to go deeper, not to the shallow kiddie pool?

[oVo]

Going deeper? All the vote did is prove once again that our elected officials in the Capitol represent deep pocketed special interests and not the voters who sent them to Washington.

Maybe when American citizens realize they are not represented in Congress it will be time to stop paying taxes until this situation is corrected and attempts at democracy are once again in place.

No Taxation Without Representation!