Do Democrats Want to Take Our Guns?
During the 1990s, when the Clinton administration pushed for expanded gun control laws, various people warned: “Fear the government that fears your gun.” Law-abiding citizens understood that our Founders’ worldview had been completely flipped on its head, not by ubiquitous gun ownership but by a government that feared the idea of an armed citizenry.
With the election of Barack Obama, citizens are again confronted by an administration opposed to an armed citizenry, the tenets of our Founding Fathers, and thus to freedom itself. Although Obama has only been in office for three months, various gun registry schemes have already been promoted. And during an April 7 appearance on Good Morning America, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi put in plainly: “We want [guns] registered.” Of course she assured those watching Good Morning America that Democrats “don’t want to take … guns away.”
We could ask ourselves, “What’s wrong with using registration to create a list of guns and gun owners to which our president has access?” But to ask that question is to answer it. Plus, here’s a better question: “Why weren’t our Founders intent on registering firearms and their owners?” The answer to this question is as profound as it is simple. They wanted “every man” to be armed, not just certain men.
In describing the dangers of gun registration, NRA Executive Vice President Wayne LaPierre said: “Ultimately registration will let the government know who owns guns and what guns they own. History [then] provides the outcome: confiscation. And a people disarmed is a people in danger.”
After Hitler and the Nazis registered all the guns in Germany, millions of Jews, Christians, and handicapped persons knew firsthand the “danger” of which LaPierre speaks. They were rounded up and starved to death, or used in inhumane medical experiments, or killed outright in the death camps.
But what could those Jews, Christians, and handicapped persons do? They couldn’t fight back, for they were without guns and thus without a means to ensure their own survival, much less their freedom.
It could be that the Obama administration does want to find a way to protect the government from the people. I continue to puzzle over what this means. “…just as powerful, just as strong….” WHY??
Obama always reads his speeches from carefully prepared texts, so this bit about a national security force cannot be explained away as just spontaneous exaggeration.
What does he want (there are several national security forces already, including the FBI and ATF) and who will be targeted by this national security force?? What is its purpose to be?
The press corps does not share my curiosity, unfortunately.
I think the differences between Obama and his supporters, and “Old America” are too great to be settled peacefully. They know it and we know it. Arms and ammunition sales are still at record highs, with no sign of decreasing. An attemp to register or consficate weapons will be the catalyst.
The armed forces of the united states swear an oath to defend the constitution not politicians. They are bound by the posse cotaminus act not to enforce political rule by direct action against the citizens of the united states. A national security force however will probably not be bound by the same restrictions and can be used against the citizens at large. who will this force be targeted at? why you and me of course. One cannot have a coup without an armed force to enforce it. Perhaps to quell the riots to be had when the middle class gets tired of providing their labor, assets and time to those who do not share in the misery a socialist regime would inflict on us.
This is exactly how the UK eliminated guns. They registered them all then took them all. Simple.
Warning: We have fewer guns in Australia, and more criminals. Mmm…I wonder when our media will say sorry.
We need to remind congress and that one just who it is they work for. I don’t believe that anyone that voted for change truly believed it was a change of our political system and rule of law. Any move for mass registration may involve paperwork being sent to gun owners. These papers should be burned publicy as an act of defiance. Remember the ATF has a list of every firearm purchased with the use of an FFL. This list is not available to politicians only law enforcement. Bottom line, They are already registered to atleast the original owners.
If you want your voice heard you have to use it more often than one day every other November.
The left is getting ready to try an end run around the 2nd Amendment by limiting the availability of ammunition components thus rendering the firearms that Joe Citizen owns useless. If the bill Bobby Rush introduced (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H.R.45
gets passed this is exactly what will happen.
It’s humorous that Democrats think that by portraying themselves as nice, harmless people, they can persuade the masses of gun owners that “it’ll never happen here”. Those who believe them will get what they deserve.
One of the constants in Democratic Party “thought” since the mid-1950s has been a sharp distinction between what they think of as “right-thinking people” and everyone else.
“Right-thinking people” are invariably highly educated at the “right” schools (Harvard, Yale, etc.), work at the “right” kind of jobs (i.e., they have law degrees), do the “right” kind of “public service” (i.e., they look out for poor people), and are terribly concerned about whatever their peers decide is The Most Important Problem In The World at any given moment (nuclear war, global cooling, global warming, etc.). They also only associate with people like themselves.(Which handily insulates them from having to listen to opinions different from their own- which are invariably wrong, in their opinion.)
As a rule, “right-thinking people” do not like religion, as it implies that there may be an entity more powerful than themselves- which makes them uncomfortable as it affects their egos. They also dislike the idea of actually dealing with the dirty work of preparing food- to them, all food should come from a “Star Trek”-type replicator, not just to avoid hurting an animal, but to avoid having to get involved with dirt (ugh). And they view anyone who does not have a problem with either one as… vaguely repellent, possibly some sort of Neanderthalic throwback.
Their views become downright schizoid when it comes to crime and government power. They believe that as long as government power is in “the right hands” (theirs), government must have no limits to its power- because they are motivated solely by “good”. At the same time, they resent the idea that criminals should face punishment, because “they’re just acting out against the inequalities of society”- as though robbery, murder, etc., were just a form of “performance art”. (In fact, they actually see criminals as sharing their contempt for the “common herd”, and secretly wish they had the nerve to flaunt their contempt as openly as the criminals do.)
Seen in this light, the “enlightened ones’” desire to disarm Americans is easy to understand. Simply put, they fear those who are different from themselves, and seek to achieve absolute control over them in a quest for absolute safety. Which they define as permanent power that can never be challenged in any way. As long as Americans have arms which they cannot find, and therefore confiscate, they can never have the absolute power they crave- in the belief that it equals the absolute ability to both “do good”- and remain eternally safe from the world. (And all those criminals whom they secretly sympathize with would make such wonderful “guard dogs”, too, with just a little “grooming”.)
What you have to ask yourself is- with this sort of mindset, if they ever even got close to such a level of power, what would they do with it?
Or more exactly, what would they do to you- whom they regard as inherently inferior to their own perfect selves?
clear ether
eon
Mr. Hawkins, thanks for the references to founding fathers’ thinking on guns for citizens. Usually all I see in the media is parsing of the words in the second amendment about militias, etc. But to see their thinking makes a world of difference in confirming my own intuitive feel. Citizens must be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical government. They knew the danger always exists because what is the government but people, who are susceptible to desires for power, absolute power. Just as we are seeing played out daily by “The One with a Gift” and his minions.
Anyone out there know why .380 cal. ammunition has disappeared from store shelves? Even vendors at last weeks gun show in Jacksonville Fl were out. Other calibers, especially handgun, are becoming scarce amd expensive.
Benson asks: “who will be targeted…?”
I think Janet Napolitano gave us a pretty good idea a couple weeks ago.
Hey I have a suggestion: Let’s make owning guns part of our privacy.
A lot of people, including those that want to abolish our right to own guns, have great respect for privacy and the “right to choose.” I say my guns are part of my life style that should remain private.
We do not accept casual searches of your medical records or details of your religous belief or what birth control method you use. If they cannot convince me to voluntarily reveal this information then they must go convince a judge to issue a warrent.
Likewise we should not accept the state poking into our closets to look at our guns without a compelling reason like crime investgation. It is simply a matter of personal privacy.
Rock on Hawkins! Now this is a strong article, well done. We must be free, yet we cannot be so without guns. We simply cannot.
There are many firearms owners in America who remain unaffiliated. I encourage them to join NRA or Gun Owners of America, and to participate in their pro-gun activities. With over 80 million firearms in the country, its incumbent upon gun owners to make their feelings known to our weasels in Congress and to the Usurper-in-Chief. This cannot be allowed to continue unchecked.
Semper Fi.
Yes!!! A much needed article. We have been lulled to sleep as far as freedom is concerned. We have taken it for granted and drawn close to losing it as a consequence (with the election of Obama). We must stand firm on private gun ownership. We cannot budge. Everyone should call his or her senators today and let them know that we expect them to defend this right without apology.
I remember Obama campaigning and, seeing a guy in hunter garb in the back, went out of his way to say to him and the crowd something like, “Look, I’m not going to take your guns away. I’m not.”
Then, as he does when not on teleprompter, he thought to add that final “proof” and let slip the true reason he would not be able to take the guns:
“I don’t have the votes.”
Well, he has the votes now.
Obama’s true desire is to be a tyrant king over disarmed subjects, not a President among armed citizens.
Obama may or may not have the votes, but he sure doesn’t have the firepower to sieze our guns – as long as we don’t act like sheep (like they did in the UK and Aus).
Tomp: Rumor is that manufacturers didn’t bother changing dies for .380 because 9mm demand was so high. So no .380 for a while.
You would think the Obama administration would realize that an attempt to register guns would (1) be unsuccessful, as it was in Canada, and (2) quite possibly trigger exactly the kind of widespread resistance to law (civil disobedience, of course) that would completely shut the country down. And, on suspects the willingness of the various state National Guards to be involved would be very limited.
Take your guns? Thanks but no thanks. We have plenty of our own.
“Remember the ATF has a list of every firearm purchased with the use of an FFL.”
The ATF can trace a gun to the shop that purchased it from the distributor, but is is barred by law from having a record of those who purchased from the dealer. I can state this as someone who has worked in shop that has helped the ATF run a trace, and required us to dig up our records.
“Anyone out there know why .380 cal. ammunition has disappeared from store shelves?”
Shockingly enough, Ruger LCP, Kel-Tecs, and other “mousegun” .380s also disappeared an alarming rate. If I didn’t know better, I’d suspect that people are buying lots of guns AND ammunition for those guns.
So let me get this straight-
registering guns is tyrannical, and a threat to our liberties;
but tapping your phone and reading your email without a warrant under the Patriot Act is just fine?
Why is the 2nd Amendment sacred, but the 4th Amendment is just a nuisance, standing in the way of the war on terror?
I hope that the same people who are so adament about protecting one will also rise up and demand we protect the other.
The government that is allowed to read your email and snoopp through your bank accounts without a warrant doesn’t need to register your gun- it already knows what you bought, where and when you bought it, and whether you got the spiffy walnut burled stock.
“After Hitler and the Nazis registered all the guns in Germany, millions of Jews, Christians, and handicapped persons knew firsthand the “danger” of which LaPierre speaks. They were rounded up and starved to death, or used in inhumane medical experiments, or killed outright in the death camps.”
This part of the article says it all. We now have a President willing to put the minority needs above the majority and the worlds interests above Americans. Hand over weapons to him? I don’t think so.
The gun laws vary widely by state, of course. But whether its Vermont – where you don’t need a license to carry a gun and where it is legal to carry that gun unconcealed – or Washington DC which is utterly totalitarian in this regard, depsite Supreme Court rulings; all states have one thing in common: it is illegal to carry your gun into any government building. Any.
So while I am perfectly free to carry my weapon into the mall on Saturday afternoon and Outback on Saturday night, I can be arrested for toting it in to renew my driver’s license.
Does this not tell you something?
“So let me get this straight-
registering guns is tyrannical, and a threat to our liberties;
but tapping your phone and reading your email without a warrant under the Patriot Act is just fine?”
You clearly don’t understand what the fight was about. Phone calls and other communications crossing national boundaries have been subject to NSA examination without warrants for decades. The big fight over phone records was not tapping the phone calls, but examining who was calling who: what phone numbers were calling which phone numbers. (This might well have led to a request from the FISA Court for a wiretap, but it was only traffic analysis that upset the Democrats.)
Selected quotes of interest from the enemies of liberty:
“One man with a gun can control 100 without one. … Make mass searches and hold executions for found arms,” –V.I. Lenin.
“If the opposition disarms, well and good. If it refuses to disarm, we shall disarm it ourselves,” — Joseph Stalin
…We’re going to hammer guns on the anvil of relentless legislative strategy. We’re going to beat guns into submission!” — Rep. (now Sen.) Charles Schumer
“Banning guns is an idea whose time has come.” — U.S. Sen. Joseph Biden
“Banning guns addresses a fundamental right of all Americans to feel safe.” — Sen. Dianne Feinstein
“We’re going to have to take one step at a time, and the first step is necessarily given the political realities-going to be very modest…So then we’ll have to start working again to strengthen the law, and then again to strengthen the next law, and maybe again and again…Our ultimate goal-total control of handguns in the US-is going to take time….the final problem is to make the possession of all handguns and all handgun ammunition except for the military, policemen, licensed security guards, licensed sporting clubs, and licensed gun collectors — totally illegal.” — Pete Shields, Chairman Emeritus, Handgun Control, Inc. (“The New Yorker”, July 26, 1976)
If it was up to me, no one but law enforcement officers would own hand guns… — Chicago Mayor Richard Daley Federal Gun Legislation Press Conference in Washington, D.C., November 13, 1998
In fact, the assault weapons ban will have no significant effect either on the crime rate or on personal security. Nonetheless, it is a good idea . . . . Its only real justification is not to reduce crime but to desensitize the public to the regulation of weapons in preparation for their ultimate confiscation. — Charles Krauthammer, Disarm the Citizenry. But Not Yet, Washington Post, Apr. 5, 1996
‘Your friends might get me in a rush Ike… but not before I turn your head into a canoe, get it?’
YES. The Democrats want to repeal the Second Amendment or make it extremely difficult to own any guns. However, the last time the Democrats attempted gun control they lost many seats in Congress & Governor seats.
T’is indeed ironic that a once mighty nation which was founded on the principles of resisting gun control (Battle of Lexington) and taxes (Boston Tea-party) has come to be the Obamanation Apology State we currently behold.
I suggest that these two founding principles may form the basis for revolution redux.
Expect the Tea Parties to ignite & grow with this development as the backlash gains momentum & the terrified MSM sycophant Obamabots shudder in fear.
We warned the people about Obama’s Marxist streak, but they did not listen.
obama and his followers are traitors of the United States. If you are not willing to stand against them to protect the constitution, you do not deserve to live under the protection it provides.
They seek to defang the lion and take his claws. They must be stopped.
13. John K: . . . Hey I have a suggestion: Let’s make owning guns part of our privacy.
Well, John, you have to remember that it’s conservatives who have argued that there is no right to privacy. Why did they do that? Because they want to forbid abortions (and tap your phone and monitor your computer and read your mail and search your home). So, which is it? Do we have a right to privacy? Are you willing to be pro gun AND pro choice? It’s a test of principle.
29. Sebastian Shaw:
YES. The Democrats want to repeal the Second Amendment or make it extremely difficult to own any guns.
Really? Which Democrats are saying that? What did they say?
#33 sheesh: Really? Which Conservatives “have argued that there is no right to privacy.” ? What did they say?
This alarm needs to be sounded again and again. We the people are ultimately freedom’s defenders in this nation. And we must have guns to remain so. Bravo Hawkins.
“After Hitler and the Nazis registered all the guns in Germany, millions of Jews, Christians, and handicapped persons knew firsthand the “danger” of which LaPierre speaks. They were rounded up and starved to death, or used in inhumane medical experiments, or killed outright in the death camps.”
4. cedarhill: . . . “This is exactly how the UK eliminated guns. They registered them all then took them all. Simple.”
I just heard on Fox News that British citizens are being rounded up and put on rail cars headed for the ovens at Blackpool. I warned you! I saw it coming and I warned you all!
I’m thinking about joining up. We need more patriots like this:
http://www.idahomilitia1.com/
Amen?
#33…
First off, the issue of abortion to many conservatives isn’t a privacy issue, it’s a violation of liberty issue. Those of us who oppose abortion do so because we believe it violates the right to life.
Many of us do not see a fetus as a mass of cells that can be extracted at the convenience of the host, it’s a new life that must be protected under our libertarian values. So the privacy argument is inapplicable.
Secondly, I seriously doubt that you’re going to find anyone in favor of the federal government tapping phone lines and monitoring the computers of private citizens that are not under investigation of a crime. What you are going to find is that most people are in favor of law enforcement and national security agencies monitoring these things in the interest of crime prevention and counter-terrorism activities.
The worry here is that we have a political party firmly in charge of two branches of government that wish to set aside Constitutional Law as they see fit. Many of us see the endgame of the Democratic Party, and it isn’t protection of the “little guy”, it’s control of the population. It’s an inherent distrust of their own citizens to make their own decisions. It’s a fear of an armed populace getting in the way of their statist policies.
They started by bribing the people with their own money, just as De Tocqueville predicted, through unsustainable benefit programs and an expansion of government employment, designed to get as many people dependent on government as possible. Then they came for the schools, so they could indoctrinate as early in life as possible. Now they will attempt to break down the last line of defense by first registering, then taking away, the ability of the people to defend themselves. We will be left with a majority that is dependent, dumb, and unarmed. The Democrats may have done this in the interest of protecting people, but this kind of population is ripe for tyranny.
- …it’s conservatives who have argued that there is no right to privacy.
Really? Which conservatives are saying that? What did they say?
39. TheMightyMonarch . . . ” I seriously doubt that you’re going to find anyone in favor of the federal government tapping phone lines and monitoring the computers of private citizens that are not under investigation of a crime . . . The worry here is that we have a political party firmly in charge of two branches of government that wish to set aside Constitutional Law as they see fit.”
I hope this is just another example of conservative obfuscation, that’s your best defense at this point.
33 & 34. Sheesh
If you think fighting a war and protecting the life of an innocent, unborn child is the equivelent of protecting the privacy of which library books you read, then there’s no hope for you.
Regarding the Dems who want to ban guns, spend some time googling and answer your own question. In fact spend some time reading the comments above for direct quotes.
Boys and girls, don’t look now but the “ban hammer”, well, she’s a’comin’ through the back door.
http://www.breitbart.tv/?p=331393
The “I’m not going to take away your guns!”,promise just flew over the fence and out of sight.
My advice. Ammo up now.
Not Over.
“I just heard on Fox News that British citizens are being rounded up and put on rail cars headed for the ovens at Blackpool. I warned you! I saw it coming and I warned you all!”
Sure, it’ll never happen as long as the government doesn’t have a reason to do so. As long as people remain good little sheep, cash their government checks and keep voting the incumbents back into office, we won’t need to sic the government on an already disarmed population. Let’s just hope that the government can continue to expand dependency while fleecing an ever-shrinking tax base. Let’s also hope that our paper money system will remain stable despite myriad examples throughout history of failures of such a system.
What you should really be scared of is if the U.S. falls down the sinkhole of European-style socialism (which is the intent of the Democratic party). Once that last bastion of a free society is eliminated, there will be no safe haven. No more fall-backs. And when the new regime comes for you and your family, they’ll have the convenience of taking you without a fight.
Of course you ignore one huge problem – Evvery nut now has acccess to as many gunds as he or she wants. The nut can be harmless or a ticking timebomb. But since you wingnuts are unbalanced anyway you don’t care
Sheesh,
Try this…
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=democrats+%2B+gun+control
I believe this gun confiscation will be the spark that sets off the civil war here.
Gun owners won’t win and the government will really take over.
It won’t affect crime at all unless you count all the new class of criminals that used to be called sportsmen and hunter’s.
“I hope this is just another example of conservative obfuscation, that’s your best defense at this point.”
Oh, I suppose you didn’t read the first part of my comment that explains the libertarian argument against abortion.
I addressed both of your comments with regards to abortion and monitoring of citizens, then tied it into my argument against expanded state control. Yet you accuse me of clouding the issue while invoking images of British citizens being rounded up and gassed. Not sure if you have a leg to stand on here.
QUESTIONS: How many Ruby ridges and Waco massacres will it take for the Government to take over?
How many Murrow building attacks will take place forever after the guns are outlawed?
Does the administration want to make millions of American’s terrorist overnight?
Do American’s have the guts to fight for their rights?
Is Washington ready for a captive population that hates it?
Tom, that is one priceless link. Thanks for sharing.
How can you ban guns to protect citizens and children and turn about and kill babies as a right?
double speak/doublethink.
As we all know, all states differ with gun laws, the media fails to site this to the sheep who blame the gun first,an fail to look at reasonable people who may have need for a weapon in rural area’s or for sport, work,self protection. so the blame stream gets all the air time every time.
#45, that is probably the most useless and least-informed comment I’ve ever read. Congrats.
So full of holes I don’t know where to begin, but I’ll give it a shot.
First, no private citizen in the U.S. has unrestricted access to firearms. Law abiding citizens must register and usually wait several days before obtaining a weapon. Even then we’re talking about weapons that are suited for home defense and hunting. Even the “scarier” automatic weapons don’t hold a candle to what law enforcement and the military has access to.
Secondly, these “nuts” you’re talking about, in all likelihood, are either not going to be able to buy a firearm through legal means, or will obtain it illegally, which means no law on the books will prevent that nut from arming themselves. You might not have noticed but criminals tend not to obey the law, that’s why they’re called criminals.
Thirdly, a lot of these nutcases would be put down pretty quick (and even discouraged from taking destructive action in the first place) if more law-abiding citizens were armed. Remember that law enforcement rarely prevents such crimes, they merely arrest or put down the person that has already done the damage.
And then of course, you calling people like me “unbalanced”. I own a shotgun. I’m experienced in using it, I keep it well maintained, and in a locked cabinet. If my home is broken into and myself or my wife is assaulted, no cop in the world is going to be able to prevent that from happening. But my Rem 870 full of double-ought buckshot, in the hands of an experienced operator, sure as hell is. Now is that preparedness or the actions of an “unbalanced” individual?
#47 Barry0351
You write:
“I believe this gun confiscation will be the spark that sets off the civil war here.
Gun owners won’t win and the government will really take over.”
God forbid that any part of this comes true.
But just for the sake of the discussion: WHO will the Government “send” to seize the guns ?
The FBI has not the numbers, the Local and State Police wouldn’t obey, the National Guard neither.
The Army ? The Marines ?
The Government of America is not the King of a nation of slaves, it is the servant of a Nation of Citizens. Members of the Armed Forces take an Oath to defend the Constitution, not the government.
Gun owners WOULD WIN.
Someone says that between November and now, more than seven millions semi-auto rifles have been sold. That is the greatest army ever existed in history. But there were already some tens of millions of other “soldiers”.
And let’s be clear that I do not mean by this anything subversive. I mean “soldiers” of the American Constitution.
So, we must think that the commies need a paramilitary organization of their own.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment.
Sheesh, stop with your misdirection & tangents. Speak about the subject at hand or go away. I know what you’re doing. It’s not working.
the goverment can pass all the laws they want,confiscate all the guns they want.in the end it will be useless.the black market will fill that vaccum very nicely.of course,that means tons of untraceable REAL(i.e. full auto) ak’s and makarovs.with the actual armour piercing ammo that will be smuggled in with them.i for one,never liked COMBLOC weapons,but an rpg might be nice though….the authorities can stop it,you say?tell that to a drug user.the communists built millions of these weapons,and their just sittig in warehouses,considered”obsolete”.that is until they get a 1,000% plus mark up on the streets of our cites.oh yeah,and throw in a massive amount of paranioa by our populace at being disarmed by our goverment.what could go wrong?george bush 1′s ’89 import ban and clinton’s ’94 “assault weapons” ban, what happened?small domestic manufacterers sprouted up and several overseas companies set up shop in the u.s. to get around the import restictions.magazine capacity ban?no problem,w’ll just make our pistols smaller(easier to conceal)and larger caliber(more lethal)only ten round capacity in our rifles?no worries,just make them bigger caliber and WAY MORE ACCURATE.we now make the best small arms in the world.(knights armament,lmt,sabre defense,etc.)plus,the popularity of these weapons has exploded,including the competitve shooting events centered around them.did i mention the massive expansion of concealed carry laws?liberals seem to never learn the laws of unintended concequences.but hey,legislate away!
Americans were warned of the Socialist adgenda the liberal left has for America,but their heads were stuck where the sun don’t shine.Now what?
40 goy: . . .- …it’s conservatives who have argued that there is no right to privacy. – Really? Which conservatives are saying that? What did they say?
Here’s a whole book of it. Should be right up your alley: Bearing Right: How Conservatives Won the Abortion War
William Saletan reveals exactly how, thirty years after Roe v. Wade, “pro-choice” conservatives have turned abortion into a privacy issue. This eye-opening exposé tells how abortion rights activists-people who desired social change, women’s equality, and broader access to health care-have had their message co-opted in a culture of privacy and limited government. Saletan takes us through the key events in the ensuing story-the fight over the nomination of Judge Robert Bork, the election of Governor Doug Wilder in Virginia, the convergence of the Bush and Clinton positions on abortion in 1992, and much more-right up to the present day.
Now it’s your turn to answer:
Which Democrats are calling to repeal the 2nd Amendment? What are they saying?
Where’s the quote of Obama apoligizng for America?
When is Sean hannity gonna get waterbaorded for charity?
Should be easy for a situationalist like you.
… the commies need a paramilitary organization of their own.
The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. … God forbid we should ever be twenty years without such a rebellion; what country can preserve its liberties if their rulers are not warned from time to time that their people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms.” — Thomas Jefferson to William Stephens Smith, 1787
This is the entire Quote. Jefferson advocated the overthrow of govt every generation, to maintain fresh perspective on what liberty and freedom truly are.
It’s difficult for me to sympathize with the author or the commenters here who agree. I support the 2nd Amendment and am not in favor of firearm registration. However, to make the leap from a proposal to register firearms to being marched into the gas chambers belies a flare for the dramatic that is not bounded in reality. Do totalitarian governments wish to disarm their people? Yes. Might they first do so by requiring the citizenry to register their firearms? They certainly might? Does this mean that Nancy Pelosi seeks the murder of millions of conservatives? It certainly does not.
With few exceptions, the people in this country calling for any form of genocidal acts come from the right, not the left. This is not to slander conservatives or Republicans with this view, but just to point out that an impartial observer, looking at the distribution of firearms combined with extreme political beliefs, would reasonably assume that the largest domestic non-Islamic threat comes, in fact, from right-wing extremists.
It is also true that gun violence takes a significant toll in this country, accounting for some 10,000 murders per year.
So, I pose to you the following:
1. It is reasonable to be concerned about the murders and injuries committed using firearms
2. It is reasonable to be concerned about extremists–real extremists, people–who have significant arsenals and proclaim their intention to wage warfare against the United States or significant blocs of its citizenry.
Since it is reasonable to be concerned about these items, and since the only reasonable justification for pushing for firearm registration is to address them, I have some advice:
A. Do not respond to proposed firearm registration legislation by threatening to take up arms against the government. This is, to put it mildly, counter-productive.
B. Respond to encroachments–real, planned or perceived–on your 2nd Amendment rights by providing either (a) a convincing argument as to why the problem ostensibly being addressed is not actually as much of a problem, if at all; or (b) proposing a better solution that doesn’t impinge on the 2nd Amendment.
That I am an anarchist, should go without question.
They can have my gun when they pry it from my cold, dead, lifeless, fingers.
I hate where the country is going, and I stand ready to defend my point of view.
“If you can read this sign,,, you are within range”.
By the way, everybody who has predicted that this or that Democratic administration would start by confiscating the guns, and end by marching everybody who had them into concentration camps or death chambers, has the following two traits in common:
1. They’ve been wrong every time.
2. They’ve never admitted it
(Not to be unfair–the exact same phenomenon happens with leftys. I have a number of foolish acquaintances who were certain that G. W. Bush would never leave office and would instead find some pretext to suspend elections, stage a coup, etc. It’s not a trait specific to conservatives, but rather, as far as I can tell, to those who feel a certain lack of drama and significance to their own rather uneventful lives, and turn to fantasizing about their own heroic role in the coming conflict which never, thankfully, arrives.)
#59 goy
Bingo !
#47 Barry 0351:
“I believe this gun confiscation will be the spark that sets off the civil war here.”
Pish! It won’t be a Civil War…just a series of political murders and mass murders.
The Right’s hallmark has always been the “Death Squad”…not the “Street Mob”.
“Gun owners won’t win and the government will really take over.”
What gunowners? I had a boating accident.
BTW…the “0351″ in your monniker…have you also enjoyed a “Raytheon Suntan” of your neck and inside right arm?
To 54. Sherab Zangpo
The US is changing… many many cops in most cities will obey the order… New Orleans cops did. The national guard depending on state will either refuse or obey… I would wager at least 30% obey. The mainstream army roughly the same 30%.
In many states guns are all but banned now… CA, NJ, NYC and a host of other have near or complete bans on guns.(expect for political flunkies and cops). These states and cities would happily push for a door by door search for guns. Their cops and even national guard would help in the “cause”. Also don’t forget obama’s new brown shirts which we haven’t heard much about but likely we will soon.
Most ppl are so poorly educated in history, facts and the US constitution its scary…
John B – Typical toothless posturing
#63 ChrisL:
“By the way, everybody who has predicted that this or that Democratic administration would start by confiscating the guns, and end by marching everybody who had them into concentration camps or death chambers, has the following two traits in common:
1. They’ve been wrong every time.
2. They’ve never admitted it”
David Koresh.
@58. sheesh: - Here’s a whole book of it. … How Conservatives Won the Abortion War
A whole book of what? Where have conservatives ever argued that there is no right to privacy?
I asked you, not some hack from Slate who claims to be a “liberal Republican”.
I asked you, not some Amazon reviewer.
You need to at least attempt to make your own case.
Yeah, I can copy and paste from Amazon too. Watch: “Saletan tells how, beginning in Arkansas in 1986 during the administration of Governor Bill Clinton, the National Abortion Rights Action League repackaged the abortion issue to give it broader appeal to conservatives.”
See what I did there? The difference is that I identify when I’m doing it.
Next time don’t lie and pretend others’ words are yours. That’s called plagiarism. Consider yourself pwned.
Color me unsurprised that this is the best you could come up with.
Chris L. – you really should take your straw men home and play with them by yourself in your room. They have no place in a serious discussion on this topic.
68. Bilgeman: As much of an atrocity as that was, Koresh really needed to his guns, and the little girls around him, taken away. So he think the lesson here is, don’t be an apocalyptic child molester and you’ll probably be okay.
Besides that, its disingenuous to the hilt to imply that Waco was some beachhead in the project of taking away all the guns from all the people.
69 goy . . .still waiting on those three answers
69. goy: I’m not the one drawing the connection between Pelosi’s desire for firearm registration with Nazi death camps. Nor am I among the many on this and other thread who seem to feel that we’re on an inevitable road to a bloody civil war precisely because the government is going to try to take away all the guns. You yourself may not hold to these views, but they’re not my invention. Where’s the straw man?
#70 ChrisL:
“its disingenuous to the hilt to imply that Waco was some beachhead in the project of taking away all the guns from all the people.”
It is?
That’s strange, because it wasn’t a Texas Child Protective Services “Ninja Squad” that leapt out of the cattle cars with guns a-blazin’ that day, (Texas CPS had sent a lone single woman to check the allegations), but the “F-Troop” from the ATF.
Look, ace, don’t get all pissy just because I was able to give the example to what you claimed didn’t exist.
Try some ointment.
73. Bilgeman: If your position is that Waco was, in fact, the first shot fired in the government’s (apparently abandoned) plan to take away all the guns from all the citizens, then it’s upon you to provide some evidence beyond speculation that that is in fact the case. Your example in no way established this fact. It could have been the Secret Service, the Marines or Bill Clinton himself with Janet Reno on his shoulders, and it would not have meant that the action–however wrong–had any context beyond the immediate issue of Koresh, his guns, and the children he was molesting.
“Try some ointment.”
You want to convince me that you’re right? Find it in yourself to disagree while remaining respectful. Otherwise you’re just posing in front of the mirror.
Sheesh, that’s an answer.
It’s been a goal in my life to understand how different people think.
Sheesh is a mystery. He doesn’t say much at all and he does it so well.
To 72. Chris L
I must be confused but please point out where goy said registration of guns is the same as Nazi death camps…. I’d Like to see that.
Also in case you know nothing about history(which it seems you don’t). Any dictator or government that wishes to control its ppl and abuse them if it sees fit needs to remove the ppl’s “power” that power is almost always the gun.
Do you deny even basic history in that guns are the first things that they like to collect up…Do you also deny basic history that when ever there has been massive registration that it almost always(though normally years down the road) lead to the collecting of guns?
I think you suffer from massive projection… I also find this statement very telling….
“Nor am I among the many on this and other thread who seem to feel that we’re on an inevitable road to a bloody civil war precisely because the government is going to try to take away all the guns.”
So you believe the government is going to take away are guns and that you don’t think anyone will stop them…. thats a pretty telling statement.
sheesh,
The 2nd Amendment has already been trampled. What part of the word ‘infringed’ do you not understand. You make a lame case that leftists don’t want to repeal the 2nd Amendment and that leftists don’t drive the Democrat agenda. They have wanted to go around the 2nd Amendment since street gangs began using firearms during prohibition. They began to use incremental legislation to get what they want. Right now, lead is treated as if it is a poison, Why? Gunpowder is treated as if it must be taxed by the government as hazardous goods. Why? Now so called assault weapons are banned. Why? If you load your own ammunition, you are said to be stockpiling arms and that is somehow linked to domestic terrorism, even though nearly all people who load their own are just trying to save money on ammo. Why? Handguns are not useful for anything except killing people, they say, so owning one is made a crime. Why? It is now a crime to posses a weapon of any kind in all the schools and most of the public buildings, provoking real criminal predators to target these ‘gun safe zones’ for their mayhem. Why?
I will say this, most of your gun-ban advocates are donkeys, but many of them are elephants too. It does not matter to me who they are, they are all enemies of liberty.
61:Since it is reasonable to be concerned about these items, and since the only reasonable justification for pushing for firearm registration is to address them, I have some advice:
you actually believe that registering guns will uncover those used by criminals? I understand your point about over reacting, but you, like most people I know make assertions based on assumptions that are highly suspect in the first place. Then declare everyone that questions the twisted logic as (insert your favorite ad hominem here).
The things that irritate the conservative posters here are the cumulative sum of O’s actions that taken alone seem innocuous, but taken collectively, raise serious concern. IMHO
@72. Chris L: - Where’s the straw man?
That was straw men… plural.
Straw man #1: …to make the leap from a proposal to register firearms to being marched into the gas chambers belies a flare for the dramatic that is not bounded in reality.
Of course it does. That’s why you’re the only one making this leap at the moment. You mistake a cite from history as hysterical prediction, rather than as admonishment: Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.
Straw man #2: Does this mean that Nancy Pelosi seeks the murder of millions of conservatives?
No. And of course YOUR POST is the only thing here implying that Pelosi seeks to murder anyone.
Lie #1: With few exceptions, the people in this country calling for any form of genocidal acts come from the right, not the left.
Utter horsesh!t. Genocide – or, more accurately democide – is historically the exclusive province of the Left, at least in the context of modern Western Civilization.
Lie #2: … an impartial observer, looking at the distribution of firearms combined with extreme political beliefs, would reasonably assume that the largest domestic non-Islamic threat comes, in fact, from right-wing extremists.
Unsupportable nonsense. That assumption is not reasonable in the slightest… unless of course you’re going to label disagreeing with our government’s anti-American socialist policies as “extreme political beliefs”. Even in that context, it’s unsupportable nonsense.
Straw man #3: … gun violence takes a significant toll in this country, accounting for some 10,000 murders per year.
It is a fact that “gun violence” does not exist in a vacuum. In fact, technically, “gun violence” is a made-up term just like “assault weapon”, intended to convince the mob that somehow guns cause violence (or assault). This is not the case.
Straw man #4: It is reasonable to be concerned about the murders and injuries committed using firearms.
No one has argued otherwise. In fact, as an organization, the NRA’s record at improving firearm safety and supporting law enforcement is unsurpassed – likely in all of human history. “Concern” is not a rational basis for legislation. Especially when criminals have a habit of ignoring the law.
Straw man #5: It is reasonable to be concerned about extremists–real extremists, people–who have significant arsenals and proclaim their intention to wage warfare against the United States or significant blocs of its citizenry.
No one has argued otherwise. And when you can demonstrate that a significant threat exists from such individuals – or you can even identify them – get back to us. So far, the only group threatening and actively destroying this nation and the foundations upon which it was built is BHO, his administration and Congress.
Straw man #6: Do not respond to proposed firearm registration legislation by threatening to take up arms against the government.
Reasonable people don’t suggest this, and haven’t. People like you pretend they do so they’ll have a straw man against which to argue.
Straw man #7: Respond to encroachments–real, planned or perceived–on your 2nd Amendment rights by providing either (a) a convincing argument as to why the problem ostensibly being addressed is not actually as much of a problem, …
You pretend this wasn’t precisely the counter-argument to Clinton’s failed Assault Weapons Ban which – exactly to your point – restricted firearms that were involved in less than 2% of all crime and, more importantly, never led to any measurable decrease in crime or “gun violence”. Actually, you probably don’t need to pretend – more likely, you’re just to young to remember it.
Straw man #8: … proposing a better solution that doesn’t impinge on the 2nd Amendment.
No, a “better solution” need not be proposed to counter a legislative recommendation that is based on faulty premises in the first place. The “better solution” in such a case is to leave well enough alone.
@71. sheesh: -…still waiting on those three answers
Still waiting for you to redeem yourself, bub.
Or are you now admitting that you lied?
And plagiarized by copying and pasting others’ thoughts without attribution.
And failed to make your case.
76. robotech master: “please point out where goy said registration of guns is the same as Nazi death camps”
I didn’t say that. Here’s what I said:
“…to make the leap from a proposal to register firearms to being marched into the gas chambers belies a flare for the dramatic that is not bounded in reality”
And both the author of this article and AThinkingPerson have made this leap:
‘“After Hitler and the Nazis registered all the guns in Germany, millions of Jews, Christians, and handicapped persons knew firsthand the “danger” of which LaPierre speaks. They were rounded up and starved to death, or used in inhumane medical experiments, or killed outright in the death camps.”
This part of the article says it all. We now have a President willing to put the minority needs above the majority and the worlds interests above Americans. Hand over weapons to him? I don’t think so.’
We have a better chance of learning from each other if we read carefully what each other says.
76. robotech master: ““Nor am I among the many on this and other thread who seem to feel that we’re on an inevitable road to a bloody civil war precisely because the government is going to try to take away all the guns.”
So you believe the government is going to take away are guns and that you don’t think anyone will stop them…. thats a pretty telling statement.”
No–I don’t believe the government is going to take away our guns, and I do think that somebody would stop them if they tried. I’m not sure how you read this into what I wrote, but you were significantly off the mark.
78. Bear: “you actually believe that registering guns will uncover those used by criminals? I understand your point about over reacting, but you, like most people I know make assertions based on assumptions that are highly suspect in the first place. Then declare everyone that questions the twisted logic as (insert your favorite ad hominem here).”
I did not say that, and in fact in that very same post I stated quite flatly that I am opposed to the registration of firearms. Furthermore, I have made and will not make ad hominem attacks against those who disagree with me.
#74 Chris L:
“You want to convince me that you’re right?”
I don’t care to convince you that I’m right, I do care to convince you that you’re wrong.
“If your position is that Waco was, in fact, the first shot fired in the government’s (apparently abandoned) plan to take away all the guns from all the citizens, then it’s upon you to provide some evidence beyond speculation that that is in fact the case.”
That is not what I said, that is what you must have imagined that I said.
Or are you trying to “move the goalposts” now?
(So much for “Respectfulness” on your part, huh?)
See…HERE’s what YOU said at #63:
““By the way, everybody who has predicted that this or that Democratic administration would start by confiscating the guns, and end by marching everybody who had them into concentration camps or death chambers, has the following two traits in common:
1. They’ve been wrong every time.
2. They’ve never admitted it””
I answered you with two words:
“David Koresh”
And you’re now in quite the tizzy trying to explain how it wasn’t so, and even if it WAS so, it was COMPLETELY justified, and that it doesn’t at all mean what you (now) allege what I said it means, (as opposed to meaning exactly what YOU had said it did NOT mean)
Have you followed all that, so far?
Here’s where the rubber meets the road…and I’m responding to YOUR original assertion, bub:
The motive of confiscating Koresh, (and his followers’), firearms became of more importance than safeguarding the lives of about 20 children that also happenned to live there.
You see, if you surrender your guns, they’ll send you to the death camp.
If you resist, they’ll bring the death camp to you.
You may now resume chewing the carpet or beating the drum and howling at the moon, or whatever you do to occupy your leisure time.
“Well, John, you have to remember that it’s conservatives who have argued that there is no right to privacy. Why did they do that? Because they want to forbid abortions”
Your assertion is baseless. The conservative argument over abortion is that the right to privacy does have limits; and a human being’s right to privacy, cannot be used as protection in taking another human being’s right to life. If a human’s right to privacy was limitless no search warrant would ever be legal. The court had to simultaneously rule, both that the unborn had no inherent right to life, and that doctor patient privacy protected the procedure.
- … both the author of this article and AThinkingPerson have made this leap.
Only in your straw imagination.
We have a better chance of learning from each other if we read carefully what each other says.
Bilgeman – Are you sure you are not under psychiatric care? People who live in a fantasy world are seldom harmful to others but have a hard time relating to people in the real world.
First off, sorry everybody else for the impending verbosity.
79. goy: That’s an epic response. Here:
Straw Man #1. I’ve already provided a quote from this very article. By “leap” I mean that one is likely to lead to the other. If there were no association then it would not have been necessary to invoke the Nazis in this article.
Straw man #2: That was a rhetorical question. I did not state that anybody here held that belief. The statement may have been hyperbolic, but only to the extent that it left out many of the dots between A and B. Still, I’ll try to cut down on the hyperbole.
Lie #1: If you have some evidence that I deliberately stated something that is not true, then you would be justified in calling me a liar. You do not, I did not, and your unjustified pejorative belittles your approach. Call me wrong all you want, but don’t call me a liar unless you can back it up.
And what you said did not even refute my point. I’m speaking of the modern day. If you’d like to go tit-for-tat, right-and-left, on groups calling for mass bloodshed–in the United States, today–then we can play that game.
Lie #2: Once again, I did not knowingly state something untrue, so accusing me of lying, twice, further belittles your credibility. And once again, your response does not refute my point. And once again, I am referring to the organizations whose public proclamations support violent action against the government and/or other demographic groups. You may disagree that an impartial observer would reach this conclusion, but you have absolutely zero cause to call my statement a lie.
Straw Man #3. I never blamed the violence on guns. 10,000 murders per year is a heavy toll. People, such as myself, who don’t believe that further impingement on the 2nd Amendment will reduce this toll ought to take it upon themselves to not only convince those who do the error of their ways. In face, in this particular case, you seem to be responding to a point that I did not make. Straw man indeed.
Straw Men #4 and #5: I did not make those comments to insinuate that you (or anybody else) disagreed with them, but to bolster my position that it is reasonable to have a conversation about these matters. Regarding your further point on #5, I personally feel that the Administration and the Federal Government are less of a threat to me than domestically-operating violence-prone (or violence-intending) extremists, whether right, left, jihadi or otherwise. The only reason my comments have been largely limited to right-wing extremism is that leftists prefer rocks and firebombs and jihads prefer bombs and hijackings.
Straw Man #6: There have been a number of posts in just this very thread which suggest that taking up arms would be the likely outcome of a move to register firearms, because one the firearms are registered, the next step will be for the government to take them away. If this is a stretch, I apologize, but it’s not much of one.
Straw Man #7: (Again, your stretching the definition of “straw man” pretty thin here, but you had quite a head of steam going by this point.) I pretend nothing of the sort. The assault weapons ban was a travesty and its unfortunately that the case was not made convincingly enough against it–and I don’t blame those making the case for this, but it whatever the merits of the opposition, it wasn’t enough to prevent it. My recommendation for action in the present and future should not be read as an accusation that such action wasn’t taken in the past.
Straw Man #8: Okay, now you’re just disagreeing with me; this really should have been titled “Disagreement #8″ or something. Anyway, upon re-reading you may notice that your response to point (b) was in fact what I suggested in point (a), presuming that you or somebody could make the case that there isn’t really a problem with gun violence that needs to be addressed–which is a reasonable position and not one I’m necessarily arguing against.
84. Bilgeman: No matter how misguided Waco was, it was not the intention of the government forces to murder those people.
You also have provided no evidence that there was any program or policy related to either the beliefs or gun ownership of Americans beyond that particular evidence.
You also gain little mileage out of repeated use of the word “bub”.
“You may now resume chewing the carpet or beating the drum and howling at the moon, or whatever you do to occupy your leisure time.”
And with that, you’ve removed any doubt that you might be a worthwhile person to debate with. Good day.
#87 The Shadow:
“Bilgeman – Are you sure you are not under psychiatric care?”
Ahhh. another little blog-comments ankle-biter.
Are you trying to be funny or smart?
Epic fail on both counts, patsy.
“People who live in a fantasy world are seldom harmful to others but have a hard time relating to people in the real world”
Yes…quite.
86. goy: Then how do you read the statement I quoted?
#89 Chris L:
“And with that, you’ve removed any doubt that you might be a worthwhile person to debate with. Good day.”
Oh, how will I EVER reconcile to the loss?
Seems to me that you don’t need any of MY input to have a debate with me…you just make up the part that you’d have liked to have me say and then go tilting away at your chosen windmill.
“No matter how misguided Waco was, it was not the intention of the government forces to murder those people.”
Oh, of course…I often drive an armored personnel carrier spouting tear-gas through my friends’ houses when I come a-calling.
Doesn’t everyone?
Go walk with the shepherd, ace.
“There have been a number of posts in just this very thread which suggest that taking up arms would be the likely outcome of a move to register firearms, because one the firearms are registered, the next step will be for the government to take them away. If this is a stretch, I apologize, but it’s not much of one.”
I can find no relevant historical example where gun registration, did not lead to confiscation in some number of years. Perhaps those that argue for registration can find one.
88. Chris L:- That’s an epic response.
You asked. I responded. If you can’t stand the heat, as they say… naah… here, I’ll keep this shorter to help with your attention span issue.
- By “leap” I mean that one is likely to lead to the other.
Precisely. YOU mean. Citing the worst case scenario from history – one that depicts an accurate and relevant scenario from past events – is not a “leap”.
- That was a rhetorical question.
Backpedaling.
- If you have some evidence that I deliberately stated something that is not true, …
I provided the evidence – and it addresses the modern day. You obviously ignored it. Conversely, you provided no evidence whatsoever to support your lie.
- I did not knowingly state something untrue, …
Sure you did. It is patently absurd – i.e., a lie – to assert that it’s reasonable to assume that “right-wing extremists” threaten this country based on your unsupported assessment of firearms distribution and political beliefs. But to make you feel less attacked, we’ll just call it your unsupportable opinion.
- I never blamed the violence on guns.
That’s the beauty of the “gun violence” canard. You have plausible deniability. YOU didn’t blame violence on guns, the term you USED blames violence on guns. In fact, guns don’t act of their own volition. The violence you refer to is criminal violence. Criminals don’t respect the law no matter which weapons they choose.
- I did not make those comments to insinuate …
Doesn’t matter. They’re straw men in their own right.
- I personally feel that the Administration and the Federal Government are less of a threat to me than domestically-operating violence-prone (or violence-intending) extremists, …
Then, Sir, it is my observation that you are a willfully blind fool.
- If this is a stretch, I apologize, …
Apology noted.
- My recommendation for action in the present and future should not be read as an accusation that such action wasn’t taken in the past.
Without acknowledging the past, that’s precisely what it is.
- Okay, now you’re just disagreeing with me; this really should have been titled…
Not at all. And I’ll keep my own counsel on titles, thanks. I’m pointing out the straw man nature of your assertion, i.e., the implication that those who support the Second Amendment don’t propose alternate solutions. The straw man nature of that implication is the assumption, a priori, that a problem exists to which any solution must be proposed in the first place, let alone an alternate. Typically with government – and most especially when it comes to so-called “gun control” – no such problem actually exists.
The Celebrity in Chief hasn’t got the votes to take guns away yet. But raising taxes enormously on ammo,components and guns are just part of funding health care, right?
To 89. Chris L
Their are still many problems with your train of thought and logic… The US was built on freedom and the understanding that government rarely care much about said freedom. Ppl threatening civil war over the banning of guns or any other right listen in the constitution are not only within their right to due so but should be ENCOURAGED to due so.
It is the responsible of all citizens of the US to ensure that the constitution is UPHELD… be it through peaceful protests or through bloody warfare.
The argument that somehow threatening civil war over what would clearly not only be a violation of the constitution but through history has almost always lend to oppression and the ppl is wrong goes against everything the US was founded on…
Their is a HUGE difference between threatening civil war on what is very clearly a violation of the constitution and random trying to overthrow the government.
If the government doesn’t ban guns then NONE of these ppl will move to engage in civil war… So let them threaten as much as they want… its within their RIGHTS TO DUE SO. And should the government try to take away firearms then not only should they enact and follow through on that threat but all citizens should follow their lead…
If the government doesn’t start taking away guns then clearly they have shown that guns were not the issue and their was some other objective… which then ppl will need to figure that out and if it is just or not.
The simple fact is as said “the government should fear the ppl… the ppl shouldn’t fear the government”…. let these ppl put some fear in the government. As long as their not out building up buildings and burning down housing complexes WHO THE HELL CARES….?
“A. Do not respond to proposed firearm registration legislation by threatening to take up arms against the government. This is, to put it mildly, counter-productive.
B. Respond to encroachments–real, planned or perceived–on your 2nd Amendment rights by providing either (a) a convincing argument as to why the problem ostensibly being addressed is not actually as much of a problem, if at all; or (b) proposing a better solution that doesn’t impinge on the 2nd Amendment.”
While I generally agree with premise A, in that it is not helpful; In general though a line in the sand still exists, and when government deals with the people in a way that “evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.” A government who is making policy in violation of stated rights which simultaneously robs the people of their power to protect themselves from tyranny, should review the quoted document and ask themselves hard questions about what Americans are willing to do to remain free. That very sentiment, in my mind, is what keeps those who would gleefully confiscate every privately held firearm, from viciously fighting for obtaining their very goals; Forcing the adoption of soft control, boiling frog steps, to their goal. So at least in that way it helps slow the tide. But in general the less eloquent, and constant, “ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ” generally gives ample MSM ammo to further demonize the “gun culture”.
I flatly disagree with item B. I do not see why not having an alternate solution in any way invalidates an argument that a policy is a violation of civil rights. It is not the responsibility of the people to propose alternate solutions that do not violate civil rights, to solve societal problems. It is the responsibility of government to adopt policy and strategy which protects rights. The fact the people HAVE to voice their dissent in order to protect their rights is already a failure of government. To suggest that the people SHOULD have an alternate solution is to say the government is completely dysfunctional.
FTR Before you libs bring it up. I didn’t like, spoke against, and continue to dislike the Patriot Act.
93. Michael C. Keehn: Which is a reasonable position to hold. I’m no scholar of the history of it. Much of this debate seems to be people arguing with me that that is not, in fact, the intention of the author or other commenters to state such.
And once again, I will repeat (for I believe the third time) that I am opposed to firearm registration.
“And once again, I will repeat (for I believe the third time) that I am opposed to firearm registration.”
Didn’t think you were (I read your posts). The quote worked well to forward my premise of “event A->years pass->event B” with at least 90% belief (For those who like fuzzy logic).
@91. Chris L: – Then how do you read the statement I quoted?
I made that pretty clear in my earlier list, Chris. It’s a cite. It references the ‘worst case scenario’ resulting from or associated with firearms registration. It doesn’t “leap” to the conclusion that this is what will happen here, it simply demonstrates what can happen, as well as what the likely motivation of an overweening government would be to register firearms. We have such an overweening government now – in the extreme, as a matter of fact. That you choose not to see this is irrelevant, because it’s a choice indicative of minimal historical context.
“And once again, I will repeat (for I believe the third time) that I am opposed to firearm registration.”
Oops, I meant “I Didn’t think you were supporting registration”
94. goy: “here, I’ll keep this shorter to help with your attention span issue.”
I’m going to adopt a policy of ceasing interactions with people who are incapable of responding without insult. Good day to you as well.
97. Michael C. Keehn: I understand your position. Especially with point b, I understand that there is no requirement to continuously defend a position which is already set forth in the Constituion. My advice was just that, advice: It is my impression that those who defend the 2nd Amendment have not been effective in swaying public opinion, and I would like it to be so. Thus my point on gun violence–of course it’s a canard to trot out the number of crimes committed with guns and blame it on the guns rather than the people, but I don’t feel the case has been effectively, publicly made. Nor do I feel that the case has been effectively, publicly made that there are better ways of dealing with actual, dangerous extremists than creating more restrictive gun laws.
I’m not saying the cases aren’t there, and I’m not saying they haven’t been made, but to the extent that they have, they haven’t been effective. My evidence is simply that there are near-constant debates about further tightening gun control laws, but almost never debates about loosening them.
“To suggest that the people SHOULD have an alternate solution is to say the government is completely dysfunctional.”
I don’t disagree.
101. Michael C. Keehn: Yeah, I think my comment was directed at the rest of the crowd, not you in particular, which I should have made clearer. Apologies.
#102: Chris L:
“I’m going to adopt a policy of ceasing interactions with people who are incapable of responding without insult. Good day to you as well.”
Maybe you should adopt a policy of only engaging in debates where YOU get to post the script for all participants.
That should automatically effect the much more practical policy of not walking buck-naked into a cross-fire.
We need more birth control.
If you love liberty, you must love guns (or that’s the way I see it). For there is nothing else that so readily keeps tyrants in check. And I don’t fear them coming to take them, I fear our being lulled into such comfort that we turn them in. I know that sounds like a stretch, but just look how easily we’ve given up so many other freedoms.
Said no-one in particular:
“My advice was just that, advice: It is my impression that those who defend the 2nd Amendment have not been effective in swaying public opinion, and I would like it to be so.”
Which beggars the question of how this happened:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Rtc.gif
One wonders that it must have been through the enlightened beneficence of government at all levels.
Yup…that must be it.
Couldn’t have been that 20 years and counting of “ineffectiveness at swaying public opinion”, could it?
105. Bilgeman: There’s a vast gulf between disagreeing with a person’s opinion and saying that they shouldn’t state it. I often do the the former yet never, ever commit the latter.
I do not, however, engage in these forums to trade personal insults. I have made it a policy to never respond in kind, but I find it almost disingenuous to reply to a response to me that contains insults that I ignore.
I’ve also found that posters who routinely include insults in their responses are also the least likely to carefully read and respond to what others say, and are the least likely to be open to the possibility that their own positions may be wrong. Where these two groups overlap, the only thing to be gained by continuing to engage them is the enjoyment one gets from hurling one’s own insults around. If that’s not something one wishes to engage in, and I don’t, there really isn’t any point.
I don’t really see how you can read into that that I won’t be happy unless I “control the script”.
108. Bilgeman: “Said no-one in particular:”
It’s amazing anyone was listening, then.
Regarding the rest of your post–thank you for the link. My impression–and I chose the word “impresson” carefully–was clearly incorrect, at least with regards to conceal-carry laws.
So where’s the disconnect? What’s the difference between the big shift in favor of conceal-carry (or open-carry), state by state (with few exceptions) and the assault weapons ban, or pushes (apparently gaining in popularity) to regulate sales of ammunition, or require gun registration? Is it state vs. Federal? Could the lessons of the former be applied to the latter?
“(B)oth history and experience teach us that few things are as integral to freedom as guns.”
Guess why? Because I can STOP YOU with a gun. That is, STOP YOU from telling me how to live.
“21. sheesh:
Take your guns? Thanks but no thanks. We have plenty of our own.”
YOUR “guns” are sleazy, stealth weapons of carefully planned insinuation, way ahead of the fruition of your actual intent. Your weapons are not physical, but psychological. If you DARED try to rob me of my freedoms openly, you KNOW you’d be killed.
Reasoning people know YOU are the enemy. And that is why reasoning people fight to maintain the right to protect themselves against YOU.
So, Sheesh, here’s the deal: You believe you’re right? PROVE IT. I’ll give you particulars to my physical location. Come on out, and we’ll talk, about freedom and the necessary maintenance thereof.
My guess is you’re a rat. (Ever seen “Midnight Cowboy?” Remember “Ratzo Rizzo?” That’s you, thinks me.)
But I will give you what decency demands: The legitimacy of argument.
I will argue, and debate, with the hope of enlightenment.
But I won’t hold my breath.
(And if — as you hope — your Anointed One manages to push through punitive laws preventing me from shooting you —
– and if you happen to depend on that sanction to protect you against any occurrence that may take place as a result –
– and you say the same things against freedom that you have said here, as a justification for turning me in to your overlords, and, when some low-life invades my home, and I shoot him or her — and YOU support the prosecution against me, which, as you’ve shown, you WILL –
– You will reap a bitter harvest.
Hungry, tonight, sheesh? You’re going to be VERY hungry, in times to come.
People like me are aware of how to eat. YOU are not. And we are NOT going to feed you. O, no, Precious.
*******************
Caveat: Substance-induced post, this, but quite sincere. And, I think, right. Thanks.
One last aside to sheesh:
You HATE the fact that we “redneck” conservatives resort to cliche, so ~depressingly often.~
Well, some cliches earn their longevity, based on the durability of TRUTH. Do a little reading of Will Shakespeare. (Not that he is taught anymore in the schools for which you’ve worked so long to eliminate him. And for good reason. He was RIGHT.)
And this is one: “You will pry my gun out of my cold, dead hand.”
(But you won’t. Ha, ha. Now, and forever.)
Democrats want to confiscate guns because they are appeasers by nature and do not have the stomach to really fight. Thus, if they can disarm their enemy they will not have to fight, except with words.
I don’t believe that there’s any way that the left will be able to take guns away from Americans who have them. The people who have guns are willing to use them. This scares the heck out the appeasers. So, if war broke out, the left would cave in rather than fight a bloody battle.
The battle for truth will depend on the ability of anyone believing anything.
What DO we believe in?
#113….
That is what obammy is counting on UN troops for. Stright up our collective asses from mexico courtesy of chavez & company.
- I’m going to adopt a policy of ceasing interactions…
Convenient timing. If you’re going to whine about the length of a substantive post that addresses your own failings, don’t be surprised when someone perceives that whining as a sign of your own impatience.
And as far as your other sniveling: the straw man positions you used to outline your initial position in #61 were personal insults. Your arrogant and presumptive “advice” regarding what Second Amendment supporters should do in response to the straw men you created was was also a personal insult. Of course you’re aware of this. But unlike the haunts you’re apparently used to, your position and your insults were pounded down instead of being cheered. You’ve either walked back, apologized, admitted to ignorance or simply backpedaled since that point.
This was your most disingenuous statement of all: “Thus my point on gun violence–of course it’s a canard to trot out the number of crimes committed with guns and blame it on the guns rather than the people, but I don’t feel the case has been effectively, publicly made.”
You never made the point that “gun violence” was a “canard”. I did. In fact, it’s abundantly clear that your initial use of the term “gun violence” in #61 was written in earnest, not as though it were a “canard”. That you now recognize it as a such seems a rather abrupt change of position. In fact, you don’t seem to have a very clear understanding of WHAT your position is on this issue, Chris. You seem more interested in arguing semantics for the sake of argument, and in preserving what’s left of your waning credibility here, than in discussion of a coherent position.
You claim, “It is my impression that those who defend the 2nd Amendment have not been effective in swaying public opinion…”, which is indicative of abject ignorance on this issue. The gun-grabbing Democrats in Congress have, in fact, been virtually silenced on this topic because public opinion was swayed – in favor of the Second Amendment. Obama himself admitted that he wasn’t going to push it because he didn’t have the votes. He didn’t have the votes because Congressional constituents wouldn’t support more gun-grabbing legislation. They wouldn’t support it because their opinion had been swayed against such legislation. It doesn’t work.
But now that these vermin have achieved a filibuster-proof majority, they once again make noises of registration. Note, however, that this is not something they’re pursuing at the behest of their constituents. Crime involving firearms is not at all-time highs and people are not clamoring for the government to “do something”, the way they were (supposedly) clamoring regarding the economy. Firearms registration is not something Congress’ constituents demand. Firearms registration is something their leftist ideology demands.
Your comments imply that all this is somehow a problem unaddressed by supporters of the Second Amendment, which (again) is unsupportable nonsense.
It is a fact that registration of so-called “assault weapons” in CA ultimately led to confiscation. Again, you may be too young to remember this, but it’s fact, and one of the individuals who most ardently supported this process now has unbridled control of the U.S. House of Representatives. Given all that, pretending that the link between registration and confiscation is hyperbole – as you have implied – is, at best, willful blindness.
#110 Chris L:
“So where’s the disconnect?”
I’d offer that it’s in the perceptions of folks who think that this nation should be run from the top down, rather than the bottom up.
It certainly seems that the chance of an elected representative favoring an unconstitutional gun rights infringement is directly proportional to the amount of time that he or she spends in the Nation’s Capital, doesn’t it?
“What’s the difference between the big shift in favor of conceal-carry (or open-carry), state by state (with few exceptions) and the assault weapons ban, or pushes (apparently gaining in popularity) to regulate sales of ammunition, or require gun registration?”
Why do you assert that these gun “control” schemes are gaining in popularity? Among whom…exactly…are these initiatives popular?
I linked you to a graphic that shows a popular groundswell of decades’ duration that shows precisely the opposite, and from the local and State level.
Note that ALL of the gun control schemes are coming from our Democratic Federal Masters in Washington, and are being “sold” through the MSM or Legacy media, are they not?
In short…they’re bunk from out-of-touch politicians who have been insulated in Fed World for FAR too long.
Problem is, (for me), that I don’t think those folks are quite THAT stoopid as to try swimming against a tide that has LONG been flowing strongly against precisely what they’re advocating, and especially in the wake of a fresh Supreme Court decision that was a resounding win for the Strict Constructionist side.
So what is their motivation for trying to pull these stunts so soon?
If they want out of office, all they need to do is resign, not pass some AWB v. 2.0 and wait for the voters to throw them out, like happened in ’94.
I cannot see what they stand to gain politically from this without going into VERY DARK places, and it frankly unsettles me.
I am a democrat, and I am a woman. I love to hunt. I hunt rabbits, squirrels, deer, I raise lambs for meat. I am a farm girl. At one time I belonged to the NRA. But I quit because they wanted to incoprorate crime weapons into hunting so that the gun dealers could still sell everything they could get there hands on.
No, I don’t want that! The NRA is big money-not for the average hunter-they hurt the average hunter. I always want to own a gun, and they are not for the average person.
Screw your view…as long as you feel that way you are hurting us.
Would someone more knowledgeable than me please explain how well gun control has worked in Mexico? Are the law abiding Mexicans safer for being disarmed? Is this what we want for America?
“Few things in this life are more politically divisive than guns. Generally speaking, liberals hate them and conservatives love them.”
Liberals LOVE guns, as long as the guns are in the hands of agents of the government, and the Liberals are in control of the government.
@118; acj,
You are part of the problem. Hunting is a red herring. It is not now and never has been about hunting. I own several guns and since last July when it looked like the Democrats would get elected, I have been buying as much ammo as I can. I am well stocked. I go to the range at least once a week to keep my skills in tact, yet I have never gone hunting in my life. I have used a .22 with a shot shell to kill a rattlesnake in my neighbor’s garden and a pellet gun to kill a rat in mine and have otherwise never fired a gun at any living thing. My guns are to defend my family, my property, myself, and my rights. You would take away my defense because my guns are not hunting weapons. I am not a sheep to let you treat me like you do your lambs!
To 118. acj
Clearly you missunderstand what the NRA stands for… it support the 2nd amendments which is very broad in its class of weapons… they do not and have never solely stood for “hunting rifles”. Plus the fact look at britain they banned everything expect “hunting rifles”…. now they own pretty much no weapons at all. If you want to keep you hunting rifles I’d suggest you understand that just about every hunting rifle would fall under the “assault weapons ban” at some time in the future with very very minor adjustments.
116. goy: The only thing I said about your post was that it was “epic”. I also apologized to the likely majority of readers who would, uninterested, have to scroll past my response. I wasn’t whining. I’ve explained my position about not responding to insults quite clearly. If it’s your position that you will continue to insult people that disagree with you without also, or in return, insulting you, then that’s your business.
You then proceed to call my posts “sniveling”. I’m mystified at how you could read a personal insult into my post 61, but I doubt I’ll be able to disabuse you of the notion.
Where I referred to “gun violence” in #61, it was in this context: “It is also true that gun violence takes a significant toll in this country, accounting for some 10,000 murders per year.” That is not a canard. Perhaps I could have said “violence committed with guns” and that would have been less volatile for you, but it’s simply a rephrasing of the same thing. The canard in question is the tendency to blame gun violence on guns, rather than on the people committing the violence. I do not share that tendency. In fact in 61 I was not stating my own position on gun violence, as should have been evinced by the lack of statements setting forth any such position. I brought it up in the context of political discourse, as a matter that clearly receives a lot of attention.
“You claim, “It is my impression that those who defend the 2nd Amendment have not been effective in swaying public opinion…”, which is indicative of abject ignorance on this issue.” I stated nothing stronger than an impression. You will note that somebody else pointed to some information that demonstrated that my impression was false, at least in terms of conceal carry laws. I thanked Bilgeman for the link and for correcting my impression.
As to the link between registration and confiscation, is it the case that those weapons were first required to be registered, and then subsequently banned and confiscated?
117. Bilgeman: I may well have been incorrect in this. As I stated, it was only an impression, and I’m happy to have people who know more on the subject than I correct it.
I’ll just point out that, if I’m in fact incorrect that there has been at least a trickle of steady infringement on 2nd Amendment rights, because, as you say, such efforts have generally gone nowhere fast, then perhaps there isn’t quite as much cause to horde ammo as a fair number of people seem to think. Either there is a threat, or there isn’t.
acj @118
Your hatred of the NRA is noted.
Now, let’s get down to brass tacks. How much have you read of the Founders’ intent with respect to the 2nd Amendment? Do you agree with their views, or do you subscribe to the “living Constitution” view of most of the legal community today? That means we can alter the meaning of our interpretations and lay aside the Founders’ intent.
The primary purpose for the 2nd Amendment was to make sure that the government could not usurp the other rights outlined. If the people had weapons, they could rebel, if necessary. Do you think we should no longer have that right?
There are very powerful domestic and international interests who want the 2nd Amendment gone. There is a reason for that: they have plans for our country to remake it into something very, very different from what the Founders’ intended.
Are you down with that?
ajc;what is a crime weapon?
acj,
The NRA makes no claim to be the hunter’s advocate. While most members of the NRA also love to hunt, including myself, most of us know that the 2nd Amendment isn’t in the constitution to protect and preserve the sport of hunting. In the days of the framers of the Constitution, hunting was not a sport for most folks. The mission of the NRA is to help guarantee the citizen the right to personal arms as his/her last protector of the certain inalienable rights, and of the 1st Amendment rights. The only person who could be opposed to that mission, would be a person who has a unhealthy trust in the sovereignty of the government instead of the people. That would include most Democrats, apparently including yourself. If you love your liberty, then you will also love your 2nd Amendment. So, try to see the NRA for what it is and go to your sportsman’s advocacy groups for support of hunters and habitats for hunting.
If I may, America isn’t England. What works in England won’t always work in America. The Socialists managed to steal the White house in ’08.
That is the way it goes, sometimes. I doubt that they ( the Demonrats, socialists, far left, what ever) will win in 2010.
That will depend on the economy. If the Usurper can get the economy moving so everybody is making money, then they will retain Congress. As they should. If they don’t, then the Republicans will get another shot.
The Usurper is not a ‘natural born’ American citizen. That means he isn’t elibible to be President. He stole the Election, but getting the most EV’s is just ONE of the requirements to be POTUS. So he lacks the authority to sign any bills sent over from Congress. It would be like one of the warehouse guys at Gm signing off on the bankruptcy papers. Or the UAW guy at station 4 on line 2. They lack the authority to sign any legal documents for Gm. The Usurper lacks the authority to sign any legal documents for the USA.
So the first order of business in 2011 will be impeaching the Usurper. Then Congress will have to go over ALL the bills he signed to re-do them, if they want them re-done.
It’s gonna be a real mess.
As far as collecting all the guns, This isn’t Great Britan. The USA is a LOT bigger and has MUCH LESS respect for the law. English cops seldom carry guns. They normally don’t need them, since they have the respect of they citizens. American Cops have to carry guns, otherwise their bodies would litter the streets.
There are over 200 million guns in America;
” Estimates on the number of guns in America come from public surveys that are then extrapolated for the population as a whole.
Kleck says the number of privately owned guns in the country reached approximately 288 million at the end of 2006. The number grows by about 4 million each year.
The total is believed to include roughly 104 million handguns, 100 million rifles and 84 million shotguns.”
Snipped from here;
http://www.justicejournalism.org/crimeguide/chapter11/chapter11_pg04.html
There are other estimates available, but that one is typical.
Lets say 250 million. If it took 15 minutes to pick up each one, that is 62.5 million man hours.
“According to the U.S. Bureau of Labor, the number of police officers in America of all kinds – including transit police and campus officers – rose from 515,212 in 1988 to 699,906 in 1992, an increase of nearly 185,000.”
We’ll round up to 700,000 just so I don’t have to dig out a calculator. Cops work in pairs, although it will take more then two to take my gun away. So 700,000 goes into 62.5 million around 89 times. That is working a 24/7 shift, which ain’t gonna happen. Lets say it’s a regular 8 hour shift. Now we are looking at 270+ man hours, or 7+ weeks.
See the problem? If the Usurper could get all the police to go around collecting guns ( which would not happen. No more then 4 out of 10 cops are Democrats and 7 out of 10 are pro 2nd amendment) starting tommorrow, it would take at best a couple of months. NO OTHER CRIME would be fought while that happened.
So somebody needs to get a grip and wave that fear monger stick elsewhere.
If you are really worried about it, there are over 100 million armed Americans, excluding the military. If 1% shoots a cop when they come to get their gun, the Usurper will run out of cops WAAAAAAAAAY before the citizens run out of guns.
Fascinating: no issue opens up the many and complex differences between left and right better than does firearms legislation. Two very different mindsets are exposed.
There is enough material in this thread to provide months of research for someone writing a master’s thesis on contemporary US political ideology.
Tardy comments: 23, ChipD: I don’t know the Patriot Act well at all, but I agree it is possible that parts of it could be ill-advised, even unconstitutional. I thought it allowed tapping conversations between folks in the US and suspected or known terrorists overseas; that sounds OK to me. It’s worse than that, eh? Kind of like McCain-Feingold, then? BTW, McC-F may be unconstitutional, as Davis hints, so maybe the Patriot Act will eventually fall along with McC-F??
45, The Shadow: Yes, persons of all sorts do have access to firearms. And nuts are found around the edges of virtually all political factions. Life is tough — there are no guarantees. The Utopian fantasies of the left, however, make life worse, for they lead the true believers on a quest to impose their version of Heaven on Earth. That inevitably results in authoritarian and finally totalitarian governments (unless the opposition clings to Liberty). Isn’t it the Utopians who are really “unbalanced,” then?
The only rational option, IMHO, is to uphold the individual, and let the presumed collective take care of itself. Society is, after all, an abstraction that exists only as a concept, not a phenomenon; only individuals have rights because only individuals exist.
If in order to confiscate firearms, you must first find out who owns what, then…efforts to register all firearms will alarm the rational defenders of Liberty. (Isn’t that easy to understand?) The step from registration to confiscation may not be inevitable, but that’s not the way to bet. Registration has no rationale that I can see, except as a first step. As crime reduction, it’s silly. IMHO.
Gun Registry was a “huge success” in Canada,
and didn’t cost very much at all.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/guncontrol/
I found it interesting that Obama will make an end run around all of the fluff on ammunition shortage and gun control by forcing the issue of the “Inter-American Convention Against the Illicit Manufacturing of and Trafficking in Firearms, Ammunition, Explosives, and Other Related Materials” on the American people by signing an executive order and bringing us into bondage to the U.N. and other nations. Bye, Bye sovereignty!
Read for yourselves some of the specifics in this concise guide – http://www.fas.org/asmp/campaigns/smallarms/Cifta_ConciseGuide_DoS.htm
Registration = confiscation.
It always has and it always will. Democrats, for some insidious reason, prefer unarmed Americans.
Like the scorpion and the frog, they just can’t help themselves.
Don’t let the scorpion climb on, America.
Great, now I gotta listen to eight freaking years of “Impeach Obama!”? Wonderful.
Poor 133, Chris L. Having to listen to that crud is terrible! Let’s see now: “Bush lied, people died;” the 9/11 attack was planned and carried out by the administration in league with Zionists; Bush said Saddam presented an imminent nuclear threat to the USA…. Yeah, I know how it feels. Lies, including the ones you can prove are lies, can be as effective as the truth — as long as the propaganda machine is running properly.
Yes, Chris, it looks as if it might be your turn in the barrel. We’ll see how many outright lies the wingnuts fabricate over the years, but my guess is they won’t come close to the number or sheer lunacy of what the moonbats created.
Take heart, for the lickspittle news media will see you through. They will be dutifully not reporting all sorts of stuff you don’t want to hear and certainly don’t want anybody else to know about. As usual.
And your man will be in power. That counts for a lot. He’ll have the little children singing and marching and taking names, and in short order, the whole darn national community will be organized. When the wingnuts get too noisy, The One can always remind them of the facts of life by reading “WE WON!!” off a teleprompter. Zap!
And all the neo-con Zionist capitalist neocolonialists will have is a little Shakespeare to comfort them in their exile: “Uneasy lies the head that wears a crown.” Pathetic, huh?
So stop whining. All things considered, you should have an easy time of it.
Chris L: A few words to the wise, if you don’t mind: Don’t debate Mr. GOY unless you have volumes of material with which to back up your claims and arguments. He’ll pwn you every time you use the incorrect tense in a sentence. He can also be sort of mean-spirited at times when he feels strongly about an issue-just ignore the insults and keep on playing. I, like you, do my best to be inoffensive when I post my thoughts but sometimes it’s hard to be civil. If you get offended easily, then it’s best not to post left-leaning comments on a right-leaning website (and vice versa).
Those things having been said, I respect the manner with which you have waged your arguments. And I appreciate the way in which you acknowledged that your impression had changed. I don’t agree with most of what you’ve written here, but am agreeable with your manners. Good luck, sir!
regards
A commenter above wrote about Britain’s gun laws being much more strict than America’s. And another commented concerning Mexico’s. I’m not well versed in other countries’ laws, but a couple of observations: 1 Mexico has a very weak government that is massively corrupt and can’t control the population at all; 2 Britain’s government is much stronger in comparison to Mexico’s.
Britain has managed to (with its strong government) remove some guns from society which has eliminated at least some gun-related violence. But what happened then? Knife violence! 14,000 trips to the hospital per year in Britain from knife violence!
So, maybe Britain should outlaw dangerous cutlery as well as guns. What comes next? Naturally, POINTED STICKS! And next, DANGEROUS FRUIT!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piWCBOsJr-w
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/14000-knife-victims-a-year-860857.html
regards
TO: HonestJon
RE: [OT] Indeed
WATCH OUT! He’s got a PINEAPPLE!
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Ban the bow! -- Stone Age pacifisism]
TO: Chris L
RE: Well….
….I guess it all boils down to whether or not you care for the Constitution of the United States. Don’t you think?
After all, if he does do something that is grossly unconstitutional, what should you do? Let him do it?
It’s like I commented to you over on that other thread earlier.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A martial nobility and stubborn commons, possessed of arms, tenacious of property, and collected into constitutional assemblies form the only balance capable of preserving a free constitution against the enterprise of an aspiring prince. -- Gibbon]
P.S. Did you ever answer my question of you on that other thread?
Were all those AK47′s that suddenly appeared in New Orleans in the hands of right wing gun nuts? Or criminal drug dealers? ONE of them shot at our chopper.
111. Eowyn:
“21. sheesh: “Take your guns? Thanks but no thanks. We have plenty of our own.”
YOUR “guns” are sleazy, stealth weapons of carefully planned insinuation, way ahead of the fruition of your actual intent. Your weapons are not physical, but psychological. If you DARED try to rob me of my freedoms openly, you KNOW you’d be killed.
Reasoning people know YOU are the enemy. And that is why reasoning people fight to maintain the right to protect themselves against YOU.
So, Sheesh, here’s the deal: You believe you’re right? PROVE IT. I’ll give you particulars to my physical location. Come on out, and we’ll talk, about freedom and the necessary maintenance thereof.
OK, Ring Nerd, let’s have those particulars. I’ll be happy to indulge your substance-induced fantasies. Let’s talk.
$#140 Hueydoc:
“Were all those AK47’s that suddenly appeared in New Orleans in the hands of right wing gun nuts? Or criminal drug dealers? ONE of them shot at our chopper.”
I shared engine room duties last year with a former Coastie who had been in a Port Security Unit assigned to New Orleans after Katrina.
During a veeeery long van ride along the “Cajun Riviera” from Cameron LA to New Orleans, he regaled us with tales of how he and his mates, after a long day spent arresting looters, would go and loot cold beers from places they knew that still had functional reefers.
You get that? The Coast Guard were also doing the looting.
I told him that I had more respect for the looters who had supplied their OWN weapons and did their thing without benefit of a badge.
Without the Constitution there is no USA.Liberals get that through your thick heads.
Even some Democrats have guns,but still have they’re head’s in the sand. GUN OWNERS HAVE TO STAND TOGETHER.
TO: Will
RE: Actually….
….without the Constitution of the United States you have rule by decree, i.e., the sort of thuggery that Obama is practicing. In other words….
Welcome to the American Empire!
You’ve heard about it of 8 long years, the so-called ‘progressives’ declaring that Bush was the head of a global empire. Not that they could point it out or prove it. But NOW with Obama using thugs to go around the proverbial ‘Law of the Land’ in order to have his way, we see the REAL empire manifesting itself.
Who knew that all those cries of “Evil American Empire!” by the ‘progressives’ was REALLY ‘projection’. Under Obama, it’s a ‘good’ American Empire.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Well…..
….at least we understand what was meant by ‘progressive’.
Hi Chuck,
Once again, I recommend reading the millennium amendment from the UN to which obama pledged support.
The least of which includes disarming America and giving UN courts final say over our constitution. ( Rome Statute ) You have to dig a bit, some of it is hidden in layers, but it is all there.
obama is a traitor.
The people who support him are traitors and fools.
They must be removed from office in accordance with the US Constitution.
People who do not love this country are NOT AMERICANS. The are parasites.
Hence the liberal maddness to try and take the teeth and claws from the lion.
Prepare yourselves accordingly to the law.
Guns?
I ‘gotem.
Not hard here in America. Yes, been to NRA classes and all that. I could go get another rifle/pistol/shotgun with ammo in the next 60 minutes. Anything but full automatic which I could care less about. I like target shooting and precision anyway.
Hunters, go for it. I like fishing more, just different animals, underwater rather than land, right? More safety concerns when shooting a rifle rather than a different way to bait a hook. Most of us who do so respect the wildlife and environment anyway. Usually more than those who just visit, not that there is anything wrong with that as well.
So public land safety and shared use are difficult but we can do this. Wildlife managment, to some extent, is a legitimate function of goverment and I consider myself libertarian. Nobody wants to waste what we have.
So what is the issue here?
Spindok
To 136. HonestJon
They are they’ve banned many types of swords and are making others register their swords…. for a short times they even floated a turd of a bill which would require registration/license to buy a knife with a blade longer then 6″.
134. Benson: You seem to be attributing a number of beliefs to me that I never held, and most certainly never stated in your company. You might get more satisfaction making that statement to somebody who actually said the things you’re responding to. Or a Democrat. Or a liberal.
I am, however, not among that demographic.
138. Chuck Pelto: Of course. But the birth certificate issue is nothing but a raving mad conspiracy theory; like most conspiracy theories, it is impervious to evidence and reason, and will therefore be repeated ad nauseam until its proponents find something else to latch on to. Like the “9/11 Truth” supporters, this one has been blown out of the water eight ways to Sunday, but the people who promote it have first made up their mind, and then accept or deny evidence only on the basis of whether it supports or contradicts their a priori belief.
And no, I need to go back to the other thread and check. Only so many hours in a day.
@123. Chris L: - The only thing I said about your post was that it was “epic”.
Which, of course, means nothing if it doesn’t mean “overly long” in this context. Do yourself a favor and quit pretending you’re on the moral high ground when it comes to this facet of commenting, Chris. Veiled and/or passive-aggressive insults are still insults.
I’m mystified at how you could read a personal insult into my post 61…
Of course you’re “mystified”. I’m sure BHO is “mystified” by some of the reactions he gets from people when his ignorance mixes with his arrogance and he presumes to lecture others on issues they know far better than he does.
Where I referred to “gun violence” in #61, it was in this context: “It is also true that gun violence takes a significant toll in this country, accounting for some 10,000 murders per year.” That is not a canard.
This was exactly my point, and you can’t dismiss that point simply by reiterating it and pretending to make it your own – as you did with the notion I handed you, i.e., that the term “gun violence” is a canard.
In fact in 61 I was not stating my own position on gun violence, as should have been evinced by the lack of statements setting forth any such position.
Now you’re just pretending we’re all stupid, Chris. You’re saying your audience is supposed to selectively ignore what you DO write based on what you DON’T write? I think you’ve come to the wrong place for that. Try dKos.
I stated nothing stronger than an impression.
You seem obsessed with these straw man ploys. I never claimed otherwise. What I wrote was that your impression is indicative of ignorance, that is, you are either blissfully unaware of (or you have willfully ignored) the fact that gun-grabbing Democrats in Congress have, in fact, been virtually silenced on this topic because public opinion was swayed – in favor of the Second Amendment.
As to the link between registration and confiscation, is it the case that those weapons were first required to be registered, and then subsequently banned and confiscated?
Thank you for making my point so concisely. That is the nature of the insult inherent in your #61, Chris, i.e., that you think you have the intellectual wherewithal to give supporters of the Second Amendment “advice” on this topic when you don’t even know the answer to this question. Your ignorance of the facts in no way puts you in a position to insult your betters in this area by presuming to give them “advice”.
Give it a rest, Chris, this is not a topic where you have any credibility, or where you’re likely to gain any by trying to weasel your way out of your own insipid statements. If you want to fill in the gaps in your own ignorance of firearms issues, I submit that you ask bona fide questions rather than posting messages with “advice” on how to best support the Second Amendment.
#150 Chris L to Chuck Pelto:
“But the birth certificate issue is nothing but a raving mad conspiracy theory;”
Boy….you really DO just walk right into these things, huh?
I’ve sailed with guys like you.
“…this one has been blown out of the water eight ways to Sunday…”
Col. Pelto and/or Goy will probably be along very shortly to pump terabytes all over you pointing out that it hasn’t.
It could though, with very little effort on the Alleged Hawaiian’s part.
All he needs to do is….
(that’s your cue, boys)
TO: Chris L
RE: Speaking of ‘Evidence’….
….SHOW US THE EVIDENCE!
But you can’t, cause he won’t.
As for ‘reason’, I’ve not found any reason why he shouldn’t have shown US the document BEFORE the election.
What’s on it that is so ‘confidential’.
I’ll give you a clue, the word “Kenya”.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....sooner or later.....]
152. Bilgeman: Wouldn’t want this to get boring. I’ve got to say, though, I’m going to be pretty dissapointed if there’s a large percentage of posters here who actually buy into it.
- (that’s your cue, boys)
Heh. How nice that you remembered…
When Chrissy points us to an undoctored JPG of BHO’s original vault copy COLB, we can start talking about conspiracy theories.
Short of that event coming to pass, BHO has never provided any documentation that proves he’s a natural born citizen of the U.S. Even if the popular image of the “birth certificate” he released is not a forgery (and much evidence exists demonstrating that it is), it doesn’t prove anything… IF you’re familiar with Hawai’i law on this topic, that is. My guess is that Chris knows Hawai’i law about as well as s/he knows firearms law.
Note well: this fact is completely separate from the question of whether BHO is required to provide said documentation OR whether lack thereof would disqualify him as POTUS at this stage. Neither of those points is adequately defined in our U.S. Code, which is a huge part of the problem.
TO: Chris L
RE: Heh
In the immortal words of the Dread Pirate Roberts…..
Get used to disappointment.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Show US the Birth Certificate!
Chris – rather than side-track this thread, please note that the birth certificate issue was exhaustively discussed last December, pursuant to an insulting article written by PJM’s own Arlen Specter (Rick Moran).
You can start here and work your way up.
TO: goy
RE: Not Anymore….
….well….
….not any more at the state level.
I understand that eight states have passed laws requiring their Secretaries of State to verify that any candidate for that office on their ballots are “natural born citizens”.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Can you imagine the consternation in that party now that HE is going to HAVE to prove he was born in Hawaii for the 2012 run?
The real questions become:
[1] Who will he get to make the forgery?
[2] What will become of them after the document is generated?
[3] Do we have the technology to fabricate a document from 1961 that will stand up to lab analysis?
151. goy: I’ve clearly made you very angry, and I’m sorry for that. I don’t claim to be consistently perfect, knowledgeable or wise. I don’t see continuing this particular conversation as likely to be fruitful for either of us, not in the least because I doubt that there are any circumstances under which you would change your various opinions about me.
Fundamentally, since you’ve already decided that I’m a liar (without, as noted, demonstrating where I’ve lied–being wrong is not the same thing, as I’m sure you’re aware), I can’t imagine that you would take anything else I have to say seriously. My impression–impression, now–is that you have developed a particular mental model of me that will not be easily updated, and as I’m not interested in playing that role in your life, I’m done.
TO: goy
RE: That Document….
….that was presented by the campaign was not a ‘Birth Certificate’. It was a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. Anyone can walk into the Hawaiian government and get one if they’re living and breathing.
Furthermore, that document had no signatures nor seals. Meaning it was an unofficial document that would not stand up in a court of law.
Finally, it was rather interesting that during the last few weeks of the run-up to the election, the on-line Hawaiian Revised Statutes was suddenly unable to produce the laws of the Great State of Hawaii, as they related to “Birth Certificates”. All anyone I know who went looking got was the old 404 error…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Show US the Birth Certificate!]
153. Chuck Pelto: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. The ordinary claim that Obama was born in Hawaii is supported by the ordinary evidence of his birth certificate and corresponding birth announcements. I have no more reason, based on these criteria, to doubt his citizenship that I do yours or anyone else’s.
The claim that Obama was born somewhere outside the United States is an extraordinary claim, and one that has no compelling evidence to support it.
Bill Clinton didn’t let the UN’s black helicopters usher everybody into FEMA concentration camps, G. W. Bush and his neocon cronies did non stage a coup d’etat to keep their Blackwater/Haliburton/AIPAC axis of evil in power, and and Barack Obama, no matter how you might feel about him, is a citizen of the United States.
BTW I wasn’t the one who brought it up, for those of you keeping score at home.
@159. Chris L: I’ve clearly made you very angry…
Don’t flatter yourself, Chris. Pointing out your insulting commentary and your ignorance on this topic doesn’t require anger. You seem to believe that (your) impressions are somehow above critique simply because you label them “impressions”, and that assertions founded in ignorance are somehow different from lies. I’m happy to disabuse you of these misconceptions.
Again, my suggestion to you would be that if you have genuine questions about a topic like firearms and related legislation, simply ask them. But don’t presume to lecture others on a topic about which you’re clearly woefully ignorant. That is the hallmark of the morally adolescent left – arrogating unto themselves the knowledge and wisdom they covet in morally mature conservatives. And before you start typing, I’ll save you a straw man by pointing out that just because you exhibited this characteristic of leftist arrogance does not mean I’m calling you a liberal/leftist.
@161. Chris L: – Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This works both ways, of course.
The ordinary claim that Obama was born in Hawaii is supported by the ordinary evidence of his birth certificate and corresponding birth announcements. I have no more reason, based on these criteria, to doubt his citizenship that I do yours or anyone else’s.
Chris, no one here is going to put much stock in what your personal level of gullibility inclines you to accept, nor should they. And what’s more, your personal assessment of ordinary vs. extraordinary is not the last word on the subject. On this facet you’re clearly confused.
BHO’s and his various parents’ (both biological and adoptive) activities prior to and following his birth makes HIS claim to natural born citizenship extraordinary. To date, he has never produced any evidence – ordinary or otherwise – for public scrutiny to support this extraordinary claim. We know that evidence exists. He has refused to produce it, to the point of hiring law firms to protect that evidence from being publicly scrutinized.
You’re apparently ignorant of the details in any of the legal challenges that were submitted to the SCOTUS on this issue. This would track with your penchant for lecturing on topics where you have no knowledge, as above. None of those cases was ever heard on its merits, which validates the position that this issue has never been determined Constitutionally, only legalistically, i.e., with respect to “standing”.
Guns to protect are guns that are used for crime-it is that simple.
To 161. Chris L
First he has never released his birth certificate so I don’t know your getting that “ordinary evidence”
2nd since when did a photoshop down of a newspaper count as evidence?
You also seem to not understand basic law… even if obama was born in hawaii that doesn’t prove he is legally allowed to be president… it also doesn’t matter if obama is a citizen of the United States that is irrelevant for the requirements set down by the constitution(which I would suggest you read some time). He must be a NATURAL BORN CITIZEN.
The argument that he was born in kenya is more of a slam dunk argument because if he was born in kenya then their is no debate that he’s illegal. If he was born in hawaii then this becomes a legal gray in which depending on how close the SC sticks to the constitution as it was written when it was written vs how it was written and how it “should be view in todays eyes”. If viewed in the time it was written and in context of that time its very very clear that obama is illegal. In fact obama is EXACTLY to the letter who the founder fathers wrote the natural born clause for… HE IS A BRITISH SUBJECT.
TO: Chris L
RE: Please Learn to Read English
THERE IS NO BIRTH CERTIFICATE that has been seen by anyone in the public venue. Or, if there is, please show me the URL that I too may see it.
As for the ‘birth announcements’. Show me those too.
Please?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. Who gives a flip about the color of helicopters anyway? Their paint job doesn’t matter. It’s what they do that matters. Don’t you think?
And about those ‘camps’? You never heard of Fort Chaffee? Where do you think we housed all those Cuban ‘Boat People’? And we have a lot more ‘forts’ like that which are quite capable of housing LOTS of people, should the need arise.
The question is, who are going to be the detainees?
I understand that Ayers favors locations in the southwest……and three guesses as to who HE thinks should be interned…..first two don’t count…..
Chris L:
“The ordinary claim that Obama was born in Hawaii is supported by the ordinary evidence of his birth certificate and corresponding birth announcements.”
In the images linked to below, the left image is a 1961 Hawaii Certificate of Live Birth, the image on the right is what the fellow who claims to have been born in Hawaii has publicly offered as his “proof”.
The Obama document, you will notice, alleges little more than that there indeed exists SOME document about Barack Obama in the vaults, but nothing as to specifics.
“http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/birth-cert-small.jpg”
Believe his enchanted tongue or your lying eyes?
“The claim that Obama was born somewhere outside the United States is an extraordinary claim, and one that has no compelling evidence to support it.”
I should point out that you should bear in mind that this is not a criminal proceeding, but a job qualification check, and therefore it is not incumbent upon the State to disqualify Obama, but upon Obama to prove that he is qualified.
Which is something that would cost him very little cash if his COLB is truly in order.
http://www.youdecidepolitics.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/10/birth-cert-small.jpg
155. goy: “Chrissy”. I need say no more. You are clearly not capable of engaging in civil debate, and anybody incapable of responding without insult (including equating being wrong with lying) is not worth my time. Seriously. Don’t bother responding unless it includes an apology for behaving like an unmannered brat.
@160. Chuck Pelto: That Document that was presented by the campaign was not a ‘Birth Certificate’. It was a ‘Certificate of Live Birth’. Anyone can walk into the Hawaiian government and get one if they’re living and breathing.
Right. And CBP, if you want to get really nit-picky, semantical and gnat’-ass-dead-on-balls accurate – as we of course should be when we’re talking about eligibility to be elected Leader of the Free World – the document presented by the campaign was a ‘Certification of Live Birth’ (says so right in the document’s title block). I pointed that out, along with the significance of this difference back in December.
Here’s what an actual Hawaii long-form COLB looks like. This is the form BHO has kept under lock and key in Hawaii (or in whatever federal vault it’s in, now that he’s the most powerful individual on the face of the planet). Note the section at the bottom used to record information on any alterations, which doesn’t appear on the Certification form produced by BHO’s campaign. This is done on purpose, so that an individual can present a Certification with a new name, birthplace (?), etc., and retain the privacy of the information on their original certificate. Hawaii law is completely moot on whether or not the place of birth can be amended, but of course it stands to reason that absent any explicit restriction in this regard, a U.S. Senator could have such a change made based purely on his own signature.
The problem all along has been that very few people have any knowledge of Hawaii law or its impact in this regard, and are unaware of two key facts. First is the fact that Hawaiian parents of a child born anywhere can legally have the birth recorded with a valid certificate in Hawaii. Note that this would trigger a birth announcement in local periodicals even if the birth occurred in Antarctica, so the local birth announcement is not “evidence” of place of birth. Second is the fact that a Certification of Live Birth may legally contain information that is remarkably different from the information that appears on the original, long-form, unamended, vault copy of the Certificate of Live Birth. The certificate’s owner can record amendments as desired, and any subsequent Certification documents will reflect the changes. All of this was pointed out in Alan Keyes’ challenge in CA.
So, whether or not the document provided by BHO’s campaign that had any signatures or seals is completely moot. Even if it had those signatures and/or seals, it still would not have provided evidence to support BHO’s claim of natural born citizenship. Only the original, unamended (and unamendable) vault copy of his COLB would provide that evidence – and he refuses to release that for some very strange reason.
I’m hesitant to post much more on this topic in this thread, since it’s been beaten so very completely to death and because the truth is so glaringly obvious to anyone who takes five minutes to go look up the Hawaii statutes. The comment thread from Moran’s post back in December has pretty much everything anyone would ever want to know on this topic. The bottom line is that it’s been swept under the rug and only an act of Congress is ever going to pull it out again.
#170:
“You are clearly not capable of engaging in civil debate, and anybody incapable of responding without insult (including equating being wrong with lying) is not worth my time.”
Didn’t I warn you about this?
You walked right into it by making assertions of fact, and then when they’re shown to not be quite as factual as you had intimated them to be, you call “foul!” on points of style.
You used the exact same playbook with the gun control thing earlier.
What’s up with that?
@170. Chris L: – I need say no more.
Once again, the convenient dodge.
You’re really missing this concept of not lecturing others on things you don’t fully understand, Chris. Starting to look like that’s intentional.
TO: Chris L
RE: Heh
Ever see the movie Aliens? Remember the scene as the troops are coming out of hibernation-sleep? One of the troops complains about something. What did the sergeant do and say?
He pointed to his eye and said, “Look into my eye….”
The significance being, Do you see anyone who cares about your piddling?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[And your crybaby whiny-assed point would be...?]
172. Bilgeman: I’ve been consistent about not engaging with people who are insulting. And I stated my impressions as impressions, not as fact. Chuck and goy are incapable of countering to something I said that they don’t like without being insulting, and I’m just not going to play along, because its frustrating and ultimately benefits no one. It’s not just a point of style; As I’ve stated before, in my experience people who debate this way are close-minded, full of themselves, unwilling to modify their assumptions when they are shown to be untrue, and hold their own standards of interaction beyond contempt.
I have apologized for stating an impression that turned out to be incorrect, and I have thanked those who took the time to provide links to better information. I am, as I have demonstrated, very willing to listen when people critique or criticize my views–when they do so without making it personal.
Regarding the birth certificate nonsense–I have reviewed the arguments in some detail, and have come to the conclusion that every judicial body who’s been presented with the same have come to: It’s bullshit. I’m not going to convince you of that because people with much more time on their hands have already tried and failed. But I’m not going to get involved with it, and I apologize, once again, for ever saying more about it than bemoaning 8 looming years of idiot “Impeach Obama” nonsense after having just endured 8 years of idiot “Impeach Bush” nonsense, in response to somebody else’s rant.
TO: Bilgeman & goy
RE: Another….
….Monty Python Moment.
These people as either simply inept or much, much worse.
With this one, I suspect the former, for the most part.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Run AWAY! -- Monty Python and the Holy Grail]
P.S. Bilgeman has a good point about an emerging pattern of behavior.
P.S. I noticed something else….
Chris L has not answered my question here, regarding a URL to this ‘Birth Certificate’, and on the other thread where I asked them if they’d prefer it if NOBODY honored their oath to defend the Constitution of the United States….against all enemies….foreign and domestic.
It’s a typical MO of ‘progressives’. Ask a simple question and you get nothing or ad homs in response.
TO: Chris L
RE: Please….
….answer my questions. And stop ignoring them. Otherwise, you’re doing what you accuse others of doing, i.e., not debating in an open and honest manner. That sort of behavior, after a while, gets me a tad ‘cranky’.
Hope that helps…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out.....]
P.S. Bilgeman….
….we’re talking some interesting ‘role reversal’ here.
Here, I’m the attack dog……
@175. Chris L: - Regarding the birth certificate nonsense–I have reviewed the arguments in some detail, and have come to the conclusion that every judicial body who’s been presented with the same have come to: It’s bullshit.
Another lie, last I checked. As of the point at which this question became moot, at least, no judicial body had ever come to that conclusion. In fact, using evasive, legalistic rhetoric, and completely ignoring the gravity of the question, courts consistently either granted motions to dismiss or simply refused to hear cases challenging this issue on their merits.
So your statement is not only an appeal to authority fallacy, but one based on a false characterization of the events upon which you’re basing your conclusion.
BHO has, to date, never produced proof of natural born citizenship. Ever.
To 175. Chris L
“Regarding the birth certificate nonsense–I have reviewed the arguments in some detail, and have come to the conclusion that every judicial body who’s been presented with the same have come to: It’s bullshit.”
Could this show any clearer that you never once even reviewed the facts or cases… Not a single court has found the claim “bullshit” as you put it…. every single court has however found that the person filing it has either no legal standing to file the claim or that some other procedural law has not been followed. No case has ever been heard or facts presented thus it is not possible for any sane person with any legal knowledge to state what you stated…
Sigh. Chuck. I’m done. You and goy have been unceasingly rude in nearly every interaction I’ve had with you, throwing insults and personal invective and apparently expecting that I will continue to engage you regardless.
I don’t know how many more times I can explain it: If you respond to what I say with personal attacks and, especially in your case, sneering asides, I’m not going to respond. I’m not going to answer your questions and ignore the insults. nor am I going going to respond to the insults; therefore I’m not going to respond at all. That means that I’m not going to answer your question–not because I don’t have an answer, but because it’s not worth suffering the steady stream of unpleasantness on your part in the dim hope of gaining some tiny pearl of wisdom from the mountains of obnoxious offal I’d have to sift through to find it.
Done. Fine. The end.
I stand corrected. The evidence is bullshit, and the people trying to present it are incompetent. My bad.
TO: All
RE: Never ASSUME Anythink
There is SO MUCH ‘wiggle room’ in that statement it bears requiring them to explain some things.
[1] Where is the information they ‘reviewed’? URLs required.
[2] What WERE the ‘arguments’ that were reviewed? Again, URLs, please.
[3] How do they define “some”?
[4] How do they define “detail”?
I recall the evasive English used by ‘goverment officials’ in Hawaii. There was LOTS of room for them to lie to our face.
Example….
I recall how the Secretary of State said, “There is a valid document.”
Question is, what sort of document was it? What was the data on the ‘document’. Did the document apply to Obama?
English is a GREAT language for telling lies. After all, according to Chris L, there are a LOT of ‘liars’. Especially around HERE.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Half a truth is often a great lie. -- Benjamin Franklin]
P.S. Who knew he knew the Governor of Hawaii so well?
#175 Chris L:
“And I stated my impressions as impressions, not as fact.”
You did? Would it be insulting of me to observe that you have a very peculiar way of stating your impressions?
I mean, here’s your #150:
“But the birth certificate issue is nothing but a raving mad conspiracy theory; like most conspiracy theories, it is impervious to evidence and reason, and will therefore be repeated ad nauseam until its proponents find something else to latch on to.”
I don’t see any modifiers or softeners in that.
No “I feel” or “I think”s. Pretty hard and concrete statements.
“Like the “9/11 Truth” supporters, this one has been blown out of the water eight ways to Sunday, but the people who promote it have first made up their mind, and then accept or deny evidence only on the basis of whether it supports or contradicts their a priori belief.”
And here again, I see no effort to equivocate. You could have tossed in an “In my opinion” somewhere, but instead you chose to make a pronouncement…and one that is patently false, as Brother Robotech Master at #181 explains.
You go on to attack their style, and dismiss their substance:
“As I’ve stated before, in my experience people who debate this way are close-minded, full of themselves, unwilling to modify their assumptions when they are shown to be untrue, and hold their own standards of interaction beyond contempt… …Regarding the birth certificate nonsense–I have reviewed the arguments in some detail, and have come to the conclusion that every judicial body who’s been presented with the same have come to: It’s bullshit.”
Okay, you won’t hear it from Col. Chuck and Brother goy, you might entertain it for a moment if I said it, but what’s your beef with Robotech Master?
He’s been strictly business towards you, and is saying essentially the same thing…that there’s something very fishy going on here.
And
#176 Col Pelto:
“P.S. Bilgeman has a good point about an emerging pattern of behavior.”
You have probably been on the receiving end of an enemy’s probing your lines…doesn’t this chap seem to be doing exactly that?
Demonstrate, draw the fire, and retreat…rinse. lather and repeat.
The Syrians and every other beggar did that to us in Beirut, got all the lads banging away at some hapless schmuck in some apartment building, meanwhile their S-2 guys were in a completely different building with a sketch-book and colored pencils.
Later at night when the arty and mortars would drop in from the Bekaa Valley, they’d nail all the empty positions where “the good stuff” had fired from that afternoon.
Didn’t take long to dope that trick out.
The maddening thing was that some of our people didn’t suspect it from the git-go.
“Never ‘inherit’ a vacated command bunker or former heavy weapons foxhole.”
Shouldn’t that be engraved somewhere in Quantico and Fort Benning?
TO: Chris L
RE: The Gloves Come OFF!
Show me YOUR Mensa membership ID number. Then again, show me how you’re a debate judge for YOUR state.
Barking idiotsycratic that you are. You accuse ME of being ‘incompetent’ in debate. YOU don’t even answer simple questions.
In debate, it’s perfectly legit to ask the opposing side to back up their allegations with evidence.
I’ve asked you for evidence TIME and again and YOU have refused to provide it.
And yet you expect people to change their opinions of a matter JUST ON YOUR SAY SO? Dang. That is ‘impressive’. Let’s have YOU apply the same approach from our args to YOU!
By now, if you behaved as you expect US to you’d be a born-again christian of the Wisconsin Missouri Synod persuasion.
You’re a barking hypocrite. It’s as simple as that.
Talk about ‘projection’. You take the proverbial cake, buckie.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Gosh that felt 'good'.]
@182. Chris L:- If you respond to what I say with personal attacks and, especially in your case, sneering asides, I’m not going to respond.
Yet… you keep… on… posting!
Here’s a tip, Chris: if you go through life expecting people to listen to your baseless “advice”, and then expect them to tailor their response to accommodate your exceedingly thin skin, you’re in for a long, frustrating time. Especially since you don’t seem to recognize the difference between an impression and an assertion, as Bilgeman just made clear, and you seem to think that both are above question merely because you’re the one who uttered them.
#182 Chris L:
“You and goy have been unceasingly rude in nearly every interaction I’ve had with you, throwing insults and personal invective ”
That’s too bad, once you get to know them and know how to read what they write, they’re pretty good mugs.
You ignored my advice before, and see where it got you?
Would you take some now?
Grow a thicker skin.
Swapping barbs and insults along with the discussion is all part of the fun of the Wonderful World Wide Web.
Like a good bar-fight, if you’re familiar with that sub-culture, as long as everyone knows and respects the rules and doesn’t take anything personally, you can really enjoy the rough and tumble.
You takes some lumps, you gives some lumps, and everyone has a beer.
You’re acting here like the schmuck who didn’t get the memo, doesn’t therefore understand what’s going on, and calls the cops at the first sound of a beer bottle crashing against a wall.
185. Bilgeman: “I mean, here’s your #150…” I believe that statement to be true, and therefore didn’t qualify it. It is a conspiracy theory–it theorizes (or, more properly, hypothesizes) a conspiracy. It is raving mad because the evidence put forward to support it is thin and requires a great deal of interpretation to draw from it the conclusion that Obama is not a natural born citizen. But moreso than that, its greatest failing is that of most conspiracy theories–it assumes a level of control over, and loyalty from, a vast array of disassociated persons who would have had to be involved in order to continue to carry it out. Everything from, presumably, injecting fake birth announcements into the records of Hawaiian newspapers to having Hawaiian government officials lie in public about the veracity of the original documents (or replacing those original documents before they were viewed), would require an extraordinary level of secrecy. It’s simply not plausible.
“And here again, I see no effort to equivocate.” And I don’t believe one is needed. I’ve debated conspiracy nuts on the right and left for many years, and they all share this trait in common. I have yet to hear a single person say, for example, “Well, guess I was wrong about the UN and the black helicopters”, or “Guess I was wrong about Bush staging a coup”. It’s a prediction, and it is possible that it will be incorrect, but I really don’t think so.
“You go on to attack their style, and dismiss their substance:”
I’m not dismissing their substance. I’m refusing to engage with it at all any more because their style is so childish and offensive.
Regarding Robotech Master’s point: Yes, I was incorrect to state that the courts have found the arguments unconvincing. My apologies for getting that wrong. It is in fact the case that those few people who have brought the arguments to the court have not even been able to proceed, because they have lacked the legal standing to do so, or made other errors in their filings. Presumably there is some individual or body–probably quite a few–who would pass the standing test and who would be competent at proceeding correctly. Why is it none have been able to do so?
Fundamentally, though, it comes to this: He is now the President of the United States, having been found eligible, nominated, elected and sworn in according to the law of the land. This nonsense wouldn’t matter even if it was true. Having been secretly born in Kenya, or having failed to restore his citizenship after living in Indonesia, or having been born in some kind of a time warp bubble where Hawaii wasn’t a state yet even though it achieved statehood two years before his birth, has no effect on the present. He is in office. This course of investigation has zero chance of removing him. He is there now, making policy, signing legislation and acting as Commander in Chief.
At this point the only recourse is impeachment. And let me remind you, “no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” It. Isn’t. Going. To. Happen. Not about this, anyway.
TO: Bilgeman & goy
RE: I Don’t Think That….
…she can.
Yeah. She….I’ve been noticing that form of delivery.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[Woman, n., The unfair sex. -- Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary]
189. Bilgeman: “You’re acting here like the schmuck who didn’t get the memo, doesn’t therefore understand what’s going on, and calls the cops at the first sound of a beer bottle crashing against a wall.” I’m not calling the cops. Somehow I must have given the impression that my feelings are hurt. They’re not. But I have found that on most sites that are somewhere between far-left and far-right, there are generally enough people around that I can have an exchange, even a heated one, without hurling insults. I just prefer it. I don’t feel good after I get into a pissing contest. I don’t need it to bolster my manhood, which is quite bolstered enough, thank you. And I do walk away from bar fights (without calling the cops), because I find it a stupid, destructive activity that leaves no one the better. To each his own, I guess.
So when I say something that’s incorrect, I expect to be jumped on. If I state a strong and (in present company) controversial opinion, I expect to get heated responses. That’s fine. I’m just not dealing with the people who take the extra step of leveling personal attacks and insults. I don’t need to. If you feel that reduces my credibility, so be it.
Ummm…. anyone even slightly interested in what the plan is here? Or is it too much fun seeing who has the biggest pecker?
obama pledged to support the un proposal that would
a: ( and has some relevence to the original story ) disarm everyone
b: Subject the entire planet to a un court.
Now, I can’t make it any plainer. You little girls don’t need to keep wondering what the end game is.
There it is.
Chuck, I have pointed this out to you several times and with all your great pontificating, you don’t even respond to it.WTF?
It’s there. It’s real and it’s the end game.
Don’t say you weren’t told.
DH
To 190. Chris L
I’m confused where the evidence is thin here… I thought it was a well know fact that obama dad was a british subject… that he was a british subject… that both he and his father were both kenyan citizens as well….
I’m not seeing what isn’t a well known fact….
Next once again please display with supposed “newspaper”… it is very clear from the ones I’ve seen that any 12 year old could have photoshopped it.
Also the fact that we know the Cert of live birth is fake because it first appeared on DKOS and has clearly been photoshopped… we also have law enforcement official clearly stating it fake…. under the law such that if they were LYING THEY WOULD GOTO JAIL. I don’t know to many 9/11 truthers that take it to the point that they will lie under oath and goto jail over faking DOCs… I also don’t see these ppl in jail…
Next is the simple fact that a picture… in this case half a picture of a DOC has no legal standing at all… no judge in the world would take the picture post on the internet as valid proof of citizenship.
Lets add some more facts…
Fact 1. Obama grandmother says he was born in kenyan. in combined with that fact… no hospital in hawaiin has claimed to have obama born there… normally thats a big deal and a hospital would not only promote itself but likely have at these some mention of it… the fact that neither have either means they
A. Hate black ppl/obama personally
B. He wasn’t born there.
The FACT that obama held duel citizenship not once but twice by it self is more then enough to justify a legal inquest on the subject… the FACT that he held duel citizenship with britain… of which the whole point of the requirement to be a natural born citizen was about… The writers of the constitution write that section almost solely directed at the british…
Once again pretty straight forward no conspiracy theory just simple facts. Any history book can confirm these FACTs.
Now lets get to some circumstantial evidence.
We know that hawaii has refused to say that obama was in fact born in hawaii. When the hawaii directer was asked if obama was born in hawaii… she didn’t just say YES… she went on a long storied excuse not to respond YES. Everyone knew obama has a legally valid birth cert on record with hawaii… that why hawaii was sued about 100 times to get it…. NOT A SINGLE LAWSUIT that I know of dealing with this topic doesn’t believe that hawaii has a birth cert for obama…
So why not just say YES to the question…?
Obama has refused to give out his birth cert… when MCCAIN was questioned about his legally being able to be president he gave the media and the public FULL VIEW OF ALL THE DOCs AROUND IT. Do we hold white ppl to a different standard then black? Do we hold republicans to a different standard then democrats? Clearly we do…
As for standing you need to understand how the court system works… only someone harmed by obama has standing in this issue… so basically only the former CEO of GM could sue obama. Their are only really 2 other ppl who can file suit. The AG(who is appointed by obama) and the AG of the District of Columbia(DC)… and DC is hardcore Dem and they really couldn’t care less if he was born on the moon and was a fricking alien.
Some lawsuits are taking a round about way to get standing… these suit are the ones being “knocked around” in the court system. These are the ones you hear keep getting “kicked out” but really their not losing the cases their just bouncing around in the system until they get to the SC. All of bergs cases are still active along with roughly 15 others. Plus at least a good 40 or so other cases in varying states.
#190 Chris L:
“This nonsense wouldn’t matter even if it was true. Having been secretly born in Kenya, or having failed to restore his citizenship after living in Indonesia, or having been born in some kind of a time warp bubble where Hawaii wasn’t a state yet even though it achieved statehood two years before his birth, has no effect on the present. He is in office. This course of investigation has zero chance of removing him. He is there now, making policy, signing legislation and acting as Commander in Chief.”
What if he IS a fraud?
Then he isn’t the President, and he never was. And every act he has taken in office is null and void…every bit of it.
A few people tried to warn us and get this matter before the proper courts to compel Obama to produce the records and settles this affair, but the courts shirked their duties by quibbling about standing and not getting right to the heart of the matter.
Maybe they were scared, and maybe they stil are, to demand that the man prove that he was born in Hawaii and has always been a US citizen, of what his partisans’ reactions would be when they found out that they were duped, or are bulldogged into believing that this is a coup.
Heck, the ramifications terrify me.
But you have to stand up for the Constitution, and be ready to take…and give, the lumps that come from doing that.
So, Chris L, to me at least, it DOES matter.
Doesn’t it matter to you?
TO: Dark Helmet
RE: I, for One….
….am all too well aware of the problem you’ve pointed out. I’ve been watching it develop for too long. It’s just part of the bigger picture I alluded to in the comment to Lady Liberty in the Rick Moran’s Reagan thread.
From that perspective, it is not quite ‘end game’. But it IS an ugly part of it. A VERY ugly part.
As for what to do about it, well….I’m still working that one out in prayer.
I hope that helps. I know it’s not much. But I haven’t got a great answer for it as yet.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A fool uttereth all his mind: but a wise man keepeth it in till afterwards. -- Proverbs]
TO: Chris L
RE: In the Plain and Simple Words….
….of President Harry S. Truman, the last great Democratic President….
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[A leader in the Democratic Party is a boss, in the Republican Party he is a leader. -- Harry S. Truman]
The guy was never vetted. Why isn’t this all over the front page? What happens if his birth certificate is false? Then he is an intruder. Honestly, if he is the perpetrator of such a crime as to knowingly illegally seek the office of POTUS, then there probably is no limit to his evil and we are all in severe trouble. So, I’ll be going to buy my gun but I don’t know if it’s going to do any good.
Ok.. No clue the path but ended up over at one of my personal faves, OpenCongress.org a bit ago.. They’ve got an entry on H.R. 45 there:
Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009
If you want to comment line-by-line on the bill itself, go to the extended text version there..
In reading the last page of comments on the bill, ended up finding out about Texas’ latest:
Lawmaker aims at making Texas firearms exempt from federal regulation..
THAT continued the cyber path over to the Texas legislative page for:
HB 1863 :: Relating to exempting the intrastate manufacture of a firearm, a firearm accessory, or ammunition from federal regulation.
There are several other related bills mentioned at the bottom of the star-telegram.com article under “Bill watch: Guns”.. Simply input those numbers into the Texas government site for more on them..
Anyone know if they hand choose the bill numbers..? Am finding the “45″, as in Colt,
suspectinterestingly coincidental..Keep up the good fight Chuck.
Thanks.
DH
TO: Dark Helmet, et al.
RE: Another Piece of the Plan….
….is moving into its ‘proper’ Place.
Guess who gets to decide what constitutes ‘hostile blogger’.
Three guesses, first two…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[When even one American - who has done nothing wrong - is forced by fear to shut his mind and close his mouth - then all Americans are in peril. -- Harry S. Truman]
@194. robotech master: - … no judge in the world would take the picture post on the internet as valid proof of citizenship.
There does appear to be one, actually. The judge who wrote the following has undoubtedly accepted the JPG offered up by BHO’s campaign:
Here’s why – the only manner in which BHO’s citizenship was ever “vetted” was through the Certification of Live Birth JPG claimed to have been received by dKos (a hyper-leftist online community) and FactCheck.org (owned by the Annenberg Foundation of Annenberg Challenge fame).
And note that nowhere in this adolescent screed does this judge ever state that the issue of BHO’s citizenship was ever resolved, period. He simply begs the question and proceeds from the false premise that it was. He then goes on to create a straw man regarding who the “real” plaintiff is in the case, and dismisses the case on that basis, threatening to sanction the filing attorney in the process, based on his own straw man logic. This is pure, unadulterated judicial activism. That anyone would call this issue “nonsense” based on an opinion like Robertson’s just shows how far down the rabbit hole we’ve fallen.
Robertson completely ignores (or is ignorant of) the fact that a Certification of Live Birth can legally differ, substantively, from the long-form, unamendable Certificate of Live Birth on which it’s based. EVERYONE who wants this issue to go away, and especially those who use ad hominem or appeal-to-ridicule fallacies, must ignore this one inconvenient truth. Either that, or they must be willing to admit – like David Horowitz did – that BHO has never produced proof of Article II eligibility and that it does not matter.
.
@195. Bilgeman: – What if he IS a fraud?
Bilge’, when Chris writes that “This nonsense wouldn’t matter even if it was true”, we see the ends-justify-the-means mentality of the Left in top gear. Horowitz tried to make the same argument, asserting that Americans should not care whether the Constitutional eligibility requirements were met, and that anyone who insisted on the letter of the law was a “sore loser”. I’m not sure what epithet this putz was using on the multitudes who posed this question before 11/5/08.
All an argument like Horowitz’ (and Chris’) really says is this: if a majority (or even a plurality) of the American People can be duped into believing a lie, then the lie becomes truth. That’s the core of moral relativism, i.e., that a lie can become “truth” if enough people can be convinced the lie is true. The Earth was “flat” once, and had a Sun which revolved around it… remember?
We saw this over and over again with the lies used to attack conservatives, Republicans and the Bush administration over the last 8 years – especially those surrounding “Plamegate”, Abu Ghraib, Gonzalez, “Warrantless” Wiretaps and Katrina. Those lies saddled us with the Democrat majority in Congress in 2006, which started our downward economic slide, and they ultimately saddled us with a thoroughly unvetted, unproven, unqualified chief executive. So this is nothing new.
The problem with Horowitz’ argument is that once that lie is accepted as “truth”, all manner of irrational conclusions follow from it. The most egregious of these in his mind being the notion that BHO’s supporters – rather than being exposed as the ignorant, gullible rubes they are – would be considered “disenfranchised” if it were discovered that BHO isn’t qualified, and was hiding that fact by blocking access to the best evidence available.
This case is a completely unprecedented possibility – maybe even in all of history. Have there been kings who were ultimately found to be usurpers? If so, what happened to them?
I can tell you what will happen here. Nothing. If BHO’s long-form COLB is ever released and it turns out his place of birth is somewhere other than HI – or there’s no valid doctor’s signature or some other invalidating issue, or if a court decides he lost his citizenship when he became an Indonesian citizen – nothing will happen.
Our King’s Court – Congress – is the final arbiter regarding the definition of a natural born citizen; there, the Democrats now have a supermajority and can pass any law they please. In this case they will simply pass a retro-active law stating that BHO’s specific circumstances – whatever they were – qualify him as “natural born”. That will be that. I’d be shocked if anyone voted against such a measure, quite frankly, as THAT would be the only thing the media would focus on. Otherwise, the media would all but ignore it, guaranteed, so that the groundswell of outrage that would result would be made to seem all the more “radical” – just as they did and are doing with the Tea Party movement.
Now, to turn this comment back to the topic at hand, this is the 2 + 2 = 5 world we have come to inhabit by incessantly compromising with the moral adolescents of the left who insist that 2 + 2 = 6. This is why we see ourselves once again faced with the likelihood of having to fight unconstitutional federal regulations intended to infringe on our fundamental right to keep and bear arms.
Unconvinced? Consider the almost comic irony of this when compared with the “right” to abortion – one which is expressed nowhere in the Constitution. Obeisance to this so-called “right” is held up as one of the gold standards presently used to vet elected officials. While at the same time, a bona fide, fundamental right that is clearly enumerated in the Bill of Rights, and which has recently been affirmed as such by no less than the Supreme Court, comes under attack whenever Congress gets the whim (and the votes).
This is what you get when you compromise with moral adolescents.
What it all comes down to is there is no definitive or absolute answer as to what the Second Amendment means. Personally, I favor the 2nd Amendment. I have a Constitutional right to own and possess a firearm. I however choose not to own or possess a firearm.
What I do worry about is certain wackos and wingnuts who take the Second Amendment too far. I don’t think everyone has the right to own a military assault or sniper rifle since they are only good for one thing. Killing human beings.
To 202. goy
While that judge has to be the most incompetent moron(even bigger then rick) on the bench he still did not accept the JPG as proof, his argument is that some mythic court some where had in fact done so thus he doesn’t need to do it himself… of course that mythic court doesn’t exist but hey its a great excuse not to rule based on the facts.
What he cites as “proof” is a well “known” court case where obama was vetted and a judge reviewed his “vault copy birth cert”. It was all over the DKOS and some other leftwing groups sites…. The problem is just like the cert of live birth the court case doesn’t exist. When ppl started looking for the judge, transcripts and other public records NONE existed… but as with most propaganda ppl refuse to listen to the simplest of facts… IE it never existed but they believe because the rumor coming from a hack/smear site like DKOS its real. This judge used it as a convenient scape goat to get out of work plain and simple.
pat j,what do you think a scoped hunting rifle is?it’s the SAME thing as a sniper rifle. the only difference is what it’s pointed at.and again…assult rifles have been banned since 1986.to own,say an m-16. you need to incorporate,go through the atf(WHICH IS COSTLY AND TIME CONSUMING)go through a specalized gun dealer,and pay around $20,000 for the rifle. plus, strict use/storage/transporting requirments.and that’s if your lucky enough to live in a state that allows it.armour piercing bullets,PURE BS!strictly outlawed.the anti’s list any ammo that will defeat soft body armour as “cop killer”rounds.thats basicly any rifle bullet ever made.plus alot of handgun rounds.the ant-gun crowd knows this,they just relie on emotion,gullibiity and ignorance to push their agenda.please don’t fall for it.if you break any law concerning making or purchasing/owning federally restricted ammo/weapons,you will go to prison for at least 7-10 years.commit a crime with it,20-life.
@204. robotech master: - … his argument is that some mythic court some where had in fact done so …
I looked at Robertson’s decision (again) and didn’t find an argument based on any previous case that doesn’t exist. The only reference to a previous case in Robertson’s decision linked above was Berg v. Obama, which does exist. There, Robertson makes the fantastical assertion that “a judge took Mr. Berg’s claims seriously –- and dismissed them”.
In fact, Berg v. Obama wasn’t dismissed on its merits, it was referred to a higher court for lack of standing in the PA court. That outcome was Berg’s expectation all along in that filing, and he stated as much while waiting for that court’s decision. The filing itself was a just procedural requirement to bring the case to the SCOTUS.
Robertson’s decision is another instance where arbitrary, legalistic evasion (i.e., failure to state a claim) was used to dismiss the case and avoid having to actually consider the merits. It’s analogous to Governor Lingle’s laughable and highly insulting statement that she was barred by State law from releasing BHO’s original COLB because no one making a request for it had a “tangible interest” in the information… as if every American doesn’t have a tangible frakking interest in knowing that their President is eligible, per Article II of the Constitutions, to hold the office.
Both of these are instances where authority is abused in order to make a wholly arbitrary assessment, and then use that assessment, along with the letter of the law to violate the intent of the law.
Is there some info on this mythical case in a different document?
Chuckie – and the rest of the wingnuts – I love the birth certificate quandry for you – Keep at it because it destroys your credibility except with other wingnuts who thankfully are a small fraction of the voters.
I would personally love for Obama to ake away your guns becuase I think your posts here have proved you to be looney, but I don’t think he hs any intention of moving on this front. The Supreme Court has outline what you can possibly do to control the use of guns and it does not include confiscation or an outright ban.
#202 goy:
“Bilge’, when Chris writes that “This nonsense wouldn’t matter even if it was true”, we see the ends-justify-the-means mentality of the Left in top gear.”
I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here that he might be speaking from a place of impotence or ennui rather than sneering triumphalism.
If he wants to convict himself as an enemy of the Constitution, that’s his prerogative, but I won’t assume that he is, nor accuse him of being so.
“In this case they will simply pass a retro-active law stating that BHO’s specific circumstances – whatever they were – qualify him as “natural born”. ”
Sure…once the Constitution is a doormat, they can do it all…ex post facto, double-jeopardy, any and every greasy little trick they want to use.
What’s to stop them?
The Militia.
“We saw this over and over again with the lies used to attack conservatives, Republicans and the Bush administration over the last 8 years”
What gives me the willies is their well-known and widely-observed penchant for Projection.
What they accused President Bush of trying to do, is EXACTLY what they are doing, and they’ve meant to do it all along.
This cannot and will not end well, but it must end.
shadow;in referance to post#208,please read post #56. and due to your sides collectivist,anti-constitutional mindset,i would prefer to take away your right to vote or legislate(just kidding)actualy,the views of the mainstream political left of this country are like a vaccine against catching the truely deadly statist plague that has destroyed so many other nations.everytime we get a taste of your watered down socialism,we sober up quite quickly ;ala jimmy carter.that is what he should have gotten the nobel prize for,imho.btw…. after this country spends four years watching our commander-in-chief get punked by every authoritarian despot on the planet,we’ll be dying to vote in a cheney/palin ticket; )
It was pointed out to the trolls that when McCain was asked the very same question of eligibility he produced the proof required to affirm his citizenship.Supposedly obama has the same proof in Hawaii,why not show it and prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that all the us “nutjobs” are wrong?There’s only one logical answer to this question,isn’t there?If the shoe was on the other foot wouldn’t you be skeptical?Actions speak louder than words,yes?
Let’s see,
1.Confidential photo’s of Abu Ghraib
released.Check.
2.Confidential photo’s of American KIA’s
returned to America released.Check.
3.Confidential memo’s of alleged torture
leaked.Check
4.Photo’s and flight manifest from AF 1 buzzing
NYC,classified as confidential.Check.
5.Obama’s proof of citizenship buried.Check.
6.The only President in 233 years to bow to a
monarch.Check.
Obama’s broken campaign promises:
1.No revolving door for lobbyist’s and former
officials.Check.
2.Allow 5 days of public comment before signing
any bill into law.Check.
3.A $3,000 tax credit per job to companies that
create jobs.Check.
4.Tax wind fall oil profits.Check.
5.Eliminate ear mark legislation.Check.
6.”I will not return to the failed policies of
the past.”Check.(I guess he didn’t mean Karl
Marx’s policies on this one.)
7.No more secrecy/most transparent government in
history.Check.
8.Post every pork barrel project/sponsor on
line.Check.
Two quick questions,maybe you trolls can help
me out with.You do know what cognitive
dissonance is don’t you?And why does it smell
like the only thing a liberal/hippie wash’s is
their brain?
Sheesh,pertaining to your post #34,just google the words democrats and gun control together and you will get 3,040,000 hits.It doesn’t take much sifting to answer your question.
To 206. goy
I was mostly referring to his “closing statements” the ones where he said
“The issue of the President’s citizenship was raised, vetted, blogged, texted, twittered, and otherwise massaged by America’s vigilant citizenry during Mr. Obama’s two-year-campaign for the presidency, but this plaintiff wants it resolved by a court.”
The vetting/twittered etc, etc, etc was part of a mythic case that was reported by DKOS I’m trying to find the link to it. However I do believe he is referring to this “case” and the “outcome” of it. Even if he isn’t citing it directly(because he didn’t need to dismiss) he was just wanted to make that insane statement and used it as justification.
Maybe this is nit-picking, but this is just weak:
“Once government knows exactly who has the guns, could confiscation be far behind?”
Does the same logic apply in these scenarios?
“Once government knows exactly who has a car, could confiscation be far behind?”
“Once government knows exactly who has a house, could confiscation be far behind?”
“Once government knows exactly who has children, could confiscation be far behind?”
Just saying…
TO: Herb
RE: Yeah!
“Once government knows exactly who has a car, could confiscation be far behind?” — Herb
Don’t renew your registration and then drive the car on the street. See what happens.
“Once government knows exactly who has a house, could confiscation be far behind?” — Herb
Don’t pay your property tax. And see what happens. But you don’t own a house, do you….
“Once government knows exactly who has children, could confiscation be far behind?” — Herb
Spank your child. Or leave them alone for a while. And see what happens.
Or, more recently, THIS.
You may be “Just saying…” BUT….you obviously are totally clueless. As you’ve pointed out how accurate Dark Helmet’s comment is.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The Truth will out....]
I’m sorry I missed this topic as it’s always a good one. That said, I find it funny as I read through it that the traditional hallmarks of these threads. Everyone insulting those with dissenting opinions, despite repeated pleas for intelligent and rational conversation.
And of course, Chuck pointing out (again) that he is a Mensa member and being lambasted for being snarky and never addressing people’s questions/responses.
Maybe I didn’t miss anything after all.
Jack
for those who are not aware….check it out , pass it around.
http://secondamendmentmarch.com/
@213. robotech master: – I was mostly referring to his “closing statements” …
Actually, if you skip over his adolescent little tirade at the beginning (which, in a 2 + 2 = 4 world would be grounds for reprimand by a higher court), that was pretty much the opening paragraph of his decision.
But no matter. If you find a link to this other thing, I’d like to take a look. It would be right in line with the left’s lies about Gonzales, Abu Ghraib, “Warrantless” Wiretaps, Duelfer/WMDs, Katrina and Joe Wilson – the ones the entrenched, Fifth Column media is always all-too-ready to broadcast to a gullible electorate on behalf of the marxist-socialists in Congress (and now, the Executive).
Just imagine, though, if after the SCOTUS slapped Gore’s unconstitutional recount down in 2000, it turned out that GWB had been born in Hawaii and had produced only a Certification of Live Birth as proof of Article II eligibility. It wouldn’t have mattered if GHWB and BB had never left the country – the leftards would STILL be wailing that he’d never adequately demonstrated his eligibility. Proof? Easy: the fallacious Selected, Not Elected meme will never die. More accurate today would be Abetted, Never Vetted.
.
@214 Herb, do you lay awake at night dreaming up these false analogies? Or do you subscribe to JournoList for idiotic talking points like this?
146. Dark Helmet:
Right on point, bud. I won’t mind sharing my fox hole with citizens like you.
Odd that when Obama went to Hawaii to see his poor dying grandmother, he spent little time with her, but as he was leaving Hawaii, the Governor suddenly announced that his Birth records would be sealed.
Coincidence?
Right after that, his academic records at Harvard were sealed as well and he refuses to have them released either.
And the person who claims that B-HO was born in Africa was his own GRANDMOTHER!!! I guess she’s a right wing nut job too, huh?
#216:
“I find it funny as I read through it that the traditional hallmarks of these threads. Everyone insulting those with dissenting opinions, despite repeated pleas for intelligent and rational conversation.”
Welcome to the Intertoobz, you slobbering dirt-merchant!
TO: Bilgeman
RE: Jack Attack
In the first place, Jack has nothing cogent or relevant to provide, hence the derisive commentary of no particular import.
In the second place, Jack is jealous. Three guesses…..
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[There is no cure for 'dumb'.]
P.S. I suspect Jack is still in the K-12 range of ‘edgukashun’. Emphasis on the ‘shun’, as he can’t articulate any cogent debate.
#222 Chuck Pelto:
“In the first place, Jack has nothing cogent or relevant to provide, hence the derisive commentary of no particular import.”
Oh, I don’t know, I’ve had some fairly enlightening exchanges with him in the past.
Maybe you two just go together like mayonnaise and strawberry jam…it happens.
“In the second place, Jack is jealous. Three guesses…..”
Could be, but I can’t, and won’t, speak for the chap.
For my part, I am not a Mensa member, and yet I have no envy nor do I bear you any ill-will whatsoever for your being one.
Of course, I have a larger-than-average penis, which is a support to my self-esteem that is in a league all it’s own…
TO: Bilgeman
RE: Therein….
….lays the truth of the matter.
You couldn’t care less, one way or the other. [Note: As if I ever said I was a member of Mensa. Indeed, all I've asked is for these people to show me if THEY'RE a member.]
But people like Jack and Maggie45 and a number of others try pulling that junior-high taunting as if someone should be ashamed of being (1) a soldier or (2) relatively bright or (3) a city-county commissioner or (4) any combination of the above.
Why?
Because they have nothing to counter it. So, since they (1) are not any of those and (2) have no facts to offer, they (3) apply the third option of the Lawyer’s Rule….
….they call the other side ‘names’.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[If you can't beat em, try to 'kill' em.]
P.S. Take the test. I suspect you’d qualify. Or, better yet, what was your GTS?
- … what was your GTS?
138.
What do I win?
TO: goy
RE: Heh
What year were the tests administered?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[There's always SOMETHING!]
P.S. According to the data here….….
…if the tests were administered prior to October 1980 and the score is 136 or greater…..
…..YOU’RE A ‘WINNER’??!??!?!?
Or maybe not, if you ask ‘Jack’.
1972.
Cool.
And actually, I lied, now that you remind me. GT was 136. One of the guys in my class at DLIWC was 145. A while back I took the eMode online IQ test just for fun. That score was the 138.
TO: goy
RE: Okay
Ya got me there…
WHAT is “DLIWC”?
Defense Logistics Internet Wiccan Club?
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. And to think I was my IOAC class Acronym Control Officer. I hang my head in shame…..
65 Bilgeman . . . “The Right’s hallmark has always been the “Death Squad”…not the “Street Mob”.”
I believe it was you who said that death squads were the preferred method of the Left. I THINK it was you who said that. Not sure, maybe it was your penis talking. I’m pretty sure it came out of one of your holes. (I hope this doesn’t mean you’re going to start talking about gloryholes again. I don’t think anyone here needs to hear any more of that particular part of your personalty. Honestly, I’d rather hear Chuck tell us how big his brain is . . . which gives new meaning to the phrase “take it on faith.”)
TO: sheesh
RE: Try….
“Honestly, I’d rather hear Chuck tell us how big his brain is . . . ” — sheesh
…not to demonstrate how much a ‘dork’ you are.
It’s not the size that matters, in this venue, as what you can do with it.
In another venue, size can be enhanced with what you do with it.
You….obviously are completely clueless about such deep matters of Life.
RE: Death Squads
I suspect the Left will employ them first. They usually do. But it’s better—and safer—for them if they disarm the populace first. However, I doubt if THAT’s going to happen with US. Certainly not as ‘peaceably’ as happend in merry old England.
Too many combat arms vets who remember the oath they took so long ago. And were better educated than YOU.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
[The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good. -- George Washington]
#226:
“P.S. Take the test. I suspect you’d qualify. Or, better yet, what was your GTS?”
My GT score was 113, administered at 0600 in the dog’s breath humid morning at Parris Island in the year of Our Lord 1982. Very early on in the Recruit Training Process, I don’t recall if we’d even been picked up by our Drill Instructors yet.
And while I appreciate the vote of confidence, I think I’ll decline, since I don’t need yet another silent reproach when I ponder the fact that I’m not stinking, filthy rich.
#232 sheesh:
“I’m pretty sure it came out of one of your holes. (I hope this doesn’t mean you’re going to start talking about gloryholes again. I don’t think anyone here needs to hear any more of that particular part of your personalty.”
Grody little blog-slave…we all knew it was you all along.
I understand, I can’t toss off a one-liner about a male reproductive organ without your immediately associating it with your habitual truck-stop restroom activities. You can’t help yourself, can you?
“I believe it was you who said that death squads were the preferred method of the Left. I THINK it was you who said that. Not sure, maybe it was your penis talking. I’m pretty sure it came out of one of your holes.”
Hmmm, I think you must have spent some time trying some new glory-hole techniques, you might want to dredge that mayonnaise-looking substance out of your eyes and ears, it has apparently negatively affected your perceptions.
I did not, and have never written that about “Death Squads”…and my trouser torpedo does not have internet access privileges.
Run along and have fun as the pivot-freak at the next men’s room bukkake, but remember to wash up real good afterwards, okay mutant?
Tomp:
Why is .380 so scarce? Even when ammo was relatively cheap and plentiful .380 was not as available and more expensive than 9mm. I believe the demand for 380 is lower and the mfrs have to change over their lines to make 380, where they probably can already sell all the 9mm they can make. Demand for ammo has been rising (and cost skyrocketing) for more than 2 yrs. now. That’s why I bought a reloading kit and enough components to make several thousand rounds each of 380, 9mm, 38sp, 223…you get the picture. Even if wars ended and people stopped being panicked enough by the Dums to stop the panic buying of ammo, it would take years (if ever) for prices to come down and supply to come back up. At least that’s what I’ve heard, probably from the ammo mfrs
233 Thanks, Chuck. I’ll take that on faith, too. BM3K?
234. Bilgeman: . . .” I don’t need yet another silent reproach when I ponder the fact that I’m not stinking, filthy rich.”
Man to man, being stinking filthy, stinking rich is not all it’s cracked up to be, trust me. (Don’t get me wrong, I’ll keep it over the alternative.” Sorry, no loans.)
234. Bilgeman: . . .” I don’t need yet another silent reproach when I ponder the fact that I’m not stinking, filthy rich.”
Seriously, just between us two, being stinking filthy, stinking rich is not all it’s cracked up to be, trust me. (Don’t get me wrong, I’ll keep it over the alternative. Sorry, no loans.)
Since someone brought up the topic of the militia, I’ve been considering whether or not to attend some Michigan Militia meetings. Part of this is a gesture of protest against the “right wing extremism” comments of the administration, partly because I’ve got a really bad feeling in my gut that we are really moving (faster) toward communism. Glowbama and the Dums are putting pieces into place to silence free speech (aka talk radio tax, fairness doctrine, whatever), clamp down on guns (registration first, confiscation later), and marginalize other viewpoints (gee, I thought a few years ago this was patriotic). The propaganda arm of the government (NBC, ABC,…) is picking up the drumbeat (i.e. tea party coverage, “documentaries” demonizing firearms and especially those evil paranoid gun owners, etc) and pounding faster. I’m sort of stuck though, because I keep asking myself the following questions:
- who is the militia going to fight? The military? Law enforcement? These people are my heroes – how could I take up arms against them?
- I’ve heard that any of the state militias are pretty thoroughly infiltrated with Federal agents anyway. Joining may result my getting on a “domestic terrorist” list and losing my right to own firearms legally.
Thanks for any thoughts…
- … being stinking filthy, stinking rich is not all it’s cracked up to be … being stinking filthy, stinking rich is not all it’s cracked up to be …
Doesn’t do much to build up comment-posting skillz either, apparently.
@231. Chuck Pelto: - WHAT is “DLIWC”?
Defense Language Institute, West Coast.
p.s. now DLIFLC.
214 goy . . . Don’t be bitter. It’s unseemly.
#240 Timo:
“I’ve heard that any of the state militias are pretty thoroughly infiltrated with Federal agents anyway. Joining may result my getting on a “domestic terrorist” list and losing my right to own firearms legally”
I’d be mightily surprised if they were not, especially the old line outfits like the Michigan Militia and the Militia of Montana.
While I was, and am still, fairly supportive of their constitutional complaints, and defended their rights to keep and bear arms WHILE freely associating and peaceably assembling, I always kept them at arm’s length.
I’ve just never been a big “joiner”.
And the FLE (Fed Law Enforcement) hierarchy is designed to infiltrate and subvert other hierarchical organizations, so anything open to the public must already be considered compromised.
Now what further recruitment may go on from once inside the outer organization is the real question. Are you being set up for a sting? Are you being fitted for a “patsy-jacket” by criminals, or are these guys the real deal?
Every step on the path is fraught with its’ own perils.
Wouldn’t surprise me if somewhere along the way, while watching your own back, you lose sight of what made you join in the first place.
Does that mean these militias wouldn’t be effective?
No, but it depends on what the definition of effectiveness is. If they go down fighting loudly, then that’s a pretty effective alarm for the rest of us.
Note that in the 1990′s Clinton’s Goons never went after an established militia organization openly…never.
They nibbled around the edges, and they’d bust two goobers in the back 40 with an SKS with alacrity, but they not once engaged a militia orgnization head on.
Because the Feds were smart enough to have some inkling of what kind of counter-punch such a direct attack MIGHT have drawn.
And in the end, the militias outlasted Clinton and his badged gangsters.
What really, REALLY scares the piss out of the FLE’s is the “Lone Wolf”-types or the family cells…very hard to get an informant into a “Militia of One”.
It wouldn’t surprise me if back in the day, I myself caused a few “Rolaids Lunches” for some poor goob somewhere with my odd posting schedule…as prolific as I am now for months, and then months of utter silence while I was at sea…I could imagine some paranoid GS-# boob reading all kinds of scary stuff into the silences.
#238 blog-slave:
“Man to man, being stinking filthy, stinking rich is not all it’s cracked up to be, trust me.”
Oh, I do…I do!
Especially how you get filthy and stinking by your “man-to man” business.
(You KNEW you walked right into that one, didn’t you?)
Do you use a pressure washer and a shop-vac to get all that “genetic shampoo” out of your hair, or what?
TO: goy
RE: Ack Tso
I knew of it as the Presidio.
Regards,
Chuck(le)
P.S. They also taught ORSA. I was interested in it, but then I’d learned it was all about sadistics.
[Life is a bowl of s--- and statistics is the spoon.]
timo;im ony guessing here, but i would assume it is because due to over burdening demand, the ammo manufacteres are focusing on the most profitable,i.e most popular calibres.try the website “the high road”for more info.
basicly the only way i see the goverment ever successfully getting the u.s. population to turn in their guns is if,they offer to replace the weapons with superior technology.it would of course would to be able to fight off the intergalactic alien hordes that would apparently have to be attacking our planet at the time.im thinking plasma rifle 40 watt range,AT LEAST for me to give up my stash.other than that,i see alot of “bitter clinging”if they try confiscation.
which at any time in the near future,is a pipe dream for this administration.in fact barak obama has single handely ,sold more guns,in such a small amount of time….than anyone ever. someone please correct me if im wrong on this.
@244. sheesh: - Don’t be bitter.
What, about your uncontrollable comment stutter? Don’t flatter yourself.
@247. Chuck Pelto: - I knew of it as the Presidio.
That too. They sent me there to learn a language I already knew. I’d requested Russian when they changed my MOS during BCT. Got sent for German. Go figger. So I bought a motorcycle and a 12-string, toured the coast and learned my daily dialogs at breakfast. Wrote my final essay in Sütterlin Schrift (which I don’t think any of the instructors could read). It was a fun time. I often wonder if that donut shop on the other side of town – the one with the fully-automated donut factory inside – is still there. I still have the 12-string.
246 . . . Music to my eyes. Are you that easy with all you bofriends?
Becuase most liberal demacrats dont care for the constitution means they interpate to suit themselves and cant read much [ast the first few words their arrogant and want all americans disarmed just like all tyrants do