Right-wing fearmongering about guns reaching a fever pitch
One of the hallmarks of the militia movement of the 1990s was the way it inspired violence: by essentially loosing the moorings of their followers from reality by promulgating a toxic brew of conspiracy theories, right-wing historical revisionism, and a bevy of false "facts" and claims against government officials and liberals generally. Chief among these, of course, was the belief that Bill Clinton and the New World Order were coming to take their guns away -- which, of course, he never did, though he did manage to pass an assault-weapons ban.
So when we point out the toxic effects of the revival of this kind of irresponsible rhetoric, it's because there's a real history behind it. It's not mere presupposition to point out that fearmongering that promotes palpably false and distorted claims often brings violent results; we already are too familiar with this causal relationship from experience.
The difference between the 1990s and now? When I was hearing talk like this then, it was coming out of the mouths of the Bo Gritzes and John Trochmanns -- the leaders and fanatical ideologues who drove the militia movement.
Now, it's coming out of the mouths of people with mainstream media programs: Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Lou Dobbs, Michael Savage, Ann Coulter.
Media Matters has compiled a video documenting how rabidly the "Obama wants to grab our guns" meme has been broadcast to the True Believers of the American Right including Beck -- who reiterated his belief the Monday after the Pittsburgh shootings:
Later on his radio show, Beck said that Obama "will slowly but surely take away your gun or take away your ability to shoot a gun, carry a gun. He will make them more expensive; he'll tax them out of existence. He will because he has said he would. He will tax your gun or take your gun away one way or another." Beck is not alone -- since Obama's election, several conservative media figures have similarly warned that Obama would seize their guns or have suggested that a government effort to ban guns is likely.
Examples of conservative media figures advancing this claim include:
* On the November 7, 2008, broadcast of his nationally syndicated show, conservative radio host Lars Larson said of Obama: "I'm worried that when he starts naming people to the court, when that -- when that happens, and it's likely to during his administration, we're going to end up with justices who think they can break free of the constraints of the Constitution -- perhaps on the Second Amendment, one of my favorites." Larson later read a letter from a listener stating, "Lars, I've always said that if the gun-grabbers come to my front door and demand my guns due to some unconstitutional law being passed by the loony lefties in Washington, D.C., I'll have no choice but to hand them over. However, they will receive all of my ammunition first, all of it, just as fast as I can possibly give it to them."
* On December 4, 2008, after a caller stated that "gun manufacturers" would be able to raise prices during the economic crisis, Milwaukee radio host Mark Belling responded, "Well, OK. You're right about that. Everybody's buying guns before Obama comes in and outlaws them all."
* On the February 11 broadcast of ABC Radio Networks' The Sean Hannity Show, conservative columnist Ann Coulter said, "[B]y the way, the NRA also has information on how they [the Obama administration] are going to be expanding the concept of national parks to include, you know, highways running from Rhode Island to Virginia. National parks have gun bans imposed throughout." She then stated of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, "This bill is so much worse than earmarks and pork. This is a total government takeover, and Big Brother coming in and taking our guns and schools and doctors." Host Sean Hannity responded, in part: "All right. Let me -- Pat, let's -- lest those out there on the left think Ann Coulter is paranoid -- let's look at this. We've got the Democrats now want to politicize the census by moving it into Rahm -- Rahmbo [White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel], deadfish -- Emanuel's hands."
* On the April 7 edition of Salem Radio Network's The Mike Gallagher Show, host Mike Gallagher discussed an exchange between the Second Amendment Foundation's Alan Gottlieb and MSNBC anchor David Shuster on the April 6 edition of Hardball. Gallagher stated, "Now listen to the way Gottlieb does a great job in explaining logically why people are worried about what the Obama administration wants to do with our guns," then aired a clip in which Shuster asked Gottlieb, "Do you believe that the Obama administration and the Feds are coming to take away everybody's guns?" Gottlieb replied, "I believe that's what they would like to do. I don't think we're going to let them get away with it." Gallagher later stated, "[L]isten to the way Gottlieb leaves the liberal columnist stuttering and stammering, explaining very eloquently why so many of us are worried and scurrying to buy guns right now." He then aired a clip from the same Hardball segment in which New York Times columnist Charles Blow asked Gottlieb, "And we should confront that fear with guns?" and Gottlieb responded in part: "[I]f you think the government might take your rights away from you, you want to try and exercise them before that happens. It's a normal reaction."
Look, people: There is no factual basis for claiming that Obama "wants to take away our guns." There is a big difference between favoring reinstitution of an assault-weapons ban, or any other limited gun-control measure, and such sweeping attacks on gun ownership as the NRA and Glenn Beck have suggested are in the works.
It's a simple fact: Obama is focused on repairing the economy. This is why his broader initiatives so far have been about health care, education, energy, and immigration -- all of which have a direct bearing on the economy. He understands that gun control is a volatile and divisive issue, and pushing it at a time when we need some national unity is both unwise and counterproductive.
Sure, I think we all would like to have a serious conversation about guns somewhere down the road. But it can and will wait. Right now we need as many shoulders to the boulders as we can muster.
In other words: Why won't conservatives do the right thing, get over the silly stuff, and get serious about our national problems right now? All we're getting so far is tea parties and conspiracy theories.
And judging by their behavior since Obama's been elected, that's all we can expect to get from here on out -- that, and the inevitable spiral of violence.
Read The Eliminationists for an in-depth discussion of this.
Irony abounds.
The leftists want to impale the vampire banks with wooden stakes, I'm one.
Who among them, at the same time, could be fond of the Department of Kleptocracy and the host of enablers. I don't wish them harm, I want them out of power.
Meanwhile, the wingnuts want to shoot anyone who isn't one of them.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
let me know when UPS delivers the wooden stakes.
i F*CKING HATE VAMPIRES.
(except c&l's heather, of course!)
They're everywhere.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
"kleptocracy" is about right.
i keep using "oligarchy", but "kleptocracy" is probably hitting closer to home.
to protect me from the right wing nuts.
"Liberals are a pest like termites. Millions of them. Each little bite contributes to the downfall of this great nation. The only way we can rid ourselves of this evil is to kill them in the streets. Kill them where they gather."--Jim David Adkisson, as stated in his "Manifesto" before shooting up a Unitarian Universalist church in Knoxville, TN.
"God in His law requires the death penalty for homosexuals."-- R.J. Rushdoony
"Our goal is a Christian Nation.... We have a Biblical duty, we are called by God to conquer this country. We don't want equal time. We don't want Pluralism. We want theocracy. Theocracy means God rules. I've got a hot flash. God rules."
-- Randall Terry, Head of Operation Rescue, speaking in Fort Wayne, Indiana, on April 15, 1993, as reported the following day in The News-Sentinel.
"Words mean things." -- Rush Limbaugh
www.liberalswithguns.com
www.gunlovingliberal.com
www.a2dems.net
www.theliberalgunclub.com/phpBB3/
... of playing into this paranoid rhetoric than "favoring reinstitution of an assault-weapons ban." All it does is acknowledge and emphasize a wedge issue that the Right would love to have front and center.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
and concealed weapon permit in case I need protection from them too!
I used to be anti gun but guns are like government. It depends on who is controlling.
"Why won't conservatives do the right thing, get over the silly stuff, and get serious about our national problems right now?"
Because 'silly' is all they know, and all they got. They have no serious idea's that people would even begin to consider rational. So, they have little hissy fit's over stupid shit to show they're still influential.
These are scary people, who despite seeming funny, are potentially deadly.
What amazes me is the complete lack of concern about stirring this moron hornet's nest by people like Murdoch. I would think that there might be some slight sliver of conscience still left in that old dirtbag. I'm obviously wrong about that.
OK, Rupe, when these murderous lunatic's keep killing, every dead soul is a new anchor on your's - if you have one, that is...
Yeah, I get the heebie-jeebies when someone points a gun at me too.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Mr. Neiwert, there you go again, antagonizing the right wingers.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJN3PGqDRNg
I like Beck (Hansen) and Jeff Beck; can't stand Glenn.
In other words they are saying be afraid of the black guy because he's harboring a grudge and wants to get back at you for the past. He'll take away your guns and leave you defenseless.
I mean that's the way it sounds to me. President Obama has never said a word that I've heard that says he wants to take guns from people. In fact during the campaign he was asked a question about this at a town hall meeting and he said he did not want to take anyone's guns from them.
Besides if he did take their guns from them, they will always have their tea bags.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
of the black guy trying to get back for the past and taking away our guns. Would be kinda ironic. Considering the first gun control legislation in this country was after the civil war and was intended to keep guns out of the hands of the newly freed slaves.
clicking your heels three times and saying "no conspiracies exist, anywhere" won't make it so.
we get it. you genuinely believe no one in high levels of power anywhere in the world have forged extra-national secret alliances, and that no oligarchs want a global currency.
we understand that you call yourself a "moderate", yet see america in a very black and white left versus right paradigm, with democrats always the good guys, and republicans always the bad guys.
please stick to what you're good at: pecking about glenn beck like a little cockfighting chicken in an alleyway.
P.S. if beck commits suicide tomorrow and leaves a note saying it was because of you, will you apologize to his family?
If I'd ever suggested he go kill himself, I might have to. But I haven't and wouldn't. That's exactly the kind of rhetoric I try to combat.
OTOH, he did ask Obama to just "shoot me in the head" the other day.
well, that's crazy.
look dude, i think you're doing some good work -the right is unquestionably more violent than the left. and i do think you're making an impact.
but many of us on the left share concerns with many on the right, especially regarding the aims and goals of globalist oligarchs.
i hope you'll forgive me, but i simply do not trust a bunch of naked old aristocrats frollicking about bohemian grove or meeting behind closed bilderberg doors to just do the right thing.
i defer to JFK, who found the very idea of secret societies repugnant and fundamentally undemocratic.
please let those of us researchers who actually enjoy getting our hands a little dirty and our minds wrapped around the elaborate scheming of sheisters just do our thing.
in other words, please don't step on my toes, and i won't step on yours. we're on the same side -we want our country back.
you've figured out which particular villains are secretly controlling the world I've no doubt you'll have a final solution all ready.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
Where does anyone say that there are no conspiracies anywhere?
You are right though, Democrats are the good guys. Republicans, not so much.
Check it out.
http://www.armchairsubversive.org/
sweet jesus Glenn Beck is crazy.
neiwert seems to lump them all together and to one side. trust me, i read everything he posts. and overall he's pretty good.
i've made my point -i guess i'll just let it go now.
I do love that "ignore user" button. Saves wear on my temper.
There's always free cheddar in the mousetrap, baby. - Tom Waits
too:
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/04/09/60m...
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
They don't want to take your guns away...
unless you don't have your papers in order.
Then they'll take your guns away.
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill...
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:H....
If this bill passes (slim chance) anyone and everyone would be required to register their firearms with the federal government after passing a background check, passed a written test, and a host of other requirements. If you don't report a lost or stolen firearm, then you could possibly go to jail for 10 years. All sorts of other crap.
There's no grandfathering. If you own a firearm now, anyone and everyone, would have to go through this ringer. Otherwise they are in violation and could go to jail for 5-10 years.
Bills like that rarely get farther than this one has. They are written all the time. Never get anywhere.
Don't get your panties in a bunch.
All is well.
Go on and live your life without fear.
Cuz you've got your guns to keep you warm and safe.
Hey man, I said that there was a slim chance the bill would pass. I don't think it'll get out of committee.
But the fact that bills like this are out there "all the time" as you said, means that there are people that "want to take your guns away."
I'm all for people being able to keep their guns.
Me, I don't like them. But, as I said before, I'm all for them keeping them.
What I don't understand is the need for an automatic weapon to go hunting. One shot, One kill. Why would anyone need a banana clip with 30+ rounds in it to take down a deer?
I do believe that there are too many people out there who shouldn't have them. To unstable. Therefore, I see the need for some serious screening.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
have absolutely nothing to do with the assault weapons ban. They have been illegal (without special permits) for well over half a century under completely different statutes.
Nonetheless, that's why Di-Fi chose the term "assault weapons." It makes people think "machine guns." And every time this subject is discussed, the MSM perpetuates that misunderstanding.
It's one of the reasons this is such an effective wedge issue for The Establishment. The authoritarian Democrats get scared of Tommy guns and AK 47s, while the other side fears losing semi-automatic rifles.
Also, who ever argued that they needed an automatic weapon with a 30 round banana clip to take down a deer? That's a straw man designed to force defenders to justify their "need" for a constitutional protection. Kind of like: "Why do need protection from illegal searches and seizures if you have nothing to hide"?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Is for a collector.
Any other reason is bullshit in a civilized society
Oh yeah, the Automatic weapons ban expired.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
The assault weapons ban expired. It has nothing whatsoever to do with automatic weapons. They are still illegal without permits that are all but impossible to get outside of the military and law enforcement.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Poor choice of words on my part.
But I stand by my premise about collectors and Automatic weapons.
If they are in fact collectors, they should be able to own any damn weapon they choose. Or can afford. When they get to the heavy stuff, Maybe there should be some control of the firing mechanisms. Like say, a tank.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I'm curious does a person who wants to own one make him a collector? Or does he have to own 5? or 10? And does being a collector mean they can't shoot them? Or like some car collectors drive them on a nice sunny day with the top down.
.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
warrant a response I'm curious about what you define a collector to be.
say I disagree with you. You don't need a permit to own a full auto weapon. You need to pass a background check by the FBI and pay $200 to get a tax stamp to legally possess a full auto weapon, silencer, and I think a short barreled shotgun or rifle by federal law. Your mileage may vary depending on the state you live in though.
the simple conversion kits necessary to make many of these weapons fully-automatic can be readily purchased.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
they can not. To purchase a conversion kit to make a weapon full-auto requires the same check and tax stamp as it does to purchase a fully automatic weapon.
The issue for the NRA and the gun nut crowd is first and foremost: gun ownership.
Any other canard used to justify unregulated gun ownership is jut that: a canard. Considerations like "protection" and "constitutional purity" come a distant second or third place.
It is hard to take some of the gun nut crow arguments seriously regarding protection, when some of their supporters consider lost or stolen guns to be "irrelevant crap."
If the NRA and the rest of the gun nut troglodytes were so concerned about protection, they would explore and support other means to increase security, stability, and constitutional integrity. Among them: fairer distribution of wealth, better social safety nets like universal health care, etc. I.e. things that don't put people into committing crime.
But that sort of goes against pretty much everything the libertarian/right wing wacko/gun nut crowd stands for. Thus pointing at their hogwash-like nature of their.... oh so "gallant" principles. LOL
As much you wish to make this a Left/Right issue and resort to Limbaugh style name calling as your primary argument, it isn't so simple. There are plenty on the political left in favor of Second Amendment rights, and the author of the assault weapons bill was Diane Feinstein. Consider her a lefty?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
to own a firearm. I have to allow (if I was wealthy) the money I earned to be taken and distributed to people who might not have worked so hard?
the prize for weirdest non sequitur.
Hasa Diga Eebowai
... worked hard to "earn" the hundreds of millions he took from a fixed system?
"Behind every great fortune there is a great crime" Balzac (I think).
Corruption favors the wealthy.
cousin who worked his ass off paying his way through college, then worked his ass off paying back his loans. And eventually ended up owning his own company which at least until recently was doing very well. Did he make hundreds of millions? Probably not but I'm not privy to his financial information. But he is worth several million at least.
... with the bottom 98% than the top 1%. Nearly all their fortunes are inherited and can be traced to one robber-baron monopolist or another.
Oh, and to use the latest right wing ploy, not only wasn't Joe a plumber (or even named Joe), there was no way in hell he was looking to buy a business that would generate more than a quarter-million a year. The defense of generational wealth by the working class is, um, not rationally explainable.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
You do realize that you are building a case for socialism or communism with your silly statement as quoted. "Among them: fairer distribution of wealth, better social safety nets like universal health care, etc. I.e. things that don't put people into committing crime."
I’ll handle each of these one at a time…
Fairer Distribution of wealth?? Why should folks who have worked their way through school and have always had a job pay more taxes to support people who made bad decisions with their life or who are to lazy to get a job? There are too many excuses in the world these days.
Social safety nets? Better yet how about some intelligence like not having children that one cannot support? Frankly welfare moms should be made to work for their welfare checks maybe that would change their lifestyles for the better and teach lessons that they obviously didn’t learn when growing up. I can see helping a mother who has on child and whose father has run off. But for the woman who has had 3-5 children by different fathers that is a diferent deal. I also believe that the family and the responsible father should support the children…not the taxpayer. We have enough undeserving welfare recipients as it is.
I do agree that due to greed and mismanagement a universal healthcare system is needed as well some old time values re-established in our school systems.
As for gun control I don’t personally own any guns but I DO NOT want any more gun control laws they are just fine the way they are. As a matter of fact I’m glad lots of folks have guns in their homes as it makes criminals think twice before breaking into a person’s house including mine.
Take away a persons ability to defend their home and family and that will promote crime rather than deter crime.
“things that don't put people into committing crime” There YA go another liberal statement blaming government and society for crimes people commit. Ridiculous; there is no Utopia. People commit crimes no matter how perfect society is. As long as there are laws crime will always be with us.
My advice to those who whine about an unfair capitalistic society is simply this…Go to school, learn a skill, get a job and EARN the American dream. Quit making excuses as there are plenty of opportunities even in this economy, it just takes a little ambition.
We the people must protect EACH and EVERY right given to us by the constitution and bill of rights for if one right is taken away what happens when other rights are deemed inappropriate or antiquated by those in power? The 1st and 2nd amendments to the constitution are the most important amendments which is why they are listed number 1 and 2 accordingly. Our forefathers were smart enough to realize that an overzealous government will corrupt and limit the freedoms of WE the people if given a chance.
If they can't hit what they're aiming at. Maybe they should spend more time at the range. And zero in their sites. Or, maybe they shouldn't be shooting at all. If they're not willing to spend the time and perfect their abilities. Then, maybe they should think twice about being a hunter.
As for hand guns. I think they should spend alot of time on the ranges too.
But, I'd like to address the issue of unstable people owning guns/weapons. This is the real problem.
For obvious reasons. The real gun/weapon aficionados should welcome some serious screening. To get rid of the idiots who make them look bad. That, and convicted felons or anyone with a history of violent behavior.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I graduated from NIU. Not very long ago, a former student came into one of the larger lecture halls and started shooting people. It received lots of press until the story started turning towards some pharmaceuticals he was taking. Then everything got real quiet.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
I just would like to see a bit more control on them.
This is a completely different country than it was 200,100, 50 years ago. Hell, it a whole different country than it was 10 years ago. Even 5 years ago.
To many people have weapons that shouldn't.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
But the thought of George W. Bush and Blackwater having all the guns scares the $%&* out of me.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Well, mudshark, you've just advocated the worst and most intrusive kind of gun control, where everyone would go through psychological screening and those deemed by their betters to be "unstable" would have their rights violated.
Then after all this bureaucracy and control, you still wouldn't be able to stop crazies from going off with a gun. It sucks, but that's the way it would turn out.
My rabidly pro-2nd Amendment father advocated that kind of regulation for his OWN DAUGHTER!
I know. It's ironic.
I'm sure those 3 cops's family would disagree with you. And those peoples families from the Unitarian church too.
I'm sorry, but something has to be done
I was qualified on the M16, M60, Colt 45, Lawsrocket and the hand grenade.
Oh, and the 12 gauge shotgun too.
Me, I have a temper. It rarely gets the better of me.
But on occasion, it does. I will not own a firearm.
I know better. Although, I would like to practice at the range. But why bother? I won't own one.
You cad deride me for my opinion. That's ok. But at least I'm smart enough to know that I have a reason too not own one.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
They could disagree all they want. They would still be wrong. No amount of gun control laws will stop this kind of random violence. Sorry, that's the world we live in at the moment.
Then what is it that you suggest be done?
What is your conceptual, continuity?
You're asking how I would stop random people from going loonytoons?
Beats the hell out of me. If you can come up with some magical way to stop it, I'd love to hear it.
I mean, one option is to make all public places and institutions into fortresses. Another is to psychologically screen all people and then monitor the slightly abnormal at all times. Other than those Orwellian solutions, not much. Sorry.
... on more basic levels.
Canadians have plenty of guns and not nearly the problem with gun violence we have in America.
My own preferred solutions would focus more on our social safety net. At least that is the most profound difference I see between our two countries.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
The major difference in Canada is the fact that most of the gun owners live on farms or in rural areas.
America? Not so much.
QEII as head of state for over a half century has on keeping Canada calm? That and no Beck?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
I don't know much about guns in Canada (and I am Canadian.) I don't really know any people that want one, and don't know any that have one (except for a few hunters I've met, through workplaces, that use them for hunting only.) And, I have to say I'm glad we don't have guns everywhere. I guess we're just not that interested in having them. Is it a mindset?
I don't like all this talk about "conceal permits". Makes me afraid to visit the USA. It sounds like the Old West. Shoot em up good.
far left loon >.<
So now we're at get plenty of guns. Cause ya never know what might happen.
You failed to respond to my question by redirecting back at me.
I've given you some sound ways to curtail people who shouldn't own guns.
Now, I want to hear yours.
Or, should I say. Better ones.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
Yes, I do advocate that. I'm thinking the range supervisors should be qualified to do it.
I also feel that people should have to take a course lasting no shorter than 3 weeks.
If it takes 8 weeks for the military to feel comfortable with the recruits having weapons. Then 3-4 weeks for the civilian population isn't too much to ask.imo.but that's just me.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
for this at least 3 week course? If your answer is the people that want to own a gun your limiting gun ownership to the wealthy. What about the single mom who wants to protect herself and her child? She would have to take food out of her babies mouth to do so. Think of the children!
on empty casings while Mom is plugging away at the practice range, then.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Doesn't warrant a response.
I'll give you a clue though. Financing.
Please don't respond too me anymore for the day. I'm done for the day.
Ga Day.
What is your conceptual, continuity?
I was a bit flippant in my first response. But seriously considering most firearm training is in the area of $100-150 minimum, and thinking when you say a three week course your talking about 15 days of training. Your talking about a minimum of $1500 to $2250 just to own a firearm. Your going to tell a working class stiff that he has to spend a full month or two of income just to be allowed to exercise his right to KBA? Oh and I didn't figure the cost of ammo into it either. So figure a 9mm if you can get 100 rds for 20 bucks your getting a pretty good deal. And most live fire courses usually require anywhere from 250-500 rds a day....
Esp. with the recent influx of trolls.
Try it, use it, love it...
.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
(He's a die-hard conservative, if you'll remember, and owns his own arsenal, including weapons that were banned under the Assault Weapons law. He also gave my younger brother a pistol for Xmas two years ago.)
And I told him I'd been thinking of getting a pistol for defending myself.
Want to hear what he said?
I quote, "You're too unstable to own a weapon. You get too passionate about stuff too easily." (Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!)
I told him I was insulted that he didn't trust my judgement and he said I shouldn't be insulted. I also mentioned that people more unstable than I am can get weapons every damn day and use them. He agreed. When I asked him, so this means that people who are more dangerous than I am can have weapons, but I can't, even for self-defense? He didn't really have an answer...
Now, my thoguhts about owning a pistol have intensified. I've actually spoken to a knowledgeable friend about going shopping for a pistol soon.
And I want a concealed carry permit, too.
If my father thinks it's ok to dictate to ME that *I* can't have a weapon but all the nutjobs out in the world can have them, f*ck him. I'm getting one anyway.
You're becoming a real true blue gun nut! I'm proud of you!
I'm liberal and believe in regulating gun ownership.
However, I do not believe in taking away gun ownership.
Don't confuse me for my father, sir.
Maybe your father was just trying a little reverse psychology on you. Maybe he knew that you were in favor of restricting gun ownership to those deemed by fiat as "unstable."
When you say things like "I told him I was insulted that he didn't trust my judgement and he said I shouldn't be insulted. " This is what the "gun nuts" are all about. In this case, you are the gun nut and your dad is the government.
He honestly believes that I get so impassioned that I would be able to harm somebody with my weapon.
In which case, he needs to take a long hard look at himself because he's done really stupid stuff involving weapons he ACTUALLY OWNS when he's gotten angry.
He was not playing devil's advocate. He was honestly saying, "It's ok for me to have guns, but not for you."
Then it really IS a microcosm of the whole debate between the people and the government.
family disputes which, if left to fester, boil over into domestic violence which results in a 911 call
that results in police arriveing uninformed that one party is armed to the teeth and seething with anger?
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
other than reading some of your posts. You seem reasonably stable.
But I'll take your word for it that you are. So go for it. And get a carry permit if you would like to be able to better defend yourself.
Assuming (yes a bad thing) that you know the basic 4 of gun safety from living with a die hard conservative gun nut :) Get some more training. Then some more after which some more. And practice.
Although if your planning on using a gun for self defense you should probably get more training than range time.
But how would you address the issue of unstable people owning guns? What kind of screening would you propose? And who would be responsible for judging the suitable person to own a gun. There are a lot of people out there that think just wanting to own a gun makes you insane. And some of those are congressmen and women.
And to tell you the truth and I'm sure I'm going to be blasted for this but I don't think there should be a automatic ban on felons owning guns. In my opinion that is assigning a writ of attainder for starters, and also with everything you can possibly do that can result with you being charged with a felony that is not a violent crime. Being caught stealing a pack of gum in my state can bring about a felony charge.
only outlaws will gum.
This will be troublesome at feeding time in nursing homes.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
As the shooter in Binghamton proved the other day.
He was using a hand gun and managed to pinch off something like 98 rounds in a minute and kill 13 people.
He was also a legal gun owner.
I don't give a shit whether people think it's their Constitutional right to own guns or their God-given right to own guns, guns are unnecessary.
The Inuit and the Aborigines managed to survive for tens of thousands of years without them. Tell me why WE need them, other than to kill each other?
Doesn't sound bad to me. A national gun registry and ballistic DNA would go a long way towards fighting this problem with needless gun deaths.
Just asking, not opining.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Occam's Razor: The far-right is insane. And where everyone including this liberal "put up" with 9-11 conspiracy nuts, the right wing media darlings, themselves insane, have embraced the insanity and are passing it on to those among us who are unfortunate in that they have too few brain cells to think properly. That is the market, and it's selling. But the good news if there is any, is that this market is only 20% or so of the population, MAYBE not enough to reach out and grab new insane members. The bad news? They seem to be killing people at the "Beck" and call of the insane.
Just love it when you confront second amendment patriots with difficult questions like, "What is the Bill of Rights and how is it connected to the 2nd amendment?" and "What is the historical significance of the Bill of Rights?" If you are in a face-to-face conversation, it will almost always totally shut them down or take them down some convoluted segue to cover their ignorance. Online, you can sense the delay as they furiously consult The Google for the answers. Bottom line--you can't just pick and choose random bits of the Constitution and form your 'patriotism' around them. If you don't truly even know what you're defending, then you're doing more harm than good for your cause.
Not suggesting that it is only the right who are woefully ignorant of American history--it's an equal opportunity kind of ignorance. It just seems those on the right are more willing to publicly base their vocal and irrational positions on historical precedents they clearly don't fully understand. I don't care if people want guns and I support their right to have them--although I don't think it's reasonable to suggest the 2nd amendment justifies personal arsenals. I also don't think guns are ever going to go away in this country--we are simply to gun-saturated for that. Just frustrated by the misuse of the 2nd amendment in this fight.
"What is the Bill of Rights and how is it connected to the 2nd amendment?"
Ummmm, The Bill of Rights is the collective name for the first ten Amendments to the Constitution; the Second Amendment is the, uh, the second one.
"What is the historical significance of the Bill of Rights?"
Would you like an essay, a book, or a multi-volume treatise? The bar or tavern answer might be something like: It established rights for the and the states and provided limits on the federal (then later the states') government's power.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
at least some of them knows about the google. LOL.
You really think I needed Google for that? Or are you just taking a shot?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
... since all you do is pretty much repeat ad nauseam the same gun nut arguments.
Get a different record, or branch out to other subjects. It gets kind of tiring after the, I dunno, first 100 post saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over...
LOL.
Or are you just tired of losing based on logic and sources over and over and over...?
If you have a point, please make it.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
As soon as I see "logic" and an actual "source" for any of your posts, we will have a parade to celebrate.
Until then, I will continue being amused with your silly circular logic and projection exercises. LOL. So full of yourselves that think that your "opinion" equals as fact, and thus constitutes a "reference."
But I do think running away and hiding for an hour and a half constitutes a fairly sound admission of defeat. Again.
Have a nice day, Tyler.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Where I don't have to spend my saturday afternoon having to argue with some two bit troll. Much less having to do your work for you. So where are all the plethora of references and your logic? Granted circular logic, being your forte, is indeed a type of "logic" just not a very impressive one. LOL.
It is that how you operate, making shit up, making your own framing, all in a desperate attempt to gain any sort of higher ground?
LOL.
and is maybe getting laid or something, Tyler.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
fiver,
The constitution, or any piece of paper, does not "establish rights."
Your rights came before the constitution.
The constitution attempts to give the government instructions on how to not violate your rights.
But I did say I was giving the bar or tavern answer. Please forgive.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
No worries.
That's academic and generally pointless like the what came first argument, the chicken or the egg, or if a glass is half-full or half-empty.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
most of the gun nuts in this site will at least bother to look up the answer in google.
The easiest way to get these so tin pot patriots in a bind is regarding the fact that no element of the constitution is optional. I.e. you can't pick and chose what parts of the constitution you like, and which ones you decide to ignore.
In the case of the 2nd amendment, he personal ownership of guns is the second part of such amendment (pun intended). With the first part of said amendment dealing with a well regulated militia (i.e. an army). That part is conveniently ignored by the gun nut crowd. It is highly debatable that the founding fathers intended the 2nd amendment to be read and interpreted the way the NRA and the gun nut crowd like to do...
Tyler Durden,
I think you may have a misunderstanding of the difference between a milita and an army.
The second amendment is saying that in order for there to be a well functioning militia, the people (individuals) cannot be barred from keeping and bearing arms. And it's not some collective thing. Look at other amendments and their usage of the word "people." It means individuals.
Militia refers to a structured fighting force, AKA army. It was the context in which the Romans, makers of the Latin language, came up with the word. And it was the context for the word at the time when the founding fathers were writing the constitution.
BTW, I take you haven't read the whole 2nd amendment, have you? The US constitution is not read as a string of optional statements, where folks get to pick and chose the parts they like and ignore the rest. It doesn't work that way, sorry to burst your bubble.
And the constitution provides that structure. You already mentioned one, but the president of the US is commander-in-chief of the militia when called into service according to Article II, Sec. II, cl 1, and Congress defines the arms and training of the militia according to Article I, section 8, cl 9-15.
It just didn't say one way or another during peacetime and presumably left that for the states, since they appoint the officers, and have the health, safety and welfare powers of the Police Powers.
And obviously militia and military have a related root word.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
the first part is not referring to the military ie army. That is actually covered in the main part of the constitution. The militia at the time was every guy with a squirrel or deer gun that picked it up and helped fight for the what the country was to become. And the National Guard aka the organized militia did not come into being until I think about 75 yrs after the constitution was written.
The well or the regulated? Basic reading and comprehension skills seem to be lacking among the gun nut knuckle draggers. Not surprising really...
Furhtermore, the Second article of the constitution states that "Section 2. The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States"
If you read the whole text of the constitution, it is clear that the founding fathers were not that concerned about the right to own penile extenders. But about people having access to weapons with a very specific purpose: defending the United States. Taking the second part of the 2nd amendment out of the context of the rest of the constitution, is at the very best incredibly dishonest.
is hard to understand. And the same regarding "Shall not be infringed" And taking the 2nd amendment out of the context of the BoR is at the very best incredibly dishonest. Why do you think the founding fathers would stick something in the middle of a list enumerating some of the rights of the people, granting the Gov powers? SCOTUS even agrees that the 2nd amendment refers to individual rights, not collective ones.
They considered it a right to keep and bear arms in a well-regulated militia (and I even reversed the order.)
They were trying to avoid the professional soldiery of Britain.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
without using Google or any other websites nor referring to any books or asking anyone else.
What is the Bill of Rights and how is it connected to the 2nd amendment?
The bill of rights is the first 10 amendments to the Constitution that enumerate some of our unalienable rights. The second amendment is obviously the 2nd of them. Which states that we have the right to keep and bare arms.
And the historical significance of the BoR?
The BoR was added to the constitution (which is why they are called amendments) after a lengthy debate whether they needed to be included at all. Some feared that by including a BoR future government might use the excuse that since a Right wasn't listed it wasn't a Right at all, the other side feared something along the same lines that if they listed none of them, future Govt might assume we have no rights. The compromise was the 9th amendment.
Not exact but that was off the top of my head in a bar situation.
by filing a class action lawsuit against Faux, Dobbs and any other nut who is pushing this on the airwaves. Boycott of sponsors will not have the desired effect, in my opinion. Sue em in court.
"Let's talk dirty to the animals"
Another ridiculous statement:
Hard to sue someone for exercising their 1st amendment right unless you think freedom of speech should also be banned.
Part of the problem with society today is frivalous lawsuits.
Just be glad our forefathers were smart enough to adopt the bill of rights which gives everyone the right to freely express their opinions as well as every other right we enjoy as American Citizens.
No, frivolous lawsuits aren't actually a big problem.
"Our 225-year-old legal system has multiple procedural safeguards to ensure defendants' rights. The contingency fee system keeps attorneys from taking baseless cases. A certain amount and quality of evidence must be present for any case to proceed. Judges monitor filings at every step, and can dismiss a case that lacks merit at any time. Attorneys can be punished - and, in some cases, may have to pay money penalties - if they bring frivolous suits to court, or otherwise abuse the process. Our extensive, time-tested court procedures ensure that defendants are treated fairly.(2)"
"Richard Turbin, of the American Bar Association's Tort and Insurance Practice section, a group which includes plaintiff and defense lawyers, publicly stated that the rate of federal lawsuits per capita has not changed since 1790. Mr. Turbin also noted that plaintiffs have steadily won 30 to 40 percent of cases and that the size of awards has increased only due to natural inflation."
The bigger problem might be the lack of education... which is increasingly evident in your posts.
The case against Hannity and Beck etc would be inciting violence... just like you aren't allowed to scream "Fire" in a movie theater when there isn't a fire. Our liberties stop when they start infringing on others'
pitch."
I have read through the self referential links and the Media Matters report. The latter is interesting. The only examples it cites in which there is recent discussion of the Obama administration coming to get guns has been as a result of the Pittsburgh shooting. Prior to that the most recent comment they cite was Ann Coulter on February 11. Many of the citations are not from mainstream media, but fringe radio hosts. Hardly a fevered pitch until....
Some right wing loser in Pittsburgh shoots three police called to his home by his mother after a domestic dispute. The press interviews one of his alleged friends who says the shooter was afraid the Obama administration was going to take his guns. That quote is the focus of the wire story on the shootings. At that point a number of bloggers begin explicitly linking right wing media personalities by name and casting both direct and indirect blame on them for the incident.
This causes the right wing media personalities to react with defensive ferocity, elevating the issue and causing them to further reinforce the specious notion of the threat to gun owners posed by Obama. They elevate the rhetoric by saying liberals are trying to stifle their voices.
What an ideologically self satisfying do loop for both sides.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Just another example of "media for mushrooms"....
Keep the ignorant rednecks in the dark and feed them shit.
There will be another eventually and you will be able to trace the origins to the insanity spewed nightly by people like Beck and the other goons at Fox News.
from Al Qaeda will have its origins traced back to Obama.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
WISH MEDIA MATTERS WOULD TEAM UP WITH MSNBC
it amazes me that these gop fuckheads had no
problems with bush taking away all their rights
to haebeus(sp) corpus and privacy, not to mention
that bush could make anyone disappear without
notice by declaring anyone including US citizens
as "enemy combatants". but the gop reichwingnuttia
pundits just lie that obama might alter
in any way the 2nd amendment (which he has stated
over and over he would not) and these dumb
miscreants are outraged.
You site, Stewart, Colbert, Olbermann, Shuster and others, need to continue to do all possible to counter this idiocy. This is just out of control, and way too many people on the Left just refer to these clowns as "entertainers." They are anarchist.
Well damn, somebody's got to get some terrorism going. Those pesky a-rabs don't seem up to the task so looks like we're going to have to get the next Timothy McVeigh moving if we're ever going to get Pearl Harbor III. Those buildings aren't going to blow themselves up people.
Mike Malloy devoted a good part of his radio program to these right-wing threats last night and cited Crooks and Liars as the source for the information on Glen Beck. Malloy urged his listeners to boycott all the advertisers on Glen Beck's show as well as other FOX "News" programs whom promote and incite others to do violence. Yes, Rush Limbaugh, Mike "Savage" Weiner, Sean Hannity, Glen Beck, Ann Coulter, Mark Levine, Mike Gallagher, Hugh Hewitt, Gordon Liddy, Laura Ingraham, Joe Scarborough, Lou Dobbs, Pat Buchanan, Bill O'Reilly, Jon Stossel, Alex Jones, Janet Parshall, Amy Holmes, etc., are promoting violence against Barack Obama and liberals across the United States. This cannot be tolerated and their "free speech" rights have turned into violent rants against Obama and liberals. Free speech on the airwaves does not mean one can promote violence against the president and others, yet this is exactly what the right wing and FOX "News" are promoting along with others whom enable this hatred and violent talk.
There are some supposed "liberals" whom also give a platform for these wing nuts to spout their hatred and venom as well. Bill Maher happens to be one of the biggest offenders in allowing the likes of Amy Holmes and David Frum to spout their hatred and venom on his show.
Thank you Mike Malloy for chiding Bill Maher's hanging around with the Nazi Ann Coulter and building her up, and all the venues they go around together at. I am glad Malloy exposed the phony Maher last night too. Maher made a racist comment about the Obama's on his show, April 3, 2009 when he said this was the "first time the Queen had to protect her handbag from a U.S. president," in his monologue. Go back and listen to the tape if you think I am wrong here. Yes, Maher is an anti-Arab racist and he showed more forms of racism last week as well. Maher gives far too much time to the wingnuts too, including that awful Joe Wurzelbacher. Shame on Bill Maher!!!! Maher was also very condescending in my opinion to Keith Olbermann as well, interrogating him on "why does he keep referring to X amount of days since the previous president declared Mission Accomplished in Iraq," as if there is actually anything wrong with pointing this out night after night. I am no longer a fan of Bill Maher at all.
Yes, Boycott and point out the hatred of right wing crackpots promoting hatred and violence but also need to point out the likes of Bill Maher who is also an avowed racist as many on the right are these days.
but not all people are perfect
Keynes was wrong, duhhhhhhhhhhhh, it's about time people stop listening to failed economists like Paulson and Geithner, huge failures.
that Maher was way too soft on Joe the Plumber, but the Michele Obama, not Barack, purse thing was a joke plain and simple, he's a comedian that's what he does. Maher is not a racist at all IMHO.
Okay, tell black people that what Maher said does not reinforce racial stereotypes. It is not always a "joke" to reinforce racial stereotypes. I differ with you on this point and I do believe Maher is a racist. And for an atheist to be so hung up on religion is totally pathological. Maher is not a very good comedian either. Anyone can insult others and reinforce stereotypes. That is all Maher does. He is no George Carlin or Richard Pryor. Let Maher keep hanging out with the Fascist Ann Coulter.
I am tired of Maher's sucking up to the Fascists on the right from Joe the Plumber to David Frum to Joe the Plumber and countless others. But, both you and Maher need some serious lessons about the history of racism in the U.S. before either one of you knows what racism and racists are. Until, then I will say that Maher just like many unknowing white people say racist things and do not even realize their own ignorance of doing so. Ignorance is no excuse for saying racist things. Yes, Maher's insult or "joke" about the Obama's visiting the Queen and the purse deal was racist as it again reinforced racial stereotypes. I am not going to relent on my view here.
I know it is hard for the many Maher fans out there to critically analyze him, but I no longer like him or adore whatever he says. Go back and listen to the Bill Bradley interview Maher did and listen how he blames the people on Medicare and Social Security as being repsonsible for this economic mess, and that they need to sacrifice now for the nation's economic woes. Maher is no real "leftist" or ally of the left. Maher is an angry man and self-promotor.
Thank God for Howard Stern who years ago pointed out what an angry man Maher is and how right he was. And thank God for Mike Malloy's astute view about Maher as well. Maher can go pal around with his Fascist ally Ann Coulter all he wants.
What exactly is a conspiracy theory? Economic Integration?
The history of Economic Integration:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Open_Conspiracy - 1928
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_plan - 1943
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Point_Four_Program - 1949
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_integra... - 1961
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Way_(centrism)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fabian_Society
If you study this, you will realize that Economic Integration is a conspiracy against Human Rights. Several MEPs, like Daniel Hannan, have said this in regards to the 6th step of Complete Economic Integration.
I worked for Obama's campaign and do not believe he is going to take our guns away outright. It was Bush who took away guns in New Orleans, not Obama.
Most of these guys, Beck, Rush, Hannity, Dobbs -- are just co-opting a LEGITIMATE philosophical movement.
Which is, that our rights come from not government or the King, they come from God (or the Universe) and as such no government can take away our rights without due process, which requires a real victim.
Professor Allan Bloom proved in his landmark book The Closing of the American Mind that we have transitioned to a liberal democracy without Natural Rights.
I don't care how legitimate their points are, we live in an imperfect union--nobody would dispute that--but don't you agree that the media could do a better job of EDUCATING people on the various subjects, they could help INFORM the public, rather than FRIGHTENING them into VIOLENT PROTEST or calling for a NEW REVOLUTION?
Who, precisely, will benefit from another revolution? You think it'll be the average guy?
I'll tell you right now, only the powerful have anything to gain from revolution.
That's why the Windsors have deteriorated. A little domestic bloodshed works wonders.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Obama, or whatever president, is far from being an non-elected ruling monarchy. If you want to revolt against someone, revolt against the real power, the corporate leaders, the ones who are telling the people in Washington what to say and do. The American system was created so that we could vote out bad leaders. Unfortunately, the ruling class has found a way around that inconvenience.
Glenn Beck called Ron Paul supporters terrorists -- he is just exploiting a market niche. I agree they aren't helping. They could be doing a much better job.
I don't want a violent revolution, but I will stand with the Organic Law of the US and uphold my right and duty to "alter or abolish" any government that denies Natural Rights.
This is about your right to exist and to be left alone.
Don't you understand Obama's spending plan is Keynesian, which is a violation of Natural Rights and what Jesus taught. And it just flat-out doesn't work.
What Obama and Bush did is exactly what Stalin said he'd do to destroy us. The globalists who influence both parties want to destroy the US to create opportunities for integration.
I don't want a revolution, but the French Revolution and the American Revolution were the two greatest in history -- the first time we acknowledged that Man had inalienable rights and the he wasn't subservient to a King or government.
This is what made America great, not the invention of paper currency (aka credit) like the Keynesians say.
The reason most people cannot comprehend what I wrote above is is because the American Historical Association (www.historians.org) taught everyone in public education that centralization of power always helps society regardless of its conflict with Natural Rights and that truth is relative. Both ideas are wrong.
Research the Reece Commission and the American Historical Association, which was formed by Guggeheim, Ford, Rockefeller and the Carnegie foundations. Idealistic people with Machiavellian dreams of collective utopias.
These ideas suggest the best government is the most remote, when in reality it is those closest to a problem that are most effected by it and most care to solve it. Also, truth is certainly absolute, as proven by Professor Bloom's book.
You can call me whatever you want, a classical liberal or a conservative Republican.
But you should know that 200 years ago the Democratic Party was against a Central Bank, against a National Debt and against a Big Government. Of course, 200 years ago Democrats were known as Republicans.
Economic Integration is advanced via the Federal Reserve and tools like Keynesianism and inflation. These ideas conflict with Natural Rights, conflict with what Jesus taught and are inherently bad.
The people who understand this explicitly are Judge Andrew Napolitano, Thomas Woods PhD, Congressman Ron Paul, Peter Schiff and those associated with them.
Read a book and discover why Obama and Bush are bad, both promoters of Economic Integration. Remember Bush's last hoo-rah before leaving? He nearly threatened Congress to pass the Colombia Free Trade Agreement. Meanwhile, Obama picked Rahm "Mr. NAFTA" Emmanuel to be Chief of Staff.
Cased closed.
As the great MEP Daniel Hannan says, the US Constitution begins with "We the people" and the Treaty of Rome begins with "Your majesty, the King of the Belgiums". Our's is about indivdiualism, their's collectivism.
You wonder why the EU outlawed Mr, Missus, "man-made" etc? It's because they are inherently against God and Natural Rights.
You want to know the political agenda of the Federal Reserve? Read Foreign Affairs Journals, it's quite clear.
the libertarians are here, the libertarians are here.... I take it you did not even stop to notice the magnificent logical dissonance displayed by anyone trying to make a case for "individualism" by using "Ours vs. Theirs" rhetoric.
"The King of the Belgiums" LOL.
Not even the Treaty of Rome is safe from the mental masturbation of the libertarians. (Cue in, Monty Python's Spanish Inquisition music)
hah, wow I bet you win lots of debates.
watch MEP Daniel Hannan recent interview on CSPAN. he is one of the most brilliant people ever and he's the one who said that about the Treaty of Rome vs the Constitution.
it's a proven fact that the EU is about greater centralization, whereas the Constitution is about decentralizing power.
I understand the "magnificent logical dissonance", but that's a juvenile observation. clearly OUR Constitution protects the individual. nothing wrong with groups and organized efforts, just not by the government.
feature. That way you can find out that he gets in lots of debates but not have to worry if he wins any of them.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
also most libertarians are ignorantly for Free Trade (aka corporate managed trade). For example, the biggest libertarian group CATO supports NAFTA (www.freetrade.org - their site), even though NAFTA fundamentally undermines individualism.
CATO puts out a list of Austrian economists against the bailout but then they support Economic Integration, doesn't make any sense.
Yes, the problem, in a nutshell, is that POWER is too centralized, and that power derives itself from money, OUR money, as it were, regardless of whether that money is amassed through federal taxes or through multi-national conglomerates.
But the answer, in my mind, lies far from violent overthrow of our current government. I would suggest that we generate a secession movement. As I see it, that would dismantle the power that lies consolidated in Washington, the Pentagon and the corporate elite.
Follow the money. It leads to the private Federal Reserve Corporation. Watch Jerry Nelson, Chicago FED spokesman talk about this "closely held private corporation". You know, the one financial/banking entity in the world who has never defrauded anyone unlike all of Wall Street and London.
Jerry Nelson tells the truth, Meet the Fed -
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vw9jXppiQEo
Get your Congressman to support HR1207 to Audit the Fed.
That's a start.
In these economic times we know the fed are rich. Tax em.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Audit the Federal Reserve Corporation. The most powerful of the 12 is the NYFed which is owned by JPMorgan and foreign banks. Timothy Geithner was the President of the NYFed before becoming Treasury Secretary.
The FED and IRS were both passed same year, December 23, 1913 (aka the busiest time in Congress obviously). The FED taxes us through inflation.
Hold a $20 bill in your hand, now imagine printing 1 trillion more of those $20 bills. What do you think will happen to your $20 bill?
Some libertarian kid pulled this on me in middle school
lunch decades ago. A guy from the LaRouche movement taught us how to beat the snot out of him.
Love revolution my hindquarters.
“Why would anyone with a functioning brain believe this guy?”
Some guy with an eating disorder
Why is it we never hear from 2nd amendment zealots that we have regulations on the length of knife blades, swords, the forbidding of mailing of martial arts weapons etc, like that's all cool?
Dynamite and flammable liquids can't be mailed either, and this is all by law.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
reichwingers in Congress love this argument because it rouses the base, changes the subject from the mess they made of the economy, military and foreign policy, and if Obama does little or nothing and people who want weapons still have them, they'll say it's only because they "protected" the "right".
Meanwhile they were all supportive of Ari Fleischer when he said we have to watch what we say for now on.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
They've been doing it for a while. Look at the following link.
This shows Ronald Regan's son, Michael Regan, calling for the murder.... That's MURDER... of Mark Dice, because he spoke out against the Iraq war.
Why aren't these people in prison?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etRxzINHOBM&fe...
If this would be democrats or democrats demonstrating about the Bush administration , Bush and republicans would have declared Marshal law..
There is only one reason for the employee of Fox news and other republicans to be making these statements,, and that is to over throw our government , their leaders and civil disorder.
It is one thing to express one's opinion and another to rally civil unrest with lies , BS and propaganda..
Fox news and the republicans no longer know how to speak the truth...
None
Gives them about six months traction, doesn't it, before Biden can be sent out deer hunting? They know Obama is too much like a professor to look anything but ridiculous with a deer rifle. And Biden looks too much like the credit card company execs Delaware loves, for that matter, but maybe Biden can discover a new-born love of weekend fishing this summer? Must be a skeet club in D.C. where he can practice up for fall.
America is funny, isn't it?
"All we're getting so far is tea parties and conspiracy theories"
Probably someone else has already pointed this out but that's about all we got from them when they were in power.
There may not be pointed "factual basis" that Obama wants to take away guns that people already have, yet. It is very clear however to a lot of american citizens that bans, restrictions, oppressive
licensing and tax programs are the plan. All for the reason of making gun ownership such an inconvenience or so expensive most people will give up or just plain will not be able to afford them. Yet another ploy of government that frowns on certain activities such as gun ownership is to demonize them. Make them taboo. You don't really
believe that 90% of guns used by mexican drug gangs come from the U.S.? Do you? BTW is that not fear mongering? Making it seen worse near the border to set up said gun bans and such. Look people: With Obama, Pelosi and clinton in the white house odds say to bet on "sweeping attacks on gun ownership". Have you been to a gun show lately? I'm guessing not. Well then let me tell you they were packed before beck and others started most of the reports as of late regarding gun rights. The very next one after the election was. Why? People know it's coming. The people I have seen at crowded gun shows and gun shops are not the redneck type that are portrayed here.
Old women, young professional looking guys, middle aged a very wide range of people and it did not make me feel afraid to see them buying a lot of guns. Why does it make some so uncomfortable. So to say the warnings from the right that say " buy them while you can" is anything but good advice may be "irresponsible rhetoric". Thank you for pointing out the miniscule consolation in that "Obama is focused on repairing the economy" so that it will not be "Right now" that he will be able to have this "serious conversation about guns" but rest assured that when there is a lull this issue will get full attention. Last time I checked caring about rights like the first and second ammedment was "serious" and not "silly". Also somthing as simple as the orginal TEA PARTY spawned some pretty damn good ideals and a movement in American histroy that most are still proud of. Why don't you guys just poke fun at that silly little banner with it's weird star things and funny little stripes.
Some facts.
While serving as director of the Joyce Foundation board (1994-2001),
Obama gives millions of dollars to gun control organizations like the Council Against Handguns.
(Between 1994 and 2001, the Joyce Foundation gave $18.6 million to about 80 anti-gun and anti-Second Amendment projects
In September of 1996, as a candidate for the Illinois State Senate, Barack Obama completed a candidate questionnaire.
He stated on that questionnaire that:
"...opposes electronic eavesdropping, opposes capital punishment, opposes mandatory sentencing guidelines, opposes the manufacture, sale, and possession of all handguns, and supports banning assault weapons."
Obama as State Senator in 1999
Obama votes against a bill that specifically allows homeowners the right to use a gun in self-defense during a home invasion.
Obama votes for a bill (S 2579) prohibiting Illinois citizens from purchasing more than one gun per month.
Obama votes for a bill that bans most single-shot and double-barreled shotguns as “semi-automatic assault weapons” (even though they are not semi-automatic), along with hundreds of models of rifles and handguns. (Had the bill had passed, Illinois residents would have had 90 days to turn their guns in or face felony charges.)
Obama also votes for a bill that would shut down all Illinois firearm manufacturing businesses (Springfield Armory, Armalite, Rock River Arms, and Les Baer).
Obama proposes increasing Illinois firearm and ammunition excise taxes by 500 percent. (A $55 tax on a $500 rifle would increase to $330.) The tax would thus change from a fee to fund wildlife preservation programs into a gun-punishing penalty.
Just wanted to add that I met Bo Gritzes and shook his hand at a gun show back then. I thought his name was funny and did not really like the pamplet he gave me it was too David Duke-ish for me. Bo Gritzes man did you pull him out of the annals of time.
We have very strict gun controls and we like it that way.
Our 1996 gun ownership reforms were precipitated by the 'Port Arthur massacre' where Martin Bryant murdered 35 people and injured 21 others with an AR15 semi-automatic rifle and an FN L1A1 semi-automatic assault rifle at a popular tourist attraction. It was the 13th mass shooting in 15 years in which five or more victims died.
The central provisions of the reforms were a ban on all semi-automatic rifles and pump action shotguns, along with introducing VERY strict regulations on the possession of handguns. These bans were accompanied by gun amnesties and two national buybacks, which together saw some 820,000 guns destroyeed.
In the 12 years since our law reforms, there have been NO mass shootings in Australia.
The USA has 14.3 times Australia's population but 104 times our total firearm-caused deaths (30,143 in 2005 vs 289 in 2003), and 294 times Australia's firearm homicide rate (12,352 in 2005 vs just 42 in 2005/06). In 1979, 705 people died from gunshots in Australia, yet despite population growth, by 2003, this number had fallen to 289.
Ok,
So only the criminals have guns in your country?
Fact: In the year 2002/2003, over 85% of firearms used to commit murder were unregistered.[19] In 1997-1999, more than 80% of the handguns confiscated were never legally purchased or registered in Australia.[20] Knives are used up to 3 times as often as firearms in robberies.[21] The majority of firearm related deaths are suicides, of which many involved the use of 'hunting rifle.
In other words in your country only criminals have guns which means a person cannot defend his or her home against criminals. :-) Frankly I'd rather get shot than stabbed....
If you outlaw guns only criminals will have guns. Scary concept isn't it. But of course here in the USA we "have the right to keep and bear arms" and that right will not be infringed upon the same as every other right we enjoy as citizens.
I'm not a gun owner but I like the idea that here in Texas a lot of "GOOD FOLKS" carry guns.... Texas is a dangerous place to be a criminal.
Comments are closed on this entry