#51 2013-01-11 14:48:30
XregnaR wrote:
And finally, I still strongly believe that we actually do have revolutions on a regular basis, called elections. Until such time as these are failing us all, I don't see any reason to pursue another kind. My contention in my first post is that if you want to implement true change in the gun control argument, you first have to approach the idea that the 2nd needs to be dealt with. Until then those that are now being called "clingers" will have a valid leg to stand on, and potentially feel they have a right, even a duty, toward armed uprising.
you mentioned that there are impediments to unfettered access to guns now. You do realize that many Gun Rights advocates (myself included) feel that NFA 1934, GCA 1968 & FOPA 1986 are all unconstitutional?
This is at the heart of what bothers me so much about the connection between guns and revolution. It encourages people who DO see a reason to pursue non-democratic revolutions--it gives credence to the crazy people who say "this government official is oppressing me; I'll take them out because it's what the founders would have wanted." I really don't want to live through a spate of assassinations by these assholes.
Your 2% rule is exactly the kind of thing I'm worrying about. That 2% could be absolutely fucking insane, and the idea that 2% of the population can override the choice of 51% of the population is the definition of tyranny and the opposite of government with the consent of the governed, which I thought was supposed to be the point.
It really doesn't matter what you think is constitutional; that's not your job. Imagine a society where everybody decided for themselves which laws they should follow--it's just unworkable.
Do you think that anthrax and nerve gas should be legal for citizens to buy?
Offline
#52 2013-01-11 15:26:43
Think of all the shit that wasn't known at the time of the original admendments - no knowledge of germs, no complex astronomical systems, no poor people shouting their ideas, no rapid fire guns. Communities were able to dispense justice at the local level.
In the absense of a better philosophy, the idea was that you could do whatever you want, as long as you don't harm someone else. People were expected to be reasonable and prudent.
That shit will never work now. People now will gladly submit to the gov't for the illusion of safety. Like several people have said, the populace is too sheepish and stupid to see the big picture. That is why i believe the 2nd adm. Is doomed.
In the interest of full disclosure i own one hunting rifle, but no private citizen needs an AK47. Again, the whackos are fucking it up for everyone.
Offline
#53 2013-01-11 15:29:41
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
Do you think that anthrax and nerve gas should be legal for citizens to buy?
Outside labs for developing antidotes, they are both illegal for our government to use as well.
the rule of 2% is not something that applies when you have 51% who oppose. Or even 10% for that matter. It applied during the American Revolution. At the time, many citizens were perfectly content under British rule, and were not to keen to secede. That said, they didn't really do much to oppose the revolution...apathy abounds even in the 1700s. Any 2% revolution would fail if it faced by even 2% opposition.
For any revolution to actually work, you would need organization. Insanity precludes that possibility. Do you really believe that 2% of the US population qualifies as insane? How about 20%? Because 20% is roughly the percentage of the adult US population that owns 1 or more guns.
Bottom line - any less than 2% actively participating in the revolution = failure. More opposition than support/apathy = failure.
Oh and the 2% thing isn't "mine", it was something presented by a military historian who presented at a thing I attended while in the Army. Because the US active incites revolution in other countries all the time, courtesy of the US military.
Offline
#54 2013-01-11 15:31:15
Lip shitz wrote:
Again, the whackos are fucking it up for everyone.
the same could be said for any number of social issues. Alcohol, drug policy, abortion, reality television....
Offline
#55 2013-01-11 15:38:24
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
It really doesn't matter what you think is constitutional; that's not your job. Imagine a society where everybody decided for themselves which laws they should follow--it's just unworkable.
I never mentioned not following the law because it is unconstitutional, but it absolutely does matter whether I, or any other US citizen, feels a law is unconstitutional. In my personal case the construct of gun laws that exist today are something I am willing to live with, constitutional or not, and are not something I would even contemplate pursuing individually. That's why SCOTA is so busy. Lots of people who feel a law doesn't pass muster dispute up to SCOTA on a regular basis. The whole DC thing a few years back is a good example of someone following the process we have in place.
Offline
#56 2013-01-11 16:10:38
lechero wrote:
Nice quotes, but what this thread really needs is more video:
Offline
#57 2013-01-11 16:26:19
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
It really doesn't matter what you think is constitutional; that's not your job. Imagine a society where everybody decided for themselves which laws they should follow--it's just unworkable.
On this you could not be more wrong. If we are to be a government BY the people FOR the people, then the people have an obligation to ensure the government acts in the best interests of the people. We do this by holding our government to the framework we have constructed for it. That framework is the constitution. To shirk this responsiblity is to fail in your duty as a citizen.
Offline
#58 2013-01-11 16:47:11
XregnaR wrote:
Htom Sirveaux wrote:
Do you think that anthrax and nerve gas should be legal for citizens to buy?
Outside labs for developing antidotes, they are both illegal for our government to use as well.
the rule of 2% is not something that applies when you have 51% who oppose. Or even 10% for that matter. It applied during the American Revolution. At the time, many citizens were perfectly content under British rule, and were not to keen to secede. That said, they didn't really do much to oppose the revolution...apathy abounds even in the 1700s. Any 2% revolution would fail if it faced by even 2% opposition.
For any revolution to actually work, you would need organization. Insanity precludes that possibility. Do you really believe that 2% of the US population qualifies as insane? How about 20%? Because 20% is roughly the percentage of the adult US population that owns 1 or more guns.
Bottom line - any less than 2% actively participating in the revolution = failure. More opposition than support/apathy = failure.
Oh and the 2% thing isn't "mine", it was something presented by a military historian who presented at a thing I attended while in the Army. Because the US active incites revolution in other countries all the time, courtesy of the US military.
Don't get angry--I'm not yelling or accusing. I like having these conversations because you listen and actually respond, rather than copypasta bullshit from somebody's talking points.
One thing worth mentioning: we have wildly different experiences with guns. You're used to them, and I am deeply unnerved by them.
About the supreme court comment: you're right. I didn't mean HEAR AND OBEY, I meant that individual citizens can't opt out of laws that are ruled constitutional. You can challenge in court; you can't just declare "this doesn't apply to me." I didn't want to suggest that you weren't following laws, but I am worried about people who do.
I take your larger point in theory, but I'm thinking more about practicalities. So for instance, I think it's a good thing that nobody could become an American Hitler because people would just rise up (maybe). But what I'm worried about are people that think we have an American Hitler right now--I don't want ANY kind of revolt, even if it's ultimately doomed to failure. It would entail a bloody goddamn mess, and the nation would start looking third-worldy and suffer economic consequences.
What I'm saying is that I agree with your point about the theoretical future tyrant, but I'm really scared that this kind of loose talk about revolution is being sucked up by any number of crazy people on the internet or wherever. I don't want any assassinations or bombing, and I'm worried that the current "kill your oppressors" dialog might make that more likely.
Can you understand where I'm coming from--that I'm picturing the next lone gunman or the next domestic terror cell getting all stoked up about Obama-Muslim-Hitler-Stalin? That's why I keep asking WHO gets to decide when it's tyranny.
Offline
#59 2013-01-11 17:03:31
I'm not angry bro.
I think it is safe to say we agree that the law is the law, and we have mechanisms to dispute that that work today.
I understand your point, and if it makes you feel any better, I don't see any kind of shooting revolution happening in our lifetimes. Our lives are too comfortable and we aren't exactly suffering at the hands of oppression out here. Most of what I see in the press I put down as a)embarrassing to gun owners & b)emotional venting. It's as passionate a topic as religion, abortion, and what Snooki did last week.
I do believe something will change in the coming months. My hope is that it is handled rationally, without political pandering to any one group. But I am not optimistic to that respect. We went through one ban already, and I seriously doubt Feinstein or Biden will get everything they want either. If they want to be truly successful, they need to put the repeal of the 2nd to a vote. This is what I believe is the only way remove most of the emotion from the conversation.
Crackpots have been crackpotting since the dawn of time. All they need is a perceived excuse. Whatever the outcome of the next months, I imagine there will be some crackpotting that goes along with it. Likely it will end Fed - 1, Crackpot - 0.
I have been kicking around ideas that would potentially satisfy all parties. I am now strongly behind much more thorough background/sanity/etc checks. Maybe even a tiering system based on willingness to participate, level of training/expertise, etc.
One idea I had was the creation of a Militia Card. It would have to be earned through training, thorough backgrounding, etc. and periodic recertification. If you have a militia card, you have access to any kind of gun available today, even removing some of the restrictions we now have. If you don't you can only purchase bolt/lever action rifles, revolvers, and single/double barrel or pump shotguns.
Offline
#60 2013-01-11 17:38:38
XregnaR wrote:
One idea I had was the creation of a Militia Card. It would have to be earned through training, thorough backgrounding, etc. and periodic recertification. If you have a militia card, you have access to any kind of gun available today, even removing some of the restrictions we now have. If you don't you can only purchase bolt/lever action rifles, revolvers, and single/double barrel or pump shotguns.
On its surface, this would sound like a good idea. In fact, it dovetails with my belief that every able bodied American should be obligated to spend 2 years in military service. I believe every sane American who is not a criminal should be trained and armed. However, if we truly believe the reason for keeping and bearing arms is to thwart tyranny or foreign invasion, then keeping a readily accessible database of the names, capabilities, and addresses of our militia is a bad idea. No democracy has ever endured more than a few hundred years before it was invaded or taken over by a tyrant. Rest assured, this fate awaits us at some future date, be it 50 or 500 years from now.
Offline
#61 2013-01-11 17:45:40
Lip shitz wrote:
traditionally, wouldn't a sock puppet try to endear itself
Which you have tried to do. Come on, who be ye? It's killing me.
Offline
#62 2013-01-11 19:32:57
Roger_That wrote:
Wow, WCL. Did my post upset you that much???
Upset me? It inspired me. There has been far too much boring and
circuitous gun-law talk around here lately. It makes me crave gore...
but no...I must desist. Here's a kitty-kat instead.
Please don't shoot me! I'm a kitty-kat!
Offline
#63 2013-01-11 19:36:45
Kitty-kats will be the first against the wall when the revolution comes.
Offline
#64 2013-01-11 21:04:54
Bigcat wrote:
Lip shitz wrote:
traditionally, wouldn't a sock puppet try to endear itself
Which you have tried to do. Come on, who be ye? It's killing me.
I am the one and only lip shitz. After a long career on rcades site, the drudge retort, he implemented a moderation policy to make it safe for pre-schoolers. As much as i like rcade, the DR doesn't do it for me anymore(hopefully someday he can loosen his spchinter and it will be fun again. He told me about this site because he's a sweet man and he knew this type humor is right up my alley.
That is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me dog.
Offline
#65 2013-01-11 22:25:29
Lip shitz wrote:
Bigcat wrote:
Lip shitz wrote:
traditionally, wouldn't a sock puppet try to endear itself
Which you have tried to do. Come on, who be ye? It's killing me.
I am the one and only lip shitz. After a long career on rcades site, the drudge retort, he implemented a moderation policy to make it safe for pre-schoolers. As much as i like rcade, the DR doesn't do it for me anymore(hopefully someday he can loosen his spchinter and it will be fun again. He told me about this site because he's a sweet man and he knew this type humor is right up my alley.
That is the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, so help me dog.
My heart bleeds for you. Also, my spchinter.
Offline
#66 2013-01-12 00:30:22
XregnaR wrote:
For any revolution to actually work, you would need organization. Insanity precludes that possibility.
But it doesn't preclude the possibility of many innocent people dying because of crazies.
Response- Tennessee revokes Yeager's carry permit
Last edited by nfidelbastard (2013-01-12 00:30:56)
Offline
#67 2013-01-12 11:36:53
nfidelbastard wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
For any revolution to actually work, you would need organization. Insanity precludes that possibility.
But it doesn't preclude the possibility of many innocent people dying because of crazies.
Response- Tennessee revokes Yeager's carry permit
Talk is cheap.
But TN reacted reasonably IMLTHO.
Offline
#68 2013-01-12 14:24:44
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/1 … 60452.html
This is exactly the kind of guy I'm worried about: he's got his own personal interpretation of history and the constitution, and feels entitled to use violence to support those interpretations. I don't want him to feel like his point of view is legitimate, so I don't like it when non-crazy people talk about the second amendment as a tool against tyranny.
Offline
#69 2013-01-12 15:48:11
Eh? I'd stress about it but can't be bothered; leaving SoCal shortly to go live with Choad. This gun shit is for the birds, drones and tanks remove any excuse for a citizen militia. However I do like my shotgun and want to buy a match grade AR-15, but since I've owned a rifle ever since I was old enough to keep both ends off the ground at the same time I have zero fascination with the tool.
(PS: I hope Choad brews good beer)
Offline
#70 2013-01-14 09:09:42
I love the way you guys like to think everyone else has the ability to intellectualize this subject. Over 50% (not sure of the exact number) believe in an omnipetent god, without one shred of evidence, but you can't understand how they can believe in a gov't hostile to poor people, wherein they have lots of evidence to support that paranoia.
They are too stupid to realize that they only become important when the gov't needs cannon fodder. Then, when they come back from the war, what philosophy are they left with? Guns can solve any complex problem.
Why should we try to stop the stupid and the mentally ill when they act exactly the same way our gov't acts? Got a human or diplomatic problem - get more guns......
Offline
#71 2013-01-14 09:31:33
Lip shitz wrote:
I love the way you guys like to think everyone else has the ability to intellectualize this subject. Over 50% (not sure of the exact number) believe in an OMNIPETENT god, without one shred of evidence.
I love the way you think you are smarter than everyone else here. It's almost as if you are omnipotent.
Offline
#72 2013-01-14 10:12:40
Bigcat wrote:
Lip shitz wrote:
I love the way you guys like to think everyone else has the ability to intellectualize this subject. Over 50% (not sure of the exact number) believe in an OMNIPETENT god, without one shred of evidence.
I love the way you think you are smarter than everyone else here. It's almost as if you are omnipotent.
Yet another example of believing some crazy shit without evidence. I do know this - you can't solve complex issues if you don't have the wherewithal to understand them.
Offline
#73 2013-01-14 11:13:35
Belief in deities, fairies or any other faith based (belief with lack of supporting evidence) foolishness does not preclude the ability to make intellectual and intelligent decisions about other things. NASA is a great example.
Taking that position is as solipsistically arrogant as a bible thumper assuming that all atheists/agnostics are hell-bound moral-free demon-vessels.
Offline
#74 2013-01-14 12:49:19
XregnaR wrote:
Belief in deities, fairies or any other faith based (belief with lack of supporting evidence) foolishness does not preclude the ability to make intellectual and intelligent decisions about other things. NASA is a great example.
Taking that position is as solipsistically arrogant as a bible thumper assuming that all atheists/agnostics are hell-bound moral-free demon-vessels.
It's a good point you're making here.....but.....if you believe that this life is just a bus-stop along the road trip to nirvana, you're probably not that concerned with how you affect anything on this 'temporary plane of existence'.
And, if you are convinced you know all thethe answers already, you will stop searching for them.
Offline
#75 2013-01-14 14:18:53
Lip shitz wrote:
Bigcat wrote:
Lip shitz wrote:
I love the way you guys like to think everyone else has the ability to intellectualize this subject. Over 50% (not sure of the exact number) believe in an OMNIPETENT god, without one shred of evidence.
I love the way you think you are smarter than everyone else here. It's almost as if you are omnipotent.
Yet another example of believing some crazy shit without evidence. I do know this - you can't solve complex issues if you don't have the wherewithal to understand them.
Being able to spell should not be a complex issue.
Offline
#77 2013-01-14 18:32:43
XregnaR wrote:
http://sovietoutpost.revdisk.org/?p=72
Few people knew how much, and what, I keep at home.
So naturally he posts a blog about what he has - fucking bullshit is just annoying.
Offline
#78 2013-01-14 19:33:29
XregnaR wrote:
http://sovietoutpost.revdisk.org/?p=72
+2 Internet Demerits for using the stock Twenty Ten WP theme.
But he's right on about stockpiling cheap whiskey and smokes. Currency of the future...
Offline
#79 2013-01-14 22:31:41
XregnaR wrote:
Taking that position is as solipsistically arrogant as a bible thumper assuming that all atheists/agnostics are hell-bound moral-free demon-vessels.
Correct. That is a very specific denomination of atheist and we're pretty discriminating about membership.
Offline
#80 2013-01-15 08:56:45
opsec wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
Taking that position is as solipsistically arrogant as a bible thumper assuming that all atheists/agnostics are hell-bound moral-free demon-vessels.
Correct. That is a very specific denomination of atheist and we're pretty discriminating about membership.
Mot to mention the goat leggings chafe terribly.
Offline
#81 2013-01-15 12:46:19
XregnaR wrote:
opsec wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
Taking that position is as solipsistically arrogant as a bible thumper assuming that all atheists/agnostics are hell-bound moral-free demon-vessels.
Correct. That is a very specific denomination of atheist and we're pretty discriminating about membership.
Mot to mention the goat leggings chafe terribly.
Have you considered ass-less chaps?
Offline
#82 2013-01-15 16:31:24
Lip shitz wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
opsec wrote:
Correct. That is a very specific denomination of atheist and we're pretty discriminating about membership.Mot to mention the goat leggings chafe terribly.
Have you considered ass-less chaps?
DAMN! You ARE Wilber.
Offline
#83 2013-01-15 17:56:51
Bigcat wrote:
Lip shitz wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
Mot to mention the goat leggings chafe terribly.Have you considered ass-less chaps?
DAMN! You ARE Wilber.
First you're Miss Manners, then you're my third grade grammar teacher, now you're Sherlock Holmes. Amazing!
Wilber doesn't hold a patent on the term 'assless chaps'.
To the unitiated, it appears like i'm you, because you go to great lengths to make us seem like separate people. I am the new improved Big Cat, where i got sick of such a sissified name, and changed it to something interesting.
Do we like it? Yes we do. (The Big Cat part of us is secretly sexually attracted to Wilbur).
Offline
#84 2013-01-15 18:12:52
Lip shitz wrote:
Bigcat wrote:
Lip shitz wrote:
Have you considered ass-less chaps?
DAMN! You ARE Wilber.
First you're Miss Manners, then you're my third grade grammar teacher, now you're Sherlock Holmes. Amazing!
Wilber doesn't hold a patent on the term 'assless chaps'.
To the unitiated, it appears like i'm you, because you go to great lengths to make us seem like separate people. I am the new improved Big Cat, where i got sick of such a sissified name, and changed it to something interesting.
Do we like it? Yes we do. (The Big Cat part of us is secretly sexually attracted to Wilbur).
Damn, you ARE a boring, non-literate chunk of homeless crack whore shit.
Last edited by Bigcat (2013-01-15 18:13:14)
Offline
#85 2013-01-15 18:33:42
Bigcat wrote:
Damn, you ARE a boring, non-literate chunk of homeless crack whore shit.
So, does that mean we won't be jerking off later? (Don't forget, we got that new John Travolta calender.....).
Offline
#86 2013-01-15 18:39:25
Lip shitz wrote:
Bigcat wrote:
Damn, you ARE a boring, non-literate chunk of homeless crack whore shit.
So, does that mean we won't be jerking off later? (Don't forget, we got that new John Travolta calender.....).
Ok, back to "ignore" dimwit fucktard.
Offline
#87 2013-01-16 11:13:30
Bigcat wrote:
Lip shitz wrote:
Bigcat wrote:
Damn, you ARE a boring, non-literate chunk of homeless crack whore shit.
So, does that mean we won't be jerking off later? (Don't forget, we got that new John Travolta calender.....).
Ok, back to "ignore" dimwit fucktard.
I love the way you pick a fight and then run away crying when you get slapped around. You can ignore me all you want but i will still hang on your every utterance - as a drowning man hangs onto an anvil.
Offline
#89 2013-01-16 12:26:11
XregnaR wrote:
http://www.countysheriffproject.org/sheriffs-rising-up
Discuss
Do these barneys really believe the fed has no jurisdiction in their county, or is it just more teatard blowback?
Offline
#90 2013-01-16 13:12:45
Lip shitz wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
http://www.countysheriffproject.org/sheriffs-rising-up
DiscussDo these barneys really believe the fed has no jurisdiction in their county, or is it just more teatard blowback?
Methinks it's more likely a combination of ΜΩΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ and local politickin'.
Offline
#91 2013-01-16 13:28:25
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/e … ?ref=fpblg
On the surface I see nothing that particularly alarms me.
Offline
#92 2013-01-16 14:37:10
XregnaR wrote:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obamas-23-planned-executive-actions-on-guns?ref=fpblg
On the surface I see nothing that particularly alarms me.
1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
- So the Federal Background Check System now becomes the national database
2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.
- Ditto, goodbye privacy
3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.
- Ditto, bribe the states to limit privacy
4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.
- Really, we need an Executive Order for the AG to do his job?
5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.
- So much for the Fourth Amendment
6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.
- Really, this isn't already policy?
7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.
- Pandering and complete waste of money
8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).
- Pandering, I'm quite sure this is reviewed on a regular basis regardless; if it's not someone should be fired.
9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.
- Pandering, the POLICE always try as part of the investigation.
10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.
- Can we be a little more vague?
11. Nominate an ATF director.
- Isn't that part of his job?
12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.
- Let me handle this one: #1. Try save the civilians, #2. Try to stop the shooter, #3. Try not to die
13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.
- Pandering and Vague
14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.
- Bullets and Triggers - research complete.
15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.
- Pandering to the gun lobby, waste of tax dollars
16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.
- Yeah that'll work
17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.
- Really, it took 20 dead kindergartners to realize this?
18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.
- WTF is this? If by resource officer they mean guard then we just know who's getting shot first.
19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.
- What about McDonalds?
20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.
- Pandering
21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.
- Why is this in here?
22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.
- Shouldn't you be doing that anyway
23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.
- Again, it's your job - get busy
I like Obama but this is all complete political, pandering bullshit.
(Schools just don't rate high on the list of American Massacres
Last edited by Emmeran (2013-01-16 15:02:47)
Offline
#93 2013-01-16 15:37:21
Emmeran wrote:
Vast list of things that should have been taken care of all ready...
On the one hand you're right. There are a great many items in his plan that should have been dealt with all ready. The fact that they were issued at one time or another in the past, but not not acted upon or enforced, shows a tremendous lack of will on the part of those who outlined them the first time. The fact that he's identified them as areas the federal government has jurisdiction over and, most important, is willing to enforce them, is heartening.
Offline
#94 2013-01-16 15:50:01
Taint wrote:
Emmeran wrote:
Vast list of things that should have been taken care of all ready...
On the one hand you're right. There are a great many items in his plan that should have been dealt with all ready. The fact that they were issued at one time or another in the past, but not not acted upon or enforced, shows a tremendous lack of will on the part of those who outlined them the first time. The fact that he's identified them as areas the federal government has jurisdiction over and, most important, is willing to enforce them, is heartening.
Just another example of politics as usual...
Offline
#95 2013-01-16 16:47:15
Now that we are "Launching a national dialogue on mental health" and "Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and safes" I feel our children are much more secure at school.
Offline
#96 2013-01-16 17:12:57
phreddy wrote:
Now that we are "Launching a national dialogue on mental health" and "Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and safes" I feel our children are much more secure at school.
We can install guards at every school however let's be sure to fit them for caskets as part of the on-boarding procedure; naturally they will be the first body to hit the floor.
Offline
#97 2013-01-16 17:38:46
Emmeran wrote:
XregnaR wrote:
http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entry/obamas-23-planned-executive-actions-on-guns?ref=fpblg
On the surface I see nothing that particularly alarms me.1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.
- Yada yada yada
Yes, existing laws should be enforced; no, checking to see if someone is a felon, psycho or legally incompetent before selling him a gun is not an unreasonable use of government databases. The answers to items 6 and 11 on your list can be found on Capital Hill, not the White House:
NPR wrote:
Obama has nominated a permanent director, but there hasn't even been a hearing on the nomination because of opposition from the gun lobby.
There are other administrative issues: Funding has been relatively flat, and the agency has roughly the same number of agents today as it did a decade ago.
Then there are the issues ATF agents face with gun laws. Congress refuses to allow a centralized gun database, so tracing a weapon used in a crime means a lot of legwork, says former ATF agent William Vizzard.
Offline
#98 2013-01-16 18:19:10
The Shootin' War Rhapsody - part 1
It was hot out in the desert. That's where it's all goin' down. The Feds have been baiting us in that direction for some time now. Fuckin' Feds.
We know they want to have the war in the desert. And that's just fine with us. We're ready.
'Private, get me some coffee. It's fixin' to get ugly up in here'. 'And get me some chewing tobaccer.....,'
(Private); 'Sir, they're here. We just picked them up on radar.'
'ATTACK FORMATION!!!!'
(Suddenly, from over the dune, comes a long gleaming black limo, with dark windows.)
'What the fuck? What they gonna do, pencil whip us to death?'
(suddenly the limo stopped and a fat nerd got out, he had an Ipad in his hand. He looked up at the opposition forces, scratched a zit and pushed his glasses up on his nose. He types some short message and within seconds a whole fleet of unmanned and heavily armed drones appears on the horizon and pulverises the oppostion in three seconds....)
Nerd; 'stupid teabaggers.. they blow up so fast.... (Laughing) yerrrrk, errrrk errrkkkkkk'.
Offline
#100 2013-01-17 14:05:19
Emmeran wrote:
phreddy wrote:
Now that we are "Launching a national dialogue on mental health" and "Reviewing safety standards for gun locks and safes" I feel our children are much more secure at school.
We can install guards at every school however let's be sure to fit them for caskets as part of the on-boarding procedure; naturally they will be the first body to hit the floor.
Very few of these chicken shit pimply-faced cowards would ever engage in a shootout with an armed guard. They pick schools is because they are easy "gun free" targets.
Offline
