310 million guns in America: Conservatives say Government takes guns!
http://www.cnn.com/2012/08/09/politics/ … n-america/
I know that we have beaten this gun issue like a dead horse, but that number is startling. That is almost a gun for every man, woman and child in America.
Yet, conservatives tell me that if guns were registered, subject to background check, etc, that the Government, knowing who has them will try to confiscate them in the cover of night. How is that possible?
There are alot of 'gun people' on this forum that say that this is a reasonable fear? How do you take that many guns from so many people without creating a ripple?
In fear of the so called "imperial Obama" and what conservatives seemed to be obsessed about regarding Democratic congressmen, gun ownership has grown at an even faster rate in the last few years.
It is like trying to sneak into every home and confiscate everyone's bedroom slippers. Totally ludicrous.1. No one says government will confiscate "under cover of night" - a gross exaggeration.
2. No one says guns will be confiscated "without a ripple". Of course there will be a ripple - a tidal wave.
3. Yes, it is a reasonable fear - it has been done elsewhere in the world and it has already been done in certain US cities. There are constant calls to confiscate "assault weapons" - ordinary hunting guns that liberals falsely claim are assault weapons - and handguns are prohibited in some cities now. These type of actions hardly allay fears that liberals want to ban all guns, particularly as many powerful liberals make it very plain that that is exactly what they want.But, Wilderness, 310 Million? It is logistically impossible, even if all the Democrats wanted it. Australia is not the United States, with a population where every body has a gun. I am sure that the experiment in Australia was attempted on a far reduced scale. The 'calls' mean nothing. I want to use my pogo-stick to jump to moon, that doesn't make it possible. If they are prohibited in some cities, they must be bristling everywhere else to account for those incredible numbers.
How do people worry about something that seem so far fetched, look at the sheer logistics involved?
Australia, roughly 2 million guns 1 for every 5 people. How does that compare with 310 million, one for every person in the United States? That does not sound much like apples to apples to me.What does that it cannot be done have anything to do with passing laws to do it anyway? We can't take marijuana away, either, but jail an awful lot of folks in the effort! Nobody is stupid enough to think that government can ever clean out every single weapon in this country, but that doesn't make them back off. Laws are passed almost daily to restrict and remove guns from American citizens - it is not possible that either those lawmakers or their constituents think it will ever be done 100%.
It is the same thing the GOP proposes to shut down the Government over Planned Parenthood Funding.
I don't worry about it as it is just talk by the GOP to appease its base, it simply is not politically palatable.
With the furor by conservatives about even mentioning the 2nd amendment akin to touching the eyeball of God, any real attempt to get at firearm ownership is simply impossible in this political climate.
The Australians, having the civility of being part of the British Commowealth, are not obsessed with weapons and do not have million dollar lobbies and politicians whose very careers hang on where they stand on the issue.
Things are much different here.
The amount of users of marijuna is small in proportion to the total population, that is like comparing apples to hand grenades. Not every man, woman and child is smoking and dealing in a controlled substance. The failure of Prohibition is a better example. When a large segment of the population drinks, how are you going to legislate against it successfully?
We may have to agree to disagree on this one, I think for many reasons the fear is unfounded."...any real attempt to get at firearm ownership is simply impossible in this political climate."
And there you have said it - the "political climate" is slowly but surely swinging towards banning all guns. Sooner or later it will happen, and the near term evidence is that it will be done slowly, piece by piece, until the desired goal is reached. Start with handguns, go into a made up scary definition of "assault weapon" because it frightens people (maybe with a pause at banning ammunition for your guns?) and ban them, move into pure hunting rifles and black powder guns from centuries ago. Eventually you'll get very nearly all of them. Certainly no one will be able to actually USE one of the weapons guaranteed to us, or bear one either.
That's how it's done, and you understand this quite well. Why, then, the insistence it is impossible, will not happen and cannot happen (as we watch the world disarm it's citizens? Why the ridicule of people looking at historical actions as well as modern talk from "leaders" saying that's exactly what they want and are trying to do?Did you notice the amazing catastrophe over the weekend
All government offices were shut down for four days and nobody noticed. Is it true the legislature of Nevada only meets every other year? My fear is not of government confiscating guns , my fear is getting lost in government red tape. Like my passport a few years ago when I sent it in for a visa. Two weeks of calling to find out where it was and I had to find the FedEx hub that had finally got it, have them pull it off a truck, and pick it up on my way to the airport. I'm glad the FedEx gal liked me.
It cannot be done. Its to easy to make improvised forearms.
You can already 3D print one, with the cost of a printer being not much more than a single gun.
That's something I hadn't read about, interesting. I like the name WikiWeps!
Saw that technology featured on a CSI-New York drama a few years ago, when they were trying to figure out in the story how a pistol got past a metal detector.
Got a ways to go still before we can talk about molecular pattern replicators.
It is always a reasonable fear that government will seek to expand its power at the cost of your liberty. It has always been that way.
“Government is not reason, it is not eloquence, it is force; like fire, a troublesome servant and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action.”
George Washington
Government is permitted too much power, too much authority and it engages in far too much action without regard to the citizenry.
If Hitler, Mao, and Stalin can do it, so can any other tyrant. And yes, it's okay to compare Presidents to tyrants. It's an effective way to prevent history from repeating itself. Liberals don't seem to enjoy learning from history, which is probably why they are constantly re-writing it.
And rightwingers are the constant crybabies and alarmists, this is not Nazi Germany, Red China, nor the USSR.
I know history well enough to know that whatever and whenever there were tyrants it was the political Right that was at the forefront. That's in stone, no need to rewrite anything.Sorry to tell you but big government is on the left, small government is on the right.
Ergo, Libertarians, Conservatives, and Republicans are on the right.
Whereas Democrats, Liberals, Progressives, Socialists, Communists, and Fascists are on the left.
According to the brand of ideology, the government gets bigger, as the individual gets smaller. And with the degradation of societal morality comes a need for more lawmaking.Fascism is a right wing concept, lets not be fooled.... Did you think that Hitler, Mussolini or even Stalin were liberals?
It is silly to think that there is such a thing as "small government' for a society of 300 million people.Hiller, Mousolini, and Stalin were Socialists and Communists, which is left wing ideology.
And no, small government is not a silly idea, as far as federal government is concerned. You are forgetting that the states are set up to govern themselves. The federal government only has three duties to the people which they have failed miserably at.
Regulate commerce; Except that thanks to "the new deal" they have created a centralized banking system, and printed an abundance of money causing massive over inflation. Fail.
Provide for the general welfare; This was intended to provide for some infrastructure, that is things that are useful to the general public like building roads and dams, not pander to special interest groups, create social programs like social security that turn into Ponzi schemes. Fail.
Provide for the common defence; The amount of illegal immigrants that come into this country unchecked, and unvetted is unconscionable compared to any other country in the world, not to mention the massive overspending in a defense budget that does little to protect it's own citizens from real threats. (and I'm not talking about climate change). Fail.
Small government can work if the people choose to accept the general precepts of morality. The less moral a nation is, the more laws it gets until it becomes an oligarchy. Sadly there are few times in history that the world has experienced the kind of freedom that we now have, and as we degrade the rule of law as outlined in our constitution, we move from a republic, to an unhinged democracy, to an oligarchy, and dictatorship.Just because, Nazi has the word socialist in its abbreviation does not make it leftist. Totalitarianism and authoritarianism belongs comfortable in the world of the Right. Perhaps a little wikipedia is what you need to come down from your high horse?
Yes they are. A new law went into effect in California on Friday. The police if they know there is a gun in a house all they need is a reasonable doubt to confiscate it. What is a reasonable doubt? I saw your gun and I don't like guns, I am afraid of your gun. I call the police and tell them about your gun they come and take it.
If you are not doing something somebody doesn't like in this state you are wrong until proven guilty.
Time and again the people of California have been told their vote doesn't matter by the court. We are a one party state and if you get on someone's bad side it doesn't matter whether it's true; you are the bad guy.
When the authorities know there is a gun they don't always behave rationally.The point of this discussion is to show that the fear conservatives always have about Government taking their guns is not based on reality of the situation at hand.
I support registration, background checks, etc. Many conservatives do not agree. But the explanation of the Government confiscating that many guns from that many people is poor excuse for a reason. The others may have validity....Could you define what a conservative is?
This is all relative, but using this forum as a backdrop, I am certainly not one over most issues we discuss these days.
I would like to discuss with you in more detail, there are so many different aspects that have to touch upon to accurately answer that.
So, if you will be around and be patient, I will get back with you...
It may well deserve a thread of its ownI can only give generalizations of what conservatism seems to be using the example of posters on these forums
Based on the fear of the possibility of a development of a tyrannical government, Conservatives believe that the right to purchase and bear firearms is one not to be compromised through what they believe to be troublesome government oversight, i.e. registration, etc.
2. Conservatives seem to believe that aggressive anti-abortion policy/law should start at conception.
3. Conservatives want greater influence of religion, judeo-christian specifically in the public square as they say that it is the foundation of this country.
Conservatives seem to see the concept of government, itself, in an adversarial light. Too much regulation, they fall back on the concept of personal accountability. They say ‘less government more freedom”. Privatize, privatize, privatize.
Conservatives has an eternal faith in capitalism, and free markets to adjust imbalances in the American economy.
Conservatives are all hoorah about military spending as they say that is the only line of the budget that is controlled by circumstances abroad. This is their basis of a strong defense.
Conservatives say that there is a concept of ‘too much’ democracy, they emphasize ‘republic’ over democracy.
Conservative embrace the ideals of ‘traditional values”, if there ever was such a time?
Conservatives have a strong negative view of social spending, collectivism is their term. Based on their concept of the right people always doing the right things will always prevail, they believe charity should be left to the individual.
----------------------
I see in conservatism, of ‘an order in things’ and inequity is just the reality of that order. The concept of egalitarianism is futile. So, they say why fight the idea that some of us are more equal than others… It is going to turn out that way regardless of what you do.
Can you or anyone else, counter?My definition of a conservative and there are a sad few that actually qualify would be:
A person who takes responsibility for what they do.
A conservative would understand blaming is a dead end game.
A person who tries to do the right thing, and when they fail apologizes.
A person who is charitable toward those in need. This person will give from his own pocket book without expecting anything but a "Thank you" in return.
A person who understands that you can raise wages as high as you want, but there is a tipping point when people won't pay enough for your product for the company to make money.When a business doesn't make a profit and goes into debt it is doomed unless something changes. Either the product can be made cheaper or more people want it, but unless the company makes a profit the company will close and everyone who works for that company loses their jobs.
A person who helps someone become all they can be.
A person who knows hard work will reap benefits, but hard work is hard, it makes you tired and sometimes there doesn't seem to be any use in the hard work.
A person who goes to the origin of something to get facts then makes decisions.
A person who tells the truth.
A person who believes that all people are valuable.
I could go on for some time, but I have run out of time.
See conservative is complex. Many words people have a knee jerk reaction to are just as complex.This is a very true statement but it flails in the sense of our economic system. The statement "people won't pay enough for your product for the company to make money" is centered on a every real truth. The "virtuous cycle" as opposed to the "vicious cycle" is at the crux of the matter. Through the use of foreign labor markets the virtuous cycle has been interrupted by their use to drive down the costs. This lower cost is demanded due to the inability of the domestic marketplace to produce jobs and consequently the ability to pay higher wages, a vicious downward cycle The virtuous cycle is one where the costs are met by a rewarding those who spend what they earn to support the business' and the economy. This has always been the upward trend. We are in the throws of a vicious cycle the conservatives cannot reason their way out of. Venture Capitalists and such have rewarded us with this reality. It also happens one such "entrepreneur" was their last offering to us as President.
You might be surprised at how much it costs to employe engineers in India. - The tipping point between paying overseas workers may be near. In high tech at least. If rewarding people for spending works then we should be flouishing. GenXers sould be coming out of university and buying homes because of college loans. Instead many places Gen Xers are coming out of university with a house size payment on their student loans. They are also living with parents or crammed into college like living conditions to afford to live on their own. These kids are becoming so smart on saving money it's scary.
" If rewarding people for spending works then we should be flouishing."
I take this from you to mean we are spending at a pace that would qualify in the "virtuous cycle" I described. You have to be kidding. Statistically it has trended quite the opposite.
" Middle-class Americans made their deepest spending cuts in more than two decades, slashing spending on such discretionary items as restaurant meals and alcohol during the recession.
Households in the middle fifth of the population sliced their average annual spending to $41,150 in 2009, the Labor Department said Tuesday in its annual spending breakdown. That was down 3.1% from 2007 and 3.5% from 2008, the steepest one-year drop since records began in 1984. The drop came even as those households' after-tax income remained relatively stable over the two years, at an average $45,199." [1]
Without the spending there is no room for growth. Less costs does not translate into improved sales when the resources to purchase are taken away. We are currently in a "vicious cycle" by conducting a race to the bottom. Look at the giant retailers such as Walmart who have posted record losses and are now downsizing stock to reflect their sales. There is no spending going on that can support your supposition.
[1] http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB100014240 … 1401915382
Tireless, I certainly don't know any conservatives like this, for a matter of fact I don't very many people like this...
You might be surprised. They don't tend to scream and shout much.
I read the law, and you and I both know that it is not that simple. A judges warrant has to be obtained and that is a little more involved than some cop's reasonable doubt.
Why don't you read the bill for yourself?....Yes, there is more than a cop's reasonable doubt. Things such as purchase of ammunition can be considered, or arrest (not conviction, just arrest) for any felony any time in the past is a good indication of imminent danger. So is a family member angry at the victim - their testimony can be considered by the judge.
Sounds ripe for abuse to me. Another way to confiscate guns, and that it violates constitutional rules for search and seizure doesn't matter because it only applies to gun owners. Or at least only to people that someone thinks might be a gun owner.I don't think that search warrants are just handed out to cops willy-nilly. There needs to be compelling evidence and there is no reason to believe that the judges are not going to do their jobs as impartial evaluators of the circumstances.
Not according to what I view "compelling" to be and what the article I read said. It's nice to pretend that such laws won't be abused, or that they are not made with the intention to collect guns but that's a fantasy world, particularly in a land of over reaching liberalism and fear/hatred of guns. IMHO.
Oh no, Of all people to get me to participate in these gun control threads, it did have to be you. Oh well, at least I know I am not talking to a tree.
I had previously followed your advice to TirelessTraveler, so your admonishment causes me to wonder if you have read the bill.
Take a look at what the bill says to your inferred point that a judicially qualified person, (specifically, a judge), is required to issue a temporary Gun Violence restraining order;
*(from the text of the bill)
"...designate at least one judge, commissioner, or referee who is required to be reasonably available to issue temporary emergency gun violence restraining orders when the court is not in session." *(first paragraph of the executive digest of the bill)
Speaking for my state and county, (Maryland, Wicomico county), a commissioner is a designated "up-right" citizen, not required to have legal or judicial training. I do not know what a "referee's" qualifications would be. It would only be speculation to fix a number to the percentage of order requests made outside of normal court session hours, but even so it still seems worth noting that contrary to your assertion, it is highly probable that such an order could be validated by someone no more judicially qualified than being an acquaintance of someone involved in the commissioner selection process.
Considering that perspective, the argument that a "judge" will evaluate the validity of the request as a filter against knee-jerk, frivolous, or maliciously motivated requests, seems a little weak.
A couple further points might be of interest to those who think this bill is judicially sound as it relates to a subject's right of due process.
1) the notice of the restraining order need only be served on the subject if they can be "reasonably" located. Hmm... who decides what is reasonable location efforts?
2) the process to get a restraining order can be done ex parte, which we all know means the subject does not have to be present to defend against such an order.
So if the gun owner doesn't have to be notified of the process unless they are reasonably easy to find, and if the order can be granted without the presence of the gun owner during the process, and if the process can be approved and granted by someone with no judicial qualifications, (the "referee")...
... then maybe your assertion that everything is hunky-dory because a judge approved it should be revisited.
Just sayin'
GASo, I brought you out of hiding, I have to be good to annoy so many people at once.
Yes, the question remains what is the training associated with being a referee or commissioner. GA, I would like to believe that just not anybody is given the authority to issue a warrant to police to search my property?
I think that it is a bit of a reach to presume that these referee types are unqualified to come to an appropriate decision. Without evidence of that, I have to assume otherwise.
So how do we define 'reasonable suspicion' in the legal lexicon? I don't have all the answers, GA, but neither does the other side.
The gun people can stop sweating profusely, you can bet that this will be challenged in court the moment that abuse of this provision is found to take place.No worries tirelesstraveler, Credence2 was probably expecting me anyway. He has been drifting a little lately, and I usually try to pull him back from the Dark side.
GAI think that your going polarized on me. The Right is the only truly 'dark side' in the endless battle for truth and justice. I believe that I have come up with a fitting 'purple' solution to the problem.
I disagree with the right being the Dark side, but I sure agree with your efforts for purple solutions.
Of course you know it is only my opinion, (but you also must be aware of the depth of my wisdom), but I think you should add an adjective to your use of "Right." Like maybe far Right, or extreme Right, or Fringe Right, or even Nutcase Right. All Conservatives, (the real Right), do not match the degrees I mentioned above, and thus do not deserve your barbs.
And speaking of the Right, (or the Left), what the hell happened to Centrist? Nobody admits to being a Centrist. Nobody admits to taking a little from both sides to reach an equilibrium that best serves all. Except me! A Centrist is a Purple! I am a Purple!
GAI am a progressive right. Does that add to your theory of centrist?
I don't have a theory. I was just looking for another perspective to argue with.
GA
You 'a centrist' are on the endangered species list. All conservative politics these days are far right, extreme right, nutcase right and fringe. Show me a voice of moderation anywhere near just right of center? I haven't seen it, have you? Look at the candidates that the party that supposidly represents conservatives are fielding, anyone of them with a hint of moderation is being drummed out from consideration. Look at who is at the top of the food chain, Trump and Cruz, two of the worst reactionaries to be ever let loose upon an unsuspecting public. Look at the strong following these guys have among 'reasonable conservatives' The wackos are, for many of us, changing the meaning of what it is to be 'conservative' . The Right will never compromise. But, while it has an unassailable outer battle chasis, it resembles that eternal 'death star' that has to made ineffective by carefully throwing the perverbial 'wrench' in just the right places, inside the gutty-works!
You gave me a pause Credence2, about this Centrist thing I mean. I even checked out a color spectrum just to be sure. I peg my range to be from magenta to violet, with primary purple in the middle. A Centrist is probably within a lane or two, (on either side), of my band, but I think our paths diverge more than they parallel. I'll give it to the Curmudgeon to mull over a bit.
"...I haven't seen it... Look at the candidates... a hint of moderation is being drummed out... "
I am hopeful you haven't seen them because their priorities aren't for the cameras. To the candidates... that is party politics. Practiced by both parties. It just seems like our current El Nino has affected the Republicans as well as the weather.
As for the Wacko's effect on you, isn't that a perspective that would be similar to almost any class/group/category identity problem? I would be a little more generous and offer that the fringe seems to be bleeding into the cloth of the party.
The Repubs, as a party, do seem to be in bad shape, but I bet you can still find some good ones if you look beyond the cameras.
GAwhere are the good ones? What about that moderate from Utah that was in the running in 2012, he was dismissed summarily. If they are any good ones they are not competing in this race. GA, the fringe has soaked the cloth of the party in blood! Being fair, I don't see as much contention from the Democrats or the Left.
These 'candidates' are supposed to be the Presidential timber that could very well be running things, if they playing for the cameras hopefully for them they will return back to the center before they can consider the jigs up for majority as the moderate general electorate. I don't think that GOP central wants moderate candidates, it is only the 'red meat' that incites their constituency to come to the polls.I think you have the "red meat" part right. Reminds me of something I read about Churchhill's government during WWII.
The Conservatives were out of power and dissatisfied with the direction of Churchill's policies, (mostly relative to support for Russia). One Minister noted that the Conservatives were so frustrated that even moderate, (or Centrists), Conservatives were pushed further and further right - to the point of grabbing at any hunk of meat offered.
Could a similar occurrence be happening here. Could the over-reaction of many on the Right be their expression of the degree of frustration they are feeling for policies like Obamacare? Frustration that is deep enough to push normally reasonable people onto Trump's train?
GAChurchill did not get into the history books as an exemplary British PM for nothing.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend, he knew the wisdom of playing ball with Stalin as Nazism, not Communism, was the immediate threat. The pressure of a two front war helped break the Nazi war machine. History shows that the two guys, Churchill and Stalin, did not like each other, and the ever gracious FDR played referee. By the time we approached the end of the war, it was clear that Churchill wanted to contain the USSR's influence in the postwar world.
I can't understand how Obama has created so much anger, he is of the center left variety, not so much different than Bill Clinton. But Bill Clinton was a political genius and was a better consensus builder than Obama is. Clinton destroyed the GOP 'contract with America' and set the GOP up for countless 'Looney Tune' type pratfalls. So while, Clinton had to deal with a hostile GOP congress, I don't think that the obstructionism approached that experienced by Obama and that did not help.
I can't believe that Obamacare is the sole source of all the public angst. It is the guns, a certain amount of racism/xenophopbia anxiety. Obama is just standing for progressive policies, as he was elected by the majority and that should be no surprise to anyone. But this tilt of the Dems and the left has been around since at least LBJ, but this fellow Obama is likened to the anti-christ. What has he done that 'breaks the mold' so greatly to get this much opposition?
I am answering a question with a question...."...What has he done that 'breaks the mold' so greatly to get this much opposition?
I am answering a question with a question...."
I can only answer your question with an opinion, not provable facts, and the starting point for me is the way Obamacare was passed. I am not completely averse to the concept of national healthcare, but the Affordable Care Act is not it.
Even worse, (for me), than the Act, is the way it was passed. It was not enacted by the people's will, it was bought!
"Louisiana Purchase": $300M in Medicare funding in ObamaCare"
"Look at the shameless bribes used to get wavering Democratic senators to vote for the healthcare bill. These bribes were so outrageous--even by Washington standards--they each earned a nickname:
The Louisiana Purchase: Sen. Landrieu was promised an additional $300 million in Medicaid funding for Louisiana.
The Cornhusker Kickback: Perhaps inspired by his Louisiana colleague, Sen. Ben Nelson secured exemptions for Nebraska's Medicaid payments worth around $100 million.
Gator Aid: Sen. Bill Nelson inserted a grandfather clause that would protect Florida's Medicare Advantage program, a $2.5-$3 billion buyoff.
Additionally, Democratic senators from NE, VT, MA, MI, CT, MT, SD, ND, and HI secured bonuses in the Medicare payments for hospitals in their states worth more than $2 billion. Although the so-called "reconciliation bill" stripped out some of these abuses, they were only removed due to widespread public outrage.
*Admittedly this blurb is from Gringrich's To Save America, but the facts aren't wrong.
I remember Senator Landrieu as a constant face in the news because she was a Democrat declaring herself a strong `No' vote until just before the vote was scheduled, then she suddenly announced she was a `Yes' vote after getting more money for her state. $300 million was the price publicized. A number she quipped was insufficient to buy her vote - what she got for her state was much more than $300 million.
That is my primary beef with this administration. It may be more or less influential to others. I also suggest that others less Purple than myself probably have a few more of his policies that feel as strongly about.
My answer to your question is that when an administration starts with public political shenanigans as stinky as this, and continues with similar antics, (remember when the Senate evoked the "Nuclear Option" in order to pass legislation with the votes they could get instead of the previously required non-Nuclear numbers mandated...), then I have a very serious trust problem that is not helpful in persuading me regarding policies I do not agree with, but might consider. And since I see myself as a fairly typical American voter, I can imagine a very large segment with similar thoughts.
That is how I think "he broke the mold" in the minds of a lot of moderate conservative voters, (and maybe some "progressive" voters too as I recall some of our previous exchanges). Just imagine how "broke" that mold is to the minds of Right and Far-Right conservatives.
GA
You are not a typical American voter, you are much informed about the Affordable Care Act than the average guy on the street.
I have received mixed reviews on Obamacare. I fault the administration for having so many people for so long a time not really understanding what the program was and how it worked.
To this day, while for 62nd time the GOP house votes to abolish Obamacare, they have nothing with which to replace it. They stonewalled from the beginning, just determined to say NO. From what I heard, the President, at the beginning considered a 'single payer' program, but backed off based on all the vitrol from the Right (GOP). This problem festered, what was the GOP solution, besides doing nothing at all? While I am hardly an expert in this area, I know that doing nothing was not progress.
I loved FDR comments when asked about his New Deal programs. He said we are going try this and try that and if something does not work, we will try again with something different, but we will always be committed to DOING something.
Believe me, many of us on the Blue side have far fewer problems. I don't ever hear any suggestions from the GOP as to how to improve or adjust the program, just NO. That's not leadership and it is not good enough. WE are vexed over what we have seen as an obstructionist, recalcitrant GOP house, that would not work with Obama at any level. Their credibility from our point of view is Zero. It may be just me, but my opinion is that Obama was more forthcoming with compromise against a stubborn, bull headed conservative right (GOP).
I am not excusing any corruption that was associated with the Obamacare that you touched on, but in the world of politics has that not always been part of the game? At least, the ultimate goal was something that was to the benefit all of us, and not just the moneyed few. As I said, the reviews that I have read on Obamacare have been mixed.Seems to me that the biggest problem here is that you forget/ignore the basic difference between the libs and the GOP (conservatives). It isn't that the GOP refuses to "do anything" or that they are the party of the "do nothing".
Instead it is the very basic difference in idealogy - the libs are primarily interested in shortening and strengthening the apron strings while the GOP is primarily interested in limiting government to the bare necessities we all use (roads, military, etc.). In the matter of health care, one side demands cradle to grave care for everyone while the other says it is the responsibility of the individual to care for themselves. Somewhat of an exaggeration, of course, in that libs will force companies to provide it for some while the GOP allows medicaid and children's care at public expense. But the basics are there: libs want total control, GOP wants zero control.
So when you complain the GOP doesn't offer an alternative plan to provide everyone with health care, of course they don't! It is but another chain for the nanny state and is an anathema to their core beliefs of self sufficiency and responsibility! Much like asking the libs to not only drop the idea but cut out all medicaid, womens and childrens care as well - a place where the libs "do nothing" or try to "progress negatively".
So all this rhetoric about the GOP "doing nothing" on health care is just that: empty rhetoric intended to demonize a different basic belief system about the role of government. The libs are unwilling to discuss anything but total care, while the GOP is unwilling to accept it. Is there no compromise (such as what we already had), or will the libs stop at nothing but a total refutation of personal responsibility in favor of total nanny state?
Perhaps a side note or complaint, but it seems that both sides (or all sides) have decided that no compromise is ever possible on anything. Whether health care, abortion, gay rights or gun control it is always a continued effort with no compromised stopping point in the middle. What's happened to us that we refuse to agree, always demanding total control of decision making without regard to anyone else's ideas, wants or needs?
From GA's post:
"Speaking for my state and county, (Maryland, Wicomico county), a commissioner is a designated "up-right" citizen, not required to have legal or judicial training."
Should answer the question as to what training they must have in order to instigate confiscating guns.
But you're right - this will be contested in court and won't last long there. So some other method of grabbing guns from innocent people will arise to take it's place; it isn't be the first time and won't be the last.Wilderness, from an recent earlier post above. So what is this 'personal responsibility'? So, is it the conservatives that decide what is absolutely essential minimal government? So, social security, medicare/medicaid are all 'nanny government'? You conservatives are NEVER realistic, all of those old hominies roll off from the tongue so easily. You guys seem to think that we all should be able to individually save all the money that we will need for the horrendous costs of medicine. You are more than willing to let the ripoff artists take everything saying that the consumer man in the street should be able such and defend with his or her own resources. You are against EPA and very concept of the Government as referee, regulator whose oversight assists and protects the consumer and citizen This is not the "Waltons" and not resembling your idyllic Idaho. The world is a more complicated place and your position is an anachronism. No regulation, no oversight, people are just responsivble for protecting themselves with inferior knowledge and access?
What you seek is simply not possible and acceptable today.
But, you are anachronistic in so many other ways. I found, on a different note that minimum wage laws are applicable for 90 percent of world's nations. What is it that all these people and governments know that you don't?
Those old 19th century ideas, freshened up and made to serve again? Progressivism is the future, it is the only road consistent with modernity and progress.Kind of what I said, isn't it? No concern for the other view, just an eternal quest for more government control. All conservatives recognize a need for government, but liberals appear to have no limit to what government could and should do. Personal responsibility is to be eliminated as much as possible, presumably because our citizens are not capable taking care of themselves and need a nanny to do it for them.
Progressivism is indeed the wave of the future, and we see the results in places like Greece. It will be our future, too, unless the conservatives can exert enough strength to stop it. It appears to me that all nations will eventually succumb when the nanny state is the goal, but perhaps we can put it off for a while.
Absolutely welfare is a part of a nanny state. So is medicaid and, to a lesser extent, SS. By definition.
Ripoff artists can only "take everything" if you allow it. The lib method is for the ripoff artists called "politicians" to determine when that happens; the conservative method is for the consumer/worker/citizen to make that decision themselves. Should they fail to educate themselves they will be ripped off, but the lib guarantees it will happen as the decision is being made by the artists themselves!An example, Wilderness, do you know what a derivative is? I touched on studies of calculus years ago. Because of much of the resistance of conservatives to eliminate Glass-Stengall banks can use funds of unsuspecting like a Vegas roulette machine. The GOP was in cahoots with the 401k industry in their resistance to full disclosure of the fees and surcharges associated with managing the millions of 401k plans people were counting on for their retirements.
You approach says that the people should be able to do the 'calculus' on their own and that the institutions that were ripping them off should not be subject to any government regulation or requirement.
For the consumer/worker/citizen to make the decisions they have to have access to knowledge and you are a big guy and should know that these services and industries prefer to operate dishonestly unless given strong incentive to do otherwise. If there is no light shining on you, why not take as much as you can? The people are not qualified to discern the difference, that is what they count on But we are all supposed to trust them without reservation?
Reminds me of the restaurant industry in California where a placard has to be placed in plain site having a A-D rating as to the evaluation of health inspectors of their respective establishment. I guess without that hated regulation and the nanny government, we endure unsanitary conditions that we would know nothing about until someone got sick. Where does 'personal responsibility' come to play here?
So, there is a standard while it does not guarantee that all restaurants are clean and safe places to eat, the state of California provides a strong incentive. People NOW have the choice, based on knowledge to bypass establishments making informed decisions on where they choose to eat.
Pretty clever of those Californians, isn't it?Actually, I don't particularly disagree with the placard thing. I DO disagree with shutting down all the restaurants that don't get an A rating because people are too stupid to read the placard.
So sure, government can be helpful in educating the public...when the public chooses to be educated. When they do not, it is their own fault (for the most part) and not some bureaucrat somewhere that failed in his job because he didn't prevent consequences that education would have.
Bottom line - people ARE responsible for finding the "calculus". And if they aren't smart enough to do so then stay away from that business. It really isn't that difficult a concept - that you can take a sucker only with their participation - and that most of the time government is unnecessary. Not always - government does has it's place in protecting people - but for the most part people can do it themselves if they weren't so greedy themselves.Yes, If people are too stupid to read the placard then the risk is on them. But the placard is necessary and serves a vital purpose. YOu seem to have reservation about your not particularely disagreeing. I insist that the placard always be there and that education is an appropriate role of government, which the conservatives are in arms about. I don't trust the free market, nor 'people wanting to basically do the right thing' (that might hold in Idaho) but nowhere else. Certainly not the crazy idea of personal responsibility, expecting people to be expert on everything that they touch without the benifit of a 'placard'.
What are you conservatives all about? You seem to imply that Government oversight is unnecessary and incidental. That carton of buttermilk could contain all sorts of bacteria, salmonella etc. I just don't have a functioning biochemistry lab at my address to test everything that I buy at the grocers. I let USdA do that.
The public cannot choose to be educated if you start out with the attitude that there need be no educator. I strap myself with confidence into my airplane seat knowing that all the airlines are given oversight by the government to make sure that the machines are safe to fly, they don't rely on the private sector and their profit motive,'if an airline has enough crashes and other mishaps the consumer using the free-market will just find an alternate carrier?'
This is a complex world, I dunno how things are in Idaho. The very water you drink has to be inspected, because what you don't know, as your senses has limitations, can injure and kill you.
Sometimes conservatives can be so simplistic in their reasoning that it can very irritating.
In breakfast cereal industry, Kellogs met federal guidelines as to how much extraneous material was allowed in their corn flakes, 'rat droppings' etc. The market would do to move people away from Kellogs if the extraneous material were clearly visable in the product, they might go to General Mills, instead. You can rely on the fact that if Kellogs wanted to stay in business they would keep the extraneous matter invisible to the naked eye. Why do any more, to reach a greater standard of purity raises costs. Since the consumer cannot tell the difference, why raise costs?
But the no-mans land, the level and type of extraneous material that can be detected by the naked eye with the other pole being materials at levels that are considered safe. That is true with virtually everything and that is the Government's job. You are not the expert in every aspect of life that we live with within this modern world, its impossible. But according to conservatives, you better have a chemlab in your garage. And you cannot realistically"stay away' from everything just because you are not a Rhodes Scholar in that area. But, maybe thats possible in Idaho?
So, I say that most of the time the Government IS necessary and only a small part are things that people can evaluate from cradle to grave themselves.
You didn't annoy me, I have my bathing suit on and have been ready to jump in as soon as I found a pool that wasn't so hot.
Relative to a "referee's" qualifications I am not saying they wouldn't be qualified to make good and reasonable decisions, but I think an order concerning possible legal charges, detainment, and search and seizure events might be most justly served by the "typical" judicial processes for these actions. I think a legal background is needed.
My use of "up-right" citizen was not intended as a slight, just a descriptor I think most of us would understand.
As a starting point; If a better written version of this law was enacted via the will of the people, (Californians), I would not have a problem with it. I wouldn't like it, and I wouldn't live within its jurisdiction, but I strongly feel that the folks of a society should be able to make their rules* (Hold on folks, you know I mean within legal and constitutional boundaries)
I did read the text of the bill, and this first paragraph 'who can do it' issue is just the starter. The rest of it has even more just trust us ambiguous sections.
For one, as Wilderness' thread on this stated, it could be possible for someone to make the charge with convincing lies and get an order placed. Proponents aren't describing it that way, but the wording is so unqualified that the potential is there. Too readily there in my opinion.
To your question about "reasonable suspicion," I don't think there is a short-cut. In any lexicon. With consequences as serious as these, (on both sides, damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't), I think nothing less than our established judicial process for warrants; arrest or search and seizure, will service the needs of one and of all.
GAI was under the impression that the judicial process used for this 'firearm provision' would mirror that otherwised used for arrest and search and seizure. I would have problems with the bill if all this watered down. It shouldn't be. Whatever is required for issuing any warrant should be the same in the case of this law. Otherwise, I would be concerned about extralegal processes.
The whole raison d'etre about consevative reasoning is 'just trust us'. This in virtually every aspect of American life, with the noted exception of the 2nd Amendment.
The systems has its checks and balances and you can be sure that all that hot head energy from the gun people will never be dissapated until this law, if allowed to stay, is rightsized.No, no, no, no! It is the text of the law that infers the "just trust us" interpretation. I am sure you don't think it was Conservatives that wrote this law.
And the process only "mirrors" the usual judicial process during court hours. After hours it is written as catch as catch can, after hours the process could be reduced to "referees" making decisions normally reserved for judges.
GANo, that is not what I meant, I say the conservatives say trust us: no regulation needed on Wall Street, the market and operators will do the right thing
Trust us, we don't need federal intervention on Civil Rights all of us 'good people' down here are coming along and making progress.
Always the assumption that good people (of Mayberry) will do what they have not or should have done ready, that they have yet to do, on their own volition, without the force of law to encourage them.
Sorry to confuse, I was not specifically speaking of this particular law when I used that term.
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago
0So , Its obvious to me that so many anti -gun people have a paranoia about guns !
Which tells me ., they not only DON"T own them , but fear them INTENSLY .........
' One gun for every American " .......But I know at least three collectors who own a couple of hundred guns ......each ! , I myself own primitive guns in the numbers of thirty or so . ................Kind of blows it out of the water .......
"A gun for every American"...... but drivel on people !
If liberals could simply "get over ' their paranoia for a moment and actually use their heads , they would find that first of all , GUNS aren't the problem , no more than baseball bats are a problem, related to crime !
But.............you won't , you will go on with this meaningless , accomplish-ness drivel !
Look , The sky is falling ! 5150, that will qualify you to have guns taken away from you. No judge involved. There is a rare judge in California who would not sign a court order to search for guns.
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
America , has simply had enough of political correctness , and the kicker here is this , Its origination was from both sides ! Obama isn't so bad as a political leader , It's simply that he is weak when the majority of Americans elected him they were virtually ready for a change that they themselves didn't comprehend . But that would have required a strong leader ........ He is not that leader .
As a nation , civilians were ready for the" change " more than even for the" hope" , hope in itself , ,is for fools , if it is entertained without change !
President Obama is simply not all that embellishing as a leader , his style is simply quiet ! Quietly rhetorical , weak . Jimmy Carter -weak ! I wish he wasn't though , I wish that he really hadn't resorted to partisan rhetoric so soon in his presidency , that was the breaking point that decided that he couldn't move beyond America's expectations ............ he's just Average . According to some reports, Estimates are UP to roughly 350 Million GUNz in America, an ASTOUNDING Number and we STILL Experience SIGNIFICANT Gun Violence ~
Even at 310 MILLION, I guess it Definitively Contradicts & Dis-Proves that Ridiculous CONservative CON-Job that "More GUNz will Keep us SAFER", an INSANE Theory which has been pretty much "Blown out of the WATER" ~
So how SATURATED with GUNz do OUR Streets need to be in order to "Make Us SAFE" & Eliminate "Gun Crime" ?? 500 MILLION ? 750 Million ? 1 BILLION ? ~
~Except for the fact that most of those murders occur in gun free zones like Chicago, Detroit, D.C., and New Orleans.
Here's the Overriding FACT ~ There are way too many DUBIOUS & Suspect sources & links posted in these chat forums so I'm really not sure how ACCURATE your Stats are but in Reality, you need to look at the BIG Nationwide Picture ~
CONservatives have been espousing the Nonsensical NRA Rhetoric that " GUNz make us SAFE" ~ This is their ENTIRE Ridiculous Argument in a Proverbial Nutshell ~
In approximate numbers, there is NOW at LEAST 1 Gun for every American for a TOTAL of roughly 310-350 MILLION GUNz in America, so my question still stands ~ Are we SAFE? The CORRECT answer is NO which means the NRA Contrived CONservative Republican Rhetoric & THEORY has Clearly been De-Bunked & Disproven just like the "LOCH-Ness Monster" and "Jed Bush's Competency to be President" ~The scary part of a 1 gun per person tally is that these same people (all of us in total) can't even get our political system in order let alone have the power of life and death in our hands.
But in REALITY, OUR "Political System" is just FINE with a few Tweaks to "Lobbyists & Campign Contributions" ~
It's the Irrational Republican Party that is Now Defunct, a party of unscrupulous individuals who at this very moment, has just completed its 50th ATTEMPT at Stripping Away Health Care Insurance from approx 15 MILLION Americans while at the SAME Time, VOTING to "Allow & Enable" Suspect "NO Fly" individuals to Purchase GUNz here in America ~
Your Perverted Republican VALUES at Play once again ~ NOW you know one reason WHY the GOP must be "IGNORED & Bypassed" by OUR President whenever possible in order to get POSITIVE things DONE for "We the People" ~You always play this boogeyman tack and love to blame others for what is "OUR" fault. "WE" elect these people who brainwash us with this type of dribble while the elitist criminals representing us rule as proxies. They love this as it takes the focus from actually doing something about our problems to allowing them to continue unabated despite the vote. Democrat, Republican, Liberal or Conservative, it makes no difference as both sides are paid off to do as they are told. You are wasting your time with this partisan dribble. Don't feel bad your counterpart is only too happy to accommodate your argument.
Well if we look at real facts we find that there are roughly 32'000 gun related deaths in America per year and declining.
60% are suicides. that's 19,200.
3% are accidents, that's 960.
4% are justified, that's 1,280.
33% are homicides, that's 10,560.
80% of those homicides are gang related, that's 8,488.
Which leaves 1,712 in a society of 312 million people. Which makes a 0.00010256410256% chance of death by a gun.
0.000008564102564% chance if you don't hang out in a hood, are not planning on committing suicide, and are not planning a crime.
Sorry to tell you, but the real problem is the Federal government attempting to disarm it's citizenry, and a gaggle of anti-gun idiots trying to push a narrative that is indefensible.
And yes, guns do make us safe.Well, once again, to reiterate, if you accept irrefutable Mathematical FACTS Combined with "Death & Police Reports", the Factual Conclusion reveals that we are absolutely NOT SAFE, even with OVER 300 Million GUNz now Flooding our Streets ~ I understand CONservative Republicans REJECT Factual Data, but that still dosen't Change things in the REAL World ~ You should try telling the Victims of Sandy Hook that we are SAFE ~
The question still STANDS ~ With approximately 1/3 of a Billion Firearms Already Outstanding in America, How Many TOTAL GUNz will it take to make us SAFE?
P.S. Onusonus ~ If taken at Face Value, According to your OWN Stats, ONLY 4% of Gun Crimes are Justified, a ANEMIC Number which simply Proves my Math Based Suggestion that GUNz do NOT Keep us Safe ~Yes we are very safe because we have guns. We are safe from foreign invaders, we are safe from a tyrannical government, and we are safe from murderers.
As stated before, unless you are planning on taking a trip through the hood, or committing suicide, there is a 0.000008% chance out of 312 million people that you will be shot.
Your irrational feelings and indefensible logic do not trump my constitutional rights.If your IDEA of Keeping us SAFE from Gun Violence is roughly 32,000 Gun Deaths ANNUALLY as a direct Result of "Flooding our Streets" with GUNz, then More Power to U ~
P.S. ~ If the BIG Evil Government does indeed send our BIG Evil United States Armed Forces out to "GITcha" for whatever reason, don't U think it might be Prudent & WISE to have a few "F-Whatever Jets n' Armored Tanks" at the ready, not justa Pea-Shooter ? ~You need some spell check my friend.
Most of those deaths are by suicide, so given your way, if we removed guns from the scenario they would still be commuting suicide, just in a different way. And as has been proven in other countries, when you outlaw guns, the crime rate nearly doubles.
Now since you are so concerned with the kill rate, regardless of the reason, why are you not advocating against the use of automobiles? After all, 30,800 vehicular deaths per year is on par with the gun death rate.lol....Here we GO.....You're pretty LATE to the Conversation so I'll just say stick to your Republican "PRETEND-Land" Facts
- ahorsebackposted 8 years ago0
THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN AMERICA right now is a double edged sword . One edge is the political APATHY of its populace who seeks such a utopia in it's lifestyle while at the same time it lets its government roll over them creating another tax, another revenue source and higher taxes all the time . While at the same time it stands by watching silently as individual liberties disappear !
Related Discussions
- 113
My Four African-American Sons & Trayvon makes Five...
by chipsball 11 years ago
Having survived the "Rites of Passage of an African-American Teenager in America" myself as a teenager and having raised four African-Americans teenagers in America I feel so blessed today that none of them ever encountered George Zimmerman. Nor having them ever being judged by the jurors...
- 88
Would you consider a total ban on possessing a gun in America?
by safiq ali patel 9 years ago
If the United States Federal Government outlawed the possession of Guns what would your response be?
- 189
74% Think Americans Have Constitutional Right To Own A Gun
by Susie Lehto 8 years ago
The majority of American people believe the right to own a firearm for self-defense is their choice to make, not the governments. http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_ … _own_a_gunThe U.S. Supreme Court said eight years ago that the Constitution guarantees our fundamental right to keep a...
- 32
What do you think about gun control? Stricter or needs to be more lax?
by JustSimple Info 12 years ago
What do you think about gun control? Stricter or needs to be more lax?This issue always comes up during an unfortunate tragedy, I would like to know what people think. Keep it sensible and respectful please.
- 386
Gunman Takes the Life of a 1-year-old Child
by SpanStar 11 years ago
A 1-year-old baby girl shot to death by a Gunman who was shooting at a babysitter carrying the child running away.http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/08 … lence?liteI wonder what other countries think of a country who continuously incur innocent men, women and children murdered needlessly...
- 346
Gun Controls or Criminal Controls !
by ahorseback 10 years ago
Eric Holder seems to think we need an ankle bracelet to even use a gun and be able to stop crime in America ? And yet , he can't even control his ! He, is the one that needs an ankle bracelet !