tvashtarkatena

Don't forget to chant your 'What Would Kevbone Do?' mantra! "I'll try harder in the future, Mommy Dearest!"

Hey, have your sent your signature "You're on notice" PM to Choad Boy yet? Fucking little limp dicked weasel.

Get real. We've always been a nation of shysters. Seen that ads all over the place about getting your free money from the government?

Not difficult at all, Mike, but it can be tough when you post complete bullshit and you're called on it, eh? Commercial means a business license. Would you get a business license for your example? If so, then you're subject to inspection. Not only do I NOT have a problem with that, but I think selling guns commercially with a federal dealers license out of your home should be illegal, not just subject to inspection. Wanna sell guns? Open a proper store. These dealers sell most of the guns used in violent crime. It's a problem that's been known for decades (I first read about it around 15 years ago). So, after having waded through the misinformation you guys have foisted upon us here, and read a synopsis of the bill, I've decided that it's actually very good policy that addresses a long standing problem. I'm going to support it. You guys constantly complain about how you need your guns because the police aren't doing a good enough job fighting crime, then oppose the very kind of bills that would actually keep guns out the hands of criminals. Frankly, it smacks of pure self indulgence. The greater public good? Not even the remotest consideration.

The Baby Jebus hates you, jmo.

I Snoped this. Acccording to that resource (not the be all and end all,but I don't care enough to spend more than a minute or two on it) the bill does not include home inspection, only inspection of firearm storage for sale or commerce. Needless to say, I couldn't find any reference to 'no knock' entry. That stuff just didn't sound right to me, so I checked it out. It isn't. I guess I should give you credit for trying, but can't you find anything better than Snope? Like, maybe the real thing. "In order to ascertain compliance with this Act, the amendments made by this Act, and the regulations and orders issued under this Act, the Attorney General may, during regular business hours, enter any place in which firearms or firearm products are manufactured, stored, or held, for distribution in commerce, and inspect those areas where the products are so manufactured, stored, or held." http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c111:1:./temp/~c111ednGHt:e27968: Um, yeah, that's exactly what Snopes said. For commerce only. Not home inspections, as was asserted prior. The government can inspect a gun shop or factory. Big fucking deal. Jebus, man, learn to read.

One of the obvious problems with new licensing/inspection legislation is the cost of enforcement; which can take away limited resources, such as police, from, well, fighting the crime that the citizens wanna own guns to protect themselves from. When thinking about new legislation, its helpful to put if through the 'what if i were in charge' test. If you were in charge of enacting it, what would that entail?

First of all, the vast majority of violent crime involves abuse of alcohol, not illegal drugs. Think about that the next time you can't keep a beer from jumping down your throat. 2nd, If you're referring to drug addiction and the crime it generates, you'd be the first to come up with a total solution. The best approach (as exhibited by other countries who've followed it) is harm reduction through decriminalization and treatment; ie, bringing addicts (which will make up a percentage of any given population) within some form of state, but not criminal, control. The U.S., with its puritanical 'zero tolerance' mentality, hasn't taken to this idea yet, but it will...because it literally can no longer afford $$$ not to.

1) Much of the Bush administration's erosion of civil liberties and privacy happened without any legislation. 2) The proponents of such actions always claim they're for the common good. In the case of gun control, the aim has always been to stop gun related crime. The 'stated intent' doesn't mean that there are not hidden agendas, or that the action won't actually worsen the situation, or that the government won't sell your information to corporations (yes, this has happened) for solicitation purpose, or lose it, or put you on the wrong list and fuck up your life, or that the action is Constitutional and in line with American values concerning liberty. 3) the majority of weapons used in crimes sold by federally licensed dealers are sold by a minority of shady dealers operating out of their homes. Federal licensing should require a valid storefront for the commercial sale of firearms to get rid of these assholes. 4) There's nothing wrong or novel about requiring a licensing procedure for the purchase/sale of a potentially deadly machine. Cars come to mind. The bill in question seems to be a licensing procedure. It does not prevent one from owning a firearm. As an aside, as of about 2 years ago when I researched this issue, police were required to knock, then wait 10 seconds before they blow your door down. I don't know if that has changed or not. Obviously, there can be 'plus or minus a few seconds' effect in practice. I don't know if no knock entry to a private residence is legal in any situation currently.

How does FOX know that a quarter of smokers are 'working' poor, nevermind 'poor'? BTW, about 18% of Americans in general are 'poor'. The Debbil's in the details.

Bottom line is this; you gun nuts have been voting republican for a while now, and that party's been pushing an anti-civil rights, pro police state agenda pretty hard, with a lot of success. Your chances of hiding these days are pretty much zero. Well, now the anti-gun side (as I've predicted for years now) is in charge and they want your guns gone, and now they have all the surveillance and enforcement tools to make sure you comply. Personally, I don't happen to agree with that agenda, but you've made your bed, now you have to lie in it. We'll see how you like playing defense for a change. You might think a little ahead next time before you vote the totalitarian ticket.

I Snoped this. Acccording to that resource (not the be all and end all,but I don't care enough to spend more than a minute or two on it) the bill does not include home inspection, only inspection of firearm storage for sale or commerce. Needless to say, I couldn't find any reference to 'no knock' entry. That stuff just didn't sound right to me, so I checked it out. It isn't.

You're 'what if' argument about the German Jews is just plain silly. German gun ownership laws at the beginning of Hitler's rise were not significantly more restrictive than present ones in the U.S. You can wax hypothetical to the point of ridiculous all you want, but what happened happened despite the ready availability of personal firearms there. Stick to things that actually happened, taken in context and you'll do a lot better. So, if I get this straight, you're comparing the U.S. to a failed state with no infrastructure newly occupied by a clueless invader? A state with an unemployed standing army, virtually all of its arsenal readily available on the black market, surrounded by leaky borders to hostile nations? OK. Whatever, myan. Pass me the joint. As an experiment, you might try blowing off some IEDs here. The rest of us will kick back and time how long your little insurrection lasts. You might find that a little home court advantage goes a long way...but not in your favor.

Impressive. Suggestion: Have someone else jerk it next time.

BTW, I'm not even for the assault rifle ban. It's just a way for the Dems to lose votes and not gain a damn thing...it's politically stupid. But you gun nuts have been completely gamed by the GOP. They've spoon fed you the myth that participating in shooting sports somehow keeps America free, while all the time raping habeus corpus, probable cause, due process, free speech and expression, privacy, and religious freedom (by pushing one religion's agenda, of course). Way to be ever vigilant.

This is gonna be like taking candy from a baby. If all our other freedoms depend on the 2nd amendment, why are there many, many other countries that lack such a right that are as free or freer (much of Europe comes to mind) than ours? How free a society is depends not at all on personal gun ownership: it depends on the strength and justness of the rule of law and the institutions that support it. Last time I checked, the institutions of the United States, while somewhat worse for wear after the Bush years, is still very much intact. Personal gun ownership a mythical deterrent to tyranny, but it makes a great fund raising pitch for certain well moneyed organizations. The idea of that lone family or Wile E. militia band, making a stand with AR15s and shotguns against the full might of the government, is laughable on its face. While you're at home cleaning your 'arsenal', telling yourself how people like you are 'protecting freedom', there are other people and organizations out there out lobbying, canvassing, levying legal challenges, educating the public, reporting on government activities, ie, do the REAL work of keeping our society free. You're just sitting on your fat ass cleaning your gun, dude. Nobody even notices...least of all the government. And, of course, there is the assertion that banning assault rifles (or any specific type of weapon, such a grenade launchers and machine guns) somehow violates the 2nd Amendment. Would you kindly point to the case law where that principle is specifically upheld for us? And no, the DC ruling does not address that issue even periferally, just in case you were going to reach for standard answer. Cuz I'm afraid the courts don't happen to agree with you, but, hey, what do they know? That's just our rule of law talkin'.

The process didn't work because the administration still supported him after learning of his tax problems. "(if in fact, your facts are even remotely correct)" What a bunch of BS! Why don't do some research yourself instead of personal attacks and accusing me lying. All you have to do is type "Geithner Tax" into Google and see what comes back. He is an Obama appointee. Of course he's not going to be charged. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. So by your logic, Mr. I Support Civil Liberties And The Rule Of Law, an uncharged Daschle should be treated like a criminal because...YOU think he is one? OK. I get it.

Who gives a fuck? If you wanna smoke, smoke. Big Tobacco'll sell you what you need. If not, don't. My only concern about tobacco is ensuring that it is farmed sustainably.

Why make an exception for Gitmo? It's the most egregious violation of civil liberties the Bush administration commited; torture, evidence gained under torture addmissable, lack of legal representation, habeus corpus stripped, violation of federal statutes treaty law..... It is arguably the number one terrorist recruiting PR tool as well. If you feel strongly about civil liberties, you're a member of the wrong party. The GOP gave that up as an agenda item (except the 2nd Amendment of course) under Nixon and they've been trashing them ever since. If you'd like to reconstitute the party of Goldwater/Eisenhower, I'm all for it, but good luck: ain't gonna happen any time soon. Your party's going completely in the opposite direction, and pretty much off a cliff. Two party system? Yeah, whatever. If only the world were.... Not the problem. Any car in the driveway that runs will get you there, and the two party system may not run well, but it runs. The problem is with the core values, or lack thereof, of American voters. The party system is just the vehicle; no better or worse than any other democracy's as far as I can tell. Now, about that Obama question....

No, I'm not just refering to the PATRIOT ACT, one of the least (but still) damaging federal erosions to civil liberties (notice I've used the term 'federal', not 'Bush', something your conveniently filtered out). I'm referring to Gitmo, torture, rendition, explicit denial of FOIA requests through a new policy of government secrecy under the phony guise of national security, illegal spying on Americans, the Military Commissions Act of 2006 which explicitly through habeus corpus and the ban against evidence gained under torture in the trash, the politization of the DOJ, and on and on and on.... Now, you can proceed to tell us all how Obama intends to rape the Bill of Rights. Use his actual actions and statements, please. Spare us the conjecture.

What, specifically, are you refering to in the international relations front? Or do you even know? As for back taxes, they CAN be a big deal, but aren't always. And your logic about Cheney, which goes something like Well, he fucked up the entire world and America's reputation in it, but, hey, he never once killed an innocent kitten. It's, well, a prime example of the clarity of thought we've come to expect from you, Bill.

Oh, and BTW, owing back taxes (if in fact, your facts are even remotely correct) isn't a crime (as you stated it was) unless the payer is charged with evasion. Daschle bowed out on his own soooo....the process didn't work? OK, whatever. I guess he had to be publicly garroted for certain people to be satisfied. Goodbye credibility round deux.

We did not give the feds anything....they took our civil liberties ......and it wont stop there.....more to come. Some among us gave them away by voting for totalitarians rather than for those who respect liberty.

That Obama's team vetted and rejected these candidates for their behavior seems to support, rather than refute, an image of competence and integrity. If you must believe that all the dirty laundry was known prior to this selection and vetting process then, by all means, believe what you must. Goodbye credibility.

Givler's Dome or Castle Rock come to mind.