jmo

Does it matter if they came from a legal source? I dealer in his house sells a gun to bob, then bob legally sells it to joe, then joe gives it to his buddy bill, and bill shoots someone, how is this the fault of the dealer in his house? Your question in irrelevant. I don't have a problem with the inspection part of the Blair Holt bill. I have a problem with the license part.

Hmmmm, my point is that Obama didn't do this, the collection of representatives and senators known as the Congress did this, including Republicans. Obama can either sign the bill or veto it. In deciding what to do, he must employ a complex, multi-variable and non-linear calculus that involves negotiations that go far beyond this bill alone. I have endeavoured to demonstrate with my little exegesis of the original FOX article that the reality behind each of the 'mis-statements' is a little less clear and simple than the writer would have us believe. Don't worry--I have no illusions about convincing you of that. But the approach taken by that writer (and frankly, by so-called 'liberal' writers engaged in political trench warfare) relies on a willfully selective use of 'facts', an unabashedly manipulative choice of words to describe and marshal those facts and a cynical insistence on binary modes of argumentation. E.g. Obama is either truthful or he is a liar. It is similar to what the Swift-Boat guys did so successfully to Kerry back in 2004. Even the 'I was for it before I was against it' brouhaha depended on eliding critical information about what actually took place. Rush's supporters complain right now that the same has been done to him with the 'I hope he fails' sound-bite controversy. I think you only contested two of the five misstatements. You've brought up some good points about the pork barrel spending.

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. I posted that section of the bill because there was some dispute on the board about it. Wrong again. Stop posting your misinformation and liberal propaganda as fact. Do some research before you start typing. That is, you are only wrong if you can't find a way to redefine the word "most". According to the US DOJ, when a firearm was used in violent crime, 80% of them came from an illegal source, friends or family. I most cases, friends or family is also illegal. Souce: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&hs=QAy&ei=pVOxSehqgfSwA9yhwXA&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=5.+Caroline+Wolf+Harlow,+Firearm+Used+by+Offenders+6+(Bureau+of+Justice+Statistics,+Nov.+2001&spell=1 Click on the top result.

I thought it was because Americans are losing their sense of irresponsibility, that maybe borrowing all that money based on hypothetical value to live beyond your means may not be sustainable in the long run. Losing the sense of responsibility got us here. I don't think we as a nation are going back to responsible speeding, people want the government to fix it so they can go back to living like they were. But that's a whole new rant I don't have time for.

Paul Volker: Paul Volcker, was appointed Chairman of the Federal Reserve in August 1979 by President Jimmy Carter and reappointed in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan. Volcker's Fed is widely credited with ending the United States' stagflation crisis of the 1970s. Inflation, which peaked at 13.5% in 1981, was successfully lowered to 3.2% by 1983. The federal funds rate, which had averaged 11.2% in 1979, was raised by Volcker to a peak of 20% in June 1981. The prime rate rose to 21.5% in '81 as well. These changes in policy contributed to the significant recession the U.S. economy experienced in the early 1980s, which included the highest unemployment levels since the Great Depression. Volcker's Fed also elicited the strongest political attacks and most wide-spread protests in the history of the Federal Reserve (unlike any protests experienced since 1922), due to the effects of the high interest rates on the construction and farming sectors, culminating in indebted farmers driving their tractors onto C Street NW and blockading the Eccles Building. Austan Goolsbee: In a 2007 Times article, Goolsbee wrote in opposition to mortgage "regulations" President Obama later blamed "deregulation" (which Goolsbee championed) for causing the subprime mortgage crisis. These two men hold the top two positions on President Obama's Economic recovery advisory board.

Yes, the earmarks make up a very small percentage of the budget. But the budget is so big, even 2% is many billions. Because it's last year's budget, there is even an earmark that Obama put in. When this was made public, they took his name off, but left the earmark. None of this disputes my original point. Obama campaigned promising to reform "pork barrel" spending, and then he has supported a budget that does no such thing. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/40567717.html?page=1&c=y "Cut Pork Barrel Spending: As a Senator, President Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama and Biden believe that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama and Biden will slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public." www.whitehouse.gov well, like i said, we'll have to wait and see how the budget negotiations go next year. I do not think that 'earmark' is automatically equated to 'pork' anyway, though some would like to say so. incidentally, many of those 'earmarks' have names like Specter, Rehberg, Graham, etc. on them. I have never stated the Republicans haven't done it. Most sources I've read say it is split, 60% dem and 40% rep. I'm not even sure that it's unethical. My point is, Obama said he wouldn't, and then he did. If I can come up with 6 "misstatements", or lies from the administration in the first month, what does that say about the character of it? This isn't change, this is more of the same, or change in the wrong direction.

I disagree about history. It seems that neither of us will convince the other on that issue, so further debate would be pointless. Please note, that nowhere did I say I have any plans of a defense of /fight against America. Under only one circumstance would I advocate violent rebellion, that of the government doing away with the Constitution. If that were to happen, I would not be alone. I think that even some people on this board would be motivated to some action if the government did that.

Apology accepted and appreciated. It is good when we can talk about these things while remaining civil. I apologize if any of my posts came off as snide or insulting.

Have any better ideas. Every time the President speaks, the stock market dives. It's lost 25% since he was elected. Those evil capitalists know what his policies will do and keep selling stocks. Like it or not, he'll have to either do away with the stock market, or do something to make people think the economy will go back up.

Sad. Notice that I didn't say that.

Since you asked, I would 1. reduce the growth of government spending, 2. reduce marginal tax rates on income from labor and capital, 3. reduce government regulation of the economy, 4. control the money supply to reduce inflation.

I agree. If we don't know our history, we don't know who we are. All you liberals need to read about Hitler and his National Socialist Workers (aka Nazi) party. Hitler said in 1927, “We are socialists, we are enemies of today’s capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance.” Sound familiar? Besides, I'm no expert in Nazism, I just know how to do research on the internet. Try it sometime, and you'll be amazed at how easy it is.

yes, because Americans have lost their sense of responsibility. The answer is not more government.

Ok, I agree with you that German gun control when Hitler took power as not significantly more restrictive than that of the US. That changed in 1938. A law was enacted that exempted members of the National Socialist party from the permit requirements. "On November 11, 1938, the Minister of the Interior, Wilhelm Frick, passed Regulations Against Jews' Possession of Weapons. This regulation effectively deprived all Jews of the right to possess firearms or other weapons." Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Politics_in_Germany The warsaw ghetto uprising shows that the Jews had the will to fight, and if they had the means, they might had made something of it. Your assertation about Iraq only proves your own ignorance on the topic. So for that, I thank you. Iraq was not a failed state prior to the invasion. It was poor, but there was order. Iraq has all the infrastructure it needs for the comparison. large multi lane highways in the large cities and across the country, cell phone and internet service, and power, sewer and plumbing in the cities that even works some of the time. The US military was trained in conventional combat. No one learned the lessons of Vietnam and trained for counter insurgency. The Bush administration made several mistakes that made things worse, one of which was dissolving the army. You have ignored my assertion that in the event of a civil war or uprising, the military would fall apart, because many of the members would join the other side. politically the military is as split as the rest of the country, and most of the brightest and best trained ones are very pro freedom and second amendment. Those that remained would be clueless and disorganized. Because the military would fall apart, virtually all of it's arsenal would be readily available on the black market. Whatever military equipment was no readily available could be improvised. People like you who have done little to no research into the topic have no idea how hard it is to suppress an insurgency using conventional military tactics. That is why the war in Iraq took so long, because the military had to learn how to do it. It's not about force. Most of the time overwhelming military force is counterproductive. An insurgency of 500,00 or 1/600th of the population would be almost equal in size to the military. Not nearly so short lived as you might think. I do not advocate overthrow of the government, violent or otherwise, unless those in power choose to completely trample on the Constitution and Bill of rights, and only after all peaceful means have been exhausted.

I don't think anyone made that statement.

I believe it's the latter.

is this supposed to sound unreasonable to me? can't the health department come inspect a restaraunt at any hour to make certain we're not being served sewer-rats? That particular part is not unreasonable to me, nor is it intended to be. I posted it because there was some doubt about the inspections authorized in the bill. The rest of the bill, is an affront to civil rights.

Yes, the earmarks make up a very small percentage of the budget. But the budget is so big, even 2% is many billions. Because it's last year's budget, there is even an earmark that Obama put in. When this was made public, they took his name off, but left the earmark. None of this disputes my original point. Obama campaigned promising to reform "pork barrel" spending, and then he has supported a budget that does no such thing. http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/congress/40567717.html?page=1&c=y "Cut Pork Barrel Spending: As a Senator, President Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama and Biden believe that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama and Biden will slash earmarks to no greater than 1994 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public." www.whitehouse.gov

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:

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'. What part of the 1st Amendment guarantees your right to type that? The 1st Amendment only applies to printing presses. Why do you need a right to free speech anyways? Find that, and I'll show you why assault rifles are within the 2nd Amendment. That's a classic liberal trick. Why should we prove the need to exercise our rights? It's a right, not a privilege. More later.

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'. Yes, it is easy to take Candy from a Baby if you ignore them. Like I said, lack of private weapons does not equal tyranny, but it is a prerequisite. Let's look at the very violent and bloody history of Europe. In the 30's the Nazis outlawed the ownership of guns by Jews, and other undersirables. 6 Million were rounded up and exterminated. How successful would the German invasion of France in 1940 if every Frenchman had a gun? The Soviet Union also banned guns. No one knows for sure how many died there. "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." Obviously you've never been to Iraq, where this sort of thing has been going on for years. It was in fact so laughable, that most of the democrats in the government said our 150,000 soldiers there couldn't win and the war was lost. 4,000+ soldiers were laughing when they were killed by that lone family. Don't forget that all members of the military swore an oath to "support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic" before they obey the orders of the President. The military would fall apart if it were used against Americans. I have more to say on this, but can't do it now.

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. Not paying your taxes is only a Civil Liberty is you're the Senate Majority Leader. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQIKJqLIqaE I beleive that people should be "innocent until proven guilty" Daschle is clearly guilty. http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/President44/story?id=6786608 "The White House today called Daschle's failure to pay more than $100,000 in back taxes a "serious mistake," but the president still "absolutely" supports his nomination to be secretary of Health and Human Services. " Of course he won't be charged, because he's a politican. I think it is wrong for Obama to condone his non payment by desiring to appoint him anyways. Don't you think that the people that run our government should be held to high standards? Start doing some of your own research instead of just attacking everything I post.

Both parties pick and choose the Civil Liberties they want to support. The 2nd Amendment is the most important of the entire bill of rights, for without it the others are worth nothing more than the paper they are printed on. Therefore, it is Obama's first target. "Address Gun Violence in Cities: Obama and Biden would repeal the Tiahrt Amendment, which restricts the ability of local law enforcement to access important gun trace information, and give police officers across the nation the tools they need to solve gun crimes and fight the illegal arms trade. Obama and Biden also favor commonsense measures that respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners, while keeping guns away from children and from criminals. They support closing the gun show loophole and making guns in this country childproof. They also support making the expired federal Assault Weapons Ban permanent." Taken directly from www.whitehouse.gov Enacting all this policy will present a backdoor to almost completely outlawing guns in this country. The men that founded this country had a a lot of vision and wisdom, and had this to say about guns. "When the resolution of enslaving America was formed in Great Britain, the British Parliament was advised by an artful man, who was governor of Pennsylvania, to disarm the people; that it was the best and most effectual way to enslave them; but that they should not do it openly, but weaken them, and let them sink gradually...I ask, who are the militia? They consist of now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor..." George Mason, Virginia Constitution Convention NOAH WEBSTER "Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power, and jealousy will instantly inspire the inclination, to resist the execution of a law which appears to them unjust and oppressive." Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution (Philadelphia 1787) RICHARD HENRY LEE "A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms." Richard Henry Lee - Senator, First Congress "To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of people always possess arms..." Making the 2nd Amendment irrelevant is a violation of the Oath of office that he took, and shows how he feels about the rest of the Constitution. He cannot "respect the Second Amendment rights of gun owners" as he states and support that agenda. While his desire to disarm the people does not imply that he intends to tyrannize the people, it is a prerequisite to tyranny. Every country throughout history with a tyrannical government has had gun or arms control. "Assault weapons" are the first target because they are easy, and the only means that the people could use to rebel. A a ban will have little to no effect of violent crime, since before the 1994 ban, such weapons were only used in 2% of all violent crimes in the nation. Source: http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/abstract/fuo.htm Once the 2nd Amendment is defanged, with enough like minded people in government, it won't matter what the Constitution or the people say because no will be able to stop him. Now, I am NOT say that Obama is bent on becoming a dictator. He hasn't said that yet. But if he is, he's heading down the right path. More to follow, I have to go work soon.

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.

I believe we've found some common ground. I agree with you on those except the existence of GITMO itself. People held there should be charged with something, and torture should not be used. We should retain the moral high ground to contrast with our enemies. I disagree with many of the things that Bush did, but supported him because I believe he is/was the lesser of two evils. I don't like the two party system and think both are corrupt. I support republicans because they are closer to my views, which are a mix of the Consitution and Libertarian party.