He's no messiah

[Serenity]

A lot of firearms transactions do occur from home.

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=h111-45

 

 

 

[Serenity]

There is a big difference between enacting legislation that was at face value designed to weed out elements within our own nation intent on causing deadly harm to it's lawful citizens, and using those tools to punish lawful, legal gun owners because the same government is unable to defend it's own borders due to it's ineffective legal policies, and border law enforcement. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of illegal drug users who have created this situation because they can't keep some white fucking powder from going up their noses. There's a solution to the problem and it doesn't involve making it illegal for me to own a firearm.

 

 

 

[bradleym]

I'm getting the distinct impression that no one really cares, but i'm a blockhead, so i'll press on with this evaluation of the FOX op-ed article.

 

-->No Taxes on the Poor

'By signing H.R. 2 into law, Obama happily signed onto the idea that smokers should pay for a $35 billion expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Plan (SCHIP). Cigarette taxes are going up 61 cents a pack starting April 1. Obama signed this bill knowing that the majority of smokers in the United States are working poor, and one in four lives below the federal poverty line'

 

SCHIP is designed to help states cover uninsured--and generally poor--children. 'nuff said, i think.

 

'...energy taxes that will be paid by everyone who fills a gas tank, pays an electric bill, or buys anything that was grown, shipped, or manufactured'

 

Not only is the cap-and-trade regime intended to encourage increased efficiency, reduce dependence on foreign energy sources and stave off climate change (all of which will be a huge financial boon for the economy), the Obama budget includes significant tax credits for lower-income families to offset the rise in energy prices and the follow-on effects. Why didn't your writer include that bit of information?

 

Here is one place to look to find out more

[tvashtarkatena]

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.

[tvashtarkatena]

There is a big difference between enacting legislation that was at face value designed to weed out elements within our own nation intent on causing deadly harm to it's lawful citizens, and using those tools to punish lawful, legal gun owners because the same government is unable to defend it's own borders due to it's ineffective legal policies, and border law enforcement. Not to mention the hundreds of thousands of illegal drug users who have created this situation because they can't keep some white fucking powder from going up their noses. There's a solution to the problem and it doesn't involve making it illegal for me to own a firearm.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

Edited March 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena

[tvashtarkatena]

There's a solution to the problem and it doesn't involve making it illegal for me to own a firearm.

 

 

 

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.

[bradleym]

-->Pork Barrel Earmark Reform

 

so, let me see, 7.7 / 410 = 1.8% of the appropriations, by dollar amount, have been classified as 'earmarks' by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

 

I don't know a thing about these guys, but i'll take their word for it.

 

Of that 1.8% of the bill, our correspondent at FOX has identified 'dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects', but alas, he cannot tell us which ones those are. furthermore, 'These earmarks were awarded based on seniority, not on merit, and were mostly the result of high-priced lobbying'. I'm sure he knows.

 

At any rate, would it be a good idea for Obama to shut down the government in his first couple of months in office, for the sake of those earmarks? It will probably be more informative to see how things go with the next FY appropriations bill.

[tvashtarkatena]

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?

[jmo]

The Draconian measures being put forward by the Blair Holt are more invasive and of greater risk to personal freedoms than anything I have seen in a long time under any administration. Giving no knock access to someone's house so whatever legal authority can make sure a legal gun owner is storing their firearms correctly?

 

You wanna be the Sheriff or agent that has the job of enforcing that one? I don't.

 

What's next? Making sure your stoned housewife has her prescription meds locked securely in a kitchen cabinet.

 

It's a slippery slope. I say leave well enough alone, quit sending Border Patrol agents to federal prison for doing their jobs, and stay out of the middle classes ass.

 

There are bigger fish to fry.

 

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:

Edited March 6, 2009 by jmo

[ivan]

"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:

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?

[jmo]

-->Pork Barrel Earmark Reform

 

so, let me see, 7.7 / 410 = 1.8% of the appropriations, by dollar amount, have been classified as 'earmarks' by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

 

I don't know a thing about these guys, but i'll take their word for it.

 

Of that 1.8% of the bill, our correspondent at FOX has identified 'dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects', but alas, he cannot tell us which ones those are. furthermore, 'These earmarks were awarded based on seniority, not on merit, and were mostly the result of high-priced lobbying'. I'm sure he knows.

 

At any rate, would it be a good idea for Obama to shut down the government in his first couple of months in office, for the sake of those earmarks? It will probably be more informative to see how things go with the next FY appropriations bill.

 

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

[jmo]

"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:

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.

[jmo]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

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.

 

Edited March 6, 2009 by jmo

[olyclimber]

I think the lesson is clear here. Those that are not total experts in Nazi history are nothing.

[jmo]

I think the lesson is clear here. Those that are not total experts in Nazi history are nothing.

 

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.

[olyclimber]

hahhahaahahah "do some research on the internet"...you make me laugh.

 

it has been stated recently that the statement that "those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it" is basically a fallacy (by someone on this board or elsewhere, i can't remember). at this point i would tend to agree with them. it doesn't matter.

[jmo]

hahhahaahahah "do some research on the internet"...you make me laugh.

 

"those who do not know history are doomed to repeat it"

 

Sad.

 

Notice that I didn't say that.

[olyclimber]

You did't say "Sad"? Yes you did. WTF.

[olyclimber]

Anyway, you're spouting history like it means something. If you don't get what I'm saying, then yes it is "sad", as you mention.

 

Anyway, best of luck in your defense of /fight against America. Thats why we're all here.

[jmo]

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.

[tvashtarkatena]

The Draconian measures being put forward by the Blair Holt are more invasive and of greater risk to personal freedoms than anything I have seen in a long time under any administration. Giving no knock access to someone's house so whatever legal authority can make sure a legal gun owner is storing their firearms correctly?

 

You wanna be the Sheriff or agent that has the job of enforcing that one? I don't.

 

What's next? Making sure your stoned housewife has her prescription meds locked securely in a kitchen cabinet.

 

It's a slippery slope. I say leave well enough alone, quit sending Border Patrol agents to federal prison for doing their jobs, and stay out of the middle classes ass.

 

There are bigger fish to fry.

 

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.

[Serenity]

Perhaps you should learn to read, and understand, rather than being so dismissive and superior in your tone. I understand you are tackling/defending so many important issues here on CC.com that it's probably difficult for you to keep up with all of your various threads or engage them properly with your superior intellect.

 

If someone orders an upper and lower receiver from a manufacturer, and then reassembles it in their own home, with the express intent to sell, they have become a manufacturer under strict law. Their home would then become subject to inspection. Now I could understand if it were the sellers sole source of income, but if it's just a onesie-twosie type of transaction this puts a tremendous amount of authority over that domicile. This is just one of many issues that certain democrats are starting to raise, and I do have to agree with you when you say this is just going to cause democrats to lose votes and increase their own alienation from voters with narrow interests.

 

Like I said why are certain democrats even raising this issue other than some kind of childish political payback. I mean after all certain markets are returning to 1980's levels, but let's reengage in this endless consuming political issue. Right...

 

Anyway, I'm done here for a few more months. Have fun in your litter box.

 

[bradleym]

-->Pork Barrel Earmark Reform

 

so, let me see, 7.7 / 410 = 1.8% of the appropriations, by dollar amount, have been classified as 'earmarks' by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

 

I don't know a thing about these guys, but i'll take their word for it.

 

Of that 1.8% of the bill, our correspondent at FOX has identified 'dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects', but alas, he cannot tell us which ones those are. furthermore, 'These earmarks were awarded based on seniority, not on merit, and were mostly the result of high-priced lobbying'. I'm sure he knows.

 

At any rate, would it be a good idea for Obama to shut down the government in his first couple of months in office, for the sake of those earmarks? It will probably be more informative to see how things go with the next FY appropriations bill.

 

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.

[jmo]

-->Pork Barrel Earmark Reform

 

so, let me see, 7.7 / 410 = 1.8% of the appropriations, by dollar amount, have been classified as 'earmarks' by Taxpayers for Common Sense.

 

I don't know a thing about these guys, but i'll take their word for it.

 

Of that 1.8% of the bill, our correspondent at FOX has identified 'dozens of wasteful pork-barrel projects', but alas, he cannot tell us which ones those are. furthermore, 'These earmarks were awarded based on seniority, not on merit, and were mostly the result of high-priced lobbying'. I'm sure he knows.

 

At any rate, would it be a good idea for Obama to shut down the government in his first couple of months in office, for the sake of those earmarks? It will probably be more informative to see how things go with the next FY appropriations bill.

 

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.

[tvashtarkatena]

Perhaps you should learn to read, and understand, rather than being so dismissive and superior in your tone. I understand you are tackling/defending so many important issues here on CC.com that it's probably difficult for you to keep up with all of your various threads or engage them properly with your superior intellect.

 

If someone orders an upper and lower receiver from a manufacturer, and then reassembles it in their own home, with the express intent to sell, they have become a manufacturer under strict law. Their home would then become subject to inspection. Now I could understand if it were the sellers sole source of income, but if it's just a onesie-twosie type of transaction this puts a tremendous amount of authority over that domicile. This is just one of many issues that certain democrats are starting to raise, and I do have to agree with you when you say this is just going to cause democrats to lose votes and increase their own alienation from voters with narrow interests.

 

Like I said why are certain democrats even raising this issue other than some kind of childish political payback. I mean after all certain markets are returning to 1980's levels, but let's reengage in this endless consuming political issue. Right...

 

Anyway, I'm done here for a few more months. Have fun in your litter box.

 

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.

 

 

 

 

Edited March 6, 2009 by tvashtarkatena