Monday, December 31, 2012

More Brinkmanship to Come

What a year...

This election year is finally over, a small mercy at best.

Unfortunately, despite the facts that more Americans voted for Democrats for the House, by nearly a million, and Democrats gained in the Senate, and held the White House, our government continues to be held hostage by the radical Right Tea Cult fringe. 

Thanks to their 2010 wins, Republican gerrymandering has insured that the boot heel of the radical Right minority will continue to step on the will of the people for an indefinite time into the future.

And yes, although the corporate media are too cowardly, and of course too corporate, to assert, it is obvious the Republicans are the impediment to a functioning Federal Government. Watch them play the same hostage game again and further degrade our credit rating come debt ceiling time. 

The present Republican-manufactured "fiscal cliff" is just one wave of the brinkmanship mentality of the Radical Right. More shall certainly come this new year.

In the biggest unreported news of the year, two brave souls managed to speak the unspeakable in the Washington Post.

They had the courage to go beyond the lamestream media line, “Both sides do it” or “There is plenty of blame to go around”.

Here’s a sample from:

“Let’s just say it: The Republicans are the problem.”

By Thomas E. Mann and Norman J. Ornstein, Published: April 27, 2012

Rep. Allen West, a Florida Republican, was recently captured on video asserting that there are “78 to 81” Democrats in Congress who are members of the Communist Party. Of course, it’s not unusual for some renegade lawmaker from either side of the aisle to say something outrageous. What made West’s comment — right out of the McCarthyite playbook of the 1950s — so striking was the almost complete lack of condemnation from Republican congressional leaders or other major party figures, including the remaining presidential candidates.

It’s not that the GOP leadership agrees with West; it is that such extreme remarks and views are now taken for granted.

We have been studying Washington politics and Congress for more than 40 years, and never have we seen them this dysfunctional. In our past writings, we have criticized both parties when we believed it was warranted. Today, however, we have no choice but to acknowledge that the core of the problem lies with the Republican Party.

The GOP has become an insurgent outlier in American politics. It is ideologically extreme; scornful of compromise; unmoved by conventional understanding of facts, evidence and science; and dismissive of the legitimacy of its political opposition.

When one party moves this far from the mainstream, it makes it nearly impossible for the political system to deal constructively with the country’s challenges.

The other significant reality ignored by corporate media is summed up by a Republican:

“...A Republican ideology pitting the “makers” against the “takers” offers nothing. No sympathy for our fellow citizens. No insight into our social challenge. No hope of change. This approach involves a relentless reductionism. Human worth is reduced to economic production. Social problems are reduced to personal vices. Politics is reduced to class warfare on behalf of the upper class."

Michael Gerson, head speech writer and a senior policy adviser to President George W. Bush.

Some liberals are excited about the demise of the GOP after this election. They’re fooling themselves, of course.

The Republicans are not going anywhere. They are the party of the rich and powerful and will always have the aristocratic Koch brothers' and Adelson type's "free speech" money to undermine democracy and suppress the interests of the American people.

The good news is democracy lingers, as exemplified by the sane and kind folks in Colorado and Washington who understand that having a harmless plant should not be a crime.

The not-so-good news is the Democrats will continue to be the Republican-lite party, as they too serve their Military Industrial Complex and Wall Street bosses.

The war on democracy continues...

Happy New Year!


free0352 said...

At this point, my chief hope is to avert attempts to stop going over the fiscal cliff and a refusal to extend the debt hole we're digging -it isn't a ceiling its a hole.

By simply doing those two things, we'd make massive progress if unfucking this country.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Good post, Dave. You've galvanized and correctly articulated the core of our country's government's seemingly inability to function. The radicalization of the right has had, and will continue to have, a profound negative affect on our three branches of government.

To say that the radical-right stands emboldened in locked arms with their corporate benefactors, against We the People, should never be considered an exaggeration. They have shown their true colors and their coup d'├ętat is in full motion.

The next few years will surely culminate in a global economic crisis -- or worse, a world ecological or man-made calamity. We'll either persevere and find America to be a better place...or find America to be a worse place. The choices we make today will decide our fate.

Happy new year, and may understanding and enlightenment remain with you throughout 2013.

Anonymous said...

Lets see, we had a 4 trillion dollar "grand bargain" with a 3 dollar of spending cuts for every dollar of revenue increase and Eric Cantor put a stop to that by threatening Boehner and today Cantor says he cannot support the Senate bill because it has no spending cuts.

Republicans are the problem? Really?

okjimm said...

The Republican Party loses credence everyday. I can not fathom it. It is trailer park mentality on a grand double wide is bigger than your double wide .... and that is about it. It is not a party of solution...just delusions.

free0352 said...

I can't stand today's Republican party, I really can't. That said, you just handed it a gold mine of voters with this new gun control push. This worked out so badly for liberals last time. You'd think you'd learn from history. Ugh, since you've revisited this madness I may have to vote for them again.

Please write your reps and tell them to stop so I don't have to do that.

Dave Dubya said...

We survived Clinton's watered down "assault rifle ban". We'll survive the next watered down measure, if, in the unlikely event, it happens.

The coming years will see the war on democracy completely won by Big Money. The elderly, middle class and poor will suffer "austerity" for the abuses by Big Money, while Wall Street, insurance and energy will see record profits again.

As I said, no more fair share for most Americans. No more unions, no more pensions, no more middle class, no more hope for good jobs without a college degree.

Corporate welfare continues, though. Time has come for only the rich to have their fair share.

Yes, and while the Republicans whine the rich are walking off with huge estate tax cuts and and other gifts. The "grand bargain" is only grand when the little people lose.

I believe "cult mentality" is the best comparison.

free0352 said...

We survived Clinton's watered down "assault rifle ban". We'll survive the next watered down measure, if, in the unlikely event, it happens.

I don't like even "watered down" attacks on the Constitution. Neither do most people. Democrats will pay very dearly for this in 2014 if history has any bearing on tomorrows elections.

Dave Dubya said...

Neither do most people

You saying most don't want ANY regulations or restrictions on military style weapons?

free0352 said...

No more than we already have in place.

Dave Dubya said...

No more than we already have in place

Sourced statistic or opinion?

free0352 said...

There is a lot of opinion to go round on the issue. All are irrelevant. The Constitution says what it says. Like it or not.

okjimm said...

Well ... Free has driven off the metaphysical cliff...again.
There is NOTHING in the Constitution that prohibits gun regulation. NO...IT IS NOT THERE. There is NO mention of banning types of ammunition, caliber, multiple round clips, armor piercing rounds...or, for that matter, a National registry of gun owners, nor any ban on legislating sales requirements.
I have already written my reps...

free0352 said...

While no right is absute the law is very clear on what kinds of regulations on fire arms are lawful and what aren't. I suppose if you want to change that there is the mechanism to amend the constitution ot other statutes that protect gun ownership. But strictly speaking what you are saying has time and again failed the test of judicial review.

okjimm said... law is NOT clear...which is what is being attempted now. There is no need to change the Constitution.... Justice Stevens has stated.."the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years"

this has been echoed by other justices as well. New rules that prohibit certain weapons, who may have them, where they can be used....all is very legal under the constitution...and you seem to agree.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

automatic weapons are already illegal for everyone who is not a federally licensed gun dealer. Therefore, if automatic weapons are what you are seeking to ban, congratulations. They were banned nearly 90 years ago. If you are going to engage in this debate, you need to be clear on the terms you are using.

You are most likely talking about semiautomatic fire arms. For example, the AR-15, post ban Kalashnikov rifle, or the Glock series of pistols are some examples of the many types of semiautomatic fire arms.

So lets be clear here. Automatic weapons are heavily regulated and for the VAST majority of Americans it is a crime to possess one. You are talking about banning semiautomatic fire arms.

I disagree, the law is very clear.

However lets grant the premise that firstly the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee citizens the inalienable right to bear arms and second that gun control makes us safer. Why stop at assault weapons? Clearly everyone agrees so called assault weapons account for 1% of 1% of unlawful gun deaths in this country. The vast, vast majority of gun crime is committed with cheap hand guns, most of which are stolen from lawful gun owners. If gun control makes us safer and Americans don't have this right, then why not have a universal ban on fire arm ownership if taking guns away would solve this problem?

Lastly, the SCOTUS has been very clear, especially in Heller vs. DC. The gist is, regulations are one thing. For example, we have to register to vote, and register fire arms. We have to show ID to vote, or buy a gun. We don't allow felons to vote, nor own a fire arm of any kind. Those are constitutional regulations. Bans are not regulations, they are prohibitions. We don't regulate say... cocaine... we banned it by making it unlawful to own it in any form. Regulating fire arms is lawful, banning them is not.

okjimm said... your homework is totally legal to make a semi-automatic weapon a fully automatic one

...kits are readily available at gun shows...with no registration or ID required

you said...."firstly the 2nd Amendment doesn't guarantee citizens the inalienable right to bear arms"

I never said it didn't. It is a right. You truly read what you want to. I said the 2nd ammendment does not guarantee you the right to own any gun you is never stated thus.....and that is the point. just make things up. For instance...assault-type weapons make up 15% of gun sales, not 1...."We have to show ID to vote" INCORRECT...I have NEVER had to show an ID in over 40 years of voting.

hey, what really kills me, pun intended, is your overall arrogance.....matched only by your overall ignorance...

"If you are going to engage in this debate, you need to be clear on the terms you are using."

a) you make conditions on someone else's blog? gees

b)my comments are very clear...I believe you have difficulty reading

free0352 said...

Okay, please learn to create a hyperlink.

First, Romney is correct. It is ALREADY illegal to own automatic weapons. Has been since 1929. Further, it is a federal crime to convert a semi auto into a full auto. And to buy the requisite parts one has to be a federal licensed gun dealer and show that dealer license to the distributor or both dealer and customer are in violation of federal law. Those parts are also tracked by the ATF. More over, it requires the technical skill of a trained armorer or gunsmith to effect the change. Its not something you can do in your garage. It requires very special and expensive tools and skill. Stop thinking Mother Jones is a source. A slide fire stock is not fully automatic. The trigger is depressed with every shot. A bump fire system allows one to shoot faster semi automatically, but complies with existing law. Mother Jones, clearly not a gun expert.

If you are going to have an opinion on this issue, you should have an accurate opinion based on accurate information.

Start by reading the National Fire Arms Acts of 1929, 1934, 1968, and 1986.

For instance...assault-type weapons make up 15% of gun sales,

True. I said GUN CRIME. Assault rifles make up less that 1% of 1% of GUN CRIME.

So you think we have a right to own fire arms? What exactly do you mean when you say you support the 2nd Amendment? What does that mean to you?

And why ban the AR-15 or other semiautomatic rifles? According to the FBI crime report so called "Assault Weapons" made up less than 1% of the fire arms used in crimes involving a fire arm. Cheap pistols made up over 80%. Clearly, if you think gun control is the answer, banning hand guns would be a far more effective law. If you believe people don't have an INALIENABLE right to fire arms -that we can ban types of guns- why not ban handguns? It sounds to me you aren't interested in solving a problem, and instead are interested in feel-good measure that won't make any difference and that punishes millions of Americans for the crimes of others so you can feel as though we've "done something." IS that the case? Exactly what are you trying to accomplish here? I'm confused. I thought we were trying to save lives, not just feel self satisfied about passing a pointless law that won't actually make much difference. It takes less than 2 seconds to reload a Glock or even an old 1911 pistol. Mass shooters if they can't get their hands on an AR will likely just start shooting people with pistols as the Collumbine killers did during the 1994 Brady Ban years. In fact, these last three cases the shooters all had multiple hand guns with them.

."We have to show ID to vote" INCORRECT...I have NEVER had to show an ID in over 40 years of voting.

In several states such as Florida you have to show ID to vote and this has been ruled constitutional.

As for your comments, what isn't clear is your logic. You wish to ban automatic weapons. I've told you the law. They are already banned. You want to ban what then exactly? Semiautomatic rifles? I've shown you that they are used in a tiny percentage of gun crime, and that hand guns are used in an overwhelming percentage of all gun crime. If banning guns is what we need to do, wouldn't we want to ban the guns the criminals are using?

Dave Dubya said...

If you'd show where you get your stats it would help.

free0352 said...

I'm getting my stats from the FBI's crime report it puts out every year. Thats a lot of number crunching. So I'll let uber liberal Daily Kos set you strait.

Of course Kos is anti-gun and the post is writen that way, however even super liberal daily kos puts the max number of homicides with ALL RIFLES not just so called "assault rifles" at 2-3% of total gun homicides. The Kos post gets the point across. The VAST majority of gun deaths in America are via handguns. That is a fact.

If you want to check the numbers, you'll have to read the FBI uniform crime report. Its a google search away. I suppose I could link some data in links from pro gun groups like the NRA. After all, if Mother Jones is what passes for a non-partisan source around here I suppose so too would the NRA.

But really, I won't waste the time.

okjimm said...

In several states such as Florida you have to show ID to vote and this has been ruled constitutional."
...and in several states it has been declared unconstitional.

ges you are lame.
...and I have pointed out that automatic weapons are not banned.

"I've told you the law."
You have told us many things....and mostly your our arrogant boiled down logic and flawed opinions. Listen, you have already conceded the fact that gun control is legal...that the constitution offers no prohibition to gun control, including banning certain weapons...AS LONG AS THERE IS NO OVERALL BAN ON FIREARMS. GEES... but of really do not have a say in the matter...


but then you do not have to be a voter to be a troll.

free0352 said...

Listen, you have already conceded the fact that gun control is legal

No. I granted your premise. There is a stark difference.

.that the constitution offers no prohibition to gun control

I'd say "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."

It doesn't say "except for..." It doesn't say police, it doesn't say Army. It says THE PEOPLE and NOT INFRINGED. That's as cut and dry and DC vs Heller made it clear the feds can't blanket ban guns, and in McDonald vs Chicago it was made clear the states can't either. Its law.

But we all know what I think. I'm trying to learn what you think. And I have to ask - if gun control makes us all safer wouldn't the logical thing to do, would be to ban all private fire arm ownership? You still haven't begun to answer that question, and I think its a fair question. In stead of addressing it you just started ranting and raving about little old me and my voting habits.

but of really do not have a say in the matter... BECAUSE YOU DID NOT VOTE.

Actually sorry, the Constitution still protects my rights if I choose to vote or not. Now do you want to have that "conversation" Barack Obama keeps talking about or do you want to rant and rave some more?

okjimm said...

oh Free, you simple man

I have not ranted, I have not stance is very clear...the Constitution does not give a citizen the right to own any gun conceivable.

"It doesn't say "except for..."

well, it clearly states that the right to bear arms is to insure a standing militia...which is what the National Guard is, so you could construe it to mean that only Militia members, National Guard members, can keep guns at home.

but let's cut to the chase here, Free, to paraphrase Dorothy Parker, your logic runs the gamut from A to B. It is not engaging. I guess I should not expect much more from someone who considers Ayn Rand a great writer. That alone announces yourself as someone who is not well read.
But you do make me think....seriously. Every time I read what you write...why gosh, I think I need to go wash the dog.

free0352 said...

it clearly states that the right to bear arms is to insure a standing militia

No, it says "The People." The intent of the law is that THE PEOPLE should be armed so that if they enter into military service they will be better prepared for it.

Further, the militia is not the national guard. According to the Militia Act of 1792 the militia is all men who are capable of bearing arms. You are in the militia my friend.

But I must ask again. If gun control keeps us safer, why not ban personal fire arms ownership? You still haven't addressed this.

okjimm said...

oh goodness, Free....
you have two faults that come to are boring....and. egregiously, you do not realize it.

here, cut and paste this....a good club for you

Dave Dubya said...

But I must ask again. If gun control keeps us safer, why not ban personal fire arms ownership?

Let's examine this. Obviously that is not going to happen. So, what is the answer? Or, better yet, what is the question? Should we be asking what would make us less violent, instead of what keeps us safer?

Other countries have given us examples that gun control really does work in keeping people safer, like it or not.

But again, we are not Australia or England. We are a far more paranoid culture. We have an entire lobby and cult mentality the promotes the Tim McVeigh interpretation of the Second Amendment. Sorry, the Second Amendment is not a provision to overthrow a democratically elected government that you didn't vote for.

Going back to my question. What would make us less prone to violence? We've mentioned better mental health care, but what else can make a real difference?

Here's a radical idea. End the war on drugs. Drug abuse is a public health problem, not a criminal one. This insanity has only armed the thugs, killed innocent bystanders, costs, and wastes, tax dollars, and increased the number of property crime victims.

Want to keep guns out of the hands of criminals? How about sane laws that don't create more criminals?

So Free, please enlighten us with your thoughts. Anything different from the NRA Lobby Lingo?

free0352 said...

So your contention is gun control makes us safer. So why not ban all fire arm ownership then? Wouldn't we all be safer? Like in Mexico, where all fire arm ownership is illegal.

Oh... wait.

As for Europe I've lived there. Sure England has fewer gun murders. It has more of everything else per capita. If they aren't paranoid in England and Mexico they should be. Its foolish not to be there or in this country. You work in a prison, you're surrounded 8-12 hours a day with the reasons Americans might want to think about taking responsibility for their own safety.

As for NRA lingo, dude, I'm a sanctioned NRA fire arms instructor. I speak for the NRA and am proud to speak for the NRA. I love the NRA, and the NRA is right on everything it says and frankly you gun control types are universally wrong here 100%. There isn't any middle ground to be had. You're just wrong, morally, legally. Okijim here proves it. He can't even make a point, all he can do is deamonize gun owners. Let me ask you this, are you capable of anything other than Brady Campaign liberal Democrat dogshit on this issue? I doubt it because if you've shown me anythign Dave its that you aren't capable of disagreeing in a meaningful way with the Democrat party. Even though you're surrounded by the monsters of society daily and should know exaclty why we need to be a HEAVILY armed society. You of all people should know it isn't "paranoia" and that truely EVIL people walk amoung us and that the police can't always protect us.

Dave Dubya said...

So your contention is gun control makes us safer.

No, that was not my contention. I said, “Other countries have given us examples that gun control really does work in keeping people safer, like it or not.”

And then:

“But again, we are not Australia or England. We are a far more paranoid culture.” (Thank you for corroborating this BTW)

So your answer to my question, “Anything different from the NRA Lobby Lingo” would be no.

I don’t what “gun control type” is. We all favor some regulations on civilian weapons. I oppose the confiscation of my firearms just as much as you do yours. And no one is confiscating them. You and your NRA lobby are paranoid, and less than honest, in that belief.

I don’t what the Brady Campaign specifies. There isn’t any middle ground? Between what, may I ask? Confiscation and 100 round drums at gun shows? Can’t see any middle ground huh? A moderate such as myself finds it reasonable to limit military style weapons to ten round magazines. As moderate as I may be, I see no tyranny or loss of rights with that. You know what? If you can’t protect yourself with ten rounds , you won’t need twenty more. We do not live in a militarized combat zone, but news to you...we are a heavily armed society. No heavily armed society is safe. You should know. You been there.

You’re right, evil people do walk among us. But it’s not paranoid to know that. Paranoid people walk among us too, and I know some paranoid people who did evil things while being paranoid.

And there you go again, oblivious to my condemnation of corpo-dems and neocon appeasing dems. And dems that voted to continue the surveillance state. More dems than reps opposed the latest continuation of the Bush police state. I bet you didn't know that.

And here’s some irony for you. It will be the Right’s ultimate police state that will selectively confiscate firearms under some war on terror measure.

free0352 said...

There is not middle ground with what this administration is proposing. We have enough gun control. We don't need any more. You have armed guards arround your prison for a reason. You of all people here should know that sometimes brute force is necessary against a certain kind of person. Than only overwhelming fire power will solve the problem. I'm against magazine bans because it will only succeed in banning mags for people who follow the law. Criminals will not follow that ban. Further, the ban will turn people like me into a criminal, because I won't turn mine in. No way. I will not under any circumstances comply with that law. It will turn someone like me, a guy whose never had more than a parking ticket into a felon while honest to god monsters will have them and will use them.

Its common sense to acknowledge the best place to carry your ammunition is in your gun. I totally reject any policy that would put me at a disadvantage in a gun fight. And you should too, because like me you are at greater risk for a possible attack because of the service you have given your community. And if you and I have that right, so does every other law abiding citizen. I happen to think that you and I are not special and that law adbiding citizens have just as much right to self defense as anyone else.

But we all know what I think.I'm interested in what you guys think. What I think is obvious. If 7 rounds is safer wouldn't zero rounds be even safer? That law is either going to get the job done of protecting Americans or it won't. So will it or not?

I tell you what, I don't like the Republicans, but this bill ensures i"ll vote for ANYONE who I'm certain is pro 2nd Amendment and if that is a Republican so be it.

okjimm said...

oh gees, Free.....
"the NRA is right on everything it says and frankly you gun control types are universally wrong here 100%. There isn't any middle ground to be had. You're just wrong" that was funny..but when you lambaste the administration...

"There is not middle ground with what this administration is proposing"

..that is every funnier. don't vote. are still boring.

Dave Dubya said...

There is not middle ground with what this administration is proposing. We have enough gun control. We don't need any more.

That is of course, a matter of your personal opinion. Don’t worry, we won’t be turned into criminals. I know paranoid delusions are impossible to reason with, but I have to say it one more time anyway. There will be no confiscation. Any ban would be on future sales of weapons and magazines. Your right to self defense is intact. Mine too. Really. FOX(R) and the NRA feed into the paranoia for their own economic and political gain, don’t you know that yet?

They have people duped into thinking having a ten round semi-auto is oppressive tyrannical deprivation. That’s really nuts. Sheesh.

I totally reject any policy that would put me at a disadvantage in a gun fight. Again, we are not in combat. I’m sorry you are so frightened of the world that you feel a need to be combat ready. Maybe that’s a symptom of PTS.

I already told you my ideas for making us safer. Ending the drug war would be the smartest and sanest thing. So I guess we can rule that out. Your “moral” Republicans and the cowardly corpo-dems will see to that.

If I’m correct, isn’t John Dingle (D) a Second Amendment supporter? Maybe he’s not your rep. I can’t keep track of those Republican gerrymandered districts.

Paranoia is funny sometimes, but not for the poor sufferers of such fears. I know inmates who swear the CIA is after them. Medication sometimes helps, but not always.

I don't think Free is psychotic, though. He has chosen to embrace and nurture his paranoia. That's an altogether different syndrome. Although it's a bit sad to see someone who needs to be armed for a combat patrol to go to the grocery store. If I'm gunned down in the produce section, my last words will be, "Free was right". ;-)

But at least I won't live in fear. I'm not naive enough to be oblivious of threats. Martial arts trains us the best defense is to learn to anticipate and defuse, or avoid violence. I've had a gun pointed at me and lived to tell the tale. If I had pulled out a weapon, and I had one, I may have been shot first. Lucky? Smart? Stupid? Maybe, but nobody died and nobody got hurt.

Dave Dubya said...

The radical Right is outraged that Obama is using kids as "human shields".

On the NRA ad with Obama's kids.

“To talk about the president’s children or any public officer’s children who have — not by their own choice, but by requirement — to have protection and to use that somehow to try to make a political point I think is reprehensible.” - Chris Christie

Good to know all Republicans are not vile hypocrites.

Dave Dubya said...

Gun sales are up due to NRA induced panic. How many innocent lives will be snuffed out by these weapons? Like that matters....

free0352 said...

You're right, Barack Obama is the best gun salesman in history. We aren't seeing "increased gun sales" we're seeing all time record sales. That isn't the NRA putting fear in people its Barack Obama terrifying people with threat of draconian gun control. And as for hyprocrisy, the ultimate in which is Brack Obama having a full time SWAT team arround Sidwell Friends while my kid is protected by a gun free zone sign. Lets see his kids protected like mine before we start tossing around the hypocrisy claim. Because its NOT paranoia. Bad people ARE OUT THERE. And you are right. Pills won't make them better. Some people are sane, lucid, and totally fucking evil. And I want the fire power to defend myself. Fuck martial arts. I've had a tad in my 16 years in the military, not to mention my golden gloves years and my time as a police officer. I've had enough training to know I can't beat up 3 guys home invading my house, where I keep my AR-15. I'm not in interested in a fist fight I'm doomed to lose. I'm not interested in a fair gun fight with them either. I want to outgun my opponents on a massive scale and my AR stacked with 30 round mags filled with frangible 556 does that job and now the guy who has a security detail the size of most police departments with a billion dollar budget wants to tell me I don't need a mag with more than 10 rounds in it? Yeah, fuck no. Let him live in the home invasion and car jacking capital of America with no security detail and 7 stupid rounds and maybe I'll listen. Look, I have several quality fire extinquishers in my house and guess what... the odds of a fire where I live are less than the odds of my house being invaded. Thats not paranoia... fires happen. I also own a generator because power outages happen. And I own several fire arms because bad guys happen.You should know, you guard those types of animals every day and you know better than most what they are capable of. I'm not at all interested in giving them a chance to win. Thats why I have solid locks and doors, a Doberman and a long gun. And I'm not giving that up nor will I give up what holds its ammo. Nor should anyone else have to so Obama can feel as though they've done something. Nobody here can even give a strait answer that this rediculous ban would even make anyone safer. In fact, since criminals won't give a rats ass about it as felons can't have guns anyway all it accomplishes is making me easier to victimize.

Oh, and I happen to think an armed citizenry deters would be dictators. You can't tell me this country isn't capable of producing a Stalin or Hitler some day. Thats not paranoia either. Its happened right here in this country. I'd say Jim Crow laws were a tyranny. No wonder then that the KKK was the first group in this country advocating gun control. Its hard to burn a cross in the yard of a house of a guy with some serious hardware. I would think a guy who believes the government was behind 9-11 would understand that.

Dave Dubya said...

You’re a riot Free. Who do you think believes the government was behind 9-11? Where did I say that? I did say I could expect that level of treachery from Dick Cheney. Maybe that confused you.

It was fairly obviously an AQ job.

Here’s the bigger conspiracy. The government, led by your chickenhawk Decider, used 9-11 to instill fear in the public so they’d buy into their WMD lies for their pre-9-11 determined war, intended for crony profit and political gain

But it is antithetical to your belief system to consider that.

Why are you still crying about Obama taking your guns? Your delusions are severe, man, severe enough to match your paranoia. If you live in an area prone to gang home invasion, I want you armed, pal. Trust me. And you are, and you will be, armed against them. What you are not armed against is your fears and delusions.

We must also learn the enemy can be within. Within the id, or within the Amygdala’s fear center in our brains.

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

I've heard you chime in with Jefferson from time to time, who is as you know an unabashed truther.

Glad you now admit you find his views insane as I do. Yet... you still see the Bush administration as some kind of boogie man. You're right, I don't really buy that. I spent too much time in the Marines prior to Bush even running for let alone being president to not know better. However I acknowledge government in the past has been pretty nasty to certain racial groups, and might again in the futrue on that basis or some other. My point is, you agree this government can get diabolical. You agree and then advocate to disarm yourself before it. Wow, nice logic.

And yes, a mag ban is a form of disarmament. And not a minimal one.

The fact is, Obama and the left wants to turn ARs into some 7 round pop gun by criminalizing standard mags. And that is only the begining. That's what he can get passed now. What would he be after with a Dem majority? I shudder to think. Therefore, I will until the sensible pro NRA, pro gun Democrats beat their progressive brothers into submission, be voting strictly Republican from here on out so long as that Republican isn't Chris Christy or some other luke warm Republican. Democrats believe in shreding the 4th ammendment just as much if not more so, not to mention the 1st, as the GOP. At least the GOP protects the 2nd. Its a sad day this is protecting constitutional rights, but that day is today.

I don't like the GOP, but you're right. I AM afraid of that gun ban. Very much so. So yes, out of fear of Obama's anti-gun stance I will vote GOP. And once Obama gives up terrorizing law abiding gun owners and over reaching his executive power on everything from budgets to indefinite detention of Americans I'll be sure to go back to voting Libertarian. And yes I'm doing that out of fear or this President. That mother fucker scares me to death anymore.

And so will millions of others.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I've heard you chime in with Jefferson from time to time, who is as you know an unabashed truther."

You're wrong...I believe Obama was born in the U.S.A. -- so does Dave Dubya. ;-)

"Bad people ARE OUT THERE." and "..I own several fire arms because bad guys happen." and "Thats why I have solid locks and doors, a Doberman and a long gun."

You're paranoid.

"Let him live in the home invasion and car jacking capital of America..."

And stupid...for moving back home to momma. (Why would any rational person move to Detroit?)

"Oh, and I happen to think an armed citizenry deters would be dictators."

Well, possibly in the traditional, and overt, sense. But it certainly hasn't stopped the inverted totalitarianism we're living under right now.

It's too bad you're not as inflamed, and have the same strong beliefs, about the loss of other civil rights (that are happening right under your nose).

"That mother fucker scares me to death anymore."

Admittedly, he scares me also, but a little less so than the GOP and conservatives in general. As I've maintained several times on this blog, and others, we're heading down the slippery slope toward oblivion, but at least the decline isn't as steep with a Democrat in office. The acceleration always occurs when the GOP is in control.

PostScript: Free0352, you may as well just let them kill you. With your rage and anger and paranoia, you're already dead inside.

PostScript 2.0: Have you read the white paper yet?

free0352 said...

My mom lives in Atlanta, has for years.

I live here because its where I chose to live. But I love your logic. We should abandon our homes to thugs instead of stand and defend them. Wow, what courage from the flower child generation on display here.

You're right. I've seen our rights under assault for years. I saw Reagan and GHW Bush assault the 1st ammendment, then Clinton assault the 2nd along with the 1st. Then GW Bush added the 4th to that mix, but at least backed off on the 2nd. Now we have Obama, who has the seperation of powers, Congress' power of the budget, the 1st, 2nd, 4th, and 10th Amendment's under fire. Withering fire. Someone has to stand up to this over reaching maniac. Its got to be Republicans. So hey, until you Democrats get it through to this guy that he's over reaching and out of control and needs to dial it back several notches I'm going to vote for the GOP. I'll feel icky doing it, but I'll do it. If you want to take that vote (amoung millions of others) away from the GOP then by all means write your leadership and tell them this course of action is madness and political suicide instead of trying to defend it.

Dave Dubya said...

There's nothing insane about not believing the govt version of 9-11 or anything else with incomplete or questionable disclosure. The Iraq War conspiracy was real. It was there before 9-11.

If you can calm down for second, would you consider the fact nothing of yours will be confiscated. This is the reality you can't see. If you believe otherwise then that's unfounded speculation at best and paranoia at worst.

Furthermore I don't see the House passing any of these measures you fear. Obama cannot, and will not, take your weapons or magazines. Do you understand this?

Voting for a party that is hostile and destructive to voting rights, poll access and the 1st, 4th, and 5th Amendments out of fear for ineffective or imagined threats on the 2nd cannot be the best way to safeguard our rights. I can't think of anything other than the 2nd Amendment the republicans would care to protect. There were civilian gun owners in the Third Reich. Those guns did not protect their other rights one bit. When will you learn this?

While we still have our guns, THEY can still listen to our phone calls, and more, without a warrant.

Besides, I understand the proposed regulations would only save a minimum of lives at best. Ending the war on drugs would do more to eliminate gun deaths than any other measure. Right? Won't happen, though, thanks to your "moral" republicans and corpodems.

I'm not foolish enough to ignore the reality that we are doomed to our violent culture. Thanks in no small part to your unaccountable, fearless chickenhawk liar, and bloody warmongering Decider who sanctioned torture and sent thousands to their deaths for crony profit and political gain. Nothing to do with keeping us, or anyone else, safer.

Now Iraq has a heavily armed society killing each other like we do. Iraqi "freedom" as with ours in the sense of firearms means only a lot of death and bloodshed. It's who we are. Fear not, for this shall not change.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "I live here [in Detroit] because its where I chose to live. But I love your logic. We should abandon our homes to thugs instead of stand and defend them. Wow, what courage from the flower child generation on display here."

Well, if you select to live in a dangerous area, that's your choice. But if, by the same token, you complain about it, it shows a total lack of rationality. You knew the pitfalls, but chose to anyway.

I guess there weren't any homes for sale in "fly over country", so you picked the armpit of America instead? Smart! Guess you've forgotten one of the major tenets of Adam Smith's theory on capitalism: Low cost comes with high costs in other areas.

I'll add "illogical" to my list of descriptors for you.

"You're right. I've seen our rights under assault for years."

So, illogically, you choose to side with those who assault them faster and more vehemently.

Congratulations! You've proven my description of you to be unarguably correct!

Jerry Critter said...

You are right, Dave. There are much greater things to fear from the government, both republican and Democratic, than the minor gun regulations that Obama has proposed. These gun regulations confiscate nothing and at best make moves to keep guns out of the hands of people who are not able to handle them properly.

However, it does keep the crazies occupied and away from important erosions of our rights. But then, the crazies are easily manipulated.

Dave Dubya said...

Exactly. No confiscation. Apparently that bears repeating.

Interesting fact:

Since 1968, "more Americans have died from gunfire than died in … all the wars of this country's history."

free0352 said...

But if, by the same token, you complain about it,

Perhaps I'm just a sucker for lost causes. I'm willing to stand up to thugs and criminals and defend something. I have a natural desire to confront people like that. Both with politics and government and with brute force against thugs and criminals.

And I want the tools to do both. One is an honest political organization, the other is a gun. A big damn gun.

As for you Dave. Neutering the gun with a mag ban and just banning the gun to get arround the 2nd Amendment is the same damn thing. Truth is Americans aren't all that violent. The over all murder rate has dropped by 50%, crime rates nation wide are down by at least 30% since 1992 highs. And I happen to think that is a direct result of shall issue CPL licenses and people arming themselves to deter criminals.

Dave Dubya said...

Truth be told, I don't see anything serious coming down on gun restrictions. Gridlock rules.

It's mostly political hot air on both sides. I think I can safely promise you that both you and I will get to keep our tools.

I happen to think ending the drug war is the smartest way to reduce violence, which really should be the goal. More jobs and prosperity may reduce violent crime to a certain degree as well.

Ten round mag limits won't save many lives. Ending the drug war would. But, pharmaceutical, tobacco and alcohol, corpo-prisons along with other Big Money interests are vested in continuing it. And we know they have more "Free speech money" to influence our government...

I think other major reasons the murder rates have gone down is a subsiding crack epidemic and a shrinking youth population. But I'm sure your firepower would reduce or prevent crime in your home. ;-)

free0352 said...

It's mostly political hot air on both sides.

Well it is on one side. I hope you are right this push is doomed. But it won't be if lawful gun owners don't rally to the defense of our rights. And it seems we are doing that and once again the NRA is leading that charge. The membership dues I pay them are worth every penny.

I truely see your point on the drug war. But its irrelevant to this issue. Sandy Hook was not a drug crime. And the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with drug law.

Jefferson's Guardian said...

Free0352: "Perhaps I'm just a sucker for lost causes."

Perhaps so.

"I'm willing to stand up to thugs and criminals and defend something."

I respect your resolve, as misguided as it tends to be. It's too bad you haven't figured out, yet, who the real "thugs and criminals" are. Despite all the coaching and tutoring we offer, you continue to chase fictitious boogeymen and red herrings. No wonder you're always frustrated.

"Truth is Americans aren't all that violent."

That's purely speculative on your part. If you can cite proof, I'll go along with your statement. Otherwise I don't sense any "truth" to it at all.

Compared to violent crime rates in other western and industrial nations, we surely are at -- or near -- the top of the list.

"The over all murder rate has dropped by 50%, crime rates nation wide are down by at least 30% since 1992 highs."

Well, 1992 wasn't the "high" for homicides in this nation,
but it came close

"And I happen to think that is a direct result of shall issue CPL licenses and people arming themselves to deter criminals."

Not likely. As a matter of fact, one of your own indicates that "[a] graph of murder rates over the last 60 years looks like a bell curve. Violence began to boom in the mid-1960s, then began a steady drop in the 1990s, which has generally continued to today. This coincides with the rise and decline of the baby boomers."

This seems more likely -- not because people are stupidly arming themselves to the teeth.

Jerry Critter said...

We have been arming the world for years. Do you think the world is now a safer place?

free0352 said...

Was the world ever safe?

Jerry Critter said...

I asked, "Do you think the world is now a safer place."

Can I infer from your answer that your answer to my actual question is no?

free0352 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
free0352 said...

The world was never safe, nor is it today. Thats why its not paranoia that I keep a good supply of ready food, water, and a basic survival kit in my house for all my family members. I've been through several hurricanes and the resulting floods, a few tornados, an earth quake and quite a few nasty ice storms not to mention one minor volcanic erruption. And that shit is just my life. I accept the fact that acts of god happen and don't use denial as a survival strategy. Some people might think that's paranoid. I think I'm simply ready for some bad luck.

I keep a fire extinquisher in my hosue. My house has never burned down, but even though my entire house (which is pretty new) is constructed as fire proof as possible I have that extinquisher. Most people don't call that paranoid, even though the odds of a fire in my home are pretty remote. Remote as the odds are, I still keep it. Because shit still catches on fire in this world.

Like fires, floods, and earthquakes bad people happen. Heck, bad animals happen. I've never had to shoot an armed intruder, but I've had to shoot a vicious stray dog. Thats why I carry a glock with as many rounds as I can. Hey, I'd carry my AR-15 all the time were that practical. Is the world safer because I have that glock? I have no idea. I know I'm safer.

Riots and looting happen. We've all seen the images of the latest hurricane out east this year that resulted in some home invasions and looting, or the debacle that was Katrina, or the L.A. Riots, or the 1960s race riots. Those thigns aren't paranoid consipracy theories. They are history. So just like a fire extinquisher for fires or a glock for muggers and car jackers when I'm out and about I keep an AR-15 at home for that situation where I need it. Like when a bunch of desperate, evil, hungry people show up after the flood looking to take what I have.

free0352 said...

I like to think I'm a tough guy. I'm pretty fit. I did some martial arts and MMA, I was a decent golden gloves boxer years ago. I was in the military for 16 years and did a lot of hand to hand combat training. I was a deputy sheriff. That training taught me not to be stupid. I'm not Chuck Norris or a super ninja. I can't beat up 3 guys looking to steal my car, or rob my house. I can't hold off a riot worth of looters single handed with a rolling pin. I'm just not that bad ass. So I have the tools that give me a chance to handle those situations. A gun allows grandma to hold off a 300 pund mugger. She needs an extended mag in case that 300 pound mugger brought some friends. Thats not paranoia, thats reality dude. The world can be a very dangerous place sometimes and denial is not a strategy. Cops carry what you guys would call assault weapons. If they need them to protect themselves and others, wouldn't the people who live in the areas those cops are protecting need them for the same reason? Is it right to limit the defensive capability of a guy living in south Chicago or along the Mexican boarder?

And I will say this. Dictatorships and tyranical governments happen. They've happened in nearly every European country and violence and vicious governments infest Asia and Africa. Saying it can't happen here is using denial as a strategy. I have no illusions. I don't think a handful of scrappy rebels can hold off the might of a professional Army. Just that they'll do a better job with a rifle and some ammo in hand. And in the end, a nation of rifleman can't be enslaved. Its just too labor intensive for the would be dictator. I call that deterance, not paranoia.

To me outlawing guns or types of guns or the magazines that feed them to prevent crime is akin to outlawing fire extinquishers to prevent house fires. Its denying a law abiding citizen the great equalizer. Its just stupid.

So to answer your question. The world is dangerous. Always has been, always will be. But with my rifle, I'm safer. And saving my own ass is a major priority for me.

Jerry Critter said...

That's pretty sad, free, but you know what? Nobody is trying to take away your guns. They are just trying to keep guns out of the hands of people who have no business handling them.

free0352 said...

Yes they are. You take away the advantages of the weapons system when you limit the ammo.

And its not sad, reality isn't sad. Its just reality.