Source: Obama to act next week on gun background checks

[Pinot]

We need stricter background checks for Syrian refugees, not stricter background checks for American gun owners. Who on earth voted for this guy? Obama is the worst president to ever occupy the White House.

In 2008 Barack Obama won 53.8 percent of the popular vote.

In 2012 President Obama won re-election with 51.9 percent.

That made President Barack Obama the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to be elected then reelected with at least 51% of the vote each time. Ronald Reagan could not accomplish it.

In 2013, 54 of the 100 US Senators voted for better background check legislation. The bill however failed to pass because on the particular vote 60 Senators were needed. NRA now requires a super-super majority for gun legislation to pass.

President Obama supported the legislation as did three-quarters of all Americans.

Three-quarters of all Americans deny climate change and evolution too so I wouldn't put much stock in what most Americans support...even three-quarters of them.

Where did you come up with that gem?

[Publicus]

Yea, so let's look at the facts.

Quinnipiac poll found last month 89% of all Americans support the proposal President Obama plans to implement, perhaps this week.

Obama Will Act Alone on Gun Control

President Obama will press ahead with a set of executive actions on guns next week.

One of the main proposals Obama is poised to adopt–expanding new background-check requirements for buyers who purchase weapons from high-volume gun dealers -enjoys overwhelming public support: a Quinnipiac University poll in December found 89 percent supported background checks at gun shows and for online sales. (emphasis added.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/01/01/obama-to-impose-new-gun-control-curbs-next-week/

[Publicus]

We need stricter background checks for Syrian refugees, not stricter background checks for American gun owners. Who on earth voted for this guy? Obama is the worst president to ever occupy the White House.

In 2008 Barack Obama won 53.8 percent of the popular vote.

In 2012 President Obama won re-election with 51.9 percent.

That made President Barack Obama the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to be elected then reelected with at least 51% of the vote each time. Ronald Reagan could not accomplish it.

In 2013, 54 of the 100 US Senators voted for better background check legislation. The bill however failed to pass because on the particular vote 60 Senators were needed. NRA now requires a super-super majority for gun legislation to pass.

President Obama supported the legislation as did three-quarters of all Americans.

Three-quarters of all Americans deny climate change and evolution too so I wouldn't put much stock in what most Americans support...even three-quarters of them.

I think that wuz the Trifecta poll of Texas, Alabama and Arkansas only.

Aka: squaring the triangle.

[Publicus]

We need stricter background checks for Syrian refugees, not stricter background checks for American gun owners. Who on earth voted for this guy? Obama is the worst president to ever occupy the White House.

In 2008 Barack Obama won 53.8 percent of the popular vote.

In 2012 President Obama won re-election with 51.9 percent.

That made President Barack Obama the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to be elected then reelected with at least 51% of the vote each time. Ronald Reagan could not accomplish it.

In 2013, 54 of the 100 US Senators voted for better background check legislation. The bill however failed to pass because on the particular vote 60 Senators were needed. NRA now requires a super-super majority for gun legislation to pass.

President Obama supported the legislation as did three-quarters of all Americans.

Reagan didn't have the IRS doing his bidding either. :-)

Let's compare Reagan's two victories to Obama's..

Total electoral votes both elections:

Reagan: 1014 electoral votes (489 in 1980 and 525 in 1984) compared to only 62 for his opponents (49 & 13 respectively). The 3rd party guy Anderson got nearly 7% of the popular vote.

Obama: 697 electoral votes (365 in 2008 and 332 in 2012 ) compared to 379 for his opponents (173 & 206 respectively)

Reagan was re-elected with 58.8% of the vote, Obama with 51.1% (with the help of the IRS)

Even so, Republican Reagan worked with Tip O'Neil and a Democrat-led Congress to conduct the nation's business. You might think it is great that Obama is ruling by Executive Order, but just remember that if a Republican (maybe Trump) wins in November, they will have the same presidential powers that Obama has expanded for himself. So applaud now as Obama unilaterally acts on guns, but be prepared to get your panties in a bunch when Trump does the same with whatever issue pops in his head that day.

President Trump ???

Reagan gets a certain respect from here for his accomplishments in snookering the USSR into a quick oblivion soon after RR left office, so the Reagan Boyz over there on the hard right might want to consider that. The collapse of the Soviet Union was rapidly accelerating however during the time RR was asleep in the White House.

It anyway took RR a whole long career to work his way from Hollywood West across the country to Washington Hollywood East, so he didn't get to spend much time as a former president before he went to the 'B' Actor's Studio in the Sky.

If Jimmy Carter can make himself look so angelically good as a former POTUS of only four years, imagine what Barack Obama will do with his legacy and his time after his eight years in hell Washington.

Trump doesn't know it yet cause he's got billions, but he's a born loser. This is one of those rare instances when your first wife was right.

[sirineou]

Constitutional right have their limitations

All I gather from your argument is that constitutional rights I agree with are free from attack but the ones to which I don't should be restricted. Nice.

Freedom of speech has it's limits .

The supreme court acted a couple of weeks ago when it agreed with lower courts that local governments had the right to place limitations in gun ownership, and their regulations were constitutional

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKBN0TQ1SU20151207

The problem with your argument, and those of other "gun control" advocates, is that everyone "speaks," therefore we have some base level of agreement on what the parameters of limiting speech might look like. However, everyone doesn't own a gun for sporting use or personal protection and therefore, there is no baseline experience for which to have a discussion on the parameters of owning a gun should be. Those that don't own guns or for whatever reason dislike them, just want personal ownership of them banned. They don't say that openly because of the legal and political consequences of doing so but believe you me, if there was no Second Amendment, they would attempted to do it long ago. And this is why gun owners will never work with such activists to limit gun rights...because the interests are fundamentally opposed to each other.

'Those that don't own guns or for whatever reason dislike them, just want personal ownership of them banned."

It some of this paranoia that makes some gun owners too dangerous to own guns.and part of the reason for back ground checks.

You seen to think that some constitutional right are more important than others and require a higher level of adherence. Lucky for as, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Of course they are not as familiar with the intricacies of the constitution as you are,

[arjunadawn]

Constitutional right have their limitations

Freedom of speech has it's limits .

The supreme court acted a couple of weeks ago when it agreed with lower courts that local governments had the right to place limitations in gun ownership, and their regulations were constitutional

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKBN0TQ1SU20151207

Hello sirineou

Limitations?

The rights of women to vote is limited? A black slave born in America is sometimes not a citizen? Householders can be forced to quarter soldiers sometimes? People have limits on "feeling secure in their persons" and property? Sometimes its ok for double jeopardy; 'limitations' on not being tried in court twice? There are limits on the accused retaining council for defense; sometimes they don't have this right? Sometimes people can be held to account for a capital crime without grand jury (actually, Obama does kill Americans without grand jury. I concede this one). Sometimes cruel and unusual punishments are okay? Sometimes taxes may be levied by census? Sometimes the right to vote may be limited based on sex? Sometimes a new presidency begins December 20th, not January? The right to vote is sometimes tied to paying taxes? Sometimes the White House Janitor is in the succession to the Presidency.

Clearly, the imagined limitations on constitutional rights are just that. There are in some cases litmus tests such as the first amendment crowded theater fire test, but extending that to the 2nd amendment has been troublesome. Why? Because it is dishonest. The effort rests on a few failed premises: Guns were meant for hunting- no! Or "the right of the people" pertained to States, militias, not rednecks with pickups- no! The "States" are variously and clearly defined throughout the Bill of Rights as the States and "the people" likewise. If the premise is accepted that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment are the State organized militias than it necessarily follows that the Bill of Rights is dead as the "people" and the "State" are clearly defined in the 1st Amendment. The "Constitution is a living document" poppycock is responsible for all manner of errors and horrors.

Here's the truth of the matter: By an large, when you assemble the cast of characters in public office who scream gun control they paint a frightening portrait of the radical left, the brown shirt left, the Maoist left, a goose-stepping left. From Fienstein to Bloomberg to Obama & Company you really have a cast of characters that have defined their lives by inflicting their good on others, infringing a Leviathan State into all manner of personal lives, and constricting life and freedom for many to a constricting subordination. Were their any merit in the need to restrict guns it is long lost in the palpable realization that these people are coming for your guns because they are actually coming for everything!

[sgtsabai]

As a long, oops make that very long time gun owner and hunter, and once member of the NRA when it was about guns, marksmanship, reloading etc. I don't give a damn about the "gun control" freaks nor the current right wingnuts supporting unlimited gun ownership. In fact is most if not all of you right wingnuts would be highly opposed to my ever owning a gun. You see, I'm one of those left wing "progressives" that made America great, until the destruction started with Nixon, Reagan and Wall Street criminal tool, Clinton. And I'm damn good with guns, damn good. Yep, I don't like Obama having to use executive orders (I don't like Obama, but not because of his skin color) but the Republicans in Congress block any and everything good for America in hopes there are enough people stupid, no not just ignorant, stupid enough to blame it all on Obama and the Dem's. I know all too well how easy it is to lose your rights and even your freedom for speaking truth to the power. Thank you Mr. Nixon, you crook. Re the no-fly list. It is bull and like arjunadawn said, you can't know if you are on it, why you are, and you can't get off it. So maybe that bill defeated was the right thing. I was once prevented from leaving the US, by the government. Unlike most of you, I know of that which I speak.

[OMGImInPattaya]

We need stricter background checks for Syrian refugees, not stricter background checks for American gun owners. Who on earth voted for this guy? Obama is the worst president to ever occupy the White House.

In 2008 Barack Obama won 53.8 percent of the popular vote.

In 2012 President Obama won re-election with 51.9 percent.

That made President Barack Obama the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to be elected then reelected with at least 51% of the vote each time. Ronald Reagan could not accomplish it.

In 2013, 54 of the 100 US Senators voted for better background check legislation. The bill however failed to pass because on the particular vote 60 Senators were needed. NRA now requires a super-super majority for gun legislation to pass.

President Obama supported the legislation as did three-quarters of all Americans.

Three-quarters of all Americans deny climate change and evolution too so I wouldn't put much stock in what most Americans support...even three-quarters of them.

I think that wuz the Trifecta poll of Texas, Alabama and Arkansas only.

Aka: squaring the triangle.

The point being I don't base my opinions on what other people think nor should public policy be based on polling popularity...otherwise interracial marriage, minority voting rights, and gay marriage would all still be illegal.

[OMGImInPattaya]

Constitutional right have their limitations

All I gather from your argument is that constitutional rights I agree with are free from attack but the ones to which I don't should be restricted. Nice.

Freedom of speech has it's limits .

The supreme court acted a couple of weeks ago when it agreed with lower courts that local governments had the right to place limitations in gun ownership, and their regulations were constitutional

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKBN0TQ1SU20151207

The problem with your argument, and those of other "gun control" advocates, is that everyone "speaks," therefore we have some base level of agreement on what the parameters of limiting speech might look like. However, everyone doesn't own a gun for sporting use or personal protection and therefore, there is no baseline experience for which to have a discussion on the parameters of owning a gun should be. Those that don't own guns or for whatever reason dislike them, just want personal ownership of them banned. They don't say that openly because of the legal and political consequences of doing so but believe you me, if there was no Second Amendment, they would attempted to do it long ago. And this is why gun owners will never work with such activists to limit gun rights...because the interests are fundamentally opposed to each other.

'Those that don't own guns or for whatever reason dislike them, just want personal ownership of them banned."

It some of this paranoia that makes some gun owners too dangerous to own guns.and part of the reason for back ground checks.

You seen to think that some constitutional right are more important than others and require a higher level of adherence. Lucky for as, SCOTUS disagrees with you.

Of course they are not as familiar with the intricacies of the constitution as you are,

Actually, it's just the opposite...the Supreme Court, along with Congress and many state legislatures, has been expanding gun ownership rights over the past 40-50 years. That's what's got the gun confiscation advocates in such a twiitter and clutching their pearls.

Edited January 3, 2016 by OMGImInPattaya

[Publicus]

 

Here is another "analysis" of executive actions taken by Obama.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Obama is making record use of 'presidential memoranda'

December 17, 2014

A review by USA Today shows that the president has issued 198 "presidential memoranda," more than any U.S. president in history.

Presidential memoranda are quite similar to executive orders — in fact, they're almost identical in that they both allow a president to manage and govern the actions of the departments and agencies under the executive branch of government. The convenient difference? Obama can avoid being accused of overusing executive orders if he technically issues a memorandum.

The president has issued 195 (sic) executive orders from his White House, and the review reveals that when the memos and executive orders are combined, "Obama is on pace to issue more 'high-level executive actions' than any president since Harry Truman." Teresa Mull

http://theweek.com/speedreads/440427/obama-making-record-use-presidential-memoranda

---------------------------------------------------------------------

This article is dated through 2014 and reflects 198 Presidential Memoranda were issued through the end of 2014.

Obama issued an additional 71 decrees in 2015 bringing his total to 269 Presidential Memorandums through 2015.

When added together his Executive Orders and Presidential Memoranda totals 495.

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/presidential-memoranda

In developing the matter further and for edification, if I may use that particular word, here are some specifics on Executive Orders only by various POTUS. So any other 'actions' or 'memorada' etc are not included in the following data:

Executive Orders Issued by POTUS (The Most Executive Orders Issued) (Executive Orders Only) (Hundreds) (Political Party Designation in parenths.)

FDR (D): 3721

W. Wilson (D): 1803

T. Roosevelt ®: 1081

C. Coolidge ®: 1203

H. Hoover ®: 968

H.S. Truman (D) 907

W.H. Taft ®: 724

W. Harding ®: 522

D. Eisenhower ®: 484

R. Reagan ®: 381

President Barack Hussein Obama (D) had 227 Executive Orders as of December 20, 2015.

The data presented above are Executive Orders only, of POTUS. Presidents with the highest number of EOs (only).

Every other POTUS to include Barack Obama had fewer Executive Orders than RR had.

http://www.presidenc...data/orders.php

[sirineou]

Constitutional right have their limitations

Freedom of speech has it's limits .

The supreme court acted a couple of weeks ago when it agreed with lower courts that local governments had the right to place limitations in gun ownership, and their regulations were constitutional

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-court-guns-idUSKBN0TQ1SU20151207

Hello sirineou

Limitations?

The rights of women to vote is limited? A black slave born in America is sometimes not a citizen? Householders can be forced to quarter soldiers sometimes? People have limits on "feeling secure in their persons" and property? Sometimes its ok for double jeopardy; 'limitations' on not being tried in court twice? There are limits on the accused retaining council for defense; sometimes they don't have this right? Sometimes people can be held to account for a capital crime without grand jury (actually, Obama does kill Americans without grand jury. I concede this one). Sometimes cruel and unusual punishments are okay? Sometimes taxes may be levied by census? Sometimes the right to vote may be limited based on sex? Sometimes a new presidency begins December 20th, not January? The right to vote is sometimes tied to paying taxes? Sometimes the White House Janitor is in the succession to the Presidency.

Clearly, the imagined limitations on constitutional rights are just that. There are in some cases litmus tests such as the first amendment crowded theater fire test, but extending that to the 2nd amendment has been troublesome. Why? Because it is dishonest. The effort rests on a few failed premises: Guns were meant for hunting- no! Or "the right of the people" pertained to States, militias, not rednecks with pickups- no! The "States" are variously and clearly defined throughout the Bill of Rights as the States and "the people" likewise. If the premise is accepted that "the people" in the 2nd Amendment are the State organized militias than it necessarily follows that the Bill of Rights is dead as the "people" and the "State" are clearly defined in the 1st Amendment. The "Constitution is a living document" poppycock is responsible for all manner of errors and horrors.

Here's the truth of the matter: By an large, when you assemble the cast of characters in public office who scream gun control they paint a frightening portrait of the radical left, the brown shirt left, the Maoist left, a goose-stepping left. From Fienstein to Bloomberg to Obama & Company you really have a cast of characters that have defined their lives by inflicting their good on others, infringing a Leviathan State into all manner of personal lives, and constricting life and freedom for many to a constricting subordination. Were their any merit in the need to restrict guns it is long lost in the palpable realization that these people are coming for your guns because they are actually coming for everything!

Hi Arzunadawn

There are reasonable limitations, and unreasonable limitations, that is why we have a SCOTUS, to determine which is which.

There are limitations in every right, including the right to vote, for instance you have to be a citizen, a reasonable limitation I am sure you would agree, raising false alarm in a crowded theater as you mentioned, and many others to numerous to mention.

Why gun ownership should be excluded from such reasonable limitations is beyond me.

"The effort rests on a few failed premises: Guns were meant for hunting- no! Or "the right of the people" pertained to States, militias, not rednecks with pickups- no!"

As I said in other replies, paranoia is IMO at the center of the pro gun thinking.

par·a·noi·a

ˌperəˈnoiə/

noun

1. a mental condition characterized by delusions of persecution

   I am not saying this to be Glib, or to belittle, just to point out that the gun owner fears are not supported by the facts, thus Paranoia.

   All your points I quoted above are supported by SCOTUS

   See Columbia V Heller

   "

   Supreme Court of the United Statesheld in a 5-4 decision that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution applies to federal enclaves and protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

   As are limitations to such right

   "U.S. Supreme Court's refusal Monday to take up a challenge to Highland Park's ban on assault weapons protects similar restrictions in Chicago and other parts of Illinois and sends a message that municipalities have the right to determine how to best protect their communities, according to legal experts."

   http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-supreme-court-highland-park-assault-weapons-ban-20151207-story.html

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

   Traditionally the strength of the country has being it's laws as reflected by the constitution

   The constitution is not a A la Carte , If Obama proposes or implement something unconstitutional , I am sure SCOTUS will have something to say about it

Edited January 3, 2016 by sirineou

[Publicus]

 

We need stricter background checks for Syrian refugees, not stricter background checks for American gun owners. Who on earth voted for this guy? Obama is the worst president to ever occupy the White House.

In 2008 Barack Obama won 53.8 percent of the popular vote.

In 2012 President Obama won re-election with 51.9 percent.

That made President Barack Obama the first president since Dwight Eisenhower to be elected then reelected with at least 51% of the vote each time. Ronald Reagan could not accomplish it.

In 2013, 54 of the 100 US Senators voted for better background check legislation. The bill however failed to pass because on the particular vote 60 Senators were needed. NRA now requires a super-super majority for gun legislation to pass.

President Obama supported the legislation as did three-quarters of all Americans.

Three-quarters of all Americans deny climate change and evolution too so I wouldn't put much stock in what most Americans support...even three-quarters of them.

I think that wuz the Trifecta poll of Texas, Alabama and Arkansas only.

Aka: squaring the triangle.

The point being I don't base my opinions on what other people think nor should public policy be based on polling popularity...otherwise interracial marriage, minority voting rights, and gay marriage would all still be illegal.

 

Which brings us back to the cuckoo's nest. Suggest then getting a sarcasm extension or button or perhaps just be more clear. As the post was presented it does plainly try to square a triangle while calling the contorted result a circle.

The more a person has to explain what he meant the more 'behinder' he gets.

Time to move on thx.

[arjunadawn]

sirineou

I can accept my points previously reached no conclusion. Yes, SCOTUS exists to define these limitations. I thought I was making my point better. I was not.

Yea, the world is full of tombs of people who were not paranoid so its a fallacious linkage, if not absurd. Paranoia does go haywire in individuals and crowd psychology at times but nature is pretty competent and by and by the natural intuition of warning is valid in most human beings. Paranoia, that collective ineffable knowledge of not rightness (sometime announcing as epiphany) is a primal evolutionary warning system. It can fail but to suggest all political opponents happen to have this defect is well, sick. It is certainly not defective in wholesale populations of people in the US. Therefore, suggesting so is ignorance or the typical leftist fare of demonizing, ridiculing, and repetition of your opposition. You now join those on TV who make their argument the better by making their opponent seem the worse. Congratulations.

That the arrogant modern man so assumes his evolution the crowning adoration of history is sickening. That those things that preoccupied thinkers past are... well, of the past, is hubris- (swords into ploughshares). I have previously taken two sides of this issue because there is a confounding aspect to it, though not the one argued here. I believe the 2nd Amendment is a Natural Right and pretty much the only voice the State should have regarding it extends to such things as background checks, reasonable restrictions (not buying up vast amounts of ammo to change the market dynamics), etc. But the widespread inexorable march to enacting gun control has consistently acted only upon those that follow the law. In any event, I am of the school that Arms have little to do with hunting or target practice. The absurdity of the idea the framers would have made an amendment ensuring the rights of the people to collect their own groceries- hunt- is ridiculous. Of course the Arms in reference were always intended to be Arms consistent with any Arms the State might Bear. Here is it where it gets dicey and reasonable limitation does come in- we agree perhaps here- people should not have mortars and fighter jets. But to further project this reasonable restriction into a magazine, a bedroom, a safe, a thumbprint, a signature on firing pins, etc, is a bridge too far.

This is the foundation argument I and others have, if not everyone openly admits- to ensure the safety of my private person and property irrespective of government or in response to government. Yet there is now a catch. If ever this even was the main premise (it was) it can hardly apply any longer in any event. Government has become so omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent that there is effectively no resistance against such a leviathan any longer. There is none. Therefore, upon what premise do we now articulate the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? I think there is a Natural Right by virtue of breathing. One thing is clear, no manner of armed citizens could prevent a rogue government any longer. Whatever frightful possibility the 2nd Amendment may have thus been created to avert has long ago passed.

Edited January 3, 2016 by arjunadawn

[sirineou]

sirineou

I can accept my points previously reached no conclusion. Yes, SCOTUS exists to define these limitations. I thought I was making my point better. I was not.

Yea, the world is full of tombs of people who were not paranoid so its a fallacious linkage, if not absurd. Paranoia does go haywire in individuals and crowd psychology at times but nature is pretty competent and by and by the natural intuition of warning is valid in most human beings. Paranoia, that collective ineffable knowledge of not rightness (sometime announcing as epiphany) is a primal evolutionary warning system. It can fail but to suggest all political opponents happen to have this defect is well, sick. It is certainly not defective in wholesale populations of people in the US. Therefore, suggesting so is ignorance or the typical leftist fare of demonizing, ridiculing, and repetition of your opposition. You now join those on TV who make their argument the better by making their opponent seem the worse. Congratulations.

That the arrogant modern man so assumes his evolution the crowning adoration of history is sickening. That those things that preoccupied thinkers past are... well, of the past, is hubris- (swords into ploughshares). I have previously taken two sides of this issue because there is a confounding aspect to it, though not the one argued here. I believe the 2nd Amendment is a Natural Right and pretty much the only voice the State should have regarding it extends to such things as background checks, reasonable restrictions (not buying up vast amounts of ammo to change the market dynamics), etc. But the widespread inexorable march to enacting gun control has consistently acted only upon those that follow the law. In any event, I am of the school that Arms have little to do with hunting or target practice. The absurdity of the idea the framers would have made an amendment ensuring the rights of the people to collect their own groceries- hunt- is ridiculous. Of course the Arms in reference were always intended to be Arms consistent with any Arms the State might Bear. Here is it where it gets dicey and reasonable limitation does come in- we agree perhaps here- people should not have mortars and fighter jets. But to further project this reasonable restriction into a magazine, a bedroom, a safe, a thumbprint, a signature on firing pins, etc, is a bridge too far.

This is the foundation argument I and others have, if not everyone openly admits- to ensure the safety of my private person and property irrespective of government or in response to government. Yet there is now a catch. If ever this even was the main premise (it was) it can hardly apply any longer in any event. Government has become so omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent that there is effectively no resistance against such a leviathan any longer. There is none. Therefore, upon what premise do we now articulate the Right to Keep and Bear Arms? I think there is a Natural Right by virtue of breathing. One thing is clear, no manner of armed citizens could prevent a rogue government any longer. Whatever frightful possibility the 2nd Amendment may have thus been created to avert has long ago passed.

I dont believe anyone has made the argument that guns should be limited for the purpose of hunting. If anyone has I misses it and such person is clearly in the minority Nor did I said that Paranoia is the only dynamic fueling the pro gun/no restriction constituency. I said that paranoia is central to the issue. There are those with an agenda who are fostering such paranoia and exploiting it for their own purposes, they are not paranoid,they are simply politically astute. If one thinks of a threat and such threat does not exist , I think you would agree it would be a sign of paranoia.

I always try to support my opinion with facts and links So I provide two quotes and links, one as it pertains to the ruling of SCOTUS concerning gun rights and the decision of SCOTUS not to interfere with limitations

I think it would be helpful for those with different opinions to do the same. Otherwise this stops becoming a discussion and becomes a pole taking on opinions. Your point concerning Hubris is a valid one but one that cuts both ways.

If I might make an additional point not associated to your reply One of the reasons The far right is providing for it's pro gun/anti regulation stance is the need for an armed citizen to resist a tyrannical government .

as you also said , hand guns and rifles would be of little defense against an American Government. The Iraqi republican guard could not resist the US government and some yahoos with rifle will?? If one need a defense against a tyrannical government one needs to strengthen the built in checks and balances. Yet the far right on one hand advocates pro gun laws toward that end, while conceding tyrannical powers such as torture, and the warrantless surveillance of it's own citizens on the other.

Serious question, How does one reconcile the two? If indeed controlling government is one of the issues why give them so much power? I don't get it. I will be honest with you, personally, I think the far right is scared Sh#&less, with good reason, and and are grasping at straws. Anyway always a pleasure to exchange views with people such as you

Cheers.

[chuckd]

I'm sure the President has this already covered in his upcoming Executive Order...or Presidential Memorandum.

[arjunadawn]

I dont believe anyone has made the argument that guns should be limited for the purpose of hunting. If anyone has I misses it and such person is clearly in the minority

Nor did I said that Paranoia is the only dynamic fueling the pro gun/no restriction constituency.

I said that paranoia is central to the issue. There are those with an agenda who are fostering such paranoia and exploiting it for their own purposes, they are not paranoid,they are simply politically astute.

If one thinks of a threat and such threat does not exist , I think you would agree it would be a sign of paranoia.

I always try to support my opinion with facts and links

So I provide two quotes and links, one as it pertains to the ruling of SCOTUS concerning gun rights and the decision of SCOTUS not to interfere with limitations

I think it would be helpful for those with different opinions to do the same. Otherwise this stops becoming a discussion and becomes a pole taking on opinions.

Your point concerning Hubris is a valid one but one that cuts both ways.

If I might make an additional point not associated to your reply

One of the reasons The far right is providing for it's pro gun/anti regulation stance is the need for an armed citizen to resist a tyrannical government .

as you also said , hand guns and rifles would be of little defense against an American Government. The Iraqi republican guard could not resist the US government and some yahoos with rifle will??

If one need a defense against a tyrannical government

one needs to strengthen the built in checks and balances. Yet the far right on one hand advocates pro gun laws toward that end, while conceding tyrannical powers such as torture, and the warrantless surveillance of it's own citizens on the other.

Serious question, How does one reconcile the two?

If indeed controlling government is one of the issues why give them so much power? I don't get it.

I will be honest with you, personally, I think the far right is scared Sh#&less, with good reason, and and are grasping at straws.

Anyway always a pleasure to exchange views with people such as you

Cheers.

I am slowly reaching the conclusion that your second part of post above is true. I am uncertain what this means however. Without question, the present has become the relationship with government an armed citizenry was supposed to prevent. It is indisputable to me that governments no longer work for the people rather the people are or are not tolerated by government. Recent polls support (roughly) what I assert: Government is the biggest problem most Americans have. So, if it is true that the reason for the 2nd Amendment is kinda moot then is there a continued justification? I say yes.

It is incorrect that "the far right" alone is "scared sh>>_less." A considerable portion of middle America and centrist democrats also take issue with gun control fantasies. The fact that so many Americas are scared is significant, its alarming, its illustrative. I cannot fully reconcile the fact that the premise for the 2nd Amendment has passed its utility but I do 100% assert that were guns confiscated the aggression upon regular law abiding Americans would be worse. READ: Further erosion of gun rights directly supports progressive pogroms to socially engineer society. Guns now remain the sole obstacle to overt oppression in America. Radical? Maybe, I am convinced of it though. In the present US if you do not tow the socialist progressive line you are demonized. Demonization, ridicule, and repetition say all one needs to know about the character of that which opposes you. The government now uses multiple parallel and seemingly unrelated lists that effectively disenfranchise people by labeling them incompetent without adjudication (see veterans, State mental health lists, and gun rights), entering their names in databases as potential threats (see TV threads on Guns and Watchlists), DHS LEA bulletins pretty much created by the Leftist SPLC labeling all sorts of regular people potential terrorists (abortion opponents, 2nd Amend supporters, returning veterans, Christian Groups like Focus on The Family), etc. Really? Is it no wonder people are scared? The government has set other stages adjacent to the Gun Control agenda with the tools to implement a truly horrendous obstacle to exercising the Bill of Rights.

Government has now contorted "terrorism" into a weapon against all manner of actors. "Terrorism" and its constructs are now widely used charges and "terrorism" and its constructs are the core reasons these various lists are created. It is intentionally designed this way. The government now routinely lists political opponents among threats to government and/or terrorism suspects. It is only a simple step or two before entire classes of Americans are effectively branded and cannot access weapons. If one thinks this is a good thing why would it stop there? Why would it not later effect [you]? I am terrified of the world progressivism is creating for us. Look everywhere at their works. Measure the good they wish to inflict upon us by their past deeds. Can anyone really trust stewardship to a Socialist pogrom of political balkanization which has to date eviscerated the entire western world?

Ditto! :-)

[sirineou]

I'm sure the President has this already covered in his upcoming Executive Order...or Presidential Memorandum.

Neither the President or anyone else said that Guns make you make you less safe What is being said is that Guns in the wrong hands make as less safe, a very important distinction. I hope you are not implying the secret service are the wrong people to have guns. Why do you guys post things like this it only makes your case weaker.

[chuckd]

Weren't you the one appealing for a little humor? My how things change so quickly.

I do have a serious question for you gun grabbers out there.

Why doesn't Obama address the real issue with guns?

Getting the guns out of the hands of the drug dealers, gang bangers and other assorted nefarious individuals?

Enforce existing laws and stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

[arjunadawn]

I'm sure the President has this already covered in his upcoming Executive Order...or Presidential Memorandum.

Sorry. A few edits. PS- Don't forget the Dillon!

[sirineou]

Weren't you the one appealing for a little humor? My how things change so quickly.

I do have a serious question for you gun grabbers out there.

Why doesn't Obama address the real issue with guns?

Getting the guns out of the hands of the drug dealers, gang bangers and other assorted nefarious individuals?

Enforce existing laws and stop trying to reinvent the wheel.

I also have a question

Why don't you guys post smaller pictures? are you compensating for something?

I now need two screens to read this thread.

Sorry for missing the humor in your reply, I am not above being a Bick some times.

Edited January 3, 2016 by sirineou

[NeverSure]

-snip-

One thing is clear, no manner of armed citizens could prevent a rogue government any longer. Whatever frightful possibility the 2nd Amendment may have thus been created to avert has long ago passed.

I strongly disagree. We would need to presuppose that law enforcement would even follow any orders to act against the general citizenry. We'd need to presupposed that they wouldn't instead fight back. We don't know the answer to that.

There are more than 100 million gun owners in the US and fewer than 2 million in the armed forces. Unless we believe that this "rogue government" would use heavy weaponry in mass destruction of populated areas, then we have to ask how they would get people to give up their guns. The truth is that they would have to go door to door which would be suicidal. Many Americans still believe that some things are worth dying for which may also explain why some of our brothers in other countries don't understand us really well. Our risk/reward assessment is apparently entirely different.

Don't forget that even using those heinous tactics, the mighty US military couldn't win against the people in Korea or VN or Iraq or Pakistan or - must I go on? It isn't possible to defeat an army of citizens who are out of uniform, fighting guerrilla style and fighting for what they believe in. It doesn't ever happen.

I truly hope that if this gun control issue ever changes to support the gun ban people, that it is done via a constitutional amendment. If the antis can gain enough support to accomplish that then at least the action is lawful. Otherwise I also fear for selective chipping away at free speech and the press and the right to be secure in our homes and so on. That's all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights that I see being in jeopardy here. Without the rule of law including honoring "Shall not be infringed" what can we really count on?

Cheers.

[arjunadawn]

-snip-

One thing is clear, no manner of armed citizens could prevent a rogue government any longer. Whatever frightful possibility the 2nd Amendment may have thus been created to avert has long ago passed.

I strongly disagree. We would need to presuppose that law enforcement would even follow any orders to act against the general citizenry. We'd need to presupposed that they wouldn't instead fight back. We don't know the answer to that.

There are more than 100 million gun owners in the US and fewer than 2 million in the armed forces. Unless we believe that this "rogue government" would use heavy weaponry in mass destruction of populated areas, then we have to ask how they would get people to give up their guns. The truth is that they would have to go door to door which would be suicidal. Many Americans still believe that some things are worth dying for which may also explain why some of our brothers in other countries don't understand us really well. Our risk/reward assessment is apparently entirely different.

Don't forget that even using those heinous tactics, the mighty US military couldn't win against the people in Korea or VN or Iraq or Pakistan or - must I go on? It isn't possible to defeat an army of citizens who are out of uniform, fighting guerrilla style and fighting for what they believe in. It doesn't ever happen.

I truly hope that if this gun control issue ever changes to support the gun ban people, that it is done via a constitutional amendment. If the antis can gain enough support to accomplish that then at least the action is lawful. Otherwise I also fear for selective chipping away at free speech and the press and the right to be secure in our homes and so on. That's all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights that I see being in jeopardy here. Without the rule of law including honoring "Shall not be infringed" what can we really count on?

Cheers.

I get your point and remain unsure I am correct, but I did slip into the mind exercise of considering this. I will not defend this position I offered. I just wonder. Still, the real reason for the limitation of guns and hoped for confiscation is always avoided by proponents; its never offered. They want guns not in and of themselves but because they are the primary obstacle for further political aims. Guns are not the end, they are the means.

(I no longer have any respect for the Nine Robbed Destroyers. That they legislate from the bench is self evident. Our nation was never intended to have an Achilles heel in the Judicial Branch. Some things cannot be ruled away. However, a full Amendment might buy my complicity, might... but I would likely still be among the holdouts that balk at even that. It would only serve as one more example of the danger of Democracy to me- mob rule!).

[sirineou]

-snip-

One thing is clear, no manner of armed citizens could prevent a rogue government any longer. Whatever frightful possibility the 2nd Amendment may have thus been created to avert has long ago passed.

I strongly disagree. We would need to presuppose that law enforcement would even follow any orders to act against the general citizenry. We'd need to presupposed that they wouldn't instead fight back. We don't know the answer to that.

There are more than 100 million gun owners in the US and fewer than 2 million in the armed forces. Unless we believe that this "rogue government" would use heavy weaponry in mass destruction of populated areas, then we have to ask how they would get people to give up their guns. The truth is that they would have to go door to door which would be suicidal. Many Americans still believe that some things are worth dying for which may also explain why some of our brothers in other countries don't understand us really well. Our risk/reward assessment is apparently entirely different.

Don't forget that even using those heinous tactics, the mighty US military couldn't win against the people in Korea or VN or Iraq or Pakistan or - must I go on? It isn't possible to defeat an army of citizens who are out of uniform, fighting guerrilla style and fighting for what they believe in. It doesn't ever happen.

I truly hope that if this gun control issue ever changes to support the gun ban people, that it is done via a constitutional amendment. If the antis can gain enough support to accomplish that then at least the action is lawful. Otherwise I also fear for selective chipping away at free speech and the press and the right to be secure in our homes and so on. That's all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights that I see being in jeopardy here. Without the rule of law including honoring "Shall not be infringed" what can we really count on?

Cheers.

When you raise arms against the government you would become a terrorist But as you said the government will never use heavy weaponry in populated areas.not even against terrorists I am sure they rather be overthrown and br hung from the tallest tree before they do that

Do you know the words to the song Bring out the drones?

[NeverSure]

I get your point and remain unsure I am correct, but I did slip into the mind exercise of considering this. I will not defend this position I offered. I just wonder. Still, the real reason for the limitation of guns and hoped for confiscation is always avoided by proponents; its never offered. They want guns not in and of themselves but because they are the primary obstacle for further political aims. Guns are not the end, they are the means.

(I no longer have any respect for the Nine Robbed Destroyers. That they legislate from the bench is self evident. Our nation was never intended to have an Achilles heel in the Judicial Branch. Some things cannot be ruled away. However, a full Amendment might buy my complicity, might... but I would likely still be among the holdouts that balk at even that. It would only serve as one more example of the danger of Democracy to me- mob rule!).

"Still, the real reason for the limitation of guns and hoped for confiscation is always avoided by proponents; its never offered. They want guns not in and of themselves but because they are the primary obstacle for further political aims. Guns are not the end, they are the means."

Of course that's true and many of us know that. A government can't have total control over an armed people. Could Pol Pot or anyone else have pulled off his atrocities against Americans? Of course not.

I really can't say much more without bringing in examples from history that will take us off topic to debate those claims.

Cheers.

[arjunadawn]

-snip-

One thing is clear, no manner of armed citizens could prevent a rogue government any longer. Whatever frightful possibility the 2nd Amendment may have thus been created to avert has long ago passed.

I strongly disagree. We would need to presuppose that law enforcement would even follow any orders to act against the general citizenry. We'd need to presupposed that they wouldn't instead fight back. We don't know the answer to that.

There are more than 100 million gun owners in the US and fewer than 2 million in the armed forces. Unless we believe that this "rogue government" would use heavy weaponry in mass destruction of populated areas, then we have to ask how they would get people to give up their guns. The truth is that they would have to go door to door which would be suicidal. Many Americans still believe that some things are worth dying for which may also explain why some of our brothers in other countries don't understand us really well. Our risk/reward assessment is apparently entirely different.

Don't forget that even using those heinous tactics, the mighty US military couldn't win against the people in Korea or VN or Iraq or Pakistan or - must I go on? It isn't possible to defeat an army of citizens who are out of uniform, fighting guerrilla style and fighting for what they believe in. It doesn't ever happen.

I truly hope that if this gun control issue ever changes to support the gun ban people, that it is done via a constitutional amendment. If the antis can gain enough support to accomplish that then at least the action is lawful. Otherwise I also fear for selective chipping away at free speech and the press and the right to be secure in our homes and so on. That's all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights that I see being in jeopardy here. Without the rule of law including honoring "Shall not be infringed" what can we really count on?

Cheers.

When you raise arms against the government you would become a terrorist But as you said the government will never use heavy weaponry in populated areas.not even against terrorists I am sure they rather be overthrown and br hung from the tallest tree before they do that

Do you know the words to the song Bring out the drones?

I am consistent throughout my posts, I do not condone violence; especially with regard to what we discuss here. Why? Those who think violence will ever achieve securing their 2nd Amendment overlook the fact that violence will be the surest tool to ensure confiscation. Myself and others simply note the historical context and premise. The 2nd Amendment has zero to do with target shooting or hunting. Nothing at all. Never did. It was envisioned to ensure "arms" were commensurate with that possessed by the government, not muskets per se. Should magazine fed weapons have existed then this also would not have been specified. Throughout the deliberations and actual words of the constitution things excluded meant all other things. The constitution is affirmative, listing must dos and don'ts and all other issues reserved solely to the people. The absence of any specificity with regard to the "right to keep and bear arms" is pretty clear- there are no restrictions.

I would be very circumspect as to who is and who is not a terrorist any longer. In an age where the Executive & Company openly courts terrorists/unindicted terror conspirators, terror support proxies, and labels law abiding American as terrorists for routine criminal and other acts, we are already sliding on the slippery slope.

BTW, that particular point in time feared by the Framer's and perhaps many today will never take place in the guise of jackbooted thugs arbitrarily kicking in doors to confiscate weapons- not without real or false pretense. It will be stage managed and requested. Events will unfold in such a way as to the people requesting such aid, demanding it. The very solution will first be proceeded by the chain of events that lead to its request. This crisis-solution dialectic plays out near constantly in US politics. Americans are now too distracted or stupid to realize government (Leviathan) happens to them. This is the reason crisis drives the entire train over the past years in the US.

[mopar71]

-snip-

One thing is clear, no manner of armed citizens could prevent a rogue government any longer. Whatever frightful possibility the 2nd Amendment may have thus been created to avert has long ago passed.

I strongly disagree. We would need to presuppose that law enforcement would even follow any orders to act against the general citizenry. We'd need to presupposed that they wouldn't instead fight back. We don't know the answer to that.

There are more than 100 million gun owners in the US and fewer than 2 million in the armed forces. Unless we believe that this "rogue government" would use heavy weaponry in mass destruction of populated areas, then we have to ask how they would get people to give up their guns. The truth is that they would have to go door to door which would be suicidal.

The gov't would need some sort of national gun registry if they wanted to go door-to-door. Hmmm, that sounds familiar. Then a large number of the 100 million law-abiding gun owners would voluntarily give up their guns if told it was the law. That would still lead a few million who refused to give them up. Even then, if the gov't decided to go door-to-door to take those remaining guns, you'd have to wonder why they never bothered trying that with all the gangbangers and drug dealers in our big cities? Maybe because it would solve most of the gun "problem" and take away their reason to confiscate guns from the People in the first place?

[sirineou]

-snip-

One thing is clear, no manner of armed citizens could prevent a rogue government any longer. Whatever frightful possibility the 2nd Amendment may have thus been created to avert has long ago passed.

I strongly disagree. We would need to presuppose that law enforcement would even follow any orders to act against the general citizenry. We'd need to presupposed that they wouldn't instead fight back. We don't know the answer to that.

There are more than 100 million gun owners in the US and fewer than 2 million in the armed forces. Unless we believe that this "rogue government" would use heavy weaponry in mass destruction of populated areas, then we have to ask how they would get people to give up their guns. The truth is that they would have to go door to door which would be suicidal. Many Americans still believe that some things are worth dying for which may also explain why some of our brothers in other countries don't understand us really well. Our risk/reward assessment is apparently entirely different.

Don't forget that even using those heinous tactics, the mighty US military couldn't win against the people in Korea or VN or Iraq or Pakistan or - must I go on? It isn't possible to defeat an army of citizens who are out of uniform, fighting guerrilla style and fighting for what they believe in. It doesn't ever happen.

I truly hope that if this gun control issue ever changes to support the gun ban people, that it is done via a constitutional amendment. If the antis can gain enough support to accomplish that then at least the action is lawful. Otherwise I also fear for selective chipping away at free speech and the press and the right to be secure in our homes and so on. That's all ten amendments in the Bill of Rights that I see being in jeopardy here. Without the rule of law including honoring "Shall not be infringed" what can we really count on?

Cheers.

When you raise arms against the government you would become a terrorist But as you said the government will never use heavy weaponry in populated areas.not even against terrorists I am sure they rather be overthrown and br hung from the tallest tree before they do that

Do you know the words to the song Bring out the drones?

I am consistent throughout my posts, I do not condone violence; especially with regard to what we discuss here. Why? Those who think violence will ever achieve securing their 2nd Amendment overlook the fact that violence will be the surest tool to ensure confiscation. Myself and others simply note the historical context and premise. The 2nd Amendment has zero to do with target shooting or hunting. Nothing at all. Never did. It was envisioned to ensure "arms" were commensurate with that possessed by the government, not muskets per se. Should magazine fed weapons have existed then this also would not have been specified. Throughout the deliberations and actual words of the constitution things excluded meant all other things. The constitution is affirmative, listing must dos and don'ts and all other issues reserved solely to the people. The absence of any specificity with regard to the "right to keep and bear arms" is pretty clear- there are no restrictions.

I would be very circumspect as to who is and who is not a terrorist any longer. In an age where the Executive & Company openly courts terrorists/unindicted terror conspirators, terror support proxies, and labels law abiding American as terrorists for routine criminal and other acts, we are already sliding on the slippery slope.

BTW, that particular point in time feared by the Framer's and perhaps many today will never take place in the guise of jackbooted thugs arbitrarily kicking in doors to confiscate weapons- not without real or false pretense. It will be stage managed and requested. Events will unfold in such a way as to the people requesting such aid, demanding it. The very solution will first be proceeded by the chain of events that lead to its request. This crisis-solution dialectic plays out near constantly in US politics. Americans are now too distracted or stupid to realize government (Leviathan) happens to them. This is the reason crisis drives the entire train over the past years in the US.

Please explain the nonviolent use of guns against a tyrannical government

Specific limitations are not provided in many of the constitutional provision yet limitations do exist , please explain why Gun ownership should be treated differently, and please don't tell me because it is a natural right, do you content that other rights are unnatural?

"will never take place in the guise of jackbooted thugs arbitrarily kicking in doors to confiscate weapons- not without real or false pretense. It will be stage managed and requested. Events will unfold in such a way as to the people requesting such aid, demanding it."

I totally agree, in fact it is already happening.

"By a roughly two-to-one margin, Americans say they are willing to give up personal privacy to let the federal government investigate terror threats, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. "

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/01/18/with-snowden-in-the-background-privacy-takes-a-back-seat-to-security/

Fear will make people do stupid things, it is not the first time it has happened and I am afraid it will not be the last. it is exactly what the terrorists want.

The fact of the matter is that no one wants to take your guns away, only sensible regulation , ans no in their right mind is going to use their guns in defense of a tyrannical government.

​The best defense against a tyrannical government is located at the voting booth

[sirineou]

I dont believe anyone has made the argument that guns should be limited for the purpose of hunting. If anyone has I misses it and such person is clearly in the minority

Nor did I said that Paranoia is the only dynamic fueling the pro gun/no restriction constituency.

I said that paranoia is central to the issue. There are those with an agenda who are fostering such paranoia and exploiting it for their own purposes, they are not paranoid,they are simply politically astute.

If one thinks of a threat and such threat does not exist , I think you would agree it would be a sign of paranoia.

I always try to support my opinion with facts and links

So I provide two quotes and links, one as it pertains to the ruling of SCOTUS concerning gun rights and the decision of SCOTUS not to interfere with limitations

I think it would be helpful for those with different opinions to do the same. Otherwise this stops becoming a discussion and becomes a pole taking on opinions.

Your point concerning Hubris is a valid one but one that cuts both ways.

If I might make an additional point not associated to your reply

One of the reasons The far right is providing for it's pro gun/anti regulation stance is the need for an armed citizen to resist a tyrannical government .

as you also said , hand guns and rifles would be of little defense against an American Government. The Iraqi republican guard could not resist the US government and some yahoos with rifle will??

If one need a defense against a tyrannical government

one needs to strengthen the built in checks and balances. Yet the far right on one hand advocates pro gun laws toward that end, while conceding tyrannical powers such as torture, and the warrantless surveillance of it's own citizens on the other.

Serious question, How does one reconcile the two?

If indeed controlling government is one of the issues why give them so much power? I don't get it.

I will be honest with you, personally, I think the far right is scared Sh#&less, with good reason, and and are grasping at straws.

Anyway always a pleasure to exchange views with people such as you

Cheers.

I am slowly reaching the conclusion that your second part of post above is true. I am uncertain what this means however. Without question, the present has become the relationship with government an armed citizenry was supposed to prevent. It is indisputable to me that governments no longer work for the people rather the people are or are not tolerated by government. Recent polls support (roughly) what I assert: Government is the biggest problem most Americans have. So, if it is true that the reason for the 2nd Amendment is kinda moot then is there a continued justification? I say yes.

It is incorrect that "the far right" alone is "scared sh>>_less." A considerable portion of middle America and centrist democrats also take issue with gun control fantasies. The fact that so many Americas are scared is significant, its alarming, its illustrative. I cannot fully reconcile the fact that the premise for the 2nd Amendment has passed its utility but I do 100% assert that were guns confiscated the aggression upon regular law abiding Americans would be worse. READ: Further erosion of gun rights directly supports progressive pogroms to socially engineer society. Guns now remain the sole obstacle to overt oppression in America. Radical? Maybe, I am convinced of it though. In the present US if you do not tow the socialist progressive line you are demonized. Demonization, ridicule, and repetition say all one needs to know about the character of that which opposes you. The government now uses multiple parallel and seemingly unrelated lists that effectively disenfranchise people by labeling them incompetent without adjudication (see veterans, State mental health lists, and gun rights), entering their names in databases as potential threats (see TV threads on Guns and Watchlists), DHS LEA bulletins pretty much created by the Leftist SPLC labeling all sorts of regular people potential terrorists (abortion opponents, 2nd Amend supporters, returning veterans, Christian Groups like Focus on The Family), etc. Really? Is it no wonder people are scared? The government has set other stages adjacent to the Gun Control agenda with the tools to implement a truly horrendous obstacle to exercising the Bill of Rights.

Government has now contorted "terrorism" into a weapon against all manner of actors. "Terrorism" and its constructs are now widely used charges and "terrorism" and its constructs are the core reasons these various lists are created. It is intentionally designed this way. The government now routinely lists political opponents among threats to government and/or terrorism suspects. It is only a simple step or two before entire classes of Americans are effectively branded and cannot access weapons. If one thinks this is a good thing why would it stop there? Why would it not later effect [you]? I am terrified of the world progressivism is creating for us. Look everywhere at their works. Measure the good they wish to inflict upon us by their past deeds. Can anyone really trust stewardship to a Socialist pogrom of political balkanization which has to date eviscerated the entire western world?

Ditto! :-)

Sorry for not replying to your post, I simply did not see it.

I find my self in agreement on many points you make, and agree that the government , has not and does not always work for my best interest.

But that's a subject for a different thread which you could start and I would be happy to participate.

Though I agree that many of the government policies are not made with my my best interest in mind, I think that this executive decision to expand back ground checks is to my best interest. and I am glad to say a majority of the people in this country agree.

[GinBoy2]

A lot of the problem is that everyone argues their point from their own bias. The academic research on the effects of gun violence is pretty limited. The NRA effectively stopped the CDC research back in 1996, and the lobby still manages to stifle any dedicated funding.

Maybe if we actually had some data the argument might become more reasoned....then again you need to ask the question why the NRA doesn't want data!

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/storyline/wp/2015/01/14/why-the-cdc-still-isnt-researching-gun-violence-despite-the-ban-being-lifted-two-years-ago/

Edited January 4, 2016 by GinBoy2

[NeverSure]

​The best defense against a tyrannical government is located at the voting booth

Tell that to the victims of Pol Pot. Tell that to a Thai.

I don't suffer any delusions that things will stay the same in 100 years for the next generations. History says it won't. I see big trouble in just 20 or 30 years (or less) from out of control immigration with the "natives" getting out-bred and losing control. I'm afraid for Europe.

The worse things get in the world, the more people call for bigger government. Why? They cry out for the government to protect them. I hate to be such a pessimist but I don't see any government around that truly has the interests of the common man at heart.

I've seen things get bad enough that many people were willing to accept a dictator. That was on TVF with Westerners who are "educated".

Can you even imagine that?

Cheers.