I thought maybe he would feel better in the morning. Nope. I am still bothered by the many liberties to be lost under an Obama presidency and liberal Democratic Congress.
Starting January 20, I am going to keep a list of liberties lost. I'll probably seed a list of liberties likely to lose. Perhaps in all the excitement yesterday you missed the news that Chuck Schumer said he wants to bring back the Fairness Doctrine.
As those of us following along with actual issues are aware, Obama is going to be the most anti-gun President in history, if he follows through on his stated views, his voting history, and so on.
He supported the DC gun ban, which he admits was unconstitutional. He said the expiration of the so-called "assault weapons" ban was a "tragedy." He supports banning a lot of ammo, and making a lot more prohibitively expensive.
Despite his claim of supporting an "individual right" to keep and bear arms, it's obvious his definition of "right" means the government can restrict that "right" into oblivion.
And his friends in the Congress, like the aforementioned Schumer, will go along with any gun restriction they can get their hands on. That he came out on Election Day and talked about restricting the First Amendment tells you that these people are not afraid of anything right now.
So, it's time to stock up, while we still can. I am thinking M-4 carbine, a bunch of large clips, and as much inexpensive ammo as I can get my hands on.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at November 05, 2008 08:28 AM | Email ThisGuns. Wasn't that just settled by the Supreme Court in favor of the right to have a gun? And states enact their own gun laws so how is Obama, by himself, going to change this? (I think you may have been in Sarah Palin's Civics class and missed the part about Congress making the laws.)
And Chuck Schumer? You really even listen to him?
Please.
Get your guns and your ammo. Then maybe next time it will be your 8-year old who dies when handed an Uzi to fire. Get some sense about weapons and quit saying "it was an accident" or "wackos with guns - who knew?". I could care less if people have guns if they are held accountable and responsible for what happens with the guns.
And by the way, you might want to have a serious discussion about people not using their guns in ways that might harm Obama. If that were to happen, THAT would be what would limit gun ownership in this country. Think about it.
Posted by: Out West on November 5, 2008 08:37 AMI also find it darkly humorous that you're starting to talk about lost liberties now...
Posted by: demo kid on November 5, 2008 08:38 AMThe Class of people who elected Obama are the same Class of people, throughout the ages that have marched in lockstep to the beck and call of the World's Tyrants. Tyrants, always bring destruction, pain and Death to Mankind. Watch Out!
First, they will shut off Yellowstone, then the National Forests and then Geoff Simpson will get it shutoff State Forests. Mark my words.
Time to do battle.
Posted by: swatter on November 5, 2008 08:52 AMStop inventing senerios you fear mongering alarmist.
Obama does not have any political capital to start pushing through gun legislation. The legislative priorities in our country are differrent and there are enough blue dog Dems to block any unpopular gun legislation.
Lets give someone else a try.
Posted by: He has lost it on November 5, 2008 08:53 AMGuns. Wasn't that just settled by the Supreme Court in favor of the right to have a gun?
Nope. In fact, DC is still refusing to give permits for semi-automatic handguns, and the incorporation issue has not been yet heard by the Court, and so on.
And states enact their own gun laws so how is Obama, by himself, going to change this?
By himself? Please learn to read. Look for the part where I mentioned "Congress."
And the feds have a TON of gun laws. It's a pity you didn't know this.
Get your guns and your ammo. Then maybe next time it will be your 8-year old who dies when handed an Uzi to fire.
You're an idiot.
Get some sense about weapons ...
No, that's MY line.
And by the way, you might want to have a serious discussion about people not using their guns in ways that might harm Obama.
That is completely unnecessary. Anyone who would consider doing that would not listen to me.
If that were to happen, THAT would be what would limit gun ownership in this country. Think about it.
Cold, dead, fingers. Think about it.
demo kid:
These dramatic scenarios that y'all are creating in your own minds will NOT happen.
OK, perhaps you didn't understand. I'll talk more slowly for you, again.
Obama and the leadership of the Congress want to ban a lot more guns and ammo. They have the power to do it, and apparently they think they can get away with almost anything right now. They have the means, motive, and opportunity.
It is extremely unlikely to NOT happen.
And it's even more scary that you find the need to stockpile weapons if you lose an election. Armed rebellion indeed.
You're a liar. My implication, explained clearly, is to stockpile specific goods that the Democrats are going to try to make illegal or expensive, NOT to use those goods against a government I disagree with. Now, if they come knocking on my door to take my guns, or my kids, or some other crazy thing that you and I don't think is going to happen, then well, yes, that could start an armed rebellion. Duh.
I also find it darkly humorous that you're starting to talk about lost liberties now...
Yes, that's the problem: you don't understand liberty. You think it's "funny."
our country suffered eight years of compromised personal liberty under a Republican president.
That is called the "tu quoque" fallacy, and is thusly ignored
Stop inventing senerios you fear mongering alarmist.
Dude, I am going by what the stated positions of Obama and the Dem leadership in Congress are. There's no inventing here. If you deny that Obama and the Dems want to ban "assault weapons" and handguns and make concealed carry illegal and make ammo prohibitively expensive, then you've simply not being paying attention.
And if Christine gets re-elected, it could be even worse for us here in WA.
Obama does not have any political capital to start pushing through gun legislation.
He doesn't need it, because the Democratic leaders in Congress AGREE WITH HIM on it.
there are enough blue dog Dems to block any unpopular gun legislation.
Maybe, maybe not. We don't know that yet.
Lets give someone else a try.
Yes, this is why I voted for McCain.
Yes, but now we have to deal with the neocoms.
And pudge, while discussing pre-election politics last week at a local plumbing shop, the proprietor (and co-owner) confided she had fired a handgun for the first time the previous weekend. She had taken a firearms safety course from a certified instructor, was in the process of selecting a handgun for purchase and had applied for a concealed weapon permit. I asked her why she had done this and she said she was afraid. Apparently many people are, as handguns are reportedly flying off the shelves, nationwide. A contributing factor is the obvious supposition that Obama and Congress will attempt to ban handguns and semi-automatic weapons.
Posted by: Saltherring on November 5, 2008 09:05 AMI see this phrase used a lot, but I never see specifics. So, I'll try again:
Specifically, what rights were taken away from you by Bush and his administration?
What rights need to be restored?
Posted by: SouthernRoots on November 5, 2008 09:06 AMI'll tell you the same thing I told him. "You said the same thing 16 years ago when Clinton was elected". Everyone had to run out and stock up on assault rifles (usually cheap chinese versions) ... and be sure to get those extra banana clips before they're illegal.
Demo Kids made the correct implication: You're about 8 years late in starting to worry about an assault on individual liberties. You've already witnessed the biggest executive power grab in history with Bush, along with an extremely discouraging erosion of our constitutional protections. Thanks to the current Republican administration, you're now about to see a Democratic President in the White House with more power than ever before.
Posted by: Splinter on November 5, 2008 09:12 AMI had three guys this morning ask me about getting their concealed carry permits.
Posted by: Vince on November 5, 2008 09:14 AMI'll tell you the same thing I told him. "You said the same thing 16 years ago when Clinton was elected". Everyone had to run out and stock up on assault rifles (usually cheap chinese versions) ... and be sure to get those extra banana clips before they're illegal.
You are making my argument for me: those things WERE MADE ILLEGAL under Clinton. I was not in a position to buy at the time; I am now. How do you think this argues against my point?
You're about 8 years late in starting to worry about an assault on individual liberties.
Again with the tu quoque logical fallacy. And again, I ignore it.
Posted by: pudge on November 5, 2008 09:27 AMEven if you don't plan to carry.
If you value that right, the more people who exercise it, the less likely the fascists in the legislature are to try to take it away.
No, you obtuse fearmonger, you are living in a dream world. @9 is absolutely correct when he says that Blue Dog Democrats hold enough power to make gun control at the end of a long, long list of priorities. Similarly, Obama didn't object to the recent Supreme Court decision on the rights of gun owners.
But hey, I get it. Post-election malaise. Felt it four years ago. Get it out of your system, and I'll check back with you in a little while. If you're still whining, then that will speak volumes to what kind of person you really are.
Posted by: demo kid on November 5, 2008 09:36 AMI mean foreign fighters are probably really upset by gitmo and wiretaps, and maybe I was sleeping and didn't notice which civil liberties were taken away.
Pudge isn't far off the marxist on this one.
Posted by: Andy on November 5, 2008 09:44 AMHonestly, gun manufactures must love these Democratic wins and the way the gun nutters swamp the stores to stock up before "the man" comes for your guns.
Better stock up now Pudge... you betcha! they're comin' for ya! ;-)
Posted by: Splinter on November 5, 2008 09:45 AMNo, you obtuse fearmonger
You keep saying that, but you've not addressed any of my points, just like you didn't with the Osgood stuff. You addressed a few things there, but overall ignored my main point, trying to pass it off as supposition, when in fact, I was right: either he had to make ineligibles "eligible," or it would not be universal. He then came on and conceded that it would not be universal.
Recently you had been actually arguing points with me. You've stopped. Why?
@9 is absolutely correct when he says that Blue Dog Democrats hold enough power to make gun control
No, he's not.
Similarly, Obama didn't object to the recent Supreme Court decision on the rights of gun owners.
Just a few months before the Heller Court decision, he disagreed with its substance, saying the DC gun ban was constitutional. And now DC is DEFYING that decision. You really think Obama and his DOJ are going to attempt to force compliance in DC? Pull the other one.
Obama is on record, many times, disagreeing with the content of the Heller decision, right up until the time the Court decided. We're not idiots, demo kid, we don't believe Obama suddenly changed his mind due to Scalia's brilliant arguments.
If you're still whining, then that will speak volumes to what kind of person you really are.
Yes, if I do not give up the fight and continue to work for liberty, that will speak volumes about what kind of person I am. Thank you for the encouragement. Many conservatives are ready to give up the fight. I won't.
You are not following along. Again: DC is already defying the Court decision, and the Court decision was very narrow, and does NOT apply to states, only federal districts.
And Obama and the Dems DO NOT consider a right to an "assault rifle," a right to most common types of ammo, a right to most types of handguns, etc. to be covered under Heller, and most Dem leaders, including Obama, want to ban these things.
It is possible, though unlikely, that "conservative" Dems could stop it. The best liklihood is that the Dems will realize that this will hurt them in the next elections if they do it, but they are flying so high I doubt it.
Again: they think they can get away with restricting the First Amendment, how much more the Second?
Everything Pudge said on this is easily verifiable. That you again choose willful ignorance just goes to show that willful ignorance guided your vote yesterday, and no matter what violation of our rights, you'll be in here spinning it and defending it... as long as it's the correct rights being violated.
Posted by: Hinton on November 5, 2008 10:15 AMBecause you're not interested in debate. With that previous discussion, you were trying to base your opposition on something that had no relevance to the real problems.
Heck, if anything, you could make the arguments that:
1. a universal registration system could be potentially insecure and vulnerable to hacking;
2. that governments have poor track records with with implementing computer database systems that work effectively;
3. that cost overruns would be a major issue; or
4. that databases such as these have not been linked together like this in very many jurisdictions, and it is likely that it would involve a LOT of investment for meager reward.
All of those are reasonable counterpoints. Personally I think that Osgood's ideas, while really great conceptually, just wouldn't be feasible to be implemented by the state alone, and wouldn't be appealing without some dramatic event that would require us to explore it. (Voter fraud or disenfranchisement on a MASSIVE scale, far beyond what we've seen in this election on either side is probably what would be required.) So it is an interesting idea to research, but to base any part of a campaign platform on it is a fool's errand.
But instead of talking about this, you decided to focus on the point that "ineligible" people might be able to vote.
Is that a potential risk? I can't refute it without a working system to critique. There are a lot of things that could go wrong with such a system, and that might just be one issue. On the other hand, your point is a consistent problem with CURRENT registration systems. If ineligible voters managed to pass checks by the Secretary of State and get on the voter rolls, you would be in exactly the same position. If anything, though, the need to exclude a larger number of ineligible voters would actually motivate the state to improve these systems.
And this is why I'm having a harder time posting comments here overall lately. Being shouted down as a "communist" by a bunch of whiny losers isn't "debate". Parsing and misinterpreting an Obama speech and concluding that he's about to create a domestic civilian security force isn't reasonable, nor is assuming that a center-left Obama will create a socialist state once he assumes office. Dwelling on minor points without addressing the main topics is not a way to make a strong argument for or against policies and programs.
So yeah, as I said before, wallow all you like. But in the end, I have been sorely unimpressed by the quality of material here lately. Eric and Ron actually seem like stand up guys in certain situations, but I've been completely underwhelmed by what you and the rabid right-wingnuts have been writing recently. It isn't political argumentation... it's just mindless partisan drooling.
Posted by: demo kid on November 5, 2008 10:26 AMDemoKid, could you please lay that list on us?
Posted by: MrRcguy on November 5, 2008 10:28 AMActually, it took me about 2 minutes to find an AR-15 for sale in Arizona, along with a "90 Rounder" high capacity magazine.
Um. Yes, and? Obama and the Dems want to make those illegal. So people should stock up now.
What's your point?
Actually, I just had a thought: maybe you don't realize that those were illegal under Clinton, and only recently under Bush became legal again? Because it seems like you are using those as evidence that the ban didn't do anything, but no, for many years those things were banned.
So it seems you just don't know what you are talking about.
...I'll be at Butch's in the meantime.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 5, 2008 10:46 AMAnd then there is the blanket wiretapping of American citizens without a warrant, but I guess if it's the Bush administration doing it, its not so much of a problem, right? You'll be fine with the Obama Administration having these same powers to listen in on Americans, right?
Posted by: Splinter on November 5, 2008 10:47 AMBecause you're not interested in debate.
Ha. That's what people say when they lose the debate.
With that previous discussion, you were trying to base your opposition on something that had no relevance to the real problems.
False. I am not going to reargue that discussion, but no, you are once again committing a logical fallacy to try to win your point. YOU incorrectly believe my point is not a real problem, so you dismiss it. That is illogical and anti-intellectual.
Heck, if anything, you could make the arguments that:
Actually, I did make ALL those points. Shows how much you were paying attention.
And this is why I'm having a harder time posting comments here overall lately. Being shouted down as a "communist" by a bunch of whiny losers isn't "debate".
I asked you about your responses TO ME. I am arguing legitimate points.
Parsing and misinterpreting an Obama speech and concluding that he's about to create a domestic civilian security force isn't reasonable
I agree. However, it is also not reasonable for YOU to say that his proposed "civilian security force" would not be an armed once, since that is the direct analogy he was drawing.
nor is assuming that a center-left Obama will create a socialist state once he assumes office
Nor is claiming Obama is "center-left."
Dwelling on minor points
The Bill of Rights, the topic here, is not a minor point. I am sad you think it is.
It isn't political argumentation... it's just mindless partisan drooling.
Your dishonesty is troubling. You made one reasonable point: you don't think the moderates and conservatives will allow Obama and the Dems to do new gun restrictions. But it is irrational to conclude that this will be the case. We can hope it is the case, but we can't know it, and we DO know that the Dem leadership and Obama WANT it.
So to conclude that I don't have a legitimate point is clearly illogical, and driven by your own partisan drooling.
I'm serious, my favorite ammo dealer is out of stock, I had a hard time finding AR 15 mags online, I'm not finding Glock mags, dealers are out of ARs and Glocks ...
Posted by: Erik on November 5, 2008 11:35 AMJust like you misunderstand gun law, you also misunderstand this.
Consider the power of the executive branch now: Anyone, American citizen or not, that the President wants to consider a "terrorist" (as defined by him, using legal advice of his Justice appointees) can be detained without charges indefinitely, shipped off to prisons outside America's borders and tortured.
False. You're ignorant. The MCA explicitly says that this does not apply to citizens, and also federal law says that none of them may be tortured, citizen or not.
And then there is the blanket wiretapping of American citizens without a warrant
There is no "blanket wiretapping." There is specific wiretapping, which started under Clinton.
So, 0-for-2. Try again?
Actually, no, they were not. Obviosly you don't really understand exactly how full of holes the Clinton Assault Weapon ban was... to the point of being meaningless.
The millions of new and used assault weapons and high capacity magazines that were flooded into the market prior to the "ban" going into affect, were never illegal. Only "newly manufactured" assualt rifles (that meet a fairly ambigious "military appearance" definition) and high capacity magazines would be illegal to sell or buy (inside the United States, with the exception of the military and law enforement agencies). With plenty of warning about the pending law, it gave gun makers plenty of time to flood the market before the law went into affect.
But I really don't want to get in the way of your handwringing and stockpiling. We'll see what happens over the next four (probably eight) years, and I would bet you that at the end of an Obama administration, you'll still be able to buy your cheap chinese AK47 knockoffs, along with enough banana clips to hold off an army of commie-fascist-socialist-terrorist-loving Obama supporters.
Posted by: Splinter on November 5, 2008 11:50 AMGo ahead Pudge, call me a liar. I don't care. Your are flat out wrong on Obama. The facts are what they may. It doesn't matter if you don't bother checking out the real facts. Believe the lies and fears being promoted by the right-wing smear machine all you want. You will continue to become more and more marginalized in a country and state that has rejected this brand of politics. Oh, the fear-machine right will continue to try, and the more they do, they will become even more marginalized. Let's hope the sane wing of the Republican party gives you and the right-wing smear machine the boot. Good riddance to you!!!!!!!!!!!!
Posted by: tc on November 5, 2008 12:06 PMactually, all of these facts are taken from Obama himself in his own words. We can't help if the single digit IQ'ers can't decypher Marxist code speak, but it doesn't take a genius to sum up that Obama is indeed a Marxist in philosophy. This is the same tc that didn't believe the video of a drunken Biden singing 'the villages' while on vacation in Hawaii was "not Biden" even when it is in fact Biden and has never been disputed by anyone other than him to the contrary.
Some people, you just can't reach.
Posted by: Rick D. on November 5, 2008 12:28 PMOnly "newly manufactured" assualt rifles
Obviously. And thus they were almost impossible to get. How are you that stupid? That is obviously what we're talking about here.
But I really don't want to get in the way of your handwringing and stockpiling.
Why do you hate science?
tc:
More lies and falsehoods from the almighty Pudge.
Where? Give me one example. It is, of course, quite telling that you refuse to do so.
Go ahead Pudge, call me a liar. I don't care. Your are flat out wrong on Obama.
Shrug. Everything I said was a fact. So yes, you're lying.
You will continue to become more and more marginalized in a country and state that has rejected this brand of politics.
No, the country has not rejected liberty, it simply bought into the lie that "McCain == Bush." But it's sad that you have rejected liberty.
Want more? I can give you more.
And yes, I hope something is done to keep guns - any guns - out of the hands of idiots like you. Or, maybe not: When you shoot your kid dead because he came in the house without knocking . . . well . . . that's one less Republican voter.
Posted by: Nobody Likes a Sore Loser on November 5, 2008 12:51 PMThe end of Bush's kangaroo courts. You know, the ones that allow "evidence" obtained through torture. Oh, and when the judge rules against the government, he gets replaced. Besides, the "impartial" jury that decides the guilt of the accused is comprised of a group of handpicked military officers from the Pentagon.
Let's have the rebuttals consisting of long-discredited talking points from Faux News and Rush "Oxy" Limbaugh (who accepted help from the ACLU, btw). I'm waiting with baited breath.
Posted by: Nobody Likes a Sore Loser on November 5, 2008 12:57 PMPersonally, I look forward to the restoration of habeas corpus
Too late, already happened. Sorry you're so uninformed.
the closure of the GTMO prison
That has nothing to do with liberty, it is merely a symbol.
and the end of arbitrary, endless detentions based on "confessions" obtained through "enhanced interrogation methods."
Example of this happening? Yeah, that's what I thought.
I also look forward to the end of Bush's illegal warrantless wiretapping program.
The one Obama voted for? Or the one started under Clinton?
Want more? I can give you more.
I doubt it.
And yes, I hope something is done to keep guns - any guns - out of the hands of idiots like you.
I'll make you a trade: I'll give up my Second Amendment rights, if you give up your First Amendment rights.
Nah, just kidding, but it shows how much you hate liberty. Very, very, sad.
If I wasn't "over it," why would I be talking about the coming Obama presidency?
You appear to mean that I should just give in and go along for the socialist ride.
That will never happen. I love liberty too much for that.
No Pudgey boy - Assault rifles and high capacity magazines have never been "almost impossible to get"... and they won't be under Obama either. You need to stop reading and believing everything the NRA sends you in the mail.
Bitter and clinging to guns and religion appear to describe you to the letter. Enjoy your time wandering the wilderness, muttering to yourself about marxist, singing your folk songs about the evils of liberalism. I really do hope that the Republicans select Palin as the next figure-head of the party. That will do more to solidify Democratic gains than anything else. She so perfectly represents what's left of your party: Intellectualism is bad, thinking from the gut is good. That you can't see what that type of thinking has done to this country over the past 8 years doesn't surprise me at all.
Posted by: Splinter on November 5, 2008 01:20 PMPre-bans were, yes, actually. Prohibitively expensive for most people. You don't know what you are talking about.
Shocking, I know, that a liberal has no clue.
Bitter and clinging to guns and religion appear to describe you to the letter.
I am only bitter when they try to take them from me, which, of course, Obama wants to do, by his own words.
She so perfectly represents what's left of your party: Intellectualism is bad, thinking from the gut is good.
Um. That was Obama's WHOLE CAMPAIGN. Are you kidding me? Obama has stepped up anti-intellectualism and "feeling" over "thinking" to a whole new level. He never DID explain just what Bush did that caused the financial crisis, but he kept asserting it. He never did explain what "hope" and "change" are, except in mealy-mouthed populist self-defining rhetoric.
So blind, so sad.
Wilderness, indeed.
Actually, as someone who enjoys shooting and collecting as a hobby, along with most of my immediate family members, I very much know what I'm talking about. The FAWB caused a flood of inexpensive chinese made assault rifles during the clinton administration, along with a flood of the accessories that go along with them. The supply was more than offset though, by the increase in demand by panicked gun-nutters, driven into a buying frenzy by the NRA's talk of Clinton's pending legislation... again, so full of loop-holes that it was totally meaningless for the most part... except that it seemed to pacify the liberal clamouring for "gun control" legislation. Simple supply and demand pudge.
"Are you kidding me? Obama has stepped up anti-intellectualism and "feeling" over "thinking" to a whole new level."
So I guess that's why so many intellectual conservatives ran from the McCain/Palin ticket and endorsed Obama, right? (George Will, Christopher Buckley, Michael Smerconish to name a few.) Wasn't it Palin that was always on her hobby horse complaining about Intellectual Elites and Elite Economists? And I'm sorry you can't seem to follow along with any number of very detailed plans from the Obama campaign, but I certainly don't have the time or desire to spoon feed you the information. That he can also inspire people is actually a good thing in my book. That he understands that the average american might need to sacrifice or contribute in some small way in order for us to defeat terrorism and reduce our deficit is also admirable in my opinion. But I would not expect the "what's in it for me" Republican's to understand or accept that.
I very much know what I'm talking about.
Then you would know prebans they were prohibitively expensive.
So I guess that's why so many intellectual conservatives ran from the McCain/Palin ticket and endorsed Obama, right?
Wow ... dude.
George Will ...
Um. That never happened. Again you don't know what you are talking about.
Christopher Buckley
Apart from his last name, why do you say he is a conservative? He's actually mostly held his political views close to his vest. Again you don't know what you are talking about.
Michael Smerconish
I don't know anything about him. I think I've heard the name once.
But this is, of course, a red herring fallacy anyway, since even if lots of conservative intellectuals endorsed Obama, that would not say anything about my point.
Wasn't it Palin that was always on her hobby horse complaining about Intellectual Elites and Elite Economists?
I never said Palin doesn't do this. I merely said Obama ran a highly anti-intellectual campaign.
And I'm sorry you can't seem to follow along with any number of very detailed plans from the Obama campaign
Been there, done that. But it wasn't his campaign. His campaign was built on logical fallacies like "Bush == McCain" and unsubstantiated falsehoods like "the credit crisis is because of Bush's policies."
That he can also inspire people is actually a good thing in my book.
That's a fine thing, but far less important than getting them to think, which he didn't do. He got them to emote, that's about it.
That he understands that the average american might need to sacrifice or contribute in some small way in order for us to defeat terrorism and reduce our deficit is also admirable in my opinion.
He isn't doing that at all. His plan explicitly does NOT call for sacrifice from the average American to tackle the deficit OR terrorism. Perhaps YOU should have read his proposals.
But I would not expect the "what's in it for me" Republican's to understand or accept that.
If this were just about me, I'd get out of politics and just protect what's mine and ignore the rest of the world. It's not about me, it's about securing the blessing of liberty to ALL Americans, and our posterity. With all liberty, my motto is: This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity. This is the sole reason I am involved, and anything contrary, about selfishness for myself, is a damned lie.
So did Hitler. What's your point?
"That he understands that the average american might need to sacrifice or contribute in some small way in order for us to defeat terrorism and reduce our deficit is also admirable in my opinion."
How could he possibly understand something he himself has never experienced? That One has never held a "real" job that he had to get up and go to everyday, and be held accountable for his output. That One does not know what sacrifice is because he's never had to do it. Go sell hypocrisy somewhere else.
Posted by: Dave on November 5, 2008 04:10 PMI see. So anyone that is inspirational is like Hitler. That makes perfect sense.
Bitter, party of two, your table is ready.
Posted by: Splinter on November 5, 2008 04:14 PMI see. So anyone that is inspirational is like Hitler.
No, you don't see. Rather, you misinterpreted what he said. Try again!
Posted by: pudge on November 5, 2008 04:37 PMI'll do that, thanks Pudge.
And Pudge - these trolls will just go on and on and on. They don't have any good intent.
Posted by: Kevin R on November 5, 2008 05:53 PMI'll do that, thanks Pudge.
And Pudge - these trolls will just go on and on and on. They don't have any good intent.
Posted by: Kevin R on November 5, 2008 05:54 PMPractice clairvoyance much? If so, you are terrible at it. I never said that, nor even thought it. You gave an example of a leader that inspires a lot of people through his speeches. I simply gave you another example of a leader doing the same thing.
I guess I have to spell it out for you. A leader that gives great speeches that inspires people doesn't mean squat. I imagine once Hitler started implementing his plans, many of the Germans were thinking..."WTF? This is not what I thought we were getting".
Barry can speechify all he wants. I'll be the first in line to say he is a great orator. But, great orator != great leader. Show me where he has actually held an administrative leadership position. Anything! Just one! Hell, I'll even take President of his 5th Grade class at this point.
Posted by: Dave on November 6, 2008 07:34 PMThink the board would hire him? No? I didn't think so. So why give a man with the same type of experience the job of CEO of the most powerful nation in the world?
Posted by: Dave on November 6, 2008 07:42 PMBut my concern is that getting such a permit would put me on a list in a government database as being a gun-owner. Will I be targeted for harassment by the liberals in power? Will I just be telling them where to come when they decide to confiscate the guns? We know they don't care about the Constitutional prohibition of that in the 2nd Amendment... Obama ignores it even though he taught Constitutional Law for about ten years. He knows what the Constitution says, but chooses to act against it, in violation of his oath of office.
Back in 2004, Libertarian candidate for President Michael Badnarik told me that he was investing heavily in precious metals: gold, silver... and LEAD.
I think he also said that when they come for his arms they can have them... one bullet at a time.
But it is obvious that it is not wise to go up against the ATF. When they bang on my door I intend to lie down on top of my toddler, and in front of my wife and wait until it is all over.
I think the best way to resist the tyranny that is coming is by taking a page from Gandhi and Jesus: peaceful non-cooperation. Render un to Caesar what is Caesar's. Earn less, live frugally, and pay less in income taxes. This is the way for "Atlas to shrug" while not having to move out of the land one loves.
I've got a family to think of, so I am not going to engage in armed rebellion at this time. But I am going to feed the beast as little as I can. I think that's all I can do. I'm looking for a job as a high school math teacher. Private school, of course!
I'm actually proud of people who have the guts to work for cash under the table and not pay income taxes. I wish I had the guts to do that. But I pay every cent, and feel like a sucker.
"We live in that awkward time in the historical development of our nation when it is too late to reform the system, but too early to shoot the bastards." The time for violent revolution has not yet come.
But we can minimize the extent to which we cooperate with tyranny. Frugality is the answer.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 6, 2008 09:05 PMHilarious!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3AYG4y5et5g
"Thank God for guns, eh Jerry?" :)
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 6, 2008 09:12 PMHiya.
Will I be targeted for harassment by the liberals in power?
Maybe. But hey, then you can sue them and get rich.
Will I just be telling them where to come when they decide to confiscate the guns?
Perhaps, but the idea is that the more people have these licenses, the less chance there is of them even *bothering.*
I think the best way to resist the tyranny that is coming is by taking a page from Gandhi and Jesus: peaceful non-cooperation.
If the time comes, I may choose to do the same. But I'll want the option. We don't know what the future holds. Only a fool would say that we should respond to every assault on our liberties with violence. But sometimes violence IS the only answer. We all hope and pray that we never get to that point here.
I do not at all believe it is likely. But I know it is not impossible.
"We must hang together, or we will most assuredly hang separately." Ben Franklin
"When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall one by one, an unpitied sacrifice in a contemptible struggle." Edmund Burke, 1770
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 6, 2008 09:27 PMWhat do you think of working more with the Republicans to oppose the Democratic agenda?
We agree with each other about as much as McCain agrees with Bush.
Surely we can come up with something here.
But the GOP is a big, heterogeneous package, that comes with a lot of baggage. I disagree with the GOP's foreign policy of policing the world, the excessive power to the executive branch, the violation of liberty that is the GOP opposition to gay marriage and the GOP's alliance with the Christian evangelicals. There is the erosion of our civil liberties via the USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act (that erodes the right of habeas corpus,) and the general disregard for the limitations of the Constitution that really irk me.
And that is just the stated platform. I object to the fact that so many of the GOP politicians have violated their parties fiscally conservative principles. The spending and taxing and the bailouts, all backed by or not resisted by the GOP have really left a bad taste in my mouth.
And then there is what happened to me when I made the mistake of actually joining the GOP, as you suggest. I was one of the Ron Paul supporters who got involved in the 43rd district GOP. I became a neighborhood rep. I was treated rudely and unfairly. I saw the stories about how other Ron Paul supporters were frozen out unfairly. It was just obvious that, your kind invitation aside, I was just not welcome in your party. Once burned, twice shy.
In the Libertarian Party, my views are welcomed. I'd rather be a majority element in a minority party (LP) than a minority element in a minority party (GOP).
Right now, I agree with the Democrats 2/3 of the time, and that just leaves the fiscally conservative part of the GOP, which the GOP no longer represents, in my mind.
No, if I were to leave the Libertarian Party, which is very unlikely, I'd be more happy as a fiscally conservative Democrat, than as a socially tolerant, non-interventionist Republican. In western Washington, I'd be more likely to get elected as well!
Find yourself another Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater or Ron Paul or even a Toby Nixon and I might be tempted. I think the GOP would be really wise to find a way to get the evangelical element to stop scaring away the small-l libertarians. Your coalition has to hang together by being a big tent, or you will wind up being a small one, like the LP!
But thanks for the kind invitation! :)
I'd also like to extend to you a warm invitation to join the Libertarian Party! Bob Barr got the second highest vote-total of any Libertarian Presidential candidate in the party's history. I think we are growing. Join now, and you can still say that you were a Libertarian before it was cool! :)
We need good people working for Liberty both within and without the GOP. You work within, I'm going to work without. I think of it as keeping the GOP honest. If I join the coalition, only to have my values ignored by the GOP, and the GOP thinks it can have my vote because there is no alternative, then I lose all of my influence. In order to have power, I have to have the credible option of jumping ship. That option is what the LP provides.
If it still made sense to run as a Libertarian at the state level (the top-two primary means we will almost never make it to the general election...) then we could have worked together in the following way: when the GOP ran a relatively libertarian candidate, the LP could run a social liberal for the same race, thus "taking votes" from the Democrat and making a difference if the race is close. Ruth Bennett almost gave the race to Rossi in 2004. But you can see what the top-two did to third party candidates in WA. I think there were five or six this election, when there were 20 or 30 four years ago. So much for voter choices. The GOP and Dems hope for a duopoly.
Thanks for the invitation, but I'll keep sending money to the LP, the Cato Institute and the NRA. I'll keep reading "Reason" magazine.
Free Minds and Free Markets!
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 6, 2008 10:09 PMJust buy less stuff so you pay less sales taxes. Just work less overtime, spend the time with your kids and spouse, and then pay less in income taxes. Barter, buy used, do without, repair broken stuff... Drop your land-line and use only a cell phone. Drop your cable subscription and read books.
Self reliance. You don't have to live in the woods.
You like music. Check out this song by Jewel. A Life Uncommon:
Don't worry mother, it'll be alright
And don't worry sister, say your prayers and sleep right
It'll be fine lover of mine
It'll be just fine
Lend your voices only to sounds of freedom
No longer lend you strength to that
which you wish to be free from
Fill your lives with love and bravery
And you shall lead a live uncommon
There are plenty of people who pray for peace
But if praying were enough it would have come to be
Let your words enslave no one and the
heavens will hush themselves
To hear out voices ring out clear
with sounds of freedom
sounds of freedom
I've got a huge list of freedom songs...
Hey, that might make a good Sound Politics column! Tell me if you want me to e-mail my song list...
I've loved listening to your YouTube songs, Pudge!
What are you thinking of?
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 6, 2008 10:23 PMNothing specific, no. And not necessarily the LP, either, although maybe.
We agree we need greater liberty and that we were headed in the wrong direction under Bush in various ways, and I presume that we agree we will be going even faster in the wrong direction under Obama and the Dems.
Just saying, we should find ways to work together.
Maybe this will be in the form of specific causes or issues. Maybe it will be in some larger nonpartisan, or multi-partisan, coalition.
Dunno.
1. The Democratic party has abandoned that issue and the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right. From where I sit, the debate about gun control is over. Why, then, are you so afraid that an Obama administration is going to send stormtroopers to your house to take away your guns?
Posted by: I'm Genuinely Curious on November 7, 2008 11:42 AMPlease, help me to understand.
Posted by: I'm Genuinely Curious on November 7, 2008 11:52 AMThe Democratic party has abandoned that issue
No, that's unfortunately not true at all.
the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment confers an individual right
That's irrelevant. In February of this year, Obama said he believed in an individual right to keep and bear arms, AND he believes that it is legal for cities to ban handguns.
From where I sit, the debate about gun control is over.
You're wrong. For starters, the Heller case only applies to federal districts, not to individual states, due to the wrongheaded doctrine of selective incorporation. This doctrine will likely be overturned soon, but then it still remains to be decided what restrictions -- and those supported by Obama and the Democratic leadership are many -- are constitutional and which ones aren't.
All this decision decided is that you cannot ban guns outright in federal districts. Now we need to extend that to the states, and defend against restrictions designed to have the effect of a ban.
I hope that clarification helps you understand.
As to the rest of your silly attacks against the Republican Party, they are off-topic to this discussion, which is about guns.
Posted by: pudge on November 7, 2008 12:33 PMWhy do you feel the need to have (I'm guessing) not just *a gun*, but multiple guns?
Is it terrorism? If so, small arms are no defence against jetliners being flown into buildings, nerve gas attacks in subways or suicide bombers of any stripe.
Is it a fear of being attacked by some random crazed lunatic? Those attacks make the news for a reason - their victims. If you're going to be murdered, it almost certainly will be by someone you know.
I'm genuinely trying to understand your mentality. Have you ever travelled outside of America?
Are you aware that all of the other western countries have both severe if not prohibitory regulation on gun ownership and lower crime rates?
Posted by: I'm Genuinely Curious on November 7, 2008 12:50 PMSo you agree then that some restrictions are okay? For instance, should it be legal for me to own a 155mm howitzer? A TOW missile? A MK-19? An M136 AT4? Where do you draw the line?
As for what guns should be legally owned by civilians, I'm sure you would agree that there are some who should not be allowed to own them, right? I'm speaking here of children, the mentally incompetent, violent felons, etc. Should it be legal for a 12-year-old to buy a rifle?
Posted by: I'm Genuinely Curious on November 7, 2008 12:56 PMWhy do you feel the need to have (I'm guessing) not just *a gun*, but multiple guns?
Why do you feel the need to speak not just at home, but also at work, and in public?
I do not care to even consider defending the exercise of my rights to you.
I'm genuinely trying to understand your mentality.
Then think in terms of rights. You're not doing that.
Have you ever travelled outside of America?
If I could figure out how in the world this was related to the topic, I'd consider answering it.
Are you aware that all of the other western countries have both severe if not prohibitory regulation on gun ownership and lower crime rates?
Are you aware that this is a logical fallacy?
I think you'd like it. I sure do. Universal health care, a regulated financial system, rent control, worker's rights . . . what's not to love?
By the way, every civilized country on this planet has some form of universal health care.
And most if not all of America's economy over the last 30 years has been based on socialism. For starters, the economic boom of the '80s? It was due to a massive military buildup, i.e., government investing heavily in the economy, i.e., socialism. Most American corporations, directly or indirectly, receive massive government subsidies, by the way.
That will never happen. I love liberty too much for that.
Okay, you'll have to give up your "liberty" to work your ass off for minimum wage and no health care. What's wrong with that?
Posted by: What's Wrong With Socialism? on November 7, 2008 03:38 PMI think you'd like it.
You're wrong.
Universal health care, a regulated financial system, rent control, worker's rights . . . what's not to love?
Universal health care, a regulated financial system, rent control, worker's "rights."
By the way, every civilized country on this planet has some form of universal health care.
Irrelevant.
Okay, you'll have to give up your "liberty"
Not if I can help it.
Posted by: pudge on November 7, 2008 03:53 PM... society does draw a line on what guns an individual can buy and posses. A semi-automatic assault rifle is OK, a fully-automatic version of the same gun is not OK. A 10-Gauge goose gun is fine, but anti-aircraft artillary is not. Armour piercing ammunition is OK, but I would guess incindiary rounds probably are not.
The 'conservative' approach in my opinion is to err on the side of the individual's right to own arms, but obviously society is already drawing a line, somewhat arbitrarily, on how destructive the firearms are.
One of the things I guess I appreciated about Obama's approach is that he appears to see two sides of the issue: Urban city dwellers wanting to take a more aggressive stance towards gun violence, and more rural populations that use guns for sport, hobby, and personal protection. Both sides (in my opinion) have valid concerns, but it's a matter of drawing that line of what is acceptable based on the local population, while not infringing on our constitutinal rights. And more importantly, enforcing the laws we already have in place so they have some real meaning.
Have a great weekend!
Posted by: Splinter on November 7, 2008 04:00 PMOne of the things I guess I appreciated about Obama's approach is that he appears to see two sides of the issue: Urban city dwellers wanting to take a more aggressive stance towards gun violence, and more rural populations that use guns for sport, hobby, and personal protection.
Um. Obama's approach is to support TOTAL BANS on guns for "urban city dwellers."
You appreciate that? Even Obama says now that his view violates the Second Amendment. But he hasn't said he's changed his view.
it's a matter of drawing that line of what is acceptable based on the local population, while not infringing on our constitutinal rights
The gun ban in DC that Obama supports DID violate our constitutional rights.
But you may be missing my point on the gun issue. We already restrict what types of arms people can buy. It's a matter of drawing the line based on the population (in my opinion). The DC ban went too far and the SCOTUS shot it down (hehe). Homeowners should be allowed to own a handgun in the city, but some amount of regulation is going to be required. I don't think you would want the laws in Arizona applied to a downtown metropolis like New York City or Seattle. In Arizona (at least when I lived there in the 80s) any 18 or older could carry a gun, no permit required, but it could not be concealed. I don't think it would be reasonable to have that kind of a gun policy for a densly populated city, do you?
I'm not saying I agree with Obama on his exact policy positions, but I find it refreshing that he at least considers the different positions and different perspectives of the various populations. In my opinion, it seems better than the extreme polarization on all issues that we've been listenting to for as long as I can remember.
Have a little hope Pudge. I know this is probably a tough time for all the Republicans, but I can pretty much promise you it won't be as bad as all that. Every political party needs some time for navel gazing now and then.... It's your party's turn to clean out that lint. At the very least, you should be happy that the Clinton Dynasty is over. I know I am.
Posted by: Splinter on November 7, 2008 04:46 PMI appreciate that he recognizes that different population centers may want to draw a different line in the sand as to what is acceptable
... in direct violation of the Constiution. By Obama's own admission. And he supported the ban anyway.
How does this not bother you? He supports a law that he agrees is an unconstitutional infringement on Second Amendment rights. It certainly bothered ME, a lot, when Bush signed the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold Act. Why does this not bother you?
I don't think you would want the laws in Arizona applied to a downtown metropolis like New York City or Seattle. In Arizona (at least when I lived there in the 80s) any 18 or older could carry a gun, no permit required, but it could not be concealed. I don't think it would be reasonable to have that kind of a gun policy for a densly populated city, do you?
Um. That IS the gun policy for Seattle. And anyone can carry a gun CONCEALED in Seattle (with a permit, which must be given, subject to background check), too.
That you think we do not have that policy in Seattle, even though we do, shows that it isn't as big a deal as you think it is.
Conservative drug warriors have to wake up to the fact that they have to make a decision: maintain the drug war and lose our gun rights, or give up the drug war in order to maintain them.
Lovers of individual liberty choose guns and the right to use drugs, even if we exercise neither.
Until we do, the left will use the inner city violence to erode our gun rights.
Posted by: Bruce Guthrie on November 9, 2008 08:16 PM